# Me-309: let's give Willy another chance



## tomo pauk (Dec 12, 2011)

... or in other words, how would you desing a brand new fighter for LW? The historical 309 was conceived in mid 1940, 1st flown 2 years after that, so that could be kind of a time frame. 

The yet another kind of Fw-190 and jet power are out of this thread, thankyou. So is a polished 109 - that one has it's own thread


----------



## davebender (Dec 12, 2011)

Japan obtained rights to license build the DB601 engine during 1938. Why shouldn't Germany copy some Japanese ideas? The German Me-109 follow-on won't be an exact copy of the Ki-61 but it will give Messerschmitt some ideas. 

Internal fuel capacity 50% greater then Me-109.
Wide track landing gear.
Canopy similiar to Fw-190.
Retain the historical Me-109G weapons arrangement.
DB605 engines. Leave a bit of space under the hood for future engine improvements such as larger supercharger.
Designed for 400+ mph level speed (i.e. similiar to He-100). Will probably have a high rate of roll similiar to He-100 and Fw-190.

Production cost of airframe plus engine must remain at least 25% cheaper then Fw-190. Otherwise the new German fighter design has no chance for approval.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 12, 2011)

depends...are you looking for something to engage the allied fighters to keep them away from your bomber interceptors or you are looking to knock down bombers....or a little of both?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

A better Me-109 (309) needs range, and that means fuel tanks, and that means wings .... and while yer at it Willie ... fix the undercart

MM


----------



## davebender (Dec 12, 2011)

The Fw-190 had 524 liters of fuel in a fuselage tank. What's wrong with that?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

".... The Fw-190 had 524 liters of fuel in a fuselage tank. What's wrong with that?"

Nothing .... as long as there are no CoG issues ... 

MM


----------



## Denniss (Dec 12, 2011)

Fw 190 had two fuselage tanks but it also consumed more fuel than a 109.


----------



## davebender (Dec 12, 2011)

Replace that unreliable BMW801 radial engine with a fuel sipping DB605 engine and 524 liters of fuel will provide decent endurance.


----------



## Rivet (Dec 12, 2011)

Operational testing of the Me-309 began at the Reichlin Erprobungstelle on November 20, 1942 test session piloted by RLM test pilot Beauvais. Beauvais included the following statements regarding the Me-309 in his report.:
"The Me-309 will be acceptable after some improvements but the present difficulties to the average fighter pilot. Control forces are extremely high by comparison with current fighters, and landing on the nosewheel will give problems to combat pilots at operational airfields. With full armament this aircraft will be barely thirty miles per hour faster than the Bf-109G, and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft (Fw 190D) will soon be available."
You include in your proposition criteria lack of Turbine consideration. That's the rub. Regards


----------



## Juha (Dec 12, 2011)

Maybe something along VL Pyörremyrsky, maybe a bit bigger so it would have been able to use DB 603. Wide track undercarriage, larger cockpit with better view, easier take off and landing, bigger wing. But of course rather unWillylike

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

Like this ....


----------



## vanir (Dec 12, 2011)

excuse me Juha, what is that plane? I like it.
is that a re-engined LaGG?


----------



## Denniss (Dec 12, 2011)

vanir said:


> excuse me Juha, what is that plane? I like it.
> is that a re-engined LaGG?


VL Pyörremyrsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Dec 12, 2011)

Dr. Tank has been wanting to produce the Fw-190C since 1937. If Germany has an adequate supply of DB603 engines why piddle around with anything else?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> A better Me-109 (309) needs range, and that means fuel tanks, and that means wings .... and while yer at it Willie ... *fix the undercart*
> MM


The Me309 had tricycle landing gear and a bubble canopy adopted from the Me262...not a bad looking machine, actually


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 12, 2011)

Never even knew of these, one nice looking plane for sure!!


----------



## Juha (Dec 12, 2011)

Denniss said:


> VL Pyörremyrsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Denniss was quicker. BTW the armament info in Wiki misses the MG151/20 firing through spinner

Juha


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 13, 2011)

The Japanese DID design a Ki-61 with a DB605 equivalent engine.
It was called the Ki-61-II.
The Japanese seemed to have a few problems with superchargers so their altitude performance wasn't quite as good as the original German engines. Their quality of manufacture also wasn't anywhere near as good, so most of the production engines of EVERY type didn't come near the output of the prototypes.

The US estimated the performance of the Ki-61-II at just a bit over 400 mph level speed which probably was fairly good on the assumption that the engine was putting out the design HP. Production aircraft (not that there were many produced) probably didn't come anywhere near that. 380 mph is more typical of a production aircraft.

The armament package was easily superior to the 109G though: 2 sychronised 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in the cowl and 2 wing mounted 12.7 mm MG.

- Ivan.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 13, 2011)

Juha said:


> Maybe something along VL Pyörremyrsky, maybe a bit bigger so it would have been able to use DB 603. Wide track undercarriage, larger cockpit with better view, easier take off and landing, bigger wing. But of course rather unWillylike
> 
> Juha


 
Yes, I think it's a fascinating plane. Using a lot of wood makes sense for 1942 Germany as well. Equip this with a DB603, replace the MG17 with MG131, add 2 wingroot cannons and you should have a pretty solid fighter for 1942-1944.


----------



## woljags (Dec 13, 2011)

i don't see why they couldn't have reversed engineered captured aircraft and added their best bits to there own designs,

109 with a merlin engine in 1940-41 ?


----------



## vanir (Dec 13, 2011)

Denniss said:


> VL Pyörremyrsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yup, basically an LaGG-3 mated to a Gustav. That's fair enough, especially considering of all fighter types those two would litter the Karelian the most. The Czechs did that Jumo engine one and the Spaniards had their RR-Messers.


----------



## cimmex (Dec 13, 2011)

woljags said:


> i don't see why they couldn't have reversed engineered captured aircraft and added their best bits to there own designs,
> 
> 109 with a merlin engine in 1940-41 ?



Why a Merlin? Would be no improvement IMO. Instead of buying a Merlin Sweden used a license built DB605 for the Saab21 till 1949.
cimmex


----------



## vanir (Dec 13, 2011)

You lose both climb and dive speed with an RR in a Messer, ask the Spanish...well unless we're opening the gates on total variants.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

A plane, that would be better than both 109 190 to be worthwhile, need to have laminar wing, a teardrop canopy, a powerfull armament package, along with decent fuel tankage. 
The last two dictate an airframe at least as big as that of 190. The in-line engine allows for a 3 and 5 cannon armament, along with classic 4 cannon layout. So I'd use DB-603A.
The Me-309 was using laminar-flow wing, but it was of really smal area ( from Wiki: 16.6 m² (179 ft²)), so I'd go for a wing size of Spitfire (ca. 250 sq ft).
Initially, the 5-cannon version (one central, two in wing roots, two outside of prop disc) would've been used in the ETO, with 30mm replacing non-sychronised cannons as it becomes available. With enought planes available, on Eastern fron the armament would be reduced just to central 3 cannons. Also maybe cropped wing, some 220 sq ft?

Power chart for DB-603A is attached, from a manual dated Nov 1942, along with BMW-801D and pre-1944 DB-600/605 charts (605A with 'emergency rating; the real 605As were restricted to power levels no better than 601E prior from ealy 1943 - Oct 1943):


----------



## woljags (Dec 13, 2011)

my comment on the merlin was only an example,apart from lack of fuel over england during the BoB for the 109's ,there must have been something better about british types they might of been able to use,i'm sure during the Battle of France some aircraft would have been lost for the germans to look at


----------



## davebender (Dec 13, 2011)

Reverse engineering a Merlin engine would almost certainly be more costly then placing the DB603 engine into mass production. I cannot imagine any German aircraft manufacturer prefering a Merlin engine over a DB603 engine.


----------



## Juha (Dec 13, 2011)

vanir said:


> Yup, basically an LaGG-3 mated to a Gustav. That's fair enough, especially considering of all fighter types those two would litter the Karelian the most. The Czechs did that Jumo engine one and the Spaniards had their RR-Messers.



In fact purely Finnish design, nose was much like that of 109G because of the use of DB605 and Finns didn't see need to change the powerpack design, more so because of limited designer resources.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2011)

Neither can I, Germans can't make the plain bearings needed. By the time the engine is redesigned to use roller bearings they might as well have stuck with what they had.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2011)

Juha said:


> In fact purely Finnish design, nose was much like that of 109G because of the use of DB605 and Finns didn't see need to change the powerpack design, more so because of limited designer resources.
> 
> Juha




Its a great looking aircraft, one that I had never heard of before. Non-use of strategic resources is a great idea as well. 

Did the Finns ever undertake any engine manufacture during the war?


----------



## davebender (Dec 13, 2011)

The He-100D has most of the features we want but it's a bit small. Let's make it 25% larger.

*Proposed 25% larger He-100D.*
~2,500kg aircraft empty weight.
~3,500kg aircraft max weight.
1,475+ hp DB605 engine.
Annular radiator.
Canopy similiar to Fw-190.
540 liter fuselage fuel tank (i.e. similiar to Fw-190).
Wide track landing gear.
3 x MG151/20 cannon (i.e. similiar to Me-155). One in the hub plus one in each wing. No cowl machineguns.
.....3cm Mk108 cannon may substitute with a field kit. For heavy bomber interceptors.
Fuselage rack for drop tank or 250kg bomb.
Designed for low cost mass production as the He-100 was.

Max level speed of at least 420mph. Emphasis on high speed handling with an excellent rate of roll. Unlike the Me-109 this aircraft likes to be flown fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Dec 13, 2011)

Hello Tomo
VL Pyörremyrsky had/has 19m2 wing area but it wasn't a laminar flow wing. And no wing armament, only one MG151/20 and two 12,7mm LKK/42, not a straight copy of Browning M2 but modified recalibred Belgian 13,2mm Colt-Browning/Swedish M/39A, rof 1000-1100rpm when unsyncronized, cannot recall the rof when syncronized like in Pyörremyrsky

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Dec 13, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Neither can I, Germans can't make the plain bearings needed. By the time the engine is redesigned to use roller bearings they might as well have stuck with what they had.



what is so special about plain bearings, every car motor has this kind of bearings since the beginning of automotive.
cimmex


----------



## Juha (Dec 13, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Did the Finns ever undertake any engine manufacture during the war?



Tampella built under licence at least Bristol Mercuries for the licence-built Blenheims during the war and repaired/overhauled war booty Soviet engines (M-62s and63s and M-87s and -88s and Klimov M-103s and -105s.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Dec 13, 2011)

> tomo paulk - The last two dictate an airframe at least as big as that of 190. The in-line engine allows for a 3 and 5 cannon armament, along with classic 4 cannon layout. So I'd use DB-603A.



this?......


----------



## rochie (Dec 13, 2011)

that doesn't look as odd as i thought it would !!!!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2011)

Me-309


----------



## cimmex (Dec 13, 2011)

@njaco

Nice photoshop, nose is mirrored and originally is from Bf109 G-4 rote 7. Back part is Flugwerk FW 190 A-8N.
cimmex


----------



## Njaco (Dec 13, 2011)

I think I have a few pics of 309 in my thread.....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/unusual-bf-109s-26425.html


----------



## davebender (Dec 13, 2011)

Nose needs to be modified for an annular radiator.





I'd expect the aircraft to look similiar to a Fw-190D9 but smaller. Shorter and more streamlined nose for the DB605 engine. No fuselage extension as you don't need to counter balance the heavy Jumo213 engine.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2011)

why did the 309 have tricycle landing gear? Seems unneccessary....


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

Neat photoshop job, Njaco 
It've mixed a front of 109F with rest of 190A posted it here before.

Hi, Juha,
I was thinking of a new design, not something based on the Finnish fighter, sorry for misunderstanding 

The plane would be basically a Ta-152C front (minus the cowl cannon), rest of the hull from the F4U with terdrop canopy (Goodyear-built prototype), wings from P-51 (but for space allocated for root cannon ammo, other cannon fires out from prop disc).


----------



## davebender (Dec 13, 2011)

Better ground handling. Not necessary but nice to have if it doesn't add a lot to production cost.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 13, 2011)

Some fantastic pics guys.

The small wing of the 309 always had me wondering.
Given that the allies were fielding planes with 2 and then 3 x .50 machine guns a wing in the case of the Mustang, 4 x .50 machine guns in the case of the Thunderbolt or 2 x 20mm cannon (and often plus machione guns) in the case of the British fighters it just seems a bit odd that the German aero-industry (under guidelines imposed by the RLM?) went for small wings and less wing armament after the high-point of the Focke Wulf 190 Ta 152 planes.


----------



## davebender (Dec 13, 2011)

Nothing odd about it.

How many wing mounted cannon do you see on modern day combat airccraft? WWII Germany was among the first to determine that fuselage mounted cannon are inherently more accurate. The disadvantage is finding fuselage space to mount enough firepower. That was solved by developing the Mk108 hub cannon and MG213 revolver cannon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

I've seen a drawing depicting a Me-309 with 1 cannon + one HMG in both wing roots, 2 cowl HMGs and engine cannon - 7 guns total. The real 'next gen' plane got 4 x 30mm, quite a battery.


----------



## Juha (Dec 13, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> ...Hi, Juha,
> I was thinking of a new design, not something based on the Finnish fighter, sorry for misunderstanding ...



Hello. I understood your point, I wanted only point out that also Finns wanted to make many of the improvements you mentioned, better view, better t/o and landing characters, wider u/c, more fuselage volume and bigger wing. But Finns accepted only marginally more powerful armament with DB605A, IMHO with DB603A it would have been possible to install heavier armament.

Juha


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 13, 2011)

davebender said:


> Nothing odd about it.
> 
> How many wing mounted cannon do you see on modern day combat airccraft?



Yes but that is largely a case of today's much faster firing (and reliable) guns?
Something like a Vulcan cannon is light-years ahead of its WW2 counterpart and so doesn't need a multiple installation, surely?

1950's British French military aircraft routinely had 4 x 20mm cannon (and those DEFA ADEN cannons are direct developments of the revolver Mauser). 



davebender said:


> WWII Germany was among the first to determine that fuselage mounted cannon are inherently more accurate.



That's as maybe but I do recall reading about the Me 109F coming in for heavy criticism for its 'light' armament.....when surely the inherent accuracy (even for novice pilots) ought to have been the dominant point?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing, just putting what I recall reading.



tomo pauk said:


> I've seen a drawing depicting a Me-309 with 1 cannon + one HMG in both wing roots, 2 cowl HMGs and engine cannon - 7 guns total. The real 'next gen' plane got 4 x 30mm, quite a battery.



Interesting tomo, I hadn't seen that on an Me309.

......and obviously I accept that the next gen Me 262's 4 x 30mms (and R4M packs) make my original point a little redundant.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

The 109F-4 and subsequent 109s were featuring gondola cannons as possibility, so that seem like admiting the original wepon pack (cannon + 2 LMGs) lacked punch.

Here is how that 7-gunner should've looked like:


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 13, 2011)

Thanks tomo, interesting stuff, as usual.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 13, 2011)

I readed that Me 309 tested the Mauser Mk 412.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 13, 2011)

The 50mm gun johnbr?

That must have packed some mighty day-ruining wallop.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 13, 2011)

Njaco said:


> this?......




i like that!! but what do you call it? a Focke-Schmitt or a Messer-Wulf? i also like that VL Pyörremyrsky! some nice looking planes.

shouldnt the newer designs incorporate a swept wing design??? you will talking higher speeds and that will mean better chance at hitting compressibility. swept wings will give you more control and the edge in a very high speed dogfight or evasion.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

Yep, Bobby, something like a Me-262 without jets, as big engine as it gets in nose, as much cannons fuel as deasible?


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2011)

No Bf 109 F-4 had the option for gondola cannons, it was introduced with the F-4/R1 of which 240 were built by WNF.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 13, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> i like that!! but what do you call it? a Focke-Schmitt or a Messer-Wulf? i also like that VL Pyörremyrsky! some nice looking planes.
> 
> shouldnt the newer designs incorporate a swept wing design??? you will talking higher speeds and that will mean better chance at hitting compressibility. swept wings will give you more control and the edge in a very high speed dogfight or evasion.



A Focke-n-Mess.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 13, 2011)

Njaco said:


> A Focke-n-Mess.



now THAT'S FUNNY!!!   

what was the best engine of the time? not only in HP but torque... you build to make the best use of that! let the engine do what it is supposed to...then add the swept wings, areodymanic fuse...etc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2011)

Denniss said:


> No Bf 109 F-4 had the option for gondola cannons, it was introduced with the F-4/R1 of which 240 were built by WNF.



Sorry for not being so precize


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2011)

Interesting how the Me-309 contrasts with this ....


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2011)

davebender said:


> Nothing odd about it.
> 
> How many wing mounted cannon do you see on modern day combat airccraft?



Modern day combat aircraft (jets) don't have to worry about shooting through propellers. On modern day combat aircraft the cannon are NOT the primary air to air armament or even the primary air to ground armament. 




davebender said:


> WWII Germany was among the first to determine that fuselage mounted cannon are inherently more accurate.



That is correct, AMONG the first......except that it was in the mid 30s. 



davebender said:


> The disadvantage is finding fuselage space to mount enough firepower. That was solved by developing the Mk108 hub cannon and MG213 revolver cannon.



Only partially solved by the MK108, a single low velocity, medium rate of fire gun has too low a hit probability to be a true solution for fighter vs fighter combat. MG213 was a good start but just a little late ( like several years)


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

Not light years.

Specifications for the MG213 revolver cannon were written during 1942. A few prototypes were available during April 1945. If the war had lasted another 6 months it probably would have been operational on Luftwaffe fighter aircraft. 

Meanwhile the older MG151/20 cannon was such a good design it remained in operational service into the 1990s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2011)

Vulcan (M61 cannon) has 6 barrels, and its a Gatling-type cannon.
MG 213 has one barrel, and it's a revolver-type cannon.
The only thing in common is a nominal calibre, but they use different cartriges.


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

> Vulcan (M61 cannon) has 6 barrels, and its a Gatling-type cannon.
> MG 213 has one barrel, and it's a revolver-type cannon.
> The only thing in common is a nominal calibre, but they use different cartriges.


I agree but what is your point?

There's nothing special about Gatling cannon. Otherwise everyone would use them rather then more popular weapons such as the Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, M242 chain gun and Rh202 autocannon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2011)

Re-read the post #60 here - another member declares Vulcan cannon as a veri distant to WW2 affairs, but you object that statement ("Not light years") and then posting about MG 213 as a prof of your claim. Hence I've understood that you depict the Vulcan as yet another off-spring from a design had got nothing to do about it.

Seems there is really something special about Gatling cannons - there is like 5-6 gun calibers made in USA alone, one by Oerlikon, perhaps 4 in Soviet Union/Russia. Major Navies are main users, along with planes helicopters.
If a space/allowable weight/ammo supply is at premium, there is really no need to go for a cannon that can spit 5000-6000 rpm without begining to heat up.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> Not light years.
> 
> Specifications for the MG213 revolver cannon were written during 1942. A few prototypes were available during April 1945. If the war had lasted another 6 months it probably would have been operational on Luftwaffe fighter aircraft.
> 
> Meanwhile the older MG151/20 cannon was such a good design it remained in operational service into the 1990s.



It's worth noting why the Luftwaffe supported the development of revolver type canon. One reason was that higher velocities were required and in reciprocating style weapons muzzle velocity tends to reduced cadence, the revolver gun seemed to support cadence rates of up to twice that of recipracting weapons. The other is that reciprocating weapons were prone to jamming under high g manouvering. How many times have we read accounts of pilots about to make a kill when their guns jamed. That would be almost impossible on a revolver canon which would simply eject a misfired round and was less vulnerable to jamming.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> I agree but what is your point?
> 
> There's nothing special about Gatling cannon. Otherwise everyone would use them rather then more popular weapons such as the Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, M242 chain gun and Rh202 autocannon.



The revolver guns are more compact and fire instantly, however they do have a lower rate of fire. I can't see a vulcan fitting in many ww2 sized aircraft.

I believe the Mauser rotary gun could also be synchronised with a propeller which means it could be used in the wing root position of the FW 190 or any fighter for that matter


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 14, 2011)

Rivet said:


> Operational testing of the Me-309 began at the Reichlin Erprobungstelle on November 20, 1942 test session piloted by RLM test pilot Beauvais. Beauvais included the following statements regarding the Me-309 in his report.:
> "The Me-309 will be acceptable after some improvements but the present difficulties to the average fighter pilot. Control forces are extremely high by comparison with current fighters, and landing on the nosewheel will give problems to combat pilots at operational airfields. With full armament this aircraft will be barely thirty miles per hour faster than the Bf-109G, and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft (Fw 190D) will soon be available."
> You include in your proposition criteria lack of Turbine consideration. That's the rub. Regards



Much as I respect Beauvais I think he might have gotten this wrong. The Me 309 flew in June 1942. The super FW 190D9 entered service in November 44.
One unique feature of the Me 309 is that it had laminar profile wing. The heavy aileron forces could have been dealt with the same way the P-51B+ series did, with internal pressure balancing, alternatively spring balances or hydraulic boosting. The wing are may have needed an area increase. I suspect an Me 309 with DB603A, AA or E would have been faster than the FW 190 series.

Much as I like the Me 410 and consider it fine aircraft only about 1000 were produced which is too small to make and impact, it might have been better to continue with either the Me 264 long range bomber or Me 309. The Me 309 was an extremely fast aircraft and it seems to me that the speed loss of arming it would oly be significant if 'over armed'.

Note that one reason for shutting down the Me 309 program was to keep Messerschmitt focussed on the Me 262 program.

Beauvais from my recollection, wanted to meet with Eric Brown, as he wanted to prove or discuss that an Me 109 could turn with or out turn an Spitfire however Brown refused. Given Beauvais's position, this would have been a revealing meeting.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 14, 2011)

The Fw 190 C prototypes were flown in May-June of 1942 AND were ordered for production to start in late '42 (RLM orders show this). So I guess he meant those next-generation Fw 190s with liquid cooled engines in general when he made that statement, not necessarily the Jumo213 powered Dora. And I completely agree with him: There is little reason to put a new, unproven design that shows deficiencies into production if you can have a simple conversion of an already proven airframe, ESPECIALLY if you don't expect a serious performance increase. The real question is: Why was the Fw 190 C cancelled later? To wait for the Ta 152 / 153? THAT was the big mistake made here!


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

The Luftstreitkräfte tested rotary cannon during WWI. One of them supposedly scored an aerial kill. Austria-Hungary had a twin barrel model ready for production during the fall of 1918 which was produced in post-war Hungary.

IMO Germany would have produced rotary cannon during WWII if one or more Wehrmacht branches had considered such weapons worthwhile. Obviously it wouldn't have been identical to the U.S. M61. It would probably be chambered for the same 20mm x 82mm cartridge as the MG151/20 cannon. Perhaps it would have three barrels rather then six to keep weapon weight manageable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> I agree but what is your point?
> 
> There's nothing special about Gatling cannon. Otherwise everyone would use them rather then more popular weapons such as the Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, M242 chain gun and Rh202 autocannon.



Tomo has a point. The Gatling's "point" is that it offers a high rate of fire without burning barrels. Each barrel of a 6 barreled 6000rpm Gatling is firing 1000rpm, it also has only one feed mechanisim. Balanced against this are the added weight ( but what is the weight of 5-6000 rpm worth of 'regular' guns) and bulk. If 3000 rpm of total fire are needed the ) Gatling may be a bad bargain but th e need is for more rounds per minute the Gatling looks good. Granted the Gatling does take a bit of time to hit full speed so it is not the best choice for really fleeting targets. 

I do like how ALL the German secret weapons Were ALL just six months away from mass production though. In real life it only took the British, French and Americans until about the end of the Korean war to get revolver cannon ( not Gatling's) into service even with the help of captured weapons, documents, workers and the impitus of the cold war.


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

Dr. Tank's original 1937 proposal for the Fw-190 was powered by a DB603 engine. RLM cancelled DB603 funding during 1937 which ended the project before a prototype could be built. 

But what if DB603 engine program funding hadn't been cancelled? Fw-190 prototypes powered by DB603 prototype engines would be flying during 1939. The aircraft and engine would enter mass production during 1941. It wouldn't be identical to the historical Fw-190C as there would be no switch to the BMW139 engine followed by a switch to the BMW801 engine and finally a switch back to the originally proposed DB603 engine.

Not that any of this matters to Messerschmitt after the war starts. Jumo211 and DB605 engines are the only high performance engines available in large numbers. So that's what will power the Me-109 or its successor.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 14, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> It's worth noting why the Luftwaffe supported the development of revolver type canon. One reason was that higher velocities were required and in reciprocating style weapons muzzle velocity tends to reduced cadence, the revolver gun seemed to support cadence rates of up to twice that of recipracting weapons. The other is that reciprocating weapons were prone to jamming under high g manouvering. How many times have we read accounts of pilots about to make a kill when their guns jamed. That would be almost impossible on a revolver canon which would simply eject a misfired round and was less vulnerable to jamming.



gatling style guns have a higher muzzle rate due to the fact that in recipocating firearms a certain amount of the expanding gases propelling the projectile are syphoned off to eject and replace ammunition. it will either use a gas system to with a piston or direct blow back. but still a portion of it's power is stolen from the projectile. in gatling style firearms the cartridge stays in the breech until after the projectile has left the muzzle. the spent shell is exctracted manually/mechanically without the use of gas. i dont know how the armament in the LW ac stacked up against allied ac but germany had the best squad light machine guns ever made....the mg 42. but it was prone to burning barrels but you there wwere blowing through 1200+ rpms too!

I dont know if we can honetly say that there wouldnt have been jamming of a revolver style gun diue to high G-forces. the potential is there but all would be predicated on the design and the mounting. if there was the possiblilty of flexing at high G stress then the revolver could "lock-up" in its craddle or at its axis. would have been interesting to see how they would have done it.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> Dr. Tank's original 1937 proposal for the Fw-190 was powered by a DB603 engine.


Source please. You keep bringing this up even though every book I've read says that multiple designs for both liquid-cooled and radial engines were proposed. I have never read that the DB603 was considered this early. And for the millionth time: Tank did not redesign the Fw190 to be powered by a radial, he presented several designs _in parallel_. Of which the BMW139 powered one was selected for very obvious and completely valid reasons. If you continue to claim otherwise, please finally provide a source.



> But what if DB603 engine program funding hadn't been cancelled? Fw-190 prototypes powered by DB603 prototype engines would be flying during 1939. The aircraft and engine would enter mass production during 1941. It wouldn't be identical to the historical Fw-190C as there would be no switch to the BMW139 engine followed by a switch to the BMW801 engine and finally a switch back to the originally proposed DB603 engine.


And again: DB603 development continued on private Damler Benz funding, _it didn't stop_. Unless you can provide a source that backs up your claims, a DB603 flying in 1939 is pure imagination. I'm not saying earlier production was impossible with uninterrupted RLM funding, but definitive statements like yours above are.

Fact is: Aircraft types using the DB 603 were in service in early 1943 (iirc April). That means that is also possible for a Fw 190 C, even with the engine program funding left as it historically was. Until then, Fw 190 As are easily competitive on both fronts.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 14, 2011)

On the Mauser 213c the designer said they where about to start test production of 100 of them.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 15, 2011)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the FW190c supposed to have a turbocharged DB engine?
Wasn't that the real issue with it and hence the move to the FW190d?

AFAIK Germany just couldn't make reliable turbo's in any serious numbers given the dire limits on their specialist metals and oils supply......yes or no?


----------



## riacrato (Dec 15, 2011)

There were prototypes for both turbo and normal supercharged DB 603s. Unfortunately I have lost my copy of the Flugzeug Classic issue detailing these prototypes. The article was by Dietmar Herrmann

From memory:
The V13, 15 and 16 were the ones with mechanical supercharger. The V13 had the air intake mounted in the front opening via a ofenrohr-(stovepipe)-extension. I guess this was to reduce drag as much as possible, but it wasn't succesful. The other two used the ordinary, side-mounted intake that you see on all other DB603 engined planes.

The turbo-charged versions (iirc V18 and some others) were dropped quickly because of unreliability of the turbo and general problems with the installation on such a small plane.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 15, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the FW190c supposed to have a turbocharged DB engine?
> Wasn't that the real issue with it and hence the move to the FW190d?
> 
> AFAIK Germany just couldn't make reliable turbo's in any serious numbers given the dire limits on their specialist metals and oils supply......yes or no?



Burnout of exhaust-turbo ducting was a problem. The alloy used was often 'sicromal' a ferrous alloy of mainly chromium with some manganese and nickel.
The solution was hollow turbine blades and carefull cooling. AFAIKT a few Ju 88S-2 and some Ju 388L saw service with the BMW 801TJ engine. Reliabillity wasn't the problem, they were somewhat unhappy with the fuel consumption.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> gatling style guns have a higher muzzle rate due to the fact that in recipocating firearms a certain amount of the expanding gases propelling the projectile are syphoned off to eject and replace ammunition. it will either use a gas system to with a piston or direct blow back. but still a portion of it's power is stolen from the projectile. in gatling style firearms the cartridge stays in the breech until after the projectile has left the muzzle. the spent shell is exctracted manually/mechanically without the use of gas. i dont know how the armament in the LW ac stacked up against allied ac but germany had the best squad light machine guns ever made....the mg 42. but it was prone to burning barrels but you there wwere blowing through 1200+ rpms too!
> 
> I dont know if we can honetly say that there wouldnt have been jamming of a revolver style gun diue to high G-forces. the potential is there but all would be predicated on the design and the mounting. if there was the possiblilty of flexing at high G stress then the revolver could "lock-up" in its craddle or at its axis. would have been interesting to see how they would have done it.



The amount of gas tapped off to operate the action is minuscule. The difference in velocity of the projectile is barely measurable. Blow back actions operate on Newton's principle. the Projectile and the breech block both receive a blow or pressure, the projectile being much lighter leaves faster and clears the barrel before the breech block has moved very far. If the Breech block moves too far before the projectile leaves the barrel the pressure is high enough to to blow out part of the cartridge case and release high(relatively speaking) gas into the action. The MG 42 was good but best depends on your point of view, it certainly made a lot of noise. 

Most guns were robust enough that "G" forces didn't bother them a while lot. "G" forces could play merry H**L with the belt feeds though. Getting hundreds of pounds of ammo into a large caliber machine gun or 20mm cannon in 20 seconds or so under 3-5 Gs s or even negative "G"s was usually a bigger problem than getting the gun action to work. There is a reason that some later war fighters, turrets and jet aircraft use servo motors to help move the feed belts or ammo.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 16, 2011)

I wonder how the Me-309 have done with the Db-603Q or Db-603n.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 16, 2011)

Serious consideration was given to a standard ejection seat for the FW 190, at one point pilots at rechlin demanding it.
I believe weight of the early pneumatic seats was one concern, which was overcome with latter seats like the below
pyrotechnical unit from a He 162


----------

