I agree about the drag but weight does have an effect, also the position of the weight has an impact. By adding the extra weight out on the wings you impact the time taken to roll the aircraft, and as you know you have to roll before you can turn. The weight impacts the actual turn as the forces of greater. Climb is a serious problem as all things being equal, weight is critical to climb. Acceleration is impacted by weight.
Yes but all these changes are only indirectly effected by weight. Weight changes (increases) the induced drag. Since induced drag is more prominent in total drag at lower speeds, climb and turn is more seriously effected than speed.
For example Soviet test show 109G with three guns turned in 20 secs, with five guns 22 secs. Worse, yes. Worse than other? Well, Fw 190 turned 23-24 secs, Mustang I was similiar to 190, and P-47 some 28 secs... conclusion is that the overall manuverability of 109G with five guns did not change much and could easily dogfight these aircraft as before.
There were some other which turned better, say in 18 secs like Yakovlevs, Spitfires or Lavochkins. I do not think gondolas changes much in this regard for example. They already turned better for example. Overall picture - does not change. Dogfight was not recommended with light 109 either against these types.
The weight increases the climb, turn and general handling. The aerodynamic gondola limits the damage in max speed but everything else is impacted. Why do you think designers go to such lengths to save weight?
Yes but in the end its
total weight that is matters. Even with Gondolas in 109
you have still lighter fighter than most other with equal or more horsepower. Heavier planes with heavy armament could still not compete with 109 in areas (say turn, climb) they could not before, like four cannon Tyhoon or Fw 190.
Simply because the 109 wasn't designed for the weight in the wings, the other aircraft were.
May I ask: how were these aircraft specific 'designed' for weight in the wing? Was the centre of gravity different? Was their stability characteristics different because of this? Controls different? In the end, what was different?
Its a significant change in the weight distribution to the basic design.
Takeing look at drawings shows the gondolas are mounted near or at the centre of gravity of 109 (fuel tank). So basic handling like pitch couldn't change. Could inertia effect yawing for example? Yes this is probable, but thing like this can be compensated by iincreased rudder size that was incorporated into 109.
How do you think weight distribution changes and what precise differences did it make? Did it shift CoG for example?
Even here you sometimes find examples of guns sometimes being removed to try to improve performance in particular two or sometimes all four of the LMG's in Spits.
No doubt removing weight from aircraft will improve performance. Question is, does it worth it. In case of LMG removal from Spits, I only read it was desperate measure to intercept JU 86 P/R. Spitfire ceiling was simply not enough, so everything had to be thrown out to make it lighter. Reason it did not become commonplace is that generally climbing to 14 000 m was not giving you any practical advantage 99% of time.
When you add weight to a basic design there is an impact. For example the Fw 190 could and sometimes did carry extra guns but there was an impact and the increased firepower was the exception not the rule. Same with the Spitfire many of which could carry 4 x 20mm, it was incorporated into the design of the wing and didn't involve any gondolas or changes, but again it was the exception not the rule because of the weight.
I agree of course adding weight adds impact. I disagree that it made the aircraft useless for air combat or any measurably less competitive. It just transitioned the 109 into a heavier 190, essentially, as far as general performance goes. Less turn, less climb, more guns.
