Galland's specially armed Friedrichs and cowling bulges

[KrazyKraut]

I wonder if anyone has more info on these. I knew for a long time Galland had a Friedrich that kept the Emil's two 20mm MG FF cannons and ran on 100 octane fuel.

However I didn't know about the second specially armed Bf 109 F: It had no wing cannons, but was equipped with 13mm MG cowling guns much like the later G versions. Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?

 

[delcyros]

Points us to a very interesting question. What else speial modifiations are known for ace A/C?
I read that Mölders flew one and Hartmann likely did, too.
But is anything known about them? Gallands Bf-109F2 was driven by 100 oct. -as all other -F2. The Db-601N requires 100 oct. fuel.
Were higher than normal boost ratings used for these special mods?

 

[HoHun]

Hi Krazykraut,

>Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?

I've just seen a post on another forum that pointed out that the "standard" bulge accomodated the chute to the container for spent cartridges.

The drawing you posted shows that the spent cartridges are not collected, but ejected from Galland's converted aircraft.

I'm not sure what the reason might be - perhaps the ejected cartridges were feared to inflict damage to the tail of the aircraft?

(I don't know if a larger, but sealed blister might actually cause less drag than a smaller blister with an opening. Cowl aerodynamics could be complicated at times.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Kurfürst]

Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?

It appears to me from the drawing that Galland's field-modified 109F has dumped the spent cartridges right away in the open, whereas the 'official' version of MG 131 installation collected these in the fuselage.

Perhaps large amount of brass flying around the fuselage was considered dangerous.

 

[Timppa]

Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?

Caldwell in his JG26 history wonders the same thing. According to him the gun modification was made in the unit, not in the factory. So the explanation could be as simple as: Different people, different solution.

One of Gallands shoot down claims (abschussmeldung ) in one of these specials (109F-6/U) below: