improving the 109??

[wuzak]

More seriously, I have read that the British never used an American made Hispano in an aircraft, some may have been used as AA guns. Source could be wrong.

Even American supplied aircraft?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, they only equipped one squadron with P-39s before they shipped the rest off to the Russians. They took 3 of the Lockheed 322s. and no regular P-38s. Only few dozen of the 20mm armed Mustangs before the Americans took the rest of that batch.
What else did they get with 20mm guns? It wouldn't have been that hard to swap out the guns for British ones.

 

[stona]

Were they delivered with armament fitted? I would have expected that to have been fitted by the British along with radios and all the other British equipment (even the seat harness!)
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

So - is there any reason known why one pair of the Mustang III's 0.5" was not substituted with 20mm to match the Spitfire?
Or all 4, to comply with - regular RAF standard - fighter fit-out?

It might not have been as easy as some are suggesting. Fitting a larger weapon with different mounts and ammunition feeds in the 'Mustang's' wing structure might have been a difficult task. When the British fitted a .50 calibre machine gun next to the cannon in the Spitfire wing they encountered some unexpected problems!

Cheers

Steve

 

[wuzak]

It might not have been as easy as some are suggesting. Fitting a larger weapon with different mounts and ammunition feeds in the 'Mustang's' wing structure might have been a difficult task. When the British fitted a .50 calibre machine gun next to the cannon in the Spitfire wing they encountered some unexpected problems!

Cheers

Steve

I take it that the damage was only to the cover, not to the barrel itself?

 

[Ascent]

This may seem like a strange question but how accurate do you want the weapon to be? I'm just thinking about automatic weapons in use by ground troops.

The Bren gun was reportedly too accurate for a support weapon and needed the user to move it around to create a spread of fire whereas the MG34/42 produced a cone of fire.

Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?

 

[stona]

I take it that the damage was only to the cover, not to the barrel itself?

Yes. I'm not sure what happens to the action of the cannon when the recoil spring gets blocked like that (you can see the fairing has been forced over it by the blast from the .50 calibre).
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?

I've never seen an analysis of this. In my opinion (that's all it is) given the other factors that reduce the accuracy of aircraft and particularly wing mounted armament, the most accurate weapon possible would be the best.
I can't think of an argument for anything else, maybe someone else can?
Cheers
Steve

 

[drgondog]

This may seem like a strange question but how accurate do you want the weapon to be? I'm just thinking about automatic weapons in use by ground troops.

The Bren gun was reportedly too accurate for a support weapon and needed the user to move it around to create a spread of fire whereas the MG34/42 produced a cone of fire.

Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?

Speaking for myself, and vocalizing opinions of many fighter pilots - I want the guns to shoot the target aimingpoint where they are adjusted following bore sighted via the gun sight. Although a few US pilots instructed their Armorers to adjust individual guns to different points of impact, believing such practice to yield better results while strafing - most did not.

 

[BiffF15]

You know, I'd really like the 109 if it didn't have the highest amount of idiotic fanboys.

GrapeJam,

I'm in awe of your humor. It flies with the accuracy of a well aimed sniper round, and rings loudly upon impact!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.

Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.

Better still, Joe...how about him telling us what's unique about approach/departure at a certain Island in the southland.

The Shack there has a great grill with an interesting name, too.

I don't want to give away too much because of "post-google-authority".

Well dang, it looks like we won't get to see Poop-Shooter try and guess the location I was referring to

Most folks who are in areoclubs in the southland would know about Catalina (AVX)

And the Grill's name is the DC-3

 

[gjs238]

Well dang, it looks like we won't get to see Poop-Shooter try and guess the location I was referring to

Most folks who are in areoclubs in the southland would know about Catalina (AVX)

And the Grill's name is the DC-3

What happened?

 

[GrapeJam]

GrapeJam,

I'm in awe of your humor. It flies with the accuracy of a well aimed sniper round, and rings loudly upon impact!

Cheers,
Biff

Thank you, If only my shooting in flight sims can be called "well aimed"

 

[gomwolf]

From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" discussing losses before 12 August 1940.

"But the aircraft most vulnerable of all to British fighters was the Bf109.RAF pilots managed to get a bead on 70 of them and of those they destroyed 54, some 77% a markedly higher destruction ratio than the 63% the BF109's achieved in return. This may be because damaged machines had further to fly to make it home and force landed in England or ditched and so were lost. But it also looks as if Spitfires and Hurricanes were even more deadly than the Bf109 itself, and that in fighter combat their eight brownings were at least as destructive as the two cannon and two machine guns of the the Bf109E."

Spitfires and Hurricanes removed the Stuka from the BoB due to prohibitive losses, they stopped raids from Norway by Bf110 escorted bombers due to prohibitive losses. Towards the end of the battle raids on London had bomber to escort ratios of 1:4 to prevent heavier bomber losses. Call the BoB a victory or a draw as you like the fact is that Spitfire and Hurricanes with 8 RCMGs were able to down bombers, dive bombers and fighters throughout the conflict, that is why the LW had to eventually give up.

Rubbishing the Spitfire and Hurricane does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Bf 109, for my tuppence they were the two greats of the conflict, they both stayed at the front line of service between the bi plane and jet ages. Between the two the latest model may have given an advantage but throughout the war they remained a dangerous adversary to one another, situation and pilot skill was usually the deciding factor when they met.

Yep I agree that. Actually, Bf109 is my second favorite aircraft. If you see my youtube channel(if you have interest, search 'redbeowolf' on youtube.), you can find more than hundred of Bf109 flight sim play logs in there. But what I wanted to say is Bf109 is BEAUTIFUL and remarkable aircraft but its line of limitation was clear. DB605D was best engine it could mount and Bf109K-4 was truely BEAUTIFUL and it have great performance but it wasn't enough. Milch wanted Bf109 with DB603 but it was impossible. That is why Milch got interest about G.55 on the conference in 1942. And that is why I told about G.55.

 

[Shortround6]

So - is there any reason known why one pair of the Mustang III's 0.5" was not substituted with 20mm to match the Spitfire?
Or all 4, to comply with - regular RAF standard - fighter fit-out?

Several reasons that are guesses.
What the factory can do to accommodate different guns is different that what field units or even regional repair units can do.
I have no knowledge of the heating requirements of the two guns. The Mustang III used electric heaters on each gun. The Spitfire and Typhoon used heat (hot air) ducted from the engine or radiators. I don't know if the electric heating unit from a .50 cal would keep the the 20mm gun warm enough.
The ammunition bays would have to be rebuilt.

A lot of this stuff is do-able on a small scale basis. The British got 308 Mustang IIIs. Too many to futz with on a one by one basis and perhaps too few to set up a real production line conversion, ie stamping dies to form the ammunition boxes/bays and gun mounts ?

Throw in the extra drag and extra weight and performance takes a hit.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Yes. I'm not sure what happens to the action of the cannon when the recoil spring gets blocked like that (you can see the fairing has been forced over it by the blast from the .50 calibre).
Cheers
Steve

Just so I have it straight, the .50 is on the right but why does it look like it's twice the diameter of the 20mm or is that just the fairing over it?

Thanks.

 

[stona]

Yes, and it's the short blast tube that makes the .50 calibre seem bigger. The barrel of the machine gun is not visible in the picture.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Peter Gunn]

I thought as much, thanks Steve for clearing that up.

 

[drgondog]

The switch back from 20mm to 50 cal to 20mm/50 cal for the P-51-1/IA to P-51B would not be difficult. The wing was stressed for 2x20mm in each wing, the wing was also modified at different times for 2x30 cal/1 50 cal (Mustang I), 2x20mm (51-1/Mustang IA, 2x50 cal for A-36/P-51A/P-51B and 3x50 cal for P-51D - only the spent case chutes, gun/ammo bays and drive motors and heaters changed.

 

[stona]

The 20mm version didn't enter production did it?
It might have been possible to produce a cannon armed version, though I wonder why it changed to the 4 x .50 calibre. It would be quite another issue for the British to change the armament and its associated equipment once the aircraft arrived in the UK.
Cheers
Steve