Me 262 missing a cannon shell ejection port?

[JonCOlsen]

Hello everybody,

While I was examining a photo of an Me 262 A-2a, I noticed that it appears to be missing a cannon shell ejection port on the left side of the aircraft. Me 262s should typically have 4 shell ejection ports: two on either side of the forward fuselage, under the cannon bay.

I've attached to this thread a photo with an arrow pointing at the one shell ejection port that's visible. But Where's the other one? Could it have been plugged in? I believe it should be seen from the angle at which the photo was taken. While I'm aware that many Me 262 A-2a's--including this one- were only armed with the two lower cannons, and had their two upper cannon troughs plugged in, I've never heard of the shell ejection ports being plugged in on any A-2a.

I've had a look at the original training video from which this shot was taken, but the other shell ejection port is nowhere to be seen.

Check it out starting from the 15:30 minute mark.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH0ULVmsow

What do you think?

Best regards,

John

 

[GrauGeist]

There's a few different Me262 types in the video.
The ship in question at 15:30, is a Me262A-2a, which was armed only with the two lower Mk108 cannon.
At 18:22, they are in front of a Me262 A-1a, which was armed with four Mk108 cannon.

Your best clue would be to look for the hardpoints - if the 262 has hardpoints, it has two 30mm.

 

[Wurger]

Yep.. being the bomber variant of the Me 262, the Me 262A-2a had the number of cannons limited to the two MK 108s. Additionally, there were two bomb racks ETC 503 and later the ETC 504 attached at the nose . The limited number of cannons was the external difference between the Me 262A-1a "Jabo" variant that retained the full fighter armament.

 

[JonCOlsen]

Hey guys, thank you very much for your responses. I agree that the upper guns have been removed on this Me 262, and that the upper gun troughs have likewise been faired over. However, I was actually referring to the spent shell ejector ports, which are the dark rectangular slanted things just outboard of the bomb pylons.

There are lots of photos that show the upper gun troughs faired over on Me 262 A-2a's (thought not on all). I'm just a bit surprised to see spent shell ejection ports plugged in, as I've never heard of this happening, nor have I noticed it in photos before. But I suppose it would stand to reason that if the upper cannons are removed, then the shell ejection ports, whose cartridge ejector chutes are connected with those cannons, can likewise be faired over since they would no longer be needed.

I've attached below a photo of another Me 262 A-2a, 9k+YH. On this machine, the upper cannon troughs are faired over, but the shell ejector ports are untouched. This seems to have been more typical.

Thoughts?

 

[Wurger]

Assembling of the Me 262 fighter, A-1a Jabo and the A-2a was running simultaneously. So no wonder that the same nose part was used for all of them. The difference was the number of the cannons and the top cover of the nose compartment. Also I I would say that it was quite easy to close the not needed spent shell ejector ports and gun ports either in a factory or units.. For instance with a piece of canvas or aluminium plate. However it seems that it wasn't needed at all and there is no evidence there were designed the two different front basic parts for the Me 262s. IMHO the one with the two ejector ports only wasn't the rule and appeared because of quite simply correction made in the squadron although the basic one was still attached with the A-2a top cover.

BTW.. the kite in the pic you posted above is also mentioned as a Me 262A-1a in other references.

 

[JonCOlsen]

Fair comments. I am by no means an expert. However, I personally have not seen any other photos of Me 262 A-2a's (or A-1a's) that had the spent shell ejector ports faired over. Upper gun ports, yes. But spent shell ejector ports, no. Moreover, I have not read about this in any references.

The first machine whose photo I posted is popularly identified as WNr. 170068 (9K+BN). It's the only Me 262 I've seen that apparently had two of the shell ejector ports covered up. We can only see the left side, but let's assume the starboard side looks the same, with only one ejector port visible on each side.
My original intent was to inquire about the shell ejector ports. It seems you agree with me that they have indeed been plugged in. I'm just trying to make sure my eyes aren't playing tricks on me, because it's a detail I was not expecting to see. I am curious, especially for modelling purposes.

 

[Wurger]

Yes I agree with you on the ejector ports that were plugged in. It really looks like that. Unforyunately I can't see the first photo of a better quality that could help with getting od a better view on the area. of the slots there. Anyway it is almost sure that the same nose basic section was attached for all planes and had the four ejector holes. The different top covers were used depending on the armament attached. However ,sometimes it is quite difficult to state if the ejection ports were there or not, even in an enlarged pic.

PS. The removing of the two MK 108 cannons was done for saving of some weight. So the ammo cartriges , the feeding ducts were removed as well .But the shell ejecting lines were a part of the nose structure and couldn't be dismounted so easy.Unless I'm wrong.

 

[Wurger]

I have found the pic copy of a little bit better quality and enlarged it. Not sure fully but I would say that there is something that looks like more flat surface behind the ejection chute seen. Also a kind of top edge of the opening shape may be noticed. If I'm right it can mean that the slot was taped with a piece of a canvas and then painted. I think in the way because the flat surface is quite characteristic for holes covered with fabric or paper sheets and varnished what causes the skin being tight. Also this results in a little bit collapsed surface between two edges similar to these at elevators or ailerons fabric skinned.

 

[JonCOlsen]

Thank you very much Wurger for posting these photos, and for your insights. What you are saying makes complete sense. I really appreciate your taking the time to enlarge and examine that photo.

 

[Wurger]

My pleasure.

 

[Wayne Little]

Very interesting....

 

[JonCOlsen]

This is certainly the best quality version of that photo I've ever seen.