- Thread starter
- #61
Me-309: let's give Willy another chance
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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.
- Thread starter
- #63
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Major General
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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
2nd Lieutenant
On the Mauser 213c the designer said they where about to start test production of 100 of them.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
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?
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?
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
Major General
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
2nd Lieutenant
I wonder how the Me-309 have done with the Db-603Q or Db-603n.
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
Last edited:
