Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?
- Thread starter Readie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
One might also want to look at the Spad XII of WW I. Single cannon in the fuselage and landing gear attached to the fuselage. Wings clean and without guns, wings designed for dog fighting 
I was just looking earlier, the dry weight of the Napier Sabre engine was twice the dry weight of a Sopwith Camel. That excludes all cooling for oil and water and the weight of all oil and water.One might also want to look at the Spad XII of WW I. Single cannon in the fuselage and landing gear attached to the fuselage. Wings clean and without guns, wings designed for dog fighting
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The F4F's maingear had a very narrow track, too.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
And that narrow landing gear was the weak point of all three. And don't forget the P-40, it was tricky on the ground too.
Nope. It was the geometry of the 109 that was a problem.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,004
- Jun 25, 2013
The original Bf109 was armed with two 7.92 mm machine guns firing through the propeller; the French Dewoitine D.501 had a moteur-cannon considerably before the Bf109, which didn't get it until the F model.
Certainly, the Bf109 had some innovations, but don't give undue credit.
Certainly, the Bf109 had some innovations, but don't give undue credit.
The narrow track was not really the problem. There were plenty of aircraft with narrow track gear including the Spitfire. The issue was the toe out configuration.
From the Emil on the armament was very sufficient.
Negative. The 109 had 20mm cannons starting with the E-2.
Shortround6
Major General
The 109 according to one book (in English so.....) was designed for two machine guns or one cannon. The early Jumo 210 only made a bit over 600hp and was late so prototype (without guns?) flew with a RR Kestrel.
Later Jumo 210s got a bit more powerful, up to 700hp and got a two speed supercharger. MOST Jumo 210s had an arrangement, tube through the engine, to take a gun firing through the propeller hub. A few early planes are fitted with an MG 17 firing through the prop in addition to the two in cowl. Reliability of the prop hub gun is low and some (?) are taken back out. Facing higher firepower from other countries a gun is put in each with to bring the total to 4 Mg 17s.
The DB 600 series was always planned to have a tube (70mm inside diameter?) running through it for a prophub gun. Again trials aircraft showed reliability problems and true service aircraft did not get them. The "E" had a 20mm in each wing but no service aircraft got one through the prop hub.
A WORKING prop hub gun showed up on the "F". 5 years or so after the idea came up.
What the 109 was designed to do and how long it took to get to the design goals are a long story but it was always the intention to have gun firing through the prop hub or the engines would not have been designed that way.
Later Jumo 210s got a bit more powerful, up to 700hp and got a two speed supercharger. MOST Jumo 210s had an arrangement, tube through the engine, to take a gun firing through the propeller hub. A few early planes are fitted with an MG 17 firing through the prop in addition to the two in cowl. Reliability of the prop hub gun is low and some (?) are taken back out. Facing higher firepower from other countries a gun is put in each with to bring the total to 4 Mg 17s.
The DB 600 series was always planned to have a tube (70mm inside diameter?) running through it for a prophub gun. Again trials aircraft showed reliability problems and true service aircraft did not get them. The "E" had a 20mm in each wing but no service aircraft got one through the prop hub.
A WORKING prop hub gun showed up on the "F". 5 years or so after the idea came up.
What the 109 was designed to do and how long it took to get to the design goals are a long story but it was always the intention to have gun firing through the prop hub or the engines would not have been designed that way.
Last edited:
Wing mounted 20mm cannon are still 20 mm cannon right?
Therefor the Emil had 20 mm armament.
Shortround6
Major General
Wing mounted 20mm cannon are still 20 mm cannon right?
Therefor the Emil had 20 mm armament.
True but what started this was a post that claimed, among other things.
"which makes Bf109 incredibly advanced and actually from the very beginning. Most of key principles were introduced from the point zero. Take as an example a cannon int he fuselage. Today, all aircraft have the main cannon in the fuselage from very obvious reasons. "
and went on to mention clean wings with no guns.
The 109 was not the first or even the second fighter to use a through the prop hub gun (or even 5/6th in service?) , and a number of the firsts this poster attributed to it are more than a bit dubious.
Ah I see. I thought people were arguing about it having insufficient armament until the Friedrich. That was not the case...
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s to TO/Landing accidents. There was something wrong with that landing gear, whether it be width or strength, it was the Achilles heel of an otherwise great plane.
That was not my point...
My point was that calling the track the cause of the problem is inaccurate.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
It was narrow. What were the cause of all the landing accidents in your opinion?
It's not an opinion. It was the toe out configuration, not the track itself that caused the ground looping.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Seems easily correctable, why were they toe out?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Several key factors contributed to landing/TO incidents with the Bf109.
Hard runway surfaces, small rudder, tail-wheel lock, high engine torque and inexperiended pilots - a perfect combination for trouble.
The Bf109 wasn't the only aircraft to have attrition due to ground-losses, but it's certainly gotten more than it's share of unnessecary scrutiny.
Hard runway surfaces, small rudder, tail-wheel lock, high engine torque and inexperiended pilots - a perfect combination for trouble.
The Bf109 wasn't the only aircraft to have attrition due to ground-losses, but it's certainly gotten more than it's share of unnessecary scrutiny.
