Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
The F4F's maingear had a very narrow track, too.The track of the Spitfire was narrower than that of the 109.
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.The F4F's maingear had a very narrow track, too.
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.
All true, but that narrow landing gear made the 109 a bitch to land, it never had sufficient fuel, the canopy was hard to see out of, and armement was deficient until larger bore cannon in the engine and canon in the wings.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
It was narrow. What were the cause of all the landing accidents in your opinion?That was not my point...
My point was that calling the track the cause of the problem is inaccurate.
It was narrow. What were the cause of all the landing accidents in your opinion?
Seems easily correctable, why were they toe out?It's not an opinion. It was the toe out configuration, not the track itself that caused the ground looping.