Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

On some photographs, it seems to have the MG 17s reinstalled inboard of the MG FFs. Same for Müncheberg in Sicily.
Can someone confirm this fact?
Were some great JG 26 aces disappointed by the fire power of the 109?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

No no, it's a blinded MG 17 blast tube you see. MG 17 and MG-FF wasn't installed in the same place. While the wing was standarized for both kind of weapon, two fitting points in main wing spar were prepared. If MG-FF was installed, the hole where normally the blast tube for MG 17 was blinded. It seems, that sometimes it was patched with a soft material (fabric?).

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Sure?

Can you see the attached file? It's the first time I try to attach one and I don't know if I did it right.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

I can see the attachment.

Stephen

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

The Emil wing could not accomodate both weapons at the same time.
Usualy E-1 later converted to E-3/E-4/E-7 standards had their MG-17 holes covered by a metal sheet, it's visible on several pictures.
Wknr 5819 is odd since it was produced as an E-4/B but with the MG-17 holes still opened, they are just taped over. It might be specific to this small WNF batch.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

I'd rather say, that in every wing this hole for MG 17 was cut and the "Verschlussdeckel" is listed in Ersatzteil-Liste from Januar 1941. Possibly, even when MG 17 were not installed in new built machines, the wing leading edge covering didn't change.
Maybe this soft patch is a remainder of coversion?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Yes sorry of course the E-1 conversion used the same "patch" as the a/c produced as E-3/E-4... My point was that E-1 MG-17 holes were usualy faired over when conversion occured, but that was not very clear.
This a/c was no conversion, it was built from scratch as an E-4/B as underlined by its Wknr, there are other pictures of this a/c wings' leading edge showing the MG-17s holes just taped over.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Soft patch? You must be kidding.
It's kind of a fairing over the edges of the trough hole!
What for if there is no machine-gun inside?

Another one for the road
 

Galland.
Same installation.
If the bays were empty why has he not faired them over?
How come a Kommodore can fly with drag-inducing holes on his aircraft leading edges?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

According to Mtt test the fairing did not make much change if any in the performance department.
It was impossible to fit both weapons at the same time, the 60 rounds MG-FF Drum took over the space occupied by the MG-17, moreover the belt for the MG-17 would not have fit as well.

Btw do you have Müncheberg's a/c Wknr at hands ?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Not convincing.
Earlier photographs of Galland's 109E-4/N show the MG 17 troughs faired over.
Why were they opened later on?

What about Müncheberg's 109?
The fairing over the edges of the gun trough is painted in red (?) - and even bolted!
What can you say about this?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Have a closer look.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Taking a closer look at the various pictures i have, it seems the fairings were of a different kind. Looks like they were shallow. As i said earlier i believe they are associated with a specific WNF batch.
If you wish i can send you the whole diagrams covering the armament of the E-1/E-3. It was impossible to fit both at the same time and it would have been a mess to attempt to change the type of weapons between missions.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Dear CJE, as Olefebvre wrote before, it's imposible to fit a MG-FF with it's equipment with a MG 17 next to it with it's ammo feed system in this location. Both holes for MG 17 and MG-FF were cut in the main spar. How anybody could fit those weapons together without serious redesign of a wing?

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

OK guys, thanks to you all.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

It seems many pilots felt the firepower of the 'F' model was lacking. The proceeding 'E' models were noted as having firepower that 'shattered' enemy aircraft. Despite this problem some pilots claimed the 'F' model was the best version of the 109 to fly.
Regards Bulldog.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

IMHO the (valid) criticism was probably only for the early F-1 and F-2 with the single MG FF and 15mm MG151. The accounts I've seen on the 151/20 variant suggest they were satisfied.

Re: Galland's Bf 109E-4/N, late 1940
 

Galland was extremely critical of the Bf 109F-4's lack of firepower. Of course the next step was the introduction of the Field Conversion Sets with the pair of MG 151 cannon in the underwing gondolas and this affected the handling performance of the aircraft, bringing more grumbling from pilots. And yes, there were pilots quite satisfied with the F-4's lighter firepower as they felt the tradeoff for superior speed and manouvreability versus heavy firepower was adequate compensation when in action against enemy fighters.
Nevertheless this was a vicious cycle that would plague the 109 for the rest of the war.
Regards Bulldog.