|
Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the German Luftwaffe and the Air Forces of its Allies. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Hi !
I have a question about the Me 262 WnR 111685 9K+FH, a well known machine tranfered from KG 51 to JV 44 and found in Mûnich in May 1945. This plane is often captionned as a A-2a sub-type, but it had 4 MK 108 canons and no bomb racks are visible. (photo in "Battle over Bavaria" p 111) Somebody could help me ? I am building a model of this plane . Thank you very much. Von Alles |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Hi. I am just guessing here, but first: some A-2 planes had 4 cannons.
and maybe they removed the bomb racks when the plane was passed to the fighter group. Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Some A-2s had 4 cannon ports but only carried 2 cannon. I think they all had 4 ports but the upper ones were usually faired over.
IIRC production of the A-2 stopped in Nov 1945. After that it was known as the Me 262A-1a/Jabo, also refered to as the Me 262A-1a/BO in some publications, and did have 4 cannon and bombracks. W/N 111685 made its first flight March 1945. Rustsatz were proposed but seem not to have been used: R5 - Standard weapon installation ( 4 x MK 108s) R6 - Jabo (fighter-bomber) equipment Hope this helps, Walt |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Hello,
The whole Jabo story is quite confusing as it underwent so many changes (even the names: Schnellstkaemper, Blitzbomber, Jabo, Schnellstbomber, etc.). Here is what I can tell without checking my documents at home for more detailed information: As in summer 1944 the landing gear was still far from perfect and could not carry both the 4 MK108 and the bomb equipment (the main problem was the landing impact stress on the landing gear, so the weight of the bomb themselves were not the main problem...). Therefore, the upper 2 Mk108 were removed as well as part of the armor (forward cockpit armor) and only delivered as Ruestsaetze, so that later these Me 262 could be converted into fighters again. When the first Me 262 A-2 became operational, soon an additional tank was requested to increase the range (which was only 100km at that time, which was too little due to enemy fighter bomber activities near the front). Hence, soon a 600 liter auxiliary tank behind the rear main tank was installed (a 200 liter tank in front of the forward main tank was already installed from the 41. Me 262). Although the range was increased by this measure, the landing gear could not carry the full additional weight and first it was required that the auxiliary tank was not filled with more than 400 liters. In addition, there were center of gravity problems after releasing the bombs: the removal of 2 MK108 in the nose and the addition of a rear auxiliary tank moved the COG dangerously rearwards after releasing the bombs. Therefore, quite complex tank switching procedures had to be followed before releasing the bomb. Meanwhile, Messerschmitt and Opel (the main landing gear manufacturer) improved the landing gear with certain measures (strenghtened tires with new profile, reduced oil pressure, and at the very end of the war double guides instead of a single guide) which increased the allowed landing weight from 5300 to 5700 kg, which was sufficient for the fighter bomber with start weight of 7100 kg. Therefore, it was no longer necessary to remove the upper 2 MK108. Therefore, the fighter variant and the fighter bomber variant from approx. Jan. 1945 onwards were virtually the same. All the equipment necessary for loading and releasing bombs was installed also in the figher variants. So, all you had to do is to attach the ETC and the bombs, which could be obtained as a Ruestsatz. The ETC had to be adjusted for each Me 262 individually and couldn't be used for another Me 262. That's the reason why you can sometimes find the Werknummer painted on the ETC. It was initially planned to use a special gunsight for bomb aiming in the A-2 but apart from perhaps the Revi 16D (which was basically a standard Revi 16B but with adjustable reflector plate to move the reticle downwards for different trajectories) none was installed in searial production Me 262. The Australian Me 262 doesn't have a significant difference either compared to a fighter variant although it was used as a fighter bomber. I hope that answers your question and adds a bit to the other explanations. Regards, Roger Gaemperle |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Hello,
thank you very much, sirs, for all these useful informations. I do not remember they were in SMITH & CREEK's books ? Another question : what indication the factory plate would have : A-1a ? A-2a ? A-1a/Jabo ? ?? And now gentlemen, another challenge for you : what colours for this plane ? Best regards, Von Alles |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question about Me 262 9K+FH
Very interesting Roger. Were the Ruestsatz you mentioned numbered and specific to the Me 262? The two that I mentioned were generic, applicable to all
German jet fighters. Good question about data plate. I have never seen a photo of a Me 262 data plate. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ju88 nightfighter and Me 262 identification | Roger Gaemperle | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 3 | 25th May 2005 09:01 |
First Encounter of Me 262 by 91st BG | Tom D | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 0 | 18th February 2005 10:37 |
Me 262 + other photos 2-10-05 | edwest | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 3 | 12th February 2005 11:35 |
305 Sqn (Polish) Mosquito SM-G "RZ399" question | Kari Lumppio | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 4 | 10th February 2005 00:19 |
Me 262 drawings, document, reports +++ | edwest | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 1 | 8th January 2005 02:56 |