CLEARANCE: Top Secret
- Aug 13, 2007
- Reaction score
thanks for that information, newsdeskdan
A few Fs were tested with wing MGFFs at Estelle, but I have no idea why the idea wasnt proceeded with. Seems like a no brainer.Hood said:But I wonder if this was the reason why the F-models dispensed with the wing cannon? It seems odd that if the same shockwave issue occurred with the MG FF that the fences were not looked into again.
According to an A.I.2(g) report of December 1944 by G E F Proctor, under 'mainplanes': "The wing is very similar in construction to that employed on the Me 109 G-6 but has the following modifications:sgeorges4 said:Any original drawing of the bf 109 S? I can't find the topic with those drawing,and I just want to know for wich version the wing was assigned(the F or the E?).
Official drawings of the Me 155 are pretty few and far between. I've only got a couple and the aircraft they depict doesn't look much like the postwar re-draws seen elsewhere. I should also add that, from what I can tell, the Me 155 from 1942 did not evolve into the BV 155. The Me 155 from 1942 was scrapped in all but name and that name was then applied to the P 1091 of 1943 - a new three-stage development as seen elsewhere. Messerschmitt then handed the P 1091 (a mixture of Me 109, Me 209 and new components) over to Blohm & Voss as the 'Me 155' and they completely re-drew it to become something else again.sgeorges4 said:Any official drawing regarding the me 155?
Both versions I have simply refer to the aircraft as the 'Me 155' even though one has shorter wings and one longer. The longer wing example has no top view, so I can't tell what the shape was like. The short wing version does have a mid virtually straight spar with evenly tapered planform.sienar said:Was the wing of the 155 like the redraws? Mid virtually straight spar with evenly tapered planform?
Blohm was really unhappy with the 1091 they were given. A key issue they identified was the spar location, which made the wing torsionally weak. Improving that was precluded as the landing gear meant a torsion box could not be built ahead of the spar, and the radiators in the trailing edge meant that the same could not be done aft of the spar either. They also identified problems with the fuselage and turbo installation, choosing to go for a tubular fuselage structure as this was much easier to design and rework when changes to the turbo occurred.
No. That's the BV 155 B. As far as is known, there never was a BV 155 A. It went straight from being the Me 155 B to being the BV 155 B.sgeorges4 said:Is this deisgn the blohm und voss 155 A?
The source is here: http://fighters.forumactif.com/t80349p500-luftwaffe-46-et-autres-projets-de-l-axe-a-toutes-les-echellesbf-109-g10-erla-luft46