- Thread starter
- #161
Any evidence for that assertion?
The reasons for the RAF's eight gun armament were very carefully worked out in the mid thirties, both theoretically and experimentally. I very much doubt that Ralph Sorley would have agreed with your contention.
Not sure that assertions need evidences, maybe my command of English language is not that good I often think it is
At any rate, I'm increasing the rate of fire of the P-40B's BMG for about 1/3rd, by relocating it in the wings. The price to pay it is the loss of a LMG, so instead of two HMGs + 4 LMGs, we now have a pair of each per plane. The side effect is that weight will be lower, and few mph are to be earned.
OTOH, the 6-8 LMG battery for the perspective LR fighter does not look out of place either.
If you go with an interrupter system then you are also going to end up with different propellers on mid/late war fighters. It's one of the reasons that the Germans stuck with a three bladed propeller system.
I've already agreed that Merlins and gun synchronizers seem not to mix well. The 1000-1200 HP LR fighter for 1943 and beyond is a no-go anyway.
The MG 151/15 did NOT work perfectly. Under certain flight conditions the belt jammed and blocked the ammunition feed. A temporary fix was made by front line armourers inserting small wooden blocks but the problem was never completely solved until the advent of the MG 151/20. You could say that the cannon armament worked reliably from about mid 1941.
I think rather more serious issues with wing skin wrinkling, wings coming off, empennages detaching at frame 9 and other problems with the elevators have somewhat overshadowed problems with the armament
Cheers
Steve
Thanks for additional info.