Allied 'through the prop' firing

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thanks for the illuminating replies. So, the complete list so far for British/US prop firers is:

P40
Fairy Swordfish
Vickers Wellesley
P39 Airacobra
P63 Kingcobra
Helldiver (prototype only)
TBF Avenger (early versions)
Gladiator
Blackburn Shark
Buffalo
Albacore
Fairey Seal
Heart/Nimrod/Fury
Dauntless
Devastator

Good call re. the Gladiator - how could I have forgotten that!

The interesting one for me is the Heart/Nimrod/Fury - why did Camm go for wing guns after those?

The comment re. 3-blade vs. 4-blade props is also interesting. Were the wing-gun designers predicting the obsolescence of prop firing?

What was the last produced prop firing fighter or fighter/bomber?
 
Camm probably went for wing-mounted guns on the Hurricane and subsequent types for a number of reasons. Firstly, monoplane wings were generally thicker than those of biplanes, giving adequate room for the battery. Secondly, and related, there is not really room for more than three guns in a centreline battery - so if you want eight, you have to move to the wings. Thirdly, again related, guns were getting bigger - although the Soviets cowl-mounted 20mm cannon on the LA-5, -5FN and -7, this was an exception to the rule of mounting cannon in the wings or firing through the prop shaft. Again, if you wanted more than one cannon, the wings were the place to put them.

I can't answer the question about three and four bladed props, but I would hazard a *guess* that the last piston-engined fighter built with a centreline battery would be one of the Bf109 derivatives built in Spain or Eastern Europe after WWII...
 
One of the advantages of the P-38, centerline armament, and lots of it.
 
Fighters like the P-39 had an engine in the back, so there was plenty of room for even a cannon in the nose. It would be interesting to think of a P-51 with guns firing through the prop, or a cannon through the nose would have been interesting, but probably the four bladed propellers had something to do with it.

A P-47 with cannons on the nose would have been interesting, kinda like a Fw 190.
 
BombTaxi said:
...
I can't answer the question about three and four bladed props, but I would hazard a *guess* that the last piston-engined fighter built with a centreline battery would be one of the Bf109 derivatives built in Spain or Eastern Europe after WWII...
Click to expand...

There were also the post-WWII Yougoslav S-49A S-49C fighters, the combo between IK-3 Yak-9.

Ikarus S-49 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
claidemore said:
There was a second question in original post as well, which axis planes did NOT fire through the prop?
Click to expand...

Those which didn't have the propeller in the first place: Me 163, Me 262, He 162...

Then there were twin engined fighters: Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 410...

Seriously, I can't think of any German single engined prop fighter which didn't fired through the prop... But I can think of a dive bomber - Stuka was armed with machine guns or cannons in the wings.
 
I finally remembered another one... Its not German but it is Axis... Rumanian I.A.R. 80 fighter was armed with machine guns in outer wing panels.
 
IIRC, the Japanese moved toward a mix of centreline and wing armament as the need to increase firepower became apparent. The Ki-27s used in Manchurian (1039-40) had 2x 7.7mm MG firing through the cylinder heads. The Zero added 20mm cannon, bringing it up to par with the I-16 (no coincidence, IMHO). But even to the end of the war, centreline armament was built into practically all Japanese fighters - perhaps Japanese designers favoured a thinner, gun-free wing for increased maneuverability? After all, that was the holy grail of Japanese fighter design...

EDIT: Tomo, thanks for the link on Yugoslav fighters, I had never heard of them before... 8)
 
Hi Bombtaxi,

>But even to the end of the war, centreline armament was built into practically all Japanese fighters - perhaps Japanese designers favoured a thinner, gun-free wing for increased maneuverability? After all, that was the holy grail of Japanese fighter design...

Centreline armement was desired by everyone, it was only the question whether it could be achieved technologically.

The reason the A6M's cannon were mounted in the wings was that due to their method of operation, they were near impossible to synchronize with the propeller rotation.

You can find a summary of the centreline question here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/centerline-guns-configurations-11037.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Jap navy: J2M3/4/5, N1K1-Ja,b,c and N1K2 have only guns in wings, also the B7A had guns in the wings.
Jap army: the many SE bombers have guns out the prop
 
I believe he was reffering to wonder weapons (Wunder Waffen), meaning I guess German jet and rocket powered aircrafts (but this would include also V-1 and V-2 rockets etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Allied crash locations over the Netherlands 1939 - 1945
Replies
0
Views
750
syscom3
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
880
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
21K
Ivan1GFP
I
Menu
Log in
Register