P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Seems like that alternating fire would cause severe oscillating yaw as one fired and then the other. Those were 40mm canon, right?
Guns & Cannon: Rules of Thumb
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yeah. As I alluded to earlier in the thread it was something they actively tried to prevent.
From a No. 6 Squadron report on 'S' guns during operations:
It was found that a number of aircraft were not opening fire simultaneously with both guns. Inspection revealed no fault in the solenoids or firing units but it was found that the rubber in the armoured hose was slightly defective. Being unable to expand outwards the rubber consequently expanded inwards, thereby reducing the passage for the air. Replacements of armoured hose are difficult to obtain, and it was found that by unscrewing the firing cylinder nut one turn and inserting a washer, the plunger did not quite bear on the tail of the trigger sear pawl and was therefore better able to overcome the inertia of the trigger system. It is therefore possible by this means to make an adjustment for small differences in the responsiveness of a pair of guns.
Also, from a bit detailing their training syllabus:
... To initiate pilots gently, they are sent up to 1,000 feet to fire the guns. Once semi-accustomed to the behaviour of their new weapon they are permitted to come down to 100 feet where the drop of the nose on firing is more apparent. An intentional stoppage was engineered on this practice to demonstrate the swing of the aircraft if only one gun fired.
From a No. 6 Squadron report on 'S' guns during operations:
It was found that a number of aircraft were not opening fire simultaneously with both guns. Inspection revealed no fault in the solenoids or firing units but it was found that the rubber in the armoured hose was slightly defective. Being unable to expand outwards the rubber consequently expanded inwards, thereby reducing the passage for the air. Replacements of armoured hose are difficult to obtain, and it was found that by unscrewing the firing cylinder nut one turn and inserting a washer, the plunger did not quite bear on the tail of the trigger sear pawl and was therefore better able to overcome the inertia of the trigger system. It is therefore possible by this means to make an adjustment for small differences in the responsiveness of a pair of guns.
Also, from a bit detailing their training syllabus:
... To initiate pilots gently, they are sent up to 1,000 feet to fire the guns. Once semi-accustomed to the behaviour of their new weapon they are permitted to come down to 100 feet where the drop of the nose on firing is more apparent. An intentional stoppage was engineered on this practice to demonstrate the swing of the aircraft if only one gun fired.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned a site that has covered WW2 aircraft armament quite thoroughly: Military Guns & Ammunition, articles and resources on military technology by Anthony G Williams at CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION
In particular see: WW2 Fighter Armament Effectiveness and Cannon or Machine Gun? The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy
In particular see: WW2 Fighter Armament Effectiveness and Cannon or Machine Gun? The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Captions: "Your Mustang is a six-shooter, I've got a six-shooter. Mine is bigger than yours." And, "when 4x20mm won't cut it".
This is actually a Spitfire IV, which was a prototype to test the early Rolls Royce Griffon engines and evolved into the Mk XII. It was used also to test cannon armament and Fowler flaps. Though interesting (and the plane has made it into the War Thunder game), I do think it's telling that later Griffon powered Spitfires/Seafires and other cannon armed British fighter aircraft (Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Fury/Sea Fury, DH Mosquito and Hornet/Sea Hornet, Gloster Meteor, DH Vampire) got four cannons instead of six...
