Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Clearly. Just look at the extra fins and stuff all over the tail section. I have been told ours were the highest houred aircraft - I'll confirm it when I'm back at work. They certainly were the highest cycles flown.I think that was a combination of an airframe that had been extended to (or beyond) its limits,
Macchi 202 with 2 x 20mm in the wing instead of 2 x LMG which were hardly worth the effort.
The P51B with the 6 x HMG or even 4 x 20mm that were given to some of the P51A.
Me109F with a couple of HMG in the wing which I believe Galland had installed.
Me109E with drop tanks which I understand were first used in the Spanish Civil War in He51 fighters
All excellent pointsor even 2 x 12.7mm guns if they couldn't get enough 20mm guns.
One 20mm and one .50 in each wing?
Well unless you can stuff the MG 131s into the cowl you now have 3 different calibers (not really that important) but that means 3 different times of flight and 3 different trajectories, also not really that important but makes a total hash out of the claims for guns on the center line
The He 51 used them but they had been used by a large number of aircraft
View attachment 548812
Curtiss P-6 Hawk used a "slipper" tank?
View attachment 548813
Hawk III/BF2C-1
View attachment 548814
there are others.
Exactly. It was a King Air 200 that OD'd on steroids and fell over the 12,500 pound dividing line that separated small aircraft from transport category. It wasn't alone. Metroliners, Banderantes, CASAs, and Jetstreams were also nibbling at that barrier, so the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, created a new "temporary" in-between category called SFAR 41C, which incorporated almost all of the safety and survivability equipment required in transport category, but not the complicated and heavy triple structural redundancies of the big boys.the Beech 1900 appeared to me to be like a small plane trying to be a big one
You mean like deleting the wing guns and nose armor from the P-39?Personally I like to keep the changes to a small scale. There were a number of aircraft which would have been far more effective with little changes.
Macchi 202 with 2 x 20mm in the wing instead of 2 x LMG which were hardly worth the effort.
The P51B with the 6 x HMG or even 4 x 20mm that were given to some of the P51A.
Me109F with a couple of HMG in the wing which I believe Galland had installed.
Me109E with drop tanks which I understand were first used in the Spanish Civil War in He51 fighters
The Spitfire with the larger fuel tanks that were in the Mock-up.
People love talking about this engine/turbo instead of that and often ignore and or forget that these are really heavy and will almost certainly really mess with the COG, weightm wingloading and performance and handling. You don't get something for nothing in aviation
This is my home turf.
You mean like deleting the wing guns and nose armor from the P-39?
We've been honking that horn at him for months now. I wonder if he's tone deaf and can't hear it?What about the CG without the nose armor, in a plane whose CG was dangerously aft from the start?
Radios and engines were separated as much as possible in that era for a good reason, heat, vibration, static from the ignition, made for short radio life and/or bad receptionAs I have been saying for months now, move the radios up from the tail cone to behind the pilot above the engine compartment.
Then why did you suggest that they move it to where, according to you, it already was ?Many photos of P-39s show some or all of the radios under the rear canopy above the engine.
The LMG's in the wing wouldn't have helped much so take them out. However as a personal opinion, the version with the 0.5 in the wing was helpful.You mean like deleting the wing guns and nose armor from the P-39?