- Thread starter
- #41
Im thinking put them in the wings and i dont know the term i need to use but just keep it as agile as it was
KI-43 ?
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The KI-43 had a wingspan of 35 feet 7 inches and was 29 feet 3 inches long.
The A6M had a wingspan of 39 feet 4 inches and was 29 feet 9 inches long.
- Thread starter
- #43
Why would the naval plane have to be bigger ?
Anytime you start adding weight you are going to affect performance.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It's a matter of the designer's meeting the government's request for certain requirements.
The KI-43 just so happened to be a bit smaller because the Army wanted a long-range fighter and that happened to be Nakajima's solution.
- Thread starter
- #46
Can you make a light 20mm cannon
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It had to be a trick of the eye. The Oscar looks a little finer to me and the Zero a bit more compact from the pics I've seen. I never compared their stats. It is imperative to keep separate IJAAF and IJNAF equipment.
- Thread starter
- #48
Wouldnt long range make the plane bigger
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Both planes were long range but the Zero had additional carrier requirements.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
But other planes were already doing that.
The Ki-44 started with 12.7mm guns in the wings, 7.7mm guns in the nose. The next model moved the 12.7s to the nose and crammed a pair of 40mm guns in the wings for taking down bombers. The 40s didn't work so well due to their low muzzle velocity, so the final version replaced them with 12.7s again.
The Ki-43's successor, the Ki-84, had cannons.
The Ki-61 started with two 7.7s and two 12.7s, then replaced the 7.7s with 12.7s, then replaced the wing guns with 20mm guns. Another variant put the cannon in the nose. There were even a few with 30mm guns in the wings.
The Ki-44 started with 12.7mm guns in the wings, 7.7mm guns in the nose. The next model moved the 12.7s to the nose and crammed a pair of 40mm guns in the wings for taking down bombers. The 40s didn't work so well due to their low muzzle velocity, so the final version replaced them with 12.7s again.
The Ki-43's successor, the Ki-84, had cannons.
The Ki-61 started with two 7.7s and two 12.7s, then replaced the 7.7s with 12.7s, then replaced the wing guns with 20mm guns. Another variant put the cannon in the nose. There were even a few with 30mm guns in the wings.
- Thread starter
- #51
You can tell i perfer cannon
I'm no expert on armament design, but I would think the more critical part is the ammunition.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Probably because of the wing sweep and the fact that the Oscar's wing is further forward than the Zeke's.
- Thread starter
- #54
High speed API and tracers in a mixed belt
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
You may sneer at the Oscar's armament, but Army pilots were taking down everything the Allies flew at them, including 4-engined heavies.
- Thread starter
- #56
I do sneer at it i perfer to have cannon at least you have better chance of one bursting
Good observation, as that's usually that's the case. Realize planes are built to some specification, and are a series of concessions (all designed to meet the requirement). The nose wheels are easier planes today to fly, but back then they would have gone where the motor was sitting. The P-38 has a yoke (steering wheel looking control) that comes up out of the right floorboard, then bends towards the middle where the "wheel" is finally located. At the time conventional design had the "stick" coming up out of the middle of the floor between the pilots legs. However, on the P-38 the nose wheel / gear was occupying that space.
Back to the series of concessions. Want your plane faster, it needs a more powerful motor. More power means greater fuel consumption, which in turn usually means shorter range. Think P-47 early versus late models. The early models were fuel limited, but as time went on more and more was added, as well as power to keep the performance up.
Want longer range, you need more fuel storage, which generally means a bigger wing, which means greater drag, which cuts down on top speed.
The Zero was long ranged, as fast (or almost) as it's contemporaries, could turn better but it gave up something for that. Protection in the form of armor and self sealing fuel tanks. It also didn't have the growth (more power, for better performance) that the Spit, Me 109, Fw 190, Mustang did.
As you become more aware of the different planes, and the countries they were made in you will notice each had a design influence that permeated their products. The Germans and Brits made aircraft that were lighter than their US contemporaries, but heavier than the Japanese products. Likewise, the German / Brit equipment climbed better (for the most part) than the US stuff but were a bit shorter ranged. Power being close, usually the lighter plane climbs faster. Once again, if you want one thing in particular, you generally give up something somewhere else to get it.
These are all generalities, and as usual there are exceptions to almost every rule.
Cheers,
Biff
My point was that sufficient ammo equals weight. Cannon rounds are bigger than MG rounds. You get fewer cannon rounds at the same weight as MG rounds. Aircraft designers and military specifications take this into account. The type of armament will be selected based on the aircrafts role and needs.
The Japanese also had another unique situation. The two military branches almost loathed each other (my words, but they did not cooperate well or much). As such they didn't make an engine like the PW R2800 that was continuously developed and shared by multiple branches. Or the R1820 or 1830. Or R2600 (all of those are radial engines). Or aircraft. It was a further drain on their resources as there was no overlap and should have been quite a bit.
Shortround6
Major General
The Nakajima guys designed a wing with about 5 spars.
3 main spars and a couple of auxiliary spars that the flaps and ailerons were attached to.
Perhaps they didn't want to try to cut holes in the spars and redo the wing stress?
In any case the is a large cutaway drawing here that may answer some questions.
ww2aircraft.net
3 main spars and a couple of auxiliary spars that the flaps and ailerons were attached to.
Perhaps they didn't want to try to cut holes in the spars and redo the wing stress?
In any case the is a large cutaway drawing here that may answer some questions.
Ki-43 Cutaway
i got 2 apart cutaway pic of Ki-43 from emule ..and finally fix them on photoshop~haha hope you guys would like it:p
ww2aircraft.net
