KI-43 ?

[Just Schmidt]

44
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.

Just a minor point, i hope it dosn't come across as nit picking.

When the Ki 61 got the Mg151's they were indeed installed in the wings, but the later home grown japanese cannon were installed in the fuselage. This was carried over to the Ki 100. I was somewhat surprized when first I noticed this, as my first thought was that loss of rate of fire on account of syncronisation preferably should be suffered by the lower caliber guns, but would appreciate the opinion of somebody more insightful.

 

[slaterat]

From the Hurricane 2 manual
One Browning. 303 with release and safety 24 lbs
For a IIa. Guns and access 201 ammo and boxes 204 total 405 lbs

IIb. 332 guns +access , 302 ammo and boxes,
Total 664 lbs

Compare to the 4 x.50 armament

 

[slaterat]

Normal loaded weight for tropical IIb, 7,396 lbs
Tare weight with coolant, 5,594 lbs

Same weights for a temperate IIb,
7,233 and 5,467
The difference in tare is only 127 lbs,
The folks air filter itself adds 29 lbs, loss in top speed about 7 mph

 

[The Basket]

It is noteworthy that the IJAF of 1941 thought that their latest fighter should have the same twin .303 armament of a Sopwith Camel. The last RAF fighter introduced with twin .303 guns was the Gloster Gauntlet biplane, first flown in 1933.

If you look at Italian fighters of this era then it's not usual. This was once a style of fighter design.

The A5M had 2 machine guns and the predecessor of the Hayabusa the Ki-27 had 2 machine guns. So why change a winning formula?

Also having less guns is cheaper, lighter and less labour intensive with easier logistics.

 

[VA5124]

If you look at Italian fighters of this era then it's not usual. This was once a style of fighter design.

The A5M had 2 machine guns and the predecessor of the Hayabusa the Ki-27 had 2 machine guns. So why change a winning formula?

Also having less guns is cheaper, lighter and less labour intensive with easier logistics.

But raw firepower is better in a lot of cases so either give me 6-12 mgs or better give me a cannon or 2

 

[SaparotRob]

But can the airframe you are designing, with the engines available, lift more weapons and ammo and still perform?

 

[VA5124]

But can the airframe you are designing, with the engines available, lift more weapons and ammo and still perform?

Yes if you manage to make it light enough

 

[buffnut453]

Yes if you manage to make it light enough

But if you want heavier guns, that means you need heavier support structures....particularly major components like wing spars that must carry loads under g.

I'm afraid you can't increase weight in one area and yet lighten the rest of the structure.

 

[VA5124]

But if you want heavier guns, that means you need heavier support structures....particularly major components like wing spars that must carry loads under g.

I'm afraid you can't increase weight in one area and yet lighten the rest of the structure.

Tell that to porsche both the 917 and 962 were superlight even for a group C car but they had very heavy engines in them the 917 being powered by a flat-12 while the 962 had a twin tubro flat-6 and remember these cars were stressed to do over 200mph at le mans

 

[buffnut453]

Tell that to porsche both the 917 and 962 were superlight even for a group C car but they had very heavy engines in them the 917 being powered by a flat-12 while the 962 had a twin tubro flat-6 and remember these cars were stressed to do over 200mph at le mans

Last time I checked, the Porsche isnt pulling 4+ g in 3 dimensions. The weight of the car engine is ultimately supported by the wheels and their contact with the ground. When airborne, the entire weight of the airframe, plus the multiplying factor of g, must be carried by the wing. Thus the wing must be a lot stronger as aircraft weight increases. You can't just slap 8 guns into a wing that wasn't designed to carry any guns without strengthening the wing to improve its load capacity.

 

[GrauGeist]

In the world of warplanes, you must obey the law of weight versus engine power.

An aircraft operates in a three dimensional realm, where a car operates in a two dimensional realm.

You can stuff your car full of stuff until the tires are bulging and it will still roll along (hopefully) but with an airplane, this won't work.
For an airplane to be able to take off and get up, it has to be light enough for the engine and wings to be able to perform. Then there's the issue of entering combat - your aircraft has to be fast enough and maneuverable enough to engage your enemy.
If you have made your airplane too heavy with a dozen machine guns, the enemy, who has half as many (and is lighter and faster) will shoot you down.

Keep in mind that airplanes are not Tiger tanks. They are made with thin aluminum sheet and lightweight frames. A single bullet could easily pass through the fuselage. It doesn't take a hundred small bullets to damage a fighter.

Look how much damage a P-51 could do to a Bf109 with only six .50 MGs or the damaged a F4F could do to an A6M with only four .50 MGs.

 

[VA5124]

Last time I checked, the Porsche isnt pulling 4+ g in 3 dimensions. The weight of the car engine is ultimately supported by the wheels and their contact with the ground. When airborne, the entire weight of the airframe, plus the multiplying factor of g, must be carried by the wing. Thus the wing must be a lot stronger as aircraft weight increases. You can't just slap 8 guns into a wing that wasn't designed to carry any guns without strengthening the wing to improve its load capacity.

Explain the mk2 hurricane then

 

[buffnut453]

Explain the mk2 hurricane then

Which variant of MkII Hurricane? The IIa which had 8x 303s, the IIb which had 12x 303s or the IIc which had 4x 20mm cannon?

The Hurricane had sufficient built-in strength to accommodate these various armament options. The MkII still weighed more than any variant for MkI.

My comments were based on your statement that the Ki43 could have up-gunned without adding structural weight.

 

[VA5124]

Which variant of MkII Hurricane? The IIa which had 8x 303s, the IIb which had 12x 303s or the IIc which had 4x 20mm cannon?

The Hurricane had sufficient built-in strength to accommodate these various armament options. The MkII still weighed more than any variant for MkI.

My comments were based on your statement that the Ki43 could have up-gunned without adding structural weight.

2b it looks excatly the same doesnt look like the wing changed at all

 

[buffnut453]

2b it looks excatly the same doesnt look like the wing changed at all

It had to change to create the mounting points, etc for the additional 2 guns per wing. All that extra mounting requires more structure that adds to airframe weight. There was also some trade space in terms of the amount of ammo provided for each gun. Fortunately for the Hurricane, the spar was already built with excess load-carrying capacity.

Again, it takes a lot of redesign to put guns into a wing that wasn't designed for them.

 

[VA5124]

It had to change to create the mounting points, etc for the additional 2 guns per wing. All that extra mounting requires more structure that adds to airframe weight. There was also some trade space in terms of the amount of ammo provided for each gun. Fortunately for the Hurricane, the spar was already built with excess load-carrying capacity.

Again, it takes a lot of redesign to put guns into a wing that wasn't designed for them.

Ok im wrong for the 5th time this weekend but on a sidenote the mk2b is my favorite british ww2 figther

 

[buffnut453]

Ok im wrong for the 5th time this weekend but on a sidenote the mk2b is my favorite british ww2 figther

Asking questions isn't "being wrong.". It's how we learn.

 

[VA5124]

Asking questions isn't "being wrong.". It's how we learn.

The 2b is my favortie though

 

[buffnut453]

The 2b is my favortie though

Personally, I prefer the IIc…definitely something badass about the 4 x 20mm cannon, particularly in night fighter or night intruder markings.

 

[VA5124]

Personally, I prefer the IIc…definitely something badass about the 4 x 20mm cannon, particularly in night fighter or night intruder markings.

12 gun though