Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was reading something that referenced a VIII Fighter Command (P-47) study that said the average duration of fire for a successful attack vs. a Ju88 was 15 seconds.
Things that came to mind:
I think the Hispano was the right call.
- it's doubtful the Spitfire was ever going to carry 8 x .5in Brownings (probably 4)
- it's doubtful the Spitfire was ever going to carry as much .5-inch ammo in total as the P47 could fire in 15 seconds
- the P-47 is probably a better gun platform than the Spitfire
- while the toughest to actually catch, the Ju88 seems to be the most vulnerable of the three main German types
Not sure what point you're making relative to kill ratios.
Really? 15 seconds is an awfully long time to be firing. And Fighter Command managed to down Ju 88s in 1940 using only 8 x 0.303. 15 seconds of 0.50 would probably correspond to 60 seconds of 0.303, so something doesn't add up somewhere.Was reading something that referenced a VIII Fighter Command (P-47) study that said the average duration of fire for a successful attack vs. a Ju88 was 15 seconds.
Really? 15 seconds is an awfully long time to be firing. And Fighter Command managed to down Ju 88s in 1940 using only 8 x 0.303. 15 seconds of 0.50 would probably correspond to 60 seconds of 0.303, so something doesn't add up somewhere.
One effect of the Spitfire and Hurricanes 8 x 0.303 armament was that although many didn't get destroyed in the air many returned home and were out of service along with many crews.
I think I read elsewhere on this forum that the 0.5 cal guns were in no way reliable in 1936/40 and if you take the Spitfire's 20mm cannon as being three times more destructive than the 0.5 cal then their total armament was about the same.
Its been mentioned many times before when comparing the .50 Browning HMG to other weapons. The prewar Browning is not the same as the 1940 onwards Browning. Rate of fire is lower by approx 25%, velocity is lower, terminal energy is lower and Ball rounds with no explosive, incendary and no armour penetrating core were the most common rounds.
A Hurricane or Spit in the BoB with 4x0.50s is not equivalent to a P51B.
The early F-15A's experienced engine augmenter (afterburner) malfunctions during station 3 or 7 AIM-7 missile launches. The missile exhaust would enter the engine inlet, starving the engine of air, and causing the malfunction when in full afterburner. This was rectified by the addition of logic within the Engine Electronic Control to signal the Unified Fuel Control to retard to stage one afterburner when a missile was fired (there's five stages of afterburner). This was applicable to the older F100-PW-100 engines.Ditto! However there has been at least once incident of an Eagle almost being taken out by an own ship launched AIM-7 from the front weapons station. He recovered. Eagle Standard.
Cheers,
Biff
Great post S/RAccording the Navy airplane characteristics sheets the 20mm armed Corsair was roughly 300lbs heavier, 12,470lbs vs 12,175lbs.
It was 1 mph slower at 19,900ft, took 12 seconds longer (?) to reach 20,000ft and had a service ceiling 600ft lower, 39,400ft vs 40k.
Firing time should have been about 23 seconds for the 20mm cannon and 30-31 seconds for the .50 cal guns.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf
Great post S/R
I think as things progressed from 1939 onwards weight became less of a factor. The Spitfire spanned the whole period but at the end had a 2000HP engine with a constant speed prop. In 1939 many Hurricanes still had twin blade wooden props, there weren't may Spitfires at all. I don't think anyone was jumping at the idea of fitting cannon at that time. If you take the 12 seconds to 20,000 ft to one minute on a 1940 Spitfire it becomes an issue in the BoB. I have read about the travails of Spitfires fitted with the drum type cannon, I havnt read how they did as far as take off and climb performance.
I think you missed the spirit of my post, the biggest effect of C/S props is in take off and climb. Whatever anyone was researching in the 1930s they needed much more than 1000BHP and C/S props to make them viable.In 1936-40 period, French, Germans, Polish and Yugoslavs were normally producing 1-engined fighters armed with one or two cannons. British, Japanese, Czech and Americans were test-flying A/C with cannons for test purposes in that time. Soviets produced small series of I-16 with two cannons in 1938-39.
Both US and UK wasted the opportunity of buying at Oerlikon in mid-1930s, opting to wait for Hispano instead, that went too late to matter for the BoB.
Both US and UK wasted the opportunity of buying at Oerlikon in mid-1930s, opting to wait for Hispano instead, that went too late to matter for the BoB.
Some of the Oerlikons required greased ammunition to function and that was NOT looked on with favor at high altitudes with freezing temperatures.
Turns out the the Hispano also needed greased ammunition but when initially offered it didn't. Some of the cycle rates quoted for the mid 30s Oerlikons were a little on the optimistic side. But then some of the initial figures for Hispano were on the high side. At least one bbok claims the Hispano 404 was offered at 700 rpm vs the Oerlikons 520 -500-470 depending on model.
The early F-15A's experienced engine augmenter (afterburner) malfunctions during station 3 or 7 AIM-7 missile launches. The missile exhaust would enter the engine inlet, starving the engine of air, and causing the malfunction when in full afterburner. This was rectified by the addition of logic within the Engine Electronic Control to signal the Unified Fuel Control to retard to stage one afterburner when a missile was fired (there's five stages of afterburner). This was applicable to the older F100-PW-100 engines.
The one F-15C that was shot by a missile took place during a training exercise out of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. One aircraft was ferrying a live AIM-9 Sidewinder to the alert station at King Salmon. The other aircraft, the 54th Tactical Fighter Squadron flagship, was leading the element. They proceeded to do some BFM while on the way, and the aircraft carrying the live missile "inadvertently" fired the missile at his lead. The missile blew off the left horizontal stabilator and hydraulic actuator. The aircraft returned to Elmendorf and landed. The pilot stated it flew normal. The mishap caused debate about the effectiveness of the AIM-9 missile, versus the survivability of the F-15. It took about a year to get the damaged fighter back to flying status, and continued for several years until finally relegated to the bone-yard.
View attachment 483294
The majority of my Eagle time (17 years total) is with the -220 variant. Nice improvement to the -100 however would rather have had GE-110s.