- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I agree but what is your point?Vulcan (M61 cannon) has 6 barrels, and its a Gatling-type cannon.
MG 213 has one barrel, and it's a revolver-type cannon.
The only thing in common is a nominal calibre, but they use different cartriges.
Not light years.
Specifications for the MG213 revolver cannon were written during 1942. A few prototypes were available during April 1945. If the war had lasted another 6 months it probably would have been operational on Luftwaffe fighter aircraft.
Meanwhile the older MG151/20 cannon was such a good design it remained in operational service into the 1990s.
I agree but what is your point?
There's nothing special about Gatling cannon. Otherwise everyone would use them rather then more popular weapons such as the Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, M242 chain gun and Rh202 autocannon.
Operational testing of the Me-309 began at the Reichlin Erprobungstelle on November 20, 1942 test session piloted by RLM test pilot Beauvais. Beauvais included the following statements regarding the Me-309 in his report.:
"The Me-309 will be acceptable after some improvements but the present difficulties to the average fighter pilot. Control forces are extremely high by comparison with current fighters, and landing on the nosewheel will give problems to combat pilots at operational airfields. With full armament this aircraft will be barely thirty miles per hour faster than the Bf-109G, and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft (Fw 190D) will soon be available."
You include in your proposition criteria lack of Turbine consideration. That's the rub. Regards
I agree but what is your point?
There's nothing special about Gatling cannon. Otherwise everyone would use them rather then more popular weapons such as the Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, M242 chain gun and Rh202 autocannon.
It's worth noting why the Luftwaffe supported the development of revolver type canon. One reason was that higher velocities were required and in reciprocating style weapons muzzle velocity tends to reduced cadence, the revolver gun seemed to support cadence rates of up to twice that of recipracting weapons. The other is that reciprocating weapons were prone to jamming under high g manouvering. How many times have we read accounts of pilots about to make a kill when their guns jamed. That would be almost impossible on a revolver canon which would simply eject a misfired round and was less vulnerable to jamming.
Source please. You keep bringing this up even though every book I've read says that multiple designs for both liquid-cooled and radial engines were proposed. I have never read that the DB603 was considered this early. And for the millionth time: Tank did not redesign the Fw190 to be powered by a radial, he presented several designs in parallel. Of which the BMW139 powered one was selected for very obvious and completely valid reasons. If you continue to claim otherwise, please finally provide a source.Dr. Tank's original 1937 proposal for the Fw-190 was powered by a DB603 engine.
And again: DB603 development continued on private Damler Benz funding, it didn't stop. Unless you can provide a source that backs up your claims, a DB603 flying in 1939 is pure imagination. I'm not saying earlier production was impossible with uninterrupted RLM funding, but definitive statements like yours above are.But what if DB603 engine program funding hadn't been cancelled? Fw-190 prototypes powered by DB603 prototype engines would be flying during 1939. The aircraft and engine would enter mass production during 1941. It wouldn't be identical to the historical Fw-190C as there would be no switch to the BMW139 engine followed by a switch to the BMW801 engine and finally a switch back to the originally proposed DB603 engine.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the FW190c supposed to have a turbocharged DB engine?
Wasn't that the real issue with it and hence the move to the FW190d?
AFAIK Germany just couldn't make reliable turbo's in any serious numbers given the dire limits on their specialist metals and oils supply......yes or no?
gatling style guns have a higher muzzle rate due to the fact that in recipocating firearms a certain amount of the expanding gases propelling the projectile are syphoned off to eject and replace ammunition. it will either use a gas system to with a piston or direct blow back. but still a portion of it's power is stolen from the projectile. in gatling style firearms the cartridge stays in the breech until after the projectile has left the muzzle. the spent shell is exctracted manually/mechanically without the use of gas. i dont know how the armament in the LW ac stacked up against allied ac but germany had the best squad light machine guns ever made....the mg 42. but it was prone to burning barrels but you there wwere blowing through 1200+ rpms too!
I dont know if we can honetly say that there wouldnt have been jamming of a revolver style gun diue to high G-forces. the potential is there but all would be predicated on the design and the mounting. if there was the possiblilty of flexing at high G stress then the revolver could "lock-up" in its craddle or at its axis. would have been interesting to see how they would have done it.