Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What was the significance of the altitude 35K'?Interesting to note that the 50 cal vs 20mm debate reared its ugly head with frustrated F-86 pilots reporting stitching a MiG 15 at high altitude - with usually reliable API - to no apparent effect until the MiG dropped below 35K, then often caught fire. GUNVAL was instituted with 10 F-86E/F's configured by NAA with 20mm cannon and deemed a success. There were issues such as compressor stalls encountered but solvable, and Thereafter all the Century series stipulated 20mm cannon, beginning with F-100.
What was the significance of the altitude 35K'?
Thanks.Not enough oxygen for the incendiary round to ignite a fire.
What post war analysis determined that cannons were not better than .50 caliber machine guns? Even for fighter vs fighter combat, explosive firing cannons are/were demonstrably more effective than machine gun armament.Sorry. Cannons were not considered better, as they fired much slower than 50 cal MG (from post WWII analysis).
What was the significance of the altitude 35K'?
Nope, the first Malcolm hoods were for Spitfires which were adopted to the Mustang.
Resp:NAA designed a sliding hood that was tested on a Mustang IA and deemed noisy but acceptable. The report was written December 1942.
BPC/RAF requested that future deliveries of Mustangs (III) be delivered with a NAA equivalent to Malcolm Hood - which was at same time that both the XP-51F contract was in progress as well as the bubble canopy MCR was issued for the NA-102 Spec for P-51B-1-NA (March 1943). During this same time the NA-106 was in progress, which originally began as a six gun wing/bird cage canopy version of the P-51B-5 for mid block release.
NAA also dabbled with a sliding hood which was tested in wind tunnel July/August 1942 - similar to Japanese A6M. Windshield and aft enclosed section fixed, with center section sliding to the rear.
Summary, there were no Malcolm Hoods on any RAF Mustang until late November 1943 when the first of the P-51B-5-NA's were delivered to RAF and two were sent to R.Malcolm. Those two were re-assigned along with several more to 9th AF in December 1943 as 357 FG was ramping up with new Mustangs from States,
What post war analysis determined that cannons were not better than .50 caliber machine guns? Even for fighter vs fighter combat, explosive firing cannons are/were demonstrably more effective than machine gun armament.[/QUOTE
Resp:
I read it last year in one of the popular aviation mags covering WWII fighters. I do not expect agreement (is there any on this blog?) even with official source approval. What the article said (my brief analysis) was that various size/caliber guns, along with their arrangement gave/got the best results in (a moving/rolling) dogfight . . . were four 50 cal MG, two in each wing. Smaller than 50 cal were too weak for most shots at any distance, and cannons carried too few rounds and fired too slow. It did not say .303s or 20mm were ineffective; just that 50s had range, did enough damage and carried more rounds than cannons. When jets replaced props, the move to cannons became more important, as with NAA's F-86 could make hits further out against an escaping M-15.
Navalwarrior
Resp:
I read it last year in one of the popular aviation mags covering WWII fighters. I do not expect agreement (is there any on this blog?) even with official source approval. What the article said (my brief analysis) was that various size/caliber guns, along with their arrangement gave/got the best results in (a moving/rolling) dogfight . . . were four 50 cal MG, two in each wing. Smaller than 50 cal were too weak for most shots at any distance, and cannons carried too few rounds and fired too slow. It did not say .303s or 20mm were ineffective; just that 50s had range, did enough damage and carried more rounds than cannons. When jets replaced props, the move to cannons became more important, as with NAA's F-86 could make hits further out against an escaping M-15.
Navalwarrior
Resp:The F-6A saw recon service with the 107th OS/TRS. They were stationed in England from late '42 onward, not sure when they started using their F-6As, but they did see extensive recon missions before, during and after D-Day in and around Normandy.
Source of larger diameter propeller for P-51A:
- The Encyclopedia do Aircraft of World War II, by General Editor: Paul Eden, Amber Books, 2017, page 403 under NA-99. Also, I want to say that Martyn Chorlton's book 'Allison Engined P-51 Mustangs' also mentions this point, although I cannot find the book at the moment.
I think the problem with that assessment is what type of targets were they using in this comparison.
I think you will see that the larger cannkns like the 20 mm were chosen by the Germans because what was their main target? Large four engine bombers...
What was the P-51's main target? A single engine fighter. A .50 cal is perfectly fine for that...
They's all kin to the cannon clan - old'uns, young'uns, we'uns and yer'uns!...Only thing is, try as I might, and maybe my Google-Fu is lacking, but I'm still not sure what "cannkns" are...
I totally agree with this assessment, it's pretty much in line with my thoughts.
Only thing is, try as I might, and maybe my Google-Fu is lacking, but I'm still not sure what "cannkns" are...