Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK, I'll explain. For a full technical explanation, go to Tony Williams' website. Short answer, as you go up into larger and larger cartridges, the variablility in burning time for the propellant in that cartridge makes the exit time for the shell from the barrel more and more unpredictable, which means that there is a real danger that sooner or later one of the shells could hit the propeller.
recoil might also disturb the synchronization though, the Mk 103 is less than gentle.Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.
Don't know about that. Both were designed as dive bombers but later used as low altitude attack aircraft or strafing machines as you call them.I think the Hs 123 should have been left in production. It had a different role than the Ju-87 and the two should not have been confused with each other. The Hs 123 was a cheap, tough, strafing machine that could get in close and act as a force multiplier for the wermacht.
Ju 87 was a great dive bomber. Hs 123 was a great ground attack aircraft. Regardless of the overlap in the purposes they were designed for, they had different strengths and weaknesses.Don't know about that. Both were designed as dive bombers but later used as low altitude attack aircraft or strafing machines as you call them.
recoil might also disturb the synchronization though, the Mk 103 is less than gentle.
dampener or not it could blow the wing off a Bf 109.AFAIK the Mk103 put on aircraft had a built in recoil dampner, and unless the MV was to experience a rather drastic reduction in the likes of 100 m/s or so (highly unlikely), then I don't see how it would become a problem.
dampener or not it could blow the wing off a Bf 109.
Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.
I think it would have a hard time losing most enemy fighters purely because of its slow speed. It could dodge very well alright, being as nimble as it was, but it would only be delaying the inevitable. A Yak fighter would've made mince meat of it.
The Ju 87D was one of the finest close support attack aircraft there was, and definitely more powerful and better armored than the Hs 123.Ju 87 was a great dive bomber. Hs 123 was a great ground attack aircraft. Regardless of the overlap in the purposes they were designed for, they had different strengths and weaknesses.
You are reading my mind!It could also serve as a trainer !
More than feasible. I didn't want to push this further but yes, being slow but nimble is usually enough to dodge the fighters. Though Soren's idea of the fighter keeping the upper hand and being able to attack tme after time is valid, in practice the smaller aircraft, think observation aircraft, would make a sharper turn than any fighter aircraft could and would hit the deck and get away.I understand that the Fw 189 performed very well suffering relatively low losses despite slow speed.
Is it feasible that the Hs 123 enjoyed similar success?
OK, I'll explain. For a full technical explanation, go to Tony Williams' website. Short answer, as you go up into larger and larger cartridges, the variablility in burning time for the propellant in that cartridge makes the exit time for the shell from the barrel more and more unpredictable, which means that there is a real danger that sooner or later one of the shells could hit the propeller.
If it hit it, then yeah. Put it wouldn't because of recoil, it was simply just too big to put on the wing.
wiki said:Unless mounted on the aircraft's centerline, the asymmetric shock from the cannon's recoil tended to tear the wings from the fuselage apart with repeated firing.
maybe, but his claim is equally unsourced for the time being. If he quotes a source I'll believe him and cease to believe Wiki.It's wiki ... with lots of unsourced claims. E.g. the same article claims ground attack versions of the Fw 190 used the gun, but as far as I know that was never realized past some prototypes.
Shortround6,
I can understand that a delay from primer ignition to propellant ignition can eventually vary, but that also means that rounds all the way down to a pistol round will be affected. The reason being that once the main charge is sparked, depending on wether the charge is always the same size, the time it takes for it all to burn should remain the same. Atleast to the degree that it wouldn't matter to the sync of the gun prop. If however the primer is at fault then it wouldn't matter if it was a 7.62mm machine gun round or 30mm cannon round, they'd both be affected the same.
The problem could perhaps be that IF such a thing should happen with a machine gun bullet then the damage would be minimal, where'as a cannon projectile to the propeller would be fatal.