Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Its interesting that four hispanos @ 172kg is considered too heavy yet two hispano's and four .50 brownings @ 178kg isn't?.
I dont really know anything about it apart from what you can get on line, and all pictures I have ever seen of 4 cannon Spitfires was at Malta. I thought it may have been to attack shipping, with zero evidence at all lolHow high were Malta spitfires going to fly?, the climb and speed performance was not affected at normal operating heights to that great a deal but the cannons weren't as reliable as the .303's and the earliest models had 60 round drums so firing time was limited, I believe there is lots of separate reasons that 4 cannons weren't fitted to the MkV.
The difference is 30 seconds to 20,000ft which is still better than just about everything else in the sky, but I feel your right, two cannons and four MG's are as good as it gets over Malta.It isn't I believe a problem regarding how high they could fly, but how fast they could get to the altitude. The flight time from the Axis bases to Malta was very short and every second was needed to gain the altitude. The four x 20mm Spitfires did have a slower climb rate and this would have been the problem.
Twin 20mm and four LMG was quite a punch on its own, few single engine fighters carried more firepower on a regular basis in 1943, the obvious exception being the Fw190.
How much does 2 cannons and four .50 brownings weigh?, that was the prefered armament over four cannons alone.Figures given in the documents I have are:
2 cannons + 4 x .303 -- 663 lb
4 cannons -- 904 lb
This takes into account ammunition, feed mechanisms, mountings, etc.
How much does 2 cannons and four .50 brownings weigh?, that was the prefered armament over four cannons alone.
Yes, and the "shotgun" approach with lots of .303's was used as an argument why small caliber guns was better. The rather huge hole in that argument, of course, is that, statistically, "a hit" with .303's is very unlikely bring down a plane. While ultimately the autocannon side of the argument won, at least initially that side wasn't helped by the reliability and other issues with the initial Hispano installation.
A .303 hit to the pilots head brought down a plane every time
I think it is on the Spitfire site I read that the 0.5 cal was mounted inboard of the cannon to allow more ammunition to be carried.From the above quoted numbers we can solve for a single gun + ammo:
Hispano: 102.5 kg
.303: 24 kg
Elsewhere on the Interwebs we can find that the AN/M2 MG empty weight was 28 kg, and a single round clocks in at around 120g. So a gun + 250 rounds (which is what Spitfire .50 installations had) is 58 kg. In reality probably slightly more due to belt links and the trays for the belts etc.
Combine the above numbers in the combination of your choice.
That being said, I've never heard of the combination of 2 cannons + 4 .50 MG's on a Spitfire. AFAIK early installations were 2 cannons + 4 .303 MG's, with the 4 MG's later replaced by 2 .50 MG's. And then 4 cannons and no MG's in post-war installations in late Mk Spits. Maybe the 4 cannon installation was used for ground attack roles earlier or in special situations like discussed in this thread, IDK.
Well, they weren't "sniping".Of course. But real life WWII aerial combat wasn't a video game where you can laser snipe someone at 1 km. It's not wise designing your fighter armament around statistically unlikely outcomes.
No sure if thats a typo? It wasn't - it was 2 x 20mm, 4 x 0.303. Only the XVI regularly flew with 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cals.How much does 2 cannons and four .50 brownings weigh?, that was the prefered armament over four cannons alone.
2 x 20mm Hispano's, and 2 x .50 Cals was the standard "E" wing arrangement. And many Mk.IX and XIV used this armament in addition to the Mk.XVI.Only the XVI regularly flew with 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cals.
Any idea when the E wing was introduced into operational service?2 x 20mm Hispano's, and 2 x .50 Cals was the standard "E" wing arrangement. And many Mk.IX and XIV used this armament in addition to the Mk.XVI.
If I remember correctly, it was the standard Spitfire armament with the introduction of the Ferranti Mk.II gyro gun sight, as the the 20mm and .50 had similar trajectories
From Wiki;Any idea when the E wing was introduced into operational service?
I made the difference to be 1.2 minsThe difference is 30 seconds to 20,000ft which is still better than just about everything else in the sky, but I feel your right, two cannons and four MG's are as good as it gets over Malta.
How much does 2 cannons and four .50 brownings weigh?, that was the prefered armament over four cannons alone.
If you read the report from the previous page the recommendation was two cannons and four .50 BMG's over four cannons or two cannons and four .303's.No sure if thats a typo? It wasn't - it was 2 x 20mm, 4 x 0.303. Only the XVI regularly flew with 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cals.
If you have access to Edger Brooks notes he states that the eight and later four .303 armament was used because they gave the best chance of incapacitating the pilot, it wasn't until gyro sights were developed that the E wing replaced all others.A .303 hit to the pilots head brought down a plane every time
They were anyway, the control surfaces of the Spitfire were changed from fabric to metal, then they were reprofiled once combat speeds exceeded 400mph then finally the hinges were changed from single pivot to piano type.They also say (Joseph Smith by the way) that "the possibility of incorporating this scheme is doubtful as a complete redesign of the aileron control system would be necessary"
I recall reading that the RAF studied ammo expenditure and concluded that 90 rounds per gun (Hispano) was adequate for the great majority of fighter missions.He also writes that the 20mm ammunition would be limited to 138 rounds/gun ...