- Thread starter
-
- #41
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Vietnam era F-4 pilots noted the SUU-16 and SUU-23 Gatling Pods on the centerline station, were all but useless in air to air, and only good for strafing ground targets. F-8 and F-105 were more accurate with their fuselage mounted cannonsWell, the "lance of steel" seems to be 6.5 mils at 80% (GE literature for the SUU-11B-8 A Minigun pod) and since 6.5mils is about 22 inches at 100 yds (300ft) or 88inches at 400yds (1200ft) I would say that the "lance of steel" may have a bit of flaw.
Many countries used what they had and then progressed to what they were planning/developing before the war. It often took 3-6 years to bring a gun from initial concept to working squadron service. This last is somewhat debatable as the US .50 was supposed to have been used for pretty much all of the 1930s and yet it didn't work for the British in 1940 and early 1941 for the British is several different aircraft. The German MG 131 and the MG 151 were both in development in late 30s.One thing that I did think of early this morning is that the British (and everyone else in reality) went along with what they had early in the war. The Brits had the .303 Browning, the 20mm Hispano and really nothing in between until they adopted the .50 Browning (early versions weren't that great and the UK didn't have the ammo in the production or supply chain as far as being common until later).
Interestingly, Rolls-Royce tried to design a HMG for the RAF. The Wikipedia article (not sure how accurate it is, though it sites a source published by Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust) does suggest that the weapon was intended to fire .50 BMG, as the RAF wanted a weapon similarly powerful to the AN/M2 .50, but built in Britain. The original recoil operated weapon had functioning issues, and was redesigned to be a gas operated weapon. There was also plans to use the .55 Boys AT rifle round in a rebarreled version.
In the end, Rolls-Royce gave up on it (and a 40mm cannon they were working on) to concentrate on aircraft engine production.
Interestingly, Rolls-Royce did license production of a version of the 40mm cannon to another British company for armament on Royal Navy motor gun boats.
For the 1st era, there was a number of fighters with battery ranging between two LMGs and two HMGs, those are probably too lightly armed fighters. MiG-1/-3 is barely better.I'm trying to see or at least get opinions on armament that was too light, too much, and just right for World War II fighter aircraft. I'll be splitting this into the 1939-42 and 1942-15 eras, and will be taking into account fighter vs fighter and fighter vs bomber/recon aircraft scenarios. This will of course take into account caliber of weapons, prospective roles (strafing included), and ammo capacities/firing time.
Anyone have any idea of what did/didn't work here, as well as what was over the top?
One thing that I did think of early this morning is that the British (and everyone else in reality) went along with what they had early in the war. The Brits had the .303 Browning, the 20mm Hispano and really nothing in between until they adopted the .50 Browning (early versions weren't that great and the UK didn't have the ammo in the production or supply chain as far as being common until later).
Interestingly, Rolls-Royce tried to design a HMG for the RAF. The Wikipedia article (not sure how accurate it is, though it sites a source published by Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust) does suggest that the weapon was intended to fire .50 BMG, as the RAF wanted a weapon similarly powerful to the AN/M2 .50, but built in Britain. The original recoil operated weapon had functioning issues, and was redesigned to be a gas operated weapon. There was also plans to use the .55 Boys AT rifle round in a rebarreled version.
In the end, Rolls-Royce gave up on it (and a 40mm cannon they were working on) to concentrate on aircraft engine production.
Interestingly, Rolls-Royce did license production of a version of the 40mm cannon to another British company for armament on Royal Navy motor gun boats.
Ditto F-86 until enough returning warriors described hammering migs - 'but no fires at 37000 feet' with many getting away.
The M23 is going to break up and scatter the incendiary material either on the skin or just inside and apparently, no matter how good it did at setting fire to things at low altitude, it didn't work well in the thin air at 37,000ft or above.
I think the F-94 left the barn with 50 cal? Ditto F/P-82. The E & subsequent were definitely purpose built as all weather/night fighterWhile it was post-war I would note that the US Air Force never deviated from the 20mm guns in purpose built Night-fighters. From the P-61 to missiles the Night fighters and early all weather interceptors (F-89s) had four 20mm cannon and later six 20mm cannon.
Adapted fighters to the night fighter mission (P-38s with radar pods) kept most or all of their original armament. US Navy night fighters are their own path of development.
We may be splitting hairs.I think the F-94 left the barn with 50 cal? Ditto F/P-82. The E & subsequent were definitely purpose built as all weather/night fighter
If you can squeeze 20mm into F-86, can't find design reason that they wouldn't fit in an F-94?We may be splitting hairs.
F-94 was a modified TP-80C/TF-80C/T-33. Yes it left the barn with just four .50cal mgs but there was only so much room in the stretched P-80 airframe once you stuffed in the 2nd seater and radar/fire control unit.
The auxilliary /recon weapons pod added 8x50 cal for additional firepower, which was introduced with the E. You are correct tha the E was the last non radar equipped escort version of the P/F-82. That said, the F & G could have moved from all weather night fighter to LR escort had the need arisen with war against either USSR/China circa 1950.The F-82C (10th F-82B airframe) and F-82D (11th F-82B airframe) became the prototypes for the for F-82F and F-82G after the F-82E (escort fighter, not night fighter?) switched to the Allison engines. Now perhaps the Night fighter versions had been planned all along and the escorts just had more priority but aside from grafting the radar pod under the wing center section and converting the starboard cockpit to be the radar operators station they don't seem to have changed much else.
I have no idea what NA was planning in the design rooms vs what the Air Force ordered in the early stages of the design, but six .50s with 300rpg was pretty weak stuff for a night fighter.
Well, timing for one thing, how long does it take to design the new armament installation.If you can squeeze 20mm into F-86, can't find design reason that they wouldn't fit in an F-94?
They could have. My point was that the 'as designed' night fighters had 20mm guns. The 'modified' night fighters generally had the same guns as the parent aircraft.That said, the F & G could have moved from all weather night fighter to LR escort had the need arisen with war against either USSR/China circa 1950.
I have not seen any documents, including proposals, that cite 20mm for P-51H. The one 'inferred' possibility was 1945 Propsal to USN for P-51H carrier qual version. That said, even the NAA FJ-1 was delivered with 6x50 cal as the USN had not yet settled on all 20mm armament.F-82s had 400 rpg as far as production aircraft and even the XP-82s it seems (XP-82 Restoration team did load 400+ rounds for each of the 6 50s in their XP-82). But I've read different things regarding especially the P-51H that varied between 4 .50s, 6 .50s, 4 .60s and 4 20mm. This is per post on secretprojects. And also per post, it was the USAAF looking at this, but it was seemingly NAA that favored the 6 .50s. Which wouldn't surprise me if true. Because in the past, NAA wanted to put 20mm cannons on P-51s and A-36s, as well as even 37mm cannons on the A-36. But the USAAF ignored such proposals and favored the .50s.