Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_851
'Miss Schillings Orifice' didn't appear until March 1941 as far as I can tell.
Beatrice Schilling was a scientist at Farnborough and designed a modification to the carburettor float amounting to a hole the size of a 'threepenny bit' punched through the float.
Having to invert prior to steep dives was necessary right up to this point.
I don't necessarily disagree about the 'Spit v 109' argument, but like I said previously, it depends on which yardstick you judge them by.
Using the 109's machine guns for sighting deflection shots prior to using the cannon would make a devastating combination. 55 seconds worth would allow for a great deal of sighting for cannon accuracy, assuming that the Spit or Hurri wasn't already beginning to use its tighter turning circle to make any deflection shot more and more difficult.
As a combination of weapons for a bounce attack without being observed....well I find out about this for myself all the time when online.  |
From listening to a number of WWII fighter pilot interviews, it seems they were very afraid of the planes they DID NOT see. Conversely, they tried to sneak up on unwary opponents. I heard one recently say that the first time he knew, psychologically, that he was in combat was when his wingman was suddenly shot down and he never saw the enemy that did it, even after the fact. The same guy also said that it seemed like half the kills came when the victim never saw the enemy.
If that was the case, and I have no doubt it was, it would seem that maximum fire power at close range was the best thing an attacking fighter pilot could hope for.
With that being the case, I would choose two cannon over 8 .303's for maximum damage in a short period of time. Both were effective, but that would be a preference.
Splitter