109E3 cannons or spud guns

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Hi Kongo Otto,

I was wrong myself. I might hve miss read you with the MGFF standing for Machine Gun despite you specifically mentioned the E1.

I am sorry for the induced useless bit of chatting. That's what happen when cats try to bark.

The issue I was referring to was the december 2009 on pg 31.

~S!

No Problem at all.

But you woke my interest in the Fana de l'avation and subscribed it.
So thanks a lot for giving me a new interesting read.

S!

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Kongo-Otto

No Problem at all.

But you woke my interest in the Fana de l'avation and subscribed it.
So thanks a lot for giving me a new interesting read.

S!

You will enjoy it. The editorial quality might vary from one issue to another but overall after such years of publication it is still one of the best of any monthly aviation magazine available in French language in France.

I am Reading it since 1986 !

~S!

[TomcatViP]

Thickness ratio was 14.2 but due to the narrow chord it makes the wing thinner.

As a comparison , the Fw190 had a a 15% such as many WWII planes (the NACA 23015 airfoil was very popular at the time)

The spit had a 12% but with a wider chord that makes more room available in the wing.

By the way, 6x12.7 mm with a high rate of fire such as those mounted outside the propeller disc is not something I 'd hve call a "riffle"

If you look at the amount of un-friendly material in term of mass that is thrown in your way you'd reconsider the idea of poor US artillery.

Yes the canon is the outstanding killer (I just went to see a vid of what seems a 37mm or a 40mm direct hit on what look like a Fw190 by a VVS aircraft... Baaaouum !) but it's not the ultimate hitter by far.

~S!