what is it....new game.

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by Gilly

Just to keep the thread alive until flyinlion posts I thought I'd post this

Thanks Gilly. I'm kinda illiterate when it comes to photo editing software so by all means please have at it

[Gilly]

Originally Posted by flynlion

Thanks Gilly. I'm kinda illiterate when it comes to photo editing software so by all means please have at it

Sadly i was defeated within 5 minutes by our resident i16 expert!!

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by Gilly

I was just looking through the duxford pics the other night and noticed them sticking out. In guessing they've been either moved of position there for aesthetic reasons although they look as if they'd only just clear either side of the prop

I think prop clearance would be the main reason for putting guns farther out in the wings. There also might be other things like fuel tanks, landing gear, wing structure or ammo bays to consider. No such thing as free lunch.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Gilly

Sadly i was defeated within 5 minutes by our resident i16 expert!!

Originally Posted by flynlion

I think prop clearance would be the main reason for putting guns farther out in the wings. There also might be other things like fuel tanks, landing gear, wing structure or ammo bays to consider. No such thing as free lunch.

That's possible, but on the original I-16s, the cannons or machine-guns on the wings were really tight against the fuselage (kinda placed where the FWs were) and they were much farther in barrel wise (not so elongated like they are in the picture). So being hit or hitting the prop wouldn't be an issue if they'd kept them farther in like they had during WW2.

Also, I-16s shouldn't and never had fuel takes in the wings because that'd add weight in their rolling which would be bad since that and turning sharp is all they pretty much had going for them later on. Usually their spare fuel tank was behind the pilot, or not at all and they just had the main tank.

[bobbysocks]

soviet, what kind of MGs were these? make/model?? they have the gas tube extended beyond the leading edge...very interesting. almost looks like a modified dshk...

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by bobbysocks

soviet, what kind of MGs were these? make/model?? they have the gas tube extended beyond the leading edge...very interesting. almost looks like a modified dshk...

Depending on the type, but just sticking with the Type 24 since everyone's familiar with that Type and it's what most airshow models simulate, they'd have twin 7.62mm ShKAS in the nose and twin 20mm ShVAK cannons in the wings. Though models starting from the Type 1 (Prototype) up to the Type 10 would have had just ShKAS 7.62mm MGs. Though it was the Type 6 & Type 10 that had four MGs all around (two being where the 20mm cannons would later be placed on the later models. Type 1's up to Type 5s just had twin MGs in the nose.

But sticking with the Type 24, the cannons weren't all that long (just look at the size of a I-16s prop that's still,) I think they just made them farther out for dramatic effect or something?

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

That's possible, but on the original I-16s, the cannons or machine-guns on the wings were really tight against the fuselage (kinda placed where the FWs were) and they were much farther in barrel wise (not so elongated like they are in the picture). So being hit or hitting the prop wouldn't be an issue if they'd kept them farther in like they had during WW2.

Also, I-16s shouldn't and never had fuel takes in the wings because that'd add weight in their rolling which would be bad since that and turning sharp is all they pretty much had going for them later on. Usually their spare fuel tank was behind the pilot, or not at all and they just had the main tank.

My comment on prop clearance had more to do with line of fire shooting through the propellor disc than gun barrel length. Given the Soviet military's belief in the philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) I would imagine that they would avoid using complex gun syncronization if they could. Most US fighters carried their guns in the wings, but roll rate was considered less important in US designs. US fighters also carried fuel in vertually every nook and cranny that was available, and a significant part of the pilot workload was involved in managing the weight and balance of this fuel.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by flynlion

My comment on prop clearance had more to do with line of fire shooting through the propellor disc than gun barrel length. Given the Soviet military's belief in the philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) I would imagine that they would avoid using complex gun syncronization if they could. Most US fighters carried their guns in the wings, but roll rate was considered less important in US designs. US fighters also carried fuel in vertually every nook and cranny that was available, and a significant part of the pilot workload was involved in managing the weight and balance of this fuel.

Lol KISS (I like it.) But more on gun synchronization. I'm not sure it was all that big of a deal to the Russians since all it did was slow down the rate of fire for the cannons or MGs in the cowling. (The reason why 109s have their cannons in the nose, is so they don't fire so slow as they would on say a La-5 because cannons already fire slower than MGs (Obviously.))

I mean, Russians kept their guns synched because it took unneeded weight off the wings and they could roll or turn better; plus their guns were more likely to hit the target ahead of them at any distance (Like I always say when flying Russian planes; Just point and shoot). The reason US and British forces had guns in their wings, was because to them it was easier to shoot an enemy down and they could fire off faster (plus they did carry more rounds than Russian planes). But the problem with having outboard guns, is that you can only hit the target at a certain range since the guns fire in an elongated X shape, and firing too close to the enemy, the guns won't hit and firing too far out, the guns won't hit and the rounds will just got to either side of the enemy.

Plus, why most British and US planes had large fuel loads, was because unlike a country such as Russia, they had to cross water and were focused on long distance dogfights and escorts. Russia's idea was that they'd only need fighters to go as far as the infantry was at the point of time. The Russian's main idea for fighters, really was ground defense from enemy fighters. (That's why you see planes like Yaks, Las, Polikarpov's, etc all low altitude.) Plus more fuel= heavier planes, and less likely to be able to dogfight properly in their chosen realm of fighting (which was more or less horizontal dogfighting as I've said countless other times.)

[bobbysocks]

should be kind of easy....

[Gilly]

Originally Posted by bobbysocks

should be kind of easy....

He162 at a guess from the distinctive tail