Quote:
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.