Quote:
Originally Posted by martin66
hello
I remember an article in aviation magazine when Adolf Galland said in an interview he prefered the Bf -109 over the Fw-190 because the guns of the Messerschmitt was less prone to jamming in high g. factor maneuvres.
I think the cause is the wing guns of the FW-190 were more far of the centre of gravity of the plane and they had problems with the feeding of ammo in high g conditions than the nose guns of the Bf-109.
Martin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurlannaiskos
well, how could I have gotten that wrong?
oh , I know-I usually concentrate on the cannon armament.
(my favorite is the NS-37)
however that website also still uses old and inaccurate designations like Yak-1M , Il-2M and Il-2M3.
these are not the correct Soviet designations , but a largely typographical error in those cases.
|
Martin--good point, I had forgotten that outboard guns are more prone to jamming. I can't recall the source, but I also recall reading commentary from an American pilot stating this (IIRC, he was comparing the wing armament of the P-51 Mustang to the centerline guns of the P-38 Lightning).
kurlannaiskos--I had forgotten about the 37mm guns carried by the later models of the IL-2, quite formidable. I find interesting that as the IL-2 progressed and eventually evolved into the IL-10, the two 7.62mm machine guns remained steady and were not upgraded to 12.7mm or even 20 mm cannon. I suppose the machine guns were not regarded as primary armament and were used primarily for their tracer ammunition? Do you know the IL-2 with the 37mm cannon performed compared with the 23mm-gunned versions? The installation of the IL-2 37mm cannon certainly appears more graceful than the underwing 37mm cannon of the Ju 87G-1. Your note also reminds me that I am not very familiar with the formal designation nomenclature of WWII Russian warplanes.
Thanks again,
Kenneth