Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Thud4444

Members
  • Content count

    1,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,220 Excellent

2 Followers

About Thud4444

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    AL

Recent Profile Visitors

1,094 profile views
  1. Why were ME-109G wing cannon underslung?

    I don't know man, the Italians are weird. It's almost like they where constantly resistant to change. Even their late war stuff still used prewar layouts. While every one else was evolving they just installed bigger guns into the same layouts. Ive always been amazed at how successful they where, considering the tools they where working with. I always thought the C205 was a nice plane though. And all the series 5 planes where lookers IMHO. Thank God they didn't build more of them. I've always thought the maximizing roll rate and maneuverability arguments against wing guns to be a red herring. I mean didn't the two best roll rate fighters both have wing guns? (Fw-190 and F-4U) The Spitfire was no slouch in the maneuverability department, plus it got better not worse as it evolved. Unlike the 109 and Zero. The Japanese also had a maneuverability obsessed aerospace industry. But they still managed to install wing guns in almost all their late war designs. Wasn't the Attacker basically a jet with Spitfire wings? And those Meteors only moved the guns out to make room for the radar. Basically everybody knew that placing the guns in the nose is the optimum solution. Almost every twin engined fighter followed this layout because, just like early jet fighters, shooting through the propeller was a non issue. Holy crap I just remembered that the P-59 mixed bullet ballistics like the Mig-15.
  2. Red Flag 84-3: VMA-133

    What is up with that first plane's national insignia? It definitely is weird. Nice pics BTW.
  3. I severely doubt my two kits would have turned the company around.
  4. Do we want these as BM members?

    Man, that's rough. Sorry.
  5. Why were ME-109G wing cannon underslung?

    This is a fascinating topic that I really enjoy talking about. This was countered by moving the guns as close to the fuselage as possible. Most US fighters like the P-47 and F6F where extremely robust. The Hurricane and Typhoon where also pretty structurely sound. Flexing was an issue but not as big of one as you would think for the allied fighters. Flexing was more an issue with Axis aircraft, especially those not designed for such heavy wing armaments. Ballistic variables are a HUGE deal, your right. But if you'll notice outside of Germany this practice of mixing guns almost goes away entirely. Only the Yaks and Spitfires are still using it on the Allied side. (Although there are some late war twins that go against this philosophy) Again older planes still being manufactured. The Mig-15 is the only single engined mass manufactured post war fighter I can think of that mixed ballistics. I'm sure there's more. Actually the exact opposite is true. Ammerican pilots hated synchronized guns. So did American designers. That is why there are no fighters by late war in the USAAC with the feature. Going as far as to move the guns out on the P-40. It's not so much an x vs y issue as much as it is a design decision. I have these tools available to me, how do I get the best performance out of them? The US, the UK and Japan tended to move the guns out P-51, F4U, Typhoon, Sea Fury, Jack and George. The Germans and the USSR tended to move them in Ta 152, La-7 and Do 335. Like I said earlier jets made the whole argument pointless.
  6. B-1A Ship #2

    Based on your description, I think 160 is the plane I'm thinking of. I never knew there was that many prototypes.
  7. B-1A Ship #2

    When everybody was complaining about the F-35, I was remembering what a train wreck the B-1 program was. And the F-18. And the AH-64. Thank God we didn't have the internet back then, huh? Great pics! I especially love #7. Is this a repaint of the camouflaged bird from the orginal program?
  8. Why were ME-109G wing cannon underslung?

    A big issue not mentioned so far here is convergence and rate of fire. When you sit on your guns like in a Me-109, Yak-9 or La-5 convergence isn't a issue. Just point your nose at the other plane and the bullets should land where your aiming. The trade off is a slower rate of fire because of the interrupter gear. In other words more accurate, less lead going down range. When you move the guns out into the wings, convergence (sometimes called harmonisation) becomes a huge issue. Here your guns are no longer aimed dead center and each gun must be kicked in so that your shots can connect easier. (this is an even bigger deal during deflection) So the guns are set a particular angle so that they all converge. Here is an pic from an RAF training manual showing what I mean on a 8 gun Hurricane: Convergence could be changed for different pilots or staggered to create a "shotgun" effect. The total effect here is less accuracy, but with way more lead going down range. For example, an American 6 gun fighter has the same rate of fire as a Vulcan gatling gun. This is why most twin engine fighters from that era (P-38, Me-110, Whirlwind, etc..) have their guns in the nose, it's the best of both words. This can also be applied to jet fighters. There are also the problems of what kind of guns where available at the time of the aircraft's manufacture. The Germans had a great LMG and a great HAC. The Orelikon was not a great gun nor was the available HMG. It made sense to move the guns into the nose to not only increase performance, but to increase lethality. Later when the heavily built US aircraft where more common in theater, this layout became inadequate. Thus the reinstallation of the wing guns into underslung gondolas because the wings had been redesigned for maximum performance. The US and the UK had access to very good LMGs. The US had an exceptional HMG. While the UK had (IMHO) the best LAC. This made placing the guns into the wings of their fighters, even though it had a effect on accuracy, the best choice to achieve maximum lethality. It not only provides a greater rate of fire, it also meant you didn't have some crazy convergence issues like in the Fw-190 and the Ki-61. Placing low hitting guns in the nose was grossly ineffective; see most Italian fighters as an example. (I'm looking at you C.202) The Russians had an entirely different set of problems. They had an excellent LAC, so you would think they would get the same answers as the US and UK. But they didn't. The excellent LAC the Russians were using was made out of softer materials than the British gun. That gave it a shorter service life. The best use of said gun was to put it in the nose. To slow down it's rate of fire and make it more accurate. This would help extend its short service life. (Before anybody points out that the Yak's cannon didn't fire through the propeller, all the Yaks had a crazy small magazine. Which not only addressed the cannon's issues but was more inline with the Red Air Force's tactical footing.)
  9. The F-15C does say made in China. They had sold out of the P-61. They are supposed to have another coming on the next truck.
  10. What have you purchased / been gifted

    1/48 Revell F-15C. All this talk of Revell's woes has started an irrational need to gather all the Revell kits from my youth. Last Monday it was an F-102 and next Monday it will be a P-61. An unexpected benefit of this new found insanity is the ladies at Hobby Lobby now refer to me as "that model airplane guy."
  11. Jeep Wrangler Rubicon by Revell

    Yes, go to Google+ and open an individual tab for each picture. Then copy the URL from each individual tab and paste it hereto the thread your starting or editing. Easy peasy. Just make sure your URL doesn't start with Google. For example these pics start hl3:Googleuser. If your on an Android use the open image in new tab choice, not the open in new tab choice.
  12. From Failure to Failure

    Whoops. I guess I was explaining stuff you already knew. my mistake. I thought Alpha Strike was what he was trying to get pushed through. Alpha Strike is an excellent game. How terrible was his idea? All the Shadowhawks are terrible. (Until the FCCW) The curse of the AC5. But the 2D2 is unbelievably awful.
  13. Jeep Wrangler Rubicon by Revell

    Another nice build.
  14. Dude, remind me not complain about my Hobbyboss F-84 not lining up. Ouch.
  15. 1980 Dodge Ramcharger by Revell

    Outstanding choice on the shade of blue for that SS. The multi color interior looks great too.
×