Recent content by gottschs

I always loved the A-20 Havoc, first model I built as a young kid. Sleek looking fuselage and looked like it was fast.

I feel bad for the Regia Aeronautica Italiana personnel office and the training commands trying to setup maintenance standards for so many different airframes and aviation components.

The biggest issue with 1939 Italian fighters was there were 3 of them from 3 different manufacturers and 2 (Fiat G.50/Macchi C.200) shared the same engine. With the relatively terrible manufacturing capacity of Italy and limited resources, the government should have down selected to 1 airframe...

Hispano 12Y moteur-cannon engine...sorry. Btw, great pictures. When looking at the D.500 on wikipedia, there is a description of G-force issues, "...5th Fighter Group led seven Dewoitine D.510s fighters on 04 November 1939 in a level head-on attack against an incoming formation of IJANF G3M...

Did the weapon have overheat issues or stoppages?

Anyone know why some aircraft in WWII had spinners on their propeller hub yet some didn't. The P-51/P-40/P-39/BF-109/FW-190/Japanese aircraft did yet the P-47,P-36 & none of the Navy aircraft did? Was it simply the radial vs. inline engines sizes that provided the streamlining and efficiency...

I still stand by the key issue is what type of planes are you going up against and the experience of your pilot. If going up against a 4-engine bomber fleet, .303/.50 cal won't do the trick and you need 20 and 30mm. If you going up against a fighter force and twin engine light/medium bombers...

Recommend reading this article about a P-61 with 20mm and .50 cal's trying to take down a B-29 https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/splash1.pdf 8 x 303's aren't going to take down a B-17 or B-29 very easily while I agree completely 8 x 303's will do great against a LW...

Folks, my opinion depends on whether you are taking on a 4-engine bomber or a light/medium bomber/fighter. I want more lead heading down range to hit a Japanese or German fighter since they are maneuverable while I would want a 20mm for taking on a heavy bomber because it takes a lot less of...

I vote for the I-16. Terrible gun platform and while fast it was hard to handle for the pilot

Thanks for the feedback all. So the 14.5mm would be too large or barrel to long for a spinner mount in an in-line engine (e.g., DB or Merlin)? And the recoil would be too much for a wing mount...for example in a P-36?

I always wondered why the Russians skipped over the 14.5mm and went to the 12.7mm or 23mm for aircraft weapons. The 14.5mm has a very flat shot (as opposed to the way the 23mm arc'd) and it hit much harder than the 12.7mm. I realize the use of machine guns of the 7.5-7.9mm were very useful...

Thanks Jake and all the contributors. Hope everyone had a safe Remembrance and Veteran's Day. I was looking at the Osprey aircraft book on "P-36 hawk aces of WW2" and certainly noticed a different cowling between the PW and Wright engines especially from the Hawk 75A-4 (Cyclone engine).

Thanks all for the help. Good things to think about, especially the issue of different mounting brackets and the shaft/spline difference.

Good evening all and new member, I was wondering in any of you have insights about the issues with pre-WW2 and WW2 aircraft to upgrade engines within a series line or between PW 1830 and Wright 1820 engines. I have done some research on aircraft like the Northrop/Douglas A-17A and P-36 variant...