Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "Carthaginian" (Mar 7th 2008, 7:30pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Carthaginian
Version 3: mounts 3x37mm cannon in blister below fuselage*
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Commodore Green" (Mar 7th 2008, 2:27am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Commodore Green
Quoted
Originally posted by Carthaginian
Version 3: mounts 3x37mm cannon in blister below fuselage*
emmm, 3X37MM???????
3 x 20mm - yeah, no problem, given the size of the plane, but 3 x 37mm seems WAAAAY over the top!!
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Carthaginian" (Mar 7th 2008, 2:33am)
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Mar 7th 2008, 2:52am)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Carthaginian" (Mar 7th 2008, 2:55am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Carthaginian
Fine... would 2x37mm work, then?
We are talking about something the size of the de Havilland Mosquito here, which carried 4x20mm or 1x57mm and assorted light guns. I see no reason why at least 2x37mm couldn't fit space-wise.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
...it's not an issue of space, it's an issue of historicity.
The Mosquito didn't come out until 1941. With our three-year rule, that puts anything comparable at the 1938 mark.
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Carthaginian" (Mar 7th 2008, 3:06am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Commodore Green
I can't think of a single plane that carried 3 x 37mm (or similar) guns
Quoted
Originally posted by Commodore GreenAs brockpaine said, it's not about space, nor is it about weight, the plane can handle both; its just too much at this time.
Quoted
Originally posted by Carthaginian
Nor were there as many 350+mph fighter designs, or as many planes with as heavy a bomb load, or any of a number of other inconsistencies.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I'd be very surprised if 3 37mm guns would fit under a Pe-2 sized aircraft. Take a look at the Ju-88 P-2, which is about 50% heavier than the Pe-2, and really had only enough room for 2 37mm guns mounted side by side in a blister beneath the fuselage.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonI'm also kind of dubious about the choice of weapon: the 37mm, while it's big enough to damage a MTB pretty seriously, is too small to be very effective against anything larger. Against MTBs, the 20mm shells fired from the MG-FFs that Siam already has in service would do a LOT of damage, and would be more likely to get a hit than the relatively slow firing 37mm.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser KirkOn things like the 75mmHOW armed B-25, one has to be careful. While obviously feasible and it existed, it was the result of war experience, after they had tried other weapon suites... Yes they were real world, but they were in response to problems that have not quite shown themselves yet.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10You should at least have tried to hide those Russian markings like I did for the Ki-35 Fu...
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The engines probably aren't much of a problem: Siam already uses 1100 hp Jumo 211As on it's Fw-187s, and the 1200hp Jumo 211B became historically available in 1938. The top speed might be dubious, with a bulge to mount the gun(s), but the engine horsepower (assuming Siam is using something like the 211B, as seems likely) is OK.
Quoted
So I will focus on the stats given and note that you´ve stated an unrealistic HIGH SPEED. The Pe-2 was good for Vmax ~530km/h on two Klimow V-12-engines WK-105R a 1.225 PS and variable pitch propellors. Those 580km/h are hightly unrealistic and way too high.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH