Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?
45-Shooter    2/14/2013 3:55:59 PM
Given the multiple lines of debate; B-17 Vs Lancaster Vs Mossy, I post the following question; To convert the B-17 from a day bomber into a night/streak bomber, remove the top, bottom and chin turrets, remove the waist and cheek guns and gunners, relocate the flight deck to just behind the bombadier's space so that there is onlythree or four crew! Install large spinners on the props and install a single 20 mm auto-cannon on a flexible "X" bow mount in the plexi nose. Reduction in frontal area, weight and increases in streamlinning make flight both much faster and much more efficient! Since there is room for four 4,000 pound MC bombs in the bomb bay, the shakles should be modified to hold those four heavy bombs if the larger shakle does not fit now. Otherwise eight 2,000 pound bombs should be the standard load. Given the 210-220 knot cruising speed of the Mossy required to make the placard range, the new faster B-17N/S should offer more of everything that makes the Mossy so neat?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
45-Shooter       7/8/2013 3:36:37 PM
And you think a jet conversion of the Spitfire, er... I mean Spiteful counts? While I freely admit that it was Post War, I hardly think it relevant! I also freely admit that the Spiteful is/was my favorite Spitfire variant! Particularly like the Counter Rotating Prop variants. PS. Where did they mount the guns on the Attacker's replacement?

And the Supermarine Attacker.



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/8/2013 4:13:19 PM
as they designed the F4 phantom without guns at all makes your argument worthless, plus by this era you physically couldn't get a cannon inside a supersonic jets wing, that and the move to 20mm rotary cannons made wing guns impractical not undesirable
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/8/2013 4:14:34 PM
you don't think I can believe that you make a statement and then try to weasel out when proved wrong
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       7/8/2013 6:05:09 PM

You do know that the Attacker only had a wing based on the Spiteful's? The rest was a clean sheet design.
It doesn't matter where the guns on the Swift, or any other fighter for that matter.
 
Your claim was that there were no post-war jets with wing mounted guns. Two have already been listed. Ergo, your typically absoloutist statement was wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/8/2013 9:50:21 PM
The guns in the Draken are mid-wing at the compound delta break, you incompetent.
 
But then you are too foolish to admit the truth.


Now the Swedish air force calls you foolish.












Something I found, the F4D-1 Skyray had its 4x 20mm mounted in the wings, this was a 50s design and yet used wing guns - something our friend shooter said had not happened





I was wrong! That makes it the only post war jet with wing mounted guns!




 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Faulty arguments.   7/10/2013 10:10:28 PM

Strange, the mere existence of the F-4D that you mentioned before has wing mounted guns puts the lie to this statement. that and the move to 20mm rotary cannons made wing guns impractical not undesirable
Given that nobody else went with the rotary Gatling gun, seems to make your argument fallacious at best?
 
 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Faulty arguments.   7/10/2013 10:17:55 PM


Again! For the purpose of this argument, wing mounted guns are those that require offset convergence to bring the cone of fire into coincidence with the Line of Sight in order to hit the target's fuselage! Certainly not applicable to the Draken, or Su-17/22's "Wing mounted guns"!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Faulty arguments.   7/10/2013 10:31:45 PM
First! Yes, I was wrong to make an absolutist statement about no post war jets having wing mounted guns. The F-4D was a certain example that never used the guns and they were subsequently removed making them superfluous. As to the Supermarine Attacker, it was an insignificant aircraft of no import. The RAF never used it for anything and the FAA sold them off as soon as they could. That those buyers had to keep them in service is not relevant because they lacked significant effect on the outcome of anything. I would argue that the wing mounted guns were one of the reasons why the Attacker never amounted to anything?

Operational history[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg/330px-Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg/330px-Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg/440px-Supermarine_Attcker_FB.2_WP290_ST812_1831_Sqn_STN_25.02.56_edited-2.jpg 2x" />
Supermarine Attacker.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Supermarine_Attacker.svg/450px-Supermarine_Attacker.svg.png" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Supermarine_Attacker.svg/450px-Supermarine_Attacker.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Supermarine_Attacker.svg/600px-Supermarine_Attacker.svg.png 2x" />

The Attacker had a brief career with the Fleet Air Arm, not seeing any action during its time with the FAA and being taken out of first-line service in 1954. It remained in service with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) for a little while longer, being taken out of service in early 1957. The Attacker was replaced in the front line squadrons by the later and more capable Hawker Sea Hawk and de Havilland Sea Venom. Between 1952 and 1953, 36 Attackers also served in the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) until the type was completely retired in the 1960s.


You do know that the Attacker only had a wing based on the Spiteful's? The rest was a clean sheet design. It doesn't matter where the guns on the Swift, or any other fighter for that matter. Your claim was that there were no post-war jets with wing mounted guns. Two have already been listed. Ergo, your typically absoloutist statement was wrong.


 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/11/2013 2:16:13 AM
Wrong i wrong. A=A. Putting a lampshade over it and lying about it calling it right, does no good. It makes you look stupid.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/11/2013 3:44:01 AM

Strange, the mere existence of the F-4D that you mentioned before has wing mounted guns puts the lie to this statement. that and the move to 20mm rotary cannons made wing guns impractical not undesirable
Given that nobody else went with the rotary Gatling gun, seems to make your argument fallacious at best?
 
given that every one else went with revolver cannon like the Aden which also wouldnt fit, sorry for assuming you had the intelligence to figure that out
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics