what is it....new game.

[Soviet Ace]

I-16!!!!!!

[Gilly]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

I-16!!!!!!

And I thought they didn't have guns in the wings Soviet!!!! Yep it is!

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Gilly

And I thought they didn't have guns in the wings Soviet!!!! Yep it is!

They did (later models) but like the FW, were inboard, rather than so far out to give them better roll. But I don't think the guns aren't properly positioned in that picture, as they would be in a real wartime I-16... mainly because if you look at pictures and stuff from WW2 you see that the wing cannons are much closer to the fuselage than that. (I'm not sure why they'd move them though?)

EDIT: Just learned why they had them out so far. Because it put less vibrations on the pilot.

[Gilly]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

They did (later models) but like the FW, were inboard, rather than so far out to give them better roll. But I don't think the guns aren't properly positioned in that picture, as they would be in a real wartime I-16... mainly because if you look at pictures and stuff from WW2 you see that the wing cannons are much closer to the fuselage than that. (I'm
not sure why they'd move them though?)

I was just looking through the duxford pics the other night and noticed them sticking out. In guessing they've been either moved of position there for aesthetic reasons although they look as if they'd only just clear either side of the prop

Here's the full pic

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by Gilly

I was just looking through the duxford pics the other night and noticed them sticking out. In guessing they've been either moved of position there for aesthetic reasons although they look as if they'd only just clear either side of the prop

I think prop clearance would be the main reason for putting guns farther out in the wings. There also might be other things like fuel tanks, landing gear, wing structure or ammo bays to consider. No such thing as free lunch.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Gilly

Sadly i was defeated within 5 minutes by our resident i16 expert!!

Originally Posted by flynlion

I think prop clearance would be the main reason for putting guns farther out in the wings. There also might be other things like fuel tanks, landing gear, wing structure or ammo bays to consider. No such thing as free lunch.

That's possible, but on the original I-16s, the cannons or machine-guns on the wings were really tight against the fuselage (kinda placed where the FWs were) and they were much farther in barrel wise (not so elongated like they are in the picture). So being hit or hitting the prop wouldn't be an issue if they'd kept them farther in like they had during WW2.

Also, I-16s shouldn't and never had fuel takes in the wings because that'd add weight in their rolling which would be bad since that and turning sharp is all they pretty much had going for them later on. Usually their spare fuel tank was behind the pilot, or not at all and they just had the main tank.

[bobbysocks]

soviet, what kind of MGs were these? make/model?? they have the gas tube extended beyond the leading edge...very interesting. almost looks like a modified dshk...

[flynlion]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

That's possible, but on the original I-16s, the cannons or machine-guns on the wings were really tight against the fuselage (kinda placed where the FWs were) and they were much farther in barrel wise (not so elongated like they are in the picture). So being hit or hitting the prop wouldn't be an issue if they'd kept them farther in like they had during WW2.

Also, I-16s shouldn't and never had fuel takes in the wings because that'd add weight in their rolling which would be bad since that and turning sharp is all they pretty much had going for them later on. Usually their spare fuel tank was behind the pilot, or not at all and they just had the main tank.

My comment on prop clearance had more to do with line of fire shooting through the propellor disc than gun barrel length. Given the Soviet military's belief in the philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) I would imagine that they would avoid using complex gun syncronization if they could. Most US fighters carried their guns in the wings, but roll rate was considered less important in US designs. US fighters also carried fuel in vertually every nook and cranny that was available, and a significant part of the pilot workload was involved in managing the weight and balance of this fuel.