gaiasabre11 - True the early Type 99s weren't that fast. However the 99-2 Model 5 had a rate of fire of ~700rpm. Given there was nothing particularly clever about the Mod5 (just a pair of big springs really) I can't see any reason it couldn't be changed earlier, as long as the RAF wanted it done (the Japanese were happy enough with the 99-1 for many years so didn't develop it at all till it was too late).
Given the much lighter weight of the FFL and lower muzzle velocity (even in Mod5 form) I don't think recoil is an issue - it's generally less powerful per shot and weighs less, that has to mean less recoil.
Duritz - As I read it the British position was 'If you insist on building planes, which we think is a bad idea by the way, build a British design'. I can see Britain would try and discourage any Australian developments but once it became apparent Australia was going to build planes regardless it seems the height of folly to stop any British firm from getting involved. That would be cutting of your nose to spite your face and surely London isn't that stupid?
Now if the Australian aim was export I can see why Britain wouldn't want to help, but please explain - who on earth did Australia think was going to buy the Wirraway?
Possibly, very possibly the RNZAF. But who else? The US wouldn't, obviously, equally the RAF would never touch it and I imagine sales to Japan are right out. The SAAF perhaps, but the SAAF was tiny pre-war so probably didn't need them. Canada? If they want a US design one from over the border has to be cheaper, and why wouldn't they try and build it themselves if they insisted on not buying British? The rest of the world? Surely they'd just buy the US design directly, why get the more expensive Aussie version (it will be more expensive, the production line is too short) not to mention the fact any purchase would annoy both the US and Britain (both would see it as a 'lost sale')
Perhaps the plan was to develop an export version, but unless I'm missing something it wasn't a good plan.
Sir Humphrey - Possibly, though would it be that much better than a 0.5 Vickers? Or anywhere near as good as a cannon? The big advantage of a cannon is the HE shell and even the RAF was aware of that in the late 1930s, I think it's inevitable so why not get on with it?
truth is life - While a 0.5 MG is obviously better than a .303, a cannon is better. Look at the constant struggles the US had with their version of the H-S 404 (The M1/M2/M3) - the USN wanted to go all cannon fairly early in the war as I understand, equally the USAAF wanted cannons for it's fighters.
The only problem was national pride didn't let them copy the British version and their own versions was horribly unreliable. Fortunately the US advantage in numbers was so great, and the 0.5 'good enough', it didn't matter. But everyone did agree cannons were the way to go.
It appears the whole Australian CAC issue is still not not solved (hell I'm sure there will be continuing debate over the next RAF cannon ) so the next update will be another 'shortish' one while people thrash this out, hopefully in this thread.
Given the much lighter weight of the FFL and lower muzzle velocity (even in Mod5 form) I don't think recoil is an issue - it's generally less powerful per shot and weighs less, that has to mean less recoil.
Duritz - As I read it the British position was 'If you insist on building planes, which we think is a bad idea by the way, build a British design'. I can see Britain would try and discourage any Australian developments but once it became apparent Australia was going to build planes regardless it seems the height of folly to stop any British firm from getting involved. That would be cutting of your nose to spite your face and surely London isn't that stupid?
Now if the Australian aim was export I can see why Britain wouldn't want to help, but please explain - who on earth did Australia think was going to buy the Wirraway?
Possibly, very possibly the RNZAF. But who else? The US wouldn't, obviously, equally the RAF would never touch it and I imagine sales to Japan are right out. The SAAF perhaps, but the SAAF was tiny pre-war so probably didn't need them. Canada? If they want a US design one from over the border has to be cheaper, and why wouldn't they try and build it themselves if they insisted on not buying British? The rest of the world? Surely they'd just buy the US design directly, why get the more expensive Aussie version (it will be more expensive, the production line is too short) not to mention the fact any purchase would annoy both the US and Britain (both would see it as a 'lost sale')
Perhaps the plan was to develop an export version, but unless I'm missing something it wasn't a good plan.
Sir Humphrey - Possibly, though would it be that much better than a 0.5 Vickers? Or anywhere near as good as a cannon? The big advantage of a cannon is the HE shell and even the RAF was aware of that in the late 1930s, I think it's inevitable so why not get on with it?
truth is life - While a 0.5 MG is obviously better than a .303, a cannon is better. Look at the constant struggles the US had with their version of the H-S 404 (The M1/M2/M3) - the USN wanted to go all cannon fairly early in the war as I understand, equally the USAAF wanted cannons for it's fighters.
The only problem was national pride didn't let them copy the British version and their own versions was horribly unreliable. Fortunately the US advantage in numbers was so great, and the 0.5 'good enough', it didn't matter. But everyone did agree cannons were the way to go.
It appears the whole Australian CAC issue is still not not solved (hell I'm sure there will be continuing debate over the next RAF cannon
) so the next update will be another 'shortish' one while people thrash this out, hopefully in this thread. - 1
