WWII aircraft armament

[gagenater]

A wing spar is just the name for the frame members running from fuselage to wing tip. A stronger or more resilient wing spar is definitely an advantage, and various designs were used, with I-beam style caps and webs with holes to save weight, tubular designs, and various other ideas which were mostly tried and quickly abandoned.

There are also a bunch of different methods and materials for supporting the primary spars with cross bracing, shaped member sections, etc. Even in modern aircraft the exact shape and construction of the wing is one of the most complex and challenging areas to figure ou for any given aircraft. Look up 'Boeing 787 wing design' on google if you want to learn WAY more about the subject than you desire.

 

[Acheron]

And in WWII, you had to design wings big enough to carry weapons, unless you moved all the guns to the fuselage, which also made aiming easier, so I suppose it had its own set of issues?

 

[Jopa79]

A wing spar is just the name for the frame members running from fuselage to wing tip. A stronger or more resilient wing spar is definitely an advantage, and various designs were used, with I-beam style caps and webs with holes to save weight, tubular designs, and various other ideas which were mostly tried and quickly abandoned.

There are also a bunch of different methods and materials for supporting the primary spars with cross bracing, shaped member sections, etc. Even in modern aircraft the exact shape and construction of the wing is one of the most complex and challenging areas to figure ou for any given aircraft. Look up 'Boeing 787 wing design' on google if you want to learn WAY more about the subject than you desire.

Got it! Thank you guys!

 

[Jopa79]

And in WWII, you had to design wings big enough to carry weapons, unless you moved all the guns to the fuselage, which also made aiming easier, so I suppose it had its own set of issues?

I guess one thing was the pacemaker to synchronize the weapons not to shoot the propeller into pieces But didn't they invent it already in WWI?

 

[gagenater]

I guess one thing was the pacemaker to synchronize the weapons not to shoot the propeller into pieces But didn't they invent it already in WWI?

The problem with fuselage mounted weapons in WWII is space. The fuselage forward cross section isn’t that large and each cannon barrel sticking in it has a MUCH larger breech mechanism feed system and ammunition supply. This competes for space with the engine. The bigger the fuselage cross section is, the slower the plane will be which is very very bad for combat aircraft, so you can’t get all the weapons into the fuselage unless you are willing to accept severe limits on the aircrafts firepower.

 

[Jopa79]

The problem with fuselage mounted weapons in WWII is space. The fuselage forward cross section isn’t that large and each cannon barrel sticking in it has a MUCH larger breech mechanism feed system and ammunition supply. This competes for space with the engine. The bigger the fuselage cross section is, the slower the plane will be which is very very bad for combat aircraft, so you can’t get all the weapons into the fuselage unless you are willing to accept severe limits on the aircrafts firepower.

I agree. When writing I was just thinking fighter aircraft and the only thing I could imagine on a fighter fuselage was the nose of the plane, it's still a part of the fuselage, isn't it? But absolutely, your respond is much more accurate.

 

[gagenater]

I agree. When writing I was just thinking fighter aircraft and the only thing I could imagine on a fighter fuselage was the nose of the plane, it's still a part of the fuselage, isn't it? But absolutely, your respond is much more accurate.

The nose is just the forward portion of the fuselage. In single engines propeller planes the nose contains the engine and the propellor. It’s not until jet aircraft came about that the ‘nose’ became a space available for other uses. Briefly in the early 50’s heavy gun arrays were mounted in the nose of jet aircraft. Then within 5 years that space became THE critical spot to place the radar arrays of the plane, and so once again became mostly off limits for offensive armaments.

 

[Jopa79]

It’s not until jet aircraft came about that the ‘nose’ became a space available for other uses.

Well, is this an argument of which section is considered as 'a nose' and which is not. At least Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Me 262 had guns or cannons very near the nose on cowlings, in the frontial part of the fuselage on the top of it and in Bf 109 the armament was synchronized by the pacemaker to shoot over the top of the propeller.

 

[gagenater]

Well, is this an argument of which section is considered as 'a nose' and which is not. At least Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Me 262 had guns or cannons very near the nose on cowlings, in the frontial part of the fuselage on the top of it and in Bf 109 the armament was synchronized by the pacemaker to shoot over the top of the propeller.

Yes it was very common to do this in the WWII era. Just the number of guns was limited. 2-4 cannons can be mounted in the nose/fuselage front. Wing mounting instead can easily add 8 -12 guns. Wing mounts are also more practical for bombs rockets and fuel drop tanks, all of which require a sturdy wing to mount on to.

 

[Acheron]

Where aerodynamics also a factor? Once the wing is big enough to fit guns, I would imagine their addition not worsening the aerodynamics much, but if space constraints of the fuselage forces you to add bumps or pods...

 

[Kovax]

Where aerodynamics also a factor? Once the wing is big enough to fit guns, I would imagine their addition not worsening the aerodynamics much, but if space constraints of the fuselage forces you to add bumps or pods...

I've seen pictures of wings with "bumps" to fit the gun mechanisms into a relatively thin wing profile in as aerodynamic a way as possible, plus you've got the ejection ports for spent cartridges, and so on. It's not horrible, but there is usually some slight additional drag. Getting the guns to fit through the spars and braces without compromising the strength of the wing is another matter.

Putting guns in the fuselage is a completely different problem. The guns are generally fairly long, and either have to fit around and tightly close to the engine, and without encroaching on the cockpit, or else they increase the cross-section of the fuselage, increasing drag considerably. One alternative answer was to go with a twin-engine fighter (P-38, Me110, etc.), so the guns have no competition for room in the nose.

 

[Jopa79]

Putting guns in the fuselage is a completely different problem. The guns are generally fairly long, and either have to fit around and tightly close to the engine, and without encroaching on the cockpit, or else they increase the cross-section of the fuselage, increasing drag considerably. One alternative answer was to go with a twin-engine fighter (P-38, Me110, etc.), so the guns have no competition for room in the nose.

Yes! Of course! The twin-engine fighters...how I didn't recall these. There is the solution for 'nosegun' aircraft before the jet fighters.

 

[Henry IX]

Yes! Of course! The twin-engine fighters...how I didn't recall these. There is the solution for 'nosegun' aircraft before the jet fighters.

Sadly, twin engine fighters are notably inferior to single engine fighters in manoeuvrability, and so tend to lose in dogfights.

However, they are much better candidates for destroying bombers due to their ability to carry heavier guns and more sophisticated radars. Bf-110, in particular, was the mainstay of German night fighting aircraft due to these factors.

 

[Acheron]

The Do335 probably wouldn't have had the problem of inferiority to single-engine fighters, but definitely wouldn't have had extra room in the nose for guns. Interesting aircraft though IMHO.

 

[kaoss]

Another approach was the P-39. Engine placed behind the cockpit, so the nose could have space for a 37mm cannon.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

and so tend to lose in dogfights.

Dogfighting was however phased out during ww2.No plane could hold a candle to the Japanese Zero in dogfighting capability bar the Japanese Oscar maybe.Even in 1944 when the zero really been outdated green US pilots got shot down when atempting to dogfight those in superior aircraft.

The German ME 110 first and foremost failed because it was to slow in its escort role. Being glued to its bombers and being not exactly nimble only added to its problems. It perfomed quite good early war when it was faster than enemy fighters.

Speed and rugedness been decisive in combination with armament.

 

[gagenater]

Another approach was the P-39. Engine placed behind the cockpit, so the nose could have space for a 37mm cannon.

This introduced a different problem though. Finding a way to jam the giant cannon into the aircraft along with the shaft and additional equipment to reasonably utilize a mid engine placement meant that there was no aerodynamically reasonable way to incorporate a large multistage turbocharger into the design. Without a large multistage turbocharger the P-39 had no possible way to compete with other fighters or even bombers at medium or high altitude.

This meant that except for limited circumstances early in the war, and where enemy aircraft were primarily conducting ground support the P-39 was not capable of engaging enemy aircraft in combat.

TLDR: the design trade offs in the P39 meant that in practice it was a ground attack plane with sufficient ability the ability to defend itself at low altitudes. It was NOT a general purpose fighter aircraft.

 

[Henry IX]

Dogfighting was however phased out during ww2.No plane could hold a candle to the Japanese Zero in dogfighting capability bar the Japanese Oscar maybe.Even in 1944 when the zero really been outdated green US pilots got shot down when atempting to dogfight those in superior aircraft.

The German ME 110 first and foremost failed because it was to slow in its escort role. Being glued to its bombers and being not exactly nimble only added to its problems. It perfomed quite good early war when it was faster than enemy fighters.

Speed and rugedness been decisive in combination with armament.

I mostly agree - speed, ruggedness and armament are more important than manoeuvrability alone. However, when other factors are similar manoeuvrability can be decisive in an engagement (at least prior to the advent of guided missiles). As a simple illustration, the spitfire was superior to the Me-109 even though it was (slightly) slower and had weaker armament. Some of this was due to the advantages of not escorting bombers, but also there was a real and ongoing advantage even when the RAF started operating over France. Much of this advantage was due to the superior manoeuvrability of the spitfire.

In comparison the Zero, at least by 1942, was slower, much less well armed and very vulnerable when compared to the American fighters as well as having a lower ceiling. Its superior manoeuvrability did not matter when the Americans could simply shoot it down from the front and fly away if the Zero managed to get on its tail. Manoeuvrability was not the only important factor, but it was an important factor.

 

[Acheron]

As a simple illustration, the spitfire was superior to the Me-109

Isn't that contentious or did I miss any development in public opinion?

 

[Dina1954]

I mostly agree - speed, ruggedness and armament are more important than manoeuvrability alone. However, when other factors are similar manoeuvrability can be decisive in an engagement (at least prior to the advent of guided missiles). As a simple illustration, the spitfire was superior to the Me-109 even though it was (slightly) slower and had weaker armament. Some of this was due to the advantages of not escorting bombers, but also there was a real and ongoing advantage even when the RAF started operating over France. Much of this advantage was due to the superior manoeuvrability of the spitfire.

In comparison the Zero, at least by 1942, was slower, much less well armed and very vulnerable when compared to the American fighters as well as having a lower ceiling. Its superior manoeuvrability did not matter when the Americans could simply shoot it down from the front and fly away if the Zero managed to get on its tail. Manoeuvrability was not the only important factor, but it was an important factor.

Well the fact is when RAF started operating over France in 1941 they surprised Luftwaffe in Juni. After that from July 41 to the end of the year RAF lost 411 fighters mostly spitfires against 103 German fighters.The year 1942 was not better RAF lost 900 fighters against 113 German fighters.