View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old April 21st, 2008, 02:42 PM
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 3,071
T. A. Gardner is just really niceT. A. Gardner is just really niceT. A. Gardner is just really niceT. A. Gardner is just really niceT. A. Gardner is just really niceT. A. Gardner is just really nice
Default Re: Engineering a better / worse airplane

Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_bolan00 View Post
why didn't they (americans) ever consider explosive cannon shells for single-engined fighters?
The US did. The weapon of choice was frequently one of the 37mm cannon variants they had in production. These were generally not used due to their propensity to jam and their weight. The other issue was their small ammunition supply which was regarded as inadequite. The .50 cal on the other hand was perfectly adequite for the types of aircraft the US was encountering so it was retained in service.
There were a few USN/USMC aircraft that were fitted with 20mm cannon instead of .50 machineguns. These were primarily nightfighter variants of the F6F and F4U. Here the greater deadliness of the 20mm was considered necessary due to the likelihood of scoring fewer hits at night using radar to target an enemy aircraft.
__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!
Reply With Quote