Mustang1971

My Feedback: (30)

oops, thanks for the correction. Actually I got it all screwed up! The C.200 was the "lightning", the C.202 was the "thunderbolt", and as we now know the C.205 was the "greyhound"

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

he was saying the MC-2005 not the RG. which was a different mfg.

thanks bob

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

What is the MC-2005?

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

The MC stands for Mario Castoldi. They usually leave the M off and call it the C.205 The RE I think stands for Caproni-Reggiane. I have some color drawings of RE-2000 and 2001 and 2002 and 2005 .

thanks bob

Launch Pad McQuack

Ok here you go guys.

What 5 US aircraft that flew during WW2 were designed from the outset or redesigned to carry the T9E1 75mm cannon.

800mZero

My Feedback: (2)

B-25 H, B-25 G, A-26B theres three of em

Launch Pad McQuack

No there are 5 distinct airframes. I am not counting variants of the same model. So you have 2 the B-25 and the A-26.

Will start dropping hints later if need be.

800mZero

My Feedback: (2)

XA-38 Grizzly, and XP-58 Chain Lightning were others.

Launch Pad McQuack

800mZero has got you guys 4 out of the 5 now.

800mZero

My Feedback: (2)

and i am at a lost for the 5thtalk about a needle in a haystack!

Launch Pad McQuack

Will give you a hint. The question was "designed or redesigned".

The B-25 and A-26 were both redesigned to carry the 75mm and the only ones to carry it in combat.

The other 3 were designed from the out set to carry it but never saw combat. You have 2 the XA-38 and the XP-58.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

XP-67 Moonbat is the final one.

800mZero

My Feedback: (2)

the moon bat had 4 37 mm

the XP-71 was designed for it!

G-Pete

I see you guys had your coffee already hehehe, 800zero and evil merlin should have by now 8 foot of snow - no wonder they are online...

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

We didn't get hit too badly yesterday; but this snow thing has us all bottled up. Thanks; Ernie P.

800mZero

My Feedback: (2)

actually not that bad! about 4 inches.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

We had about eight inches, but I had it all shoveled out by 2:00 PM. Then the wind blew it all back again. I had five inches in my driveway in spots this morning. Bah! Thanks; Ernie P.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

8 feet? Not even close. For hours the weather "gurus" claimed we were going to get hammered with snow.

When all was said and done we had barely ONE inch... and it blew around a lot...

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

The Moonbat also had a version that was to carry this massive cannon... but yes, the "stock" version was six 37mm cannon with 45rpg.

Launch Pad McQuack

Evil is correct the XP-67 Moonbat is the last one. The XP-67 and the XP-58 were both intended on using the 75mm but neither prototype ever had it installed. The XA-38 had it installed and even went threw testing on the gun ranges with it. The A-26 and B-25 both saw service with it. However the A-26 saw limited service with the75mm . For the most part the B-25 saw the most action with it. However the pilots were not a big fan of it since it was hard to be accurate with it. That was one of the main driving purposes behind theXA-38 Grizzly. Military planners wanted to come up with a dedicated aircraft that could accurately employ the 75mm. It showed considerable improvement over the B-25 in accuracy and was far superior in overall performance. The XA-38 would have gone into production except it came late in the war. It used the same Wright R3350 power plant as the B-29. War planners felt B-29 production was more important and the need for a heavy gun platform was not seen as so critical this late in the war. The XP-71 was designed for it but never got off paper to the prototype stage. So Evil would be back up again.

XA-38 has always been a favorite of mine which is what brought this question up. It is actually going to be my winter project for next year.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Why did most fighters in WW2 have a wingspan of 30 to 40 feet, with most falling around 33-35 feet?

Launch Pad McQuack

This is just a guess. But I would speculate it had to do with the weapons carried in the wing. The guns dictated a certain cord length to house them. With an optimum aspect ratio for the wing the cord would then have dictated the 30'-40' wingspan.

jharkin

My Feedback: (2)

I'm going to take a guess...
We know that most nations had developed aircrraft engines within roughly the same power range of 1000-1200 early on up to 2000hp by wars end, and assuming that any given designer is working with that general power level available and targeting the same general performance envelope - they are going to come up with a similar target loaded weight and wing area needed.

Now if we assume similar wing areas and a fairly narrow range of optimum aspect ratios to get that needed wing area you would naturally end up wingspans within a fairly narrow range.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Nope.

Going back to the 20's when we were still in biplanes, most weapons were fuse mounted... yet the wingspans were still 30-40 feet for the most part.

glasscock

Because of the widths of aircraft carriers' runways, and for optimum storage capacity.

DG