Is early Griffon engine too boring and tedious?

Just Leo

Just for fun, the Super-Wimpy, powered by Griffon 60s, armed with 8 .50s, introducing the dorsal turret that never was.

Wimpy.png
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Nifty!

The addition of the dorsal turret reminded me to ask: which tail configuration was easier for dorsal gunners - single tall tail fin, or shorter twin fins, or neither....?
 

Just Leo

Driftless said:
Nifty!

The addition of the dorsal turret reminded me to ask: which tail configuration was easier for dorsal gunners - single tall tail fin, or shorter twin fins, or neither....?
Click to expand...

In the presence of a tail turret, the dorsal handles beam attacks. If the dorsal position is assigned to handle the six o'clock, as per Hampden and Amiot 350, the twin fin was preferred. Some French aircraft mounted Hispano cannons in a flexible dorsal position for rear coverage, but they were unable to counter beam attacks. The problem arises that an attacker isn't limited to attack from any particular location and will probably choose an attack best suited to avoid the defender's strength, whatever the layout, including the vertical. Even the YB-40 wasn't impregnable.
 

Just Leo

Griffon/Fulmar

Fulmar, even with 20% reduced range, would have made a fine multi-role aircraft, even without the defensive gun arrangement, so that the redio operator wouldn't get bored.

griffonFulmar.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top