- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,833
- Reaction score
- 1,915
If I may iversion, I think as much as it was a nicety to have these underwing pylons for the employment of additional offensive weapons and drop tanks, the Swiss doctrine called for the quickest turn around time, with the best STOL performance.I've attached a set of drawings of the P.16 that I did a few years ago.
I've always be puzzled by the retractable rocket pack. The 80-mm SURA rocket was carried under the wings for anti-tank use and it had a pair of 30-mm HS.825 cannon. here were plenty of hard points for rocket pods, if the 68-mm SNEB was felt necessary. So why add the weight, complexity, and drag of a retractable launcher restricted to the smaller caliber rockets? I'd have thought that the space and weight could have been used better for some combination of armor, extra fuel, and/or extra gun ammunition.
As much as you state the 'retractable rocket launcher equates to weight, complexity, and drag', my analysis is that on take off the P.16, with its retracted rocket launcher is very clean - hence inducing far less drag than that if it had external weapons, which equates to take off performance. Also as the P.16 was prodomantly designed with the intention of CAS/tank killing, the retractable rocket launcher is strategically designed to be on the aircraft's centreline - improving its line-of-sight onto target aka minimising the spread of rockets. A spread that is far wider if the same rockets were launched from wing pylons.
I'm thinking the Swiss analogy was the same as that utilised in the specification derived many years later in the USAF 'AX' program and the stipulation that the GAU-8/A cannon had to be positioned on the aircraft's centreline, to maximise 'point and shoot' (this concept itself was derived from both Allied and German combat experience).
I also think the Swiss might have thought the P.16's survival rate was higher if it flew its assigned mission and immediately returned to its mountain HAS to be rearmed and refuelled, as opposed to being exposed whilst loitering over the battlefield who's air superiority wasn't guaranteed or more likely gained by the adversary.
Well, that's my analogy of the P.16 design.
Regards
Pioneer
Last edited: