Are cowl mounted synchronized guns worth the weight (vs wing mounted guns)

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by gjs238, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Sometimes wings may not be able to accommodate guns, or extra guns, so the synchronized cowl mount may be a necessary evil.
    But all things being equal, are cowl mounted synchronized guns worth the weight?
     
  2. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Cowl guns came first in WW I. Cowl guns provided easier access for the pilot to clear jams and were easier to aim. How much easier is subject to debate. The RAF never put the old Vickers gun in/under a wing, they started with Lewis guns and and shifted to Brownings.

    Once guns went to 12.7mm or bigger they were much harder to ****/charge by hand and proximity to the cockpit was much less important.

    There may be a pratical limit to how many guns you sychronize in the cowl also. Most I know if is four guns. Some countries used one sychronizer motor per gun, some may have used one motor for two guns?
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,006
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What weight increase do you have in mind? V-1710C/F was able to serve two synchronized guns for almost no weight penalty. IIRC the same was true for most (all?) of the other engines.
    IMO, the ability of a gun to fire fast (or fire at all) even synchronized was a subject to the 'was it worth to be synchronized' question. It was well worth for, mostly, German and Soviet guns; I'm talking about 12.7mm - 20mm guns here.
     
Loading...

Share This Page