Christmas photo competition
- Thread starter the lancaster kicks ass
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
evangilder
"Shooter"
R-2800
Senior Airman
nice pic! 
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
your 100% correct the powers to be have obviously decide to make a brand new casting to hold 2x303 and 1x 50 changing the equipment to compensate for the recoil difference 2 different supplies of ammo for gunner makes perfect sense to me
I'm an engineer... I work at Rolls Royce...I'm 42, so I'm not a fresh faced, which end of the screwdiver do I hold engineer.
I'm quite capable of understanding the effort that would go into creating such a hybrid.... however I'm also capable of understanding just how creative and adaptive some of our fitters are...
If you'll note the tone of text I used to start this hi-jack discission, it was of a pleasant nature, a could it be possible ?
Right now... I think you can stick your condescending attitude up you arse..
Simon
I'm quite capable of understanding the effort that would go into creating such a hybrid.... however I'm also capable of understanding just how creative and adaptive some of our fitters are...
If you'll note the tone of text I used to start this hi-jack discission, it was of a pleasant nature, a could it be possible ?
Right now... I think you can stick your condescending attitude up you arse..
Simon
Stuka-Pilot 44
Airman
- 10
- Dec 6, 2006
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
as an engineer one of the first things you would do is look at the physical dimensions and I believe the 303 was shorter then the 50 cal
Nice pic there.Ulez this is an airfield near Deblin ( as memory serves)
evangilder
"Shooter"
nice pic!
Cheers. It's one from last weekend.
Stuka-Pilot 44
Airman
- 10
- Dec 6, 2006
Thanks - I looked Ulez up on Google...find it's location (S.E. of Warsaw it's coat of arms).
It may be shorter but I do not think it is sawn off. For a start why would they shorten the barrel (and why put it with 2x303 when they could of had another 50). For me at least I see it as 2 303's that are looking like 1 gun because of the angle.
Has there not been enough evidence shown that this an incorrect view? This set up was never used on Lancaster's (either 4x303 or 2x50). It doesn't look like a "50 to me (wrong shape) and it doesn't make sense to me for the turret to have 1x50 and 2x303, yes more effective than the normal set up but it would also be a lot harder to use (different ballistics etc).
Has there not been enough evidence shown that this an incorrect view? This set up was never used on Lancaster's (either 4x303 or 2x50). It doesn't look like a "50 to me (wrong shape) and it doesn't make sense to me for the turret to have 1x50 and 2x303, yes more effective than the normal set up but it would also be a lot harder to use (different ballistics etc).
Gnomey would be right.
Take a close look. The photographer is standing on a platform or some other high object (back of a truck etc).
He is looking at the 3/4 rear view with the turret turned away from him.
This, combined with the natural tail sitting attitude of the aircraft would combine both barrels to appear as one.
NO Ordanance Officer would have allowed the modification of an F.N. style turret to contain a .50 cal on one side only. The tureret frame would not have handled the firing recoil.
Further the complete ammunition track system would have to be ripped out, and the C.G. of the aircraft re-established and trimmed.
Also, shortening of barrels is a major undertaking, not one that ever would have been approved, officialy or localy in any Squadron during that period.
The ONLY operational .50 cal turret was the Rose Rice. It was never fitted to 467 Sqn aircraft. And only contained 350 rounds per gun, stored in the base of the turret.
Take a close look. The photographer is standing on a platform or some other high object (back of a truck etc).
He is looking at the 3/4 rear view with the turret turned away from him.
This, combined with the natural tail sitting attitude of the aircraft would combine both barrels to appear as one.
NO Ordanance Officer would have allowed the modification of an F.N. style turret to contain a .50 cal on one side only. The tureret frame would not have handled the firing recoil.
Further the complete ammunition track system would have to be ripped out, and the C.G. of the aircraft re-established and trimmed.
Also, shortening of barrels is a major undertaking, not one that ever would have been approved, officialy or localy in any Squadron during that period.
The ONLY operational .50 cal turret was the Rose Rice. It was never fitted to 467 Sqn aircraft. And only contained 350 rounds per gun, stored in the base of the turret.
I've gota agree the engineering work is a challenge but not insurmoutable for experience RAF ground crew...
Whether the photographers standing on a truck bed ?
Well if the 2 barrels are 30degs from each other and how far away from the plane is the photograher ?... well the tractor and bomb gives some size to it... so I'd say 11meters...
That means to get the 2 near barrels to align you'd need to be a lot further up in the air than on a back of a truck...
Anyway I'll let it drop now....
Simon
Whether the photographers standing on a truck bed ?
Well if the 2 barrels are 30degs from each other and how far away from the plane is the photograher ?... well the tractor and bomb gives some size to it... so I'd say 11meters...
That means to get the 2 near barrels to align you'd need to be a lot further up in the air than on a back of a truck...
Anyway I'll let it drop now....
Simon
- Thread starter
- #215
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
guys guys this's supposed to be a fun festive thread! congrats to the guys still posting pictures, everytime i see the santa on the nose it cracks me up!
and RE the guns, the barrel on the near side is very thick yes? this is because there are two barrels, one is not completely obscuring the other infact you can still see the second and this is why it has such a thick apperancei'm trying to explain it only in terms of the picture because you're obviously not being convinced by the technical arguments, that being said this is my thread and if you wish to discuss this further you will take it to annother thread ok?
and RE the guns, the barrel on the near side is very thick yes? this is because there are two barrels, one is not completely obscuring the other infact you can still see the second and this is why it has such a thick apperancei'm trying to explain it only in terms of the picture because you're obviously not being convinced by the technical arguments, that being said this is my thread and if you wish to discuss this further you will take it to annother thread ok?
If you read the post above yours you'll see I've droped it...
whatever..... just trying to have a conversation...
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
R-2800
Senior Airman
love the Santa on the deck!
- Status
