FN 50 Center Turrent
- Thread starter Micdrow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
genkideskan
Airman 1st Class
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks for the pics!
genkideskan
Airman 1st Class
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Nice images, that turret is asking for more firepower.
Do you think it's asking for less ammunition as well ?
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Maybe...more ammo of a heavier calibre.
with the extra weight of heavier guns at 11m from the verticle datum point, to maintain the CoG you'd definately need to reduce the number of rounds carried...
it's a trade off.. a ballancing act
You could of course keep the number of rounds the same and ballance the plane up by adding larger guns and ammo at the front, but with these being so much nearer the verticle datum point you'd also have to add large amount of ballast (lead weight) in the nose...
And although your plane would now be ballanced within acceptable parameters it's now a lot heavier, so reducing the amount of ordnance or fuel you can take.
Simon
it's a trade off.. a ballancing act
You could of course keep the number of rounds the same and ballance the plane up by adding larger guns and ammo at the front, but with these being so much nearer the verticle datum point you'd also have to add large amount of ballast (lead weight) in the nose...
And although your plane would now be ballanced within acceptable parameters it's now a lot heavier, so reducing the amount of ordnance or fuel you can take.
Simon
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Excuse me, I mean less ammo of a heavier calibre 
, like the .5 vickers or the .5 Browning.
, like the .5 vickers or the .5 Browning.
Well moving the turret further towards the datum point certainly reduces it's moment... I don't think tho that the 0.5in turret was moved 10ft... more 4ft...
I've heard it was moved forward for various reasons.... it's physical size is so much bigger than the 303 turret requiring greater fuselage width and also depth for the crew (if needing to use the loo) to crawl underneath.
Sometime this week if I get the chance I'll do the calcs and work out just how many rounds of .5" the Lanc could carry if they'd left the turret in the same position as the 303....
I've heard it was moved forward for various reasons.... it's physical size is so much bigger than the 303 turret requiring greater fuselage width and also depth for the crew (if needing to use the loo) to crawl underneath.
Sometime this week if I get the chance I'll do the calcs and work out just how many rounds of .5" the Lanc could carry if they'd left the turret in the same position as the 303....
propellerhead BF-109
Recruit
- 4
- Sep 28, 2007
Thats some beautiful turret engineering, id love to have one to play with.
Cheers for the awesome reference.
Cheers for the awesome reference.
Hello Gents,
Reading with interrest your information on the cannon armed Lancasters as I am researching my wife grandfather Sgt J Reid, a mid upper Lancaster gunner. He recalls testing a Lancaster cannon turret in 1943/44 and not liking it at all, too cramped and vibration problems. He cannot recall what Squadron he was with or where he was testing it (he's 88 years old) but believes it was in Lincolnshire. Can anyone help with details and or some photographs of the aircraft concerned?
Great site by the way.
Richardp
Reading with interrest your information on the cannon armed Lancasters as I am researching my wife grandfather Sgt J Reid, a mid upper Lancaster gunner. He recalls testing a Lancaster cannon turret in 1943/44 and not liking it at all, too cramped and vibration problems. He cannot recall what Squadron he was with or where he was testing it (he's 88 years old) but believes it was in Lincolnshire. Can anyone help with details and or some photographs of the aircraft concerned?
Great site by the way.
Richardp
Panzerfaust
Airman
nice pics comrade!8)
- Thread starter
- #16
Hi Richardp
Try reading this link, I beleive it has some of the info you are looking for.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/lancaster-turret-4834.html
Micdrow and Genkideskan, thank you for such wonderful pictures and, of course, the detailed drawing of the Avro Lancaster turrets and the weaponry. Fed on mostly a diet of Commando Comics with a few detailed drawings on the insides of the front and back pages, I always had a desire to see more of such technical marvels.
I have a few questions to ask. I do hope that you shall forgive me if I am asking naive ones to begin with.
How were the turrets powered? Were they hydraulically rotated? Or were there electrical motors which traversed the turret via a system of gears?
Were the machine guns driven by electricity as well? Or did they operate on a standard principle of automatic-fired guns which uses the exhaust gases from a fired cartridge and the blow-back, to load a fresh round and fire repeatedly?
What was the electrical system like for the weaponry to operate, as well as for the other aircraft systems?
Was glass used in the cupola of the turrets? If so, was such glass bullet-proof upto a degree (meaning able to sustain hits from a 0.5 calibure gun at a given range)?
As always, I remain indebted for your patience in replying to my questions.
I have a few questions to ask. I do hope that you shall forgive me if I am asking naive ones to begin with.
How were the turrets powered? Were they hydraulically rotated? Or were there electrical motors which traversed the turret via a system of gears?
Were the machine guns driven by electricity as well? Or did they operate on a standard principle of automatic-fired guns which uses the exhaust gases from a fired cartridge and the blow-back, to load a fresh round and fire repeatedly?
What was the electrical system like for the weaponry to operate, as well as for the other aircraft systems?
Was glass used in the cupola of the turrets? If so, was such glass bullet-proof upto a degree (meaning able to sustain hits from a 0.5 calibure gun at a given range)?
As always, I remain indebted for your patience in replying to my questions.
Bf109_g
Senior Airman
Hi xtberia,
The turrets were powered by the engines. If an engine got shot out or it was to be feathered, power to the turret stopped and then the gunner had to manually crank the turret using a handle.
The .303's were automatic, bullets being fired until pressure on the trigger was released, and it started again when pressure was applied to it.
I do not about the electrical systems for the weaponry, but a tough glass, called Perspex, was used for the turrets, cockpit and bomb-aimer's bowl.
Hope this helps you.
The turrets were powered by the engines. If an engine got shot out or it was to be feathered, power to the turret stopped and then the gunner had to manually crank the turret using a handle.
The .303's were automatic, bullets being fired until pressure on the trigger was released, and it started again when pressure was applied to it.
I do not about the electrical systems for the weaponry, but a tough glass, called Perspex, was used for the turrets, cockpit and bomb-aimer's bowl.
Hope this helps you.
