FN 50 Center Turrent

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Micdrow

“Archive”
10,525
3,866
Aug 21, 2006
Wisconsin
FN 50 Center Turret for a British Lancaster. I'm sure one of our ammo experts can explain more about it.

Enjoy Micdrow
 

Attachments

  • British top turrent.JPG
    British top turrent.JPG
    192.2 KB · Views: 785
Here are some more pics from the inside
 

Attachments

  • 08.jpg
    08.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 675
  • 07.jpg
    07.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 668
  • 06.jpg
    06.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 700
  • 04.jpg
    04.jpg
    101.5 KB · Views: 672
  • 03.jpg
    03.jpg
    80 KB · Views: 675
  • 14.jpg
    14.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 668
  • 12.jpg
    12.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 663
  • 11.jpg
    11.jpg
    87.9 KB · Views: 657
  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 649
  • 09.jpg
    09.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 670
  • 15.jpg
    15.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 653
  • 18.jpg
    18.jpg
    119 KB · Views: 642
  • 39.jpg
    39.jpg
    66.4 KB · Views: 628
  • 20.jpg
    20.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 643
  • 26.jpg
    26.jpg
    57.1 KB · Views: 633
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
 
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

Um. Would that be why the Martin .50 turret in the Canadian built Lancs was 10 feet forward of the FN turret and carried less rounds.

In The Fire Brigade we tend to say...

It is a shyte load heavier, move it forward. :rolleyes:
 
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....
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back