SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I just love that plane.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only 9 SBD-5 received and used for trials only in 1943/44 by both the FAA and RAF.
For someone like me not so up on the details, were there recognizable advantages/disadvantages regarding electrically-powered/hydraulically-powered turrets?
Oversimplifying and conveniently ignoring changes and developments in tech, but:
Hydraulic
+ ease of tracking/control
+ positive control at very low rates of movement
+ better at handling excessive torque loads
- much more vulnerable to damage
- much more servicing and reliability issues
Electric
+ better/more reliable performance over wide temperature ranges
+ tended to have higher speeds
- considerations re: capacity of aircraft's generators
A lot of us haven't drilled into it as a subject on it's own.Please forgive what may be ignorant questions, I've just never drilled into this.
This might help if you can track down a copy.If I'm reading this right, then, the electric turrets were too "snappy" and perhaps got away from the operators, while hydraulic turrets with slower speeds perhaps offered better gun-laying?
As for generators, wouldn't that also be an issue for engine-driven hydraulic pumps? After all, both are driven by engine PTOs, right?
Please forgive what may be ignorant questions, I've just never drilled into this.
This might help if you can track down a copy.
Amazon product ASIN 1852602236
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1852602236/
Volume 2 covered guns & gunsights.
Amazon product ASIN 1852604026
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1852604026/
Thank you for the correction.
I Knew that...........................once upon a time![]()
The GE Amplidyne control system allowed electric turrets to be as precise as hydraulic. The Martin upper turret used this system and was extraordinarily successful being utilized on a multitude of types (B-26, B-24, A-20, Baltimore, Ventura, Neptune, B-32) and continuing on to the post war.Oversimplifying and conveniently ignoring changes and developments in tech, but:
Hydraulic
+ ease of tracking/control
+ positive control at very low rates of movement
+ better at handling excessive torque loads
- much more vulnerable to damage
- much more servicing and reliability issues
Electric
+ better/more reliable performance over wide temperature ranges
+ tended to have higher speeds
- considerations re: capacity of aircraft's generators
Considering the Commonwealth was producing the Helldiver they could have easily made some for Britain.At least the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver reached squadron service with a single squadron, even if it never reached operational status. 450 ordered. 26 received.
Considering the Commonwealth was producing the Helldiver they could have easily made some for Britain.
The study I posted on US turrets gives much credit to the Brtish leading the wy in turret designInteresting snippet about the Amplidyne system, which was also applied on the Bendix Type A top turret fitted to the B-25. I can't say I know the history of US turret design and manufacture (thanks Reluctant Poster for the attachment), but I do know that US gun turret manufacturers benefitted enormously from a technology exchange with Britain in 1941. Examples of Boulton Paul and Nash & Thompson turrets were sent to Wright Field and manufacturers were quick to adopt British technology into their turrets, which by that stage had yet to yield anything that was suitable for service use. The biggest problem that turret designers had with their turrets was weight (!) and getting the actuation system right. The Bendix B-25 turret and the Martin Type 250 CE turret, one of the widest applied top turrets of the war and which saw installation in Canadian built Lancasters and was going to be fitted to Handley Page Halifaxes, took advantage of the Nash & Thompson design of hand controls redesigned by General Electric and adapted to suit the electrical control system via the amplidyne unit. The successful Martin 250 CE top turret showing its GE control yoke, Amplidyne control box and N-8 GGS.
View attachment 672575DSC_0221
Consolidated and Emerson applied the N&T control system to its B-24 end turrets, despite the Emerson ones being electrically driven, although the Consolidated turrets were hydraulically powered through ther aircraft's hydraulic system, like the N&T turrets. The Sperry Gyroscope Company took full advantage of the British technology, particularly the Boulton Paul Type T turret that was sent to the USA and the Sperry Type A-1 top turret fitted to B-17Es and Fs had a more than passing resemblance to the BP Type T turret and used its electro-hydraulic working gear. Sperry also applied this system of using a DC motor to drive the hydraulic system to power the turret in the Briggs-Sperry Ball Turret applied to B-17s and B-24s. Like the BP turrets, the ball turret was entirely self contained and didn't rely on the aircraft's hydraulic system. A Boulton Paul, sorry, Briggs-Sperry ball turret.
View attachment 672576DSC_0469
Its interesting to note that the first US bombers fitted with power operated turrets of the war were RAF LB-30s and Liberator Mk.IIs, the latter of which was specially built for the British, although the USAAF received Mk.IIs and designated them LB-30s. The Mk.II had a Boulton Paul Type A turret (as fitted to the Defiant and Halifax) aft of the wing spar and a Boulton Paul Type E tail turret, also fitted to the Halifax. The Type E turret also remained in use on some RAF Coastal Command Liberator GR variants, which, once US turrets became available generally replaced the British turrets on RAF B-24s, but not all. It was decided (by the Air Ministry?) that foreign types in RAF service would be fitted with Boulton Paul turrets, which included the Lockheed Hudsons and their distinctive BP top turrets, but also the Liberators and Douglas Bostons, which were also going to be fitted with BP turrets, but different types were trialled, including a Rose turret. The Bristol B.11 turret, which was originally designed for the not proceeded with Beaumont bomber, was intended on being fitted to Bostons, but might not have ever been fitted to one. To my knowledge the only fitting of this turret to an aircraft was the two prototype de Havilland Mosquito turret fighters. These British built turrets were originally intended for installation in Boston IIIs, but the Boston IV was delivered with the standard Martin 250 CE turret, and RAF Boston IIIs never went to war with power turrets.