• Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.

    Enjoy.

Red Tail Reborn

jack Bacon

Donation Time
If you are ever in the Waukesha, Wisconsin area, stop at the Waukesha airport to see the Lockheed PV-2D Harpoon Bomber being restored by the Waukesha Wing of the CAF. It has been in their hangar for about 22 years and is nearing completion after several botched attempts at restoration. This plane was stationed in the Aleutian Islands. Just talk to the airport information offficer about finding their hangar.

During my visit several years ago, they had just received the two Pratt & Whiteney 2800 engines back from being overhauled at $30,000 each. The plane was in great shape and the restoration was progressing quite nicely. An interesting note-the plane's nine .50 cal guns have to be registered with the FBI every year!

Regards,

Jack
 

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
Nick, I think the US stayed with the .50 due to its higher firing rate. The Air Force Museum at Wright Pat has a poster demonstrating the effect of the faster rate. Unless the pilot is close to the 6 o'clock, it is possible to fly though the 20mm shells without a hit, especially at the jet fighter speeds. Not so with the .50's.

By the way, if you've never been to the Air Force Museum, it is well worth the effort. You'd probably spend a couple of days there, no problem.

Bill
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
Jack: did you mean .50 (i.e. .5 inch), not 50mm? 50mm - 2" - is approching light field artillery size. The largest caliber on aircraft (other than experimental oddballs) that I'm aware of is 40mm, used for tank-busting. E.g., Hurricane IID in Libya. The guns are in underwing gondolas, something the Germans did with 30mm cannon on their Me109G and Fw190:

Hurricane.jpg


Bill: true, as far as it goes. However, one or two hits by a 20mm explosive shell is often enough to bring down a fighter, where you need to drill lots of holes with a m/g to get the same effect. And that is even truer against bombers, especially when the Germans started armoring vital spots like engines and pilot seat backs. In the Pacific, against Jap aircraft with no armor or self-sealing tanks I can see the rationale, but not in Europe. The extension of the theory, that multiple m/gs are more logical because of the limited time in combat that a target will be in a fighter's sights, can be reversed, using the same logic. How long can you "hose" another fighter with m/g fire in a dogfight, vs what are the chances of making one fatal 20mm hit.

The other argument is that the average fighter pilot was not a marksman in WWII, especially in the desperate days of 1939-1940 when thousands of young men were hastily trained and shoved into battle (it wasn't uncommon for them to have fewer than 10 hours on a Spitfire or Hurricane) and had all their work cut out to fly and keep in formation. There was absolutley no time for aerial target practice, so virtually none of these pilots could accurately estimate the "lead," or angle to aim ahead of an enemy plane in a turn. Thus the "spray and pray" 8 X .303 m/gs of the Spit and Hurri (and later 12 on the Hurri).

By 1941 the Spitfire armament had been changed to 4 X .303 m/g and 2 X 20mm cannon. Aerial practice against towed targets was a part of fighter pilot training by now, and the theory was that the combination gave the best chance of a kill. The only fly in the ointment was that the two guns had different trajectories, making aiming tougher.

Speaking of different trajectories; the Bell P39 Airacobra had possibly the most bizarre armament - three different guns - .30 and .50 m/g and a 37mm cannon!

Airacobra.jpg


By 1944 the Germans were arming some bomber zerstoerer (bomber destroyer) fighters with 30mm cannon, each having a round four times the weight and explosive power of the 20mm. The Me262 had four of these massive guns. The US finally woke up midway through the Korean War and started arming fighters with up to 6 X 20mm. And any advantage of multiple m/gs disappeared with the advent of the multi-barrel rotating cannon.

It should be mentioned that the art of aerial combat marksmanship was also revolutionized by the German Revi and the British K-14 gyro computing gunsights. In his book I Flew for the Fuhrer, German multiple ace Heinz Knoke says gleefully: "With the new Revi sight it was virtually impossible to miss!"

With the British K-14, the pilot only had to feed the wingspan of the enemy plane into the sight (they were pre-set for the ones likely to be met, such as Me109 and Fw190) and the lead angle, the hardest factor for the average pilot to estimate in a turning battle, was automatically computed by the sight. The wingspan was set by a rotating grip on the throttle, eliminating the need for the pilot to take his hands off this crucial control. All the pilot had to do was keep the target within a projected circle formed by six diamond shaped spots of light, the K-14 did the rest.

Aerial combat was revolutionized overnight. Average fighter pilots achieved five times as many hits with the K-14 compared with conventional optical and reflector sights. Although you will find it hard to discover any reference to this in USAF histories, the Brits turned over the engineering drawings and specs to the US in June 1944. Typical Yankee "know-how" had them manufacturing the K-14 and getting them to USAF squadrons by late the same summer. The computing gunsights of modern jets are essentially improvements of the K-14.

P.S. The answer to my trivia question: The night-fighter version of the Corsair, the F4U-5, was armed with 4 X 20mm cannon.
 

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
Nick, I didn't say it was a wise choice, only that is probably what influenced the decision. I think they were simply playing the numbers game. After all, a hit by a 50 will do more damage than a miss by a 20! Besides they had all that beautiful tooling for the 50, already spitting out as many guns as they could use.

Bill
 

husky drvr

Platinum Level Sponsor
Nick, I didn't say it was a wise choice, only that is probably what influenced the decision. I think they were simply playing the numbers game. After all, a hit by a 50 will do more damage than a miss by a 20! Besides they had all that beautiful tooling for the 50, already spitting out as many guns as they could use.

Bill


As Bill says, another factor to consider would be that with the .50 BMG the plane could carry more rounds of ammo than with the 20 mm cannons ( P51D carried a total of 1880 rounds for its six guns > loaded 270 - 270 - 400 -/\- 400 - 270 - 270 or when when equipped for ground attack with four guns with 400 rounds each ). The early HS 404 cannons only had 64 round drums. I was not successful in finding ammo loads for later versions. I think running out of ammo only half way to the target on a bomber escort mission would be a bit uncomfortable. :eek:

I am speculating but I would say that the thought process in choosing armament involved the likely targets to be encountered. Fighter against bomber > use the cannons where the fighter could pretty well stand off out of range of the bomber's defensive weapons and just lob those big heavy effective cannon shells in to take out the bomber. Fighter against fighter > use the .50 because you would have more chances to connect with a fast, close in, not particularly hard ( ARMORED ) target.

The .50 proved itself in the ground attack mode. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts could stop a railroad locomotive with just their guns.

Nick, most British fighters carried .303 Browning m/gs before the cannons were implemented for use. The .50 BMG round outclasses the .303 Mk VII round by about the same amount as your example of the 20 mm cannon round over the .50 BMG ( four to one on weight ). 174 grains compared to approximately 700 grains. I am also fairly sure that the .50 BMG belts were loaded in a sequence similar to > AP - AP - API or regular incendiary - APIT or regular tracer < a non homogeneous loading for increased effectiveness against the target.
 

jack Bacon

Donation Time
Nick,
My mistake the Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon Bomber had a total of nine .50 cal machine guns. There were five in the nose, two in the ventral turret and two in the dorsal turret. This is the successor of the Lockheed B-34 used by the British
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
Hi, Don. Even the .303 guns were often loaded with sequential ammo., usually armor-piercing/incendiary, solid and tracer, usually when installed in bomber turrets.

To my mind (biased as I am) the two most devastating pre-jet fighters of WWII were the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest. The Typhoon was intended to be a fighter, and for a time was the main answer to the Fw190 "tip and run" raids on the south coast of England. At some 420mph it could easily overtake the Fw. However, it really found its niche as the top Allied ground-attack plane, armed with four 20mm cannon, with 150 rounds per gun, and up to 8 X 6" rockets.

Some time after D-Day 100,000 German soldiers and their vehicles and tanks were escaping eastward from an Allied trap, with the intention of regrouping. In the Falaise Gap, a series of Tiffies first destroyed the lead and tail vehicles in the column, then methodically destroyed everything live and machine by walking cannon fire up and down the column, then unleashing rockets. By the end of the day the vehicles were smashed and the surviving troops numb with shock. This ended serious German resistance in France.

Tiffies.jpg


The Tempest was a fighter development of the Tiffie, with thinner wings and other improvements. Topping out at 450mph in level flight it was able to catch anything the Germans had before the jets. Both Tiffie and Tempest used the Napier Sabre 16-cylinder H engine, although some Tempests also were fitted with the Bristol Centaurus sleeve-valve radial. Both planes were big, heavy and brutal-looking, with no finesse like the Spit or Mustang. Just machines for destroying things and killing people.

Incidentally, it was a Typhoon that actually hit Rommel's car and seriously wounded him, not the Spit usually shown in movies. I guess they couldn't find a flyable Tiffie to film.
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
Technical quiz question:

Coincidentally, although the Napier Sabre and the Bristol Centaurus used in the Hawker Tempest could not have been more different (the Sabre was H-layout, double-crankshaft geared, horizontally-opposed, liquid-cooled; the Centaurus was a two-row air-cooled radial), they were both, coincidentally, sleeve-valve engines.

Centaurus-powered Tempest V at the RAF Museum, Hendon.
CentaurusTempest.jpg


Together, they represented the ultimate, and last, in sleeve-valve design (other than the weird Napier Nomad two-stroke diesel, which never went into production due to the emergence of jets). The sleeve-valve bowed out with one final whoopee! on August 2, 1952, when a Centaurus-powered Hawker Sea Fury (a development of the Tempest), flown by by Royal Navy Lt. Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael of 802 Squadron shot down a MiG-15 over Korea.

Q: What two advantages did the sleeve-valve design offer in an aero engine?
 

mikephillips

Donation Time
How about,
1 The combustion chamber can use the most efficient shape and doesn't have to worry about valves getting in the way.
2 Larger valve openings and no springs, pushrods, etc due to they're being part of the piston sleeve and rotating open and closed rather than cam actuated.
 

Nickodell

Donation Time
Pretty good, Mike; I hadn't considered those. The two I was thinking of are:

1) With no valves, especially exhaust valves, this "hot spot" cause of pre-ignition is eliminated, allowing higher boost pressures and C.R., and, in the case of the radial, a higher cylinder head and exhaust gas temperature, in turn allowing a leaner mixture without damage, higher specific H.P. and better economy. On a bench test, a Centaurus engine and an R3350 with identical horsepower setting came in at 61 gph and 79 gph respectively;

2) With no valve gear, the diameter of the engine was reduced, allowing better streamlining and reduced drag;

[Possible 3): less prone to battle damage.]

The disadvantages were the time-consuming hand fitting of the sleeves, and a liability, with the oils available at the time, to gumming-up.
 
Top