Lewis Machine Gun.

[Flyby PC 23]

Ever wondered (like me) why the SE5, being a later design, still had it's Lewis mounted above the wing?

 

Well, apparently the Lewis machine gun was not compatible with interruptor mechanism which allowed other machine guns to fire through the propellor. Couldn't be done.

 

Apologies if that's old news for you fellas, but myself for one no longer wonders why my SE5 has it's Lewis where it is....

[Panama Red 22]

Not quite true.

 

Some of the first Alkan syncronized machinegun French Nieuport 16's used Lewis machineguns mounted on the fuselage deck in front of the pilot. I not only have seen a picture, but the book "French Aircraft of the First World War" published by Flying Machine Press (on page 377) specifically talks about them.

[Flyby PC 23]

Wiki special quote (not my original source) -

 

The open bolt firing cycle of the Lewis machine gun prevented it from being synchonized to fire directly forward through the propeller arc of a single engined-fighter, and only the British Airco D.H.2 and Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.8 pusher fighters could readily use the Lewis as direct forward-firing armament early in World War I.

 

and...

 

the Lewis was first fitted on two early production examples of the Bristol Scout C aircraft by Lanoe Hawker in the summer of 1915, mounted on the port side and firing forwards and outwards at a 30º angle to avoid the propeller arc, and later on French Nieuport 11 and British S.E.5a aircraft, above the top wing in a Foster mount, which was outside of the propeller's arc,

 

I have another source saying the same thing, but written in a book I'd need to transcribe. (Dictionary of WW1). Essentially says the same thing that the Lewis mechanism was not compatible.

 

You might well be right Panama, but I'm just passing along what I've read.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Flyby PC

[Hellshade 110]

Is it possible that the Lewis machine gun was set to fire above the prop in order to maximize rate of fire? I would think the interrupter gear would slow down the rate of fire at least a little bit and perhaps they wanted to be able to hit the huns a little harder and faster. Just a pet theory, I didn't read that anywhere.

 

Hellshade

[Panama Red 22]

Be very carful about anything published in Wika, anybody can put something there without it being "fact checked". Anything you read in a Wika, you had better double check else where or you can be mislead.

 

Here is a picture of the very French Nieuport 16 that I mentioned earlier: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php/topic/44888-se5a-very-very-nice-skin/ (look at post #9). So I guess according to Wika, this picture does not exist nor the facts that some the later French Nieuport 16's used syncronized Lewis's as documented other places ???

 

I will tell you that until I saw the picture in the above post and then read up on it, I to beleived that Lewis's machineguns could not be syncronized.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Panama Red

[Flyby PC 23]

Happy to be corrected Panama Red.

 

My original source wasn't Wiki, but the MacMillan Dictionary of the First World War. Wiki just confirmed what I'd read. I know Wiki has some very doubtful sources, but so has any number of sites on the web. To be honest, if browsing the web, I find the best search doesn't begin with Wikepedia, but a general image search on your given topic. This often finds much better links, though it still pays to be dubious.

 

I'm now intigued why the forward firing interrupter mechanism seems so obscure, and why it remained more common to fix the Lewis above the wing. Perhaps the RFC wasn't impressed with their experimental types, and preferred the simpler configuration. Perhaps it didn't work very well.

[Panama Red 22]

The best bet would be to ask over at The Aerodrome forum. They have some pretty knowledgeable people over there on some real WWI aeroplane trivia: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/

[Dej 17]

The best bet would be to ask over at The Aerodrome forum. They have some pretty knowledgeable people over there on some real WWI aeroplane trivia: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/

 

I was looking for some information on Navarre's red Nieuport 11 and came across this in a thread on The Aerodrome

 

"... some Nieuport aircraft were fit with the Alkan system (apparently also referred to as the Alkan-Hamy gear) which incorporated a fixed Lewis gun on the forward fuselage synchronized by an engine controlled cam. The device was designed by a mechanic of the name Alkan serving with MS 12. As with other contemporary systems reliability was a concern and, apparently, problems and accidents encountered led the R.F.C. to favor the Foster mounting with the weapon firing over the propeller."

 

Link: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34761-french-nieuport-11-fighters.html

 

Incidentally, the Morane Saulnier Type I was also fitted with the Alkan synchroniser but it used a Vickers instead of the Lewis. Only four were delivered to the RFC though, the remainder serving on the Russion front.

[Flyby PC 23]

I was told as a kid to try learning something new every day.

 

Reckon today's covered.

 

Cheers Panama Red.

 

 

[Panama Red 22]

Dej:

What you posted makes good sense, because if the Lewis had been a good candidate for synchronization, you would have seen more of them than just the synchronized Vickers on the Allied side. This also ties in logically with why the RFC kept the overhead Lewis too with all the problems with the synchronized Lewis.

 

Flyby PC:

You are not the only one to learn something today. Like I said, The Aerodrome forum has some good stuff, you just to sometimes dig to find it.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Sychronization may not have been the only issue for the Lewis

Consider how the reloading process would be on a drum style synched MG?

Sychronization linkages would require the Lewis to stay in a fixed position like the Vickers

Reaching out over the windscreen and cowling wouldn't seem too feasible

 

Foster Mount or the sidesaddle Scout allow the pilot to stay seated and change drums more easily

It's understandable that the Scout engineers wanted to add synchronization to eliminate the 30^o offset

Fixed position would allow this but the linkages would be complex and most likely prone to jams

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Which is why you had a few creative Nieuport pilots who where stuck with the Lewis guns come up with work-arounds like this when they wanted more fire power but synchronization through the prop was not a viable option.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Velvet 1]

I recall hearing the theory that Albert Ball might had influenced the SE5 design. Since he was familar with the Nupes with a Lewis MG mounted on the wing, he wanted the same with the SE5. See SE5/5a Aces of World War 1 by Norman Franks. But this appears to be speculation One big plus to this configuration is that you can pull the gun down and fire at targets forward and above you. Maybe a future P4 feature?

 

Velvet,

 

 

[Schnitzel von Krumm 0]

One big plus to this configuration is that you can pull the gun down and fire at targets forward and above you. Maybe a future P4 feature?

 

 

 

 

And they could also add it to the Dolphin I know they must be working on.

[Dej 17]

One big plus to this configuration is that you can pull the gun down and fire at targets forward and above you. Maybe a future P4 feature?

 

I'd be delighted at evidence posted to the contrary (this is a learning thread for sure) but I think I recall from some biography or other that firing upward with a Lewis had so small a chance of successfully hitting the target that pilots rarely bothered, even with the Foster mount. I know Lanoe Hawker invented a very 'hush-hush' sight that would allow accurate upward firing with a Lewis from the flexible mount on a DH2, but since no such sight appeared on later machines thus or similarly equipped I surmise that the facility wasn't explored in earnest.

 

As I say though, great if someone can correct me on that.

[Duce Lewis 3]

I think I recall from some biography or other that firing upward with a Lewis had so small a chance of successfully hitting the target that pilots rarely bothered, even with the Foster mount.

Yes, aiming the plane is the only way to go ...but I'd still like to give it a try

If you could sneak up on an unsuspecting foe, initial shots might be effective

Once he starts manuevering, darn near impossible I'd think

[Velvet 1]

It should be great for scaring the wits out of an unsuspecting two seater..... Anyway you should hit a Zeppilin or a fly broad side of a barn that way.

 

 

[Guest British_eh]

From what I've read, some pilots in RNAS squads, ( #10 I think, and one is hanging in the Imperial War Museum, London), had twin Lewis guns fitted to their Camels.

 

James McCudden also talked about firing the Lewis gun upwards, but indicated it was a bit tricky holding the Stick between your legs at the same time :).

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[Flyby PC 23]

Yes, aiming the plane is the only way to go ...but I'd still like to give it a try

If you could sneak up on an unsuspecting foe, initial shots might be effective

Once he starts manuevering, darn near impossible I'd think

 

 

Ye Olde Worlde 'Schrage musik'.

 

Nothing wrong with the principle. As I recall reading, I think the German WW2 nightfighters were using Schrage musik for months before the Allied Bombers worked out what was shooting them down without warning. Even when hit, many crews simply never saw their attacker.

 

You might also be aware that some of the CFS3 nightfighters have Schrage Music built in to them, and even have a dedicated sight to fire through. Aiming IS very tough, but it gives you a tremendous insight into how it really worked.

 

(-For those who don't know, Schrage Musik was an upward firing cannon designed to shred the belly of a bomber flying overhead).

Edited September 3, 2009 by Flyby PC

[JimAttrill 24]

And I have read somewhere that 'Schrage Musik' means 'jazz music'. A rather strange choice given the fact that AH & co. didn't like it at all.

 

There are enough Germans on this forum to correct me if I am wrong