Machine guns

[Flyby PC 23]

If there's a will, there's a way.

 

I reckon a decent engineer could have done it. I appreciate all the problems mentioned, but you could do it.

 

If you could swing down the top mounted lewis to reload, I reckon you could just as easily use a straight rail to slide the guns to and from their firing positions on the wings, and slide them in again to reload them from the cockpit (if you had to).

 

And reloading? Well, 1000 rounds of 4 bit fits in an ammo box, so I reckon you could equally build a housing to store enough ammo and feed it effectively. Bullethead's right that jamming might be a problem, but no worse a problem than it was sometimes in WW2...

 

Now I've thought more about it, I reckon the answer is probably quite straightforward. Quite simply, you don't actually need wing mounted guns once you've got an effective interruptor gear to fire through the prop. There's no advantage to be had. You've got sufficient firepower, it's easy to aim, you can reload efficiently in flight and without any specialist ammo, and you can also address stoppages. Who needs guns on the wings?

 

But, take the interruptor gear out the equation, and then it all makes sense...

[catch 81]

Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I meant, why put a Lewis gun on top of the wing instead of adding a second Vickers firing through the prop?

 

In the case of the Se5a, I believe the reason why it did not have twin vickers was primarily because of reduced performance due to the extra weight. Secondarily some pilots (like Ball) liked the versatility of being able to aim upwards with the wing mounted lewis for those stealth attacks !

[Guest Sieben]

The wings were up to it, no problem. After all, they could support usually at least 5x, and sometimes up to 9x...

 

 

Bullethead, I'll probably shoot myself in the d**k by questioning your unsurpassed expertise on these matters, but wood and canvas aeroplanes pulling 9g (or even 5); are you sure?

 

I must say though, the thought of a SPAD XIII or Fokker DVII stooping on its prey with 3 Vickers/Spandaus blazing on each wing is truly scary.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

LOL!

 

I swear to God people don't read even half of what others post in a thread. I had mentioned the problem of jams and lack of ammo space in regards to the outer wing mounts of the MG's six posts before Bullethead's, AND, three posts before that I talked about the advantage of being able to slide the Foster-mount Lewis back to shoot upward in certain situations!

 

Maybe it's just my posts that folks don't read.

 

.

[Guest Sieben]

RAF_Louvert, I've read all the posts here with great interest, especially yours since you were the first one to take my question seriously. This thread has created far more attention than I ever thought it would and sometimes people post after several other replies have already arrived. I appreciate all the replies and have learned from all of them. Thank you.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

uncleal wrote:

 

Please find a second engineer, who can get more power out the engine, so you can take off with 1000 rounds of ammunition, and have enough power to manuver, and keep up.

 

That is a very good and critical point when we are talking about a situation where they would choose the Lewis over the Vickers because it was 5 to 7 pounds lighter, and that weight savings actually made a noticable difference on the handling traits of a particular aircraft, as made mention of by catch in his post. This is why they also looked towards the men of smaller stature to serve as pilots...less weight.

 

.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Sieben wrote:

 

RAF_Louvert, I've read all the posts here with great interest, especially yours since you were the first one to take my question seriously. This thread has created far more attention than I ever thought it would and sometimes people post after several other replies have already arrived. I appreciate all the replies and have learned from all of them. Thank you.

 

hee, hee...nice of you to say, Sieben, but I was just giving everyone a bit of wind-up. I do find it funny how often someone will post something and then a few posts later someone else will post almost exactly the same thing. Seems we all like to show off how much we think we know on one of our favorite subjects.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

Bullethead, I'll probably shoot myself in the d**k by questioning your unsurpassed expertise on these matters, but wood and canvas aeroplanes pulling 9g (or even 5); are you sure?

 

I never said the planes pulled 9Gs. I said the wings were, in some cases, strong enough to support 9x times the weight of the plane. The usual standard for everybody, from at least mid-1916 onwards seems to have been 5x times the airplane's weight, but some planes were rather stronger than necessary.

 

When you designed a new airplane, one of the requirements before getting a production order was passing a static load test. They did this by putting a wing panel between sawhorses and piling sandbags on it until it either broke or held up the required amount of weight. And note that the was JUST the wing panel, without any of the struts and wires that normally braced it on the airplane. You can find many photos of this happening if you look hard enough. In some cases, even when it met requirements, they kept piling on sand until it broke just to know where the limit was. In other cases, if it reached the requirement, they put the plane into service as a regular production machine. That's about the only significant change in the process down to the present day--static test planes never fly these days.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

 

 

Static load testing: Kickin' it "Old School".

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

Static load testing: Kickin' it "Old School".

 

Cool pic, and it no doubt helped sell some E.Vs, but if you do the math, it's not that impressive. Outboard of the struts, there are only 8 men so say 1200 pounds give or take. The loaded weight of the plane was about 1300 pounds, so the wing should have been able to support another 32 men. Or, if you assume 1 wing only holds up 1/2 the weight, it should still have been able to hold up another 16 men. Too bad there wasn't room for them all

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

That's true BH. Even more impressive would have been if they'd used a couple dozen barmaids from the bierstube during Oktoberfest, each clutching twelve tall steins full of the traditional liquid manna.

 

 

 

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

Even more impressive would have been if they'd used a couple dozen barmaids from the bierstube during Oktoberfest, each clutching six tall steins full of the traditional liquid manna.

 

Now we're talking .

 

Look at the poor landing gear, though. Pretty impressive performance for mere bungie cords wrapped around the fixed and hinged parts of the axles. But then, rough landings impose loads several times the planes weight, and as a shock load, too, so it should be able to hold up 3x the weight as shown here. You can tell it's not happy about it, though

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yuppers, I noticed the landing gear in that pic too. And it's even more amazing when you consider we are talking 1918 bungie cord technology. No fancy composites or synthetic rubbers to speak of there.

 

.

[catch 81]

Now we're talking .

 

Look at the poor landing gear, though. Pretty impressive performance for mere bungie cords wrapped around the fixed and hinged parts of the axles. But then, rough landings impose loads several times the planes weight, and as a shock load, too, so it should be able to hold up 3x the weight as shown here. You can tell it's not happy about it, though

 

Okay she's a little on the mature side and not really my sort but she does bring the beer ! I think talking down to her about her "poor landing gear" and "hinged axles" and "rough landings" (not all of 'em have landing strips you know) is belittling to all barmaids BH

[von Baur 54]

Uncleal, the picture shows a single button on the yoke to fire the guns. I don't know why you don't believe an electrical firing system couldn't have been used, since the electromagnetic relay was invented in the 1800's (ever heard of the telegraph?). It seemed to be a favorite of Sopwith, since I've seen it on images of the Pup, Tripe and Camel.

 

Bullethead, The Bowden cable (although I never knew it's name until now) had been around since the turn of the 20th Century and would have been a viable option for remotely activating a lever (trigger) from the early days of the war and the fact that they are still in use today proves their effectiveness. The cable system with separate triggers in the form of spade-like levers extending into the middle of the yokes seems to have been the choice for German aircraft. I've seen that arrangement on Albatros and Fokker fighters but I won't swear to any others. And a loose cable would be totally ineffective unless absolutely taut. Also, a taut cable can only pull, while a Bowden can pull or push with less stress on the cable itself, thus extending its life.

 

As far as firing the guns independently in OFF, it can be done. Not on the German aircraft, as would be historically accurate, but on the SE5 and possibly some others. The reason is because the fuselage-mounted gun on the SE5 is recognized by the game as a cannon and the top-wing gun as a machine gun. Therefore by mapping machine guns to one button and cannons to another you can choose. The Spandaus, OTOH, are considered cannons and can't be separated. To be honest, I haven't messed with this since programming my stick last year when I installed BHaH, so I think that all Vickers are cannons and all Lewis are machine guns, but don't hold me to that. What I'm really waiting for is to be able to fire the Lewis in the reloading position (hint, hint).

 

Regarding mounting the guns inside the wings, the thickness (or lack thereof) of aircraft wings for both the guns and the ammo, their ability to withstand the stress of recoil, and the accessibility inflight to the pilot are all good points, although the later Fokker wings were certainly thick enough and strong enough to house them. I would add a couple more to them, though. First is accessibility to the ground crews for loading and maintenance. While the metal skins of WWII aircraft could easily have access panels that could be sealed tightly against the airstream the same cannot be said for the canvas-covered wings of WWI. Any loose seam is a potential entry point for air that will build pressure inside the wing itself and could cause ballooning of the fabric, which in turn would seriously impact the aerodynamics and performance of the wing, as would any gap between the muzzle and the leading edge. The second is heat buildup. If the guns were housed in a compartment that was sufficiently sealed to prevent the ballooning mentioned there would be no airflow to cool them and the heat would eventually damage the barrel and could theoretically get high enough to set the wings on fire. I will admit that I have no evidence to support the heat idea, but it seems logical. The air pressure theory, though, is based on years of skydiving and seeing firsthand the effects of high-pressure airflow.

 

 

*edit*

The lever firing mechanism used in "The Blue Max" was a complete fabrication insisted upon by the director for one purpose and one purpose only...to show Stachel about to fire on the two-seater and then changing his mind when he saw its pilot was defenseless. Pure Hollywood.

Edited February 12, 2010 by von Baur

[Flyby PC 23]

While you're busy finding a decent engineer to design a new feed and mounting system for those guns.

 

Please find a second engineer, who can get more power out the engine, so you can take off with 1000 rounds of ammunition, and have enough power to manuver, and keep up. Or should an escort be provided ?

 

You're already carrying two machine guns and ammo. Nothing's changed but their position. Keep up. Or should a physics teacher be provided?

[Olham 164]

Firing the two spandaus seperately, sooo if one jammed it didn't knock you out of action.

Brings up an interesting OFF question.

When you Fire Guns on the SE5a, both the Vickers and the Lewis fire, yet a control did exist to fire the Lewis Alone

 

Does that control still exist in OFF ?

 

And if it does, what will it do,. .if anything. . . for the Albatros ?

 

Also the gun jam on the SE5a, appears again in question

 

Very good points, UncleAl!

When there where separate guns for the WW2 planes in CFS3 models (cannon + machine guns),

then these two should be easily possible to be assigned with the Lewis and the Vickers;

or the left and the right MG in the German fighters? A question for Winder, Polovski and team here.

If possible to do, it would be great to have.

[Creaghorn 10]

Very good points, UncleAl!

When there where separate guns for the WW2 planes in CFS3 models (cannon + machine guns),

then these two should be easily possible to be assigned with the Lewis and the Vickers;

or the left and the right MG in the German fighters? A question for Winder, Polovski and team here.

If possible to do, it would be great to have.

 

 

good idea, would be great. but it would only make sense if you have a stick wich you have to hold with both hands, so you can push both buttons at once or only one. or you assign two buttons for the apropriate single spandau and one third button which pulls both triggers.

but very good point, olham

 

 

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I dunno...I think that having two MG's in front of you would have been a pretty obvious choice, rather than outboard guns.

 

If you listen to the accounts of airman,(one of the pilots in the OFF credits mentions it) a dogfight is all about snap shooting...quite often, there would be no time to line up through a sight...I suspect that it was as much about instinct as it was a good aim...having outboard guns would (I suspect) make it harder to indulge in snap firing.

 

With WW2 fighters..lets face it...6 sometimes 8 guns..huge rate of fire in comparison..you can fill the sky in front of you with a virtual wall of lead

 

Just my thoughts :)

[Olham 164]

No problem really, Creaghorn - you can put the left gun to your "cannon button"

and the right gun to the "bomb relelease button" or whatever.

And then there must be a command (I'm almost sure) to fire both guns simultaneously.

And that command is put on the main "guns fire button".

Edited February 12, 2010 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

von Baur wrote:

 

Uncleal, the picture shows a single button on the yoke to fire the guns. I don't know why you don't believe an electrical firing system couldn't have been used, since the electromagnetic relay was invented in the 1800's (ever heard of the telegraph?). It seemed to be a favorite of Sopwith, since I've seen it on images of the Pup, Tripe and Camel.

vB, while an electrical switch could have been used, it was not. In the link I provided to "Firing Between The Props" it describes exactly how pushing the thumb button actuates a lever that pulls on a Bowden cable that is connected to the needle valve in the reservoir cylinder of the Constantinesco sonic pulse system, i.e. the C.C. Gear. This is the synchronizing system the Brits used on nearly everything once they finally decided to start using one. It was quite different from the interrupter gear used by the Germans.

 

Also, I did some digging and BH is correct about the early top-mount Lewis being fired by an open "loose" cable that the pilot simply pulled on to fire the gun. But I'll bet that got changed pretty quickly after a short time of trying to live, (or die), with that in combat.

 

 

 

Flyby PC wrote:

 

You're already carrying two machine guns and ammo. Nothing's changed but their position.

Actually Sir, quite a lot has changed in terms of weight in the layout you envisioned. By doubling the amount of ammo carried, and adding a second Foster-type rail system, plus increasing the overall length of both rail systems, you've added easily another 60 pounds. While that does not sound like much in today's aircraft, back in WWI the designers and engineers were constantly trying to sort out how to make do with the engines and materials they had at the time, and as mentioned earlier here they made decisions such as using the Lewis over the Vickers because it saved them 5 to 7 pounds. These seemingly small amounts of weight had a very noticable impact on the agility, climb rate, and overall handling of these light, underpowered aircraft to the point were taking off with half a tank of petrol could give a pilot the "killing" edge over his adversary.

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

As far as firing the guns independently in OFF, it can be done. Not on the German aircraft, as would be historically accurate, but on the SE5 and possibly some others. The reason is because the fuselage-mounted gun on the SE5 is recognized by the game as a cannon and the top-wing gun as a machine gun. Therefore by mapping machine guns to one button and cannons to another you can choose. The Spandaus, OTOH, are considered cannons and can't be separated.

 

I dunno. I bet this can be defined in the various text and xml files that define the varous functions of the airplane in the game. After all, some planes in CFS3 had cannon in the nose, or cannon in the wings, or both I think. Tell you what... Right now I'm in the process of building an MS Type AI for OFF. When I get to this point, I'll see if I can set up 1 of its twin guns as an MG and the other as a cannon .

 

To be honest, I haven't messed with this since programming my stick last year when I installed BHaH, so I think that all Vickers are cannons and all Lewis are machine guns, but don't hold me to that. What I'm really waiting for is to be able to fire the Lewis in the reloading position (hint, hint).

 

Also, I did some digging and BH is correct about the early top-mount Lewis being fired by an open "loose" cable that the pilot simply pulled on to fire the gun. But I'll bet that got changed pretty quickly after a short time of trying to live, (or die), with that in combat.

 

I think all the Nupes had been fired the same way, so they were in the habit. Then somebody thought of Bowden cables which, as von Baur says, had been a while. Patented in 1896 in fact.

[Flyby PC 23]

I'll just tell all the WW2 aircraft designers they got it all wrong.

 

Stick to being rude, it's what you do best.

[von Baur 54]

Well done on the research, Lou. I guess it shows that you get used to what you're used to...I see a button like the one on the Sopwith yokes and I think 'electrical'. As for the loose wire on the Nieuports, that shows the desperation to which the Allies were driven to respond to the Eindekker. I can think of dozens of reasons not to have anything loose, or even semi-loose on an airplane, particularly one in which violent maneuvering would be the standard procedure.

 

Uncleal, an electromagnet would be powered by the magneto, not a battery. If the engine weren't running the pilot would have more on his mind than shooting at the enemy. Besides, I seem to remember Willy Coppens (and it's been nearly or more than forty years since I read his book) recounting an incident where his engine died and he wasn't able to fire his guns. Anyone out there have the book to check this? Or maybe a better memory than mine? But you make a very valid point about the difference in power and performance between WWI and WWII aircraft. It would be like wondering why the P-51 didn't carry the payload of an F-15. Apples and oranges. Both fruits, but there the simlarity ends.

 

It would be nice for most to be able to fire the left and right guns, or fuselage-mounted and wing-mounted (although I contend that is possible now) independantly. But I have all my joystick buttons mapped to other, more essential, functions, so I'll stick with one button fires all.

[Bletchley 8]

I think the button on the joystick is the 'blip switch'.

 

I am not an expert on machine guns, but I read an interesting series of posts on the MGs used, the different synchronisation systems, and their effects on the rate of fire (at the Aerodrome forum). The need to cock the MG before firing it is, I think realistic - this put the first round in. Subsequently, the MG could suffer from a 'stoppage' or a mis-fire (not a jamb) when a round failed to load or eject the case, and the pilot would have to re-cock the gun to 'clear' the stoppage before continuing to fire:

 

"Stoppages with designs that were Maxim-based, like the Vickers and Spandau, were common to the point of being routine. That is why aircraft designers of the Great War could never get away with burying the MG's for the sake of lowering drag and why nobody used wing-mounted MG's (save the almost experimental Dolphin mounting of Lewis') until the adoption of the Browning in the 1930s. The Maxim uses a heavy feed block to lift the rounds to the chamber and so high-G maneuvers easily prevent this from happening. The good news is that this same design prevents the double-feeding of rounds and all that is required to resume firing is to re-cock the operating handle or maybe bang the side of the receiver if the bolt is stuck at the bottom of it's travel. Voss may have experienced stoppages during his epic last flight but could have cleared them so quickly that no one noticed." (Epee, 15/10/2009)

 

"I spent four days with Dave Watts in his booth at the DPR with all his Spandaus guns. He would be the person to ask about this one. One of the things I remember him saying is that the gun was more prone to getting miss-fire (dud) then a jams. It may look like a pilot had a jam as the gun stops firing when it gets a dud and the pilot has to re-cock the mechanize to re-charge a new shell then the gun will fire and this action is sometime misunderstand as a jam because of the gun stops firing and the pilot having to recharge the gun may look like a jam to some one observing this action." (Laserlloyd, 15/10/2009)

 

See also this:

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/41918-synchronized-rate-fire-reality-urban-legends.html

 

Bletchley