FN 50 Center Turrent - Aircraft of World War II

Micdrow · 05-30-2007, 07:07 PM

FN 50 Center Turret for a British Lancaster. I'm sure one of our ammo experts can explain more about it.

Enjoy Micdrow

genkideskan · 05-31-2007, 09:47 PM

Here the real thing

FLYBOYJ · 06-01-2007, 11:51 AM

Thanks for the pics!

genkideskan · 06-01-2007, 02:00 PM

Here are some more pics from the inside

CharlesBronson · 06-10-2007, 03:21 PM

Nice images, that turret is asking for more firepower.

bomber · 06-13-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesBronson

Nice images, that turret is asking for more firepower.

Do you think it's asking for less ammunition as well ?

CharlesBronson · 06-13-2007, 10:30 PM

Maybe...more ammo of a heavier calibre.

bomber · 06-14-2007, 08:29 AM

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

CharlesBronson · 06-14-2007, 08:26 PM

Excuse me, I mean less ammo of a heavier calibre

, like the .5 vickers or the .5 Browning.

Maharg · 06-15-2007, 11:38 PM

Thanks heaps for these pics fellas they are great.

k9kiwi · 06-16-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

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.

bomber · 06-18-2007, 08:15 AM

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....

propellerhead BF-109 · 09-28-2007, 08:21 PM

Thats some beautiful turret engineering, id love to have one to play with.
Cheers for the awesome reference.

richardp · 11-17-2007, 03:26 PM

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

Panzerfaust · 11-18-2007, 08:30 AM

nice pics comrade!

06-01-2007, 11:51 AM	#3
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,051	Thanks for the pics! __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

06-10-2007, 03:21 PM	#5
CharlesBronson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cordoba - Argentina Posts: 2,999	Nice images, that turret is asking for more firepower. __________________ Bronsons´s videos

06-13-2007, 10:30 PM	#7
CharlesBronson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cordoba - Argentina Posts: 2,999	Maybe...more ammo of a heavier calibre. __________________ Bronsons´s videos

06-14-2007, 08:26 PM	#9
CharlesBronson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cordoba - Argentina Posts: 2,999	Excuse me, I mean less ammo of a heavier calibre , like the .5 vickers or the .5 Browning. __________________ Bronsons´s videos

06-18-2007, 08:15 AM	#12
bomber Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 211	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.... Last edited by bomber; 06-18-2007 at 08:18 AM.

06-14-2007, 08:29 AM	#8
bomber Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 211	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

06-15-2007, 11:38 PM	#10
Maharg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 208	Thanks heaps for these pics fellas they are great.

09-28-2007, 08:21 PM	#13
propellerhead BF-109 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4	Thats some beautiful turret engineering, id love to have one to play with. Cheers for the awesome reference.

11-17-2007, 03:26 PM	#14
richardp Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1	Cannon armed Lancaster 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

11-18-2007, 08:30 AM	#15
Panzerfaust Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Vercelli Posts: 37	nice pics comrade! __________________ La fortuna guida dentro il porto anche navi senza pilota.(William Shakespear) La speranza è un sogno fatto da svegli (Aristotele) Vai a fare in co,str*o (Pino Scotto)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode