Def. Arm. of Light Aircr. Part II: Closed stations

[Romantic Technofreak]

Defensive Armament of Light Aircraft Part II: Closed stations

While open stations may be bearable when temperature and low pressure at altitudes play no major role, by installing closed guns stations you can avoid troubles in that way.

The Stuka´s rear gun points through the rear window pane. The gun rests in a kind of ball-formed mount (at least I think so).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/6de70d57.jpg

It´s hard to find pictures of single-engined Allied planes with closed gun stations. They either use open stations, half-open ones (like the Il-2) or turrets (I´m not sure about the installation in the Il-10, see more in part III). Here I had to fall back to model pictures.

The Blackburn Skua:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/4bbfcc1d.jpg

and the Vultee A-35 Vengeance:

http://modelism.airforce.ru/gallery/ruchkovsky/vultee/ar_vultee_1.jpg

The Skua´s gun seems to protrude from somewhere between fuselage and canopy. Most pictures of the Vegeance show it with an open station, so I would like to know if the configuration of the model is correct.

Any further comment and information is highly welcomed.
Regards, RT

[Romantic Technofreak]

I see I don´t get too many answers here. None, to be correct. What I would like to know, if you consider the Part I, why are there rather complicated mechanisms installed to receive an open station, although this should have disadvantages compared to a closed station? Or is it really so difficult to get an mg through a pane of glass or transparent plastic (without breaking it, of couse[8D])?

[Double T]

Grumman solved the problem with a turret-mounted .50 calibre on the TBF Avenger. The Boulton Paul Defiant sported a turret with four .303 calibre guns.
I'm a sucker for power-operated turrets.

Tim

[GregP]

In open stations, the gun mount could be made much more "movable." That is, the entire mount could be made to swivel around giving a much larger field of fire.

In a closed mount, the isea is to keep the elements out and the interior environment in. Usually heat for the crew, but sometimes just to keep out rain. As such, the mounts were dort of mounted on a ball, and were fairly fixed, with a smaller field of traverse than with an open mount.

If you MUST have a flwx-mount, the open mount was best for field of fire, but was "draggier."

[Tony Williams]

Power-operated turrets were vastly more effective than any flexible mounting, in terms of shooting accuracy. The problem is that they weighed a ton (or a heck of a lot, anyway) and that had a significant impact on the aircraft's performance.

Some flexible mountings were mostly or entirely closed up normally (to preserve the aerodynamics and stop the gunner from freezing), but could be opened up when danger threatened.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[DoBravery]

I know its not a single engine, but the Bristol Beaufighter TF Mk X seems like a cozy little blister of a MG.
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/beau/beau10r.jpg

[Romantic Technofreak]

I hate to limit you, friends, but the turret thread will be Part III!
Regards, RT:)

[DoBravery]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

I hate to limit you, friends, but the turret thread will be Part III!
Regards, RT:)


There is some order to the chaos within RT's mind.:)

How about upward firing cannons for part IV? Maybe. . . Maybe not?

[Ricky]

For me, closed stations are relatively rare for a reason - they are a compromise between open stations and turrets, and IMO not particularly effective.

Open stations give a wide field of (slightly inaccurate) fire for little extra weight, but leave the cockpit & crew open to the elements and are very draggy.

Turrets give a wide field of accurate fire and protection from the elements, but at a high weight & drag penalty.

Closed stations give protection from the elements, less drag and lower weight, but have a very limited field of fire.

[Romantic Technofreak]

quote:DoBravery wrote:
There is some order to the chaos within RT's mind.:)


I like it if somebody notices that!:D

quote:DoBravery wrote:
How about upward firing cannons for part IV? Maybe. . . Maybe not?


Nope. I see (fix-installed) upward-firing cannons only as offensive weapons.

I fear Ricky´s explanations about the theme are exhaustive. But there will still be a Part III, maybe I can give some uncommon points of view though.

[DoBravery]

Can anyone tell if the bottom copula of the PZL P.23 was closed or partially open?

http://ww2-aviation.net/polavhist/p23.html

Although slow and vulnerable, it's an interesting bombardier arrangement to say the least.

[Ricky]

On my model I think that it is closed. But that is not the best confirmation![B)]

On this site mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/is this picture:

http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files/Aircraft/pzl_23b_2.JPG

which seems to show an open position with some glazing.

[Romantic Technofreak]

First, I thought a lower gun station always has to be closed because the lower gunner has to take a prone position, thus is not easily to be fixed by safety belts and so has a tendency to fall out if his gun station is open...[:0][xx(]

But, if you consider the pictures and drawings on the P.23 site of airwar.ru, there is some space left for interpretation (please scroll):

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/pzl23.html

Anyway, the mg looks so voluminous that even a badly shook-up gunner could not easily pass it...[}:)]