I don’t think that except for the rear (bomber) turrets any 303 turret had ammunition stored anywhere but in the turret but I could be wrong.

The ammunition supply for the various turrets also varied greatly with the rear turret having by far the most. The Lancaster could carry in the tail-turret 2500, the dorsal-turret 1000 and the nose-turret 1000 rounds per gun. Although this was the maximum that could be carried (in the turrets or tanks) often much less ammunition was carried, especially in the nose-turret, however it was possible (if awkward) to redistribute it during an operation.

IIRC one of the measures Don Bennett introduced to improve the survival rate of his pathfinders was to reduce the amount of ammunition carried (as well as the amount of fuel) in an attempt (successful as it turned out) to increase speed and height.

I’ve also seen evidence that 101 Squadron removed the front guns (but not the turret) from their Lancasters altogether, although this may have been done only by this ‘special’ squadron due to the weight of the extra crew member and his equipment.

Apart from Bomber Command I’m not sure anybody (including the Germans) could see the point of retaining the front turret on night-bombers during ‘main-force’ operations.

Yes, against an attacking fighter overtaking the bomber the rear guns would be more effective but only slightly so as the overtaking speed (difference) would be small.

Since we have been comparing the 303 / 50 calibres I did some more calculations…

…and it turns out that a single 50 calibre round has 585% the kinetic energy of a single 303 round (at the muzzle)! 😮

Of course a four-gun 303 turret would fire a lot more rounds-per-second than a two-gun 50 turret. :confused:

Discuss.

Would a rearward firing .303 have more ‘punch’ than a forward facing one?

Correct…except that it would be the forward facing guns that would have more ‘punch’ (kinetic energy).

From a quick calculation would seem that the front guns of a Lancaster cruising at 210mph would have an extra 21% kinetic energy (against a stationary target) compared to a stationary gun.

A surprising difference! 🙂

…but I am sure that the US military still claim possession of any ship or aircraft wreck (or part of).

I wonder how they get on with the French and their “if it’s in our country it’s ours” rule! :rolleyes:

Belly landing?

Must be in pretty good shape if there is still fuel in the tanks!

The Lockheed P-38…9,923 built…but only 27 of the aircraft survive.

Pity it isn’t a Whitley or a Stirling! 🙁

Err…hang on…the sign says: “If you can’t see my mirrors…I can’t see you!” 😮

Don`t know the aircraft, but it is clearly calibrated to drive a 500 watt generator, the pitch setting corresponding to the airspeed you want it to be driven at.

I would tend to agree that it is for a wind-driven generator as 500 Watts is a fairly ‘sensible’ output for a generator of the 1920-1930 era.

And as you say the table seems to be advising the pitch setting to give 500 Watts for a given airspeed.

I doubt very much that with a 500 Watt motor this propeller could produce a wind speed of 324km/h (200mph) at a pitch of 38° (in a wind tunnel for example).

Could it be something to do with a wind tunnel by any chance? Perhaps the table referring to blade angle and scale speed?

Just re-read your comments about scale-speed. It’s possible but wouldn’t it be more useful to have the absolute-speed on the propeller and then work out the scale-speed from the scale of the model. Also the fact that it is only a 600mm propeller would tend to make the tunnel small so the absolute-speed would need to be very high to give a reasonable scale-speed.

It is a long time since I did anything with a wind tunnel so I could be very, very wrong though! 🙂