Gentlemen, thank you all for your input!
Jerry, I see where you’re “aiming at” with your 20 mm cannon suggestion but as pointed out by Martin that was a field mod by I believe a South African unit in the Western Desert, the gun being installed internally and poking through the bomb aiming window in the nose. Must have put quite a strain on the nose structure! Also, the Blens in the still are all bombers of course.
Mothminor, thanks for that Alamy photo link and the extra info it gives. Something concocted on Sqn level perhaps? Must have created an awful lot of extra drag compared to the standard blister and the FN54A turret though. Just wondering if the observer could sit/lie facing backwards in that tub so as to operate the gun in a “normal” manner, normal as opposed to trying to aim via a mirror system as in the blister and FN54A.
Quite intriguing, isn’t it :)?
Cheers,
Walter
Hi all,
Time to dig up this oldie as my contact has been able to clean up and dismantle the piece and found some stamped numbers on one of the
cogs : SFB644/6R9046
[ATTACH=CONFIG]252060[/ATTACH]
Would that number help us to pin it down to the Stirling?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Cheers,
Walter
Hi Walter – can you give us an idea of why you think its definately not Lancaster. We would appreciate any feedback and advice because like so many others, we are still learning.
Of course I can! For starters I think we can all agree that as far as four gun tail turrets go, the Lanc started off with the FN20 tail turret, which was then developed into the FN120.
The FN20 was a development of the FN4. Both equipped with 4 x .303 Brownings but the FN4 carried their ammunition supply within the turret (4 x 1000 round containers, two on the left an two on the right side and situated in the “turret drum” in front of the air gunner’s feet, and arranged in a chevron fashion, ie in an angle towards the turret’s centre line). The FN20 was equipped with a servo feed unit and drew its ammo from boxes situated in the rear fuselage of the aircraft. I may be mistaken but I believe those fuselage boxes contained 2500 rounds per gun, in any case substantially more than with the FN4. Using up those 1000 rounds per gun in the FN4 would only take about a minute of continous firing…
Construction wise those two turrets are quite different too. On of the main giveaway’s is that in the FN4 the gun cradles (onto which the guns are mounted) are held in substantial cast brackets, clearly shown in the below drawing out of AP1659A (sorry but can’t seem to get the drawing attached upright:confused:) :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245788[/ATTACH]
In the FN20 they did away with those cast brackets and the gun cradles were mounted in a very distinctive frame, clearly shown on the below drawing, also out of AP1659A :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245789[/ATTACH]
Clearly, if you have an FN20 without that frame, you’ve got nothing to support the gun cradles.
And there are more differences of course, the FN4 uses articulated empty shell/link ejection shutes which slide up and down in runners following the upwards/downwards motions of the guns, all very complicated. The FN20 has simple fixed shutes which you can see sticking out below the guns on the above drawing. And the FN20 is a bit more complicated inside as well as the bottom of the turret drum has a non rotating, ie fixed, central portion where the ammo belts enter the turret.
If you compare the FN4 drawing with the turret you acquired, Reevers, you will agree that that is what you have. Great turret though and definitely worth restoring.
As I pointed out to the previous owner in the other thread, the FN4 came in A and B versions, the B not having oxygen supply for the gunner and used on flying boats. If the rotating service joint is still in place on the bottem of the turret then on the B you should only find hydraulic fluid entry and exit points, whereas the A has an oxygen supply pipe in addition.
This is the rotating service joint on the Brussels Army Museum FN4A prior to its restoration, the small diameter pipe at the bottom is the oxygen supply:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245791[/ATTACH]
With the connection that Australia has with the Sunderland I’m pretty sure it’s an FN4B though.
Do let us know when you manage to look underneath please!
Cheers,
Walter
Is it the same one?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?138571-lancaster-gun-turret
Origins were thoroughly discussed in that thread. The consensus seemed to have been that it was from something that wasn’t a Lancaster. Great shame it didn’t end up at the back of Elliot’s Whitley.
Looks like the same one alright, Nash & Thompson FN4, definitely not Lancaster…
Cheers,
Walter
I’ve studied the FN4 in detail and that is definitely a Nash & Thompson FN4 you have there Tomahawk – great find and please do bring it under cover as suggested by others.
The FN4A was used on Whitley V, Stirling and Manchester aircraft whereas the FN4B was used on the Saro Lerwick and the Short Sunderland, superceding the FN13 on the latter.
Of note is that the FN4 had a specific cupola design for every aircraft type so if you have a “complete” survivor it’s easy to determine which bomber type it was used on. Unfortunately yours is missing quite a few bits 🙁 .
The difference between the FN4A and FN4B is that the latter did not have any provision for oxygen supply. The oxygen supply socket in the FN4A was mounted on a small triangular panel to the air gunner’s left, as seen in below photo from the FN4A in the Brussels Royal Army Museum before its restoration (this is a Whitley turret) :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245510[/ATTACH]
Obviously the structure this panel was mounted on is missing from your turret. It might be worth having a look under the turret drum to see if the rotating service joint is still present as on the FN4B this will only have hydraulic fluid inlet and outlet openings whereas on the FN4A one would also find an oxygen supply connection tube.
I hope the above is of help and thank you for sharing the photos!
Cheers,
Walter
Thank you Elliott. Guess we’ll have to keep it at that for now. Have been peering at drawings in several AP’s and various photos of Hercules power eggs but the rear of those engines is so cluttered with various bits and pieces it is hard to identify anything!
Cheers,
Walter
Hi James & all,
James, you do have a keen eye ;)! Did some more searching myself and am quite sure we can rule out the cooling gill bit theory!
First a link to a Bristol add in a prewar issue of Flight (can’t seem to upload PDF docs) : https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1937/1937%20-%202930.PDF
The photo of the cooling gill ring is clear enough to show the mechanism matches that in James’ AP page.
I then found detailed pics of the gill operating thingies and the sprocket from a Bolingbroke on http://www.bristolaero.org :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241292[/ATTACH]
Photos reproduced only for research purposes of course.
Again a perfect match to James’ AP page and the photo of the sprocket shows us it has an internal thread that converts the rotational movement of the sprocket into a fore and aft movement of the gill actuator (hope I’m making myself clear!). The Stirling bit we’re discussing has the forked end solidly connected to the sprocket so clearly has to be something else… the question is what.
Cheers,
Walter
Hello all and thank you for your input!
Alan, your mentioning Blenheims made me check the Blenheim AP which yielded this :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241127[/ATTACH]
The sprocket in “Y” would appear to be similar to the piece we’re trying to ID and James’s page out of the Stirling AP would again confirm same.
As for that double ended item, we’ll I’m afraid it’s not just two single ones jammed together, see below new pics please :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241128[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]241129[/ATTACH]
As you can see the two neatly screw together so definitely appear to have been meant to be assembled that way. Part of the cowling gill operation sounded very plausible but I can’t see a double sprocket put to use in that…
More pointers, ideas and comments more than welcome :).
Cheers,
Walter
Happy New Year to you Mike, and to all other forum members of course :)!
I just have to say it again, your CAD work is absolutely brilliant! Sorry I can’t answer your question re how the side bar is fixed to the side of the gun, think we need to call in the help of one of the forum members who have access to a real .303 Browning!
Thanks again for the Air Diagram copy by the way.
Do keep us updated, it’s fascinating to see the virtual gun come together.
Best wishes,
Walter
[QUOTE=Duxman;2183978]Duxford Thursday 20th November – more pictures
An afternoon to remember as the Blenheim makes her first post restoration flight . Congratulations to all involved. She sounded fantastic.
G-BPIV Blenheim 1st flight by AJCDuxman, on Flickr]
“In the morning and at the going down of the sun we will remember them.”
A most fitting tribute to the Blenheim Boys if ever there was one!
Three cheers for Smudge and the restoration team – she looks magnificent!
Walter
PS Brilliant photos Duxman!
Looking awfully good Mike – I do envy your CAD skills! – keep up the good work and do keep us posted please.
Cheers,
Walter
Thank you very much Sabrejet & Viscount, all I wanted to know!
It does sound odd for an aircraft to be taken on charge on 5.9.42 to be erected only on 22.4.44. Would that mean that the RAF received the Tiger Moths disassembled, and that they would send the “parts” to one of the manufacturers for erection when the need arose? I would assume that a MU would be quite capable of erecting a Tiger Moth – or am I missing out on something?
Cheers,
Walter
Hi James, sorry for taking so long but further to your post #8 – ta for finding that pic of a 5C/803, I was actually expecting something with a flat end for easy mounting like the 5C/492 navigation lamp.
Anyway back to the Blenheim and to answer your question, the Blenheim only carries single formation keeping lamps, the inventory mentioned earlier does not specify the colour but the 5C vocab lists both blue and clear glasses. Of note is that in various AP’s both the terms “formation keeping lamp” and “recognition lamp” are used for the same item. There IS a signalling switchbox 5C/372 in the circuit for the formation keeping lamps.
As you’re “doing” the Stirling I thought it might be interesting to check AP1600A Vol 1 which covers the AVRO Manchester I as they’re both of the same generation (or sort of anyway) and there we see three formation keeping/recognition lamps on each wing tip, colours being red, green and yellow and again ther is a signalling switchbox in the circuit as is something that looks like a selector switch (to choose the colour perhaps?). No lamp type indicated of course.
Anson and Beaufighter also appear to have only single formation keeping lamps so maybe the triple lamps are specific to larger, four-engined aircraft?
Cheers,
Walter
Edgar, Bob, I find that bit re the drawings at the RAFM most interesting.
Last year I copied the majority of Blenheim modification leaflets at the RAFM and when some months ago I enquired by e-mail whether they also had the Bristol drawings that are being referred to in these leaflets they advised they had started the archiving process for the Bristol drawings but that this had to be stopped because of what they described as some of the drawings “off-gassing” causing the staff handling them to feel sick etc. The archiving proces was stopped pending suitable measures being taken.
I was advised to check again sometime in the future. So if they experienced this problem with those drawings, would they allow researchers to look into them I wonder?
Walter
Hi James! How come I do feel lured into this thread!
The lights you are referring to on the Blenheim are the formation keeping lights but I’m afraid that AP1530B (Blenheim Mk IV) only gives the electrical connection scheme and a drawing of the wing tip structure into which the formation and navigation lights are mounted, bar any details of the lights themselves.
However, I have a scanned copy of a Blenheim Mk IV Airframe Inventory book and this tells us that the formation keeping lamps are of the “B” type and bear reference number 5C/803. I have a few photos of RAF lamps but not of a 5C/803 of course but perhaps someone else might provide.
This of course relates to the Blenheim so don’t know of how much relevance it is to the Stirling.
Cheers,
Walter