TBF Avenger Powered Turret

[KJ_Lesnick]

I notice the turret has one gun on one side of the turret; was it possible to stuff two in there?

[Captain Canada]

One atop the other ?

[pyro-manic]

It would be a rather tight fit - the rest of the space is taken up by the gunner!

Picture (courtesy of ARC):



Another good illustration here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/tbf-tbm-turret-10960.html#post303062

[jcf]

See here:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20136.msg286008.html#msg286008

[sandiego89]

I notice the turret has one gun on one side of the turret; was it possible to stuff two in there?

Agree the existing TBM/TBF turret would be way to small for twin 50 cals (or smaller calibre), but in WHIF world, a new twin turret, like the upper B-17/B-24/B-25 turret, grafted onto the top may look interesting.  Like a Defiant.  Would likely be wider than the sliding glass, so it may look a bit bulgy- perhaps it could rotate 360 and fire forward as well (giving the crew quite and earfull and muzzle flash).    

[KJ_Lesnick]

joncarrfarrelly

See here:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20136.msg286008.html#msg286008

I guess it is do-able.

It does seem a bit wider, though...

[PR19_Kit]

The two-gun turret installation was found to have a lower effective rate of fire than the standard single-gun installation as firing had to be interrupted twice as often to avoid hitting the tail surfaces.

Eh? 

If there are twice was many guns in the turret the rate of fire ought to be double, so long as they're not in the blocked arcs. So how could the effective rate of fire be lower than a single gun? That doesn't make sense.

[rickshaw]

The two-gun turret installation was found to have a lower effective rate of fire than the standard single-gun installation as firing had to be interrupted twice as often to avoid hitting the tail surfaces.

Eh? 

If there are twice was many guns in the turret the rate of fire ought to be double, so long as they're not in the blocked arcs. So how could the effective rate of fire be lower than a single gun? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps because as they said, the arc had to be interrupted to prevent the rounds hitting the tail surfaces.  The twin guns would be spaced at such a distance that as the turret swung, both the horizontal and vertical surfaces interfered at the same time.   A single gun would only have it's arc interrupted by one surface at a time.  Effectively it would fire more rounds than the twin guns.

I wonder has anybody considered building an Avenger with twin vertical surfaces widely spaced apart (and like the French bombers, most of the vertical surface below the horizontal one)?  That would give a much wider and more effective arc that the turret could cover.

[PR19_Kit]

Perhaps because as they said, the arc had to be interrupted to prevent the rounds hitting the tail surfaces.  The twin guns would be spaced at such a distance that as the turret swung, both the horizontal and vertical surfaces interfered at the same time.   A single gun would only have it's arc interrupted by one surface at a time.  Effectively it would fire more rounds than the twin guns.

I wonder has anybody considered building an Avenger with twin vertical surfaces widely spaced apart (and like the French bombers, most of the vertical surface below the horizontal one)?  That would give a much wider and more effective arc that the turret could cover.

I can't envisage a situation where both vertical AND horizontal surfaces would be in the arc of fire unless the target was low and almost directly astern of the aircraft. In that situation a single gun would be just as limited as two.

A twin finned Avenger sounds very good nonetheless, maybe with a four gun turret? 

[jcf]

The two-gun turret installation was found to have a lower effective rate of fire than the standard single-gun installation as firing had to be interrupted twice as often to avoid hitting the tail surfaces.

Eh? 

If there are twice was many guns in the turret the rate of fire ought to be double, so long as they're not in the blocked arcs. So how could the effective rate of fire be lower than a single gun? That doesn't make sense.

Depends on how the interrupt circuit/mechanism worked, if it was a simple, single circuit that stopped
both guns, then anytime the turret was in the protected areas both guns would cease firing. The Defiant
used a duplex system that controlled the right and left guns independently, which allowed the guns outside
of the protected area to continue firing. As the Martin turret tested was a standard bomber turret
I would guess it had a simpler interrupt circuit.

[Logan Hartke]

That was how I interpreted the statement, as well, jcf.

Cheers,

Logan

[rickshaw]

Perhaps because as they said, the arc had to be interrupted to prevent the rounds hitting the tail surfaces.  The twin guns would be spaced at such a distance that as the turret swung, both the horizontal and vertical surfaces interfered at the same time.   A single gun would only have it's arc interrupted by one surface at a time.  Effectively it would fire more rounds than the twin guns.

I wonder has anybody considered building an Avenger with twin vertical surfaces widely spaced apart (and like the French bombers, most of the vertical surface below the horizontal one)?  That would give a much wider and more effective arc that the turret could cover.

I can't envisage a situation where both vertical AND horizontal surfaces would be in the arc of fire unless the target was low and almost directly astern of the aircraft. In that situation a single gun would be just as limited as two.

I think you're still missing my point but I'll let it go.

A twin finned Avenger sounds very good nonetheless, maybe with a four gun turret? 

A project for you, Kit? 

Give the horizontal tail some dihedral and put most of the vertical below it and your turret would have an unparalleled arc.  The way the French did it always seemed very logical.

[PR19_Kit]

A twin finned Avenger sounds very good nonetheless, maybe with a four gun turret? 

A project for you, Kit? 

Give the horizontal tail some dihedral and put most of the vertical below it and your turret would have an unparalleled arc.  The way the French did it always seemed very logical.

As if I need another one! 

I've never been a big fan of the Avenger, it always seemed to be too big for its engine, but it's worth thinking about.

[dogsbody]

I notice the turret has one gun on one side of the turret; was it possible to stuff two in there?

Agree the existing TBM/TBF turret would be way to small for twin 50 cals (or smaller calibre), but in WHIF world, a new twin turret, like the upper B-17/B-24/B-25 turret, grafted onto the top may look interesting.  Like a Defiant.  Would likely be wider than the sliding glass, so it may look a bit bulgy- perhaps it could rotate 360 and fire forward as well (giving the crew quite and earfull and muzzle flash).    

Probably look like this:






Chris

[jcf]

A twin finned Avenger sounds very good nonetheless, maybe with a four gun turret? 

A project for you, Kit? 

Give the horizontal tail some dihedral and put most of the vertical below it and your turret would have an unparalleled arc.  The way the French did it always seemed very logical.

As if I need another one! 

I've never been a big fan of the Avenger, it always seemed to be too big for its engine, but it's worth thinking about.

I've long thought that a twin-tail Avenger would look like the PZL P.46 Sum: