British WW2 Turret Fighter Projects

[blackkite]

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-de.html
"The Hawker Demon was a fighter development of the Hart bomber. The prototype was fitted with this "lobster shell" turret, designed by Frazer-Nash. But its weight and the disturbed airflow around it prevented its adoption as standard."

Demon prototype side view drawing and pictures source.
https://www.aviarmor.net/aww2/_photo_aircraft/f_gb/hawker_demon/

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

http://alternathistory.com/projekt-turelnogo-istrebitelya-armstrong-whitworth-f935-velikobritaniya

"To reduce resistance in the covering wing and fuselage were supposed to be secret rivets and cellulose, priblizhavshie surface finish to the quality achieved in that time. A contract was signed to build one prototype (room vrennogo register K8624), which may have been cut partially completed prototype AW. 34. It is likely that by the time of the cancellation of the contract Assembly prototype progressed far enough. A number of sources suggests that the reason for the cancellation could be a problem with cooling engines Armstrong-Siddeley Terrier."

 

[nuuumannn]

Another turret Mosquito, this one with Bristol B.XI (from Air Int'l Vol 24 No2).

And a photo (from Planes Vol 1 No2) of Justo's turret Beaufighter sideview. The A&AEE test pilot made one of my favourite all-time comments: "entry into this aircraft is difficult; it is recommended that it is made impossible".

Fantastic quote. A bit of background surrounding these two projects. Both the Beaufighter Mk.V and the Mosquito Turret Fighter were built to fulfil F.18/40, a night fighter specification issued in October 1940 for a fixed gun night fighter, but altered in December that year to include a power turret as armament. The specification was not fulfilled and the fixed gun Mosquito night fighter became the RAF's night fighter du jour, nevertheless, much work was done surrounding the specification.

It's interesting to note that de Havilland was not one of the firms invited to tender, but was asked to investigate a turret fighter Mossie nonetheless, which led to the prototype, W4050 being fitted with a dummy turret (picture in this thread) to trial the aerodynamic properties of the four-gun installation at different positions. The turret on W4050 was fixed and was just a fairing, with holes for representative barrels that could be moved to different positions on the ground only.

During these trials, it was found that the turret produced considerable drag and reduced speed by 10mph. A fairing was installed for drag reduction and on the prototype on display at The De Havilland Aviation Heritage Museum at London Colney, Herts rub marks from this can be made out on the canopy. The lugs for the false turret are still fitted, but are invisible under the aircraft structure.

Two prototypes were constructed, the fourth prototype Mosquito W4053, constructed and flown from Salisbury Hall with a Bristol B.11 turret fitted, and W4073. Following the decision to cancel the turret fighter Mosquito, these two aircraft were converted into the T.III trainer prototypes. The fault with the aircraft lay in the turret itself. While a masterpiece in compact design and ergonomics, the B.11 turret had a serious flaw; at speed with the guns rotated laterally, the hydraulic motor was not sufficiently powerful enough to overcome the slipstream and rotate back longitudinally. This was essential to enable the occupier to get out. The turret was built into a cut out in the main wing - the Mosquito's wing is one-piece, which made access to the turret from the outside only.

The Beaufighter V fitted with a BP turret was given a production contract, but in testing it was found to be slower than the Defiant it intended on replacing. Two examples did in fact enter service, with 406 Sqn (RCAF) and flown by Sqn Ldr Douglas 'Zulu' Morris, but no intercepts were made.

Mention of F.18/40 is made in Tony Buttler's excellent BSP volume on WW2 aircraft.

 

[riggerrob]

As an aside, 202 Fairey Battles were converted to gunnery trainers by Fairchild of Canada. These ex-RAF Battles were shipped to Canada or Australia to train aircrew under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.
The RCAF received a total of 739 Battles. 202 were converted to gunnery trainers, while 97 were converted to target tugs.
Turrets were Bristol Type B1, Mark IV mounting a single Browning .303 caliber machine gun (7.7 mm). These turrets were like the turrets installed in Bristol Bolingbroke bomber trainers built by Fairchild of Canada.
BCATP Battles were painted all yellow, but the target tugs (Battles, Lysander, Northrop’s, etc.) were painted in yellow and black stripes.

Fairchild of Canada installed a Wright radial engine on a Battle gunnery trainer in case they ran out of Merlin engines. Turns out that Packard was able to supply enough Merlins for both Canadian and American production.

These converted gunnery trainers never saw battle and most were scrapped at the end of WW2. A single example survives at Rockcliffe.

 

[Apophenia]

nuuumannn: So F.18/40 was issued in October 1940. Any idea when the two Beaufighter Mk.V production-line conversions were completed at Filton? I wish I knew the date of that A&AEE test pilot quote (I find dates - or lack thereof - for the Beaufighter Mk.V quite confusing). Rather unhelpfully, the Imperial War Museum gives "1939-1945" as dates for that well-known photo (IWM MH 4563) of R2274 under test at Boscombe Down.

According to Alec Brew (page 105, The Turret Fighters: Defiant and Roc, Crowood Press, 2002), "Both Beaufighters were sent for trial with No. 406 Squadron at Acklington, and later by the RAF's premier night-fighter squadron, No. 29." But there's a timing problem. If his logs were accurate, No.406's CO, W/Cdr Doug Morris, DFC, [1] was flying one of the turret Beaus on 04 Sept 1941 - months after Brew says both machines were with No.29 Sqn. But which version is correct?

Simon Parry (page 14, Beaufighter: In Focus, Air Research Publications, 1999) says that only R2274 went to No.406 while R2306 went to No.29 ... implying that these movements happened at or around the same time. That jives with other sources placing R2306 on operational trials with No.29 Sqn as RO-O at RAF West Malling in June/July 1941. Just to add further confusion, rafweb lists R2306 as having been with 600 Squadron AuxAF

According to 'Heros of our Time', 100 Group's 1692 Bomber Support Training Unit at RAF Great Massingham had at least one Mk.V in service at least as late as June 1944. Of course, 'Mk.VF' is a fairly common typo for 'Mk.VIF', so who knows? If true, 1692's role was intercept radar familiarity [2] so the Mk.V may well have been turretless by that point. The aircraft involved would have been R2274 (since R2306 was said to have been destroyed in an accident back on 29 Sept 1941).

RAF Great Massingham

Airfield Information Name Royal Air Force Great Massingham / RAF Great Massingham Opened July 1940 Closed November 1950 Runways Originally Grass, then later 3 x Concrete

heroesofourtime.co.uk

I was surprised to see on that 04 Sept flight, W/Cdr Doug Morris was accompanied by two additional flight crew. One was his radar operator, Flt Sgt A. V. Rix, DFM, of Edinburgh. The other was a Sergeant Hardy. I'm assuming that 'Ricky' Rix, remained radar operator while the to-me mysterious Hardy was the WAG? [3] That raises the question: Was a flight crew of three stadnard for the Beaufighter Mk.V? It makes sense since the Defiant had showed that it wasn't feasible to put radar scopes into the Type A turret. But a crew of three also tells us that the aerodynamic drag of the turret was not the sole reason for the Beaufighter Mk.V 's reduced performance. (BTW, many sources say that the rear 'bubble' was replaced with sheet metal. But, a flat perspex cover is apparent in some photos. That now makes more sense if there's a third crew member.)

According to Alec Brew, No.29 Sqn found the benefits and pitfalls of the Beaufighter Mk.V to be the same as for Defiant night fighters. "The arrangement was found to have three significant merits. First, it was easier to engage a low-moving target, which could easily be over-shot in a normal fixed-gun approach, and then lost in the darkness. Second, it enabled the crew to make the best of a bad approach, letting the gunner open fire even when it would be impossible for the pilot to place his sights on the target. Lastly, it let the Beaufighter approach from beneath the target, which was more visible from below on dark nights." (from page 105 again) The problem for both turret fighter types was insufficient speed to overtake most enemy aircraft.

riggerrob: Apparently, some Bolingbroke IVTs had twin-gun Boulton Paul Type 'C' turrets fitted for gunnery training. Any idea if those Bolys 'donated' some of the Bristol turrets to the Battles?

_______________________

[1] I just noticed a typo in RCAF Squadrons and Aircraft (Samuel Kostenuk and John Griffin, Samuel Stevens, Toronto, 1977). Wartime COs for No.406 are listed on page 91 with the CO of the time in question given as "W/C D.G. Norris (RAF), DFC 28 May 41 - 6 Aug 42".

[2] That 'radar familiarity' may have been a euphamism. During 1943 - as No. 1692 Radio Development Flight - Defiants and Beaufighters had bee employed on radar jamming trials from RAF Drem.

[3] Although the Ottawa Journal of 26 May 1942 also identified Rix as "his Scottish gunner". So was Rix acting as radar operator or air gunner?

 

[maxmwill]

Supermarine Type 305, theres a bit of history in BSP 1935-1950 by Tony Buttler

Stats;
37ft span 30" 6' length 242sq ft wing area 5650lb all up weight 1x 1000hp Merlin Estimated maximum speed 315mph @ 15000ft. Armametn 4x0.303" Lewis guns in rear turret.

It is also covered in Ralph Pegram's "Beyond the Spitfire: The unseen designs of RJ Mitchell"

 

[nuuumannn]

Any idea when the two Beaufighter Mk.V production-line conversions were completed at Filton?

According to Buttler in BSP Fighter & Bombers 1935 - 1950, "the conversion of the aircraft took time and by 28th January 1941 only the aperture had been cut into the skin of the first example; work was expected to be completed in mid-April with the type in production by August as the Beaufighter Mk.V R2274 was tested briefly at A&AEE around early summer 1941..."

The common caption to the images of R2774 in multiple books state that it was photographed at Boscombe Down in May 1941, so completion in April or early May 1941 was likely.

Simon Parry (page 14, Beaufighter: In Focus, Air Research Publications, 1999) says that only R2274 went to No.406 while R2306 went to No.29 ... implying that these movements happened at or around the same time. That jives with other sources placing R2306 on operational trials with No.29 Sqn as RO-O at RAF West Malling in June/July 1941. Just to add further confusion, rafweb lists R2306 as having been with 600 Squadron AuxAF

Quite probable I got it wrong regarding both aircraft being with 406 Sqn. To confirm the aircraft's movements you probably require their Aircraft Movement Cards (RAF Form 1180), copies of which are at the RAF Museum. Those are likely to confirm their squadron usage. I haven't done any research into the Beaufighter equipped with a turret, just the Mosquito, but what I do know was that whilst undergoing trials at A&AEE, the blocking of the Beaufighter's underside escape door by the turret was not a favourable feature of the type. Three crew members certainly make sense.

During 1943 - as No. 1692 Radio Development Flight - Defiants and Beaufighters had bee employed on radar jamming trials from RAF Drem.

Yes indeed it was. Drem was no stranger to the Beaufighter or the Defiant; night fighter units equipped with the Beaufighter based there included 29, 96 and 600 Sqns, as well as 488 (New Zealand) Sqn. There were two Defiant squadrons at Drem, 141 and 410 Sqns. Trials with the radar countermeasures device Moonshine fitted to Defiants was conducted on site. Also, useful to the Defiant squadrons was that at nearby RAF East Fortune was 60 OTU, which was a night fighter training unit, being the largest single operator of the Defiant. Drem and East Fortune are quite close; it only takes about 10 to 15 minutes to cycle between the two.

Any idea if those Bolys 'donated' some of the Bristol turrets to the Battles?

I would probably hazard a guess that turrets came from Fairchild at Longueuil Quebec, who manufactured the Bolingbroke, as Riggerrob stated, especially considering that 202 Battles were gunnery trainers.

 

[Schneiderman]

Boulton Paul P92

 

[Sherman Tank]

Looks to have a more limited field of fire than even the Defiant. What bloody lunacy.

 

[Schneiderman]

Looks to have a more limited field of fire than even the Defiant. What bloody lunacy.

Whole upper hemisphere covered. See post #11 (although the 3-view isn't particularly accurate)

 

[cluttonfred]

Keep in mind that the Boulton Paul P.92 was to have mounted 4 x 20mm cannon in that turret, which would have been absolutely devastating against contemporary bombers if it had the speed necessary to get in position below or alongside them. The twin-engine design also allowed fire straight ahead, negating one of the big disadvantages of the Defiant. As the Luftwaffe learned with the Me-110, twin-engine fighters can be very vulnerable to enemy single-engine fighters but the P.92 could certainly have evolved into a very deadly night fighter. With a reasonably effective ventral gun (say 1 or 2 x 20mm cannon in a limited-traverse mounting) it could even have evolved into an effective fighter-bomber or ground attack aircraft. Flying low to the ground that 4 x 20mm cannon turret covering the whole upper hemisphere except the rudder and the prop arcs would have been a pretty formidable defense.

 

[nuuumannn]

he twin-engine design also allowed fire straight ahead, negating one of the big disadvantages of the Defiant.

A disadvantage yes, but it was intended that the turret could be positioned to fire forward in the Defiant, there was a switch in the turret that enabled the pilot to fire the guns; he had a button on his grip. The reason this function wasn't used was twofold, no gun sight and no interrupter gear. Otherwise the guns would have to be raised at an angle to clear the prop arc.

 

[cluttonfred]

he twin-engine design also allowed fire straight ahead, negating one of the big disadvantages of the Defiant.

A disadvantage yes, but it was intended that the turret could be positioned to fire forward in the Defiant, there was a switch in the turret that enabled the pilot to fire the guns; he had a button on his grip. The reason this function wasn't used was twofold, no gun sight and no interrupter gear. Otherwise the guns would have to be raised at an angle to clear the prop arc.

I think you may be a little off in your interpretation. I have never heard of any intention to mount interrupter gear on the Defiant. I believe that there was a forward position in which the turret could be locked so the pilot could aim and fire the guns, but it would have been up and over not through the propeller arc and at that point you may as well have the gunner do it.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think you may be a little off in your interpretation.

Dunno if it's me, there never was any intention to fit interrupter gear, that's why I said the following:

The reason this function wasn't used was twofold, no gun sight and no interrupter gear. Otherwise the guns would have to be raised at an angle to clear the prop arc.

In the turret is a switch to enable that to happen though, but I was off in my original statement, the guns could be lowered to face forward but there were cut-outs in the electrical circuits so the guns would not fire unless raised to an elevation of 19 degrees, but they could face directly forward. (I think we might be agreeing to agree with each other... )

 

[juanT]

Hi
Hawker Hotspur & "original proposal to spec F.9/35"... (Aeroplane Monthly 05-1991)

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane monthly 1990.