I'm wondering the reason behind the SE5's Vickers + Lewis gun combo. With an effective synchronization mechanism, why not just have 2x Vickers firing thru the prop? Was there something about the British synchronization that made it usable with only one mount?

I know there were some instances of a pilot using the Lewis gun to fire upward, but this seems to be useful only in the rarest circumstances; I think it would be much more useful to have a second vickers with 800 rounds than the Lewis with 75(?)

Your thoughts?

This from wiki:

The S.E.5 had only one synchronised .303-in Vickers machine gun to the Camel's two. However it did have a wing-mounted Lewis gun on a Foster mounting, which enabled the pilot to fire at an enemy aircraft from below, as well as forward. This was much appreciated by the pilots of the first S.E.5 squadrons, as the new "C.C." synchronising gear for the Vickers was unreliable at first.

It does appear to be a strange design choice, but I suppose the roof rack Lewis would be a lot lighter than adding a second Vickers?

The story's about the Lewis being used to fire upwards seem to be a bit vague. Just re-loading the thing seems to have been a serious trial, never mind flying the aircraft while trying to aim the thing while it was sliding around on the track. Are there any other accuounts of the Lewis being fired upwards other than Bishops? There seems to be a large ? over some of Bishops claims.

Here's an interesting thread from The Aerodrome on the subject of the SE5a armament ... while it doesn't directly answer your question it does give some hints ... on both sides of the issue:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/9928-se5a-standard-armament.html

WH_JoeBob

It didnt slide around the mount. It slid back and locked in the upright position. You then only needed to reach up with one hand and fire the gun. You didnt aim it with the gun you aimed with the plane just like the vickers except it fired at an angle upwards. It was not overly hard to do. Reloading it was harder than firing it in the upright position.

The Lewis (American design BTW) was lighter and considered more reliable and much more available than the Vickers.

It couldn't be synchronized with the prop because it fired from an open bolt. So it was mounted on top of the wing.

It had been used by the RFC on the Nieuport 17 instead of the Vickers used by the French.

British aces (particularly Albert Ball) had more confidence in the Lewis and argued for one Vickers and one Lewis while the SE5a was being designed. The aircraft version of the Lewis had a 97-round double-stacked magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Gun

HT

But you'd be flying the aircraft with the gun almost in your face, and then firing it as well...... I just don't see it.

Not wishing to step on any toes, merely humbly correct:

The Lewis was fired via trigger on the stick. But alas, had to be reloaded by sliding it down in the foster mount, as earlier described and explained in many threads on this forum

Firing a Lewis with your hand while keeping a speed of about 100+ kilometers an hour is pretty much impossible, take your car out for a drive on the track at about 120-170 kmph, if the bumpy road and wobbly movement of your car does not change your mind (One thing is getting used to it in a simulator, doing it for real is completely different.) try sticking your hand out the window (Exclaimer: I do not take ANY responsibility for ANY injuries due to this.)

Thoughts of my own on the matter:
When SE5 mounted Lewis guns were reloaded mid-air (Very often in or right after combat.) speed had to be lowered a lot, some times, depending on air thickness almost to the point of stall speed, trim had to be adjusted (SE5 had elevator and rudder trim I believe.) to the specific speed, the stick was still loose and unstable, some even had to unbuckle their belts, all in all a risky business, rendering the average pilots attempting this into easy pickings for a lurking Fokker.
I`ll be using the lewis until empty, stick mostly to the Vickers, and if completely out of ammo (Even if there are additional drums for the Lewis.) dive out of the fight.

Watch 'Aces High' to see them messing around with the Lewis in flight!

I know its only a film,but I wouldn't have wanted to do that for real!

There was a wire that ran up to the trigger. When you depressed the trigger on the stick it pulled the trigger on the gun. That was the the ONLY way to fire the gun though. You could also manually fire it depending on the way the gun was setup and the version of the gun. When the gun is moved into position to be reloaded it did not drop down far enough to block the pilot's view. If that was the case it would be dangerous to reload and the gun was designed to be easily reloaded in a fight.

The car analogy is not even remotely similar. A plane can not loose control in the same way. Flight characteristics force the plane to fly straight. The only way messing with the lewis mounted gun would be a problem is if you were on the edge of a stall or in a heated dog fight. Those were not the time that the gun was used in it's upward facing position. It was used to sneak up below planes and fire into the bottom rear or to fire at a plane in a fight that had an alt advantage in a turn fight. It was also aim by moving the plane and not the gun.

Do you have any evidence about the reloading of the gun? I was under the impression (from pilot aars) that it was reloaded fairly easily at normal speeds and could even be reloaded in a fight given the proper motivation.

There have been several games that modeled the gun in both positions. I hope this game will too. If you feel that you would not be able to fire or reload the gun then so be it but I feel as though I would practice until I could do both of those tasks easily in a fight.

Here is a picture. Reloading is obviously harder than firing it at an incline but none the less possible.

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/lewisgun.jpg

I too had read that the Vickers was very prone to jam especially in the early years. If you get a chance to read James McCudden's book - Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps or any thing on Albert Ball you hear of both pilots being in quite a huff over a number of planes that got away because of the jamming.

The upwards firing was pretty much used exclusively on two seaters. It'd be interesting to know if it was ever used in a turning dogfight.

Albert Ball



William "Billy" Bishop

I wonder how they are going to model the reload process. It should not be easy, requiring level flight for some period of time.

Here's an interesting article, relating to the progression from Lewis to Vickers:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm

"The home-defence fighters retained the top-wing Lewis guns rather than the synchronised Vickers, for several reasons. First, the gun was lighter which was an advantage given the high rate of climb needed to reach airship altitudes; secondly, it could be tilted to fire upwards; thirdly, its location meant that the pilot was shielded from the muzzle flash by the wing, so didn't lose his night vision; and, last but far from least, it was unsafe to fire the early explosive/incendiary ammunition from a Vickers because the bullet left in the hot chamber after firing a burst could "cook off" from the heat. In this instance, the Lewis Gun's open-bolt firing was an advantage."

Given the importance of baloon-busting missions on the western front, I wonder if this may have been a factor in the decision to retain one Lewis gun on front-line A/C.

Albert Ball, at the height of his fame, was involved in "beta testing" the new SE5 scout and encouraged the Royal Aircraft Factory to adopt the top wing Lewis because of the success he had with a similar configuration in the Nieuport.

But, according to other sources, (and this surprised me) the Se5a was also quite a heavy aircraft, heavier in fact than the Spad 13. So it seems to keep to the performance figures required, the lighter Lewis was favoured over the twin Vickers configuration. So apparently it was a weight issue and a subsequent armament trade off.

from what I've read about the SE5, my understanding is that it was so difficult to reload the Lewis that many pilots didn't bother. It was actually impossible to do it in combat - pilots had to extend and leave the fray if ever they wanted to do it. Reports I read said that the air flow while flying made it very difficult and could result in arm or shoulder injury.
I don't know if many pilots used the Lewis gun in an upward firing position: it seems it was the exception rather than the norm. Flyxwire, I'd be interested in what you know about it.

PS: I've been a long time reader of the Aerodrome forum and read extensively about the SE5 as I'm modelling one in 3D (Windsock datafiles, In action, Profile publication and basically everything you can find in the net). Just a precision about where I got the info.

No elevator or rudder trim but it did have an adjustable stab. There is a wheel to the left of the pilot's seat for doing so.

The whole horizontal tailplane moved, so elevator trim, no?

I'm pretty sure that is not the case with the SE5a. Both horizontal and vertical parts of the tail feathers had a fixed component.

Interesting tidbit on the SE5a. It's forefather was that astoundingly deadly aircraft, feared by all in the German Air Service ... the BE2

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image/tid/80

Picture 011 shows a trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit. I read somewhere that its attatched to a bike chain arrangement that moves the whole horizontal tail plane.

I just want to back you up about the air resistance. Sticking your hand out of the car window going down the highway at 65mph might not seem too bad, fly your hand by changing it's pitch. Remember that when speed doubles that drag goes up by a factor of about 4.
So going 130mph would put 4 times the force on your hand.

Sometimes when I'm up just messing around in my Cessna 150, which cruises around the same speed as the ww1 fighters, I open the windows and stick my hand out. Let me tell you, you will not be doing anything that involves any kind of precision.

Another thing is that whatever you are doing is going to be affecting pitch/yaw/roll of the plane. It might be hard to believe without experiencing it, but just opening the window on my plane will start to turn it. Stick your hand out and it turns more. Open the left window and it turns right, open the right window and it turns left, open both and it pitches up. The doors have the same effect, only much more pronounced. I'm pretty sure you could land it only using the doors and throttle.

So changing that magazine up on the wing is not only going to be a difficult task with the wind, but in the process the plane is going to be trying to do things that it wouldn't do under normal flight. All the while you still have to maintain control.

The weights and speeds are not all that much different between a C150 and a lot of the ww1 fighters. ~100mph cruise ~1100-1600lbs. I'm sure the Cessna has much nicer flying qualities too.