|ERNEST BARTON, e-mail, 02.05.2013 16:21|
The guns are no more complex than the ones on the B36. These bombers were intended to fly higher than most German fighters could reach and drop Earthquake bombs. I think at least one should have been kept - it was full of ideas before their time and a beautiful Whale like shape that makes the Lincoln look like a cardboard Box.
|John, e-mail, 05.04.2013 21:06|
I just completed a 1/72 scale scratch built model
and seeing it in hand it is quite cool.
|coleighf, e-mail, 26.09.2012 17:58|
I'm a bit late coming into this one, but as far as the nacelle barbettes were concerned there were no gunners in them. They were remotely controlled by a gunner in the tail with good all round view and had an excellent field of fire. The results of extensive tests with them fitted to a Warwick were very successful, the technology then was perfectly capable of managing this. Some of the bomb aiming and gun sighting systems were very sophisticated by the end of the war. This one was just taken over by events.
|Scottb60, e-mail, 05.06.2012 04:43|
They could all be aimed at the same spot, or within a few feet of the other guns. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If they were all aimed remotely to the gunners aim it would be pretty simple. All you have to do is synchronize the position of the three guns to the desired location. I would have thought they had small electric motors then.
|This guy, e-mail, 05.06.2012 00:00|
I think the windsor is pretty cool. Probably my most favorite british bomber.
|Mordred, e-mail, 29.05.2012 09:58|
There is an old saying "If it looks right, it is right" and this aircraft looks absolutely dreadful. Wheels under each of the four engines? Remotely controlled armament at the rear of each of the engines controlled by the gunner located in the tail of the aircraft? Oh, for heavens sake ! Thankfully post WW2 we were at the dawn of the jet age and this aircraft was obsolete before it could become operational.
|ERNEST BARTON, e-mail, 01.08.2011 04:52|
The type was to have been covered in fabric incorporating stainless steel ribbons and fibreglass precursors of modern composite structures it is a pity at least one was not kept as far from being ugly It strikes me as one of the most elegent four engine bombers ever designed and a six engine version would have been even better.
|loulou, 20.06.2011 12:17|
calculate the difference in parallax at various target distances, and accomplish that both instantly and continuously. I find it difficult to believe that such technology existed in the 1940s!
|, e-mail, 20.06.2011 12:16|
|Klaatu, e-mail, 10.06.2011 22:20|
The defensive armament scheme sounds like a potential nightmare. The guns were to be mounted in the outboard engine nacelles, and presumably aimed by a gunner in the compartment in the tail. That means that the gunner's point of view for aiming the guns would be so far from the actual position of the guns that a computer would be required to calculate the difference in parallax at various target distances, and accomplish that both instantly and continuously. I find it difficult to believe that such technology existed in the 1940s!
|bombardier, e-mail, 25.05.2011 10:03|
The ugliest British heavy bomber
|justo miranda, e-mail, 17.12.2007 22:48|
please see this url
|Daniel, e-mail, 21.02.2007 22:26|
Je recherche désespérement un plan 4 vues digne de ce nom afin de réaliser une maquette au 1/72.