Fe2 firing and manouver

[johnbiggles]

I think this is the correct place for this,
I have been reading about, and using anFe2b with 2 guns, and this is my idea for the firing arcs for the two gun version

I have worked this up from a photo and played with it in word then scanned it to get something to share
the front arc I have taken from Keith ( The Oberst)'s base,
the rear arc is the "Roland" arc. The other arc shows the limit of fire (at over 1/2 a ruler) downwards

the Fe2 was not able to Imelmann, however pilots apparently used a manouver called variously a hammerhead or a stall turn or a chandelle.
my version of this would be straight, climb or stall, then the card shown below

if using altitude, the move cannot be made at ceiling, as a climb is required.
The only restriction after the move is that it cannot be followed by a climb manouver, or any steep manouver.

I now place these thoughts before the forum for your perusal and comments

[gully_raker]

G'day John!
Some good work there.
I do think that the rear Arc should be wider towards the wings but can only fire at Aircraft at the same level or higher.
I do like the Hammerhead card.

[grumpybear]

G'day John!
Some good work there.
I do think that the rear Arc should be wider towards the wings but can only fire at Aircraft at the same level or higher.
I do like the Hammerhead card.

I agree rear arc should be wider

[WWIflyingace]

Ibid on the wider rear arc...

[Linz]

Hi John

Check this out
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...9509500ead4950
This is what the Stats committee put together many moons ago.
I personally think the arc can't be too big remembering the Observer has to stand on his seat to fire the rear gun so how far can he hang out and still get an accurate shot?
I think some where between the base corners and the standard rear arc would be right.
Linz

Thinking of the front arc I wonder if the Observer could get 180 degrees with the front gun as it is not on a scarf ring.
Think about the position of the gun and the amount of room beside it.
I think 150-160 degrees seems right.

[Linz]

Re Immelmann
Personally I would just use the Immelmann card.
In Peter Harts Book Bloody April the Hammerhead is called an Immelmann and it is a Fe2b they are talking about.
The Observers comments about the pilot doing one was not for polite company.
Linz

[Naharaht]

What we now call a 'Hammerhead' is the manoeuver, which Immelmann actually invented. It is only in more recent times that a 'half-roll off the top of a loop' has been referred to as an Immelmann turn.

[Linz]

The question then is which other aircraft are able to do the Hammerhead/Immelmann with out losing their wings?
The Sopwith 1- 1/2 Strutter, DH4, Roland, in fact most of the later German and allied two seaters with the exception of the overly stable like the RE8.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I am sure that the Stats committee will make a ruling on this if they have not already done so Linz.
Rob.

[flash]

...I have been reading about, and using anFe2b with 2 guns, and this is my idea for the firing arcs for the two gun version

the front arc I have taken from Keith ( The Oberst)'s base, the rear arc is the "Roland" arc. The other arc shows the limit of fire (at over 1/2 a ruler) downwards
....the Fe2 was not able to Imelmann, however pilots apparently used a manouver called variously a hammerhead or a stall turn or a chandelle.
my version of this would be straight, climb or stall, then the card shown ....

John, I would move the front arc of fire forward to pass through the nose of the aircraft as that's where the gun was. From pics of gunners demonstrating the firing positions that is a feasible arc of fire.
I would add an ordinary arc of fire to the front for the pilots use of the second gun - which should probably be a rare occasion and maybe thought given to some restricted manoeuvre for its use. There were also swivel mounts each side of the second guns main fitting in front of the pilots cockpit that the gun could be moved to so you could probably have secondary arcs for that to each side of the normal one. These could be used by pilot or gunner, in which case your original arc would come into play. Again rules/restrictions would need thinking about to use them.
Second gun firing to the rear - well, I'm still not convinced it can shoot at targets on the same level across the top of the wing but if you allow that then the rear blind spot (a la Roland) could be a little smaller than the one you show just to avoid the prop & fin of the tail. Certainly would not allow shooting back & downwards over the wing. As it stands you could end up with a spiders web of arcs !!
I wouldn't bother changing the movement cards as the idea of reversing direction is pretty much the same so the immel card would do the job - depending on what pics you look at the Chandelle is the 'modern' version of immel or the original as best I can work out ! I made up a hammerhead move as: Climb; Stall (reversed) (&/or place aircraft to side); Dive. (needs a little correction but pics in my album will give you the gist of it). Anyway, hope this fuels the fire of ideas.

[Linz]

What the stats committe did was give a standard set of arcs of fire to cover most aircraft.
This file shows these.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...do=file&id=959
As such the FE 2's were given 180degree front guns and the standard rear gunners arc for firing rearwards all arcs taken from the centre of the base.
In hindsight I am not sure we got this 100 % right and wonder if some further discussion on it is not valid.
With all rules there are exceptions maybe this is the exception.
What is the general rule of play that is happening out there with this aircraft.

I like your thought re pilot using rear firing gun as forward firing and am reminded of a report of a frightened observer hiding in his cockpit and the pilot using the machine gun as you suggested. This of course only works when the Observer is either hiding or dead otherwise he would be in the line of fire.
also need to think of the Fe2d which had a third fixed pilot operated Lewis

Re same level.
Think altitude peg as a band of space maybe 300m high either aircraft will be moving up and down within that band noses rising tails dropping.
I question weather the rear blind spot rule should apply for the Fe bearing in mind the angle the machine gun is mounted at.
Linz

[Linz]

Sorry tried to copy some thing here but didn't work.

Move along nothing to see here!!

[johnbiggles]

As I understand it, the Fe2 does not Immelman,, i.e. roll of the top of a half loop, but makes a sharp, near vertical climb, then using the rudder, it kicks over into a near vertical dive, and pulls out level again. I have seen this done by modern stunt aircraft, and I have spoken to a pilots who has done this in a glider.
the idea of the hammerhead card is that the aircraft virtually reverses itself in it's own length, i.e. the plane card/base turns 180 but is almost static.
The plane climbs, turns sideways and falls, so if using altitude rules, you need space to climb by whatever rules you use, then fall again by at least the same amount back down.

[johnbiggles]

As for the rear firing,
I still think the wider arc is more "reasonable" if such a term can be used for standing on the cockpit coming without a safety belt, but I can see the argument for above only.

regarding the pilot using the second gun, this was done with the telescoping mount (which I have modelled) but the first incarnation had the second gun on a fixed square frame which raised the gun to the level of the upper wing

[flash]

As I understand it, the Fe2 does not Immelman,, i.e. roll of the top of a half loop...

That is not the WW1 immelmann but rather the 'modern' name of it, the WW1 version is similar to a hammerhead in that it's starting and finishing on the same level:



In a hammerhead the aircraft climbs vertically and just before the point of stalling turns in its own length and regains air speed & control as it dives away - not sure they'd do that in a Fee.
I have since clarified a Chandelle is a 180 climbing turn

[milcoll73]

interesting thread. i especially like the idea of the hammerhead maneuver as it would be a good way to get turned around AND bleed off some speed. i wouldnt want to try it while being actively pursued though, as youd be very vulnerable at aphelion while performing said maneuver.

id agree with linz that a full 180 degrees of fire for both guns is too much as they are post mounted and not on a ring. to fire either at full deflection would require the firer to lean their bodymass out of the aircraft (without a belt as i understand it) a dangerous prospect in the heat of combat (especially if one of those firers is the a/cs pilot!!!!!).

it would seem to me that firering rearward, except at a target almost a little behind and almost on top of the a/c would be dicey at best and possibly catastrophic. sure you COULD fire between the wings but for the few seconds of firing profile your most likely to get it seems much more likely that, given combat manovering, youre more likely to do more damage to your own a/c taking out struts and bracing wires, control surfaces, radiators and the like than you are likely to inflict damage on your target. it would seem more of an act of desperation than anything else. also it would seem that piloting the a/c to give the gunner a viable target solution (ie straight and level) would leave the a/c much more vulnerable than jinking and rolling. given the time compression induced by the life and death situation of combat the amount of coordination required to pull off such shots would seem problematic. especially when youre relying on communication as ponderous as yelling through the slipstream or hand signals. it certainly gives me more respect for those that actually endured such conditions (and fosters quite a high "pucker factor").

also once you get an aircrews center bodymass outside the roll axis of the a/c its not going to take much manovering in roll, pitch or yaw axis to throw him about uncontrollably. if belted this would, at the very least make it extremely difficult to maintain target tracking and could lead to serious injury. the unbelted consequences are best not thought about.

[Linz]

The idea as I have read it is that the reversal was not just about turning the plane about quickly but was part of the zoom boom approach to attacking.
So you come from a place of height zoom down on an aircraft fire pass over or under enemy zoom up reverse and zoom back down again for another pass.

While Observers and pilots did on occasion fall out of aircraft if was not a common event I think therefore these men did not take superhuman efforts to shoot down enemy aircraft, evasion and living to fight the next day was and still is the better option if available.
One would think it would be bad form for a pilot to return to base without his Observer.

I would question weather it is possible for either the Pilot or Observer to fire during the reversal move.
Linz

[OldGuy59]

John,
Can I say that I admire your efforts to produce a card with the tools you are using? I'd almost try Windows Paint, before trying to do what you are doing.

If it wouldn't be too offensive, can I throw this into the discussion?



This is using the base files here on the forum, and a four-month college course in Photoshop.
I assume you wanted the crew indicated on the card? It can be fixed, if not.

Mike

Edit: Updated to match color and added the Index. Also, I used a Max Headroom custom card for the firing arc.

[Linz]

If it wouldn't be too offensive, can I throw this into the discussion?

No Mike you most certainly can't!
Damm to late again!

Seriously put yourself in the place of the Observer.
Linz

[gully_raker]

No far TOO generous Mike!

[OldGuy59]

OK,
So, Max Headroom's original card:


You didn't like my amended version above, how about this:


The forward firing arc is from the Vickers FB5 Gunbus.

Mike

[OldGuy59]

Just found a few pictures to illustrate the Observer's shooting positions. This explains the reaction to the 270 degree firing arc suggestion.

Firing to the rear:

No safety harness or parachutes. These guys were crazy or beyond brave.
So, firing at targets to the rear of their own plane would only be above their altitude, as even shooting close to the same altitude would require standing on the nacelle combing.

Firing at ground targets or lower altitude planes:

The mounting looks fixed to the left side of the nacelle. This would make firing at targets on the right side of the plane very difficult. Perhaps the arc indicated above to the left front (all the way to the wing tip), but not to the right more than 45 degrees past the nose?

Mike

[gully_raker]

OK,
So, Max Headroom's original card:

You didn't like my amended version above, how about this:


The forward firing arc is from the Vickers FB5 Gunbus.

Mike

Way better!

[flash]

Mike I'd spilt the rear arc with a narrow wedge to account for the prop tips & fin on the tail and maybe add a regular front arc (dashed) for the pilot for the rare occasion he may use it and maybe secondary arcs for the swivel mounts to each side of the regular one, all dependant of course on how the aircraft is fitted out !

[johnbiggles]

Hi Mike,
My 15 yr old daughter saw what I was trying to do, grabbed my laptop, went into Powerpoint, and in 3 minutes did a better job than I managed in 3 hours using word.

[Linz]

I still don't hold with the front gun being able to fire out to the wing tips. It puts the observer leaning over the front of the aircraft.
Linz

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I still don't hold with the front gun being able to fire out to the wing tips. It puts the observer leaning over the front of the aircraft.
Linz

I can see exactly what you mean Linz. However, does that not become more acceptable if you look upon it not so much as the Gunner leaning out to get the angle, but rather the extra veer of the plane itself, which is the same as the firing arc which Andrea extended to all the arcs of fire when he designed the game. This is the reason that the front arc is so extensive, even though we know that in reality fixed guns fired straight ahead.
Rob.

[Teaticket]

If the photos are of the average way the FEs were fitted out, I think the front arc is still much too generous. The front gun is on a stand quite a bit off to the left of center. That would make firing to the right wing tip practically impossible. Maybe a normal front right arc (as for most planes) and out to the left wing tip?
I agree the rear arc should have a wide split for firing to avoid the prop at same level shooting.

[OldGuy59]

Hi Mike,
My 15 yr old daughter saw what I was trying to do, grabbed my laptop, went into Powerpoint, and in 3 minutes did a better job than I managed in 3 hours using word.

Yeah!
John, I'd like to see that. PowerPoint could do a good job, now that you mention it. I did animations in PowerPoint, so I can believe it is possible.

Dave, I don't see the split firing arc to the rear, as the gun mount is higher than the prop arc and the tail. Also, if the gunner was actually aiming directly behind the plane with the mounting shown in my posted pictures, he'd be firing through the top wing and standing on the front gun mount. So, the rear arc should only be in effect with altitude rules in play for targets above the plane.

Mike

[johnbiggles]

revised firing arc, for single post front gun, and management card to keep track of where gunner is
Courtesy of Amy

[OldGuy59]

If the photos are of the average way the FEs were fitted out, I think the front arc is still much too generous. The front gun is on a stand quite a bit off to the left of center. That would make firing to the right wing tip practically impossible. Maybe a normal front right arc (as for most planes) and out to the left wing tip?
I agree the rear arc should have a wide split for firing to avoid the prop at same level shooting.

Looking at this drawing, the prop arc and tail are not an issue. The gun mount isn't high enough to allow firing directly to the rear, without firing through the upper wing (I don't mean between the wings, I mean deliberately shooting your own upper wing to hit something behind the plane). So, the rear arc is for targets above the wing, prop arc and tail.

This drawing shows the front mounting centered, as does my top view card image. For an "average" mounting, perhaps a 120 degree arc to the front (taking plane yaw and the flexible gun mount into consideration)?

Mike

[Teaticket]

Ok Mike, definitely agree you don't have a rear shot unless the target is above, no same level firing to the rear.

[flash]

I still don't hold with the front gun being able to fire out to the wing tips. It puts the observer leaning over the front of the aircraft.
Linz

I've seen pics of the gunner posing as if firing a twin Lewis mounted in the front backwards & upwards so firing a single one sideways wouldn't be an issue (Windsock datafile 18 for those interested p.22) and yes the gunner would be leaning over the front of the aircraft. Easier & a lot more comfortable than standing on the coaming I'd have thought.

[johnbiggles]

Hi Mike,
Not as good as Amy's work, but

the Caudron G4.
this one is worse than the Fe2, as the gunner has to unship the gun, and remount it to fire to the rear. the extra weight of a second gun would have affected it's small bomb carrying capacity. The French gave them multiple weapons and used them as escorts, but the British did not. Some of the British versions had a non-movable Vickers gun mounted.
the wing span is roughly DH4 plus Bristol Scout across, so this card is 51mm rather than 44mm. is there an opinion on intermediate width cards for medium bombers?

[johnbiggles]

I've seen pics of the gunner posing as if firing a twin Lewis mounted in the front backwards & upwards so firing a single one sideways wouldn't be an issue (Windsock datafile 18 for those interested p.22) and yes the gunner would be leaning over the front of the aircraft. Easier & a lot more comfortable than standing on the coaming I'd have thought.

Late versions of the Fe2d were fitted with Scarf rings, so that the gun or guns could give maximum effect.

[OldGuy59]

I've seen pics of the gunner posing as if firing a twin Lewis mounted in the front backwards & upwards so firing a single one sideways wouldn't be an issue (Windsock datafile 18 for those interested p.22) and yes the gunner would be leaning over the front of the aircraft. Easier & a lot more comfortable than standing on the coaming I'd have thought.

I need a library. I'm slowly building one, but it cuts into my plane fund. So, I don't have access to the p.22 picture. There is a cover shot on Amazon, and it is misleading compared to the pictures and drawings I have.

Perhaps the plane is slightly nose-up, or the mounting is higher, or there is some artistic license being exercised, as the image isn't possible with the drawing I posted above. In the first picture I posted (Firing to the rear), if you assume the gunner is on his knees kneeling on his seat, then perhaps he could stand and shoot closer over the wing, but not at the angle shown in the cover art. The gun mount just isn't high enough.

What about this?


And there is this image from Wikipedia

Note the gas tank on the upper wing. Definite line of sight issue, but only with the F.E.2d?

This also shows the "non-standard" pilot gun mounting that was mentioned above. The dashed limited firing arc to the front could be used. This would raise the issue of two B guns firing at the same target. Is that one A card, or two B cards? Definitely separate jam results, so two Bs. However, what do we do with SE5as?

Mike

[flash]

...Dave, I don't see the split firing arc to the rear, as the gun mount is higher than the prop arc and the tail. Also, if the gunner was actually aiming directly behind the plane with the mounting shown in my posted pictures, he'd be firing through the top wing and standing on the front gun mount. So, the rear arc should only be in effect with altitude rules in play for targets above the plane. Mike

I only suggested it for those who accept it can shoot aircraft at the same level - which I don't. If they can the prop blades would create a blind spot for targets directly to the rear as they show above the centre of the top plane. (So what I was suggesting would work like the Roland arcs but facing backwards). It is documented that gunners even stood on the box seat and the coaming of the nacelle when firing to the rear - the chap in your photo is either kneeling on the box or standing on the floor of the nacelle and who knows if the gun mounting pole is fully extended ?

[flash]

I need a library. I'm slowly building one, but it cuts into my plane fund. So, I don't have access to the p.22 picture. There is a cover shot on Amazon, and it is misleading compared to the pictures and drawings I have....

Quite - who takes any art work as gospel ?! I was referring to photographs.

[OldGuy59]

...and who knows if the gun mounting pole is fully extended ?

Hmmm... Is the pole adjustable? That could make firing to the rear possible. Looking at my last picture, it could be telescopic. So, the cover art image could be possible, and note that the gunner isn't firing at a target directly to the rear. The gas tank is also below the upper wing, not above it as on the F.E.2d. More research? or a split arc to the rear, after all? Let's leave the card as is, and use the bomber blind spot rule (no firing through the tail at the same altitude)?

Mike

[flash]

If the photos are of the average way the FEs were fitted out, I think the front arc is still much too generous. The front gun is on a stand quite a bit off to the left of center. That would make firing to the right wing tip practically impossible. Maybe a normal front right arc (as for most planes) and out to the left wing tip?....

The front gun mount is secured to the front centre of the cockpit floor and can be moved about - clips were provided on the cockpits edge to clip it into and make it more secure for firing - this one (in the photo above) I would guess has been clipped in on the front left.
This image from RoF shows it off very nicely:


Or how about a real one I found at Wingnuts:

[OldGuy59]

This image from RoF shows it off very nicely:

You're right, very nice. That makes the extreme right and left arcs very possible, and if not "clipped" very maneuverable. So, back to the FB5 Gunbus firing arc for the front? No leaning out of the cockpit to fire to the left or right with this configuration. And I note the flip-up seat. not comfortable to sit in, but makes the cockpit very versatile.

Mike

[flash]

Hmmm... Is the pole adjustable? That could make firing to the rear possible. Looking at my last picture, it could be telescopic. So, the cover art image could be possible, and note that the gunner isn't firing at a target directly to the rear. The gas tank is also below the upper wing, not above it as on the F.E.2d. More research? or a split arc to the rear, after all? Let's leave the card as is, and use the bomber blind spot rule (no firing through the tail at the same altitude)?
Mike

There was a telescopic mount of varying marks as the standard fit for the rear gun - I'm with you though and don't believe it could fire flat across its top plane at targets at the same level to the rear as I've never seen a photo demonstrating that - and if it could the prop disc is still there - but fully accept it can have a pop at anything just above the tail.
Another good book to look out for is Planes of the Royal Aircraft Factory by Paul R Hare. I have to say that the FE2 series is a can of worms when you start trying to nail down specifics !
And yeah - I'd go with the Gunbus arc you had in post 21

[milcoll73]

I can see exactly what you mean Linz. However, does that not become more acceptable if you look upon it not so much as the Gunner leaning out to get the angle, but rather the extra veer of the plane itself, which is the same as the firing arc which Andrea extended to all the arcs of fire when he designed the game. This is the reason that the front arc is so extensive, even though we know that in reality fixed guns fired straight ahead.
Rob.

that is an excellent point!

[milcoll73]

Hi Mike,
My 15 yr old daughter saw what I was trying to do, grabbed my laptop, went into Powerpoint, and in 3 minutes did a better job than I managed in 3 hours using word.

siiiggghhh, do yoiu ever get the feeling technology has passed us by?

[milcoll73]

The front gun mount is secured to the front centre of the cockpit floor and can be moved about - clips were provided on the cockpits edge to clip it into and make it more secure for firing - this one (in the photo above) I would guess has been clipped in on the front left.
This image from RoF shows it off very nicely:


Or how about a real one I found at Wingnuts:

look at the slight depressions in the combing at the rear of the cockpit. you can see where the observers been standing on this bird.

[Naharaht]

Is there an Fe2b in a museum somewhere, which someone could visit to check out the firing arcs?

[OldGuy59]

siiiggghhh, do yoiu ever get the feeling technology has passed us by?

Not quite.

It is hard to believe that I was a technician working on a plane with 27 computers networked together, and thought nothing of fixing that, but needed a college course to work my computer.

Mike

[prymus]

One would think it would be bad form for a pilot to return to base without his Observer.

I would think at the very least there would be a lack of enthusiastic "volunteers".

I would like to add that this is a very interesting thread and thank you to all those contributing an amazing knowledge of this, and other, aircraft.

[Naharaht]

I have found out that there is an Fe2b in the R.A.F. Museum at Hendon, London.

[gully_raker]

Is there an Fe2b in a museum somewhere, which someone could visit to check out the firing arcs?

Yes but its in New Zealand & they have TWO, Night Fighter/Bomber & standard model.

Pics attached.