I’ve more usually heard it credited to this guy, also French. But don’t let me keep you from your sheep, dynamitedave.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I’ve more usually heard it credited to this guy, also French. But don’t let me keep you from your sheep, dynamitedave.
[/QUOTE]
Garros was certainly the first to use it to effect, even if it’s not 100% clear who actually invented it without access to contemporary documents.
[QUOTE=George Constantinesco Hero-Workship Page linked above]
Gilbert’s system was available by December 1914 but official interest was slight. In February 1915 the famous French pilot Roland Garros used the idea on his Morane Saulnier Type H monoplane and is reputed to have shot down five German planes between 1-18th April 1915. The system had several weaknesses, such as severe shocks imposed on the wooden propeller blades, and the danger of ricocheting bullets damaging the airframe or even the pilot.
Nevertheless, the Germans were duly impressed, because when Garros was forced down by ground fire and captured, they examined his aircraft with interest with a view to copying it
[/QUOTE]
And what does Garros get for his achievements? A tennis ground named after him. It’s a funny old world.
[QUOTE=dynamitedave]
Didn’t someone first just bolt metal plates to the prop to deflect any bullets? I’m thinking the British, it’s the sort of “bright” idea they would consider. 
[/QUOTE]
Not as bad as the possible (or quite probably) UL that someone tried using wooden bullets. Didn’t remove the propellor, nor did they shoot anyone down.
Obligatory wikipedia link on the subject.
[QUOTE=minor7flat5]
<snip>
1000rev/min * 2 blades * 1min/60sec = 33-1/3 blades/sec
That gives 0.030sec/blade, which is 30ms.
Still, is the burn time and lock time of that machine gun accurate enough that it won’t vary by 30ms?
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
With my -very- rough calculations, I figure the length of burn time is about 2.5ms.
Black powder (I don’t think they used smokeless, but smokeless burns faster, anyway) burns at about Mach .1, so for ease of calculation we’ll call it 100ft/s. Assuming a cartridge is 1/4ft (3 inches), the burn time would be around 2.5ms.
I don’t know what “lock time” is, but if you had the triggering mechanism set up on a cam, it would be possible to design the hammer to fall when the blade was exactly where you wanted it to be (or rather, not allow it to fall when th blade is where you don’t want it to be), with almost no error.
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger]
Black powder (I don’t think they used smokeless, but smokeless burns faster, anyway) burns at about Mach .1, so for ease of calculation we’ll call it 100ft/s. Assuming a cartridge is 1/4ft (3 inches), the burn time would be around 2.5ms.
[/QUOTE]
WWI .303 British ammunition was loaded with Cordite as the propellant- black powder was phased out by Britain in 1895.
It should also be mentioned that, prior to the development of interruptor gear, there were three commonly employed methods of mounting a machine-gun on a flying machine.
-
Pusher-type aircraft, with the engine mounted at the rear of the fuselage, This gave the front observer or pilot an unobstructed field of fire in front of the plane. The F.E. 2 was a typical example of a “pusher”-type plane. (In case you were wondering, planes with the engine at the front were known as “tractor”-types)
-
Mounting the machine gun on the top wing, clear of the propeller’s arc. The Nieuport 17 and the Sopwith Camel Nightfighter had top wing-mounted machine guns, although the Night Fighter’s MGs were wing-mounted to avoid dazzling the pilot when they were fired.
-
Machine gun mounted in the rear cockpit only- the pilot had to get in front of or beside the target aircraft in order for the observer to fire the MG at it. Early Roland C. II aircraft were only equipped with a Spandau MG for the obsever in the rear cockpit.
It’s also worth noting that pilots also used to shoot at each other with rifles, service pistols, and shotguns as well. Balloon/Zeppelin Busters were also known to use Sudanese Campaign vintage Martini-Henry Carbine rifles with Incendiary rounds, and there are also instances of pilots using Very Pistols to try and shoot down enemy fighters as well.
WWI aircraft didn’t carry very much ammunition, either- about 400 rounds apiece for the twin Vickers Guns mounted on the Sopwith Camel or the SPAD XIII, IIRC- and there was no way to reload the guns in flight. Fighters equipped with Lewis Guns were the exception, as it fed from a 97-round drum magazine which could be changed when empty by the pilot through the use of a Foster Mount, which lowered the gun off the wing and down to where the pilot could get access to it. As a side effect, it also meant the Lewis could be fired vertically, which created a tactic whereby the pilot flew underneath his target and machine-gunned it, safely out of the field of fire of the enemy’s own guns.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
As a side effect, it also meant the Lewis could be fired vertically, which created a tactic whereby the pilot flew underneath his target and machine-gunned it, safely out of the field of fire of the enemy’s own guns.
[/QUOTE]
My grandfather (surprisingly for someone who was so much an Irish Nationalist) hoarded many books on the RAF during WWI and WWII, he was also delighted when one of the few remaining PBY Catalinas came back to Lough Erne where they flew from during WWII.
I remembered the story above from one of those books, fascinating to read about the tactics they used when coming to terms with this new type of fighting. The RAF also devised a tactic for their “pusher” aircraft (where the engine was behind and the observer/gunner sat in front) where the planes would group in a sort of circle and fly around and around with each plane covering the one in front. Sounded silly but worked well to keep the Germans off the tail of the plane in front.
It’s called the Lufbery circle. No body knows for sure who invented it, but Roul Lufbery got the credit.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I remember seeing that cartoon at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton when I was a kid. Is that where you saw it? I always think about that same cartoon whenever I see or read anythng about those WWI prop synchronizers.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never been to W-P or Dayton. Darned if I know where I saw it; probably while pawing thru the film offerings at the JH or SH school where I operated many of the projectors. Vaguely I remember it was a film about inventions, but I could be way off on that. Funny how that scene has stuck in both of our minds while the rest of the movie is forgotten.