Why point the whole plane at the target. Why not moveable forward guns?

[Skoshi Tiger]

Straight from the ROF store page for the DH-2 aircraft.

"The Lewis machine gun was mounted in a nacelle and was difficult to implement to begin with. The movable gun mount forced the pilot not only to control the aircraft but also to aim the machine gun, which made combat even more difficult. Later on, pilots began to lock the gun down in a fixed position pointing forward. They managed to aim the weapon with the whole aircraft, and this was found to be more effective than attempting to move the machine gun around during engagements."

Now I'm not suggesting that you should take the word of a CFS as gospel but it does make sense.

Defelction shooting is hard enough as it is, though aces mastered it quite often. Try adding a couple of extra varables into the equation and I guess the dificulty would escalate exponentially.

The work load for the pilot in a single seat fighter is hard enough as it is. Add a nose gunner to the plane and things become a bit different.

Cheers!

[lonewulf]

"Wasn't there a British pilot in WWI who had a flex-mounted forward firing MG on top of the wing, before the synchronization came into use?"

Not too sure about pre-syncronization, but Albert Ball was the most famous of the Allied airmen to use an upward slanting Lewis on the Foster mount on his se5 to shoot down enemy aircraft.

This concept was later dusted-off and re-introduced by the Germans in WW 2 in their slanted weapon 'schrage musik' installations. When RAF bomber crews started to report terrifying mid-air explosions on their trips over Europe, Bomber Command dismissed these as 'scarecrow' shells incorporated with the flak to frighten the aircrews. In the end of course it turned out that there were no such thing as scarecrow shells. It was really British bombers exploding in mid-air after being hit but schrage musik equiped night fighters that were causing the pyrotechnics displays.

[Al Schlageter]

I recall that some early jets (1950ish) experimented with 4 (?) gun noses that were movable.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Defelction shooting is hard enough as it is, though aces mastered it quite often. Try adding a couple of extra varables into the equation and I guess the dificulty would escalate exponentially.

The work load for the pilot in a single seat fighter is hard enough as it is.

There's your answer

[Bearcat]

In a nutshell.. That might have worked in WWI .. might have.. but can you imagine trying to fly and aim a gun.. at least with fixed guns that took out one step.. just put the plane where it needed to be and shoot.. Also.. I imagine that aimable guns would wreck havoc on flight attitude.. as it was when a P-47 fired all it's guns there was a noticeable drop in air speed.

[WTE_Galway]

So your thinking something like an attack helicopter but fitted to a fighter ?

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

So your thinking something like an attack helicopter but fitted to a fighter ?

Yes. I think it's strange that there hasn't been an attempt at doing it.

[raaaid]

yeah what if they controlled the front guns with the head as you do with trackir now?

some linked helmet comes to mind

[BGs_Ricky]

Originally Posted by raaaid

yeah what if they controlled the front guns with the head as you do with trackir now?

some linked helmet comes to mind

You can find that already on combat helicopters, been in use for a long time now.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by major_setback

Yes. I think it's strange that there hasn't been an attempt at doing it.

G-forces and drag at high speeds are the crux, I guess.