Warbird Information Exchange

I was thinking of the E, as they ordered it in 1940. So we are on the same page there.

Joe Baugher's page on the B-26 says it was the first, but I have a historical report from Irving Holley that says that the Air Corps experimented with fire control (a la B-29) on a B-18 in the 1930s. That said, I've never seen any pictures of it.

Holley also states that at the beginning of the war a group of British turret manufacturers consulted with the Air Corps in helping establish powered turrets in the US, but that we differed to electric turrets over hydraulic ones. (Did we have any hydraulic turrets in US service? You guys might know that one.)

If Glenn Martin came up with their turret that fast, I must say kudos to them in creating probably the most effective powered turret of the war on the fly.

Among the American turrets using hydraulics include:

the Briggs-Sperry A-13 and A-2 ball turrets,
Consolidated Model A-6 and A-6A nose and tail turrets,
Sperry Model A-1 mid upper turret,
Martin 250CH-1 Upper deck turret and 250CH-2 tail turret,
Martin 250SH-1A & -2 Ball turret,
Erco 250SH Ball turret,
Erco 250TH-1 & -2 Teardrop turret,
as well as the previously-mentioned Vought-Sikorsky 150CH-3.

Surely I've missed some?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

You could argue that these are electric over hydraulic in that they are self contained, with only an electrical connection to the airframe. Ditto the Boulton Paul turrets.
Nash & Thomson turrets using an engine driven pump would be pure hydraulic

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

On turrets first thing to remember is all hyds were new and had a lot of problems no.1,was they did not have non foaming hyd fluid at high pressure. And the hyd fitting hard lines hoses were part of problem. Now on turrets had to spin 360 degrees all day long. They did not have hyd fitting that could do that, so what they did was to use a 24-28 volt hyd pump on each turret. On center pivot top or bottom they put brushes and what's call slip rings that could power the turret hyd pump motor in any position and would allow the turret to spin 360s all day long. Now on turrets that did not have to spin 360s then they could use the airplanes hyd sys.

Question, which was better hydraulic or electric? Or should I ask, which did the crew members like better?

Shrike's answer as to the difference between them was the general consensus, historically speaking. Though the Boulton Paul Overstrand was the odd man out, seeing that it used compressed air (of all things).

As to which were more liked, I would say that electrics probably won that battle, seeing as RAF Bomber Command started using American built Martin upper turrets in the latter stages of the war.

Did the Soviets use compressed air powered turrets? it wouldn't surprise me given their penchant for using it for everything else

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Boy your right bout the russkies and air bout only thing it don't do is lights and radios.

Seeing as there is a serious lack of scholarly research on Imperial Russia/the Soviet Unions' strategic bomber programs (at least in the US), I honestly have no idea about their turrets.

For some reason, all the big names in the military history field want to compare the United States and Great Britain to Nazi Germany. I'd love to tackle the Soviet Union's strategic bomber program (which they practically built from scratch) but alas, I can't speak the language.

Any Russians here on the Exchange?