|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 2, 2020 15:49:01 GMT 12
PV-1 Venturas had quite a bit of armour plate fitted to later production aircraft, including on back of pilot's seat, also under the belly gunner's position, and sometime also around wireless operator's position. The main fuel tanks in inner wing sections, as well as fuselage tanks in cabin were of the synthetic/natural rubber type, the cabin tanks with internal stiffeners. However, why would armour plate be left installed postwar? Possibly because they had not got around to removing it? PV-1 Venturas were never fitted with 303" Brownings, just 0.50 calibre in turret and "bow" guns (top of nose) plus 0.30" calibre in belly position.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by mannixt2 on Jun 2, 2020 16:55:24 GMT 12
Yes I completely agree with you. It seems I was looking at the Ventura Aircraft produced for the RAF - they had the .303 machine guns.
Specification of Lockheed Ventura I:
Engines: Two 1850 hp Pratt & Whitney S1A4-G Double Wasps air-cooled radial engines. Performance: Maximum speed 312 mph at 15,500 feet. Cruising speed 272 mph. Initial climb rate 2035 feet per minute. Service ceiling 25,000 feet. Normal range 925 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 65 feet 6 inches, length 51 feet 5 inches, height 11 feet 10 1/2 inches, wing area 551 square feet. Weights: 17,233 pounds empty, 22,500 pounds loaded, 26,000 pounds maximum. Armament: Two 0.303-inch machine guns installed in dorsal turret. On later production aircraft the number of guns in the dorsal turret was increased to four. Twin flexible 0.303-inch machine guns were mounted in the extreme nose. A pair of flexible 0.303-inch machine guns were mounted in a ventral position behind the wing trailing edge. Two fixed forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the upper decking of the nose. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried in an internal bomb bay.
I put a note on the listing about the error
Thank you for pointing that out, the plates sound right as well - appreciate the input.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelsonefive on Jun 2, 2020 17:14:25 GMT 12
" However, why would armour plate be left installed postwar? Possibly because they had not got around to removing it? "
Maybe the solid armour plate had a dual role, and as well as providing protection to the crew contributed to the strength of the airframe ? It was structural, I think the term is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 2, 2020 17:24:03 GMT 12
That poor aeroplane is a sad sight.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jun 2, 2020 18:40:22 GMT 12
Fascinating!
|
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jun 2, 2020 20:39:03 GMT 12
Removal of the armour plate could also cause problems with the CG position
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 2, 2020 21:30:59 GMT 12
It is quite difficult to locate information on exactly WHEN the additional armour was added to PV-1s (and it could also be retrofitted, although I doubt the RNZAF took up this option). I think that the pilot's seat-back armour was in from the start, and was probably installed right from the very first RAF Venturas. It is entirely possible that angelsonefive is correct in supposition that the seat armour at least was partly structural. If it were possible to inspect a real Ventura, or get access to the illustrated parts book, or the erection and maintenance manuals, it may well be possible to properly answer this question. However never any armour in bow compartment, that possibly because of C o G issues, and navigator also had an alternate position in mid-cabin area. Adding additional armour would have been a straightforward job for designers, but the people paying for the aircraft would be the ones to make final decision in such matters, as it was always a balance (NOT intended as a pun!) between range, bomb load, and degree of protection considered "about optimal" for the mission type and number of crew carried.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by denysjones on Jun 5, 2020 14:55:34 GMT 12
Looking at the IPC for PV-1 the pilot's seat looks to be identical to the Hudson one.
The seat has a bottom (a tray basically) with pressed back and wrap around sides. Inside the back is the armour plate and not shown in the manual is how it is fixed but I'd say the same as the Hudson in that there are some 6-8 circular spacers between the two items through which the bolts go.
On the rear of the seat back are a pair of vertical rails and these mount the seat to the cockpit bulkhead so there's no structural contribution provided by the seat.
Neither the Hudson or PV-1 IPC's show the seat with detail of the armour, if you're interested sing out and I'll take a photo for you.
Taking the armour out of the seat is relatively easy but believe me installing it isn't as the spacers are profiled to the curve of the armour and have to be aligned as a result. The gap being less than an inch.
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2020 21:26:20 GMT 12
Oh, what happened to the videos?Some posts have vanished. |
|
|
|
Post by markrogers on Jun 5, 2020 23:23:16 GMT 12
Yes, what happened to the videos? There were there and now they're gone. Fortunately I watched them before they disappeared.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 6, 2020 8:12:22 GMT 12
The original posts seem to have gone, but they are still on youtube
|
|
|
|
Post by denysjones on Jun 6, 2020 21:25:53 GMT 12
Here's the shots of the seat armour Looking rear you see the plate as quite square and the head of the screws through it and the spacers behind and into the pressed seat back.  Here the rails mounting the seat off the bulkhead...so as you can see no structural contribution.  hth cheers |
|
