F92 Panther upgrade goes through

I read that the Panther had the Emerson Gun Installation during trials which allowed the gun to turn to face the target. the source I read said it was cut down despite success.

Is this true? and if so what would be the effect of the Installation being used in later wars like Vietnam?
 
There were several aspects to the system, and one was fully successful. The electro-hydraulically driven turret would point where it was told. The radar which sought and tracked targets, and the fire control system which would calculate how to lay bullets onto that target were far beyond the scope at that time. By the time technology had caught up, it was assumed that a missile would be a better choice. Indeed, all aspect, and off-boresight missiles of the fire-and-forget variety are better, and various improvements in aircraft manoeuvering have increased the effectiveness of the fixed forward firing gun. The Panther was still one up on the Boulton Paul Defiant because the guns were mounted in the forward hemisphere and could fire ahead, the natural direction of attack.

Emersonaerox17a.jpg
 
Four 50 cals would still lack the punch needed to easily knock down a Mig 15. Could that fitting use 20mm cannons?
 
The Panther was still one up on the Boulton Paul Defiant because the guns were mounted in the forward hemisphere and could fire ahead, the natural direction of attack.
The BP Defiant could have mounted forward facing guns if they'd wanted it to, whereas this couldn't fire on anything that got on its tail.

Overall, this seems more like something you'd put on a ground-attack craft than a fighter.
 
Because it became obvious that turreted fighters were a dead-end as far as killing bombers went?

IMO this would do better mounted in a two-seater, with one man working the turret.
 
Because it became obvious that turreted fighters were a dead-end as far as killing bombers went?

IMO this would do better mounted in a two-seater, with one man working the turret.

For what possible purpose would it do better? If turreted fighters were useless in WW2, they won't be any more successful post-war.
 
For what possible purpose would it do better? If turreted fighters were useless in WW2, they won't be any more successful post-war.
I said turreted fighters were of limited us vs bombers (the turrets slow it down, and have limited firepower), but for this thing, well straffing would seem a good option, you can hold fire for longer than with normal guns, and/or hit something outside of your direct path.
 
I said turreted fighters were of limited us vs bombers (the turrets slow it down, and have limited firepower), but for this thing, well straffing would seem a good option, you can hold fire for longer than with normal guns, and/or hit something outside of your direct path.

I can follow that logic, but it still seems like a poor choice for a fighter-type airframe. Perhaps on something like an updated A-26... but that design started with turrets anyway, and they were deleted when the aircraft was taken into southeast Asia. The A-26 gained steadily more fixed forward-firing weaponry as it evolved, so it doesn't look like they were too impressed with the potential of turrets in the ground-attack role (if you're waiting for a joke about turrette's syndrome, you can just keep waiting).
Are you imagining something like a smaller, handier, AC-47?
 
I was actually thinking more of a jet-powered successor to the A-1 Skyraider (guns can point anywhere, disposable ordnance can only really fire forward), although I suppose even for that the armament would be a bit light.
 
Hey now.... Make the turret armament 4x .30 cal and put it on the Me-262. That way you have the 4 30mm and the 4 .30cal for defense/off angle attack.

Or you can put the Emerson Gun on the nose of the Me-262 and make it awesome.

I really wanna do some Me-262 work now...
 
I was actually thinking more of a jet-powered successor to the A-1 Skyraider (guns can point anywhere, disposable ordnance can only really fire forward), although I suppose even for that the armament would be a bit light.

I think it is too light, really. The Skyraider mounted 4x20mm IIRC, which doesn't seem excessive for a dedicated ground-attack platform. Adding a turret and gunner might be useful sometimes, but - assuming you want to carry disposable ordnance as well - it increases the mass significantly until you need something the size of a light bomber to carry it anyway.
 
Firing an aircraft's fixed forward firing guns at a target at 12 o'clock aren't that complex. Calculate range and drop of shot, forget windage and humidity, and Bob's your uncle. Firing those same guns at a deflection target transiting your sight requires much more calculation, increasing the chance of a pure miss. Firing guns which are at deflection from your line of flight at a deflection target transiting your sight is intensely difficult. It's the stuff that complex algorithms are made of. That's why bombers couldn't defend themselves. Aircraft carry limited ammunition loads and they don't have the liberty of spraying it like a Chicago gangster with a Tommy gun. An exception, one American waist gunner, an ex football player and aerial gunnery instructor, shot down 7 fighters on a single mission, but he had to borrow ammunition from other gunners, who were also cuing him on targets. That's how you get to Carnegie Hall. If they could put his brain into the nose of an F9F2, they'd have something. Technology's a bitch.

Sincerely,
Al Gorithm.
 
Top