Thank you. Was looking for Hispano general info and concept and got more than I bargained for. All because of videos games. I feel like I’ll be getting into more of your channels’ rabbit hole
Hi Brian - Jonathan from the Royal Armouries here. Great video as always - some minor corrections if I may, based upon study of the Pattern Room archive. These are, sorry to say, the unintended consequence of your otherwise excellent choice of colour photos to replace the original AP drawings, and also by some conflation, earlier in the video, of the Spit Mk.Vb and Vc installations. 1:30 “The Spitfire Mk.V was fitted with a belt feed mechanism…” - ONLY the Vc was fitted with a BFM, it could not in actual practice “be used instead of a magazine” - the Vb still had the guns mounted on their sides precisely in order to use the 60rd mag which was the only option when it was designed. Likewise, the Vc had the BFM ONLY since there was no room or need to use the mag. The gun shown at 2:05 is a Mk.II, yes, but it’s one set up for the Sea Fury or Meteor, not a Spit. The Front Mounting Unit is the No.3 Mk.2 - the giveaway being the short, round section FMU/recoil spring. Also, you’ve labelled said spring (also at 3:11) the “recoil reducer” - that’s the term for the slotted muzzle brake device, which isn’t fitted in this or indeed the Spit Vc installation as the extra drag from the BFM negated the need for it. The Belt Feed Mechanism is the Mk.V (see below). 2:53 - NB the slots in the recoil reducer are not cooling slots - they are ports, since it is a form of muzzle brake. The Belt Feed Mechanism photos you’ve used at 3:19 are the Mk.V type dating from 1944 at the earliest - the AP shows the Mk.I as per your caption. They are very similar but if you compare closely you should spot the differences. 3:42 - your image shows FOUR sprockets, one labelled ‘extra sprocket’, your commentary says three. This is due to the AP source covering both types - the extra sprocket was added to the Mk.I* BFM. Worth noting that despite the abridged AP wording implying it, the BFM is not driven per se by the gun - it’s driven by spring tension in the internal clockspring. The rack operating lever only tops up the spring tension on the BFM that is already there from the loading process.
If it's British, I'll cover it! I am currently working on the Lancaster, Hurricane, Mosquito and Halifax. This keeps me very busy! Thanks for subscribing.
hello from Italy, thanx so much for all these golden pills of aeronautical knowledge from the WW2 RAF airplanes. This one a great addition, the 20 mm. Hispano should be virtually the same basic weapon the P-38 Lightning had back then among its machine guns and, by firing from its longitudinal axis (no convergency issues) results were usually devastating even though there was only one cannon. Please just a little doubt on my part regarding the cylindrical ammo feeders, mostly it's my fault in not fully understanding the strictly technical description: they weren't ammo drums of course, so were they something like 'helpers' for better feeding? I mean, the same result wasn't possible without them, rather having ammo belts directly entering the weapons? Thanx very much. Franco.
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 yes but, would have been the belts useless without those cylinders with wheels/sprockets inside? Or, would have the belts worked good anyway? In this latter case, did the cylinders have 'only' to help the belts in feeding better?
Yes, it’s the cover over the end of the blast tube for when either a second cannon or mg was fitted. The bulge over the cannon on the top of the wing was originally wider, to cater for 2x20mm cannon in each wing, but as that configuration was rarely used the smaller bulge was developed as it offered less air resistance - and hence a higher airspeed.
If British would throw out the useless 7.7mm machineguns and would save weight and space what would be theoretically the most amount of ammunition for the 20mm Hispano? Could they modify the wing to accommodate at least 150-200 rounds per gun? The Fw-190 had 250rpg for the wingroot MG151s which was a really great amount for a 20mm cannon that time. I really cannot understand wasting space and weight for such an outdated caliber like .303 or even just a single pair of .50cal BMG (Wing Type E). The .50BMG was a great MG but at least four or rather six per aircraft. Was there any field modification for Spitfires in armament anyway? I know about Abukir Spitfire Mk.Vs which was modified to catch high-flying Junkers Ju-86P recon aircrafts only having two cannons (and four bladed propellers and upgraded engines, etc). There was also similar Mk.IXs in England to deal with Ju-86R recon aircrafts as well (Prince Emanuel Galitzine damaged one and forced it to drop its bombload before the target). The Hispano Mk.II was a bit low rate of fire cannon but it had really long barrels and long ammunition case to have a really impressive muzzle velocity and energy on impact. And if I'm not mistaken it was quite a accurate cannon as well.
It's all history I suppose. Possible restrictions for further development could be put down to additional weight and wing strength. I'll lookout for any interesting answers to your comments. Thanks, as always for watching.
Most Spitfires from 1944 onwards had x2 20mm cannon and x2 .50 cal mgs. Spitfires could be fitted with x4 20mm cannon, but pilots preferred the previous configuration outlined above.
Thank you. Was looking for Hispano general info and concept and got more than I bargained for. All because of videos games. I feel like I’ll be getting into more of your channels’ rabbit hole
Quite a good review, I own a 20MM Hispano mounted in a carriage, its registered here in America after an exhaustive Police background check.
Thanks for watching
Your brilliant talk took me back 60 years when I learnt all about the 20mm Hispano in training which was at that time fitted into a Canberra gun pack.
Thanks for watching. I'm pleased you like the video.
I continue to be amazed - and thankful - for the level of detail you convey. Truly appreciate all you do, thanks!
Thanks Pat, My pleasure!
Hi Brian - Jonathan from the Royal Armouries here. Great video as always - some minor corrections if I may, based upon study of the Pattern Room archive. These are, sorry to say, the unintended consequence of your otherwise excellent choice of colour photos to replace the original AP drawings, and also by some conflation, earlier in the video, of the Spit Mk.Vb and Vc installations.
1:30 “The Spitfire Mk.V was fitted with a belt feed mechanism…” - ONLY the Vc was fitted with a BFM, it could not in actual practice “be used instead of a magazine” - the Vb still had the guns mounted on their sides precisely in order to use the 60rd mag which was the only option when it was designed. Likewise, the Vc had the BFM ONLY since there was no room or need to use the mag.
The gun shown at 2:05 is a Mk.II, yes, but it’s one set up for the Sea Fury or Meteor, not a Spit. The Front Mounting Unit is the No.3 Mk.2 - the giveaway being the short, round section FMU/recoil spring. Also, you’ve labelled said spring (also at 3:11) the “recoil reducer” - that’s the term for the slotted muzzle brake device, which isn’t fitted in this or indeed the Spit Vc installation as the extra drag from the BFM negated the need for it. The Belt Feed Mechanism is the Mk.V (see below).
2:53 - NB the slots in the recoil reducer are not cooling slots - they are ports, since it is a form of muzzle brake.
The Belt Feed Mechanism photos you’ve used at 3:19 are the Mk.V type dating from 1944 at the earliest - the AP shows the Mk.I as per your caption. They are very similar but if you compare closely you should spot the differences.
3:42 - your image shows FOUR sprockets, one labelled ‘extra sprocket’, your commentary says three. This is due to the AP source covering both types - the extra sprocket was added to the Mk.I* BFM.
Worth noting that despite the abridged AP wording implying it, the BFM is not driven per se by the gun - it’s driven by spring tension in the internal clockspring. The rack operating lever only tops up the spring tension on the BFM that is already there from the loading process.
Thanks Jonathan. Your points are noted.
Another masterpiece Bryan, thank you for posting. Your posts are so informative.
I appreciate that, thank you!
wow where have you been all my life this is great
Welcome, I'm please you've found my channel!
Very well done sir.
Thank you! Cheers!
Amazing video and details! Thank you very much, a big hug from Chile, Cris
You're very welcome!
Brilliant in-depth, informative video. This is a great, clear explanation. Thank you!!
You're very welcome!
The diagrams are very helpful
Thanks
Great resource for building my Tamiya 1/32 scale kit. What other aircraft are you considering? Hurricane? Mosi? Swordfish?
If it's British, I'll cover it! I am currently working on the Lancaster, Hurricane, Mosquito and Halifax. This keeps me very busy! Thanks for subscribing.
Could you clear a jam from the cockpit in flight?
No you couldn't. Thanks for watching
Lovely film ,thank you .
Glad you enjoyed it
I just found your channel. Thanks for posting.
You are very welcome! Enjoy working your way through my video. I have much more to come!
Another great, great job 👍👍👍
Thank you! Cheers!
You just earned yourself a sub with this one!
Thank you and please keep watching!
Absolument génial ! Merci !!!
Merci de rien!
Your work deserves a DFC at least !
Hard to find detail like this. Great video. Learned a lot. Firing time very limited with the magazine fed hispano then? 5 or 6 seconds?
The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
hello from Italy, thanx so much for all these golden pills of aeronautical knowledge from the WW2 RAF airplanes.
This one a great addition, the 20 mm. Hispano should be virtually the same basic weapon the P-38 Lightning had back then among its machine guns and, by firing from its longitudinal axis (no convergency issues) results were usually devastating even though there was only one cannon.
Please just a little doubt on my part regarding the cylindrical ammo feeders, mostly it's my fault in not fully understanding the strictly technical description: they weren't ammo drums of course, so were they something like 'helpers' for better feeding? I mean, the same result wasn't possible without them, rather having ammo belts directly entering the weapons?
Thanx very much. Franco.
They were a belt feed system. Thanks for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 yes but, would have been the belts useless without those cylinders with wheels/sprockets inside? Or, would have the belts worked good anyway?
In this latter case, did the cylinders have 'only' to help the belts in feeding better?
In the last few shots, what's the bulge/protuberance next to the cannon, provision for a second cannon?
Yes, it’s the cover over the end of the blast tube for when either a second cannon or mg was fitted. The bulge over the cannon on the top of the wing was originally wider, to cater for 2x20mm cannon in each wing, but as that configuration was rarely used the smaller bulge was developed as it offered less air resistance - and hence a higher airspeed.
The bulged panel next to the cannon, is the to allow for the circular ammunition magazine.
Is this the same canon used on the P-38 lighting?
Thanks for watching
Shouldn't the ammo be called shells and not bullets as with a cannon they explode on impact ?
It was what they were called at the time
If British would throw out the useless 7.7mm machineguns and would save weight and space what would be theoretically the most amount of ammunition for the 20mm Hispano? Could they modify the wing to accommodate at least 150-200 rounds per gun? The Fw-190 had 250rpg for the wingroot MG151s which was a really great amount for a 20mm cannon that time. I really cannot understand wasting space and weight for such an outdated caliber like .303 or even just a single pair of .50cal BMG (Wing Type E). The .50BMG was a great MG but at least four or rather six per aircraft.
Was there any field modification for Spitfires in armament anyway? I know about Abukir Spitfire Mk.Vs which was modified to catch high-flying Junkers Ju-86P recon aircrafts only having two cannons (and four bladed propellers and upgraded engines, etc). There was also similar Mk.IXs in England to deal with Ju-86R recon aircrafts as well (Prince Emanuel Galitzine damaged one and forced it to drop its bombload before the target).
The Hispano Mk.II was a bit low rate of fire cannon but it had really long barrels and long ammunition case to have a really impressive muzzle velocity and energy on impact. And if I'm not mistaken it was quite a accurate cannon as well.
It's all history I suppose. Possible restrictions for further development could be put down to additional weight and wing strength. I'll lookout for any interesting answers to your comments. Thanks, as always for watching.
Most Spitfires from 1944 onwards had x2 20mm cannon and x2 .50 cal mgs.
Spitfires could be fitted with x4 20mm cannon, but pilots preferred the previous configuration outlined above.