Talk:Synchronization gear

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force World War I task force Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

This is really a totally new article - on which I have been working (on and off, but rather more off than on) since the idea came up four years ago!!!

It is in fact still far from "perfect", but if I had waited for me to be satisfied with it I would probably have kept it in my sandbox for another four years at least. Thanks for people who have helped, off-line and on, with more or less helpful comments, sources etc.. Just for the record - this is what I have been trying to do:

1. The old article was confused about what it was about. Warships? Aircraft gun turrets? This one is specifically on shooting THROUGH (rather than past) the blades of the propeller of a single engined "tractor" aircraft. Matter peripheral to this quite specific subject has been kept to an utter minimum. I don't like waffle, filler text, and stuff that may be very true and, in another context altogether quite relevant.

2. While I mention the very commonly used term "interrupter" I have plumbed for the (slightly) more common and (rather) more accurate term "synchronizer". I have also spelled synchronizer with a "z" rather than the "s" which would be rather more common in "proper" (i.e. Australian) English usage. This is entirely to keep things nice and standard, and to avoid confusion. Both terms, as I point out, are actually b*llsh*t, as you can't interrupt OR synchronise a machine gun - all you CAN do is convert the thing into a semi-automatic weapon and "pull the trigger" at appropriate moments.

3. My account of how a synchronizer works borders in places on WP:OR - although Hank Volker does say the same things (and much else) in VERY much more technical language - replete with arcane mathematical formulae etc.. Anyone who can come up with something that is less "original", is comprehensible to a reader with no engineering background, and does not breach the late Mr. Volker's copyright, in welcome to have a go.

4. My diagrams are mine - they are crude but (I hope) clear. Anyone who can come up with prettier ones is more than welcome. I could have copied other people's instead but copyright and all that.

5. My normal method is to write an article off the top of my head, and do the references after - editing some of my "original" text if it doesn't actually fit the facts as recorded in the sources as well as I thought it did. It has been pointed out to me that this is rather arseabout but it has the advantage of producing (eventually) a completely original but well referenced article. (The two things are, in my view, otherwise mutually difficult, if not incompatible). No prizes whatever for identifying sentences, paragraphs, even sections, where this process is not yet complete. Give me time.

6. This is NOT a pure WWI subject, as gun synchronisation continued for many years after 1918 - and yes, I know that there is all too little matter in the article that is post 1918. Lot of room for improvement here. The main reason is the limitations of what I know, and what I have been able to learn from the texts I have found. Anyone who knows more about post WWI synchronisation (and has a source or two to back him up) then I am only too happy.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article is very long - some sections are probably too long. It is very important that each passage remains clear, succinct, and very much to the point. I appreciate the desire to tell "the whole story", as far as we have it - but some parts of the story are more relevant in another context (like for instance an article about a particular aircraft type, or the biography of a pilot) - this article has to stay strictly on track - and remain firmly attached to its actual subject. If something looks as if it needs more detail to make it "true" - then perhaps we need to weed text rather than add to it, or even start a new article on a specific aspect. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Had a really good go through this - including looking at the "references" - apart from bits copied verbatim from the RAF manual for the gear (!)there was nothing we could/should incorporate here. Anyone wants to look at this, it remains in the history for the former article of course --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Eindecker" (being more general) is probably better here - the first form of the gear was only actually fitted on to the E.I's predecessor, the Fokker M.5K/MG - the definitive gear, with the large cam wheel was first fitted to the E.I but also to the other Eindeckers. In the lead we want something simple, uncomplicated and accurate. Better not to get tied up with the details. Not a bad edit by any means - set me thinking, at least. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

And please remember, there WERE FIVE examples of the M.5K/MG built after A.16/15 (the von Buttlar/Otto Parschau machine) essentially "prototyped" the entire Eindecker series. The PIPE (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've spent some time looking at this trying to understand it and believe the description that the handle is pulled too enable the trigger is incorrect. Pulling the handle lifts the cam wheel off the follower, reducing wear and making the mechanism safe. The handle is pushed to lower the cam follower, thus enabling the trigger. I believe this is shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faZiS1CYZs0 94.7.15.83 (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC

At first glance I was certain you were right, in fact I've changed it - but then ... actually the "disengage cable" seems to work on the arm of a bell crank, which would reverse the action, meaning that pulling it OUT would engage it after all? Too tired to be bothered right now, I might even set up a little model in meccano! The key is that bell crank, where the engage/disengage cable (green)may act on the short arm of a lever rather than directly. Perhaps our diagram's just not very good? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

A bit confusing - but it WAS right after all - so we've changed it back. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I came back to this last night and took another look at the you tube link and had my engineer dad have a look too. I'm even more convinced that either I'm right and it is push to engage (as the video is), the diagram is misleading or the description is wrong. If there is a second bell crank in play, in addition to the one at the top of the cam follower, it probably needs to appear on the diagram? This isn't supposed to be criticism. I know nothing about the subject and the whole article is really well written and fascinating. If you are right (and I'd welcome the Meccano model) then the descriptive text under the small image on the main page still says 'pushing' the green handle following your original change and probably needs to go back to 'pulling'. 31.54.215.8 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This diagram is almost the only "survivor" from the former article - To be honest I get confused every time I look at it. and since it is not really THAT important an issue whether the operator pulled or pushed the "green knob" to set the cam rider in motion I have "chickened out". More important things, both in this article and elsewhere, to be worrying about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I came here via the German pendant of this article which uses this diagram too. Being an engineer myself, I am very sure that the original (=current) description is not correct. The red 90deg lever pivots around the point where its two legs meet. This lever cannot rotate about the red/blue joint, as this would prevent that the cam movement is transferred to the blue rod. Thus, pulling the green handle causes a ccw rotation around the picot point, which raises the follower from its wheel. This is reasonable, as the gun still could be fired even if the green rod was destroyed (e.g. by enemy fire). If it's just about coherence, one could simply edit the first point of the description. If it's about historical accuracy, one would have to find out, whether the handle was pulled to lock the gun or to arm it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.171.68 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The section above with this title remains very apposite!!!

Seriously, I appreciate very much the good intentions (and unassailable good faith) of edits aiming to give every detail of the story, but if this sort of detail were applied to all matters covered by this article we would have a 500 page book! Further detail, especially detail as well researched and impeccably cited as this, would actually be very welcome indeed, but only if it relates directly to the subject of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The reference format used in this article is especially useful when (as here) we repeatedly refer to the same page of the same book. On the whole the referencing is still a little patchy, and I am grateful for any improvements - but if possible please follow exactly the same format as other references. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not see the point of using refname when one is unlikely to refer to the same page in the book again, am I missing something? I'm obviously aware of Weyl's dislike of Fokker, but the statement did need a cite. Incidentally, my copy of Flying Dutchman (a "flying Penguin" from the late thirties) credits Fokker as the author, so continuing the tradition of taking credit for other's work!TheLongTone (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my edit summary - this is an excellent place for a cite to Weyl. I really only mentioned his own strong bias in passing. I spent a great deal of time on this article (far too much actually) and am possibly a bit over-possessive - but it really is good to have all references within a particular article in exactly the same format. I have everything here "refnamed" for this reason, but also just in case (unlikely as it may seem in some cases) we DO at some time have another reference to the same page further on. The main advantage is that the reflist is kept to a reasonable size! But again - this is a fussy detail, I freely confess. Most "autobiographies" by people with minimal literary skills are in fact "ghost written". This task can vary from touching up the spelling, grammar and literary style of a complete first draft manuscript - to basically writing the whole thing up from notes taken while interviewing the subject. Gould's work is generally thought to be closer to the latter of course - but the attribution of the work to Fokker was probably a publisher's decision (sell more copies that way?) rather than "typical" Fokker "I did it all myself" bravado.

Incidentally - thank you (very sincerely) for being interested enough in my "baby" to contribute your own thoughts. In spite of any other impression I may give I really appreciate any help that makes it even better (no false modesty I'm afraid!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a very big baby! Re Dutchman, I get the impression that Fokker could probably talk all the legs off a donkey & probably then sell them back to the poor beast), but it is remarkable in that few autobiographies (especially ghosted ones) leave one with such an unfavorable impression of the subject. (Gabriel Voisin's is another)TheLongTone (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even people who admired him don't seem to have liked him very much - of course he was a complete egotist and was not very much concerned about others' opinions of his character. Both his marriages were disasters. We're verging on treating this like a forum here! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

This already rather over-long article struggles to remain strictly relevant to its subject - many interesting sidelines, especially about machine guns that have been synchronised (or not) belong elsewhere (in the articles on the guns in question, for instance). Where we DO need more detail is in descriptions of gears that were used AFTER 1919. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

A recent well meant edit added the "Robert" to Robert Alkan's name - shame we don't have Hamy's first name - and that neither has an article of his own (French Wikipedia, I note, does not either - so it could be nothing really significant is known). In any case details like dates etc. do not belong in this article, or we'd insert them for every person mentioned. While having a look at consistency in treatment of people's names within this article I noticed that we had a fair few instances of "Fokker" - several of which referred to the man himself rather than one of his companies, or the products of those companies. And yet we didn't mention his first name once. I have added "Anthony" (although this is his "American" name it is the one in the title of his wiki article), and a link to said article, to the first mention of Fokker as a person. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Gun synchronisation (in the sense covered by this article will become "obsolete" only when a better means of firing a gun (or, perhaps, another kind of weapon) past the rotating blades of an aircraft propeller (or a similar device - for instance a turbine or fan). This, I might very humbly suggest is most unlikely, since there is no longer any need (or, in fact, any readily conceivable use) for such a device. On the other hand - for this very reason (the device is no longer necessary) - it HAS become "redundant", at least for the time being. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article has been graced with the attentions of one with an obvious penchant for "grammatical improvement. Just in case I am considered to be acting as if I "owned" the article I will detail these changes - the few legitimate mistakes that were found I have acknowledged and corrected.

1. Lead - para 4. "traditional" changed to standard.

Apart from the clumsy repetition of "standard" from previous sentence - this doesn't fit the sense. By the late thirties the traditional armament (twin synchronised rifle calibre machine guns) was no longer standard - it was being augmented or replaced (usually by additional guns in the wings). Inverted commas round "traditional" is rather more questionable - but I think the gentle implication that we are talking about a pretty short tradition really justifies it.

2. Lead - para 5(1). "Nevertheless" (starting sentence) changed to "But".

BUT "nevertheless" is a perfectly good word, and here, at least, makes a much more natural start to a sentence than "but". In fact I was taught to never start a sentence with "and" or "but". That is a bit pedantic, I admit, but certainly a sentence starting with a short conjunction is inherently rather clumsy.

3. Lead - para 5(2). "the absence of a propeller for guns to be synchronized with" changed to "the absence of a propeller requiring synchronization with guns".

Now ending a sentence with a preposition is a bit like starting a sentence with a short conjunction - something to watch and avoid if it results in awkward prose. But it was the absence of the propeller itself, rather than the requirement to have guns firing through it, that is the point of the sentence. As long s there were propellers on the front of fighter aircraft someone (even if only the Russians) synchronised guns to fire through them. Not only is the meaning changed, but it no longer really makes sense.

4. Background - para 1(1). "Usefulness" changed to "utility".

But why? Is this change useful? Is it even a mot juste to replace one that isn't quite right? I trow not.

5. Background - para 1(2). "By no means entirely unanticipated" changed to "anticipated".

This is not an empty circumlocution at all, as an attentive reader would have picked. Major Siegert was one of a very small number of senior officers (on either side) who genuinely anticipated anything but a very minor, peripheral role for aircraft at all - not to mention the even smaller number who anticipated the importance of aerial combat as such.

6. Definitions / Basic problems - para 2(1). "Another way of putting this is" changed to "Thus".

Again, not an empty circumlocution - it IS another way of putting it - it doesn't simply follow, as implied but "thus". Reading the paragraph in its new form the reader is likely to wonder what is happening - how can we imply the second part of our argument as simply following from the first? It doesn't, not without dexterous logical acrobatics.

7. Definitions / Basic problems - para 2(2). "while it was firing at a rate in the region of seven rounds per second" changed to "while firing at a rate of around seven rounds per second"

The omitted "it was" would have been better left in - I concede that "around" in this case is at least a genuinely "briefer, plainer, and exactly synonymous" replacement. But a long time to wait for our first change that's not actually deleterious!! All the same - nothing actually wrong with "in the region of" in this context, surely?

8. Definitions / Basic problems - para 3(1). "On the other hand" is repeated here.

Elegant variation says that we avoid this sort of thing where we can - again a point to be conceded. Our editor changes the first "on the other hand" to "however", and the second to "in contrast". Neither really fits the sense. I have left the second "on the other hand" as was, and changed the first one to "And yet". This is a genuine improvement, for which thanks - but we've waded a long way to get to it!!

9. At the gun - para 1. "Before this was fully understood" changed to "Before these distinctions were fully understood".

What distinctions exactly? The difference between open and closed bolt actions in automatic small arms? But then isn't the whole point of this series of edits to eliminate unnecessary waffle? This seems to me to add to it. It's not actually any clearer, is it? None the less - let's change this one to what has been suggested, just so nobody can say I'm being totally inflexible!

10. Linkage between the gun and the propeller - para 1(1). "misfunction" changed to "malfunction"

O.K. Concede that one!

11. Linkage between the gun and the propeller - para 1(2). "higher speeds than it had been designed for" changed to "higher speeds than those for which it had been designed"

As WInston Churchill is supposed to have remarked - "that is the sort of correction up with which I will not put". Original text clearer and more natural - nothing necessarily wrong with ending a sentence or clause with a preposition.

12. Increasing firepower para 1. - several words relocated or changed.

Can't be bothered detailing these - but original text not improved in any sense.

13. Increasing firepower para 2. - "this sort of speed" changed to "speeds like these"

Umteen and a half different ways we could have put this - but why bother when original is perfectly sound?

14. (Note 3) "stangensteuerung" capitalised. Actually this word, which occurs several times in the article, was inconsistently capitalised - since it is a "kind of" proper noun, and in any case all nouns are capitalised in German - have standardised capitalisation throughout article. Again, thanks. Will double check all other German nouns, at least "proper" ones later.

15. The Franz Schneider patent (1913-14) - Para 1. "or not" moved.

Original better prose.

16. The Raymond Saulnier Patent (1914) - para 1. redundant "the" omitted

Good edit - thanks.

17. The Raymond Saulnier Patent (1914) - para 2. "which" changed to "that". "but it didn't" changed to "but didn't" - "Semi-automatic" changed to "semiautomatic".

First bit pretty well indistinguishable from second - I actually like "but it didn't" in this context. "Semi-automatic" (with the hyphen) is how it is spelled right though the rest of the article - pretty sure the unhyphenated form is wrong, isn't it?

18. Unsynchronized guns and the "deflector wedge" concept - para 1(1). "problem" omitted.

Can't see any good reason for this.

19. Unsynchronized guns and the "deflector wedge" concept - para 1(2). "proportion" omitted.

This doesn't really make sense any more

20. Austro-Hungarian gears - para 1 "such" becomes "what".

This is plain wrong.

21. The decline and end of synchronization - redundant "at" omitted.

Good edit, thanks.

@Chenopodiaceous PLEASE don't do this to me again! - As I said in my edit summary - 21 corrections of this (mainly) pettifogging nature are just too much. I have wasted far too much time picking the gems from the dross - and I'm not doing it again, for you or anyone! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This was quite a good idea - I had no objections at all. BUT when I looked at the article with my old (XP) computer the old versions of the diagrams concerned showed - so we ended up with duplicated captions, which I was sure wasn't the intention. Wasted half the morning try to insert my own new versions of the diagrams (including conversion to PNG) - succeeded only in making a dreadful mess (including wiping half the article!)

Then switch to newer computer, running Windows 10, and the article looks fine - as the previous editor obviously intended. BUT under XP the article still has the old graphics (including the now-duplicated captions). Please cab some technical type find out WTF is going on? Driven me netty. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This seems to have gradually corrected itself - a complete puzzle to me what caused it in the first place. Oh wel... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following statement were added to the section on the C.C. gear.

The Americans, {...} were to use the Constantinesco synchronizer system for their forward-firing fitments on nearly all American combat aircraft". French types (SPAD, Nieuport) are also described as being fitted with C.C. gears.

The source given is a forum post (!) NOT an RS!

We currently have (under "United States gears"):

French and British combat aircraft ordered for the American Expeditionary Force in 1917/18 were fitted with their "native" synchronization gears, including the Alkan-Hamy in Nieuports and French-built Sopwiths, the Birkigt gear in SPADs, and the C.C. gear for British types. The C.C. was also adopted for the twin Marlin guns fitted to the American built DH-4, and was itself made in America until the Nelson gear appeared in numbers.

Source for this is basically Woodman 1989 - this is one of several places where a specific citation has not (yet) been added - I will do this as soon as I get this post finished.

Note that the mistakes in the forum post - obviously by someone unfamiliar with the literature - is that:

1. the Americans fitted CC gears to French built aircraft. They actually used the "native" gears (i.e. the ones fitted by the manufacturers concerned). 2. the American's initial use of the CC gear for the (American built) DH.4 was the definitive - in fact, in spite of many CC gears actually being manufactured in America - by the end of the war the Nelson gear was already replacing it even in U.S. built D.H.4s. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

On actually opening Woodman and turning to page 199 the initial omission of the citation here was probably that almost everything about "Russian, Italian and Russian gears" is more or less lifted from Woodman, and repeated citing the page concerned seemed tiresome and unnecessary. I STILL think that Woodman has a clear superiority over the forum post quoted in contradiction to him - both as a more reliable authority - and for the logical cohesion of the information as he gives it. Anyway - I have no added the extra citation, unnecessary as it might seem. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

We (sort of) compare the Nelson gear with the Sopwith-Kauper in that it "pulls" the trigger - although the actual principle concerned might be closer to the "sonic wave" of the C.C. gear? In any case the kind of comparison soon starts to get debatable, and in Wikipedia, at least, I'd prefer to stick with Woodman and straight description. "Flexible" applied to the cable is not totally inaccurate (any cable is flexible), but is misleading, as it gives an (erroneous) impression that the cable stretched - which would have "muddied" the transmission of the firing impulses (more like sonic vibrations). In the most important sense the cable needed to be just as rigid as a rod. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The whole business is rather complicated (some of sources go into the maths of it rather more deeply than we have space for here) but since the rates of the rotation of the propeller varied between 1,000 and 2,000 per minute, while the cyclic rate of fire of contemporary machine guns was mostly between 400 and 800 rpm the "limit" was more on the rate that the gun could be fired at. In other words the question of increased firepower could be met either by fitting faster guns or more of them. Either case assumes the gear can operate at the speed of the propeller (or even faster), or in fact cope with two guns at once (early gears couldn't!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit added a mention of this fighter, that had some of its guns mounted in the wings - but so close in that they required synchronisation. I have moved this to what I hope is a better context within this article - nonetheless comment is (as always) welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Messerschmitt (for example) fired through a constant speed propeller and at least in theory did not have the same problem of the prop speeding up and slowing - although what difference this would have made I am not sure.WWIReferences (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

So much [naughty word expunged] needs plain reverting, but I hate simply "pressing the button" on edits that were obviously well-intentioned. I also have learned that reviewing edits of an article one was largely responsible for in the first place is fraught, and something I try to avoid. I have nonetheless had a shot at bringing this one back from the brink of an exercise in up-with-which-I-will-not-puttery and blanket applications of "rules" that are really not "rules" (in that sense) at all. I would like to assure the editor responsible for this that I have exercised great restraint, and have not merely left any real improvements (be the improvement ne'er so slight) but also changes that had no effect on the meaning, were reasonably clear, and were in good English, unstilted by linguistic prudery and pedantery.

The main "single" change I made is the (partial) reinstatement of the word "itself" (in one instance, "himself"). This may be, like the illiterate use of "actual" or "actually", a word that can sometimes be deleted without loss. On the other hand it can sometimes add an important nuance, or render a description of a rather difficult concept clearer. In the great majority of cases where this word was deleted from the article one or both of these considerations applied, although wherever I was not absolutely sure this was the case I left the "edited" form stand. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we've mentioned this before (more than once?) but this is NOT a general article on (say) "Fighter aircraft (gun) armament", but very specifically on gear(s) used to enable the firing of a gun between the blade of a whirling propeller. Technical and other information about particular guns, to be relevant here needs to bear more or less directly on the suitability of the weapons concerned for synchronisation. Otherwise, obviously, it would be very much longer than it already is. Impeccably well-meant edits adding all kinds of interesting, accurate, and well cited stuff about particular weapons has had to be excised now and then, and will have to be in the future unless the practice ceases. The guns concerned mostly have their own articles, where such detail is entirely appropriate, and to which their mention here should definitely be linked. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reference to a possible patent for this gear has turned up at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1977172 - unfortunately, without actually sighting the document concerned this remains doubtful. Why on earth, for instance, should it have been renewed/changed in 1933? And why isn't Dibovski mentioned? Even more doubtful of course is our statement (quoting Woodman) that there was NO patent - as there very possibly WAS. I went so far as to endeavour to get a copy of the document - but it doesn't look as it they like me? Maybe a British national would have better luck? In the meantime, as it is rather a minor point, I have deleted all reference (positive or negative) to a Scarff-Dibovski patent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is a long time ago now - and I honestly can't remember where I got this phrase - but I am pretty sure I lifted it straight from a source, probably Woodman. I really think I would recognise it if it was one of mine. The point is of course that the well-meaning editor who treated "statistics" and "luck" as unconnected opposites missed the point rather. The branch of mathematics we call "statistics" (as opposed to its application to social science - clearly nothing to do with THIS topic) arose, of course, from an attempt to bring science to bear on the question of card-player's "luck". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The diagrams that were recently (repeatedly!) "gathered" into a gallery do not actually belong together, in spite of their common format. They are not "randomly spread through the article" - but located next to the specific (and separate) points they illustrate. They have been in these locations since 2013, so that this might be assumed to have "worked". Putting them in a gallery, while it has not made a "Wiki-mess", no longer "works" in this essential respect. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Public domain is typically understood as meaning free-to-use (or as the article on public domain says: "creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply"), but simply publishing a patent doesn't make it "public domain". Indeed, all granted patents are published (the sole exception are those inventions kept secret for defence reasons - but this one was not) so that people can read them and know what they claim, and hence how to avoid infringement. If the source states otherwise, then the source is wrong (which is OK because this is a minor point, the source is reliable for "Early German Aces of World War 1" and not patent law, and nothing is lost by simply deleting the bit stating "...making it effectively in the public domain from the beginning"). The source is not reliable for the subject of patent law and thus cannot be relied on to support that statement in the voice of wiki, hence that part of it should be struck. Source: I'm a qualified patent attorney, but if you must then this is covered in practically any text book on patent law, such as Terrell or the CIPA handbook. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK - it may not be that important anyway, but "public domain" in a legal sense is obviously not what our "source" author was talking about - the point is that in addition to being "published" in the sense that "all granted patents are published" this one appeared in the main German-language aviation journal of the period - to which one assumes all or most serious aeronautical people in Europe would have subscribed - and the general principle involved was therefore "public knowledge", at least among people likely to be interested. Might a rephrasing here convey this without misusing a legal term? Otherwise we might just leave your edit as is as. Thanks for your interest anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've paraphrased per your suggestion. Hope the wording is clearer. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good. Thanks. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned that this doesn't work, primarily because history sections should be definition be in chronological order. My proposal would be to separate out the specific noteworthy events from each nation's developments, include those in chronological order in the history section, and leave the remainder of each country's developments to a new section ordered explicitly by nation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

To a certain extent we already do that. The period involved is very short, and the countries that contributed innovative technology to the story are few, so as far as I an see it all hangs together reasonably well. Any ideas of specific things that might advantageously be rearranged? Run them past us here rather than in the main article space in the first instance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Above remarks made before I realised you have made substantial edits - having a look at these now! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that this section is very long (it constitutes 53k of the article's total 74k) and thus really needs better organisation. Most of the nation-specific notes do not really advance the state of the art of the tech, and hence could be elided from the history section. I'll have a crack at this later. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

But is the length due to the nature of the subject matter or "poor" organisation. Or (just perhaps) is the organisation fair enough in context? Unfair for me to comment further, perhaps, before I see what you have in mind. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're perhaps right that it isn't really possible to split them like this. However regardless of that problem, the section is far too long and unwieldy as-is, and on the general article on the subject really ought to be cut down. The best way to accomplish that would be to split it to a separate article, and then summarise it here. This isn't an easy task but is an appropriate way forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Believe it or not some readers, especially one in particular, have repeatedly been at me to add more details! On the other hand I have always been very much aware that it's a long article, especially for such an obscure subject: and I have always tried very hard to "keep to the topic" and avoid anything extraneous. In fact wouldn't a "split" article be even longer and even more unwieldy, especially in relation to its importance?
Any other ideas about reducing the length of the article as a whole? The one thing that still worries me just a little is the "semi-automatic/closed bolt" bit, which is mentioned repeatedly in different contexts (and now in the lede as well). The short paragraphs on every "make and model" also add up. But would having less on each kind of gear, or avoiding any repetition, make the article clearer, or easier to read (or even that much shorter)?
I would always have summed up the article as a fairly long read - but non-technical, clear and comprehensive. The numerous sections have the advantage that you don't have to plough through the whole thing to look up something specific.
What do the guidelines on article length say? Do we any "checks and balances" about article length that apply here? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the sincere work that has gone into recent edits by this editor - in fact I have not reverted anything - but I have reworked some sections, as follows.

1. The first paragraph of the lead (lede) needs to be a crystal clear definition of the subject of the article. Hopefully, my reworking is just that. I have avoiding unnecessary "technicality", kept verbs active rather than passive, and (and this perhaps more debatable) used the past tense - since the device concerned is long redundant (nobody will ever need to fire a gun through a propeller again, one assumes!) I have restored the paragraph break - although this results in a fairly short second paragraph there is a "topic break" at this point. Nothing wrong with short paragraphs in a case like this.

2. The first section of the main text has the "defining" diagram of a correctly functioning gear reinstated. [edit - actually it is now relocated again - to the position we originally drew it for]

3. The "gun" and "propeller" sections are similarly illustrated with specific diagrams originally drawn for this purpose. They do so (at least) much more efficiently than bunched in a gallery.

4. The "deflector wedge" section has been "re-illustrated" in a more helpful (if less tidy) way - including a diagram that makes clear how deflectors actually functions, by catching errant random shots that otherwise struck the propeller. [edit I've played a bit with test and caption to make the illustration a little neater, especially with larger text sizes]

Otherwise I have left as many of the edits/rearrangements etc. as I could untouched.

Suggestions for discussions about reducing the number of sections (not something I personally can see the point of at present but I am open to specific ideas of how this might work, to possibly improve the article) and to split the article (again - I don't think this is going to be helpful - but this talk page is here!) do NOT I think, need templates ta this stage. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and great work. Just a few minor points:

1. The verb in the lead still needs to be "is": we only use "was" in the event of something that is physically dead, expired, deceased. Historical technologies still exist.
2. Ideally images shouldn't be manually sized, especially downsized: this overrides user preferences. The only major exception is for upright images, where the preferred syntax is to use e.g. |upright=0.5 to scale from the default instead of hard-coding a pixel size.
3. Please ensure images are separated from text by line breaks: File:Morane-Saulnier-L-airscrew-with-deflector.jpg has been placed inline with a text block, which will be overridden by the layout engine anyway but makes it difficult to locate the image when editing.

I'll discuss the issue with the history section in the previous topic.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Points taken - wasn't really sure about the past/present tense myself, and I've inserted some spaces around the graphics to make them easier to find. (after confirmimg that this makes no difference in display). But "ideal" criteria for graphic sizing sometimes give way when we are shoehorning elements into an awkward spot. The way you did it with two narrow pictures in the same frame worked in this respect - but I the captured Morane prop really belongs to the next section as much as this one and we want it at the bottom if we can possibly put it there. I am aware that at different text sizes on different devices this section will still be untidy - but at least I've dome my best! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and congratulations on an interesting and well-written article. I read the 'Nomenclature' section twice, in which the problems with the terms 'interrupter' and 'synchronization' are discussed, which both - as you say - imply that that a constant stream of bullets is momentarily paused while the propeller blade passes in front of the muzzle. However, although you demonstrate why neither term is particularly satisfactory, there seems to be little convincing conclusion to the section. I had to read all the way to the end of the 'Weapon' section to find the answer:

"All practical synchronization gear designs for which we have reliable technical details, fired the gun directly: operating it as a semi-automatic weapon fired on demand, rather than as a completely automatic one whose action is momentarily paused." (with my minor editing)

I would suggest that something like the above could go in the 'Nomenclature' section, so that right at the beginning of the article readers are in no doubt how the synchronization was achieved. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

While I can see your point - moving this text would add matter not directly relevant to "nomenclature" as such to the section - while leaving a gap under "Weapon". The arrangement of material in a case like this is a bit fraught whichever way you go. Perhaps adjusting the wording of the lede to make this point clearer? I'll have a look at this, but brevity and clarity are both important and achievable in a lede section. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nonetheless I think we have got there with the latest addition to the lede. What do you think? I don't really think we need to add any more repeats of "semi-automatic". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:21, 11September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's considerably clearer. I applaud your sustained devotion to this article. But the lede now reads "In practice, practical gears all worked on the principle...". How about "In practice, all production devices all worked on the principle..."

On another general point, is it the case (I really have no idea) that the relative flimsiness of WW1 aircraft construction meant that guns simply couldn't be fitted in the wings, compared to - say - a Bf 109?

As an aside, you might perhaps refrain from making ten miniscule changes, and instead boldy making just one major edit. I don't think many people are going to be taking exception to every single edit you make: and if they don't like edit 2 of 10, it's gonna be difficult to revert. Perhaps that's your MO. MinorProphet (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK - just another "miniscule" edit! Purely for the sake of style. Actually small edits that don't "cross" each other are easier to revert. My usual "MO" where there are a number of changes to be made in one blow is to prepare a new version (in my sandbox) of the text in question and slot it in whole. The last burst of small edits was my response to a well-meant editor who had changed several things - I could have done my usual sandbox trick, or even just reverted all his work, but being a nice old man (really) I wanted to sort out what was important to change, what was pretty immaterial and could be left, and what was actually an improvement and make it clear what I was up to. So far as "wing guns" are concerned - there are indeed several reasons why wing guns (in the style of WWII fighters) weren't fitted in WWI - and we could indeed have added explanations of this (not to mention several other) questions. On the other hand this is already a very long article - to keep it as succinct and comprehensive as it is necessarily meant avoiding endless peripheral by-ways. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Nevertheless, without committing yourself to any increase in the complexity of this already info-packed article, and refraining from any reference to any specific reliable sources, and not aligning yourself with any particular position pro or contra at all, etc., etc.: What, in your personal opinion, might be the reason for the lack of "wing guns" in WW1 aircraft? I have no access to any decent books at all: I imagine that if the designers could have found a way, they would have. I would suggest that gunners positioned in wing nacelles are not an answer. And—fired by the fact-filled content of the article—surely this question will have already formed itself in the interstices of the brain of any competent seeker after the truth? MinorProphet (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

A serious "seeker of truth" (whether on trivial subjects like this or more serious ones) needs to GET "access to decent books" (etc.) - an encyclopedia (even Wikipedia) can only offer a start. Good encyclopedia articles all close with reading lists (bibliographies) that should be helpful. Wikipedia talk pages are really concerned with improving articles rather than offering a reference service - but the following is a selection of the most obvious factors:

1. (and this is actually in the article, if you read it through) - there were advantages to having guns located in line between the pilot and the target, especially once the problems of synchronization had been (largely) solved - so the Russians, Germans, and Japanese (in particular) never gave up synchronised guns entirely until the jet era.

2. Early aircraft machine guns jammed a lot. Especially when there were only two (or one) of them it was very desirable for a fighter pilot to be able to directly physically reach the guns to clear a jam.

3. Flimsy wire braced wings flexed and vibrated a lot, which gave guns mounted in them a very wide "cone of fire" - in other words the guns waggled and their bullets went everywhere. Inaccurate isn't quite the word for it.

---Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that any airplane wing of the era could have supported the weight of a machine gun and its ammunition, much less the vibration of its firing.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually one or two did - although the extra weight of the gun was certainly a factor! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An editor who put a lot of work into improving this article had changed the titles of many of the sections - mostly just by cutting an initial definite article ("The") - what this editor did not realise (and what I forgot when reviewing his/her work and deciding what to keep) was that this article has many links from other articles (e.g. about specific aircraft) - several of which refer to particular sections - a wholesale muddling of section headings in THIS article therefore has repercussions elsewhere (e.g. the Sopwith Camel article). The changes I have made to some section headings here to their original forms is a much simpler way of correcting this - even if it means restoring something marginally less felicitous - than attempting to track down every link in every other article referring to a section of this one (if you follow). Anyway... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

These needed to be added in proper "cite web" format to match other references, when I tried to do this I found that the "Kauper" gear is plain wrong - the gun fires faster than the propeller rotates instead of the other way round, so that true "interruption" is illustrated - the C.C. gear animation is pretty and reasonably accurate but very hard to locate among other animations on the site. Both have to go for the time being, a shame, as a proper link to the specific C.C. gear animation would be good. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Many of the links to this article refer to specific headings - changing these headings here means that (for instance) a link from an article for a specific aircraft type to a particular synchronisation gear will now link instead to the head of the article. If this was an important change - and starting a section heading with a "the" was in itself a serious error - then chasing each and every "section link" down might be worth the bother. As it is... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

In fact - see the penultimate remark above! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not all automatic weapons were equally amenable to synchronization. When it was ready to fire, a synchronized machine-gun ideally needed to have a round in the breech, the breech to be closed, and the action cocked (the so-called "closed bolt" position). The difficulty was that several widely used automatic weapons (notably the Lewis gun and the Italian Revelli) were triggered from an open bolt, so that there was typically a tiny but variable interval between the gun being triggered and its firing. This meant they could not be synchronized at all without extensive modification.

While this paragraph is not in principle wrong for the context of WWI, it is very misleading. Most synchronized guns in history were open-bolt firing because the cook-off problem becomes almost insurmountable if you ramp up the rate of fire of an air-cooled gun.

In fact, European countries (at least the major ones, haven't researched the minors) almost didn't use closed-bolt machine guns after WWI, and starting from the 1930s, almost all of their aircraft machine guns (both rifle caliber and up to 15 mm) and even low-ballistics automatic cannons converted from machine guns (like ShVAK, B-20 and MG 151/20) were synchronizable! There are only three exceptions: 1920s legacy PV-1 machine gun, MG 17 machine gun (both closed-bolt, both replaced with open-bolt models during the WWII) and MAC 1934 (synchronized variant developed but hasn't managed to pass the trials before it was too late; French used open-bolt synchronized Darne machine gun in parallel though).

The fact that Americans have not made a synchronized open-bolt Browning MG has nothing to do with engineering but rather with the doctrine preferences, British Browning .303 Mark II fired through the propeller perfectly well. Ain92 (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply