Read the forum code of contact
By: - 26th January 2014 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty much the same principle, the nose had a plunger that in turn pushed a long firing pin up and into a .410 or similar shotgun cartridge. That emitted smoke from the tube that ends by the tail fins. Range master would then log the smoke emitted in relation to the practice target.
Thats the simple laymans (Me!) explanation. An ex armourer will no doubt be along to put me right too :) I have an 11½ lb version here at home.
*edit:
I think a coloured flammable substance was filled using the second offset hole. That burnt emitting smoke from the rear tube. The centre hole being for the cartridge.
By: - 26th January 2014 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have the similar - but simpler USAAF mk 23 practice bomb - which held a special long shotgun cartridge in the tail.
By: - 27th January 2014 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
powerandpassion feel free to private message me. Got some scans that may be of interest if you send me your email address.
By: - 27th January 2014 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty much the same principle, the nose had a plunger that in turn pushed a long firing pin up and into a .410 or similar shotgun cartridge. That emitted smoke from the tube that ends by the tail fins. Range master would then log the smoke emitted in relation to the practice target.Thats the simple laymans (Me!) explanation. An ex armourer will no doubt be along to put me right too :) I have an 11½ lb version here at home.
*edit:
I think a coloured flammable substance was filled using the second offset hole. That burnt emitting smoke from the rear tube. The centre hole being for the cartridge.
Rather than a "cartridge", most of the earlier PB's used a detonator burster to blow the smoke compound (titanium tetrachloride liquid) out of the tail cone. The tail cones were filled on-site by the armourers during det fitting. The Ti-Tet produced a white smk cloud on contact with air but cannot now remember if it was ignited. See below for sectional pic:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224991[/ATTACH]
By: - 28th January 2014 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty much the same principle, the nose had a plunger that in turn pushed a long firing pin up and into a .410 or similar shotgun cartridge. That emitted smoke from the tube that ends by the tail fins. Range master would then log the smoke emitted in relation to the practice target.Thats the simple laymans (Me!) explanation. An ex armourer will no doubt be along to put me right too :) I have an 11½ lb version here at home.
*edit:
I think a coloured flammable substance was filled using the second offset hole. That burnt emitting smoke from the rear tube. The centre hole being for the cartridge.
Thanks Denis, can you post up a pic of your 11 1/2 pounder and its innards, if that is possible. Ed
By: - 28th January 2014 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
powerandpassion feel free to private message me. Got some scans that may be of interest if you send me your email address.
PM sent, thanks.
By: - 28th January 2014 at 06:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather than a "cartridge", most of the earlier PB's used a detonator burster to blow the smoke compound (titanium tetrachloride liquid) out of the tail cone. The tail cones were filled on-site by the armourers during det fitting. The Ti-Tet produced a white smk cloud on contact with air but cannot now remember if it was ignited. See below for sectional pic:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224991[/ATTACH]
SP, great picture thank you. It is exactly the unit I have and explains a lot. When they mounted it on the piston they pulled out the striker head and replaced it with a threaded rod. Do you have any more detail or dimensions available?
Tit tet sounds like fun but I guess already this thread has been picked up by some super computer trolling for neverdowells.. so I wont ask you for a detailed composition unless you PM !
Thanks, Ed
By: - 29th January 2014 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
Titanium Tetrachloride did not need to be ignited - just exposed to air (see Wikipedia)
The Stirling had the capability to take a 'mysterious' Bomb Bay load called an SCI - it could do this with Titanium Tetrachloride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKU_8hT7rjw
Most impressive!
If your device did use this and if the wind were low it would have left quite a tell-tale trail.
James
By: - 5th February 2014 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Cloud
Hi,Titanium Tetrachloride did not need to be ignited - just exposed to air (see Wikipedia)
The Stirling had the capability to take a 'mysterious' Bomb Bay load called an SCI - it could do this with Titanium Tetrachloride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKU_8hT7rjw
Most impressive!
If your device did use this and if the wind were low it would have left quite a tell-tale trail.
James
James,
Thank you for posting the video link. It is an extraordinary, slightly frightening spectacle. In following through on the web it seems an unpleasant substance, basically fine particles of hydrochloric acid, which explains why it probably wasn't used as a smokescreen for amphibious assaults such as D-Day or the Pacific islands.
Here is a video of some folk who probably found a vial next to some radioactive waste they might later rub on themselves to see how it will glow at night, win a Darwin award and do a favour to the dogs of the world :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx7dcM5-Esg
If this stuff was decanted into practice bombs I wonder what the procedure was ? Perhaps it was sealed in small glass cylinders which were safe to handle and insert, and the striker mechanism of the practice bomb simply broke the glass, funnelling the vapour out through the tail tube.
By: - 5th February 2014 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here are some chaps handling an SCI. They are actually wearing eye protection in WW2 - since elfin safety only really kicked in recently it makes you realise quite how dodgy it was considered to be. Odd then that the fat slob in the video you pointed could hold it in his hand? I guess that says a lot about him!
James
Posts: 1,362
By: powerandpassion - 26th January 2014 at 11:48 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
I recently received this RAAF memorobilia based on an 8 1/2 lb practice bomb which I understand contained smoke powder in various colours.
Does anybody have any technical information on these, particularly how the fusing component worked, what compositions were used for smoke or any information on how they worked.
When I was a young trouble maker we used to make 'bolt bombs' which I figure operate on the same principle as the 8 1/2 pounder...just going back to my childhood with this one !
Ed