Talk:Fokker-Leimberger

Copy and Paste

Most of this article is word-for-word identical to ref. 2, a 1957 issue of Flight magazine. Could this be a copyright violation? Chasrob (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it, I didn't see a copyright on the magazine but assumed there is one.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%200311.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NortyNort (Holla) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Source analysis

The single source being an aviation magazine rather than something more specialized in firearms attributes the issue of ruptured cases entirely to the poor quality of the German ammunition, but this is rather unfair. The design of the gun itself is problematic because the counter-rotating cylinders do not provide a good seal, making the rupturing of cases rather likely. Good gatling designs move the cartridges along the main/barrel axis of the gun and into better sealed chambers; that also reduces weight because you don't need the additional massive drum/cylinder. Unfortunately, the Fokker-Leimberger is incredibly obscure; it's not even mentioned in Chinn's extensive work, so these rather obvious design issues can't be currently discussed in the wiki article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to more about this type of "nutcracker" breech although only a Russian website explicitly states (the obvious) fact that the Fokker-Leimberger used it. Even Anthony Williams, who has published several books about aircraft guns, was oblivious to the Fokker-Leimberger altogether. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he does mention it on his web page, although not by this name: "Finally, it should be noted that the split-breech approach was the subject of a US Patent in 1861 (#32,316), but does not seem to have been followed up at the time. However, towards the end of the First World War Fokker produced an engine-driven 12-barrel aircraft gun. Apparently this was not a Gatling derivative but a 'nutcracker' split-breech design, half of the chambers being attached to the barrels, the other half incorporated in a cylinder under the barrels. As with the Mk 18, the ammunition belt ran between the two cylinders, with no need to remove cartridges from the belt. Firing, apparently, was by a lever that was actuated by a cam on the drive wheel of the gun. Fokker claimed that 7,200 rpm was achieved, but knowing Fokker, there is some reason to assume that that may have been slightly exaggerated. Problems occurred, of course, with cases bursting on the seam between the two cylinders. The use of special cartridges (no details known) was not acceptable in wartime, so Fokker's technicians came up with two alternative solutions: Push the lower cylinder against the upper one at firing time by means of strong springs; or give the lower cylinder an eccentric movement with a cam pushing it into place at the right time. Apparently a prototype of the second design was built." Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Flight is considered by some to be the aviation journal rather than "an magazine". The authors and editors knew their stuff including armaments. That said, the specific citation is to the correspondence pages (letters section) which is not normally reliable unless the letter is by a known aviation expert. Its possible that the writer was an expert but unlikely to be able to find if that was the case and prove it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A.R. Weyl's expertise seems lie mostly outside of firearms, although I see he is a biographer of Fokker [1]. Consequently, his claims that the gun "could fire at any speed" (and similar hype) should be given little weight when contradicted by firearms experts and basically the historical record of no gun using this design being successful. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"At any speed" - which can be interpreted as meaning across a vary wide range of speeds - is qualified in Weyl's letter as being limited by physical constraints and therefore with an upper limit. So I don't think hype is the right word. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Leimberger?

I have to wonder who was Leimberger and why did Flight name the gun this way. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fokker-Leimberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407093738/http://kyhistory.pastperfect-online.com/35577cgi/mweb.exe?request=record&id=B54DA4F4-8851-4F4D-ADC2-453181649430&type=101 to http://kyhistory.pastperfect-online.com/35577cgi/mweb.exe?request=record&id=B54DA4F4-8851-4F4D-ADC2-453181649430&type=101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614202850/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk:80/Split%20Breech.htm to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Split%20Breech.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)