In some cases they denied pilots claims when the camera failed to work. But overall they were vital for allied success. One, for research to see how their weapons performed. And two, to make pilots really try to get a total victory on camera. They even allowed pilots to trigger just the camera to film aftermath, enemy aircraft crater or pilot in chute. ruclips.net/video/MGy2KTe9WmU/видео.htmlsi=6bUVZVP7FUg_yDFv
The cameras weren’t just to verify credits of victories, but to give more reliable statistics for combat effectiveness. It’s important to know how many enemy aircraft were actually destroyed.
Thank you Mr. Messier for an informative piece on a device that produced footage most people have seen but few knew the origin of. These videos also highlight the tremendous contribution that the RCAF and other Canadian armed forces made for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the western world. I know as an American that I have often been remiss in recognizing the sacrifices of our northern neighbor in this endeavor.
Most if not all modern fighter aircraft retain a gun camera of sort, either filming through the HUD or placed just in front of the HUD with the symbology added over the video electronically. The feed from the targeting pods are also recorded. It is often saved on the data cartridge used to transfer mission data to the aircraft before the mission, and can be fed into the mission evaluation software afterwards where it can be reviewed together with all other data the aircraft generated during the flight. So the gun camera still lives on and it is still a very useful. tool for training and evaluation.
Fascinating video...appreciate the work that's gone into it. Haven't had hands on a Fairchild GSAP in ages. But as I recall, the unit had a unique conical shutter and a very functional pulldown claw that actually disengaged the film on its own. The conical shutter prevented the camera from being adapted to the industry standard C-Mount lens. Lackner, I believe, had a similar design to Fairchild. The Bell & Howell version had a disc shutter, and could therefore be adapted to C-Mount. But its wedge-shaped pulldown claw was a sort of ratchet mechanism....camera gearbox moved it up and down, a spring held it against the film's sprocket holes, and a tab inside the magazine helped hold the film in place as the claw moved up to engage the next sprocket hole....not exactly a steady system. Many of these particular GSAPs were designated "N-6". If you take requests, would love to see a similar video about the N-9 type gun camera. Made by Bell & Howell in the US and Leitz Canada (later variations also made by Perkin-Elmer). Camera had the same 3-bolt lens mount which could be removed to reveal a C-Mount. Magazines for the N-9 were made in 50' and 100' darkroom-load capacities, and in 100' daylight-load. I've seen a variation to the darkroom-load mags that allowed film to be threaded on the takeup side (through the sprockets to the takeup core) in subdued light. There was a later 125' coaxial daylight-load magazine that required some retrofitting, and an aftermarket 200' coaxial daylight-load mag made by a couple different companies. (The 200' mags required power to operate the takeup motor. Takeups on all other magazines were mechanical.) I've even seen a variation in later magazines with a simple apparatus that would reset the loop while rolling in the event it was lost. The N-9 ran the same three frame rates as the M-1, M-4, N-1, N-4, and N-6. Had an internal overrun control with an overrun indicator in the gate. And had a variable shutter angle that was controlled either manually or by an internal motor. I believe this was intended for exposure adjustment while in flight. Camera is not pin-registered. I own several N-9s, but know very little about their development and specific application. And then there's the Photo-Sonics 1VN. A further evolution of the gun camera that went into production in 1972....y'know...in case you do requests. Regardless, thanks for this clip on the GSAP!
Good video . Thanks . You forgot to mention their use during nucleair tests on the test sites . Remember those rows of trees bending in the red glaring shockwave ? Filmed by these robust cameras .
@@ChrisAthanas Hello , are those 1950'ies nuclear test films faked ? Bold statement . How did they do that ? In that era computer fakes were not possible yet . How then does one fake such images on a pellicule film ? Pellicule cannot be tampered with , only the image can be influenced . Even in motion pictures of that time any manipulation of image (for example two actors talking in a convertible car driving having a clear fake background) can be easily discerned . I do not deny your claim of these nuclear test films being fake , i just wonder how they could have done that in those days if it were so .
Well now, I have one of those. From what you show here I'd say mine was one used on a bomber as it has the simpler lens. My uncle gave it to me. He worked at McDonnell Douglas during WW2 so I imagine it was something he picked up while there. In the 70's you could still get film cartridges for these cameras but it was expensive and I never tried to use it. I never knew exactly what it had been used for. All my uncle had said was that it was used on aircraft during WW2.
My father had one, very similar to the one at 08:56 with that style of lens. It was in excellent condition. I once priced a film cartridge and developing and it was beyond my meager means. I only fired it up once (no film), but I'm thinking it was an odd voltage like 28, rather 24 (and certainly not the easy to obtain 12v).
The ability of the camera to withstand that amount of vibration and temperature fluctuations is impressive. I bet the focal length on that lens is set to infinity😊❤
In it's own way these cameras give us today's drone weapons. The plane is gone, the pilot is remote but the camera remains. I shot a lot of 16mm in the '70s. I could find gun cams at estate sales and pawn shops.
Another amazing video. Have you tried posting your videos on history oriented Facebook groups? That's how I found a lot of great RUclipsrs. I share your videos when I can, I think you need a way way bigger audience.
One of the more interesting gun camera footage I've seen was taken during the Korean War. Not that there is anything remarkable about the footage, it's who took it that makes it interesting, as it was filmed by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to step foot on the moon.
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
I wonder if the number of shootdowns dropped when these cameras were introduced. Can't lie and pad the stats anymore.
In some cases they denied pilots claims when the camera failed to work. But overall they were vital for allied success. One, for research to see how their weapons performed. And two, to make pilots really try to get a total victory on camera. They even allowed pilots to trigger just the camera to film aftermath, enemy aircraft crater or pilot in chute. ruclips.net/video/MGy2KTe9WmU/видео.htmlsi=6bUVZVP7FUg_yDFv
The cameras weren’t just to verify credits of victories, but to give more reliable statistics for combat effectiveness. It’s important to know how many enemy aircraft were actually destroyed.
And how they were destroyed. Weak points. Effective strategy. Etc.
Thank you Mr. Messier for an informative piece on a device that produced footage most people have seen but few knew the origin of. These videos also highlight the tremendous contribution that the RCAF and other Canadian armed forces made for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the western world. I know as an American that I have often been remiss in recognizing the sacrifices of our northern neighbor in this endeavor.
Most if not all modern fighter aircraft retain a gun camera of sort, either filming through the HUD or placed just in front of the HUD with the symbology added over the video electronically. The feed from the targeting pods are also recorded. It is often saved on the data cartridge used to transfer mission data to the aircraft before the mission, and can be fed into the mission evaluation software afterwards where it can be reviewed together with all other data the aircraft generated during the flight. So the gun camera still lives on and it is still a very useful. tool for training and evaluation.
Fascinating video...appreciate the work that's gone into it. Haven't had hands on a Fairchild GSAP in ages. But as I recall, the unit had a unique conical shutter and a very functional pulldown claw that actually disengaged the film on its own. The conical shutter prevented the camera from being adapted to the industry standard C-Mount lens. Lackner, I believe, had a similar design to Fairchild. The Bell & Howell version had a disc shutter, and could therefore be adapted to C-Mount. But its wedge-shaped pulldown claw was a sort of ratchet mechanism....camera gearbox moved it up and down, a spring held it against the film's sprocket holes, and a tab inside the magazine helped hold the film in place as the claw moved up to engage the next sprocket hole....not exactly a steady system. Many of these particular GSAPs were designated "N-6".
If you take requests, would love to see a similar video about the N-9 type gun camera. Made by Bell & Howell in the US and Leitz Canada (later variations also made by Perkin-Elmer). Camera had the same 3-bolt lens mount which could be removed to reveal a C-Mount. Magazines for the N-9 were made in 50' and 100' darkroom-load capacities, and in 100' daylight-load. I've seen a variation to the darkroom-load mags that allowed film to be threaded on the takeup side (through the sprockets to the takeup core) in subdued light. There was a later 125' coaxial daylight-load magazine that required some retrofitting, and an aftermarket 200' coaxial daylight-load mag made by a couple different companies. (The 200' mags required power to operate the takeup motor. Takeups on all other magazines were mechanical.) I've even seen a variation in later magazines with a simple apparatus that would reset the loop while rolling in the event it was lost. The N-9 ran the same three frame rates as the M-1, M-4, N-1, N-4, and N-6. Had an internal overrun control with an overrun indicator in the gate. And had a variable shutter angle that was controlled either manually or by an internal motor. I believe this was intended for exposure adjustment while in flight. Camera is not pin-registered. I own several N-9s, but know very little about their development and specific application.
And then there's the Photo-Sonics 1VN. A further evolution of the gun camera that went into production in 1972....y'know...in case you do requests. Regardless, thanks for this clip on the GSAP!
Good video . Thanks . You forgot to mention their use during nucleair tests on the test sites . Remember those rows of trees bending in the red glaring shockwave ? Filmed by these robust cameras .
Turns out all those films were faked, so try again
@@ChrisAthanas Hello , are those 1950'ies nuclear test films faked ? Bold statement . How did they do that ? In that era computer fakes were not possible yet . How then does one fake such images on a pellicule film ? Pellicule cannot be tampered with , only the image can be influenced . Even in motion pictures of that time any manipulation of image (for example two actors talking in a convertible car driving having a clear fake background) can be easily discerned . I do not deny your claim of these nuclear test films being fake , i just wonder how they could have done that in those days if it were so .
@@ChrisAthanas No.
Turns out all those films were faked. Try again
@@robertsaget6918 Hello sir . As you can see in the comments here i have already answered such claim . With regards .
Well now, I have one of those. From what you show here I'd say mine was one used on a bomber as it has the simpler lens. My uncle gave it to me. He worked at McDonnell Douglas during WW2 so I imagine it was something he picked up while there. In the 70's you could still get film cartridges for these cameras but it was expensive and I never tried to use it. I never knew exactly what it had been used for. All my uncle had said was that it was used on aircraft during WW2.
My father had one, very similar to the one at 08:56 with that style of lens. It was in excellent condition. I once priced a film cartridge and developing and it was beyond my meager means. I only fired it up once (no film), but I'm thinking it was an odd voltage like 28, rather 24 (and certainly not the easy to obtain 12v).
I’ve noticed that airplane voltages never correspond to terrestrial voltage, neither to apparent battery cell voltages. Always confused me as to why.
You're channel is fantastic and so well-researched and presented!
The ability of the camera to withstand that amount of vibration and temperature fluctuations is impressive. I bet the focal length on that lens is set to infinity😊❤
In it's own way these cameras give us today's drone weapons. The plane is gone, the pilot is remote but the camera remains.
I shot a lot of 16mm in the '70s. I could find gun cams at estate sales and pawn shops.
Another amazing video. Have you tried posting your videos on history oriented Facebook groups? That's how I found a lot of great RUclipsrs. I share your videos when I can, I think you need a way way bigger audience.
Excellent presentation on gun cams!
Fascinating, as always with your presentations. Nice inclusion of the "first light of day" footage.
One of the more interesting gun camera footage I've seen was taken during the Korean War. Not that there is anything remarkable about the footage, it's who took it that makes it interesting, as it was filmed by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to step foot on the moon.
I believe the CATPM’s Harvard in Brandon has if not the actual camera fitted, certainly the port and mounts still in place.
i have two of them cameras along with a box of film
Thank you…
likingandcommenting to feed the gargantuan maws
of the algo-deities of the the tube-y'all.
the Italians used a type that mounted on the top of the wing for training pilots to shoot.