An thought for Art
Rod Keys
many bombers, including many of the less known examples like the B-50 and
B-57 and so on.
Then I looked at the info on our venerable old B-52.
I noticed that it said the tail gunner was eliminated and the tail gun
removed, I think said in 1998 .. fairly recently!
Somehow I was disappointed. It seems like the passing of an era of some
kind.
I believe as late as the Viet Nam era the tail gunners actually had at least
some success shooting SAM's (surface to air missiles) out of the sky before
they took the 52's out.
I had the idea that the gunners were not really very effective even in the
old days and gave the old bombers little more than a slim fighting chance if
bad guys showed up. True?
No doubt the air force was right to get rid of the B-52 tail gunner .. but
it seems too bad in an odd way.
Rod
ArtKramr
>From: "Rod Keys" rk...@comcast.net
>Date: 1/10/04 11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>I had the idea that the gunners were not really very effective even in the
>old days and gave the old bombers little more than a slim fighting chance if
>bad guys showed up. True?
No doubt that the fighter was a much more stable firing platform than a
fighter. So the edge always went to the fighter, But we got plenty of them in
the process.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
ArtKramr
>From: artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr)
>Date: 1/10/04 12:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040110150641...@mb-m02.aol.com>
OOOOPS! Meant to say the fighter was a more stable firing platforrm than a
bomber.
a.spencer3
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040110151708...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Well, our lads were called 'tail end charlies' which was possibly indicative
of their survival chances!
I certainly remember that the so-called escape route in the Lancs was a long
narrow suicidal tunnel!
Surreyman
Exit
The key skill for fighter pilots attacking a bomber was always to know your
target and try to attack from the angle where least guns could be aimed at
you so as most bombers had tailgunners pilots invaribly attacked from above
or below. As a fighter pilot shooting down bombers it also helped to have
the most concentrated fire possible so as to reduce your exposure to the
bombers defences, which is why the Hurricane with 8 .303 machine guns was
far more effective as a bomber killer than the Spitfires which dealt with
the fighter cover.
And yes - bombers were in trouble when fighters turned up. When the P51
Mustang was developed to a British Air Ministry specification it was useless
having an low-tech and very thirsty US engine. Because the US designers knew
their engines drank lots of fuel they designed huge fuel capacity into the
fighter. When the decision was made to fit the venerable RR Merlin to it
which was far less thirsty and much more powerful, it suddenly became a very
capable fighter with a huge effective range capable of escorting fighters to
Berlin. As the famous quote of the time went about the Mustang went:
'. . . . . .it won't do what a Spitfire will, but it can do it over Berlin.
. . . .' :)
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
M. J. Powell
a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> writes
1. Get out of turret.
2. Put on parachute.
3. Get back in turret.
4. Rotate turret 90 deg.
5. Fall out backwards.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Mekon
it is true or not) of the trauma a man she knew went through whos job it was
to knock off the tails of aircraft which had belly landed. He apparrently
killed the tail gunner in the process but saved other the crew's lives. I
always wondered if this was (a) true and (b) if true, which aircraft? There
wouldn't seem any point in doing it to a B17 the gunners could get pout the
side door or the gunnery window, the pilots had an escape hatch too.. But a
Lancaster might be a candidate.
As a child I remember reading a novel about tail gunners with a sobering
title, "They Hosed Them Out"
Mekon
ArtKramr
>From: "Mekon" blank...@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/11/04 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <GwlMb.6939$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
There is a little ditty, not about tail gunners but about bombardiers which w
emigh tocnsider to be "front gunners". It goes like this:
We're coming in for a new bombardier,
were coming for a new bombardier,
How he bleeds as we limp through the air, look below there's his hearse waiting
there,
We will get out the hose amd we'll wash out the nose,
Coming in for a new bombardier
Rod Keys
> When the P51
> Mustang was developed to a British Air Ministry specification it was
useless
> having an low-tech and very thirsty US engine. Because the US designers
knew
> their engines drank lots of fuel they designed huge fuel capacity into the
> fighter. When the decision was made to fit the venerable RR Merlin to it
> which was far less thirsty and much more powerful, it suddenly became a
very
> capable fighter with a huge effective range capable of escorting fighters
to
> Berlin. As the famous quote of the time went about the Mustang went:
>
> '. . . . . .it won't do what a Spitfire will, but it can do it over
Berlin.
> . . . .' :)
>
Now you know I have to stand on American pride here!
The original P-51's were shipped with the old 1200 hp Allison engine already
in use in the P-40. The Allison was chosen to meet a Brit requirement that
the plane be in their hands within 120 days of the date they saw original
concept drawings. There was just no time to get Merlins or develop a
suitable new engine.
The Allison's strength was fact that it was already in mass production.
It's second strength was it's simplicity. It had less than 1/10th the parts
of a Merlin so we could build ka-jillins of 'em here in Detroit in no time
at all and ham fisted mechanics could keep it going in the field.. They
went into boats, planes .. who knows what all .. we just built them and
built them.
If you're an engine designer and the war's on or about to be, do you go for
the last word in advanced engine concepts and do you cook up something that
existing auto oriented manufaturing plant can pop out like popcorn? The
Allison was a solid and good engine, and lighter than the Merlin. And it
got better as the war went on. I don't think we need to apologise for it.
But it put out 1200 hp vs the Merlin's 1600 (more or less depending on
variant). And best of all, we built those Allison's by the ship load.
Even with the Allison's limitations, some say the P-51 could out-performed
the Spitfire. I guess it depends on what "out peroform" means. Pilots
thought that claim was a matter of opinion.
And yes, it was you Brits who fitted Merlins into a few P-51's and that did
the trick. The Merlin transformed the P-51into a real world beater. But
there just weren't enough Merlins around. They simply couldn't be built
fast enough.
So the P-51 soon got an American mass built "Merlin" from the Packard Motor
Car Company. "Packard Motors" here in Detroit built the beasts and early in
my career I knew a few old timers who had worked at Packard and been
assigned to re-engineer and improve the Brit design. And they did.
The Brit. Merlin was a great engine, but it took an enormous number of
parts, many of them complex and hard to make, and it took good deal of skill
and time to assemble. The original was never intended for mass production.
The Packard team cut the Merlin's number of parts in half, then cut some
more, they re-engineerd to simplify all the parts that were left and to
simplify assembly. And somehow they got more engine performance and
smoother running out of the beast it the bargain.
Which is one of the reasons we couild ship more than ten-thousand P-51's to
Europe in such a short time.
Okay! Okay! So it was your engine in the first place and we had to pay
Rolls a license fee.
But it was our mass production!
R
a.spencer3
'We washed him out of his cockpit & packed him as strawberry jam' ......
Surreyman
Exit
>> When the P51
>> Mustang was developed to a British Air Ministry specification it was
>> useless having an low-tech and very thirsty US engine. Because the
>> US designers knew their engines drank lots of fuel they designed
>> huge fuel capacity into the fighter. When the decision was made to
>> fit the venerable RR Merlin to it which was far less thirsty and
>> much more powerful, it suddenly became a very capable fighter with a
>> huge effective range capable of escorting fighters to Berlin. As the
>> famous quote of the time went about the Mustang went:
>>
>> '. . . . . .it won't do what a Spitfire will, but it can do it over
>> Berlin. . . . .' :)
>>
>
> Now you know I have to stand on American pride here!
>
> The original P-51's were shipped with the old 1200 hp Allison engine
> already in use in the P-40. The Allison was chosen to meet a Brit
> requirement that the plane be in their hands within 120 days of the
> date they saw original concept drawings. There was just no time to
> get Merlins or develop a suitable new engine.
>
> The Allison's strength was fact that it was already in mass
> production. It's second strength was it's simplicity. It had less
> than 1/10th the parts of a Merlin so we could build ka-jillins of 'em
> here in Detroit in no time at all and ham fisted mechanics could keep
> it going in the field.. They went into boats, planes .. who knows
> what all .. we just built them and built them.
>
it was introduced in the P51 and contemporary german fighters easily
outperformed it and used less fuel. A 1943 P51 with an Allison couldn't keep
up with a 1939 Spitfire. . . . . .
> If you're an engine designer and the war's on or about to be, do you
> go for the last word in advanced engine concepts and do you cook up
> something that existing auto oriented manufaturing plant can pop out
> like popcorn? The Allison was a solid and good engine, and lighter
> than the Merlin. And it got better as the war went on. I don't
> think we need to apologise for it. But it put out 1200 hp vs the
> Merlin's 1600 (more or less depending on variant). And best of all,
> we built those Allison's by the ship load.
>
> Even with the Allison's limitations, some say the P-51 could
> out-performed the Spitfire. I guess it depends on what "out
> peroform" means. Pilots thought that claim was a matter of opinion.
>
I've never heard anyone say anything good about a P51 with an Allison,
comments tend to be more like 'it couldn't get out of it's own way'. Even
with the Merlin, the general consensus was that it could not do what a
Spitfire could do, but as i say, it's advantage was it could do it over
Berlin. Bear in mind that the P51a (Allison) had no supercharger and could
not be used above 11,800ft due to huge performance drop-off at this height.
This, I'm sure you can imagine is somewhat of a disadvantage in a plane
designed as a high altitude interceptor/bomber cover aircraft! Until the
Merlin went in it was limited to low-level duties - add the Merlin and hey
presto it can kick FW190 arse at 28,000ft!
> And yes, it was you Brits who fitted Merlins into a few P-51's and
> that did the trick. The Merlin transformed the P-51into a real world
> beater. But there just weren't enough Merlins around. They simply
> couldn't be built fast enough.
>
We managed to build enough Merlins to defeat the luftwaffe in 1940. . . . .
. I may well have been speaking to you in German if we'd had Allisons in
Spitfires! ;-)
Truth is, if a Merlin was available, it went into a Spitfire because that
was the best place for it, but as they started to be manufactured in Canada
they became more plentiful.
> So the P-51 soon got an American mass built "Merlin" from the Packard
> Motor Car Company. "Packard Motors" here in Detroit built the beasts
> and early in my career I knew a few old timers who had worked at
> Packard and been assigned to re-engineer and improve the Brit design.
> And they did.
>
Yes, in 1943 Americans improved the 1930's Merlin design - very clever! :)
> The Brit. Merlin was a great engine, but it took an enormous number of
> parts, many of them complex and hard to make, and it took good deal
> of skill and time to assemble. The original was never intended for
> mass production. The Packard team cut the Merlin's number of parts in
> half, then cut some more, they re-engineerd to simplify all the parts
> that were left and to simplify assembly. And somehow they got more
> engine performance and smoother running out of the beast it the
> bargain.
>
Had the Merlin been designed in Britain nearly a decade later it would also
have been simpler and taken advantage of new manufacturing technologies, but
sadly Hitler was a little reluctant to wait until then. . . . .;-)
> Which is one of the reasons we couild ship more than ten-thousand
> P-51's to Europe in such a short time.
>
> Okay! Okay! So it was your engine in the first place and we had to
> pay Rolls a license fee.
>
> But it was our mass production!
>
Well, the better the plane, the less you need, like a Spit! :)
John Cartmell
Rod Keys <rk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Okay! Okay! So it was your engine in the first place and we had to pay
> Rolls a license fee.
> But it was our mass production!
We can produce great things when we work together. ;-)
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
FF
We sang something like that at school! In the 70's! One line went "and
the RAF from Shifnal shot them down", so it was definitely a local
version that had passed into folklore.
Liz
P.S. The first line might have been "There were 50 German bombers in
the air".
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/12/04 3:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4c6f959...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <Zo2dnY-J5bZ...@comcast.com>,
> Rod Keys <rk...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Okay! Okay! So it was your engine in the first place and we had to pay
>> Rolls a license fee.
>
>> But it was our mass production!
>
>We can produce great things when we work together. ;-)
>
>--
> John Cartmell john@
You tell 'em John. (grin)
ArtKramr
>From: "a.spencer3" a.spe...@ntlworld.com
>Date: 1/12/04 12:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gSsMb.27$RN1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
The one I quoted was sung to "coming in on a wing and a prayer".
Rod Keys
Well you made me do a little homework and look things up.
I wanted to make a simple chart for camparison but as usual nothing is
simple.
Performance and everthing else of Spit vs Mustang totally depends on which
version (or "mark") you're looking at and, what altitude etc. etc. In
general the Spit could out-climb, out-dive and out turn the Mustang but the
Mustang could out run and out gun the Spit.
The Spit could get on and off smaller dirt airstrips. The Mustang liked
(but did not require) pavement.
The Spit had roots in a 1929 racing design .. it was light and quick. The
Mustang had features like it's famous thrust producing water cooler. (It
used the radiator's heat to make thrust that came close to totally
offsetting all radiator drag). The Mustang was fast and tough. It's very
late and post war variants had performance numbers far beyond early examples
and it's huge fire power even let it measured up to early jets.
The Spit had tremendous fire power but was soon out of ammo. The Mustang
had even more fire power, six 50 cal machine guns, a tremendous rate of fire
and carried much more ammo.
As noted the Mustang had far more range.
I beleive the Mustang had more kills (nearly 5,000 in Europe) but I couldn't
find the number for the Spit This would be a hard comparison because the
Spit was in service longer but there were more Mustags. I beleive the
Mustang had a better "kill ratio". It certainly did in the Pacific by far,
but again, I couldn't find European numbers.
The Mustang's original assignment was ground support hence the ability to
stay in the air so long and the huge fire power and ammo reserve. For this
work the Allison was satisfactory. It's use as an interceptor only came
after fitting the Merlin.
The Spit was an intercepter from the beginning.
So take your pick.
Regards,
Rod
Aubrey Adams
"Rod Keys" <rk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:x8OdnTpq_Ol...@comcast.com...
>
> The Spit could get on and off smaller dirt airstrips. The Mustang liked
> (but did not require) pavement.
But I understand that the P-51's wider undercarriage track (inward
retracting) meant better ground handling compared to the Spitfire's narrow
outward retracting gear.
However, some versions of the P-51 also had centre of gravity issues related
to a fuel tank in the fuselage behind the cockpit.
So, as you say - 2 great aircraft each with its positive and negatives.
BTW a couple of hundred were also built down here in Oz too.
Aubrey
Aubrey Adams
> The other day I was looking at an Air Force Museum sight that had details
of
> many bombers, including many of the less known examples like the B-50 and
> B-57 and so on.
>
> Then I looked at the info on our venerable old B-52.
>
> I noticed that it said the tail gunner was eliminated and the tail gun
> removed, I think said in 1998 .. fairly recently!
>
> Somehow I was disappointed. It seems like the passing of an era of some
> kind.
>
> I believe as late as the Viet Nam era the tail gunners actually had at
least
> some success shooting SAM's (surface to air missiles) out of the sky
before
> they took the 52's out.
>
I understand that the tail guns (initially 4 x 0.5" machine guns) were radar
controlled and that by the B-52G model the tail gunner had actually been
re-located to the crew compartment. In the -H model the 4 machine guns were
replaced by a multi-barrel "Gatling" type which would have been capable of
hitting SAMs (under radar control). I don't know the range of the gun but
to provide real protection against SAMs it would have had to been
significant - an exploding missile in close proximity to an aircraft would
still cause damage, perhaps fatal.
The last of 744 B-52s rolled of Boeing's Wichita production line in 1962
(the prototype flew 10 years earlier) and at that time they were essentially
cruise missile launchers rather than "bombers" as such, although of course
in recent times they have reverted to type.
And they'll be in USAF service for probably at least another 15 years!
Wasn't HMS Victory 100 years old at Trafalgar? The venerable Stratofortress
may not get that far but it will sure be up there.
Aubrey
nightjar
"Mekon" <blank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GwlMb.6939$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> My mother tells the story (this is just an anecdote, I have no idea
whether
> it is true or not) of the trauma a man she knew went through whos job it
was
> to knock off the tails of aircraft which had belly landed. He apparrently
> killed the tail gunner in the process but saved other the crew's lives. I
> always wondered if this was (a) true and (b) if true, which aircraft?
There
> wouldn't seem any point in doing it to a B17 the gunners could get pout
the
> side door or the gunnery window, the pilots had an escape hatch too.. But
a
> Lancaster might be a candidate.
A wheels up landing is not, by itself, a particularly dramatic event. It is
said that there are two types of pilot that fly retractable gear aircraft -
those who have landed with the wheels up and those who are going to. In the
vast majority of cases, the aircraft will suffer remarkably little damage.
However, if it has landed on the only access hatch, why would it not be much
easier to hack a hole in the side with a fire axe? I suspect this story
could be based on a single incident, with other complicating factors,
perhaps a fuel fire enveloping the aircraft, which required such a drastic
measure and which has grown with the telling.
Colin Bignell
Exit
> Hi Exit,
>
> Well you made me do a little homework and look things up.
>
is a little bit of an unfair comparison to a Spit though because the handful
of years that separated their designs were when the fastest single period of
aeronautical advance in the history of the world. We can only wonder what a
1930's Mustang would have been like.
> I wanted to make a simple chart for camparison but as usual nothing is
> simple.
>
> Performance and everthing else of Spit vs Mustang totally depends on
> which version (or "mark") you're looking at and, what altitude etc.
> etc. In general the Spit could out-climb, out-dive and out turn the
> Mustang but the Mustang could out run and out gun the Spit.
>
> The Spit could get on and off smaller dirt airstrips. The Mustang
> liked (but did not require) pavement.
>
All true, but the Mustang could do none of these in 1940 when we really
needed it.
> The Spit had roots in a 1929 racing design .. it was light and quick.
> The Mustang had features like it's famous thrust producing water
> cooler. (It used the radiator's heat to make thrust that came close
> to totally offsetting all radiator drag). The Mustang was fast and
> tough. It's very late and post war variants had performance numbers
> far beyond early examples and it's huge fire power even let it
> measured up to early jets.
>
Yep, but only the Merlin version, not the Allison one.
> The Spit had tremendous fire power but was soon out of ammo. The
> Mustang had even more fire power, six 50 cal machine guns, a
> tremendous rate of fire and carried much more ammo.
>
Bit unfair comparing twin 20mm cannon in the Spit with six browning in the
Mustang - you need a lot less hits with a 20mm to bring down a plane than
you do with the much weaker .50 cals. The Hurricane hit even harder with
it's 8 .303 MG's which is why it was used against bombers with such success.
> As noted the Mustang had far more range.
>
A happy benefit of throwing away the dipsomaniac Allison unit and swapping
it for the Merlin with 300hp more and half the thirst - fitted with the
Allison, the range of the Mustang was less than a Spitfire. . . . . . . .
> I beleive the Mustang had more kills (nearly 5,000 in Europe) but I
> couldn't find the number for the Spit This would be a hard
> comparison because the Spit was in service longer but there were more
> Mustags. I beleive the Mustang had a better "kill ratio". It
> certainly did in the Pacific by far, but again, I couldn't find
> European numbers.
>
A very difficult comparison, but it must be born in mind that Spitfires had
already destroyed the best part of the Luftwaffe 3 years before the P51b
started firing - its much easier to get kills when large parts of your enemy
have been shot down by a Spit years before! :)
> The Mustang's original assignment was ground support hence the
> ability to stay in the air so long and the huge fire power and ammo
> reserve. For this work the Allison was satisfactory. It's use as an
> interceptor only came after fitting the Merlin.
>
I'm afraid not - the Mustang was designed as a fighter/interceptor from day
one, not a ground support plane. In April 1940 Dutch Kindleberger of North
American Aviation visited Sir Henry Self at the British Purchasing
Commission to see if he would like to buy some B25 bombers, but was turned
down as we didn't need them. He did however tell Kindleberger that we would
like to purchase a good modern fighter (not like the P40 and 47 that were
too slow and unwieldy) but Kindleberger had nothing to offer. Self pointed
him towards Curtiss who were developing a new fighter design but were too
busy building P40's to do anything with it. Kindleberger bought the design
from Curtiss for $56,000 and told Self he would have some ready by Sept.
1941. The prototype was called the NA-73 and although let down by it's
original engine, by 1943 and with a Merlin under the bonnet, it ended up as
a very good fighter with an excellent wing design that did away with
compression problems above 450mph - if it had been designed as a ground
attack plane, they wouldn't have bothered making a 450mph+ wing.
> The Spit was an intercepter from the beginning.
>
> So take your pick.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rod
As I say, a good plane eventually, but not a Spitfire! :)
a.spencer3
Aubrey Adams <eaad...@MOVEiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4002caa4$0$1756$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> > Wasn't HMS Victory 100 years old at Trafalgar?
Nah - a mere 40.
Surreyman
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/12/04 9:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
>I've nothing against the P51b - it was a great aircraft, the P51a wasn't. It
>is a little bit of an unfair comparison to a Spit though because the
As I read about the various models of the P-51 I think back to missions over
Germany. When I saw the P-51's coming in and taking up top cover positions over
us, I never really cared whether they were A's or B's. As long as they were
there And if they were Spits instead of P-51's, that was ok too, I guess we
were easier to please back then. (sigh)
Andrew Chaplin
news:OKtMb.2230$Es....@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Truth is, if a Merlin was available, it went into a Spitfire because
that
> was the best place for it, but as they started to be manufactured in
Canada
> they became more plentiful.
I believe all the Merlins built in North American (such as those that
made their way into Thunder Bay Hurricanes, Downsview Mosquitos and
Malton Lancasters) were Packard-built in the U.S. and provided to Canada
under Lend-Lease.
As John Cartmell said, "We can produce great things when we work
together. ;-)" which could be a paraphrase of the Morse Code around
the edge of the wartime Canadian five-cent piece, "We Win When We Work
Willingly".
http://www.mint.ca/en/collectors_corner/circulation/reverse_side_5.htm
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Vaughan Sanders
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1c7d4$d37...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...
As I've said before, every Packard Merlin came with a complete set of
spanners, but apparently the operational Lanc squadrons were issued with
only one set per squadron, which was guarded like the crown jewels by a
warrant officer.
Uncle Sid thinks the original Packards were replaced by Rollers when an
engine needed changing, I think this is most likely because his squadron
was being supplied with Roller replacements, rather than any preference
for them.
Jamie
Rod Keys
>
> A wheels up landing is not, by itself, a particularly dramatic event. It
is
> said that there are two types of pilot that fly retractable gear
aircraft -
> those who have landed with the wheels up and those who are going to. In
the
> vast majority of cases, the aircraft will suffer remarkably little damage.
This brings an experience to mind. Many years ago I was flying my Piper
Cherokee home after a week end "up north." Coming into Pontiac Airport (now
Oakland / Pontiac International Airport) is usually very routine. Pontiac
always seems busy with students flying around and around "the pattern" and
doing "touch and goes" so on the radio you hear a constant "Cessna Two Mike
Fox cleared to land .. Cessna Seven Zulu Five you have a Beech inbound on
your nine o'clock." "Beech Two Three Four follow the Cessna ahead in the
pattern" and so on and so on.
That day I called in five mile out and was told to report "north of the
tower" and when I did that I was told to follow an old "V-tail" Beech
Bonanza ahead so I spotted him and followed him. A Bonanza is a much faster
plane than my Cherokee so I didn't have to think much about following to
close to him. So I listened to the usual drone from the tower and I and
reported "down wind" then "base" and then "final". The Bonanza was cleared
to land ahead of me and then as I watched it slowly entered my head that
something seemed odd. The Bonanza seemed to sort of jerk side to side and
kind of turn a bit as it touched down. Then it seemed to slow awfully fast.
Then the lights went on in my head. It had landed gear up!
The control tower is not supposed to clear anyone to land till the plane
ahead is off and clear of the runway but the next think I heard on the radio
was "Cherokee Eight Five Uniform (me) cleared to land". I already had full
power and was "going around" so I said "Uhhh tower, this is Eight Five
Uniform, I think I'll go around instead." The next thing I hear was the
Bonanza. He just said. "Tower ..... I crashed!" Pontiac has four runways
so I was able to land a few minutes later. The guy walked away from his
Bonanza without injury and I later heard the plane was easily repaired, the
biggest problem being that he bent the crank in the engine (from the porp
hitting the ground) which cost him a whole new engine and prop
Newer planes usually have an alarm interlock thing that sounds if airspeed
drops off (as if to land) and gear is still up. But there are plenty of
older planes that do not. Also, all the nuisance alarms these days make
pilots tend to just ignore all the noise.
But that was a surprise end to my weekend outing!
Rod
Andrew Chaplin
message news:bu0nm5$tc8$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> As I've said before, every Packard Merlin came with a complete set of
> spanners, but apparently the operational Lanc squadrons were issued
with
> only one set per squadron, which was guarded like the crown jewels by a
> warrant officer.
>
> Uncle Sid thinks the original Packards were replaced by Rollers when an
> engine needed changing, I think this is most likely because his
squadron
> was being supplied with Roller replacements, rather than any preference
> for them.
One of the interesting aspects of the CMP vehicles that Canada provided
to forces throughout the Empire and Commonwealth was that, be they built
by Chev or Ford, you could interchange parts and major assemblies -- at
least among the CMPs. Most Universal Carriers provided by Canada (T-16s,
etc.) had flathead Ford V-8s, a very British vehicle design with a very
good American engine. I've never tried to put a flathead Ford into a
Morris Quad, it might need an Imperial rather than SAE shoe horn, but
I'll wager it can be done without too much difficulty. With parts
commonality like this, the Allied forces were going to be hard to beat
logistically.
William Black
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bu0nm5$tc8$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As I've said before, every Packard Merlin came with a complete set of
> spanners, but apparently the operational Lanc squadrons were issued with
> only one set per squadron, which was guarded like the crown jewels by a
> warrant officer.
Sounds odd.
One set per aircraft is a possibility as they'll only have been one of each
type of specialist aircrew assigned to each aircraft, but there will have
been several 'engines' types around and if there's only one set of spanners
only one would be able to work.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Exit
> "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:bu0nm5$tc8$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> As I've said before, every Packard Merlin came with a complete set of
>> spanners, but apparently the operational Lanc squadrons were issued
>> with only one set per squadron, which was guarded like the crown
>> jewels by a warrant officer.
>
> Sounds odd.
>
> One set per aircraft is a possibility as they'll only have been one
> of each type of specialist aircrew assigned to each aircraft, but
> there will have been several 'engines' types around and if there's
> only one set of spanners only one would be able to work.
Round these parts a 'spanner' is a chap not overburdened with common sense -
perhaps we are at cross purposes! :)
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bu1bt8$el1$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
One set of Packard spanners which were specific to the Merlin, not one
set of spanners per squadron, this is from one of the fitters stories in
the Lancaster at War. I would think either all the spanners (4 sets per
plane) weren't sent from Canada with the Lancs, or more likely they were
commandeered for RR equipped squadrons.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
OK at a wrench *tool kit*.
Jamie
William Black
> One set of Packard spanners which were specific to the Merlin, not one
> set of spanners per squadron, this is from one of the fitters stories in
> the Lancaster at War. I would think either all the spanners (4 sets per
> plane) weren't sent from Canada with the Lancs, or more likely they were
> commandeered for RR equipped squadrons.
>
Again, it sounds odd.
The level of issue of tools and equipment to operational squadrons would
have been laid down somewhere in its TO&E and chargeable items issued as
necessary from the stores inventory.
If the items were considered 'attractive' it is quite likely that the senior
W.O. would have charge of them and issue them on signature, but I still
doubt that only one set were issued per squadron.
For a start there will only have been one senior engineering WO per base,
they are far too senior to be assigned to a single squadron. The usual
senior engineer OR in an RAF squadron would probably be a Flight Sergeant.
raymond o'hara
your story sounds like a garbled version of a story involving a b-17 landing
with the ball turret gunner trapped in it and being squashed flat when the
plane belly landed . the ball turret was not a happy place to work.
Evan Brennan
> >
> I've nothing against the P51b - it was a great aircraft, the P51a wasn't. It
> is a little bit of an unfair comparison to a Spit though because the handful
> of years that separated their designs were when the fastest single period of
> aeronautical advance in the history of the world.
Hah! The P-51A was an excellent aircraft and sometimes confused with
the original P-51 which had different specs. The A was superior in
every way to the Spitfire Five, other than rate of climb and turn
radius. RAF Fighter Command recorded a top speed of 410 mph and also
admitted the Allison engine was much more reliable than the Merlin,
which always had weak main bearings.
Some of the pilots who race Mustangs today have Allison connecting rods
installed in their Merlins, to prevent engine failures.
Mekon
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mYXMb.45730$I06.281870@attbi_s01...
I think I saw a "twilight zone" episode where that was happening, You don't
want to know how the ball turret gunner was saved.
Mekon
>
Neville Lindsay
I did this in a glider - misjudged the wind strength downwind, overcarried,
made the base leg into a diagonal scramble to the strip, and had to crawl
over power lines in the process, just made the strip and squared off to
settle it down, relaxing after that heart-starter. Just as it settled onto
the surface, flash of realisation - no wheel, lunged forward on the handle
and had just enough rubber outside the hull at the instant of impact. The
club had a perfect safety record, within a millisecond of being lost. As
much as we learn the cockpit drills, the human factor is always lurking. And
as you say, warning signals often get subsumed in irritation at them or
other distracters.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Mekon" <blank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GwlMb.6939$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> My mother tells the story (this is just an anecdote, I have no idea
whether
> it is true or not) of the trauma a man she knew went through whos job it
was
> to knock off the tails of aircraft which had belly landed. He apparrently
> killed the tail gunner in the process but saved other the crew's lives. I
> always wondered if this was (a) true and (b) if true, which aircraft?
There
> wouldn't seem any point in doing it to a B17 the gunners could get pout
the
> side door or the gunnery window, the pilots had an escape hatch too.. But
a
> Lancaster might be a candidate.
>
> As a child I remember reading a novel about tail gunners with a sobering
> title, "They Hosed Them Out"
>
> Mekon
My father recounted having seen this literally happen with returning dive
bombers at Garbutt airfield at Townsville during the Coral Sea battle.
NL
raymond o'hara
i saw that too .
a.spencer3
>
>> OK at a wrench *tool kit*.
>
:-))
Surreyman
Vaughan Sanders
OK I'll dig the story out for you, we are talking early on when spanners
were in short supply, not 1945 when I suspect they had Packard spanners
coming out of their ears.
Cliff Allen, 467 then 463 both Oz Lanc squadrons.
"When Lancasters entered service with American Packard Merlins, highly
sophisticated tool kits were supplied with them; but alas only one of
these ever reached the flights. This was kept in the Flight Office under
the eagle eye of our flight sergeant. NCOs in charge of ground crews
were alone authorised to use this tool kit, which contained the very
versatile universal box spanner with attachments, and socket-heads
precision made to fit aero-engine nuts and bolts. A wide range of
open-ended and ring spanners, toughened for the job they had to do, and
a host of other useful gadgets completed this masterpiece of
engineering. Secrecy kept these labour saving devices locked away for
sometime until a hard-pressed ground crew really needed them: then all
the flight knew of their existence so the rule "NCOs only" was fixed".
Lancaster at War volume II
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"Evan Brennan" <evankb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:781bdac.04011...@posting.google.com...
And the engine of choice would be what today for these racers?.
Mk V Roller?.
Jamie
Andrew Chaplin
>
> OK I'll dig the story out for you, we are talking early on when
spanners
> were in short supply, not 1945 when I suspect they had Packard spanners
> coming out of their ears.
>
> Cliff Allen, 467 then 463 both Oz Lanc squadrons.
>
> "When Lancasters entered service with American Packard Merlins, highly
> sophisticated tool kits were supplied with them; but alas only one of
> these ever reached the flights. This was kept in the Flight Office
under
> the eagle eye of our flight sergeant. NCOs in charge of ground crews
> were alone authorised to use this tool kit, which contained the very
> versatile universal box spanner with attachments, and socket-heads
> precision made to fit aero-engine nuts and bolts. A wide range of
> open-ended and ring spanners, toughened for the job they had to do, and
> a host of other useful gadgets completed this masterpiece of
> engineering. Secrecy kept these labour saving devices locked away for
> sometime until a hard-pressed ground crew really needed them: then all
> the flight knew of their existence so the rule "NCOs only" was fixed".
>
> Lancaster at War volume II
Would they not already have had a system of tool control in force through
a tool crib run by a storesman? Might this have been a problem unique to
Australian units because of differences in project management and
scaling?
FF
A socket set. You know, the thing men in Surrey generally aspire to bring home from
wife swapping parties:-)
Liz
(stereotypes blazing)
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/14/04 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <t3ib00puieiglnodo...@4ax.com>
>A socket set. You know, the thing men in Surrey generally aspire to bring
>home from
>wife swapping parties:-)
>
>Liz
Is Surrey one of the home counties?
Evan Brennan
> And the engine of choice would be what today for these racers?.
> Mk V Roller?.
>
> Jamie
Depends on the builder and what is still available.
Vaughan Sanders
The last mark of Merlin built by RR is the one they want, presumably
these were never fitted to the Mustang.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
I would imagine many were working out of cow sheds, with what ever tools
they could get their hands on in the early stages of the war.
I don't think this was unique, there was just a severe shortage of tools
as the bomber force expanded rapidly, presumably this was why Packard
was asked to supply tool kits with each engine.
Jamie
Andrew Chaplin
> I would imagine many were working out of cow sheds, with what ever tools
> they could get their hands on in the early stages of the war.
> I don't think this was unique, there was just a severe shortage of tools
> as the bomber force expanded rapidly, presumably this was why Packard
> was asked to supply tool kits with each engine.
My experience working around fighter and helicopter squadrons is that
tool control, especially in the field, is a safety process like
accounting for all the swabs and instruments before closing a surgical
incision. I would be surprised if it weren't done as far back as the
bomber campaigns of the Second War. It's also a way to spend less on
expensive tools. The tool crib often looks like a cow shed, and in
helicopter squadron, like a cow shed on wheels.
William Black
> Vaughan Sanders wrote:
>
> > I would imagine many were working out of cow sheds, with what ever tools
> > they could get their hands on in the early stages of the war.
> > I don't think this was unique, there was just a severe shortage of tools
> > as the bomber force expanded rapidly, presumably this was why Packard
> > was asked to supply tool kits with each engine.
>
> My experience working around fighter and helicopter squadrons is that
> tool control, especially in the field, is a safety process like
> accounting for all the swabs and instruments before closing a surgical
> incision.
That's true.
It's because pilots get irritated if they fly upside-down and a spanner hits
them on the head.
Vaughan Sanders
I wouldn' be surprised if they were having to make their own tools.
If you ever get to see a documentary on Britain's first Airborne troops
that Churchill ordered to be formed, you will be in for a shock :-))
*How on earth did we win the war* is a bit of an understatement :-))
Jamie
FF
>>Subject: Re: An thought for Art
>>From: FF fuchsi...@excite.com
>>Date: 1/14/04 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <t3ib00puieiglnodo...@4ax.com>
>
>>A socket set. You know, the thing men in Surrey generally aspire to bring
>>home from
>>wife swapping parties:-)
>>
>>Liz
>
>Is Surrey one of the home counties?
Yes. I'd venture it was *the* home county par excellence. I went there once, it's
full of mock tudorbethan 'burbs and tiny squares of grass they fondly think of as the
village green. (Really I've been there lots but it's not my kind of place at all).
Liz