Bomber Crew

[one_iota]

The ABC is showing this 4 part programme on Thursday nights

A sequel to Spitfire Ace

I'll be watching.

[drivesafe]

Thanks for that info one_iota.

The first series was pretty interesting so this one should be good.

Cheers and thanks again for the heads up. :wink:

[Phoenix]

Damnit, these are always on when i'm off at Air Cadets on Thurdsays :evil:

[Captain_Rightfoot]

cool https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[weeds]

a bit more info

Bomber Crew - Into The Whirlwind (60 mins , Rated: PG)
Genre: Real Life

Half historical documentary and half competitive reality show, watch as five volunteers get the chance to prove their skills at piloting original World War II training and combat aircraft, including navigating, air gunnery and aiming bombs.

[Omaroo]

Most excellent.

I really enjoyed the Spitfire series.

Thanks one_iota for the heads up!

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Originally posted by Phoenix
Damnit, these are always on when i'm off at Air Cadets on Thurdsays :evil:

cant program the 'ole VCR ??? https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[drivesafe]

Just saw the ad for Bomber crew and it has been on pay tv.

It’s great and I will be watching it again.

Without giving away anything, it’s a real eye opener as to how hard it was especially for todays crew that are trying to re-enact the ww2 flight operation.

Well worth watching.

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by Pedro_The_Swift+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pedro_The_Swift)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Phoenix
Damnit, these are always on when i'm off at Air Cadets on Thurdsays :evil:

cant program the 'ole VCR ??? https://www.aulro.com/afvb/[/b][/quote]

I've got an easier solition, program the father in law to tape it 8)

[one_iota]

On at 20:30 EDST tonight

[VladTepes]

Damn !!!

Didn't see this til today.

Was it good ? What aircraft are involved ?

[cewilson]

Originally posted by VladTepes
Damn !!!

Didn't see this til today.

Was it good ? What aircraft are involved ?


That makes two of us! :cry:

[weeds]

it was good, you will have to wait till next week to see part two

hehehehe

hahahahaha

[one_iota]

Originally posted by VladTepes
Damn !!!

Didn't see this til today.

Was it good ? What aircraft are involved ?

Great Shame

5 descendants of WW2 bomber crew:

3 are pilots 2 gunners

The successful pilot will get to fly an Avro Lancaster (one of the two left flying)

In the mean time they will have a go as a team in a flying fortress

Really good show with lots of historical info.

[one_iota]

Originally posted by cewilson+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cewilson)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-VladTepes
Damn !!!

Didn't see this til today.

Was it good ? What aircraft are involved ?


That makes two of us! :cry:[/b][/quote]

The pilots were using the authentic training single engine aircraft (name eludes me but not easy to fly).

The gunners shot at clay pigeons with shot guns and static targets with the 303 machine gun used in the Lancaster.

[51jay]

Saw the frirst one on Thurs...was excellent. Pilots flew an origional Harvard trainer. The team will be crewing a B17 and ultmately A Lancaster.

On a side note I visited trhe RAF museum When in London earlier this year. There is a Lank, a B17, A Halifax, an Avro Vulvan + an assortment of other aircraft in ONE room... called for some reason the Bomber Room.

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Yes is was good, the crew loss rate of of 1in 4 is awesome, after all that training, but the lack of suitable bombers in the early months/years puts into perspective the lack of preparedness in those early years, the girl is the granddaughter of a New Zealander who flew with Aussie 467 Sqd, and the Harvard can be a very unforgiving aircraft at low speed, similar to the Wirraway gets wing heavy close to stall but nice with speed on, there are a couple that fly /train in my area https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ but with their fixed pitch prop can be VERY noisy, particulary hour after hour https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ the noise is caused from the prop tip being close to the speed of sound under power, that is what I was informed by an ex RAAF pilot and instructor https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[VladTepes]

51jay - I love the WW2 stuff but also love those 50s V-bombers. The old Vulcan was a good beast eh !

[Captain_Rightfoot]

hmmm.. recorded it... must watch https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[51jay]

Yeah.. the Vulcan was a classic. In the same room they had he forward
section...from just behind the cockpit...of a Victor, mounted on the wall

I've got 92MB of pics from that place https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Steinzy]

Sounds like a good show - will have to get home from work in time to watch it :evil:

[VladTepes]

Originally posted by 51jay
Yeah.. the Vulcan was a classic. In the same room they had he forward
section...from just behind the cockpit...of a Victor, mounted on the wall

I've got 92MB of pics from that place https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

and I have a blank CD or two.....

[51jay]

Looks like we were made for each other https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
pm me your postal address

[Quiggers]

Vlad - tune in!!!!

at this stage you haven't missed too much...

but after this week you will

amazing.. before the run in the Lanc the vrews trained on B-17s????

keep the lanc,,,


i just about dissolve every time i see B17.....

and ive even been in one....

bye

[JDNSW]

Originally posted by Quiggers
Vlad - tune in!!!!

at this stage you haven't missed too much...

but after this week you will

amazing.. before the run in the Lanc the vrews trained on B-17s????

keep the lanc,,,


i just about dissolve every time i see B17.....

and ive even been in one....

bye

The Lancaster was a much newer design than the B17, a higher cruising speed and nearly twice the disposable load - maximum AUW 68,000lb vs 49,500lbs. (helped by the more powerful engines and smaller crew). The B17 dates from 1935, and the Lancaster from 1941. A most unusual feature of the Lancaster for an aircraft of that size was the single pilot - flight crew from memory was pilot plus flight engineer, navigator, radio operator, plus bombardier and tail gunner - may have had other gunners as well, but I think the radio operator and bombardier also manned guns. The single pilot may explain the use of B17s for training, plus the fact they were an older aircraft with dual controls - and the early models were hopelessly outclassed in the early stages of the European war - by the time the USAAF was involved, they had added a lot more guns, protective armour and self sealing fuel tanks - which did not improve the bomb load at all - so the lend lease ones could at least be used for training.
There is little doubt that as a bomber the Lancaster was far more effective, although you can argue whether the RAF's night bombing was more or less effective than the USAAF's daylight bombing. Neither was very effective by today's standards - mostly they didn't know very accurately where they were, so most of the bombs dropped had little effect on the intended targets. The German effort (and they had no real heavy bombers) was no more effective overall, although on both sides there were a lot of civilian casualties - cities are a lot easier to hit than military or industrial targets!

[one_iota]

A reminder

2030 tonight ABC

PS

I have just purchased MS Flight Simulator 2004 and MS Combat Flight Simulator 3

[VladTepes]

Waste of time..

Get IL-2 Sturmovik.

Less like a flight sim though can still be very challenging if you want, and more liek a game.

[joe]

Hey Phoenix, you should work in stores with us!.
We have a telly :twisted: , no cadets and we can change parade nights at will https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ .

Yep It's a top show alright, and I sort of know how hard it is first-hand to hit a target on the ground from the air 8O .
Back in the late '80's and early '90's we used to drop flour bombs from Cessna's onto Cadet camps out bush (I was the bomb aimer on some of the sorties) we used to remove the starboard side door and tip flour bombs out of a small garbage tin (we called this carpet bombing :wink: ).
then we got smart and made a "bomb rack" out of a bit of pipe with a hinged door at the end , It clamped on the open window sill and when you pulled the cord the "bomb bay door" opend and sent several flour bombs onto the camp of the victims below :twisted:(this was called stratigic bombing :wink: ) .
It was good stuff to look back as you turned out of the run and see cadets and staff alike shaking white flour out of their greens and giving you the finger..... however you got into the habit of checking all your kit back at camp that night as a 'shaving cream grenade' was not unsusual payback or worse!.
Oh for the good ol' days but alas the wowsers got wind of it and nowdays you can't do a thing with cadets without risk assesments , duty of care and ten tons of paper work :cry: . So it's cotton wool and no fun for the cadets for ever more :? .
Whoops not allowed to say that are we Phoenix? all hush hush and that :roll: .

[one_iota]

The crew flies in Part 3 tonight

[one_iota]

Originally posted by VladTepes
Waste of time..

Get IL-2 Sturmovik.

Less like a flight sim though can still be very challenging if you want, and more liek a game.

Now you tell me :roll: https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ :wink:

I've just flown to Lord Howe Island from Kingsford Smith Airport in a Lear Jet. 2 hrs....should I fly back?

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Opps start at 2030 hrs https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[JDNSW]

They claim a maximum takeoff weight for the B-17 of sixty tons - the only WW2 aeroplane of any type that heavy was the B-29, and this, going into service in 1945, too late for the European war, was more advanced than any other aircraft, introducing the first modern structural techniques with thickness of the skin varying with the load, first production combat aircraft with a pressurised fuselage, first production aircraft with turbocompound engines (during WW2 service very rare to return from a mission with all four still running).

I think they may have meant 60,000lbs for the B-17, which is a lot higher than the figure given in my reference, but it is quite possible that this was reached in wartime overload conditions. One of the discoveries made in the war was that the easiest way to increase the range of bombers was to make the runways longer, so they could be overloaded - if they were strong enough to withstand combat loads they could stand overloading until a reasonable amount of fuel was burnt off.

Still, a very interesting episode.

[Redback]

I watched it for the first time tonight, awesome, have been trying to watch it for the last couple of weeks now but been unable too, my father was a tail gunner in a Lancaster during WWII so all the more reason to watch.

I loved it, will be watching next week too for sure.

Baz.

[p38arover]

Originally posted by Redback
I watched it for the first time tonight, awesome, have been trying to watch it for the last couple of weeks now but been unable too, my father was a tail gunner in a Lancaster during WWII so all the more reason to watch.

I loved it, will be watching next week too for sure.

Baz.

Baz.

I have episode 2 and 3 on DVD (I have a DVD recorder). I can copy them for you if needs be. I may still have episode 1

Ref the tail gunner who jumped without a 'chute, I remember reading that story in a comic when I was a kid.

Ron

[Bushie]

Originally posted by JDNSW
They claim a maximum takeoff weight for the B-17 of sixty tons - .................

I think they may have meant 60,000lbs for the B-17, which is a lot higher than the figure given in my reference, but it is quite possible that this was reached in wartime overload conditions. One of the discoveries made in the war was that the easiest way to increase the range of bombers was to make the runways longer, so they could be overloaded - if they were strong enough to withstand combat loads they could stand overloading until a reasonable amount of fuel was burnt off.



Quite a few web sites talk about 65500lb as MTOW the boeing site ( http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html ) has the B17G at 65000lb MTOW with a 9600Lb bomb load.

Still generally an excellent series.


Bushie

[51jay]

Any other nightowls about.....Bombers B52 on 9 12 mn...some good footage

[JDNSW]

Originally posted by Bushie+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bushie)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-JDNSW
They claim a maximum takeoff weight for the B-17 of sixty tons - .................

I think they may have meant 60,000lbs for the B-17, which is a lot higher than the figure given in my reference, but it is quite possible that this was reached in wartime overload conditions. One of the discoveries made in the war was that the easiest way to increase the range of bombers was to make the runways longer, so they could be overloaded - if they were strong enough to withstand combat loads they could stand overloading until a reasonable amount of fuel was burnt off.



Quite a few web sites talk about 65500lb as MTOW the boeing site ( http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html ) has the B17G at 65000lb MTOW with a 9600Lb bomb load.

Still generally an excellent series.


Bushie[/b][/quote]

Yes, generally an excellent series, but I am sure that the sixty tons was someone translating incorrectly from pounds to tons.

An interesting quote (from 1943 I think) I saw on another forum in the last few days pointed out that the DH Mosquito, on a Berlin raid, carried a higher bomb load than the B17 , carried a size of bomb that the B17 could not carry (but Lancaster could), was fast enough to make two raids in one night, and with a crew of two instead of ten in the B17, had a far higher survival rate than either of the heavy bombers. It was fast enough to make it very hard to hit with antiaircraft fire, and was faster than any German fighter at the time, and almost as manoeuverable.

[VladTepes]

The de Havilland DH98 Mosquito was an aviaton triumph :!:

And pretty to boot.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2006/03/31.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2006/03/32.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2006/03/33.jpg
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/MilitaryProp/978B.jpg
http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/tmk3-2.jpg
(in D-Day Invasion markings)




Full specs here:
http://ww2aircraft.co.uk/Mozzie.html

And while we have no Mozzies (hint hint anyone who has one lying about) we do have the biggest collectionof de Havilland airecraft in Australia, here:

http://www.qam.com.au/

where incidentally the annual 'open cockpit' weekend is the weekend of July 1-2. Any kid who likes planes will LOVE that, trust me.

I'll be O/S at the time, but.

[one_iota]

They are lovely.

Were they the ones with a timber (spruce pine) frame?

[p38arover]

They had a moulded ply fuselage - the centre plies being balsa.

See http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection...20Technical.asp (http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/de%20Havilland%20DH%2098%20Mosquito%20Technical.as p)

I recall crawling all over one back in the Sixties at Archerfield aerodrome in Brisbane. I have some photos I took at the time. There were several there in flying condition. Some years later they had been used for fire fighting practice. :cry: :cry: I crawled all over those, too.

Ron

[VladTepes]

Fire fighting practice :!: 8O :cry: :cry: :cry:



I reckon Cessna or someone should sell modern reproduction aircraft like that. How cool would it be to have your own one to play with.

[JDNSW]

I agree with all the above - I have long admired the Mosquito. It was the direct descendant of the Comet racing plane that won the Melbourne Centenary air race in 1934 (having flown most of the way from Darwin with one engine shut down due to problems with the prop). This was followed by the Albatross in about 1937, which was, in my view, just about the most beautiful airliner ever built. To give its achievement in numbers, compare it with the DC3, the most modern airliner in service at the time. With a bit less power, distributed between four engines instead of two, the Albatross had a maximum weight 20% higher, and a cruise speed about 25% higher, showing how much better it was aerodynamically. It was the plane de Havilland first used the moulded ply construction with. There were only about half a dozen built, due to Britain rearming in 1938-39 and all went into RAF service, being either lost in accidents or eventually scrapped due to lack of spares in about 1943. Probably because they were the only plane to use the de Havilland Gipsy twelve engine - basically two Gipsy Queen six cylinder inverted aircooled engines put together. (The Gipsy queen was a six cylinder version of the Gipsy major, which in turn was a redesign of the ADC Cirrus engine - which was a lash up based on half of a failed WW1 Renault V8).

The wooden design of the Mosquito using moulded ply allowed the designers a free hand in shape, not constrained by the need to work from flat sheets, and gave no rivets or riples to disturb airflow. The other half of the design success was the Merlin engines - without doubt, in 1940 these were the best military engines in existence. (My father spent most of the war making tooling to build Merlins at CAC in Lidcombe.) The Merlin was a descendant of the Rolls Royce R racing engine that ensured the Schneider Trophy a permanent berth at the Royal Aero Club in London. By developing this engine in the twenties they gained the knowledge needed to build the Merlin ten years later, particularly in supercharger design. The R engine produced over 2000hp, figure not reached by the Merlin until late in the war. But the R engine had a life between overhauls less than ten hours, and they had great difficulty getting the oil consumption down to sixty gallons an hour.