One for the warplane buffs... and another for the star-gazers!

[shortliner]

http://vimeo.com/18135369

http://www.vimeo.com/24253126

[froobyone]

Both vids are close to my own heart.

 

Stunning.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Colin]

As above - nice one. Great videos!

[trisonic]

Now, do you understand why I love Arizona????

What great little movies (I just wished that there was more shots of the B25).....

 

The star movie was mindbending - the Milky Way seems more visible from down under (at least I think I was seeing that, in parts)......

 

Thanks, Jack. Pete.

Edited September 27, 2011 by trisonic

[mezzoman253]

Everyone on the Earth should have to spend a night out in the wildness to watch the stars. It shows us how insignificant we all are in the great scheme of things. Superb!

 

Rob

[Trevellan]

Terrific stuff. The B17 air-to-air stuff is excellent. I've always found it hard to believe that these were contemporaries of the Lancaster as the latter looked very dated in comparison. Makes me wonder what a B17 would have been like with four Merlins.

[Phil Bullock]

Terrific stuff. The B17 air-to-air stuff is excellent. I've always found it hard to believe that these were contemporaries of the Lancaster as the latter looked very dated in comparison. Makes me wonder what a B17 would have been like with four Merlins.

 

Hmmm! Try putting a 22000lb grand slam in a B17. Function over form ?

 

Phil

[Ozexpatriate]

I've always found it hard to believe that these were contemporaries of the Lancaster as the latter looked very dated in comparison. Makes me wonder what a B17 would have been like with four Merlins.

Hmmm! Try putting a 22000lb grand slam in a B17. Function over form ?

Both were very effective designs, according to their parameters.

 

Interestingly the B17 was developed several years earlier than the Lancaster. The Liberator (before) and the B29 (after) are closer to the Lancaster in development cycle. In overload circumstances the B17 could carry 17,600lb. It is my impression that when carrying the grand slam, Lancasters must have been range limited.

 

It's certainly interesting to see, in general, a much heavier bomb load on the British bombers.

 

Here's some data, courtesy of wikipedia:

 

Aircraft .......... 1st flight ... production .typical bomb load*

B17 Flying Fortress ... Jul 35 ... Apr 38 ... .4,500lb @800 miles

Halifax ........... ... Sep 39 ... Nov 40 ... 13,000lb

B24 Liberator ..... ... Dec 39 ... ... 41 ... .5,000lb @800 miles

Lancaster ......... ... Jan 41 ... ... 42 ... 14,000lb

B29 Super Fortress. ... Sep 42 ... May 44 ... 20,000lb

 

* Not thoroughly researched by me. (This is data from the wikipedia pages)

 

The amount of focused (and overlapping) development and the progression of technology that resulting in the B29 in such a short period is staggering.

[Ozexpatriate]

The star movie was mindbending - the Milky Way seems more visible from down under (at least I think I was seeing that, in parts)......

I do miss this night sky from the southern hemisphere.

 

I don't know if the Milky may is necessarily more visible there. The ambient light from cities makes such an enormous difference. Even when it's not raining, night sky viewing here in Portland is not nearly the same as just 100 miles away. Head for the desert!

[johnd]

Both were very effective designs, according to their parameters.

 

Interestingly the B17 was developed several years earlier than the Lancaster. The Liberator (before) and the B29 (after) are closer to the Lancaster in development cycle. In overload circumstances the B17 could carry 17,600lb. It is my impression that when carrying the grand slam, Lancasters must have been range limited.

 

It's certainly interesting to see, in general, a much heavier bomb load on the British bombers.

 

Here's some data, courtesy of wikipedia:

 

Aircraft .......... 1st flight ... production .typical bomb load*

B17 Flying Fortress ... Jul 35 ... Apr 38 ... .4,500lb @800 miles

Halifax ........... ... Sep 39 ... Nov 40 ... 13,000lb

B24 Liberator ..... ... Dec 39 ... ... 41 ... .5,000lb @800 miles

Lancaster ......... ... Jan 41 ... ... 42 ... 14,000lb

B29 Super Fortress. ... Sep 42 ... May 44 ... 20,000lb

 

* Not thoroughly researched by me. (This is data from the wikipedia pages)

 

The amount of focused (and overlapping) development and the progression of technology that resulting in the B29 in such a short period is staggering.

 

You seem to have forgotten a small wooden aircraft with a range of up to 1370 miles and yet carry a bomb load of up to 4,000 lb at a max speed 415 mph at 28,000 ft with only 2 crew on board. How can you forget the MOSSIE, how the yanks would have loved this aircrat and a lot more versitile than any thing else, it could out run anything the Germans could go at with untill the 262 came along. It could also out fly the Spitfire by at least 20 mph.

 

The Lancaster has a max range of 2,500 miles on average there was one with a range of 3,800 miles (the MK V1) avg max speed of 275mph

 

The RAF operated Liberators had a range of 2100 mile max speed of 290 mph at 25.000ft and a bomb load of 8,800lb, a far better aircraft than the Fortress.

 

The B29 was also equipped with a presurised cabin which enabled it to fly higher, something that the others didnt have , the crews having to rely on face masks.

 

Isn't it funny that the two most effective British aircraft were not built to MOD/RAF specs.

Edited September 27, 2011 by johnd

[Ozexpatriate]

 

You seem to have forgotten a small wooden aircraft with a range of up to 1370 miles and yet carry a bomb load of up to 4,000 lb at a max speed 415 mph at 28,000 ft with only 2 crew on board.

No, I didn't forget it. An earlier post talked about comparing the Lancaster with the B17 so I confined the comparison to the heavies. (I could have included the Short Stirling and others too.)

 

As you say, the Mosquito was a phenomenal design. Super fast, with a heavy bomb load and a small crew. For comparisons though, it belongs in the multi-role aircraft category like Beaufighters and the A26.

[bluebottle]

It is my impression that when carrying the grand slam, Lancasters must have been range limited.

 

Wikipedia* doesn't say what range the B17 had with 17,600 lb of bombs, but does say that on a "short range mission", less than 400 miles, it could carry up to 8,000 lb of bombs. That's about the same distance as that between Scampton and the Bielefeld Viaduct in the North Rhineland, destroyed by 617 squadron with a 22,000 lb "Grand Slam". They also carried 12,000 lb "Tallboy" bombs the thousand miles from Lossiemouth to Tromsö Fiord to sink the "Tirpitz".

 

*It amuses me that we all quote Wikipedia while disparaging its accuracy, but it's a convenient and comprehensive source, and should be used with other resources - which is true of any reference work.

Edited September 27, 2011 by bluebottle

[melmerby]

I do miss this night sky from the southern hemisphere.

 

I don't know if the Milky may is necessarily more visible there. The ambient light from cities makes such an enormous difference. Even when it's not raining, night sky viewing here in Portland is not nearly the same as just 100 miles away. Head for the desert!

 

The first time I saw the sky in middle Egypt, away from habitation, I was amazed how visible the Milky way was. It is really noticeable.

It was the year Halley's comet was last visible from Earth and I found it with binoculars in Egypt, but couldn't when back home in England.

 

It is completely different to the UK when even well into the countryside the orange glow from habitation messes it up (apart from the Scottish Highlands, there maybe one or two other suitably remote places as well)

 

PS Excellent vids

 

Keith

Edited September 27, 2011 by melmerby

[jukebox]

 

The first time I saw the sky in middle Egypt, away from habitation, I was amazed how visible the Milky way was. It is really noticeable.

It was the year Halley's comet was last visible from Earth and I found it with binoculars in Egypt, but couldn't when back home in England.

 

It is completely different to the UK when even well into the countryside the orange glow from habitation messes it up (apart from the Scottish Highlands, there maybe one or two other suitably remote places as well)

 

PS Excellent vids

 

Keith

 

Back in 2007 we were treated to Comet C/2006 P1 (almost the "Gresley Mikado" comet, eh?) and from here in Perth it was visible to the naked eye and looked very much like it does in this photo:

 

 

I was quite disappointed by Haley's comet, so for me this was a truly remarkable sight. Comet McNaught (P2006) will take a lot to beat.

[oldknotty]

Excellent videos there , first time i saw the real night sky was lying on my back on sandbags in Vietnam it was AMAZING

[Ozexpatriate]

 

It amuses me that we all quote Wikipedia while disparaging its accuracy, but it's a convenient and comprehensive source, and should be used with other resources - which is true of any reference work.

I like Wikipedia. I think it's generally accurate, though of course there are exceptions. Peer review is the same process used by most reputable publishers, with Wikipedia the definition is just broader which can arbitarily be good or bad.

[Pete Piszczek]

Both the videos are really superb!

 

Back in 2004 I was on a Monday trip to California, and had flown into Charlotte to connect westward. Low and behold, a B-17 that had done an airshow here was heading west and was taxiing around Charlotte. As luck would have it, she inserted herself into line just ahead of our US Air 757. The 17 got a good head start, but we overtook her from above and on my window seat side. Watching her from above, over the lush green fields of North Carolina, was a fine sight, brought a tear to my eye!

 

Here is Chuckie, who visited this summer:

 

[Pete Piszczek]

The 21st of May, was a very fine day...

 

[trisonic]

My late Father was in a Squadron of Lancasters (115?) that had rotary engines - anyone post a photo of one?

 

Not all Lancs had Merlins.

 

Best, Pete.

[F-UnitMad]

My late Father was in a Squadron of Lancasters (115?) that had rotary engines - anyone post a photo of one?

 

Not all Lancs had Merlins.

 

Best, Pete.

That'd be the MkII Lanc which had Bristol Hercules Radial engines. IIRC only about 300 of that Mk were built, as a trial in case they ran short of Merlins, as much as anything, seeing as most of what the RAF flew at that time used Merlins..!!!

 

The comment about the Lanc looking 'dated' next to a Fort is possibly down to to the finish? Lancs were never finished in polished aluminium - they had a hard enough time of it as it was, without being highly polished for searchlights to pick up!! Forts and the rest of the US daylight force ended up in polished finish because camouflage paint proved a bit of a waste of time for a 700-strong daylight force, and not painting them saved weight (same as the space shuttle fuel tank).

Key to a Lanc's bomb capacity as well as it's sheer lift capability was the design of the bomb bay - biggest of all the WW2 Heavies, B-29 included. Forts had a much smaller bomb bay, so restricting it's puny bomb load anyway, but Lancs could've done with (and some did get, late in the War) the 50-calibre guns Forts had, and especially a belly turret.

 

Arizona is all very spectacular, but does look a strange backdrop to my eyes, for planes I think of as being high over Europe!!

Edited September 28, 2011 by F-UnitMad

[Trevellan]

My late Father was in a Squadron of Lancasters (115?) that had rotary engines - anyone post a photo of one?

 

Not all Lancs had Merlins.

 

Well I never Pete. I've learned something today. I assumed all Lancs had the Rolls Royce engines, but according to Wikipedia (usual disclaimers) 300 were built with Bristol Hercules engines due to a shortage of Merlins.

 

Mind you, I doubt that they would have sounded as good as four Merlins at take-off power!

 

Edit: Damn I got beat due to treacle in the wires...

Edited September 28, 2011 by Trevellan

[Trevellan]

The comment about the Lanc looking 'dated' next to a Fort is possibly down to to the finish?

 

No, for me it's the look of the aircraft. The B17's fuselage, wing form and tailplane still look relatively modern to my eyes, the giveaway being the piston radials. The Lanc's fuselage and tailplane just look more dated to me, but they did their job and that's what counts.

[trisonic]

When my Father was grounded due to burst eardrums he became what is known as a "Compass Basher" but having lots of free time he would be picked up by various American squadrons and taken away to do their "nose art" (he was a good artist) and it kept his squadron in beer........

He also reckoned that the Gremlins (used in the movie) were based on one of his designs he painted on a Flying Fortress. I told him he should have signed the things in bloody great letters.

 

He was based at RAF Witchford near Ely.

 

Best, Pete.

[Ozexpatriate]

The comment about the Lanc looking 'dated' next to a Fort is possibly down to to the finish?

 

No, for me it's the look of the aircraft. The B17's fuselage, wing form and tailplane still look relatively modern to my eyes, the giveaway being the piston radials. The Lanc's fuselage and tailplane just look more dated to me, but they did their job and that's what counts.

I think it's a school of design sort of thing. There's is a distinctive aircraft aesthetic in the 1930s (more common in the US West Coast design shops - Boeing, Douglas, etc) that the B17 belongs to. Look at the shape of the B17, DC3, and Boeing 314 (the Clipper flying boat). All have more evidence of 'voluptous' oval shapes in fuselage cross-sections, the side view of the vertical stabilizers, and plan views of the horizonal stabilizers and wings. (The Spitfire and the Hughes H1 - the plane Hughes crashes in "The Aviator" movie - share these attributes.) By the time of the P51 there was a move away from this aesthetic.

 

In comparison, the Lancaster contains more straight line segments - and therefore fewer continuous curves. I think the eye is drawn to the the organic shape of the curved surfaces versus the more 'artificial' straight segments. The same appeal is true of locomotive streamlining, which not coincidentally, had it's forte in the 1930s.

 

By comparison, the Germans built very little that looked like this until the Me262. Except for some Heinkels, most of what they built looked very angular.

[Adrian Wintle]

No, for me it's the look of the aircraft. The B17's fuselage, wing form and tailplane still look relatively modern to my eyes, the giveaway being the piston radials. The Lanc's fuselage and tailplane just look more dated to me, but they did their job and that's what counts.

 

I find that the tapered fuselage of the B-17 looks very 1930s, while the more regular cross section of the Lancaster makes it look more modern. The B-29 looks a generation newer than either, though.

 

Adrian