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

[F-UnitMad]

In comparison, the Lancaster contains more straight line segments - and therefore fewer continuous curves. ...

The straight lines were what enabled the wings of the awful Avro Manchester to be easily extended, and have 4 engines instead of 2, and hence become the Lancaster.

The B-17 does have something of the "airliner" look about it - possibly the clue is in the name - something to do with it being a Boeing aircraft... ;D

The Lanc has a family resemblance to the other RAF bombers of the time, and is definitely a war machine.

 

Whatever, they were both great planes, and the bravery & sacrifice of all their crews should never be forgotten.

[Ozexpatriate]

The B-17 does have something of the "airliner" look about it - possibly the clue is in the name - something to do with it being a Boeing aircraft... ;D

Perhaps, and Boeing has been strong in civil aviation since its earliest days, as it is today with the long awaited first customer delivery of the 787. The B-52 though never looked like a commercial airliner to me.

 

To any aviation fans visiting the Seattle area, in addition to the area's railfanning opportunities, I would recommend the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field (King County Airport). Tons of great stuff including a 707 used as Nixon's Air Force One, and a Concorde, not to mention the Red Barn - Boeing's 'spiritual' home.

 

In the US and overseas, the Smithsonian Museum of Air and Space is deservedly well known, but off the beaten track at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Akron, OH (the home of military aviation) is one of the world's best collections of aircraft, the National Museum of the US Air Force. The collection is staggering. Sure, they have a B17, and a B29 and a B24 too. Want to see a Convair B36 Peacemaker and B58 Hustler, MIGs a B1B, nukes? Yup, they've got 'em.

 

Akron, which is not far from Dayton (home of the Wright brothers) has a lot of aviation history going for it. It's also the home of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and its former subsidiary, the Goodyear Zeppelin Company. At the Goodyear Airdock, (a large blimp hanger) the USS Akron and USS Macon were constructed in the early 1930s. The building still stands.

 

All this is a bit off topic, but as this is wheel-tapping anyway ...

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ozexpatriate

[stewartingram]

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.

 

OOh thats close to me, I can remember RAF Witchford but not operational - my home was originally next door at Mepal, home of Stirlings.

Just another 4 miles away now at Chatteris.

 

Stewart

[t-b-g]

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!!

 

Never finished in polished aluminium maybe but they did get a metal finish sometimes!

 

My dad was involved in this project as he was a Rolls Royce apprentice and then went into an engineering career in the RAF.

 

I also have a photo somewhere of me as a six year old under the wing of a white "Lanc" at Bahrain in 1966. That looked very smart and quite modern.

 

http://www.google.co...16&tx=114&ty=50

Edited September 28, 2011 by t-b-g

[F-UnitMad]

 

(Re Lancasters)

Never finished in polished aluminium maybe but they did get a metal finish sometimes!

 

My dad was involved in this project as he was a Rolls Royce apprentice and then went into an engineering career in the RAF.

 

I also have a photo somewhere of me as a six year old under the wing of a white "Lanc" at Bahrain in 1966. That looked very smart and quite modern.

 

http://www.google.co...16&tx=114&ty=50

Ah yes, especially the Lancastrian... must admit I was thinking more in terms of their wartime trim...

 

Incidentally your picture link posted shows a Lanc with (I think) the Bristol Hercules Radials that Trisonic was talking about... .... and the part of the fuselage that's underneath the rear of the cockpit canopy is still Olive Drab..!!

Edited September 29, 2011 by F-UnitMad

[trisonic]

I saw that - shame we can't read the markings but wouldn't be surprised if it's not from 115, if so it is probable that my Dad did the nose art. I'm talking of the photo in the first post NOT the test bed one. Thanks for the link.

 

Best, Pete.

[bluebottle]

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.

...

A very interesting post - it hadn't occurred to me that the difference in aesthetic appeal between B17 and Lancaster is that between Art Deco (the B17) and Modernism (the Lancaster). In fact, the Lancaster might almost be called Brutalist in its visual expression of its structural materials and forms.

In my copy of Ian Allan's "RAF Aircraft of World War II" (bought with my 2s 6p pocket money C. 1959), John LLoyd says that: "When the Fortress 1 first came to this country it was not greatly admired and the high standard of upholstery and internal finish in the main cabin led us to believe, in contrast with our own stark, warlike machines, that it would not prove to be a useful military machine. This was amply disproved by the use to which the Americans put the later version and the service of the Mks. II and III in Coastal and Bomber Commands." Handsome is as handsome does...

The mention of locomotive streamlining is interesting too; the streamlining on Stanier's "Coronation" class is typical of Art Deco forms. I would guess that the majority of RMwebbers would prefer the unstreamlined version. Even the American industrial designer Raymond Loewy, noted for his streamlining designs for locomotives, wrote in1937 that the unstreamlined, if sleeker, "Turbomotive" was "... one of the most beautiful pieces of machinery ever designed by man".

Edited September 29, 2011 by bluebottle

[trisonic]

It's in "the eye of the beholder". Loewy's T1 is both stylish and beautiful:

 

 

 

 

It is non-articulated by the way.

 

Best, Pete.

 

I checked and I understand this photo is available for use in non-commercial applications - I will delete if necessary.

Edited September 29, 2011 by trisonic

[Adrian Wintle]

It's in "the eye of the beholder". Loewy's T1 is both stylish and beautiful:

 

I have a lovely picture somewhere of two of these dragging a mail train up through the curve (that would be the Horseshoe Curve for those that don't know the Pennsy) with clouds of smoke extending far back over the train. That must have been some sound...

 

Adrian

[trisonic]

The T1 was also very fast (even discounting the more outrageous claims)!

 

Best, Pete.

[bluebottle]

It's in "the eye of the beholder". Loewy's T1 is both stylish and beautiful:

 

 

 

 

It is non-articulated by the way.

 

Best, Pete.

 

I checked and I understand this photo is available for use in non-commercial applications - I will delete if necessary.

In the eye of the beholder, as you say, Pete. It's a nice pin-up, but purely as a matter of personal preference I'd rather an undressed British one...

[trisonic]

And I love the humble J15...............

 

Best, Pete.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

The Merlin and indeed all the prop engines of WW2 that the English were using were transformed by the application to them of 4 star petrol. Our regular supplies from Saudi couldn't come via Suez and the Med and were a bit vulnerable around the Cape due to German presence in Namibia and South Africa being resolutely neutral.

 

Most of our supplies came from the US Texas west fields ( now almost exhausted ).

 

The Americans took the radial engine to the wire performance wise and the subsequent Wrights and Prattt and Whitneys were a tad prone to fires. Certainly the early B17's were quite different to the later versions used over here and relied on very heavy armament for defence and a lot pf planes for bomb load. Thus each plane was heavily laden and they were no sinecure to shoot down but the outer markers and inevitable strays were easy meat for the German fighters. Frequently, the bomber crews would jettison all the guns for the return trip and many of them fell to fighters refuelled and re armed for just that purpose.

 

Flying high was something the B17's could do because of 4 star and turbos but again the downside was the freezing cold and frozen water in the oxygen mask. The B29 was the first pressurised and heated plane and flew far too high and fast for the Japanese defences.

 

The wing and engines ended up on the Boeing Stratocruiser that was the first post war luxury long distance airliner. I can remember them at LAP in 1959/60.

 

 

As to the stars, the light pollution is really quite local and I have some vivid memories of starlit nights at anchor in a yacht even quite close inshore but miles from any big conurbations or the ubiquitous yelleo street lights. Sometimes it is more about air pollution from dust, fumes and indeed pollen that obscures our view. It is easier to get a clear view on a cold night and a high power telescope will show the waviness of a hot atmosphere quite vividly

[F-UnitMad]

....the subsequent Wrights and Prattt and Whitneys were a tad prone to fires. ...

Yes, didn't B29 crews had a saying, "Two a-turnin'... two a-burnin'..." ...??

[Ozexpatriate]

... it hadn't occurred to me that the difference in aesthetic appeal between B17 and Lancaster is that between Art Deco (the B17) and Modernism (the Lancaster). In fact, the Lancaster might almost be called Brutalist in its visual expression of its structural materials and forms.

 

The mention of locomotive streamlining is interesting too; the streamlining on Stanier's "Coronation" class is typical of Art Deco forms. I would guess that the majority of RMwebbers would prefer the unstreamlined version. Even the American industrial designer Raymond Loewy, noted for his streamlining designs for locomotives, wrote in1937 that the unstreamlined, if sleeker, "Turbomotive" was "... one of the most beautiful pieces of machinery ever designed by man".

Thanks for your kind observations. The Lanc is indeed a purposeful, brutal looking machine, bristling with angry bits.

 

I will suppose that only a few of us here were alive in, or at least aware of, the 1930s - I certainly wasn't. It's an era of great contrasts, crippling depression, the ascendency of totalitariansim, frothy cinema and wonderful industrial design. The concept that a fast car, aeroplane or locomotive should not only be fast but look fast too seems to have been very important to the design ethos of the time, elevating the mundane above what I imagine might have been a grim world. Even the staid old GWR used the shirtbutton monogram to show what hipsters they were. This was true for fountain pens, toasters or even pencil sharpeners.

 

Love or hate them, Apple Computer has inherited the flame of converging form and function today.

 

It's in "the eye of the beholder". Loewy's T1 is both stylish and beautiful: It is non-articulated by the way.

Pete, the T1 is a nice looking machine indeed. I hope you treated yourself to the Broadway Limited model.

[Jim Martin]

Yes, didn't B29 crews had a saying, "Two a-turnin'... two a-burnin'..." ...??

 

I've never heard that, but B-36 crews had the saying "six turning and four burning" to describe their six pusher props and four jet booster engines.

 

Jim

[melmerby]

 

 

 

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.

Yes Halley was a big let down, nowhere near as visible as forecast some years before it's appearance.

 

Comet Hale-Bopp (1997) was truly spectactular in the UK and visible to the naked eye for months.

 

Keith

[Phil Bullock]

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.

 

Hi again

 

I wonder if there is some confusion here between payload and bomb load. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edweirdo/Maximum_reported_B-17_%26_B-24_bomb_loads

which suggests that based on USAAF records the heaviest bomb load carried by a B17 was 8000lbs. The balance of the 17,600lbs quoted is I suspect made up of fuel, crew and defensive armament. And to reinforce what another poster has quoted - why risk 9 or 10 men in a B17 to deliver the same payload as two Mosquitos which would only risk 4 men who would probably have a much better chance of a safe return home?

 

Both the RAF and USAAF started from the same starting point - "The bomber will always get through". The RAF thought their power operated turret aircraft at the beginning of the war - the Wellington - would reinforce this but soon learnt painful lessons. Each time a significant development came along - the Stirling and the Lanc - they tried again in daylight but nothing changed despite some heroics by crews incl. Sqd Leader Nettletons in Lancs in 1942 that earned him a VC.

 

The Americans failed to learn from this and assumed that RAF strategies must be wrong - their tight box formations with withering heavy calibre defensive fire must surely suceed! Unfortunately they came up against the Luftwaffe day fighter force at its strongest time and it was not until air superiority - initially local but then more widespread - was achieved that daylight bombing by heavy bombers became a reasonably safe operation. That is not to detract from USAAF operations. The fact that they flew in daylight meant that they often knew exactly what happened to their colleagues who went missing yet still pressed on. For the RAF once night bombing became the norm with aircraft in a loose stream it was fairly rare for another crew to know exactly what happened to colleagues. They might see a big explosion in the night sky but would not know what it was - indeed the RAF propoganda machine had it that the Germans used a "scarecrow" shell to make crews think that an aircraft had just blown up. The truth was - there was no such shell and it was indeed an aircraft. And it was only once air superiority was achieved that the RAF could again comtemplate day time ops with Lancs carrying Tallboys and Grand Slams which were after all precision daylight weapons.

 

So the B17 and the Lanc followed very different paths. Both paid a significant part in the Allied victory.

 

As to the other element of this tread - the night sky - try sewin fishing at night in a remote Welsh valley completely devoid of light pollution on a cloudless night (not usually much good for fishing!) The night sky is very humbling.....

 

Regards

 

Phil

[F-UnitMad]

 

...That is not to detract from USAAF operations. The fact that they flew in daylight meant that they often knew exactly what happened to their colleagues who went missing yet still pressed on. For the RAF once night bombing became the norm with aircraft in a loose stream it was fairly rare for another crew to know exactly what happened to colleagues. They might see a big explosion in the night sky but would not know what it was ...

A salutary point. The Americans knew exactly who was who and saw their deaths. The RAF didn't, and had some misguided views such as "Scarecrows" mentioned above. They also feared flak far more than nightfighters, because flak could be seen, and, especially in the early days of the "Schrage-musik" upward-firing cannon on the nightfighters, they never even saw a nightfighter attack, and the victims didn't return home to tell the tale.

There was a very interesting program on TV fairly recently about the psychological toll that Ops took on Bomber Crews, and the very different ways the USAAF & RAF dealt with it....

[bluebottle]

A salutary point. The Americans knew exactly who was who and saw their deaths. The RAF didn't, and had some misguided views such as "Scarecrows" mentioned above. They also feared flak far more than nightfighters, because flak could be seen, and, especially in the early days of the "Schrage-musik" upward-firing cannon on the nightfighters, they never even saw a nightfighter attack, and the victims didn't return home to tell the tale.

There was a very interesting program on TV fairly recently about the psychological toll that Ops took on Bomber Crews, and the very different ways the USAAF & RAF dealt with it....

Indeed, the problems for the RAF in identifying and dealing with Schräge Musik and other threats - real or imaginary - were compounded by the confusion inevitable in night bombing and by subsequent failures of Intelligence. Perhaps it did help bomber crews not to see the destruction of their comrades, but they were well aware of the horrific losses and of the dead and dying men brought back in damaged aircraft.

One of my uncles was an RAF rear gunner, and, like most men who survived one of the most dangerous jobs of the war, was reluctant to talk about his experiences - particularly to a small boy. When I was old enough to understand, I didn't press him too hard on the matter, but I understood how lucky he was to survive - the rear gunner would be the first casualty of a conventional stern attack.

Later, in the Arts sixth form at school, our art teacher would tell us humorous anecdotes about his wartime experiences, and only once about his actual job flying ground attack missions in a Typhoon: "I was beating up a German airfield; a door opened in a building and some men came running out. In the heat of the moment, I let fly with my cannon. Of course, they just weren't designed for that purpose..." (!) "...the men just disintegrated..." That gave me some idea of what would have happened to my uncle if he'd been hit by a mixture of armour piercing, incendiary and explosive 20mm cannon shells. The stories about the remains of gunners being hosed out of the rear turrets of Lancasters don't need to be exaggerated...

[shortliner]

....and there again, the rear turret was probably the the most difficult position for a member of the crew to get out of, if ordered to bail out, unless they had one of the turrets that could be reversed. I believe those were few, and far, between.

[Phil Bullock]

Interesting discussions chaps!

 

I have two family connections. My eponymous uncle was lost in Stirling W7506 of 218 Squadron in 1942. A 4 year premium Halton Apprentice lost after 8 missions on active service - symptomatic of survival rates at that time. Is an interesting tale - will happily discuss further if there is interest. And my good lady's father was a rear gunner in a Lanc - he did survive to tell the tale, including an encounter with the Wermacht following a bail out over France. They failed to recognise his thick Irish brogue and let the crew continue on their way to make it back home via the Reistance networks. Not to underscore gravity of losses but does sound rather like an early episode of Allo Allo!

 

Phil

[F-UnitMad]

Interesting discussions chaps!

 

.... My eponymous uncle was lost in Stirling W7506 of 218 Squadron in 1942. A 4 year premium Halton Apprentice lost after 8 missions on active service - symptomatic of survival rates at that time.

... and possibly of Stirling losses in particular?

 

... my good lady's father was a rear gunner in a Lanc - he did survive to tell the tale, including an encounter with the Wermacht following a bail out over France. They failed to recognise his thick Irish brogue and let the crew continue on their way....

A bit OT, but that does remind me of a Geordie chap I worked with once who told me about when he had been working somewhat illegally in Europe in pre-"free movement" days. Coming back through French Customs they enquired why he had a bag full of tools with him... he turned on the most impenetrable Geordie he could manage, and the bemused Customs Officer waved him through, with the words "Oh, you don't speak English..." (in 'Allo'Allo-style French...)

[Adrian Wintle]

I wonder if there is some confusion here between payload and bomb load. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia....B-24_bomb_loads

which suggests that based on USAAF records the heaviest bomb load carried by a B17 was 8000lbs. The balance of the 17,600lbs quoted is I suspect made up of fuel, crew and defensive armament. And to reinforce what another poster has quoted - why risk 9 or 10 men in a B17 to deliver the same payload as two Mosquitos which would only risk 4 men who would probably have a much better chance of a safe return home?

 

Partly it was because the 4 men in the Mosquitos all had to have pilot-level training (and navigation), while you only needed two in the B-17 trained to that level. The rest of the B-17 crew needed much less training. Two aircraft is also a higher maintenance load than one, even if the number of engines is the same.

 

I doubt if a Mosquito was as good a platform for high-level bombing as a B-17 or Lancaster. I also believe that a Mosquito was significantly range-limited with a 4000 lb bomb load, meaning that the B-17 could carry its load further. The Mosquito did much better with 2000 lb of bombs and some extra fuel. This makes it 4 Mossies per B-17 and makes the B-17 significantly more economical in both manpower/training and in resources (manufacture and maintenance).

 

Adrian

Edited October 3, 2011 by Adrian Wintle

[johnd]

 

Partly it was because the 4 men in the Mosquitos all had to have pilot-level training (and navigation), while you only needed two in the B-17 trained to that level. The rest of the B-17 crew needed much less training. Two aircraft is also a higher maintenance load than one, even if the number of engines is the same.

 

I doubt if a Mosquito was as good a platform for high-level bombing as a B-17 or Lancaster. I also believe that a Mosquito was significantly range-limited with a 4000 lb bomb load, meaning that the B-17 could carry its load further. The Mosquito did much better with 2000 lb of bombs and some extra fuel. This makes it 4 Mossies per B-17 and makes the B-17 significantly more economical in both manpower/training and in resources (manufacture and maintenance).

 

Adrian

 

You could not do accurate bombing from high level, blanket bombing only The Lanc like the Mossie was an acuurate bomber in the right hands. The B17 to my knowledge because of its limited bomb load was never used as anything other than a high level bomber.

 

Just remember the height 617 did the bombing runs over the dams and the jail break raid of the mossie. Did any American aircraft carry out such type of raids.