Crashed Stirling to be recovered.

Both crew members had their own escape hatch in the floor that opened with spring assistance forming deflectors to allow for easier exit. That is if they could get to the hatches and remembering they often operated at low level.
I remember reading a Beaufighter pilots recall of a forced landing, (preferred to trying to bail out) when arriving home somewhat shot up.
in he came, wheels up, skidded magnificently down the grass, then the brute took a turn, shot off through a dispersal demolishing a caravan on the way, went on through a hut, before plowing through the hedge at the edge of the field and finally coming to a halt.
Both crew emerged in a ‘my! That was trippy’ unharmed state - they really were tough.
 

Chef

LE
'Bomber' was a work of fiction, although Deighton does credit that tale to others. The Halifax design was changed by the Air Ministry; both Avro's and HP's design to Specification P.13/36 were to be powered by a pair of Vultures.
Sorry I should have mentioned that, also that Deighton seems to have spent time researching the book. He also talks of Lancaster pilots suffering from back trouble later in life. I should imagine that ergonomics wasn't as well understood in those days.

His account of the BoB 'Fighter' is worth a squint.
 
One of my
Sorry I should have mentioned that, also that Deighton seems to have spent time researching the book. He also talks of Lancaster pilots suffering from back trouble later in life. I should imagine that ergonomics wasn't as well understood in those days.

His account of the BoB 'Fighter' is worth a squint.
One of my favourite authors.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
We should also remember that, compared to Nazi Germany, the RAF's aircraft procurement program delivered fairly good results. That's because, for a large part of the war Wilfred Freeman was in change. By way of contrast, Beaverbrook's time in charge are widely regarded as a F-up. Lots of management by shouting and short term output boosts, allied to longer term chaos in the development program.

Pre-war, it typically took 5 years to bring a fighter into service and 7 years for a bomber from the issue of the initial requirement. That allowed for design, competitive trials between different prototypes, service trials, an initial production run and then large scale production.

Those time were sharply cut during the war years, in order to get state of the art aircraft into service. It resulted in successes such as the Beaufighter, Typhoon and so on. It also resulted in some notorious failures such as the Bristol Buckingham. But Freeman was sensible enough to have other strings to his bow, so design failures like the Buckingham didn't severely impact on the war effort.

Compare and contrast to Germany, which had notorious failures like the Me 210 and the He 177. The first had lethal aerodynamic qualities; the second had engines that were a nightmare to maintain and prone to catching fire in the air. And when those programs failed, there was little to replace them.

And then there was the Me 262. In the hands of a Wilfred Freeman, it might have been ready months earlier. But Hitler initially didn't want to give it priority, and then insisted it be redesigned with bombing capability; a major mistake.

The other problem with the Me 262 was unreliable engines. That was largely because Germany lacked the volumes of metal like chrome, nickel and molybdenum required to produce a true high temperature alloy. So the Me 262 flew with engines made from inferior steel alloy that had a typical 20 hour life.

Fortunately, Adolf was a crap strategist. Or he would have assigned significantly greater volumes of chrome, nickel and molybdenum to the fighter version of the Me 262 on the basis that if it could shoot the 8th Air Force out of the sky, overall weapon production would rise in factories that were no longer being bombed.

Wordsmith
 
Anyone wanting a good read about Beaufighters should read Sam McAughtry's book about his time on Ops in them. He regarded his pilot as being akin to an enemy pilot, swearing that the pilot was trying to kill him, by swinging wildly on take off, often leaving the ground 90 degrees off the takeoff heading.
 
Anyone wanting a good read about Beaufighters should read Sam McAughtry's book about his time on Ops in them. He regarded his pilot as being akin to an enemy pilot, swearing that the pilot was trying to kill him, by swinging wildly on take off, often leaving the ground 90 degrees off the takeoff heading.
My father's first operational flying was with Coastal Command in 1944 on Beaufighters. After the war he converted to Lancasters (Coastal Command) as 2nd pilot - later marks of the Lancaster had a dual pilot facility, he served in Palestine in 1946 with Coastal Command on Lancasters.
 
Anyone wanting a good read about Beaufighters should read Sam McAughtry's book about his time on Ops in them. He regarded his pilot as being akin to an enemy pilot, swearing that the pilot was trying to kill him, by swinging wildly on take off, often leaving the ground 90 degrees off the takeoff heading.
John Cunningham liked it though ....he did much prefer the Mossie though .
 
Talking of Lancasters and Halifaxes

quite early on, the nose turret of the Lancaster was found to be oretty superfluous, didn’t do much but add weight and drag.
Any particular reason the thing wasn’t deleted and a Perspex nose a la Halifax added?
 

tiv

LE
Talking of Lancasters and Halifaxes

quite early on, the nose turret of the Lancaster was found to be oretty superfluous, didn’t do much but add weight and drag.
Any particular reason the thing wasn’t deleted and a Perspex nose a la Halifax added?
Don't know but the Lancaster always had better performance than the Halifax and changes impacted on productuion. ISTR that originally the Halifax just had the turret removed and a sheet metal cover (Z Fairing) fitted over the opening, reducing drag and weight thus improving performance. No longer needing room for the turret ultimately the nose profile was slimmed down and capped with the perspex fairing that did have provision for a single hand operated machine gun.

Didn't the nose turrets see some use dowsing troublesome seaechlights?
 
Don't know but the Lancaster always had better performance than the Halifax and changes impacted on productuion. ISTR that originally the Halifax just had the turret removed and a sheet metal cover (Z Fairing) fitted over the opening, reducing drag and weight thus improving performance. No longer needing room for the turret ultimately the nose profile was slimmed down and capped with the perspex fairing that did have provision for a single hand operated machine gun.

Didn't the nose turrets see some use dowsing troublesome seaechlights?
Its curious why the RAF didn’t institute a slim down go faster, higher programme on the Lanc.
iirc, the speed advantage of most German night fighters was very small, often barely 20kts.
and yet on fighters, every knot of speed and foot of altitude was eagerly sought.
ditto sticking with the puny .303’s.
 

tiv

LE
Its curious why the RAF didn’t institute a slim down go faster, higher programme on the Lanc.
iirc, the speed advantage of most German night fighters was very small, often barely 20kts.
and yet on fighters, every knot of speed and foot of altitude was eagerly sought.
ditto sticking with the puny .303’s.
Can't answer that one but as regard the Halifax The Handley-Page Halifax has this more coherent explaination.. Worth a read.

* The changes in production configuration of the Halifax had led to an upward creep in weight, not entirely compensated for by the Merlin XX engine. Performance had accordingly suffered, with the B.Mk I Series 1 seen as on the edge of unacceptable. In particular, its ceiling was lower compared to the Lancaster, which made it more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, and in a few cases also made it the unintended target of Lancasters dropping bombs overhead.
 
I thought it was against international law to disturb war graves?
The Dutch are not averse to spending very large sums of money to recover the remains of crashed aircrew for a proper burial. In my opinion its very well done, dignified:


 
The Dutch are not averse to spending very large sums of money to recover the remains of crashed aircrew for a proper burial. In my opinion its very well done, dignified:


hats off to the Dutch, they are the one European country that never forgets how much we did for them in WWII and never skimps on remembrance.
 
hats off to the Dutch, they are the one European country that never forgets how much we did for them in WWII and never skimps on remembrance.
Indeed. When I first went to BAOR some of the old timers told stories about visits to Southern Holland where, when the locals found you were RAF, they wouldn't let you buy a beer.
 

Latest Threads

Top