But this is the one that crosses into the realm of "awesome"
Posted on 08/30/2014 7:41:20 AM PDT by GreyFriar
Back on the bombing run: One of the last two flying Lancasters pays tribute to the 55,000 Bomber Boys who never returned with flight on the route thousands of sorties took to target the Nazis
MailOnline was granted exclusive access to film while flying alongside the Canadian Lancaster bomber Stunning footage shows the iconic aircraft soaring above the UK in what will be one of its final ever flights Video was shot while flying in a small aircraft just feet away from the world's second only airworthy Lancaster
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Excellent video. This is for all WWII and Aviation History interested folks.
We saw one of these and a B-17G at MAAM several years ago. Didn’t have the funds to book a ride on either at the time, but I distinctly remember that the Lancaster’s engines sounded much more powerful taking off, than the B-17G’s. Could have simply been a difference in exhaust routing, but when the Lancaster revved-up to taxi to the main runway - I could feel the deafening rumble in my chest! The B-17 - just minutes later at the same distance - not so much. The other thing that impressed me was the difference in height and nose attitude between the two, side-by-side. (Lancaster sat distinctly nose-up and much higher off the ground than the Fortress!
WWII interest.
The flying Canadian Lancaster is at
http://www.warplane.com/
About an hour or so NW of Niagara Falls and worth a visit. Once, I was able to tour a Lancaster under restoration (the one that used to be on a plinth at the CNE in Toronto) and what surprised me the most was no provision for a copilot! The Canadians at least staffed the flight engineer position with a second pilot. Not the Brits!
Saw a B-25 take off from Republic LI yesterday. It’s such a shock to turn and see one of these things barely 100 feet away just breaking above the tree line. Last time it was a B-17.
Thanks for the ping to this excellent video.
Fifteen minutes later I was sitting in the pilot's seat looking at my brother fiddling with the Norden bomb sight. A memorable experience.
Anybody passing through Pueblo should visit this incredible museum, located at the airport. $5.00 admission last time I was there.
The American bombers have radial engines and 4 blade props. The Brit plane has inline engines with 3 blade props.
Yes, that the Brits did not have co-pilot positions for their bombers has always been of note to me. I don’t know the reason why, perhaps personnel shortages or belief didn’t need co-pilot for just a few hours of flight. And maybe flights to Berlin were longer than originally thought about in the late 30’s when the design requirements went out.
Vice the intended long range of B-17/B-24 included co-pilot.
I wonder if the Sunderland and other long-range British flying boats of the 30’s had co-pilots? I’ll have to check the statistics.
Yes, quite a photo!
I saw the Battle of Britain Flight at Farnborough in 1988. Went there to see the MiG-29s and An-124, but they had all kinds of cool stuff. Even saw Concorde passing overhead on a scheduled flight.
The liquid cooled Griffons run higher BMEP than air cooled engines too.
I just checked and found that the Short Sunderland Flying Boat and the Short Sterling 4-engine bomber had pilot and co-pilot positions designed into them.
Short Sunderland: Crew: 9—11 (two pilots, radio operator, navigator, engineer, bomb-aimer, three to five gunners)
Short Sterling: Crew: 7 (First and second pilot, navigator/bomb aimer, front gunner/WT operator, two air gunners, and flight engineer)
Handley Page Halifax: Crew: 7 (pilot, co-pilot/flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, radio operator/gunner, two gunners)
AVRO Lancaster: Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer/nose gunner, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster —
Moving back, on the roof of the bomb bay the pilot and flight engineer sat side by side under the expansive canopy, with the pilot sitting on the left on a raised portion of the floor (almost all British bombers, and most German bombers, had only a single pilot seat as opposed to American practice of carrying two pilots, or at least having controls for two pilots installed). The flight engineer sat on a collapsible seat (known as a “second dicky seat”) to the pilot’s right, with the fuel selectors and gauges on a panel behind him and to his right.
I'm just curious..but what's the risk/reward here in flying the plane across the Atlantic...there's a significant lack of emergency landing fields for 3,500 miles..why not put it on a ship for a much safer transport?
I recall reading a statistic somewhere that over 5% of US bombers transiting to England during the war were lost en route..
The Lancaster I was powered by four Rolls-Royce Merlin XX 1,280 h.p. water-cooled, V-12 engines. The Lancaster II substituted Bristol Hercules VI radial air-cooled engines. The Lancaster III and the Canadian built Lancaster X were powered by Packard built (under license) Merlin V-12 engines.
Normal defensive armament was ten Browning .303 caliber machine guns in four power operated turrets. There was one turret in the nose, two amidships and one in the tail. The tail turret carried four guns, all the others two guns. The Lancaster’s vitals and crew positions were protected by armor plate and bullet-proof glass.
The Lancaster’s empty weight was 37,000 pounds and the normal loaded weight about 68,000 pounds. Wingspan was 102’, maximum speed 275 M.P.H. and maximum range approximately 3,000 miles. The service ceiling was 28,000’.
It was primarily a cost-saving measure; the flight engineer on RAF bombers received limited training on flying the aircraft and was supposed to replace a pilot who was injured or killed.
In most cases, the flight engineer was just skilled enough to keep the plane flying so the rest of the crew could bail out, or get them to a safer location to ditch or “hit the silk” over friendly territory.
At least one Bomber Command Flight Engineer (Cyril Jackson) received the Victoria Cross for heroism. When his Lancaster was hit over Schweinfurt (and caught fire), Jackson volunteered to attempt to extinguish it, despite the fact it was on the wing. He grabbed a fire extinguisher and stuffed it in his harness after clipping on his parachute. Somehow, the ripcord was triggered and the chute began billowing out inside the aircraft. Jackson was undeterrted...he stuffed the chute and lines back into the plane and went out through the escape hatch. He fought the fire valiantly, but eventually lost the extinguisher and the chute played out through the hatch and deployed, pulling Jackson into the slipstream.
Jackson was badly burned by the fire and his chute never completely deployed. He broke and ankle on landing and the next morning, crawled to a French village where he was taken prisoner.
Eventually, he was repatriated and learned that he would receive the VC. Jackson was awarded the medal in the same ceremony as Leonard Cheshire, the legendary Bomber Command Wing Commander who completed more than 100 missions. Approaching King George together, Cheshire told the monarch to award the VC to Jackson first, because “he’s braver than I am.”
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.