RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (9/26/2014 9:59:55 PM)
Sadly, Vera has gone home now. The BBMF hangar feels a bit empty now and the display season is almost done. This time next week most of the aircraft will be in pieces for their winter maintenance. The plan is for the Lancaster to have her nose removed for some work, if we can get some trestles made up in time to hold it. The two MkXIX Spitfires are already in less than airworthy states, this is how PS915 looked before the engine was taken out on Wednesday. [image]local://upfiles/20142/C6233EDD3F724CE19921B33F574D2045.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (9/26/2014 10:07:40 PM)
On a sort of related to the Canadian Lancaster note, I have a stash of 1:72 diecast aeroplanes waiting until I leave the RAF and get a place to display them. It started with a few random ones I liked the look of before I narrowed down my buying to three areas. I've got my 'career' collection, aeroplanes (or types) I've worked on. That's made easier by the fact that most of the BBMF planes have been made in one form or another. I've got a 'nachtkrieg' bit, mostly RAF stuff but a few Luftwaffe nachtjaeger types thrown in. I've also got a War in the Pacific collection, mostly the RAF in India/Burma so far. There isn't much of a choice of Japanese Army types, especially for the SEA theatre unfortunately [:(] The latest addition (and Mrs Dixie wasn't exactly chuffed about it) is this Corgi Lancaster. It's a model of the Canadian Lancaster that I got signed by the Canadian crew and the crew who've flown the BBMF Lancaster whilst Vera was in the UK. The reason Mrs D wasn't too chuffed is that I've already got four Lancasters, a Halifax, two Liberators, a Wellington, two Beaufighters, a Do 217, Bf110 and a Coastal Command Halifax plus a bunch of smaller fighters stored away [:D] [image]local://upfiles/20142/06D8630FC2C94E14982A096A70054E06.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (9/26/2014 10:09:48 PM)
Last night was a late one for us. As the aircraft are flown under VFR and have minimal nav aids they need to be on the deck by sunset. P7350 was up and about last night and just about managed to sneak in before the curfew [:D] [image]local://upfiles/20142/2D71109A7AF14958996391D5A6465EFC.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (9/26/2014 10:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott Great pictures. Those Lancaster are beautiful [:)] Considering the fact that she's basically a bomb bay with some fuel tanks they did a good job of making her look nice [:D] Better than the Stirling, B-17 and Halifax (IMO) for sure! I'd put her on a par with the B-29 (but I'm biased like that)

JeffroK -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (9/26/2014 10:15:29 PM)
Explain to your wife that your models are an investment, just like wine, coins or stamps. I'm sure if you could get your other models signed by relevant flyers y=they would increase in value.

Lecivius -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 3:38:27 PM)
Dixie, In another post I posted it was explained to me that B 17's carried a very limited amount of ammo for their .50's. About a 3 second burst for each weapon. This actually makes sense to me upon consideration. I was shown limited ammo storage bays as proof. Does this information dove tail with your experience on Lancasters? I'm not doubting my sources at all, but you are The Voice Of Experience. An inquiring mind would like to know [8D]

KenchiSulla -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 4:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Dixie, In another post I posted it was explained to me that B 17's carried a very limited amount of ammo for their .50's. About a 3 second burst for each weapon. This actually makes sense to me upon consideration. I was shown limited ammo storage bays as proof. Does this information dove tail with your experience on Lancasters? I'm not doubting my sources at all, but you are The Voice Of Experience. An inquiring mind would like to know [8D] 30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that...

Symon -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 4:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Sadly, Vera has gone home now. The BBMF hangar feels a bit empty now and the display season is almost done. This time next week most of the aircraft will be in pieces for their winter maintenance. The plan is for the Lancaster to have her nose removed for some work, if we can get some trestles made up in time to hold it. The two MkXIX Spitfires are already in less than airworthy states, this is how PS915 looked before the engine was taken out on Wednesday. [image]local://upfiles/20142/C6233EDD3F724CE19921B33F574D2045.jpg[/image] That's an incredible photo, Martin. It makes it very clear what that whole cantilever wing thing was all about. Still blown away over how they could stay on, but mechanics, is aerodynamics, is physics. Woof !! JWE

Lecivius -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 5:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder 30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that... Agreed. I was thinking on 1-3 min, and what they told me was incorrect. An M2 puts @ 800 rounds a min down range. The storage looked like about that many rounds, give or take. So I am thinking 1-2 min actual prolonged burst capability. Therefore, I go to The Source looking for clarification [;)] Wiki would just be a waste. <edit> From U.S.Army weaponology data base you can alter an M2 from Rapid Fire to Slow Rate Of Fire (40 rounds a min). That still does not seem to dove tail with the stowage I saw, so I'm just curious.

pontiouspilot -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 6:44:46 PM)
Thanks to the Brits who managed to fix the Lanc we sent over. I'm damm sure we wouldn't have been able! While you are at it maybe you can fix those damm 2nd hand subs we were stupid enough to buy.

JeffroK -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 10:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder 30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that... Agreed. I was thinking on 1-3 min, and what they told me was incorrect. An M2 puts @ 800 rounds a min down range. The storage looked like about that many rounds, give or take. So I am thinking 1-2 min actual prolonged burst capability. Therefore, I go to The Source looking for clarification [;)] Wiki would just be a waste. <edit> From U.S.Army weaponology data base you can alter an M2 from Rapid Fire to Slow Rate Of Fire (40 rounds a min). That still does not seem to dove tail with the stowage I saw, so I'm just curious. I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo. But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg. I expected 1-2000! PS The B29 had 1000rpg.

rustysi -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 10:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder 30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that... Agreed. I was thinking on 1-3 min, and what they told me was incorrect. An M2 puts @ 800 rounds a min down range. The storage looked like about that many rounds, give or take. So I am thinking 1-2 min actual prolonged burst capability. Therefore, I go to The Source looking for clarification [;)] Wiki would just be a waste. <edit> From U.S.Army weaponology data base you can alter an M2 from Rapid Fire to Slow Rate Of Fire (40 rounds a min). That still does not seem to dove tail with the stowage I saw, so I'm just curious. I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo. But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg. I expected 1-2000! Yeah, I think I've heard the 5-600rpg also. I have heard stories of crewmen slipping more ammo onboard at times.

JeffroK -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 10:37:12 PM)
Lancaster Mid Upper had 1000rpg and the Tail 2500rpg.

rustysi -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/3/2014 10:57:23 PM)
Yeah, I was talking B-17's. Didn't the Lanc have quad .303's in the tail?

wdolson -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/4/2014 3:06:04 AM)
With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space. Bill

rustysi -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/4/2014 3:13:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space. Bill And for the same weight, which I think is more important here.

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/5/2014 6:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Dixie, In another post I posted it was explained to me that B 17's carried a very limited amount of ammo for their .50's. About a 3 second burst for each weapon. This actually makes sense to me upon consideration. I was shown limited ammo storage bays as proof. Does this information dove tail with your experience on Lancasters? I'm not doubting my sources at all, but you are The Voice Of Experience. An inquiring mind would like to know [8D] Sorry about the delay getting back to you, I can see there's a lively discussion going on after your post [:D] I'm not sure of the exact numbers etc, but a Lancaster would usually have enough ammo for a lot more than a 3 second burst. The Grand Slam modified Lancasters were massively stripped out, the nose and mid-upper turrets were removed as were a pair of brownings from the tail. The ammunition for the tail turret was reduced to approx 2 seconds of firing which was apparently a big reduction in the burst. I've also read accounts of Lancasters being used in ground support during the Normandy break out and the Falaise Gap in France where a few crews went strafing German columns which they wouldn't have done with 3 seconds worth of ammo. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo. But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg. I expected 1-2000! PS The B29 had 1000rpg. I'm not sure of the numbers, but the ammunition rack for the rear turret on the Lancaster extends forward past the mid-upper turret. Allegedly it makes about 9 yards worth of rounds hence the origin of "the whole nine yards", I suspect that the USAAF have a similar origin. I'll try to get a pic in the next few days.

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/5/2014 7:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space. Bill For most crews the gunners on RAF bombers were more of a lookout than an a gunner in the USAAF sense. I've come across a few gunners who carried out ops and never fired their guns even if they did see a nightfighter. The usual outcome was for the bomber to be shot down before they had a chance to fire back, with the rear gunner often the first to be killed to prevent return fire if they weren't using Schrage music. Or if the bomber spotted the fighter first it was usually a corkscrew away. A few .50 turrets made it into service with Bomber Command in the latter part of the war. There were two different designs, one by Fraser Nash (who made the standard .303 turrets) and one by Rose Bros. who were based in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, so local to the main Bomber Command bases. IIRC Harris (among others) was sceptical of the benefits of the 50 cals. They did hit harder than the 303 guns but were still outranged by the NJ 20mm cannons. I think I'm correct in saying that their use was concentrated in a few units, 101 Squadron were quite a big user. They were also one of the biggest squadrons as their special duties meant they were up most nights with a corresponding higher casualty rate (more sorties plus the NJ could home in on their ABC transmissions).

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/5/2014 7:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space. Bill And for the same weight, which I think is more important here. That's the other big thing. The RAF was all about maximum bomb load which meant minimising the weight of other stuff on board. A prime example of this is the amount of armour plating (not) fitted to a Lancaster. There's one sheet of steel behind the pilot's head and that's your lot. [X(]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/5/2014 7:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Sadly, Vera has gone home now. The BBMF hangar feels a bit empty now and the display season is almost done. This time next week most of the aircraft will be in pieces for their winter maintenance. The plan is for the Lancaster to have her nose removed for some work, if we can get some trestles made up in time to hold it. The two MkXIX Spitfires are already in less than airworthy states, this is how PS915 looked before the engine was taken out on Wednesday. [image]local://upfiles/20142/C6233EDD3F724CE19921B33F574D2045.jpg[/image] That's an incredible photo, Martin. It makes it very clear what that whole cantilever wing thing was all about. Still blown away over how they could stay on, but mechanics, is aerodynamics, is physics. Woof !! JWE You can see the attachment points for the wings at the bulkhead just behind the engine. Each wing is held on by eight bolts which need a lot of hitting to come out [:D] There's another bolt at the back end to stop the wing twisting. I've been put on the fighters this winter and I've managed (through various means) to get the two Hurricanes as mine with two other guys. If things go to plan I might have a special treat later for the forums [;)] Something that isn't a regular occurrence anywhere...

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/7/2014 7:31:34 PM)
A couple more from today. One of the Spitfires was sent by road for a major servicing. Usually they're flown down to Duxford, but PS915's engine chewed itself to bits a few weeks back so she couldn't go by air. Here she is on her way up [image]local://upfiles/20142/1A152F8ABC39452A9A893B7297477DA2.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/7/2014 7:32:38 PM)
And on the lorry. The wings were put alongside the fuselage on the trailer, but I was at lunch for that bit so no pictures. [image]local://upfiles/20142/CE7E2F7254AF4AEBB2208B2D7043CC5B.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff (10/7/2014 7:33:32 PM)
And this was my main job for the day, the Merlin from Hurricane PZ865 which was taken out this afternoon. [image]local://upfiles/20142/78F225FC1C574A77BB9B9086F2D3436A.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953125