RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 9/26/2014 9:59:55 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dixie -- 9/26/2014 11:00:22 PM >

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 211

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 9/26/2014 10:07:40 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 212

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 9/26/2014 10:09:48 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 213

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 9/26/2014 10:12:15 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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

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)

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 214

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 9/26/2014 10:15:29 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 215

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 3:38:27 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

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

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 216

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 4:06:07 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

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

30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 217

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 4:11:54 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

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.

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

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 218

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 5:16:35 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Lecivius -- 10/3/2014 6:29:46 PM >

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 219

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 6:44:46 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 220

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 10:10:14 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 10/3/2014 11:18:55 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 221

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 10:20:34 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 222

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 10:37:12 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Lancaster Mid Upper had 1000rpg and the Tail 2500rpg.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 223

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/3/2014 10:57:23 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

Yeah, I was talking B-17's. Didn't the Lanc have quad .303's in the tail?

_____________________________

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 224

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/4/2014 3:06:04 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 225

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/4/2014 3:13:22 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 226

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/5/2014 6:48:03 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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

Sorry about the delay getting back to you, I can see there's a lively discussion going on after your post

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.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 227

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/5/2014 7:00:57 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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).

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 228

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/5/2014 7:02:59 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 229

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/5/2014 7:07:15 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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.

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

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...

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 230

RE: Dixie's BBMF stuff - 10/7/2014 7:31:34 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

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