My kingdom for a nightfighter

Could you please get back to the topic, if you want to discuss your love life and or pornographic pictures pleas take them to the Rocky Horror picture show!

 

8 posts and she's already in trouble. Must be going for my record.
Kitty

 

dearest PP, today is my birthday and it would just make my day as I turn 27 to see you in full dress uniform... pretty please :wub:

RAAF G for George 460 squadron.

1. Talk about popular with the boys.

View attachment 148

2. How it looks now at the Australian War Memorial - Fantastic exhibition

View attachment 149

3. Just plain fantastic picture

View attachment 150

 

I still refuse to take responsibility for her behaviour.
Jimbo, we'll define as we go along, if that's alright by you.
Kitty
No problemo. As long as the term is not esoteric, I'm ok with it.

 

RAAF G for George 460 squadron.

1. Talk about popular with the boys.

View attachment 2541

2. How it looks now at the Australian War Memorial - Fantastic exhibition

View attachment 2542

3. Just plain fantastic picture

View attachment 2543

I know the pictures were posted for my mum, but thanks Spidge. They have certainly made my day. Think they'd let me go for a joyride?
Kitty

 

View attachment 2541


That's a pretty strong plane. But I guess if you are going to haul a lot of ordinance you would have some serious wing loading capabilities.

 

That's a pretty strong plane. But I guess if you are going to haul a lot of ordinance you would have some serious wing loading capabilities.
Jimbo, this is my beleoved Lancaster we're talking about here. The normal version could carry 10,00lb, almost twice the B17. It could also fly higher and faster than it's Yank cousin, and was more manoeuvrable. I'd rather do a corkscrew in a Lanc than a B17.
On takeoff the wings would visibly flex as they took the bombload, and then when it was released the plane would jump up between 300 and 500 ft and the wings would again flex. Apparently it could be frightening to the uninitiated aircrew.
But my God, isn't it beautiful?

 

The normal version could carry 14,000lb and with modifications could carry 22,000lb...

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/lancaster.html

 

Cheers Gnomey, i am currently concentrating on 4 things at once. I always get the bombloads wrong. I just get carried away by the bird.

 

Jimbo, this is my beleoved Lancaster we're talking about here. The normal version could carry 10,00lb, almost twice the B17. It could also fly higher and faster than it's Yank cousin, and was more manoeuvrable. I'd rather do a corkscrew in a Lanc than a B17.
On takeoff the wings would visibly flex as they took the bombload, and then when it was released the plane would jump up between 300 and 500 ft and the wings would again flex. Apparently it could be frightening to the uninitiated aircrew.
But my God, isn't it beautiful?
I have always known the Lancs were good bombers. I didn't realize they had near the ordinance capability of a B-24G. Jumping 500 foot on take off could be very unnerving, especially in a strong crosswind or in wind sheer which I could thing could force a wing down or cause you to hit the ground in a recoil. B-17s were preferred because they were cheap. You could get three B-17s for one B-29. Of course the Super-Forts could carry 3 1/3 times as much ordinance as the fort and fly almost 7 miles up. The problem is that you can't bomb higher than the Forts could fly otherwise you waist your ordinance.

The answer to your question is yes, the Lancs were very nice looking planes. The B-24s were hideous looking. But then again, my Jug had a face that only a mother could love, so looks aren't everything. Sure sure, at every air show, everyone runs past the poor Jug to see the P-51s and the Spitfires, only the little children who take rest in the shade of its gargantuan shadow, give it any attention at all. Where is the love people? Where is the love?

 

I have always known the Lancs were good bombers. I didn't realize they had near the ordinance capability of a B-24G. Jumping 500 foot on take off could be very unnerving, especially in a strong crosswind or in wind sheer which I could thing could force a wing down or cause you to hit the ground in a recoil. B-17s were preferred because they were cheap. You could get three B-17s for one B-29. Of course the Super-Forts could carry 3 1/3 times as much ordinance as the fort and fly almost 7 miles up. The problem is that you can't bomb higher than the Forts could fly otherwise you waist your ordinance.
The Lanc didn;t jump on takeoff, however they all swung to port. If the pilot wasn't to know this it could be hair raising. The jump came when the bombload was let go. I would have loved to have seen it. Aparently the wings flexed in the corkscrew manouvre as well.

The answer to your question is yes, the Lancs were very nice looking planes. The B-24s were hideous looking. But then again, my Jug had a face that only a mother could love, so looks aren't everything. Sure sure, at every air show, everyone runs past the poor Jug to see the P-51s and the Spitfires, only the little children who take rest in the shade of its gargantuan shadow, give it any attention at all. Where is the love people? Where is the love?
The Wimpy was as ugly as sin, but i still think it's a beautiful plane. As to the Jugs, gotta go with you there. Face like a bulldog chewing a wasp.

 

The Wimpy was as ugly as sin, but i still think it's a beautiful plane. As to the Jugs, gotta go with you there. Face like a bulldog chewing a wasp.
When I was a kid we had a mutt dog that was as ugly as sin. In fact he was so ugly he actually became cute. He was a small inside dog and one time my mother opened the front door and he "busted a move" running after something, ran out into the street and was runover by a car. I cried for a week.

 

also wonder why the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">US</ST1:place></st1:country-region> didn't buy up Mossies and equip them for night fighting.
Both the Bristol Beaufighter (used by four USAAF night-fighter squadrons) and de Havilland Mosquito (used by one) were used by ETO/MTO USAAF night-fighter squadrons, and in at least one instance for each aircraft, were not replaced with P-61s until the European war was over. The Mosquito was used by the 416th NFS until June 1945, and the 417th NFS flew the Beaufighter until the end of hostilities.



Lack of nightfighters kept the German alive for much longer than necessary.<O:p></O:p>
The RAF used the A-20 Havoc, Beaufighter, and Mossie in the 'intruder' role from 1941

 

Both the Bristol Beaufighter (used by four USAAF night-fighter squadrons) and de Havilland Mosquito (used by one) were used by ETO/MTO USAAF night-fighter squadrons, and in at least one instance for each aircraft, were not replaced with P-61s until the European war was over. The Mosquito was used by the 416th NFS until June 1945, and the 417th NFS flew the Beaufighter until the end of hostilities.



The RAF used the A-20 Havoc, Beaufighter, and Mossie in the 'intruder' role from 1941
Well if you followed the thread, you can see where the problem was that Weyland couldn't get P-61s. He had a single squadron of 12-16 of them and that was it. It was their speed, excellent ground radar and heavy firepower that he needed. The Black Widows were on missions July 6th 1944 when it confirmed its first kill. But the differences between it and the A-20s(aka P-70s) the US used is enough to reach the conclusion that the war was extended becuase of a lack of night fighter capability. This was the unanimous conclusion of all of the USAAF tactical commanders in the post war retrospective. It seems that though the interdiction of the day slowed the German supply and movement down significantly, it couldn't stop it because they would move vital supplies at night. Hence the name of this thread.

 

I swear this thread used to be longer. Somebody please explain to the stressed out blonde.

 

I swear this thread used to be longer. Somebody please explain to the stressed out blonde.

Nobody has been mucking around with it! The thread is exactly the same length as it was before you posted!

 

Except one post longer (well 3 now)

 

Stop it this minute!!!! Lets get back to the topic and not the size of the thread. As if size mattered

 

Funny, that's what you said last night...
Jimbo, mate, where exactley has this thread gone to? I'm now somewhat lost. Please give me a rundown in words of no more than 3 syllables. Cheers.
Kitty

 

Funny, that's what you said last night...
Jimbo, mate, where exactley has this thread gone to? I'm now somewhat lost. Please give me a rundown in words of no more than 3 syllables. Cheers.
Kitty
Not really sure. You might be crossing the ideas here with the ones on the Finally! Vindicated! thread. They do seem to have converged. The intent of this thread was to point out something I didn't know which was not only stated by the post war retrospective but emphasized one the biggest problem. That is relative the inability to not do night time interdiction of German supply lines and movement because of the severe shortage of Night Fighters, according to Weyland, specifically the P-61.

Obiviously that was a fact that was not only obscure to me but also others as well as ironically it met with the typical "pshawing" and the "Jimboism" rhetoric. Never knew it was so shameful to quote generals in post war military self-analysis. Hey, but every skeet range needs a target right? Glad I can accomodate so many.