# Gloster Gladiator....useful or Useless?



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 19, 2004)

The Gloster Gladiator was the last biplane fighter built for use in the RAF but it served on many different war fronts until 1943 (it finished out the war as a trainer) It fought in many campaigns including Norway, Finland, Russia, Malta, North Africa, Greece, Eygpt and France and even had a version designed for use by the Fleet air arm called the 'Sea Gladiator' my question is...should it have been removed from service the moment the war began as an obsolete design or did it prove itself during these campaigns?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)

well if it was used in all those campaigns, it must have been good, so yeah i would say it did prove its self 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

na, i say scrap the glostor, and put all those resorces into the manufactor of the swordfish


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

You must be kidding! the Swordfish was a fantastic plane but it was very limited in what it could do because it was slow, unmanouverable and had virtually no armour - also, it was only used by the Royal Navy to torpedo enemy ships - the Gladiator was such a versatile aircraft it was able to take on lots of different roles all over the world - it was faster, more manouverable, it looked better (lets face it, the Swordfish is just about the ugliest plane you've ever seen) and it had better weapons aboard - all in all - it was one serious Biplane (Voted best Biplane in the world)


----------



## Crazy (Feb 22, 2004)

I vote the Sopwith Camel 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

Only in looks mate!


----------



## trackend (Feb 22, 2004)

I think the only thing that the Gladiator was well known for during the war was the defense of Malta when at the begining of the seige the only servicable aircraft where Faith,Hope Charity. other than that it was not a particully special plane. as for looks I always thought the pre war Hawker Hart was one of the nicest looking bi planes. 

Ok bronzewhaler82, I agree the string bag (Fairy Swordfish) was no looker, had no armour and was very slow (Stall speed was 70+mph when carrying a torpedo) it was only a fabric covered plane. but I have to disagree with you when you say lacked versitility.
It carried bombs,rockets, and depth charges as well as torpedoes.
In the first week of service when it was fitted with antisubmarine rockets it got a kill, and this was the start of a very successful campaign.
As a bi plane it undoubtedly was the most successful of the war and infact had a record that many mono planes envied with the highest tonnage of shipping sunk by a single design of aircraft in the whole war.

The Japanese where most impressed when 21 Swordfish put pay to the Italian fleet in Taranto Harbour in fact one of Yamamotos aids(who was visiting At the time) went to the port the next day to make notes these he took back to Japan and many of the lessons learned where used in the planning of the Pearl Habour raid.
Its lack of speed was in some instances its protection as for instance when they attacked the Bismark. being a modern warship the Bismarks anti- aircraft control system was not calibrate for speeds of less than 150mph, so when the string bags came in all the ack ack (apart from lightflak) past short of target.

Conversely however I have to conceed that in air to air combat the poor old Swordfish got shot too hell. no more so than when the Sharnhost Genisnau made the now famous channel dash and the Lufwaffa put up the biggest air umbrella of the entire war and shot every swordfish down without loss.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

Its obvious you're a Swordfish enthusiast  but however i am a Gladiator enthusiast and although i do appreciate the information you've shared about the Swordfish you are mistaken on many points regarding the Gladiator - i hope you will learn from what i will tell you about the Gladiator the same as i've appreciated what you've corrected me on the Swordfish

Firstly though you are correct about the Gladiators triumphant duty on Malta you are incorrect to say that it was the only thing the Gladiator was well known for...it would be the same as me saying all the Swordfish is known for is the attack at Taranto bay - 18 Gladiators were sent to Norway to help the Norwegians during the occupation and though 14 of these gladiators were destroyed on the ground, those that did get airbourne held the Germans at bay for 3 days before they were overwhealmed (And that isnt the first time a handful of Gladiators have held off a force much larger and better than themselves) 
Gladiators were also on the front line fighting the Italian airforce in Africa and Greece with barely a handful of old Hurricanes to assist them. 

And to state that the Gladiator is not a special plane is another mistake - it held the record for overseas sales and they were bought by lots of smaller countries that needed a tough, reliable, sturdy plane to defend their homelands - Lithuania, Latvia, Egypt, Iraq, China (to name a few) the Finns used them against the Russians during the winter war of 1939 and the Russians were so impressed by the Gladiators performance that they used captured Gladiators against the invading Germans at the beginning of operation 'Barbarrosa'

When talking about armour, you will find that the Gladiator was merely fabric covered too. and although to my knowledge the Gladiator never sank any ships it certainly shot down more planes than the Swordfish!
Both the Swordfish and the Gladiator were popular with pilots and many prefered the old Glad' rather than some of the newer monoplanes - in fact the highest scoring allied ace of the War 'Lieutenant J.Pattle' started his career fighting in Africa in a Gladiator! Even foreign squadrons like the Australians used them! 

I do wish to stress that i myself am a fan of the Swordfish, i am well aware of its important role - i am a fan of all biplanes and i hope i didn't cause you to think otherwise

Besides this entire discussion is rather flawed...after all we are talking about two completely different planes here, a fighter and a Naval torpedo bomber - i must say if i was entering a dogfight and i had to choose a plane it would be a Gladiator but if i was attacking a Destroyer i might have to think again!  


cheers


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 23, 2004)

The Gladiator was indeed a good biplane but the Fiat CR 42 was better.







The *BIG* problem with Italian aircraft was that Italy did not have the petroleum reserves to support them in daily flights. Fighters on the ground due to shortage of fuel are about as useful as teats on a bull. <pardon my euphemism>

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

im tempted to make a comment about it being italian but seen as my fave plane is italian i wont


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

loyalty never stopped you doing anything before?


----------



## Greycloud (Feb 24, 2004)

While the Fiat CR 42 was 10MPH faster than the Gladiator it had two guns to the Gladitator's four guns. My dad was in Malta during WWII and saw The Gladiators in action over the island. A local conversion called the 'Bleraiator'. was fitted with a Blenheim's Mercury engine and a three bladed prop, which gave it equal performance to the CR 42.

P.S.
If I can figure out how, I will post a Pic.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 24, 2004)

Wow, your dad actually SAW Gladiators?! did he see them in action or just cruising by?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

nice pic whaler


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

Greycloud,

Yup that was the problem with most of the Italian aircraft, they were underarmed but damn manoeuverable!

Its the old question, which is better the ability to get out of the way of the plane behind you or to shoot it down before it can damage yours?

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Kiwi, i would argue that its no good getting behind your enemy if you don't have the weapons to shoot them down...the Cr.42's two machine guns simply couldn't punch through modern armour and do enough damage, the only chance it really had against more modern fighters was to try and aim for the pilot


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

Whaler,

Actually I agree. The problem with the Italian aircraft is that they were generally under-armed.

kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

In your educated opinion do you think theres any reason behind the Italians reluctance to give their planes decent weapons?


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 27, 2004)

Whaler,

I'm damned if I know. Part of me thinks they never really got out of WW1 and another parts wonders whether they actually had the infrastructure to support medium to heavy industrial plants.

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

and for some more brit humor, visit http://www.jamesstenning.co.uk/video_page/rainbow.htm
this has been a service announcement brought to you by the BBC


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

Damme! If it weren't for the Empire, where would you all be now, eh? Facing some damn Johnny with a bayonet as they rape our towns and pillage our women!!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

None taken - no-one knows everything


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

Don't know about the US, but in Canada (Ontario at least) IIRC all the history that is mandatory is Canadian history except for one class that is early 20th century (1900-1945 or a bit after I think). And I know there's an optional US History class, but I don't know what other history courses are offered.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

> I'm the same when I try and pour another Vodka, I keep missing the Bottle for some strange reason



seriously, i aint head anything that funny for weeks, cheers, my day needed brightning like that


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Back on the subject of this thread..the Gladiator, its actually a fact (for the critics of this plane) that the only V.C to be awarded to a fighter pilot in the RAF during WW2 was won by a Gladiator pliot! (SO there Kiwi!  8) )


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

I really dont think that you can say that the glad wasn't a good plane. In fact in my my mind all planes provied they got off the ground did there jobs...just some were more effective than others... I think that the olde bi-planes were brilliant.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Though your point is interesting - it does grieve me deeply to disagree with you old friend - i couldn't agree more that the Biplanes were fantastic BUT some aircraft were really really bad and do deserve a good slagging off - the Russian TB3 bomber for a start was woefully inadequate for WW2 so was anything made by the French


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Oh, I don't know Whaler

The Dewotine D520 was at least usable not like the MS 406. In fact the Luftwaffe flew captured D520's during the first 3 or so years of WW2.

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

And one or two of the Bregeut fighters as well

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 10, 2004)

I was reading an interesting article about Gloster Gladiators the other day....

Even though they never fought in the Pacific war with Japan and America the first victims of the Gladiator were the Japanese navy air force...at the hands of the Chinese air force in 1938 during the Chinese skirmishes with Japan.

Two Chinese squadrons (28th and 29th Pursuit Squadrons) were equipped with about 30 Gladiators and engaged the Japanese throughout 1938 - and into the early years of Chinas war with Japan (with the Allies) in the early 40's

one of the very first Gladiator 'Aces' was a Chinaman called Capt Arthur Chin Shui-Tin Hankow who during an airbattle with Japanese A5M fighters (the predecessor to the A6M 'Zero') rescued his wingman who was being pursued by four A5M's - the captain shot down one the pursuers enabling his wingman to escape but was then turned on by the three remaining A5M's who proceeded to line up behind him and take turns at shooting at him - Shui-Tin's Gladiator was badly damaged and had it not been for a makeshift metal plate he had installed in his cockpit that he had salvaged from an I-15 he most likely would've been killed by this barrage - as it was he rammed one of his attackers in order to escape - the plane he rammed was destroyed as well as his own (his gladiator lost both its lower and upper wing on the right-hand side of his aircraft) Shui-Tin was unable to control his badly damaged aircraft and after experiencing some difficulty he finally managed to get unstrapped and bailed out.

Later in the same year he wasn't so lucky - he was shot down by a group of A5M fighters whilst escorting a Russian bomber over China in his Gladiator. He bailed out but was shot at by the A5M Pilots and had to pretend to be dead - despite his lucky escape he suffered horrendous burns and was evacuated to Hong Kong for treatment (which he later fled from when the Japanese invaded) He returned to China where he spent the rest of the war fighting the Japanese airforce (which by now was equipped with 'Zero' fighters) the finished the war as the highest ranking ace in China during World War 2....The end  8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

Not til the fat lady sings chump...and thankfully we don't have a smiley for that yet!  just cos C.C and Lanc have invaded and filled this forum with their spam doesn't mean its worn out - besides you called yourself a gladiator fan so why don't you put something in? or are you too busy with your new fav plane the Ju88? (no i'm not jealous!  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

And this is your friendly neighbourhood Moderator kindly requesting that the spam takes a break for a while and we get back on topic..... 8) 

Would biplanes still have had a place during the later years of WW2 if they had had a more powerful engine and better weapons?

It seems to me alot of Biplanes (I'll use the Gladiator as an example cos its my fav biplane and its appropriate to this thread  )
could've been put to better use if they had had a better top speed than about 250mph and had more than a few machine guns for armament 

You design some kind of Biplane with cannons fixed (i doubt the wings could take the stress so it would have to be in some sort of reinforced fusealage) and a top speed of about 320mph coupled with the turning circle and general manouvorability of a biplane (which IMO is better than a monoplane) then you might have a lethal combination...opinions? (constructive ones please  )


----------



## Rell (Mar 26, 2004)

> Would biplanes still have had a place during the later years of WW2 if they had had a more powerful engine and better weapons?



Surely thats a bit like saying 'would vinal records be of more use today if they had better sound quality and didnt break apart'

The point is something better came along (CD's) and although records have their uses they have been outclassed.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

Rell said:


> > Would biplanes still have had a place during the later years of WW2 if they had had a more powerful engine and better weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not quite the same - Vinal records were replaced by cassete tapes before Cds... 8) 

but i do see the point you are trying to make but the biplanes were still useful in later years but just small details kept them down (poor weapons, speed and armour) planes can be improved - a biplane has EXCELLENT manouvorability - the kind you can only get with 2 wings so i was just saying maybe they could've been used more effectively? bring back the triplanes I say!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

> bring back the triplanes I say



and me


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

I have to agree with rell....The aircraft today has evolutionised (If it is such a word) from the old classics that we talk about in here. To say that a triplane would be of use in nowadays i personally think is a ridiculous statement. Of course they would be of no use...unless, they had better arnaments, more speed etc....but then you keep perfecting and you end up with modern day aircraft (which is of course improving all the time).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)

good point...... i still want them back though  8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 27, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> I have to agree with rell....The aircraft today has evolutionised (If it is such a word) from the old classics that we talk about in here. To say that a triplane would be of use in nowadays i personally think is a ridiculous statement. Of course they would be of no use...unless, they had better arnaments, more speed etc....but then you keep perfecting and you end up with modern day aircraft (which is of course improving all the time).



I actually said - biplanes in the late years of WW2 - not these days!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

you know i think that everything has to accept defeat and move aside gracefully when something better comes along, i mean if biplanes werwe so god would they have been replaced in the first case?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

I'm not sure exactly - mainly down to science i think  - a stressed fabric skin was needed for biplane use because it was light BUT was crap in terms of armament  

A machine gun or cannon could punch through it no problem - but if you made the wings out of a heavier, better armoured material (such as steel) the weight would have a detrimental effect on the planes performance because remember the upper wing is largely supported by the lower wing. basically in english: it would screw up the planes manouvorability and at high speeds-i.e when diving to escape someone - the wings might break off - which is obviously not a good thing  

plus huge steel wings would slow the plane down meaning it would have to have a bigger engine..now thats when i run out of steam..why couldn't a bigger better engine be built onto the biplane...i must say i suspect its again down to weight etc - a fabric built aircraft supported by a light steel and wooden frame could only support so much weight and a larger engine may have been too much - i'm willing to admit I could be complately wrong about this so if anyone knows otherwsie please feel free to shoot me down - cheers!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

can i shoot you anyway?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

I'd rather you didn't old bean


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

oh  well ill get you in a dogfight between biplanes then  i get first dibs on the gladiator


----------



## R Pope (Apr 2, 2004)

The Gladiator and other bipes were great in a point defense situation like Malta where the bad guys came to them, but no good in a long range escort mission. The problem with speeds over about 275 mph with two wings is "biplane interference" where the low pressure area above the bottom wing impinges on the underside of the top wing,increasing the drag and losing lift.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

Yes, its true that they weren't very useful for escort duties but they were quite effective as roaming scouts looking for targets (as in the Gladiators in Norway in April 1940) as you say they had their uses and when they were used - more often than not they performed excellently... 8) 

And C.C - as for your challenge...

I'll fly the Tiger Moth and spray you with 'Paris Green' as you pass me in the Glad!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

well, er, il build up to my max ceiling of 33,500ft and wait for you to catch me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

yeah, well you'll be all day getting there C.C.........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> well, er, il build up to my max ceiling of 33,500ft and wait for you to catch me



Ha! 8) i'll just confuse you by flying in circles in my tiny yellow plane and you'll get dizzy and lose altitude then when you least expect it i'll kamikaze your fighter and bail out...the Tigermoth wasn't a difficult plane to fly (precisely why it was a trainer) and pilots loved it..which is why its so popular- but its also so small that flying at speed it wouldn't be easy to see or hit (as long as it wasn't painted yellow that is!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

what would you do if you were jumped by a 109 though?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> Ha! i'll just confuse you by flying in circles in my tiny yellow plane and you'll get dizzy and lose altitude then when you least expect it i'll kamikaze your fighter and bail out...the Tigermoth wasn't a difficult plane to fly (precisely why it was a trainer) and pilots loved it..which is why its so popular- but its also so small that flying at speed it wouldn't be easy to see or hit (as long as it wasn't painted yellow that is!)



i wont get dizzy though 8) i have the lastest high tech leather flying goggles that prevent dizzyness  



> yeah, well you'll be all day getting there C.C.........................



i hope that wasnt a dig at the gladiator  it higher than the lancaster can go 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what would you do if you were jumped by a 109 though?



shit myself and start praying!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> s**t myself and start praying!



nothing wrong with trainers - i was reading recently that a young new raf pilot was training in an avro anson, when a he-111 flew by and started bombing the airfield. the anson pilot the flew across the path of the 111. the 111 then turned it attention to the anson and started to fly towards it, the anson pilot then usen his starboard wing to swipe the front of the 111, thus bringing the 111 down. all the crew of the 111 died, and the anson pilot got away with light damage to his legs after he crash landed 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Yes...but slight difference there between an Avro Anson and a DH Tigermoth!!  

for a start the Anson wasn't origianlly designed as a trainer it was actually a costal recon and light-bomber monoplane capable of carrying a crew of 5 people and had two engines! it even had a rear gun turret!  it was only later in the war it was relegated to training - so you can imagine how tough they built them 8) 

it weighed 9300lb compared to the Tigermoths 1825lb and the Tigermoth was made of streched fabric and was a biplane! if a Tigermoth rammed an He111 the Tigermoth would be in peices and the only thing the He111 crew would've died of would be laughter at the sight of a little tigermoth trying to ram them out of the sky!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

that's if the moth could catch the 111................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

No a Tigermoth was certainly not capable of catching the He111...not possible 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

like the B-25 Roc, it was designed to intercept german bombers, but 'cos of the turret, it couldn't even reach 200mph (max speed 198mph)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

I know - I still think the Roc was the worst plane of WW2 - truly an embarrassing mess of a British plane


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> like the B-25 Roc, it was designed to intercept german bombers, but 'cos of the turret, it couldn't even reach 200mph (max speed 198mph)



im sure that in a dive and with a following wind it could get 200


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

diving is no good if you're trying to intercept a bomber though is it............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

> diving is no good if you're trying to intercept a bomber though is it............



it is if youre in a me-163........ slight difference between a roc and a 163 though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

well they were both doomed to faliour as soon as they took off, if they took off..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

true


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

i would rather be in a 163 though................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

i wouldnt 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

would you mind sharing your rasons with us???????????????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

death by 163 would be plummeting in a ball of fire and explosions. death by roc would be a nice gentle "crash" landing from a low altitude with low speed 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

I would still rather be in a 163, you could fly around quite happily without getting hit, then crash............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

but you have more chance of survivning a crash in a roc


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

You don't have much chance of surviving in either really. By the time the 163 had come around the Roc was TOTALLY outclassed in the air. Combat in a Roc was a ticket to the afterlife. Of course a lot of the 163's died in a fiery explosion on takeoff or landing and that's not much fun either.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

I'd be the technician seeing you off to your death...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

the roc was always outclassed


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes, yes it was.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

But have any of you ever seen what a burning Me-163 looks like?


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

If it's hot it'll kill you quicker, a Roc in the air will probably be burning at some point when the Luftwaffe see it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i think if the luftwaffe saw a B-25 they'd be to busy laughing to shoot at it.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

b-25 roc or b-25 mitchell?


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I sure hope he means Roc...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Because if it was a B-25 Mitchell they would been laughing right up until the tip the 14 forward-firing .50cals chewed them to bits.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

They just wouldn't be laughing


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well, assuming they were when it rolled in, they certainly wouldn't be when it rolled out.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Unless it was a nervous reaction, as they would be dead.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

yes, i was refering to the roc ...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

So try using a name that will avoid any confussion.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

i knew he meant the roc, i just made joke out of it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

surely "B-25" constitutes a name?


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

We all knew he meant Roc. Saying simply B-25 is going to cause confusion, as both have the same designation, how are we supposed to know which one you mean Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

well if i refer to the B-25 as a good aircraft, i obviously mean the bomber, if i call it crap, i mean the turret fighter, if it can be called a fighter...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 22, 2004)

We'll call it a target drone for the Germans. With a turret.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

> We'll call it a target drone for the Germans



of just target practise................


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

It was used for live fire exercises, at least you get some form of combat experience against an enemy pilot, even if it is in one of the most awful combat planes ever to fly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

just something that always bugs me, what was the role of a target tug??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The plane would be used to carry a practice target, basically a large sheet, on a cable that trailed out from the rear of the plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

a sheet??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Basically, it was usually called a sleeve but resembled a bed sheet.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

Like those banner carrying planes, with the banner trailing out the back. That'd been pretty hairy for the pilot in the tug, if the practicing pilots were just crap.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

i imagine there must have been a few examples where the target tug got hit?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

i've never even heard an account of a pilot doing target practice like that, was it common practise??


----------

