Recent content by JDCAVE

The artwork on an aircraft is not sufficient evidence for the true identity of an aircraft. The artwork from an aircraft that is lost is sometimes redrawn/repainted onto succeeding aircraft maintained by the same ground crew. Jim

Yes. The 24 and 224 aircraft are "loosely" referred to in primary wartime RAF documents as 18+ boost aircraft. They were rated for an increased all-up weight of 68,000 lbs as compared to the 65,000 lb weight of the Merlin 38's. Jim

Maxrobot1: David Irvin's book is completely unreliable and completely misleading. Fredrick Taylor's Dresden is a recent and definitive source. That together with a collection of essays published in "FIRESTORM The bombing of Dresden 1945" and edited by Paul Addision and Jeremy Crang is also...

I am no mechanic, however, I can relate my father's recollection on the reliability of engines. I posted a thread on some of these issues here: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/lancaster-x-aircraft-packard-merlin-28-38-and-224-engines.59677/ It seems the a/c with the PM 38's were less...

GregP and Steamed Banana: You can "get to yes" if you cite your sources. I am no expert on overclaiming by the USAAF US Navy or Japan. However, I have spent some time going through RAF (RCAF) Bomber Command Claims and the Nachtjagd. The German claims are quite close to the actual losses by...

I cannot help you with this specific aircraft. However, the Halifax V was a horrible aircraft, at least according to my father. Under-powered, atrocious handling characteristics. Problems with the rudders. In his view, they were dangerous. Dad wasn’t alone with this opinion. The problems with...

Or has more dangerous engines!

Lt. Col. Matt Ziemann rates the authenticity of dogfights in movies. His favourite is also mine: Battle of Britain, 1969. Nothing beats real aircraft scenes. CGI is not for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VDeLnOkcs8 Jim

The nose and cockpit section of S-Sugar is in the Imperial War Museum. KB889 now on display in the Imperial War Museum in Duxford. KB889 and apparently was attached to 428 Squadron at Middleton St. George. According to Mark Simner's site, it had a ground accident during training, but flew...

According to the typed note on the part, the aircraft is identified as LM289, which was a Lancaster with 166 Squadron. Assuming the provenance is correct. If Wurger is correct, then the provenance of the part is not correct. https://www.rafcommands.com/database/serials/details.php?uniq=Lm289 Jim

But then, I think this photo is not correct! https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1243715

Edit: See also this link... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster_Instrument_Panel.jpg

The "Instrument Flying Panel on the Lancaster (pilot's notes, other photographs I have seen), looks very different than the above photograph. This from the Duxford Lancaster. Below, from another source (I can't remember). A perusal of of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Lancaster, VR-A, reveals...

😂 I have “senior’s moments all the time! It’s a right of passage! Jim

1939. 4 months 1940 12 Months 1941. 11 months, 7 days I get 27 months. What am I missing here?