B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[Henk]

I have also heard of B-17 doing it and about Lancasters, but they are not so musch as the B-17 ones.

Henk

 

[plan_D]

There's a picture of a Lancaster flying on one engine on this site, somewhere. If the Lancaster can do it, which is proven, then it doesn't matter how many times you hear of either aircraft doing it. They both can ... !

 

[Henk]

No, I understand mate no please do not get me wrong, I only meant that I have not heard of a lot of Lancaster's doing so than the B-17.

Henk

 

[pbfoot]

Why not if shes light no bombs and with less then full tanks probably criteria for both a/c thats why they both can dump fuel

 

[wmaxt]

I'd imagine that it would also have to be an inboard engine, the yaw induced by an outboard engine coupled with the rudder compensation (drag) would be criticle.

I think the old saying "Always fly as far into the crash as possible" is really the crux of the matter on any 4 engine (or more) aircraft that is limited to 1 powerplant.

wmaxt

 

[pbfoot]

I think it would be "ideal" to have the inner running a lot would depend on which engines the hydraulics and electrics were slaved to but without a doubt you would be tossing everything of weight out which leads to this question could the B17 jettison the ball turret I recall reading about that years ago

 

[Henk]

Yes, they could do that, but they normaly just crashed with it still on,because they did not always have the tools totake it off. They also dumped everything that will be dead weight to make the aircraft stay up high and also go faster.

Henk

 

[Glider]

The ball turret was dropped whenever possible to save weight and improve the chances of a crash landing. If kept on the ball turret and mounting would go up into the top of the B17 breaking its back and more or less destroying its structural integrity. This in turn significantly increased the chances of the crew being killed or seriously injured in the crash.

 

[Henk]

Oh, ok mate. Thank you for correcting me. I just went on what I could remember.

Henk

 

[plan_D]

The picture of the Lancaster running on one engine is here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2343&start=0

It'll take a long time to load because it's full of my WWII pictures. But it's near the bottom, amazingly enough amongst the Lancaster pictures. It's a Mk.II .

 

[evangilder]

Late war B-17s carried a tool kit on the ball turret mount that contained everything needed to jettison the ball turret. There are several stories of B-17s that belly landed without the ball turret that returned to the skies in just a few days. If the ball turret stays in a belly landing, like Glider pointed out, it would likely drive the mount through the top of the aircraft and that would make it a write-off.

Henk, I wasn't trying to sound critical of your posts. I was just pointing out that there are some things that you picked up that are not correct. It's all a learning experience. It was just some friendly advice.

 

[Twitch]

It all just boils down to personal favorites and that is subjective and nothing more. It's like saying the Stuka is the "best" dive bomber and another person likes the Dauntless.

If there was some panel of experts passing judgement on the "best" of anything there still wouldn't be a consensus because everyone would not agree or would snipe at the "experts" qualifications.

So instead of inscensing people who are easily inscensed and causing silly arguements perhaps it's best to say "what is your favorite____?" and leave it at that.

 

[Glider]

At least no one has said which is the easiest to build, says he ducking into a nice deep bunker

 

[Henk]

evangilder mate it is cool. I just said what I remember, but thank you very much for correcting me and teaching me something new.

I was stupid not to add that you can correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you for doing so and thanks for the advice I will do so next time.

Henk

 

[KraziKanuK]

Haven't read the whole thread but the upper turret of the B-17 had a habit of crushing the cockpit in a crash landing.

I thought the ball turret was retractable.

 

[evangilder]

The ball turret in the B-24 is retractable, not so in the B-17. I have not heard about the upper turret doing that. I seem to remember that it had a fairly substantial floor to ceiling support for it.

 

[syscom3]

Ive never heard of the B17 cockpit getting crushed by the upper turret in a crash landing. In fact, thats the first time I've ever heard that assertion and doubt its veracity.

 

[evangilder]

That's a new one to me too, syscom.

 

[Henk]

Never, I do not think that it can happen. Never ever heard of a B-17 crash where the turret crushed the cockpit.

I can not believe that.

Henk

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-17 upper turret wasn't that heavy and was well behind the cockpit. Although there was armor in it - it was still an integral part of the structure. The Ball turret retracted and in the situation where a B-17 crashed landed with the ball extended, it would either push into the fuselage or break the back of the aircraft. I've seen a ball turret, sat inside one and even got one operational at Aviation Warehouse (Hawthorne Ca.) back in 1978. I'd say the chances are even "fair to good" that if you got stuck inside one during a crash you might survive...