FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass said:do you really believe that? you think that if the americans weren't doing us this huge favour by bombing whilst we were off plying around with stupid little ideas we wouldn't have done it? no, firstly you weren't doing us a favour, you were fighting for freedom in the same way as everyone else, secondly like i said if you weren't bombing we would still've come up with even more extreme ideas
actually, with the possible exception of the mossie, she was........
almost, but not quite.....
the B-17 normally carried a really rather useless load of 6,000lbs, but it wasn't unheard of for them to carry a mere 4,000lbs, both of which are loads the mossie could and did carry, she couldn't carry them quite as far as the B-17 but she could carry them faster, and like you say, with 1/5th of the crew...........
Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......the lancaster kicks ass said:if you ask someone in berlin if they'd rather be bombed by B-17s or lancs, they're gonna say B-17s, lancs could carry more than double the load to berlin (almost 4 times if she takes a grand slam, which she was capable of).........
FLYBOYJ said:Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......
markvs said:If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.
All in the eye of the beholder.....markvs said:yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,
FLYBOYJ said:While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles
ever heard of the French bombers lanc likes so much? they are boxes... and you say cylinders are most ugly?markvs said:yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,
syscom3 said:I more than proved my points.
pbfoot said:I noticed in some diagrams that the 17 and 24 had deicing boots on the wings were they all equiped with this or was it an add on as time went on and what did the Lancs and Halifaxs use for deicing
Henk said: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
Glider said: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.
evangilder said:Joe, I don't recall the B-17 ball turret having a mechanism to retract it. I know it did on the B-24, but have not seen it on the B-17s that I have been in.
We had several where I used to work (about 28 years ago). I remember seeing a handle that seemed to split the ball in two for egress purposes, but from I remember it seemed the ball had to be straight...jhor9 said:I may be wrong, but I don't think that the B17 ball was able to be dropped during flight. I really don't remember.
jhor9 said:I get a kick out of you armchair Generals