Hi
Images from 'Britain's Wonderful Air Force' of January 1942 showing methods of winching for bombing up of Stirling and Wellington:
Mike
Bomb and Bomb-Bay Sizes
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Images from 'Britain's Wonderful Air Force' of January 1942 showing methods of winching for bombing up of Stirling and Wellington:
Mike
- Thread starter
- #62
G
Geoffrey Sinclair
The B-17 sheet on sorties lists "ATK": Does that mean the number which attacked the target, or those which were launched at the target? I remember looking at some data on B-29 raids on Japan and it often listed the total number of aircraft, the number which attacked, and so on.
The B-17 sheet on sorties lists "ATK": Does that mean the number which attacked the target, or those which were launched at the target? I remember looking at some data on B-29 raids on Japan and it often listed the total number of aircraft, the number which attacked, and so on.
- Thread starter
- #63
Okay, I understand: The layout is pretty well thought-out. I'm honestly surprised we didn't use a system like this.
wuzak
Captain
A picture showing one of the (original) bomb beams of the Wellington.
View: https://flic.kr/p/ezywsP
The system of carriage is not dissimilar to the B-17's.
The bomb beams were removed for a different system when the 4,000lb HC bomb was introduced.
And, I'm sure, a new door system.
View: https://flic.kr/p/ezywsP
The system of carriage is not dissimilar to the B-17's.
The bomb beams were removed for a different system when the 4,000lb HC bomb was introduced.
And, I'm sure, a new door system.
Hi
In continuation of my previous post, here is a composite photo of winching a 4,000 lb HC into a Lancaster, with winch fitted inside cabin above bomb bay, from page 134 in 'Bombs Gone, The development and use of British air-dropped weapons from 1912 to the present day', by MacBean and Hogben:
Mike
In continuation of my previous post, here is a composite photo of winching a 4,000 lb HC into a Lancaster, with winch fitted inside cabin above bomb bay, from page 134 in 'Bombs Gone, The development and use of British air-dropped weapons from 1912 to the present day', by MacBean and Hogben:
Mike
Hi
The winch appears to be similar to this one from page 135 of 'RAF Ground Support Equipment Since 1918' by F J Adkin:
Mike
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 908
- Sep 30, 2021
Note on Message 59, the H.E., I.B., Frag and Total are in short tons, average in pounds. ATK means credited with attacking the listed target. Following figures from Mighty Eighth War Diary number sent on mission, number attacked a Berlin target.
Inevitably MEWD and Richard Davis have different definitions of Berlin and MEWD does more summarising than Davis. Some aircraft that did not attack Berlin attacked other targets.
Pathfinders flew Halifax, Lancaster and Stirling as well as Mosquito, marker types dropped for war
Stirling only dropped markers in 1943, Halifax dropped 2,508x250 pound TI in 1943. Mosquito dropped 8x4,000 pound incendiary in 1945.
| Date | B-17 Sent | B-17 attack | B-24 Sent | B-24 attack |
4-Mar-44 | 238 | 30 | ||
6-Mar-44 | 262 | 246 | 226 | 198 |
8-Mar-44 | 415 | 320 | 209 | 183 |
9-Mar-44 | 361 | 339 | ||
22-Mar-44 | 474 | 460 | 214 | 197 |
29-Apr-44 | 446 | 368 | 233 | 212 |
7-May-44 | 600 | 514 | ||
8-May-44 | 500 | 386 | ||
19-May-44 | 588 | 495 | ||
24-May-44 | 616 | 464 | ||
21-Jun-44 | 703 | 559 | 386 | 47 |
6-Aug-44 | 154 | 132 | ||
12-Sep-44 | 0 | 0 | ||
6-Oct-44 | 418 | 382 | ||
5-Dec-44 | 451 | 404 | ||
3-Feb-45 | 1004 | 937 | ||
26-Feb-45 | 823 | 781 | 361 | 285 |
18-Mar-45 | 980 | 916 | 347 | 305 |
28-Mar-45 | 446 | 383 | ||
| Totals | 9,479 | 8,116 | 1,976 | 1,427 |
Pathfinders flew Halifax, Lancaster and Stirling as well as Mosquito, marker types dropped for war
| Type | Mosquito | Lancaster | Halifax | Stirling |
| 1000 TI | 347 | 1,882 | ||
| 1000 Smoke | 0 | 34 | ||
| 500 Smoke | 17 | 20 | ||
| 250 TI | 16,632 | 29,792 | 3,272 | 883 |
| 250 Spot Fire | 396 | 538 | 12 | |
| 250 Smoke | 0 | 2 | ||
| 250 Float | 32 | |||
| 100 Smoke | 10 |
Hi
Other types of winch in use during 1938, loading bomb cells of Fairey Battle, from page 183 of 'From the Ground up, A History of RAF Ground Crew' by F J Adkin:
Mike
EAIAnalog
Airman
Here is an engineering drawing that presents the same information as the above drawing, but in what I think is a more understandable format. It's for a B-17F, but should apply to the B-17G. Earlier versions of this drawing do not show a 1600 pound bomb loading.
In addition, here's a Data Card for the B-17F. The Data Card for the B-17G looks similar, but the Weight Data now resides in a Weight and Balance Handbook stored by the main entrance door or in the Navigator's compartment. That is also true for some later versions of the B-17F. The Data Card is mounted to the front of the door in Bulkhead 4, just above the Flight Reports holder.
Finally here is a chart which is posted in the A/C, with the full title of: Maximum Airplane Glide & Climb Angles for Bomb Release. Not sure what it all means, but am sure someone in this forum will know.
Attachments
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
An excellent post as it answers the un-asked but important related question of what the aircraft pitch angle limits were for safely releasing the bombs and partially answers the post 4 quetion on clearance angles.
This incidentally means the B-17 could not be used, like the Pathfinder Lancasters were, as a dive bomber for target marking. There may, of course, have been mods to those aircraft but because it is a long wide bay I would expect there were just limitations on which locations the markers could be carried.
I find the picture labelled B17F_bomb_load_1 most interesting as it infers that the B-17F had a maximum bomb capacity of just 2,000lb. I think that highly unlikely but I have never studied at the B-17 loads. Is this the load when carrying the maximum wing fuel load? Again I think no.
I will comment on one earlier claim, I cannot remember who from, that the B-17 had a minimum bomb load of 4,000lb. What utter rubbish. That suggests that any B-17 ferry flight required at least 4,000lb of bombs or ballast to be carried and I can promise you that it not correct. Just as well the Collings B-17 was not carrying bombs or ballast or that accident would have been far worse and I know from being there that the Planes of Fame B-17 did many flights in the early 70s without any such ballast without any accidents or incidents.
This incidentally means the B-17 could not be used, like the Pathfinder Lancasters were, as a dive bomber for target marking. There may, of course, have been mods to those aircraft but because it is a long wide bay I would expect there were just limitations on which locations the markers could be carried.
I find the picture labelled B17F_bomb_load_1 most interesting as it infers that the B-17F had a maximum bomb capacity of just 2,000lb. I think that highly unlikely but I have never studied at the B-17 loads. Is this the load when carrying the maximum wing fuel load? Again I think no.
I will comment on one earlier claim, I cannot remember who from, that the B-17 had a minimum bomb load of 4,000lb. What utter rubbish. That suggests that any B-17 ferry flight required at least 4,000lb of bombs or ballast to be carried and I can promise you that it not correct. Just as well the Collings B-17 was not carrying bombs or ballast or that accident would have been far worse and I know from being there that the Planes of Fame B-17 did many flights in the early 70s without any such ballast without any accidents or incidents.
Last edited:
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 729
- Mar 16, 2014
Single aircraft straight-line range (the 1,170 miles you cite) never was used with the B-17.
In real-life missions the aircraft took off, with the earlier aircraft holding until all were up (which took considerable time), then they formed into formations which flew a "least-threat" course to their target - cutting the actual range about in half.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Book range divided by three is what IRL range was, so far as I understand it.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 729
- Mar 16, 2014
Correct - I was being generous... but the point remains - citing single-aircraft straight-line max range in a wartime scenario is misleading at a minimum.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Right, I certainly wasn't offering any correction. Forming up, staying in formation, maintaining speed on inner vs outer flights, dodging flak, all that sucks up fuel.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
N371G?
Later in WW2, 500lb bomb being loaded on a Mosquito FB.VI wing rack. The bomb carrier was fitted to the aircraft within a fairing. Armourers attached hand powered winches each side to haul them up into position.
But for those in the bomb bay the bomb carrier was still attached to the bomb and then hauled into the fuselage.
All a question of access I suppose.
But for those in the bomb bay the bomb carrier was still attached to the bomb and then hauled into the fuselage.
All a question of access I suppose.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
An excellent post as it answers the OP's
Cant remember the rego - over 50 years ago. Piccadilly Lilly or some name like that I think - or was that the other one flying then?
Cant remember the rego - over 50 years ago. Piccadilly Lilly or some name like that I think - or was that the other one flying then?
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I never knew the wing bombs on the Mossie were loaded similar to the drops on the P-38. Great thing about this site - you learn something every day.
It also appears that they had profiled fairings instead of crutches/sway braces, to keep the bomb steady.
It also appears that they had profiled fairings instead of crutches/sway braces, to keep the bomb steady.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I hope to meet the Piccadilly Lilly. I think watching 12 O'clock High with my dad is why I love the B-17. The Piccadilly Lilly is my favorite plane of my favorite planes.
