Darthtabby
Airman
- 59
- May 22, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think you are spot on. Add to this that the nightfighter had little incentive to try and follow the corckscrewing bomber. This was now alert to the attacker and had a potentially nasty sting in the tail, whereas there should be plenty of other unsuspecting bombers to go after in the bomber stream. at least in a 'typical' scenario. Well, not unsuspecting, but you know what I mean.British bombers out maneuvered night fighters just about long enough for the night fighter to lose both radar and/or visual contact. They might still be within a mile of each other. How much speed did the bomber lose doing this (often a dive was part of the corkscrew maneuver to help maintain speed).
My hunch is that the B-17 should be far more forgiving of drastic manouvers than at least the B-24. But this is largely academical as, unlike the night bombers, over Europe these usually flew in tight formations where a corckscrew could pose a danger to other aircraft, and any solo-manouver was not going to do any good for the formation. Of course a night bomber ran the risk of ramming another, but to a far lesser degree.The Lancaster was known for its agility (for a 4-engined bomber) which was much better than the Halifax'. It enabled the Lanc to perform the corkscrew manoever more effectively to evade nightfighter attacks. I'm curious how the B-24 and B-17 compared.
One of the leaders of 617 squadron encouraged pilots and crews to practice aerobatics. He had been blown upside down on a raid, he thought that being upside down for the first time while on a raid was a bad idea. He also encouraged crews to practice violent evasive maneuvers in daylight so the whole crew knew what to expect and what to do as far as opening fire and stopping firing went.Some thoughts -
The purpose of the heavy bomber during WW2 was to lob as many bombs on a target as possible. The fact that you had a large 4 engine bomber with good maneuverability for it's size (like the Lancaster) was a design plus, but in the bigger picture, you're not going to accurately drop bombs if you're jinking all over the place. (Unless you're in a Lancaster bombing dams) Additionally you have a crew inside that bomber that is going to be flung around like rag dolls if they are not expecting continual adverse maneuverers, thus making it harder if not impossible for them to do their jobs. The Luftwaffe tried with disastrous results to take a heavy bomber and make it a dive bomber (He 177).
in daylight
I know that there were times heavy bombers had to take evasive action to avoid fighters but lets face it, that was more out of situational necessity rather than normal operations.
I'm assuming we're talking Lancasters - were "aerobatic" maneuvers even permitted by the manufacturer?One of the leaders of 617 squadron encouraged pilots and crews to practice aerobatics. He had been blown upside down on a raid, he thought that being upside down for the first time while on a raid was a bad idea. He also encouraged crews to practice violent evasive maneuvers in daylight so the whole crew knew what to expect and what to do as far as opening fire and stopping firing went.
I'm assuming we're talking Lancasters - were "aerobatic" maneuvers even permitted by the manufacturer?
Again, situational necessity rather than normal operations.
That was Tex Johnson and although he successfully completed the maneuver during an event over Seattle, he did exceed design limitations (although he did not hurt the aircraft structurally)Yes they were in Lancasters. Probably not but if you are told to fly at 60ft in the dark towards a flak tower and other stuff you are unlikely to care about such instructions. I remember some test pilot doing a barrel roll in a Boeing 707, Boeing were horrified although the pilot explained that he maintained just 1 G. While Boeing agreed, it just isnt what potential passengers want to see so he never did it again.
Agree on the training during adverse maneuvers, it's still done today (it was done when I was in a P-3 squadron). Full aerobatic maneuvers (abrupt changes along the aircraft axis, I believe more than 45 degrees bank angle and more than 30 degrees up or down pitch) on most if not all larger 4 engine aircraft is prohibited.The main objective to the practicing was for all the crew to know what would happen. What could get thrown about that you needed and so had to be secured, What you could hit your head arms and ribs on etc. What you could hold on to so you reached for it without thinking. As far as I remember the favourite was a rapid climb with engines partially shut down then engines on full power for a dive and turn to left or right starting the "corkscrew".
AbsolutelySome crews never spotted an enemy fighter, but it was a possibility as soon as you crossed the coast, its best for all if they train for it.
The Lancaster was known for its agility (for a 4-engined bomber) which was much better than the Halifax'. It enabled the Lanc to perform the corkscrew manoever more effectively to evade nightfighter attacks. I'm curious how the B-24 and B-17 compared.
Smaller medium bombers are naturally going to be more maneuverable because of size and wing loading unless otherwise dictated by design. The He 111 had a lower wing loading than say the B-25 or A-20 but the B-25 and A-20 had about 600 more HP bolted to the airframe. Look at things like wing loading and power to weight ratios (if available) to get a better picture of this.
For the Jets if the fighter tried to turn with the B-36 they sometimes stalled and lost thousands of feet of altitude which put them well out of firing range even if they could still see the B-36 in daylight. How long to get back into firing position?
... the British finding the B-17 less maneuverable then the B-24 would seem to suggest wing loading isn't as good an indicator for bombers.