Bombers and Agility

nuuumannn · Oct 12, 2021

msxyz said:
As the Mosquito, it proved that wood still had its uses in aviation.

I think this needs to be put into context. The SM.79 used construction methods that had been in use since the Great War, it did have wood in its construction but because that was what was commonly used. It comprised a metal tubular frame covered in aluminium and plywood panels with wooden wings, as with the Fokker structure mentioned earlier. Almost all Italian copmbat aircraft from the same time were constructed in a similar way. It reflects a trend as later Italian combat aircraft were all metal, take the Fiat G.50 fighter, which had a metal structure, but its rear fuselage was covered in fabric, yet the G.55 was all metal.

The Mosquito example doesn't really help the wood argument simply because the reason behind it being made of wood was because it was designed to be made from nonstrategic materials in an attempt to preserve aluminium for strategic use. Besides, Mosquitos suffered lots of issues with their wood structure, in November 1944 the lot were grounded following wing spar issues because of gluing problems.

JDCAVE · Oct 12, 2021

nuuumannn said:
I think this needs to be put into context. The SM.79 used construction methods that had been in use since the Great War, it did have wood in its construction but because that was what was commonly used. It comprised a metal tubular frame covered in aluminium and plywood panels with wooden wings, as with the Fokker structure mentioned earlier. Almost all Italian copmbat aircraft from the same time were constructed in a similar way. It reflects a trend as later Italian combat aircraft were all metal, take the Fiat G.50 fighter, which had a metal structure, but its rear fuselage was covered in fabric, yet the G.55 was all metal.

The Mosquito example doesn't really help the wood argument simply because the reason behind it being made of wood was because it was designed to be made from nonstrategic materials in an attempt to preserve aluminium for strategic use. Besides, Mosquitos suffered lots of issues with their wood structure, in November 1944 the lot were grounded following wing spar issues because of gluing problems.

Yes! Preserving Aluminum for Strategic use...such as scattering it "hither and yon" all over Germany as Window! Prior to its use, 450-1,000 tons of Aluminum per month were estimated necessary for the required use of Window on operations. Those responsible for aircraft production were not impressed! From AIR 41/13 "Radio Countermeasures" p 122.

nuuumannn · Oct 12, 2021

JDCAVE said:
Yes! Preserving Aluminum for Strategic use...such as scattering it "hither and yon" all over Germany as Window! Prior to its use, 450-1,000 tons of Aluminum per month were estimated necessary for the required use of Window on operations. Those responsible for aircraft production were not impressed! From AIR 41/13 "Radio Countermeasures"

Where needs must... Clever idea though and it worked. The Germans did it too.

pbehn · Oct 12, 2021

JDCAVE said:
I stand corrected.

I have reviewed the ORB's for 617 Squadron which reveal that 617 Squadron's marking was directed at its own raids, except for a period in April 1944, when 5-Group began to do it's own marking. On March 27, 1944, 617 took 2 mosquitoes on charge, and Cheshire received instruction on how to fly the a/c. On April 5, 1944 145 aircraft from 5-Group bombed Toulouse, with W/C Cheshire marking the target at low level, and 2 Lancasters from the squadron dropping "spot fires", all marking done by 617. According to Middlebrook and Everitt, the attack was brilliantly executed. Further attacks that month (617 Squadron plus a force of Lancasters from 5-Group) included St. Cyre, April 10; Juvisy, April 18; La Chapelle, April 20; Brunswick, April 22 and Munich, April 24. Oboe Mosquitoes from 8-Group also participated on the Juvisy and La Chapelle raids. Also during April, 97, 83, and 627 Squadrons of the Path Finder Force – 8 Group – were 'loaned' to 5 Group in April 1944 against the strong opposition of the Pathfinders' commander, Donald Bennett. The squadrons remained Pathfinders, carrying out pathfinder duties, and as such were still eligible for the full award of the Pathfinder badge. Additionally, I know that 5-group operated with Mosquitoes on some targets, but it is not clear to me whether these were attached to the existing pathfinder Lancaster squadrons in the group , or whether these were from separate squadrons.

Not withstanding the above, after the raids in April 1944, 617 Squadron went back to its specialist duties, mostly on its own or with a contribution from 9-Squadron. In May 1944, it was not operational except for a 4 Mosquito Sorties, as the crews undertook training for Operation Taxable, the Windowing operations designed to mimic an invasion fleet moving towards the French Coast between Boulogne and Le Havre. Other than the brief stint as on pathfinder duties for 5-Group in April 1944, I would not classify the squadron as being "Pathfinders". The ORBs for June-July 1944 reveal they operated on their own. That's not to say they didn't, from time-to-time, operate in concert with the rest of 5-Group, but if you think about it, if you are dropping expensive Tallboys on targets, it should be done without other aircraft stirring up the dust and interfering with your marking, while you are trying to line up the target.

Jim

I dont get hung up on things like whether 617 were or were not a pathfinder squadron, they were an elite squadron. They could and did mark a target for themselves, that is why they had their own Mosquitos. They could also mark a target for a bomber group. With a bomber stream of 600 bombers or more coloured TIs just werent enough. If the next bombs and incendiaries to fall were in a different place the whole bomber stream focussed on that because it was more visible and planes in the bomber stream had only a rough idea of where they were in that stream. To me it doesnt matter, they were doing what was required as part of an effort.

Greg Boeser · Oct 12, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
LOL - damned spell check!

I never use it. My errors are my own. One more reason not to put much faith in autonomous vehicles.

JDCAVE · Oct 12, 2021

pbehn said:
I dont get hung up on things like whether 617 were or were not a pathfinder squadron, they were an elite squadron. They could and did mark a target for themselves, that is why they had their own Mosquitos. They could also mark a target for a bomber group. With a bomber stream of 600 bombers or more coloured TIs just werent enough. If the next bombs and incendiaries to fall were in a different place the whole bomber stream focussed on that because it was more visible and planes in the bomber stream had only a rough idea of where they were in that stream. To me it doesnt matter, they were doing what was required as part of an effort.

In my opinion, W/C Leonard Cheshire VC, DSO and two bars, DFC was certainly one of the most brilliant officers commanding a BC Squadron during the war. The low-level marking methods he developed during 5 weeks were ingenious, and required extraordinary bravery. He went from a 4 engine heavy bomber to a Mosquito in a week. In June he learned how to do the same thing in a Mustang, learning the aircraft in a few short days and navigated to the target without aids and land at night. Stunning! Not surprisingly, he was awarded the Victoria Cross, not from one moment of bravery but from his body of work over 100 operation over 5 tours.

After the war, he devoted his life to charity and could easily be a candidate for sainthood.

Jim

MiTasol · Oct 13, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
The P-3 initially had floorboards made of wood, they eventually rotted away.

So did its parent, the L-188 Electra, and a lot of Boeing and Douglas aircraft. On civil aircraft it was a sandwich of alloy skin and end grain balsa centre. I have seen damaged panels due to stiletto heels and some rotted sections around the galleys and toilets but many other panels that lasted 40 plus years so I am surprised the P-3 floors rotted.

MiTasol · Oct 13, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
There are - but most are meticulously maintained and stored in a control environment. The only place for wood in a modern combat aircraft is maybe the inside of a glove box or cabinet on a larger aircraft. The P-3 initially had floorboards made of wood, they eventually rotted away.

They are currently stored in controlled environments but many spent many years in the average local hangar.

That is not to say that all remained airworthy - my friend Jim Maloney, son of Ed Maloney of The Air Museum and Planes of Fame - was killed in the mid air structural failure of a wooden PT in the late 70s.

Some countries, but not all, have strict glue joint inspections to prevent that happening.

PS - my avatar is a photo I took of Jim one day very high over Chino

Zipper730 · Oct 13, 2021

mikemike said:
The Ju 88 A-4 was stressed for 10 G. With later variants, due to higher weights, this degraded to about 7 G, roughly the same as a F-15.

You sure about that? I'd almost swear one source said that the wings would come off at 8.1 g

FLYBOYJ · Oct 13, 2021

MiTasol said:
They are currently stored in controlled environments but many spent many years in the average local hangar.

That is not to say that all remained airworthy - my friend Jim Maloney, son of Ed Maloney of The Air Museum and Planes of Fame - was killed in the mid air structural failure of a wooden PT in the late 70s.

Some countries, but not all, have strict glue joint inspections to prevent that happening.

PS - my avatar is a photo I took of Jim one day very high over Chino

I remember when Jim Maloney was killed, very sad.

You also have Steve Whitman, but his crash was due to more of a workmanship issue.

I one did an inspection on a Pitts, the aircraft spent most of it's life in Washington state and then was brought to Southern California. Every metal fitting attached to wood structure was loose due to shrinkage, the owner got mad because I wouldn't sign it off. He took the aircraft to an FBO, they tried to make repairs, I don't think it ever flew again. I've done several "wood" nightmare inspections over the years, after awhile I avoided any aircraft with wood structure.

Lee Behel, a great pilot and friend was killed at Reno a few years ago, his aircraft was all wood. I saw him just prior to his crash, very sad.

I don't like to work on wood airplanes!

special ed · Oct 13, 2021

I can confirm that even with flying models, If it hasn't been flown in a year or more, the wooden prop shrinks and needs the propnut tightened as well as tightening the engine mount screws if mounted on wooden mounts.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 13, 2021

special ed said:
I can confirm that even with flying models, If it hasn't been flown in a year or more, the wooden prop shrinks and needs the propnut tightened as well as tightening the engine mount screws if mounted on wooden mounts.

Correct

spicmart · Oct 13, 2021

What made the Lancaster such an agile aircraft compared to the Halifax. The Manchester had been a dud after all.

Thumpalumpacus · Oct 13, 2021

Dimlee said:
Just a general remark, not about aviation. Wood in shipping survives for many years despite a lot of moisture and temperature changes and vibrations and various loads. The paint is not reliable indeed but good varnish does the job.

Indeed, but when there is a need for higher precision, especially (I'd imagine) under conditions of stress, doing your dead level best to exclude moisture is really necessary. I come to this knowledge from being a guitarist and (for a while) a free-lance guitar tech, and having to tell a couple of customers that their guitar is going to be very expensive to fix if it's even possible.

nuuumannn · Oct 13, 2021

spicmart said:
What made the Lancaster such an agile aircraft compared to the Halifax. The Manchester had been a dud after all.

The Manchester airframe was fine, it was a very robust and sound design and only the wing was changed in the Lancaster. The Manchester's issues were largely systems faults rather than design, although the top turret was drag inducing, which resulted in changes to the hori stab and fins.

The Halifax suffered from drag issues, it was bulkier than the Lancaster and it couldn't meet its performance criteria, so it was subject to drag reduction measures throughout the first year to two years of its career.

pbehn · Oct 13, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
I one did an inspection on a Pitts, the aircraft spent most of it's life in Washington state and then was brought to Southern California. Every metal fitting attached to wood structure was loose due to shrinkage, the owner got mad because I wouldn't sign it off. He took the aircraft to an FBO, they tried to make repairs, I don't think it ever flew again. I've done several "wood" nightmare inspections over the years, after awhile I avoided any aircraft with wood structure.

Perfectly true as far as I understand it not being actually involved in aviation myself. However a WW2 warplane was lucky to be in service for 6 months. The bomber that did the most sorties in WW2 was actually a Mosquito F for Freddie, it did 213 missions between June 1943 and May 1945. Most types were superseded or replaced within months. If bomber forces lost on average 4% on big raids then the simple maths says that not many grew old in service. While in service planes grew old quickly, in heavy combat use a Spitfire started to develop small cracks around rivets in less than 200 hours, after 500 hrs of hard use the work required to keep flying meant replacement was the most cost effective solution. Of the thousands of Spitfires made the front line strength rarely exceeded 1000, and that is the same for most combat types.

The only type I know that was stored for later use was the Typhoon.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 13, 2021

pbehn said:
Perfectly true as far as I understand it not being actually involved in aviation myself. However a WW2 warplane was lucky to be in service for 6 months. The bomber that did the most sorties in WW2 was actually a Mosquito F for Freddie, it did 213 missions between June 1943 and May 1945. Most types were superseded or replaced within months. If bomber forces lost on average 4% on big raids then the simple maths says that not many grew old in service. While in service planes grew old quickly, in heavy combat use a Spitfire started to develop small cracks around rivets in less than 200 hours, after 500 hrs of hard use the work required to keep flying meant replacement was the most cost effective solution. Of the thousands of Spitfires made the front line strength rarely exceeded 1000, and that is the same for most combat types.

The only type I know that was stored for later use was the Typhoon.

Also consider how these aircraft were operated, many times flown and abused by inexperience pilots, continual high Gs, high engine settings, let alone battle damage. I don't believe anyone really cared about longevity. The name of this B-17 exemplifies this...

pbehn · Oct 13, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
Also consider how these aircraft were operated, many times flown and abused by inexperience pilots, continual high Gs, high engine settings, let alone battle damage. I don't believe anyone really cared about longevity. The name of this B-17 exemplifies this...

View attachment 644587

The crew picture with nose art was part of wishful thinking. All crews wanted to get through their tour together in their plane, very few (if any) actually did that.

BiffF15 · Oct 13, 2021

pbehn said:
I worked for a while on corrosion testing in Saudi Arabia, so I read a bit about it. The environment there is similar to being on the deck of an aircraft carrier. 100% humidity means that every morning anything metal is covered in moisture and the sand there contains a percentage of salt. Frequent sand storms elsewhere fill the air with fine dust so things are permanently being covered in a saline solution and frequently given a sand blast that will take any paint cover off and make headlights useless. BiffF15 Were F15s in KSA given any special treatments for this?

I spent three months just NW of Dhahran, about 9 months over three rotations in Dhahran, and about a month at Prince Sultan. I experienced very little humidity, but did encounter much of the very fine sand (think it's too fine for concrete). However, I'm a Floridian so humidity in the 30-50% range will feel low.

As for special treatments I know of none. The Saudi Eagles would be put on "alert" for a month or more at a time, and not turn a wheel. Then they would fly and return with no write ups. UFB. At Eglin and JAX long weekends would see a a larger than normal amount of write ups after the first sorties (the more they fly the better).

In the US we would do a bird bath upon returning if we got below 3k over the Gulf / ocean (pilot activated taxi through wash or fire trucks). Kadena started the bird bath trend I believe after encountering unexpected corrosion.

Cheers,
Biff

JDCAVE · Oct 13, 2021

JDCAVE said:
In my opinion, W/C Leonard Cheshire VC, DSO and two bars, DFC was certainly one of the most brilliant officers commanding a BC Squadron during the war. The low-level marking methods he developed during 5 weeks were ingenious, and required extraordinary bravery. He went from a 4 engine heavy bomber to a Mosquito in a week. In June he learned how to do the same thing in a Mustang, learning the aircraft in a few short days and navigated to the target without aids and land at night. Stunning! Not surprisingly, he was awarded the Victoria Cross, not from one moment of bravery but from his body of work over 100 operation over 5 tours.

After the war, he devoted his life to charity and could easily be a candidate for sainthood.

Jim

Moving away from wood and back to the topic of Bombers and Agility. A bit more research. Please find attached the page from the ORB, Feb 8, 1944, Gnomes-Rhone aero-engine factory. The first sortie is for Cheshire. At 2355 hrs, i.e. in the dark. He marked this target at 200'...in a Lancaster. According to Russel Braden, Biographer of Cheshire, Cheshire put the aircraft into a dive to mark the target. Extraordinary man flying an extraordinary plane.

Bombers and Agility

Major

Senior Airman

Major

Colonel

1st Sergeant

Senior Airman

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Major

Major

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads