Thank you.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Guys (in general), Adler dealt with the situation. I suggest all of you leave it behind. I'll close this thread if I see it happen again before any more have to be put in the "cooler".
The Whitley could carry 10 paratroopers. I think this was not uncommon. I suspect that even the Manchester spec allowed for some transport capabilityI think the Sterling was designed when the RAF didn't know quite what it wanted. IIRC one of the design parameters was that it could be broken into three and carried by rail, quite why you would want to do that is a total mystery to me.
It did make it quite a good freighter and troop transport
Very good and interesting photographs. Almost any aircraft can be broken down into components as no aircraft (that I am aware of) is built in one piece. The difference is the reason for breaking it down. The Sterling is the only one I am aware of that was designed to be broken down so it can be shipped by rail. Being an aircraft of some size and range it can of course fly, wherever it can go by train.Hi
It is hardly a 'secret' or 'unknown' why large aircraft were designed to be able to split into smaller sections, in production these aircraft were manufactured in sections and fitted out before being joined together in the factories. This meant that if an aircraft was damaged by enemy action or in an accident that was repairable it could be divided up into these sections and sent by road or rail to a repair facility, each section could be repaired individually and fitted together again or various sections reused on different airframes as appropriate.
Below are Lancaster forward sections under repair:View attachment 609331
A Lancaster split up into 'Queen Mary' trailer loads:
View attachment 609332
A Halifax split into 'Queen Mary' loads:
View attachment 609333
Why do you think this idea was 'half-baked' or a 'mystery' for the Stirling, when it appears to be a very sensible and practical idea for all large aircraft in the circumstances of the period?
Mike
When I made my observation I was thinking of an operation where originally the Sterling's were going to assist some USAAF Liberators with the transport of troops and equipment behind German lines. When they arrived and it was realised that using the Sterling instead of the Liberator would mean reducing the number of aircraft by half, the lift was solely undertaken by the Sterling's.The Whitley could carry 10 paratroopers. I think this was not uncommon. I suspect that even the Manchester spec allowed for some transport capability
I don't doubt that it was 10ft long. It was claim that the shaft only weighed 10 pounds I wasn't expecting. It's certainly possible but quite an achievement considering the load the shaft would be under.
Did they have inertial shoulder straps in WW2 era aircraft ?Inertia reel shoulder straps. They existed, but there seemed to be shortage of intracranial light bulbs in the aviation world. "Duhh! Why didn't I think of that!"
AFAIK, no they didn't. I understand they were in use in some tanks and PT boats, but like many innovations, encountered some resistance from sceptics. I've flown gliders and an acro bird or two that had the old WWII style canvas belts. Not great, as you say, but better than nothing. It's really hard to check six with unyielding shoulder straps, which perhaps explains those WWII gunsight head knocks. In the back seat of an A4 or F4 it's much easier to keep track of traffic in a furball with inertia reel harnesses.Did they have inertial shoulder straps in WW2 era aircraft ?
Very good and interesting photographs. Almost any aircraft can be broken down into components as no aircraft (that I am aware of) is built in one piece. The difference is the reason for breaking it down. The Sterling is the only one I am aware of that was designed to be broken down so it can be shipped by rail. Being an aircraft of some size and range it can of course fly, wherever it can go by train.
AFAIK, no they didn't. I understand they were in use in some tanks and PT boats, but like many innovations, encountered some resistance from sceptics. I've flown gliders and an acro bird or two that had the old WWII style canvas belts. Not great, as you say, but better than nothing. It's really hard to check six with unyielding shoulder straps, which perhaps explains those WWII gunsight head knocks. In the back seat of an A4 or F4 it's much easier to keep track of traffic in a furball with inertia reel harnesses.
If you look at any Spitfire or Hurricane pilot sat in the cockpit, it is impossible to tighten the straps enough to stop your head hitting it in a hard landing, some pilots like Bob Doe almost lost their face and were out for months if not permanently. meninroad: "© IWM (HU 54419) Portrait of a sergeant pilot of No. 610 Squadron, sitting in the cockpit of a Spitfire, … | Battle of britain, Fighter pilot, LuftwaffeI'm sure they would have kept the shoulder straps loose during flight.
In a lot of cases you probably don't know you're going to have a crash landing until everything suddenly goes all to hell, and you've got your hands too busy to take a couple of seconds to tighten your belts.
I wonder if the P-39 had been a strictly Soviet product (through licensing or whatever) it would have had a much different reputation.The P-39 was very much a niche design. Unfortunately, the niche it fit wasn't with any of the western Allies; while the USSR used it effectively Soviet secrecy and western PC minimized its contributions.
It was fighting a different war on a different front. After D-Day the war in the west was similar (apart from bombing raids on Germany itself) performance at altitude and range don't matter so much but numbers do and with the Russians the P-39 was part of a huge force with planes to fit any and every niche.I wonder if the P-39 had been a strictly Soviet product (through licensing or whatever) it would have had a much different reputation.
Ok, this is a bit speculative, but would the Fw190/BMW spinner option helped with the B29/R3350 combination.
Many B29s were lost to engine fires and IIRC correctly the engine required a huge amount of maintenance where the rear bottom cylinders had to be regularly replaced.
Also I heard that the cowling design was a problem as when it was open to allow cooling air, it was very draggy and could become stuck dropping the bomber out of formation and increasing fuel consumption.
Once that magnesium accessory case caught fire, there was no putting it out. Next comes the header tank, then the wing spar. Time to git outta Dodge while the gittin's good!Many B29s were lost to engine fires
Such a way with words, Greg!when the radial throws a scrap iron fit up front and drips all over the windscreen.