Very cool I am jealous that you got to fly in them. I saw those aircraft when they came to North Carolina in 1995. Did not get to fly in them though. Was still amazing to see them. I posted the pics of them somewhere here also.
My B24 ride
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
book1182
Airman
Great story!!! I got lucky one day and we had a B-17 at Lunken Airport giving rides. Usually the day before they start doing paid rides they do some PR work for the newspapers and TV news. My boss had always told me that he would get a free ride whenever he wanted but he hated flying so he always turned them down. Long story short. I got to go on a free ride. It's been my only ride in a World War 2 aircraft and one that I will never forget.
- Thread starter
- #24
syscom3
Pacific Historian
On the B17, the tail and belly turret are off limits. On the B24, the belly and nose turret is off limits.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i can understand the belly turrets being ff limits 
Same here. I personally would not want to fly in those turrets at all. The tail though would not bother me.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
on the BBMF lanc you can go in any of the numerous 
wink turrets if you have authirisation to be on the plane, however with FM213, Canada's lanc, although the turrets have modern perspex with is much safer than than it was when people were flying in there in combat, the authorities in all their wisdom have proclaimed the top and rear turrets strickly forbidden in flight, this's the closest you can get............
wink turrets if you have authirisation to be on the plane, however with FM213, Canada's lanc, although the turrets have modern perspex with is much safer than than it was when people were flying in there in combat, the authorities in all their wisdom have proclaimed the top and rear turrets strickly forbidden in flight, this's the closest you can get............Attachments
I dont understand the tail and top turrets. I can understand the belly turret though. That would suck to get stuck in that and just no need for it to happen now adays.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
blame Canada
Nonskimmer
Captain
Blame the fear of liability? 
They're just being overly cautious.
They're just being overly cautious.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
they bolted seats to the top of the bomb bay in FM213, they had to check the structure of the bomb bay that could take 14,000lbs to see if it could take the weight of a man!
Nonskimmer
Captain
Well, as you love to continuously point out, it's civilian owned. It's therefore subject to civilian aviation regulations, and being a flying antique and only one of two in the world, they often tend to treat it like it's made of glass. I really can't say I blame them.
Where the RAF owns the BBMF Lancaster, they can pretty much do what they please with it, from what I understand. The museum folks in Hamilton don't have quite as much leeway. They're covering their asses. Especially if passengers are to be carried.
Where the RAF owns the BBMF Lancaster, they can pretty much do what they please with it, from what I understand. The museum folks in Hamilton don't have quite as much leeway. They're covering their asses. Especially if passengers are to be carried.
I would check it also, the Lanc is over 60 years old. It could lose its integrity over time.
- Thread starter
- #35
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The rear turret was roomy. That was the only one I sat in.
![[Gavca]CrossBones](/forum/data/avatars/m/2/2042.jpg?2006){kind=avatar}
[Gavca]CrossBones
Airman
Amazing, Syscom3............look guy!!
- Thread starter
- #37
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I think I could have sat in the B24 top turret, but I didnt because in the preflight briefing we were told that the only thing you will see is sky, which gets boring.
The B24 nose turret was off limits because the turret had some fragile parts to it. (even though it was nearly identicle to the rear turret which you could get in.)
I cant remember why the B17 tail and upper turrets were off limits. It could be that if they hit some turbulence, you could easily bang your head against the guns and get hurt.
The B24 nose turret was off limits because the turret had some fragile parts to it. (even though it was nearly identicle to the rear turret which you could get in.)
I cant remember why the B17 tail and upper turrets were off limits. It could be that if they hit some turbulence, you could easily bang your head against the guns and get hurt.
syscom3 said:
That is probably the reason right there.
jhor9
Airman
syscom3 said:
skycom,
For the last 15 years that the Collings planes have been in my area , frequently after the B17 lands and passengers debark, I ask them how they enjoyed the 1/2 hour ride, I've yet to find one person that said that lt wasn't worth the cost.
jhor9
Airman
book1182 said:
The plane pictured is a B17C or D, it was never used in combat
