Poor Judgment

[billrunnels]

we had to make two pressure chamber flights when in Pre-flight training. The first was normal. However, on the second I developed a case of the "bends" in my right shoulder about ten minutes before completion. I didn't want to say anything thinking they would wash me out of the Cadet Program so I tolerated the discomfort. Just prior to graduation from Bombardier School we had an opportunity to express our desire for aircraft assignment. I chose medium bombers thinking that would keep me out of high altitude flight which could bring on the bends potential problem. I was assigned to the high altitude B-17 Bomber only to learn that those who experienced problems in the Pressure Chamber were assigned to medium bombers. Had I said something about the problem I had I would have gotten my wish. Can't win them all and my experience in the B-17 brought me home safely.

 

[vikingBerserker]

That's a great story!

 

[pbehn]

Great story Bill I hadn't heard of this testing.

 

[Thorlifter]

Glad you got home safe at least.

 

[billrunnels]

Glad you got home safe at least.

I am grateful for the B-17 assignment as I think it was the best and safest bomber we had during WWII.

 

[airminded88]

Hello Bill,
Did you ever fly in a B-24?
If so what are your thoughts compared to the venerable Flying Fort.

Cheers

 

[billrunnels]

Great story Bill I hadn't heard of this testing.

This test was the most nerve wrecking of all that I experienced.The Pressure chamber was a cylinder structure with port holes along the sides( much like a commercial Air Bus 320 or Boeing 757 ) to allow observers to monitor the condition of those inside. As I recall twelve to fourteen people, seated on side benches, were tested at a time. I remember having a mild panic attack when they closed the entrance door. There was a small emergency chamber at one end for use if someone experienced a problem during the test. The person could be returned to ground level pressure at a safe rate. An instructor was inside the chamber as well. They simulated a pressure of about 40,000 feet. While at pressure the instructor asked for a volunteer to remove their oxygen mask and start writing their name on a piece of paper. With in a couple minutes he could no longer do so. He was then returned to ground level pressure in the emergency chamber. I don't remember how long the test took but I would guess about 45 minutes.

 

[pbehn]

This test was the most nerve wrecking of all that I experienced.The Pressure chamber was a cylinder structure with port holes along the sides( much like a commercial Air Bus 320 or Boeing 757 ) to allow observers to monitor the condition of those inside. As I recall twelve to fourteen people, seated on side benches, were tested at a time. I remember having a mild panic attack when they closed the entrance door. There was a small emergency chamber at one end for use if someone experienced a problem during the test. The person could be returned to ground level pressure at a safe rate. An instructor was inside the chamber as well. They simulated a pressure of about 40,000 feet. While at pressure the instructor asked for a volunteer to remove their oxygen mask and start writing their name on a piece of paper. With in a couple minutes he could no longer do so. He was then returned to ground level pressure in the emergency chamber. I don't remember how long the test took but I would guess about 45 minutes.

Thanks for the clarification Bill. I have seen on TV a similar demonstration of oxygen starvation. Amusing on TV but scary when you think what could and actually did happen.

 

[Crimea_River]

Good thing you didn't go to submarines!

 

[billrunnels]

Hello Bill,
Did you ever fly in a B-24?
If so what are your thoughts compared to the venerable Flying Fort.

Cheers

Your question brings a smile. B-17 and B-24 crews have had an on going friendly feud since the end of WWII about which was the better aircraft. The last man standing will win HA Ha I am partial because I flew the B-17 and it brought me home safely on each mission. However, I will give you an honest evaluation as I know it. On the plus side The B-24 was faster and carried a larger bomb load. On the negative side it's ceiling altitude was about 10,000 feet lower. The narrow Davis Wing had a tendency to fold when hit due to it being attached to the aircraft frame rather than pass through it. A B-24 pilot friend said it was hard to handle in tight formations. On the other hand the B-17 was more rugged and would take a lot of punishment. The higher altitude capability was a plus and the big wing, which passed through the frame, gave added strength, stsbility and a stable bombing platform.

I never did fly in the B-24 but toured it on the ground. one other point, the B-24 was not open from tail to nose for crew movement in flight. The B-17 was.,,

 

[billrunnels]

Good thing you didn't go to submarines!

I couldn't have handled submarine duty.

 

[airminded88]

Your question brings a smile. B-17 and B-24 crews have had an on going friendly feud since the end of WWII about which was the better aircraft. The last man standing will win HA Ha I am partial because I flew the B-17 and it brought me home safely on each mission. However, I will give you an honest evaluation as I know it. On the plus side The B-24 was faster and carried a larger bomb load. On the negative side it's ceiling altitude was about 10,000 feet lower. The narrow Davis Wing had a tendency to fold when hit due to it being attached to the aircraft frame rather than pass through it. A B-24 pilot friend said it was hard to handle in tight formations. On the other hand the B-17 was more rugged and would take a lot of punishment. The higher altitude capability was a plus and the big wing, which passed through the frame, gave added strength, stsbility and a stable bombing platform.

I never did fly in the B-24 but toured it on the ground. one other point, the B-24 was not open from tail to nose for crew movement in flight. The B-17 was.,,

Hello Bill,
I will admit that bringing pleasant memories to you through my question certainly made my day

I have also read many accounts of B-17/B-24 pilots swearing by the aircraft they flew and that brought them home safely and I can have an idea of the level of attachment that a pilot can have with a plane that kept him safe through the worst moments in his operational missions.

I had the honor to work and become friends with a gentleman whose father was a B-24 flight engineer from the 44th BG and one of the highlights in his USAAF career was the hair-raising August 1st, 1943 Ploesti mission from which his bomber fortunately came out unscathed. I did not have the pleasure to meet him as I met his son years after he had passed away but my friend would tell me that he always though very highly of the Liberator.

During air battles, did you experience a close-range attack or pass executed by LW fighters Bill?

Let me stress again how grateful I feel for the willingness you have to share your experiences during the war.

Cheers

 

[billrunnels]

Hello Bill,
I will admit that bringing pleasant memories to you through my question certainly made my day

I have also read many accounts of B-17/B-24 pilots swearing by the aircraft they flew and that brought them home safely and I can have an idea of the level of attachment that a pilot can have with a plane that kept him safe through the worst moments in his operational missions.

I had the honor to work and become friends with a gentleman whose father was a B-24 flight engineer from the 44th BG and one of the highlights in his USAAF career was the hair-raising August 1st, 1943 Ploesti mission from which his bomber fortunately came out unscathed. I did not have the pleasure to meet him as I met his son years after he had passed away but my friend would tell me that he always though very highly of the Liberator.

During air battles, did you experience a close-range attack or pass executed by LW fighters Bill?

Let me stress again how grateful I feel for the willingness you have to share your experiences during the war.

Cheers

We were never attacked by enemy fighter aircraft, In fact I only saw two in the air. An ME-109 flew along, out side the range of our P-51 escort, with the bomber stream for about 15 minutes undoubtedly sending vital information to their anti- aircraft gunners.The other was a ME-210 at a lower level. Did see a lot on the ground at airports.

 

[Gnomey]

Great stuff Bill!

 

[fubar57]

Lovin' this

 

[airminded88]

We were never attacked by enemy fighter aircraft, In fact I only saw two in the air. An ME-109 flew along, out side the range of our P-51 escort, with the bomber stream for about 15 minutes undoubtedly sending vital information to their anti- aircraft gunners.The other was a ME-210 at a lower level. Did see a lot on the ground at airports.

How would you describe the intesity of flak on the missions over Germany you flew Bill?
I've heard that as the LW began gradually fading over the Reich, it was the flak that became the #1 nemesis to the 8th/15th bombers due to heavy concentrations of 88 cannons that were being brought back as the German land forces were retreating all over the fronts.

 

[billrunnels]

How would you describe the intesity of flak on the missions over Germany you flew Bill?
I've heard that as the LW began gradually fading over the Reich, it was the flak that became the #1 nemesis to the 8th/15th bombers due to heavy concentrations of 88 cannons that were being brought back as the German land forces were retreating all over the fronts.

The most intense, but inaccurate flack that I saw was over Berlin. The sky to our right looked black enough to walk on. Their gunners were locked in on the chaff being dispensed on the bomb run by the radio operators rather than the aircraft. The accurate and intense was at Langendreer. We were in it about 15 minutes. One loud burst under the nose of our B-17 rolled me off the Bombardiers seat. Damage to the aircraft was minimal only five holes the size of a softball in the lower skin of the wing. The routs used to and from targets were charted to avoid known flack areas. We always passed over enemy lines at 20,000 feet to get out of their small arms range.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Your question brings a smile. B-17 and B-24 crews have had an on going friendly feud since the end of WWII about which was the better aircraft. The last man standing will win HA Ha I am partial because I flew the B-17 and it brought me home safely on each mission. However, I will give you an honest evaluation as I know it. On the plus side The B-24 was faster and carried a larger bomb load. On the negative side it's ceiling altitude was about 10,000 feet lower. The narrow Davis Wing had a tendency to fold when hit due to it being attached to the aircraft frame rather than pass through it. A B-24 pilot friend said it was hard to handle in tight formations. On the other hand the B-17 was more rugged and would take a lot of punishment. The higher altitude capability was a plus and the big wing, which passed through the frame, gave added strength, stsbility and a stable bombing platform.

I never did fly in the B-24 but toured it on the ground. one other point, the B-24 was not open from tail to nose for crew movement in flight. The B-17 was.,,

Thank you, Bill, for that assessment. It confirms the impressions I got from rides in both aircraft. I was privileged to be in a position to help the Collings Foundation bomber tour out of a fix they were in, and so got rides and brief turns in the Captain's chair in both birds. Their crews were just as dedicated and biased as yours were.
It's amazing what a difference a half generation of design evolution can make. The B-17 was a more primitive skin-on-frame structure with mostly mechanical systems and a taildragger, while the Liberator was a more sophisticated monocoque with lots of hydraulics and tricycle landing gear. The Fort felt more solid in the air, while the Lib had more of a "flexible flyer" feel to it. Powerwise, my long-standing prejudices come into play; I like the B-24's Pratts over the B-17's Wrights.
Crawling through the B-24's bomb bay in flight is precarious and not for the faint of heart. If you fall off the catwalk, the bomb bay doors aren't going to stop you. And right over your head is a huge fuel tank encapsulating the wing center section structure and never perfectly sealed. The bomb bay area seemed to always have an aroma of 100 octane. Not a welcoming thought if people are going to be shooting at you.
My short stints at the controls were not representative of an operational situation, but I got the idea you fly a Fort and you herd a Liberator. The B-17 was reasonably crisp and responsive for a plane that size, while the B-24's controls were heavier and had a lot of lag and "inertial overrun" like a heavy truck with a lot of slop in it's steering. The thought of that in a tight formation bomber box doesn't give a lot of warm fuzzy feelings.
I know which one I'd rather fly in harm's way! Thank you, Bill, for doing it for us all!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[billrunnels]

Thank you, Bill, for that assessment. It confirms the impressions I got from rides in both aircraft. I was privileged to be in a position to help the Collings Foundation bomber tour out of a fix they were in, and so got rides and brief turns in the Captain's chair in both birds. Their crews were just as dedicated and biased as yours were.
It's amazing what a difference a half generation of design evolution can make. The B-17 was a more primitive skin-on-frame structure with mostly mechanical systems and a taildragger, while the Liberator was a more sophisticated monocoque with lots of hydraulics and tricycle landing gear. The Fort felt more solid in the air, while the Lib had more of a "flexible flyer" feel to it. Powerwise, my long-standing prejudices come into play; I like the B-24's Pratts over the B-17's Wrights.
Crawling through the B-24's bomb bay in flight is precarious and not for the faint of heart. If you fall off the catwalk, the bomb bay doors aren't going to stop you. And right over your head is a huge fuel tank encapsulating the wing center section structure and never perfectly sealed. The bomb bay area seemed to always have an aroma of 100 octane. Not a welcoming thought if people are going to be shooting at you.
My short stints at the controls were not representative of an operational situation, but I got the idea you fly a Fort and you herd a Liberator. The B-17 was reasonably crisp and responsive for a plane that size, while the B-24's controls were heavier and had a lot of lag and "inertial overrun" like a heavy truck with a lot of slop in it's steering. The thought of that in a tight formation bomber box doesn't give a lot of warm fuzzy feelings.
I know which one I'd rather fly in harm's way! Thank you, Bill, for doing it for us all!
Cheers,
Wes

I have had an opportunity to see the Collings aircraft a couple of times and they are well maintained. Glad you had a chance to fly in both.

 

[pbehn]

Here mentioned in post #17 by Bill.