Problem: Teenagers with plenty of time on their hands and little motivation.

Answer: Conscript them into the armed forces for at least two years. after that the Fire, Ambulance or Police or Prison service for a further two years.

Job done….or so I would like to think.

I am Ex Airforce & now an ambulanceman so Let me see!. Arsonists & joy-riders =fire brigade,Knife & gun weilding yobs & joy-riders =ambulance,bullies(& joy-riders)=police & asbo’s=prison officers-forgive my negativity on this one but I can’t see it working somehow:D .But the armed forces…..h’mmm bang on!train ’em up bring our decent lads back & pack ’em off to Afganistan & Iraq,they’ll soon discover what motivation means but please keep ’em away from scapyards & airfields in case they destroy a rare bird.:D

Thinking about what Radpoe has said above got me thinking about the different velocities of bullets fired from forward and rearward facing guns. Would a rearward firing .303 have more ‘punch’ than a forward facing one??

Just thinking out loud…

The rear turret guns would have a marginal better punch due to an approaching target’s difference in velocity compaired to the bomber i.e., if the bomber was flying at 210 mph & the target aircraft 310 mph then the target will hit the incoming rounds at bullet speed + 100mph……………..I think.(Dammit its 0625 I’m at work & I’ve only had 1 coffee.):D

No bang seats in our NF14s.

Thanks for that,I said I stand to be corrected,:o

That “weight” aiui is defined by an aircraft’s mtom=maximum takeoff mass, which for a B17 would include a full fuel, crew and bomb load.

EASA is the new aviation regulator in Europe where standards are set and adopted in each member country.

Skybolt knows more about this than I do.

EASA- does that stand for Europe Against Servicable Aircraft…….:diablo:

There were five R/C models used. Three were GRP static models, two were flyers. At least one static B-17 was set on fire for a scene with a flyable model taxiing behind. The flyer weathercocked into the wind and taxied into the burning model. Both were lost.

The other flyable model was severely damaged in the one wheel landing scene. A model runway was built on scaffolding so the camera could be mounted at eye level. Once on the ground, the model swung off the scaffolding runway, fell off the edge andsmashed a wing and broke its back. This model was repaired to go into the model museum.

Don’t know what happened to the other static models.

The moulds for the aircraft were later used by several modellers in the Large Model Association to produce further B-17’s that were seen on the UK show circuit from 2000. Fuselages and nacelles were GRP, wings and tail were balsa skinned foam.

This is my scratch built B-17 which is the same size as the Memphis Belle models, but shared no comonality of parts.

Steve

Very nice……..d’yer want to bring it down to Donny at some time?

why did the RAF mainly favour .303 ammo instead of .50 calibre for the gun turrets in bombers? as opposed to the USAF who used .50 calibre, was it a question of critical all up weight etc 😎

I do not know the reasoning of using .303 brownings in gun turrets,but it never ceases to amaze me that 4 X .303’s in concentration were acceptable for a heavy bomber when anything less than 8 was insufficient for a fighter,hence the specification for the early Hurricanes & Spitfires.

My only explanation is that the the strain of recoil from 4 or even 2 .50 brownings far exceeds that of 4 X .303’s & was capable of over-stressing the early turrets.

For me the best British turret was the Rose design,it was designed for the .50,the wider seperation of the guns & reduction of rear facing glazing gave better vision (particularly when a shearch-light illuminated scratches & defects ) & allowed the gunner to evacuate by just rolling out & over the gunmount.Also from a comfort point,it was relatively draught free compared to the FN turrets(it was sealed at the back & the perspex was shaped so that the open face of the turret did not stray into the slipstream).Above all it could be fitted in the field to an existing aircraft without altering the airframe structure.

From an AP story on the General’s passing…

“Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.”

It’s a pity that some people’s political feelings would deny a man a marked grave.

The story goes onto say he’ll have his ashes scattered over the English Channel where he loved to fly.

While its true there are those who would disrespect his grave because of the nature of the weapon he dropped,there are many who feel the atomic raids actually prevented the loss of even more lives by stopping the need for an invasion of Japan.

A brave man who stood by the courage of his convictions,R.I.P. Col Tibbetts,you have bourne the weight of a burden few can begin to contemplate.

It is easy to condem a man’s actions were he believes he is doing the right thing,but how many would take his place to do the same?