dark light

steve_p

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 596 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Lancaster, bulged bombdoors? #938875
    steve_p
    Participant

    Can anyone confirm that there are different (standard)bomb door contours?

    Hi Cees,

    The Mk. IIs were fitted with bulged doors.

    Cheers
    Steve P

    in reply to: Canberra ejection (from the past), but which one? #949164
    steve_p
    Participant

    The Met Research Flight WJ582 did hit the sea and the pilot ejected underwater according to the description of the incident in this MRF report. I wonder what actually happened during the ejection process, how far would a MB seat of that time send you underwater.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/r/d/Canberra_Crash.pdf
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/5/a/70_years_of_ARF_271112.pdf

    Richard

    Thanks for that, Richard. My understanding was that the aircraft hit sand and that the wreckage re=appears from time to time. Must get better sources 😉

    in reply to: Lost WW2 Canadian Aircraft Wreckage Found #949341
    steve_p
    Participant

    Really? All submarines have to be strong to withstand the pressure of the water and the Anson’s puny bombload would just bounce off, assuming of course that they actually managed to hit. Most submarines in WW2 were sunk by surface vessels or by other submarines. The role of aircraft in escorting convoys was essentially to drive the submarines underwater where the surface escorts could attack with their much more effective armament of depth charges. Although aircraft did carry depth charges the surface escorts could carry a lot more and could spend the time and resources to hunt the submarines down.

    Regards

    Yet, as noted above, an Anson with its puny bombload managed to sink a submarine. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Anson was a good anti-submarine aircraft, merely that it was capable of sinking a submarine.

    A 20mm shell could pierce a U-Boat’s hull. Doesn’t seem particularly strong to me.

    in reply to: Lost WW2 Canadian Aircraft Wreckage Found #949563
    steve_p
    Participant

    Who thought that 360lbs of bombs would be enough to sink a submarine.
    And did any Anson ever sink a submarine apart from in a film or in a Nevil Shute novel?

    Submarines have pretty thin hulls so why ever not? A U-Boat was sunk by a Walrus during the Norwegian Campaign so I’m sure that an Anson could have done the same.

    in reply to: Canberra ejection (from the past), but which one? #949575
    steve_p
    Participant
    in reply to: Canberra ejection (from the past), but which one? #949578
    steve_p
    Participant

    While it’s not a 231ocu machine,the only loss over the sea that I can find is WJ582 of the meteorological Reseach flight,which crashed in the sea on 21 feb ’62 off RAF leuchars,could it be that the crew member was ex 231,and his name/Sqn was in his helmet when found? The report can be found at aviation-safety.net/wiki base/Wiki.php?id=21099,hope this may be of interest,

    Keith (xv473)

    Nobody bailed out of that particular aircraft. It hit sand at the mouth of the river Eden on the approach to Leuchars with the crew inside.

    in reply to: Orange Putter required #970517
    steve_p
    Participant

    For the uninitiated (it sounds like a golf club but I assume it isn’t 🙂 – what on earth is Orange Putter?

    Backwards facing radar.

    in reply to: mosquito single/ two stage merlin U/C was it the same ? #996149
    steve_p
    Participant

    Because there’s not 300% reserve!

    Land based aircraft are designed for 10 feet/sec (limit) landing and carrier based aircraft are designed for 14 feet/sec limit. When landing on ship, the runway maybe coming up at the same time your coming down

    That makes sense. Cheers.

    in reply to: mosquito single/ two stage merlin U/C was it the same ? #996160
    steve_p
    Participant

    Therefore there was a 300% factor of safety in the design, which armourers could use to inform different load configurations. No need to change the U/C. The plane would fail to take off before the U/C would fail in practical terms.

    Yet the Sea Mosquito had a different undercarriage. Why?

    in reply to: Avro Shackleton WR963 Project Thread #936372
    steve_p
    Participant

    Lovely shots! Thanks. 🙂

    in reply to: Avro Shackleton WR963 Project Thread #936432
    steve_p
    Participant

    A lovely run from 963 thanks. And a surprise S360! A spectacular run

    New forum rule – If there are no photos, it didn’t happen. 🙂

    in reply to: Identity of crashed aircraft, Trucial Coast, 1947 #963251
    steve_p
    Participant

    Mosquito? If the date is correct, 8 Squadron was at this location at the time with mossies.

    in reply to: AIRFIX 2014….and some local bargains! #974649
    steve_p
    Participant

    I’m a retailer, please don’t get me on about the idiots that sell under wholesale price!!

    Can’t you buy your stock from them instead of the wholesellers?

    in reply to: Fairey Barracuda DP872 #975744
    steve_p
    Participant

    Is there any indication as to where in the Clyde the carriers used to exercise?

    Most photos that I have seen show a location pretty near to Arran. The Clyde is pretty deep there so I wouldn’t hold much hope of being able to recover anything. Elliot might be able to rubbish this argument though. 😉

    in reply to: Fairey Barracuda wings #977104
    steve_p
    Participant

    I thought that the high wing was to allow a big observation window below it.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 596 total)