dark light

Lyffe

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 278 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: WW2 altimeter settings #1310782
    Lyffe
    Participant

    My apologies for my delay in responding to the various points raised, but I’ve been away for a few days.

    I don’t think we should be influenced too much by the references to Groups in autobiographies. These are written by men who were very young (and probably very junior) during the war, and were thus at the end of a long line of decisions. I have little doubt that briefing officers usually/often prefaced their briefings with ‘Group says …’ or something similar, but that would have been due to the teleprinter messages containing details of an operation originating from the Group HQ. However, the Group HQs were themselves part of a chain, and their instructions/orders originated from HQ Bomber Command.

    At the start of the war there is no doubt that Group HQs were responsible of operations; the number of aircraft involved was usually small (often part squadron level)and, with raids being mostly conducted in daylight the Mark 1 eyeball was as good a way of avoiding collision as any other. When daylight losses proved the folly of daylight bombing operations were switched to night but, again, numbers of aircraft involved were small, and crews usually decided their own route and time frame.

    Matters only changed when aircraft from more than one Group were involved in an operation – there had to be some co-ordination otherwise the aircraft from, say, two groups would be flying on different information (and I’m not just talking about heights). When Harris arrived at HQ Bomber Command matters really did change, and although the Groups were consulted, there had to be an over-riding authority to ensure that details were consistent.

    I think the clue as to what pressure setting was used can be found in Met Office history. From Dec 1940 there were daily conferences between the Met Officers at the Groups and HQ; at first these only agreed a common forecast for the night’s weather, but the forecast winds remained the responsibility of the Group Met Officers. These were found to differ enormously between Groups, and in Feb 1943 a new system was introduced whereby upper air charts were drawn to a datum of 1013.2 mb, instead of sea level, and winds calculated from the patterns produced. Only the Met Office HQ had all the necessary information, and it was responsible for the forecasts. It was, in effect, the start of pressure pattern flying.

    I suspect that for Bomber Command operations the 1013.2 mb pressure setting dates from this time, but flights below the transition level continued to use QFE.

    That’s as I read it from research I’ve been doing on the met office at HQ Bomber Command (hence my lack of references) but I have asked the RAF Museum for its advice on the matter.

    in reply to: WW2 altimeter settings #1326947
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Thanks chaps, you raise a number of interesting points.

    My understanding is that at the start of the war individual crews not only selected their own height, but also route and time frame (as in ‘Target for tonight’), but things changed once area bombing became the norm. You couldn’t have 1000 bombers flying the same outbound route and bombing a target from a planned altitude without some form of vertical separation. And, as Moggy notes, there had to be some way of setting the altitude over the target.

    The raids did not fly reciprocal routes; there was either a dog leg after bomb release before rejoining the outward leg behind the incoming bombers, or the route was totally different (see the various Middlebrook accounts).

    A statistical analysis of the likelihood of collision, made during the planning stages of the first 1000 bomber raid, decreed the risk was very small (Terraine, “Right of the line”), surely a conclusion that could only have been made on the assumption that aircraft were flying at different altitudes.

    Ah well, I’ll keep looking.

    in reply to: WW2 altimeter settings #1327694
    Lyffe
    Participant

    My thanks Moggy.

    I know it appears a very simple question, but it’s hard to find a definitive answer. Elsewhere I’ve had one navigator recalling that 1013.2 mb was the setting, and two who couldn’t remember. If a standard setting was being used successfully for separation purposes by Bomber Command, it’s surprising this standard setting wasn’t adopted internationally until 1 April 1959 (according to Flight).

    in reply to: usaafe aircraft crash over gillingham kent #1295621
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Malc,

    If such an incident did occur there will almost certainly be a report in one of the local newspapers (even if the date is 6 June 1944). These are archived by libraries – if not at the local library then certainly by the County Library. If you live in the area a visit to your library asking to view archived newspapers will bear fruit.

    If you are unable to visit email the Medway Library Service at [email]lyn.rainbow@medway.gov.uk[/email], explaining you are seeking newspaper reports of an aircraft accident near Gillingham on 6 June 1944. The library will conduct a search for you, but there may be a nominal charge.

    If there isn’t a report then it almost certainly didn’t happen or, if it did, it was on another date.

    in reply to: Identifying propellor number 32627 #1316695
    Lyffe
    Participant

    If no-one is able to help here, the following website deals exclusively with your era of interest:

    http://www.theaerodrome.com/services/gbritain/rfc/

    Brian

    in reply to: Calling all Mosquito enthusiasts.. . #1330300
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Pete,

    Regret I know nothing about your Mosquito, but could I ask if your friend was with 141 Squadron at any time between 1947 and 1951? My interest is in the THUM flights during this period, and 141 shared the task, on a rotation basis, with 23, 25, 29, 85, 141 and 264 Sqns.

    Although I have a considerable amount of knowledge about Met Flights and THUM Flights before 1947 and after 1951, the intervening period is proving difficult and I would very much appreciate making contact with anyone who flew with any of these squadrons.

    Brian

    in reply to: Berck-sur-Mer airfield #1246461
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Great find and a super photo. Thanks.
    Brian

    in reply to: Berck-sur-Mer airfield #1246625
    Lyffe
    Participant

    I should have picked up the shadow Moggy – I didn’t, so thanks for drawing it to my attention. Being a metman I can use that clue, plus the snow, to tie down the date – it just means searching the met archives. I’m now concentrating on the 8th to 13th Feb. I know where the aircraft logs are in the NA, so I can find out which dates E8834 was flying.

    Ta
    Brian

    in reply to: Berck-sur-Mer airfield #1247459
    Lyffe
    Participant

    That was my feeling as well, but this is not my normal territory. Many thanks.
    Brian

    in reply to: Berck-sur-Mer airfield #1247479
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Sorry about that. Let’s try again.

    in reply to: Berck-sur-Mer airfield #1247494
    Lyffe
    Participant

    First time I’ve tried this so I hope it works.

    in reply to: Forums r e a l l y slow…. #1248710
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Yup, thought it was just me and my PC.
    Brian

    in reply to: R.A.F. Commands Forum #1258620
    Lyffe
    Participant

    I’m afraid it’s been under attack from spammers for some time and I guess today was the final straw.

    Ross, could you post a statement here as I know there are very many users of the forum worldwide who would appreciate your advice? I know from the comments posted on RAFCommands from time to time how invaluable the forum has been for the exchange of views and information and, with due respect to this and other forums, there was not another quite like it.

    If it really is gone for good it is a very sad day indeed.

    Brian

    in reply to: Registers of WW1 aircraft #1261832
    Lyffe
    Participant

    For anyone who might be interested I found the answers I needed, not from a book but via the following website which deals exclusively with WW1 matters:
    http://www.crossandcockade.com/serial.htm

    Brian

    in reply to: Ross Mc Neill's Website #1282382
    Lyffe
    Participant

    Seems OK Tony, there have been several entries today.

    Brian

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 278 total)