Hi Adrian,

I did have one, but I donated that to another Suffolk museum (the 388th BG at Market Weston) before I left the UK!

There’s one for sale (in the US) for 55 USD on:

http://www.warbirdrelics.com/armament.htm

Regards

Graham Herbertson

Hi Propstrike, although it’s not what I wanted to hear it’s what I expected! Thanks for the info, anyway. Skipper

Well, those piccies of the CASA-2.111s might just help me solve a long standing mystery which has been a source of ridicule from my father over the years!!

I was outside one sunny summer’s day (late afternoon/early evening) “playing commandos” with a schoolfriend of mine when we both saw what clearly looked like three “HE111s” flying in formation directly overhead.

We lived in the village of Fairlie in Ayshire, Scotland. We stood there like the boys in that good ‘ol scene from the BoB film – “they’re ‘einkels…!!! 😀 “

To this day, I am CONVINCED they were ‘einkels but I could not think of any possible reason for them being there. The incident would have taken place sometime between the summer of 1977 and the summer of 1979.

Fairlie is approx 15 miles to the north of Prestwick and we often saw air-traffic coming in and out of Prestwick.

Does anyone know if there were ever three CASA-2.111s in the air together during the late ’70s and if they could have been in the vicinity of Prestwick during the timescales I mention?

Please, please, please put me out of my misery…! 😮

Regards

Skipper

Hi, Easy Tiger!

In my experience, “Calender-based” requirements should only be considered for specific items contained within an engine which degrade over time irrespective of their use. Never have I known this policy apply to a complete engine! :confused:

Replacement requirements for the other, “non-Calender-based” items are either “Life-based” or “Condition-based”, with:

[INDENT]”Life-based” requirements meaning that a module or component’s operating life is closely monitored and the item is then replaced when its life approaches maunfacturer’s specified Life Expired (LIFEX) limit.

“Condition-based” requirements meaning that a module or component’s condition is closely monitored by way of measuring a particular physical parameter (e.g. wear) and the item is then replaced when a pre-determined limit (e.g. wear limit) is approached .[/INDENT]

As long as an engine operator can demonstrate that he has control of each of these types of requirements for all the component parts of his engine then surely that is all that is required to say whether an engine is safe to operate?!

So, “Yes”, based on what you say the ten year life appears to be a number plucked out of thin air, not based on engineering principles, resulting in yet another apparently ill thought out idea that needs to be fought! 😡

Regards

Skipper

One of my old pilot pals from the 388th BG, the late Tom Gothard, told me that he got so nervous before his first mission that he “just had to go” after he had completed his pre-flight checks.

Luckily he found a small cardboard box to do it in! However, rather than have the box sit in the aircraft during the rest of the mission he got his engineer to place it on top of the closed bomb bay doors. Once in high formation over Norfolk he would then get his bombardier to open the doors and (in his own words) “drop his offal bombardment on the poor unsuspecting public of East Anglia”!

Since that first mission was a success the crew believed that this action must have brought them good luck. Henceforth, it became a pre-mission ritual and 30 times the poor people were subjected to an “offal bombardment”! Apparently Tom’s ability to provide the “necessaries” at the right time was not a problem as the combination of breakfast food (especially the dried eggs) and the nerves during pre-flights was enough to keep him regular!!

Talking of rituals, the ball-turret gunner on that same 388th crew always used to sing the old Roy Acuff bluegrass song the “Wabash Cannonball”, complete with all the train noises and whistles, during the bomb run. Apparently it was very comforting to the crew whilst the flak was bursting all around them!

Jules, did your crew ever have any “rituals” whether they be pre-flight or during the mission?

Regards

Skipper

I knew “Hardluck” crashed near the airfield and that her bomb load “cooked” and went off “big style”:

Ref:http://www.388th.freeserve.co.uk/hardluck.htm

[INDENT]The 388th Collection holds many artefacts of the Aircraft 42-30193, ‘Hardluck’ which crashed on take-off on 14 October, 1943.

The following account is taken from “The 388th at War” by Edward J Huntzinger:

1st Lt Paul Swift saved the lives of himself and his entire crew when an engine failed and caught fire just as his Flying Fortress was taking off on a mission to bomb the Kugelfischer Ball Bearing Works in Schweinfurt.

The aircraft, loaded to the limit with fuel and bombs, was near the end of the runway and travelling at 110 mph when this airman’s nightmare suddenly became a reality. Lt Swift brought the burning ship to a stop so that the crew emerged unharmed and got clear before the explosion.

“We almost had flying speed when the co-pilot, Lt Tipper, called out that the oil pressure was zero on No 3 engine. The ship began to pull to the right and he saw flames coming from the dying engine. Observers report that smoke came from the tires as the brakes were applied. With a rough field ahead of him, followed by a solid wall of trees, Lt Swift ordered wheels up. The take-off became a belly landing. The ship stopped with her nose crushed in by a tree.”

The entire neighbourhood was cleared of personnel, planes were sent out by a different runway, and preparations were made for the explosion, which was spectacular when it came. Nobody was hurt.”[/INDENT]

Other than that this is “news” to me. I guess I need to do a little “digging” (if you pardon the pun) to see how the others came about!

Skipper