Two Lancaster bombers!
- Thread starter scooder
- Start date
sidevalve8ba
Well-known member
Those are probably the planes from the Collings Foundation out of Massachusetts.
Last edited:
sidevalve8ba
Well-known member
If it is Collings then that is the B-17 I had a chance to fly in several years ago. Man oh man what an experience. Best money I think I ever spent. I would recommend it to anyone. Once in a lifetime experience.
expavr
Well-known member
I had the good fortune to be at Pebble Beach when the Merlin powered Rolls Royce was on display. The whine of the starter motor and the growl of that V12 when it fired was definitely an attention getter. The engine had so much TQ that the driver had trouble controlling it as he drove across the fairway to the reviewing stand. http://www.supercars.net/cars/4769.html
Tom Walker
Senior Member
4dFord/SC
Well-known member
If memory serves, the Collings B-24 is an ex-RAF ship that was found moldering away in India.
V8COOPMAN
Well-known member
You're right-on 4dFord/SC. Link below for it's history if anyone cares. DD
http://www.tinfeathers.com/OldAC/B24/History.htm
http://www.tinfeathers.com/OldAC/B24/History.htm
Thanks for the pics Keef, gonna go Dawlish on Saturday to see them.
Getting quite excited, can't wait for the sound.
Martin.
That motor is a thing of beauty. If memory serves me right, they decided to go with a V12 not only for horse power, but isn't a V12 balanced motor in terms of piston throws? If this is correct, I can certainly understand why you would want that for an airplane motor.
37coop
Well-known member
Fabulous photos keef,i believe they were staying at Biggin Hill and flew to Eastbourne from there , I saw only one Lancaster and the spit plus a Blenheim fly over my house a few miles away from B.H plus the Red Arrows a little later ,was hoping to get to Eastbourne but sadly it didn't happen , Jim.
Hoop
Well-known member
"That motor is a thing of beauty. If memory serves me right, they decided to go with a V12 not only for horse power, but isn't a V12 balanced motor in terms of piston throws? If this is correct, I can certainly understand why you would want that for an airplane motor."
The radial engine is pretty well balanced by nature of its design maybe better than a V12. But one feature of the Merlin needs mentioning. It is liquid cooled. When you start sending engines into combat, this is a major consideration.
Without doubt or argument, the Merlin was the most beautiful engine in WW2. It did however have its vulnerabilities. Any puncture of the cooling system meant serious if not fatal engine problems. Radials could withstand more battle damage and chug on. As exciting as it appears to make a few ground attack gun runs in a P-51, some of the glitter starts to rub off when the prospect of losing coolant is considered.
I've always had the deepest respect for the guys who flew WW2 aircraft. Some with the high performance engines would literally kick your ***. Single-engine operation in a P-38 for example ... even though conventional wisdom indicates two engine safety ... offered a high probability a crash on final.
Another neat trick engineers had up their sleeves, engines/props did not turn in the same direction ... depending on which model of an aircraft, like a Spitfire, the transition between models could be a challenge. (Always been amused that Spitfire designers put the landing gear lever on the right side of the cockpit ... have no idea what they were thinking, but I'll bet they never made a formation take-off themselves.)
Nice thread.
The radial engine is pretty well balanced by nature of its design maybe better than a V12. But one feature of the Merlin needs mentioning. It is liquid cooled. When you start sending engines into combat, this is a major consideration.
Without doubt or argument, the Merlin was the most beautiful engine in WW2. It did however have its vulnerabilities. Any puncture of the cooling system meant serious if not fatal engine problems. Radials could withstand more battle damage and chug on. As exciting as it appears to make a few ground attack gun runs in a P-51, some of the glitter starts to rub off when the prospect of losing coolant is considered.
I've always had the deepest respect for the guys who flew WW2 aircraft. Some with the high performance engines would literally kick your ***. Single-engine operation in a P-38 for example ... even though conventional wisdom indicates two engine safety ... offered a high probability a crash on final.
Another neat trick engineers had up their sleeves, engines/props did not turn in the same direction ... depending on which model of an aircraft, like a Spitfire, the transition between models could be a challenge. (Always been amused that Spitfire designers put the landing gear lever on the right side of the cockpit ... have no idea what they were thinking, but I'll bet they never made a formation take-off themselves.)
Nice thread.
4dFord/SC
Well-known member
A big radial engine makes a good bullet shield, too.
rotorwrench
Well-known member
There was a good reason to wear a parachute in those old turds. A leaky prop seal on a radial engined bomber or cargo plane could start an oil fire that was like a blow torch. If you couldn't get the fire out, it was a good idea to unass the machine in a hurry. Those stainless steel firewalls would only take so much heat before burning through and the aluminum skin was like paper to a fire like that. The fuel tanks weren't far behind.
They could be tough though. You might lose a cylinder during a flight and the engine would pick up a little vibration but still run all the way home.
They could be tough though. You might lose a cylinder during a flight and the engine would pick up a little vibration but still run all the way home.
Great point regarding liquid cooled v. air cooled. Maybe they hoped air speed would overcome the chances of being hit by a bullet.
Hoop
Well-known member
"Maybe they hoped air speed would overcome the chances of being hit by a bullet."
Absolutely.
Given a choice of speed or anything else most pilots will pick speed. Today we have aircraft that can superbly perform multiple roles. In the past the military had to use what was available ... sometimes it seemed that the same guys who put the gear lever in the Spitfire were running the show.
Excellent example of speed and how it was deployed was the f-104, another of one of the most beautiful airplanes ever built. Speed? You bet. It didn't turn well, it didn't have much for fire control or weapons, and it barely had enough fuel for an hour ... plus it had a high accident rate. But, it was smokin' fast and the plane everyone wanted to fly.
In Vietnam, they hung iron bombs on F104's and used them for ground attack.
Absolutely.
Given a choice of speed or anything else most pilots will pick speed. Today we have aircraft that can superbly perform multiple roles. In the past the military had to use what was available ... sometimes it seemed that the same guys who put the gear lever in the Spitfire were running the show.
Excellent example of speed and how it was deployed was the f-104, another of one of the most beautiful airplanes ever built. Speed? You bet. It didn't turn well, it didn't have much for fire control or weapons, and it barely had enough fuel for an hour ... plus it had a high accident rate. But, it was smokin' fast and the plane everyone wanted to fly.
In Vietnam, they hung iron bombs on F104's and used them for ground attack.
Last edited:
Bob T and I must live in roughly the same area (I'm in Niagara). The Lancaster from Hamilton flies over my house fairly regularly and I love to see it go over. We got married in our backyard and I joked that they would do a fly-over for the occasion... they flew over the next day, missed us by 24 hours 