Dirty RAF Aircraft

[Guest]

tecdes: "An old Client I met yesterday. He was a pilot during WW11." My uncle was in bomber command, (not as the pilot), and I think took part in the bombing of Dresden. I haven't yet told my two excellent Anglo-English grandsons in Germany (8 and 24), but when the elder was about 11 he took part in a short discussion in the car about the morals of carpet bombing Dresden and I felt it necessary to mention London and Coventry, and gave 60 seconds on what a country could expect if it marches all over the place with guns!Amusingly, my uncle started the war as a member of the crew of a balloon (squadron!) but found it too boring and volunteered for BC. He survived but I never had the opportunity to talk to him more than a few minutes once. I would have liked to ask him what it was like flying for hours cramped in a Lancaster (assuming he flew in those). Like most, he never volunteered anything.



When visiting another relative in South Germany last year, at Langenargen, on the shores of Bodensee (Lake Constance) I expressed curiosity about why 99% of all German houses look so new. She waved her hand towards the town and said that the RAF re-modelled it! I felt slightly on the back foot! She also mentioned that a nearby town near the Swiss border decided to leave all its lights on at night to give the RAF the impression that it must be in Switzerland. It worked a treat. They had no damage.

End of ramble.

That is an interesting ramble Steve & worth the ramble.

Laurie

[stona]

Edgar Brooks: "The most noticeable weathering, on a Lancaster, are the (six, never eight) exhaust streaks across the top of the wing".Where were these: the inboard or outboard engines, why 6, not 2 per engine = 4, and where exactly were they?

Thanks.

It's just an effect of the aerodynamics of the wing. There were of course exhausts on both sides of every engine but the airflow around the outer side of the outer nacelle didn't cause the exhaust to strek over the wing.

This picture shows a typical pattern of staining on the port wing. The starboard outer engine has had an oil leak,hence the black stain and oil on the horizontal stabiliser behind it.

Also visible here.

This disconcertingly is a "bombing photo" taken from an aircraft as it released its bombs. There were many cases of aircraft being damaged by bombs from aircraft above. Many must also have been destroyed this way but it would have been rare for anyone to survive to tell the story.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

Thanks for that. I like that sort of authenticity (for when I get round to do a Lancaster).

[Guest]

Getting a bit off topic but of interest this picture of air brakes on a Mosquito. This slowed the Mosquito down while stalking behind German Bombers.

This I think is the Youngman Brake. From what I can gather de Havilland then introduced there own which looked much more robust.

Laurie[ATTACH]42217.vB[/ATTACH]

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nb...n&sa=X&ei=qXFn This shows the De Haviland brakes

[ATTACH]45594.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]158620[/ATTACH]

Those got discontinued eventually.

[stona]

Air brakes are a tricky thing to deploy without upsetting other aspects of the aircraft's flight, as the RAE and other bodies were well aware.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2614.pdf

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

I concur, with the Mosquito they found it was just as effective to lower the landing gear.

[stona]

I concur, with the Mosquito they found it was just as effective to lower the landing gear.

A feature designed into the F-4U. The dive brake was the main landing gear and the dive brake control lowered it without lowering the tailwheel/hook. It could be extended at speeds up to 300 mph (IAS).
I remember that this did cause a change in pitch, but I can't remember which way (probably nose down)

Cheers

Steve

[Robert1968]

Mmmm! this is a bit of an old chestnut.

I think it is safe to say that the surface finish of aircraft,particularly fighters,was kept in as good a condition as operational circumstances allowed. Here is a list of dos and don'ts from a manual circulated to ground crew during the war. Of particular interest is #12

In 1942 maintenence of the new smooth finishes was causing concern to the Air Ministry and manufacturers as evidenced in the final paragraph here. It was thought that it could be done better.

Both these documents are courtesy of the hard work and research of Edgar Brooks.

Aircraft undoubtedly became tired and worn but a dirty aircraft would be cleaned in pretty short order. You can find evidence of aircraft which are quite mucky particularly during periods of high work loads so it's really up to you.Remember that all service aircraft spent far more time on the ground,where they could be cleaned and serviced,than they did in the air.

Cheers

Steve

Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve I came across this while I was looking for ref material and it posed a question for me. I can understand that a fighter would get more maintenance cleaning than say a Halifax or a Stirling. As you have said the aircraft would at some points be cleaned but I was thinking what about the Aircraft at sea? Like the Seafire/ Firefly/ Swordfish , Albacore, Bareacuda, Wildcat/ Hellcats etc etc. Not sure if these Aircraft woulD have been cleaned as much? Saltwater would be a distinctive element all the time and washing with clean water would be a waste of resources in wartime?
I may be thinking a little out the box here but do you see my point.
I've seen some rather nice weathering on sea going A/C and would this be more realistic or should they all be pristine

Regards

Robert