Lancaster Sound Recording.

[M. J. Powell]

At the risk of boring everyone to distraction I have a couple of new
points to make.

I've been watching this evening the repeat Tx on Ch4 of the programme
where they took an RAF crew and trained them on a simulator to repeat
the Dams' raid.
As part of their training they were taken to Canada and flown on a
Lancaster for experience. I noticed that all the crew, including the
Canadian pilot, were using open microphones. That is, no oxygen mask,
just a boom mic which appeared to have a tapering funnel from near the
mouth to a mic insert near one earphone.
Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
Agreed that the Lancaster was unloaded concerning fuel, bomb load, guns
and ammunition, etc, so that the engines were not working so hard there
was no trouble in following the conversations.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>
>At the risk of boring everyone to distraction I have a couple of new
>points to make.
>
>I've been watching this evening the repeat Tx on Ch4 of the programme
>where they took an RAF crew and trained them on a simulator to repeat
>the Dams' raid.
>As part of their training they were taken to Canada and flown on a
>Lancaster for experience. I noticed that all the crew, including the
>Canadian pilot, were using open microphones. That is, no oxygen mask,
>just a boom mic which appeared to have a tapering funnel from near the
>mouth to a mic insert near one earphone.
>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
>Agreed that the Lancaster was unloaded concerning fuel, bomb load, guns
>and ammunition, etc, so that the engines were not working so hard there
>was no trouble in following the conversations.
>
>Mike

Very interesting Mike...when did they do the Canada thing?. Must
have been the Myrnaski(?) Lanc at Hamilton Ontario? (seeing as
that's the only airworthy Lanc in Canada!...) :)

That particular Lanc is #213 which was stationed at Greenwood NS
up till about 1953.

I'm wondering whether they changed the intercom system because
the system as it was in 1951 to at least 1956 used no boom mikes,
and did not use 'hot mics' for sure. I think that the fact that
the a/c wasn't loaded would have made no difference in engine
noise at all. Almost all aircraft engine noise is caused by
RPM...not MAP (power).

The mic/headset that you describe sounds like what's used on
commercial airliners.
--

-Gord.

[Cub Driver]

>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.

The mike (or mic, as it for some reason is now spelled) on an aircraft
headset has a remarkable ability to filter out engine noise. While a
Continental 65 hp is nothing like a Lancaster engine, it is close to
the pilot and loud enough to deafen him over time, and to make
conversation very difficult. With a headset there is no audible engine
noise. (There's no push-to-talk on the intercom, so the mike in effect
is hot at all times.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>
>>At the risk of boring everyone to distraction I have a couple of new
>>points to make.
>>
>>I've been watching this evening the repeat Tx on Ch4 of the programme
>>where they took an RAF crew and trained them on a simulator to repeat
>>the Dams' raid.
>>As part of their training they were taken to Canada and flown on a
>>Lancaster for experience. I noticed that all the crew, including the
>>Canadian pilot, were using open microphones. That is, no oxygen mask,
>>just a boom mic which appeared to have a tapering funnel from near the
>>mouth to a mic insert near one earphone.
>>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
>>Agreed that the Lancaster was unloaded concerning fuel, bomb load, guns
>>and ammunition, etc, so that the engines were not working so hard there
>>was no trouble in following the conversations.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Very interesting Mike...when did they do the Canada thing?. Must
>have been the Myrnaski(?) Lanc at Hamilton Ontario? (seeing as
>that's the only airworthy Lanc in Canada!...) :)

The prog was a repeat of one originally B/C about 6 months ago. Yes,
they went to Hamilton.
>
>That particular Lanc is #213 which was stationed at Greenwood NS
>up till about 1953.
>
>I'm wondering whether they changed the intercom system because
>the system as it was in 1951 to at least 1956 used no boom mikes,
>and did not use 'hot mics' for sure. I think that the fact that
>the a/c wasn't loaded would have made no difference in engine
>noise at all. Almost all aircraft engine noise is caused by
>RPM...not MAP (power).
>
>The mic/headset that you describe sounds like what's used on
>commercial airliners.

I don't know whether the intercom was the normal one for that Lanc.
Possibly they just strung a simple one for the pilot and whichever RAF
person was siting next to him. I don't remember seeing any other person
speaking. They weren't wearing helmets.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>
>>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
>
>The mike (or mic, as it for some reason is now spelled) on an aircraft
>headset has a remarkable ability to filter out engine noise.

I should have remembered 'mic'. I spent 30 years in broadcasting!

>While a
>Continental 65 hp is nothing like a Lancaster engine, it is close to
>the pilot and loud enough to deafen him over time, and to make
>conversation very difficult. With a headset there is no audible engine
>noise. (There's no push-to-talk on the intercom, so the mike in effect
>is hot at all times.)

Yes, I remember from my time in Austers! Gliders are quiet though...

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>>
>>>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
>>
>>The mike (or mic, as it for some reason is now spelled) on an aircraft
>>headset has a remarkable ability to filter out engine noise.
>
>I should have remembered 'mic'. I spent 30 years in broadcasting!
>
>>While a
>>Continental 65 hp is nothing like a Lancaster engine, it is close to
>>the pilot and loud enough to deafen him over time, and to make
>>conversation very difficult. With a headset there is no audible engine
>>noise. (There's no push-to-talk on the intercom, so the mike in effect
>>is hot at all times.)
>
>Yes, I remember from my time in Austers! Gliders are quiet though...
>
>Mike

Aren't they though?...that always amazed me...they must have
super mufflers?





:)
--

-Gord.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>>>
>>>>Engine noise was audible but the speech was perfectly clear.
>>>
>>>The mike (or mic, as it for some reason is now spelled) on an aircraft
>>>headset has a remarkable ability to filter out engine noise.
>>
>>I should have remembered 'mic'. I spent 30 years in broadcasting!
>>
>>>While a
>>>Continental 65 hp is nothing like a Lancaster engine, it is close to
>>>the pilot and loud enough to deafen him over time, and to make
>>>conversation very difficult. With a headset there is no audible engine
>>>noise. (There's no push-to-talk on the intercom, so the mike in effect
>>>is hot at all times.)
>>
>>Yes, I remember from my time in Austers! Gliders are quiet though...
>>
>>Mike
>
>Aren't they though?...that always amazed me...they must have
>super mufflers?

Yes. It's a bit worrying though when that hissing sound dies away....

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Robert Briggs]

M. J. Powell wrote:

> Yes, I remember from my time in Austers!

So you're Mike "Biggles" Powell, eh?

:-)

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Robert Briggs
> writes
>M. J. Powell wrote:
>
>> Yes, I remember from my time in Austers!
>
>So you're Mike "Biggles" Powell, eh?

For a while...

Mike
--
M.J.Powell