If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Stolly stolly@ihatespa
m.stolly.org.uk writes It was recorded on a disk not tape. If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked. B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the same day. C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy. D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40 years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ? Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service. You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they were doing. I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed £20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud enough ? SNIP of MJP points Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run. 1. The pilot is instructed to keep weaving after the navigator has announced half a minute to go before bomb drop (and before the fighter puts in an appearance). If the bomb aimer were staring through the bomb sight stabilisation glass at that time, to get a straight run in on the target, the last thing he would have wanted was a weave. And just who is asking for the weave? Usually such a command was only given by a gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time. Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to stop any weaving. 2. Then the pilot asks for more revs. Why - just at the time the bomb aimer needs constant speed maintained for his bomb sight predicting computer? This doesn't feel quite right. 3. Finally, the pilot is instructed to weave again at a time when the bomber should have been flying straight and level for the post-drop picture to be taken, and before the night fighter is sighted. 4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the sound of the Brownings? The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a bomb release. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes In article , Stolly stolly@ihatespa m.stolly.org.uk writes It was recorded on a disk not tape. If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked. B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the same day. C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy. D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40 years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ? Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service. You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they were doing. I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed £20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud enough ? SNIP of MJP points Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run. 1. The pilot is instructed to keep weaving after the navigator has announced half a minute to go before bomb drop (and before the fighter puts in an appearance). If the bomb aimer were staring through the bomb sight stabilisation glass at that time, to get a straight run in on the target, the last thing he would have wanted was a weave. And just who is asking for the weave? Usually such a command was only given by a gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time. Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to stop any weaving. 2. Then the pilot asks for more revs. Why - just at the time the bomb aimer needs constant speed maintained for his bomb sight predicting computer? This doesn't feel quite right. 3. Finally, the pilot is instructed to weave again at a time when the bomber should have been flying straight and level for the post-drop picture to be taken, and before the night fighter is sighted. 4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the sound of the Brownings? The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a bomb release. Cheers, Dave Bother - that draft left my out-tray before I'd finished with it... Revision to point 2. 'more revs' is a bit imprecise for a pilot - 'increase revs to so many RPM' (even if valid at that point in the bomb run) would surely have been a bit more likely? Revision to point 3 due to my mis-remembering: - after the rear gunner disposed of the attacker the pilot was instructed to keep weaving just prior to the bombing photograph being taken. Odd advice. The other recordings do sound much more plausible, although I was quite surprised to hear the 'bombardier' (not 'air bomber' or 'bomb aimer' - I know that's been mentioned before - was this recording made with a view to airing it in the USA?) fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast - always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused hung bomb? Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Eadsforth" wrote in message
... In article , Dave Eadsforth writes In article , Stolly stolly@ihatespa m.stolly.org.uk writes It was recorded on a disk not tape. If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked. B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the same day. C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy. D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40 years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ? Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service. You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they were doing. I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed £20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud enough ? SNIP of MJP points Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run. 1. The pilot is instructed to keep weaving after the navigator has announced half a minute to go before bomb drop (and before the fighter puts in an appearance). If the bomb aimer were staring through the bomb sight stabilisation glass at that time, to get a straight run in on the target, the last thing he would have wanted was a weave. And just who is asking for the weave? Usually such a command was only given by a gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time. Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to stop any weaving. 2. Then the pilot asks for more revs. Why - just at the time the bomb aimer needs constant speed maintained for his bomb sight predicting computer? This doesn't feel quite right. 3. Finally, the pilot is instructed to weave again at a time when the bomber should have been flying straight and level for the post-drop picture to be taken, and before the night fighter is sighted. 4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the sound of the Brownings? The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a bomb release. Cheers, Dave Bother - that draft left my out-tray before I'd finished with it... Revision to point 2. 'more revs' is a bit imprecise for a pilot - 'increase revs to so many RPM' (even if valid at that point in the bomb run) would surely have been a bit more likely? Revision to point 3 due to my mis-remembering: - after the rear gunner disposed of the attacker the pilot was instructed to keep weaving just prior to the bombing photograph being taken. Odd advice. The other recordings do sound much more plausible, although I was quite surprised to hear the 'bombardier' (not 'air bomber' or 'bomb aimer' - I know that's been mentioned before - was this recording made with a view to airing it in the USA?) fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast - always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused hung bomb? Interesting points. Also, I don't want to cast any aspersions, but would a bomber crew on a mission have sounded quite so calm and matter of fact during the mission? Surely there would have been *some* stress apparent in the voices, and nothing like that comes across on the recording for any of the crew. - Michael |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast - always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused hung bomb? Cheers, Dave Pretty good points all Dave...this one isn't (unless they used a different system during the war) which certainly is possible. The bomb shackles that we used on the Lanc in the fifties used a comparatively simple electrical solenoid to hold the 'arming wire' anchored to the shackle unless it was desired to drop them 'safe' at which time the solenoid was powered, withdrawing a pin from the loop in the wire and allowing the wire to pull out of the shackle and fall 'with' the bomb. This wire (when anchored during the drop) pulls a safety pin out of the little 'arming propeller/fan' on the bomb's nose allowing it to spin and arm the bomb as it falls. So basically, you can arm them or disarm them at will. Also, a 'Coast Crossing Check Outbound' (and another inbound) was quite common (in ASW at least). Just to ensure nothing could accidentally drop from the a/c over land. -- -Gord. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Gord Beaman
?@?.? writes Dave Eadsforth wrote: fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast - always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused hung bomb? Cheers, Dave Pretty good points all Dave...this one isn't (unless they used a different system during the war) which certainly is possible. The bomb shackles that we used on the Lanc in the fifties used a comparatively simple electrical solenoid to hold the 'arming wire' anchored to the shackle unless it was desired to drop them 'safe' at which time the solenoid was powered, withdrawing a pin from the loop in the wire and allowing the wire to pull out of the shackle and fall 'with' the bomb. This wire (when anchored during the drop) pulls a safety pin out of the little 'arming propeller/fan' on the bomb's nose allowing it to spin and arm the bomb as it falls. So basically, you can arm them or disarm them at will. Also, a 'Coast Crossing Check Outbound' (and another inbound) was quite common (in ASW at least). Just to ensure nothing could accidentally drop from the a/c over land. -- -Gord. Hi Gord, Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time, one-way operation. Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the carrier as you described? Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
Hi Gord, Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time, one-way operation. Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the carrier as you described? Cheers, Dave No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop, In other words maybe they thought this 'safe drop' wasn't a real important feature and didn't want to endanger the mission for it's slight added advantage, If you had to jettison them because of an impending forced landing then you could jettison live over the ocean or the countryside. Perhaps Art could give us some pointers?. -- -Gord. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" wrote No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop, On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need power to energize and retain the clip and wire. The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits. Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop, On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need power to energize and retain the clip and wire. The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits. Pete Thanks Pete, I didn't know that, I wonder what the rationale would be for the change?... Could it be that during WW2 they considered it more important to avoid a failed bomb run than they do now?. Interesting indeed. -- -Gord. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Gord Beaman
?@?.? writes Dave Eadsforth wrote: Hi Gord, Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time, one-way operation. Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the carrier as you described? Cheers, Dave No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop, There's logic to that, even if it is a bit counter instinctive to the modern way of thinking. In other words maybe they thought this 'safe drop' wasn't a real important feature and didn't want to endanger the mission for it's slight added advantage, If you had to jettison them because of an impending forced landing then you could jettison live over the ocean or the countryside. I just loved that old story about the RAF bomber that returned to base after a leaflet raid in 1940. They reported to the IO that they had been attacked by a fighter and had had to jettison the bales intact rather than first cutting the wrapping wires. 'Good God,' said the IO, 'you could have killed someone!' Perhaps Art could give us some pointers?. -- -Gord. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Rear gunners don't give the instruction to weave, they give the instruction to corkscrew. 2. As above, its an area bombing mission. No issues called by more revs. Pilot will be thinking about climbing away once the photorun has finished. 3. As long as they stay on course, weaving is not a problem. 4. The mid upper gunner got the kill, but even The sound is recorded from the crew's microphones, which picksup engine noise and the brownings. But most of all the picks up the voice of whoever is speaking into them, otherwise, what good do they serve? Recording or no recording. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
King KMA 20 TSO Audio Input | tony roberts | Home Built | 10 | November 20th 04 06:06 AM |
Audio recording of RAF Lancaster under nightfighter attack | Stolly | Military Aviation | 65 | October 8th 03 01:54 AM |
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror | PirateJohn | Military Aviation | 1 | September 6th 03 10:05 AM |
Lancaster returns to AWM | Graeme Hogan | Military Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 01:08 PM |
Letter from USS Liberty Survivor | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | July 17th 03 03:44 PM |