Audio of Lancaster Under nightfighter attack

In message , MichaelJP
writes

snip


I have to agree - only with modern DSP "anti-noise" technology could you
have filtered out all the engine noise.

Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting
script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt
to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's
speeches.

I put these points to a B/C ng group and several interesting points
emerged:

One poster said.

Quote:

Lip ribbon mics were first developed in 1937, so presumably they would
have been available for this application in the war. Not only is the
ribbon just 6cm or so from the speaker's mouth, but they have
considerable LF cutoff to counter the proximity effect. This would have
greatly reduced the very deep engine noise of a Lanc.

AIUI, aircraft comms of the day used carbon mic inserts.

The reported uselessness of the intercom does not necessarily mean that
the intercom's mics were overwhelmed with engine noise. It might have
been that the overwhelming occurred between the earphones and the ear.
This seems plausible, because the SPL of speech is much higher in front
of the speaker's mouth than adjacent to the listener's ear.

A day or two ago there was something on the telly - I can't for the life
of me remember what - in which the presenter was doing a piece to camera
in a light aircraft using a lip ribbon mic. There was very little
background noise audible.

I once did a radio interview with someone while standing next to the
main engines in a cross-channel ferry. (They have cylinders the size of
dustbins.) We were both wearing ear defenders, and had to lip read to
communicate with each other, but the speech on the recording - made
using an omni mic very close up - was perfectly intelligible. The
background noise on the tape was considerable, but the engines were
bigger and closer than those on a Lancaster bomber, and we didn't use a
lip ribbon mic.

It's also interesting to note that in the recording which contains
machine gun fire, as the Lanc shoots down a German fighter, that gunfire
is much louder than the engine noise.

On this basis, I think the Wynford V-T recording could perfectly well be
genuine.

Endquote.

He raises several very good points here, I believe.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

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

"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

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.

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

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.

"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

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

"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.

"Gord Beaman" wrote

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.
--

That's probably the case. Peacetime vs WWII mindset. Better design and
greater reliability reduces the chance of the mechanism failing, so we can
default to the 'safe' mode, and arm only on request.

Consider a training mission, with live ordnance. Aircraft has a problem, and
the pilot has to jettison the munitions. Do we jettison safe or armed? Since
we are always over friendly territory, defaulting to safe mode would be
preferable.

Pete