I recall,watching a Russian Sukhov (sic) apparent defying the laws of physics.. Hard to get the head round.
from about 3:30 in this video.
I did see a seagull aiming south and flying east on Sunday at the beach in a Gale!
-
Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )
You'll like this For no other reason than it’s a great picture
- Thread starter T.C
- Start date
from about 3:30 in this video.
I did see a seagull aiming south and flying east on Sunday at the beach in a Gale!
That looks like the one at Boulmer
F-35A Lightning II on Instagram: " @airstrikeimages F-35A Lightning II - @usairforce @f35demoteam @f35jpo . . . credits: @airstrikeimages . . . #f35 #f35a #ctol #jsf #missile #sea #military #fighterjet #aviation #aircraft #lockheedmartin #leonar
239 likes, 3 comments - f35.lightning.ii on October 6, 2021: " @airstrikeimages F-35A Lightning II - @usairforce @f35demoteam @f35jpo . . . ..."
www.instagram.com
When we received the first batch of Chinooks the RAF were obviously keen to show it off. Problem was we had no aircrew experienced enough in flying it to show it off at airshows. So they drafted in a rather long in the tooth Flight Lt. on secondment from the RAAF. Before he was let loose he was tasked with providing the top brass with a demo showing how capable the aircraft was.
The story goes that after the demo, which included that maneuver, they wanted to send him home because they thought he was mad and were convinced that he must have overstressed and wrecked a brand new airframe. It took the Boeing rep to convince them otherwise.
We found out later that the RAAF jockey had flown Chinooks in Vietnam.
And that's the sort of theatre were most military personnel learn how to get the most out of there equipment.
I wondered if it was the one that Jeremy Clarkson had in his front garden….until the local planners got involved!
I once saw a Russian suckoff but that’s a different story.
Me too, her name was Slobberdown Mecockyerbitch! lol
Ok it’s not an aircraft….but it is a fantastic photo
Beaker...???
I bet it's Jaw pressure is more than 42psi
Reading a book about the Allied bombing campaign against the Axis powers at the moment - it was interesting to read that the Lancaster could carry five times as much bomb load as the B17 Flying Fortress, but this at a cost of being relatively flimsy compared to the B17 that could endure brutal damage and limp home.
Guess it’s just as well that the Lancaster was largely used as a night time bomber.
17 Images of Damaged B-17 Bombers That Miraculously Made It Home
Images of damaged B-17 that made it home by miracle
www.warhistoryonline.com
Last edited:
I think you'll find that the Lanc was every bit as robust as the B17. It had to be to carry such a large bombload.Reading a book about the Allied bombing campaign against the Axis powers at the moment - it was interesting to read that the Lancaster could carry five times as much bomb load as the B17 Flying Fortress, but this at a cost of being relatively flimsy compared to the B17 that could endure brutal damage and limp home.
Guess it’s just as well that the Lancaster was largely used as a night time bomber.
17 Images of Damaged B-17 Bombers That Miraculously Made It Home
Images of damaged B-17 that made it home by miracle
View attachment 59599View attachment 59600
The B17 was an over engineered medium bomber, designed from the beginning to survive high level daylight bombing, bombload was secondary....hence the design allows for better survivability while carrying a larger crew wielding heavier 0.5 cal and some 20mm defensive armament.
The Lanc was a derivative of a medium bomber up-engineered to be a full heavy. The concept of the Lanc was from the very beginning to be capable of carrying the most bomb load that it could on medium level night time missions. All other considerations were secondary....hence the pitiful .303 defensive armament (obsolete the moment they were fitted to the first Lancs) wielded by a much smaller crew. A lack of resources, compared to the Americans, meant that compromises had to be made in the design and so the strength of the aircraft structure was in it's ability to carry such a large bombload..... crew survivability features were not considered priority, even down to only having one pilot.
Lancs performed on many daylight raids, but due to their poor defensive capabilities they were easier prey against 20mm and 30mm armed fighters, which could attack from the extreme range of the Lancs 0.303 turrets with relative safety. Had they fitted them with 0.5 cal armament and a ball turret then it might have been different, but it would've been slower, less maneouverable and the bombload would've suffered. Plus they flew lower than the B17s, which put them in range of far more flak.
One of the biggest differences between daylight missions and night ones was the type of enemy aircraft and the tactics used. Daylight raids were up against lighter aircraft who's pilots main tactic was fast, fleeting diving attacks. Night time raids were up against heavier armed aircraft who's pilots tactics allowed for a slower, more deliberate method of attack. A single burst from a dedicated nightfighter positioned a 100m or so behind was sufficient to rip a Lanc apart, whereas it could often take several diving attacks to do significant damage to a B17.
The other main difference was in the operational heights that they flew at. The B17 could fly above the range of most of the deadliest flak. The feared 88mm had a typical vertical range of about 10,000m and B17's would typically fly at or above that. The Lanc's operational ceiling was lower, which meant that it didn't have that luxury for most of the war.
Both aircraft were excellent designs at what they did and complemented each others efforts.