View Single Post
Old November 15th 03, 09:31 AM
Dave Eadsforth
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a

In article , Gord Beaman
[email protected]?.? 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?



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?.




Dave Eadsforth