Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...



The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.


Incorrect. That would have been an excellent way of committing
suicide. One of the reasons that Lancasters flew in such loose formations
was that they were constantly weaving to uncover blind spots and spoil
the aim of any fighter.

Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:58:08 GMT, "Ed Majden"
wrote:

I expect all newly recruited pilots/aircrew would take training whether
they enlisted by coming up to Canada or going directly to Britain regardless
if they were trained.

American recruits, who normally always joined the RCAF after crossing
into Canadian territory, would receive their Elementary Flying
Training in Canada. In general the final stage of training at an
Operational Training Unit was the only one reserved for in-theatre
provision, e.g. RCAF aircrew posted to the UK would receive their
final operational training at an RAF OTU or HCU.

The only exceptions to this were a minute number of Americans who
volunteered for RAF service in the UK and were accepted for RAF
training in the UK, almost all of whom did so in 1939-40. After that
point, the majority of (but not all) aircrew were shipped abroad
(typically to Canada, South Africa or Rhodesia) to begin their
training in the EATS.

Gavin Bailey

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi

Most wanted to
be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
Wireless
Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
(R.C.A.F.).
Ed



Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
were
needed.

Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding out
his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a radio
operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long ago
you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service" were.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


Nobody got out of combat duty.

Yeah, but a while back you made the comment that all anyone who really
wanted to get *into* the fight had to do was ask to be transferred to
the fighting, and they would. And that anyone who said they missed
out on fighting due to where they were assigned at the time was
basically hiding behind an excuse. But then in this thread you turn
around and say "Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were
assigned where you were needed." So which is it? Can everybody who
wants to fight ask for a transfer and be sent there, or do people
sometimes get stuck in capacities and places that aren't in the thick
of the action?

~Michael

Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: (Michael)
Date: 2/10/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi

Most wanted to
be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
Wireless
Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
(R.C.A.F.).
Ed



Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
were
needed.

Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding
out
his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a
radio
operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long
ago
you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service"
were.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


Nobody got out of combat duty.

Yeah, but a while back you made the comment that all anyone who really
wanted to get *into* the fight had to do was ask to be transferred to
the fighting, and they would. And that anyone who said they missed
out on fighting due to where they were assigned at the time was
basically hiding behind an excuse. But then in this thread you turn
around and say "Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were
assigned where you were needed." So which is it? Can everybody who
wants to fight ask for a transfer and be sent there, or do people
sometimes get stuck in capacities and places that aren't in the thick
of the action?

~Michael


I should have said that you were assigned to the COMBAT unit where you were
needed.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Eunometic" wrote in message
. com...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...



The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.


Incorrect. That would have been an excellent way of committing
suicide. One of the reasons that Lancasters flew in such loose formations
was that they were constantly weaving to uncover blind spots and spoil
the aim of any fighter.

Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:



Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.
--


Possibly a difference in terminology between the RCAF and RAF
but I think jinking was a less violent manoeveur used
to confuse flak prdictors by making short random changes of
heading and speed

The RAF aircrew I talked to definitely called it a corkscrew
because thats what the flightpath of the aircraft would have
looked like, it involved some really radical flying for such a big
aircraft.

One gunner I talked to said that anyone who saw a fighter would
literally scream over the intercom something like
'Corkscrew port now' and the pilot would do it without question.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Corkscrew.htm

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:



Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.
--


Possibly a difference in terminology between the RCAF and RAF
but I think jinking was a less violent manoeveur used
to confuse flak prdictors by making short random changes of
heading and speed

The RAF aircrew I talked to definitely called it a corkscrew
because thats what the flightpath of the aircraft would have
looked like, it involved some really radical flying for such a big
aircraft.

One gunner I talked to said that anyone who saw a fighter would
literally scream over the intercom something like
'Corkscrew port now' and the pilot would do it without question.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Corkscrew.htm

Keith

Ok...thanks Keith, sounds right.
--

-Gord.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.

Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
jinking!

Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
aircraft.

Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.

In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
Negative G is often a component.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/11/04 7:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.

Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
jinking!

Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
aircraft.

Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.

In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
Negative G is often a component.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8



You might be interested in going to my website and reading," FLAK, EVASIVE
ACTION AND THE DEADLY GAMES WE PLAYED".


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.

Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
jinking!

Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
aircraft.

Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.

How do you tell the difference?

This is an extract from the oral History the IEEE is accumulating. In
this case an inteview with John Bryant who developed the SCR-584 radar
gun director of WW2.

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/hi...davenport.html

We learned two very surprising things: One was that we could see the
echo from the shells as they left the gun and watch as they climbed
toward the target. The most startling thing was the slow upward
progress of a shell on our scopes. It took what seemed to be an
infinitely long time and gave plenty of opportunity for the airplane
to move out of the way. There was much surprise that we could see a
shell at all. But of course the rear diameter of these 90-millimeter
shells wasn't so different from the 10 centimeter S-band that we were
aiming at the back end of the shell on its way up to the airplane. The
other thing that surprised us a great deal was the presence of
spurious low altitude signals over water which we later tracked down
to being seagulls. So the sensitivity of the unit was really quite
remarkable with our home made crystal detectors.

Before continuing I'd like to point out that seeing the 90 mm.
projectiles in flight toward the target turned out to have much more
significance than we realized at the time. Somewhat later the shells
were purposely tracked when we became suspicious that the fuze timing
seemed to be consistently in error by an amount that changed with
range. I recall that XT-1 was used to measure gun muzzle velocities
and to recheck the master ballistic tables that had been used to set
fuze timing and gun aiming. Those tables turned out to be in error for
the 90 mm,. gun. They were recomputed and all gun directors readjusted
by the time the SCR-584 went into service


In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
Negative G is often a component.

The environment is of course getting more aggresive. I recall the
Bofors's Trinity System 40mm AAA gun can fire of a series of
individualy fired shots designed to bracket the target out to 5500
meters. The shells either have electronically timed fuses or
proximity fuses. The barrel of this weapon is very precise and there
has been a return to single barrel weapons from duel barrel of late
to reduce vibration.


Oto Melera tested a few 76.2mm guided cannon shells in the early 80s.
I believe 50 yards of steering was available for each mile of range.

US work in the field (for the AC130 howitizer) uses a nose twist
steared shell instead of a fin steared shell. I suspect the
development of actuators based on electrically deformin materials such
as PZT laminates will make guided cannon shells more common.








Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8