P-39s, Zeros & A-24s

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey

snip

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !


We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)

Of course, you weren't flying at night several thousand feet higher (often at
contrail level) than a B-26 would be by day, and the tail turret wasn't facing into
a 180 IAS slipstream. Sometimes the U.S. heavies had the nose plexiglass (and the
cockpit windows) totally iced up as well. Flying at minus 50 to70F will do that,
even if the outside of the windows isn't iced up by flying in contrails. I've read
an account somewhere (I'm guessing in Elmer Bendiner's "Fall of Fortresses") where
he (B-17 nav) used the edge of his plotter to try and scrape the ice off the inside
of the windows in the nose, so that he could spot fighters approaching. The same
tool was passed up to the bombardier so he could clear the plexiglas nose cone for
the same reason, and maybe so he could see to bomb (can't remember if he was just a
"togglier" on that mission).

Removing the piece of plexiglass directly in the gunner's line of sight from the
tail turret on Lancs (and probably other British heavies) was, IIRC, attributed
first to Gibson's tail gunner Trevor-Roper (not Hugh, his brother Richard?), and
was soon widely imitated. It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Guy