B-17s at Low Level

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
might
be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
down.
You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
fired
from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?


The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.

I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Subject: B-17s at Low Level
From: Dale
Date: 3/12/04 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
might
be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
down.
You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
fired
from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?


The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.

I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?

Didn't fly 'em in the military...just did the airshow thing to impress
the chicks.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?

Didn't fly 'em in the military...just did the airshow thing to impress
the chicks.

Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Did it in 1943???

Art, were you surrounded by British babes in 1944
because you were a "bomber guy"?

Always thought that sort of stuff was reserved for
the fighter jocks.


SMH

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:


Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Usually just the transport catergoy chicks. G

But it's still a fun airplane to fly.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Did it in 1943???

From what gather, the B-17 was -the- WWII chick magnet, especially early in
the war with pilots like Colin Kelly and movies like "Air Force" (1943).

Walt

Stephen Harding writes:

Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Old joke:

Pilot: See that {pointing to Herc on the ramp}?

Spacy Babe: Yes...

Pilot: That's a C130.... *I* fly a -150....



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.

That was the Lancaster, Art.

One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that it
relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.

Walt

Subject: B-17s at Low Level
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 3/12/04 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.

That was the Lancaster, Art.

One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that it
relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.

Walt


Yeah I knew it was one of the heavies. I ferget which one.


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

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.

That was the Lancaster, Art.

One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that
it
relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.

Walt

Bomb Bay doors, landing gear and brakes were about all that was hydralically
operated on most US WWII bombers.