![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
. 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Even though they did take a battering, They had machine guns and nice chunky
..50 cal's at that, all over the aircraft, even under neath, something the lancasters didnt have, they only had, front, mud upper and tail guns with 303 peashooters (i dont mean to demean the RAF guys, all i'm doing is comparing defences that's all so please do not take this to heart!!) The U.S. bombers went out in day light and had close mutual support one a/c from the other, where as the RAF went out singly at night and although part of the main stream, each bomber was virtually on its own really. It made sense to have less relying on hydraulics, because they could get shot out, and to get home, the odds would be against them, add to this the u/c down, and the flaps and stuff causing a hell of a lot of extra drag they didnt need guzzling up the fuel they DID need to get home. "Mark T. Evert" wrote in message ... "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Horsepower required for level flight question... | BllFs6 | Home Built | 17 | March 30th 04 12:18 AM |
Q for Jim Weir or others: solid state fuel level probes? | Charlie England | Home Built | 11 | March 12th 04 12:35 AM |
Heads up: threat level going to orange | richard riley | Home Built | 6 | December 23rd 03 10:49 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |