A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

B-17s at Low Level



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 13th 04, 12:35 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

. 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
  #3  
Old March 14th 04, 05:16 AM
Mark T. Evert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 14th 04, 11:36 AM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.