sunderland flying boat (origin of the name)

yes it was one of the better self defended aircraft, but like many of the
british aircraft, there was no under belly defence!
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
The Germans called the Sunderland the "Flying Porcupine"- a respected
adversery. In one engagement a lone Sunderland was attacked by eight
Ju-88 and shot-down two!!!

Rob

Yes i can actualy understand why an under belly defence position would be a
disaster on a flying boat.
But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber, especially
in the dark.
Still, the air force will have had their reasons for this at the time.
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
M. H. Greaves wrote:
yes it was one of the better self defended aircraft, but like many of the
british aircraft, there was no under belly defence!

To be fair, under-belly defence is difficult to achieve in a flying
boat without distressing consequences on landing.

The Sunderland was a quick-and-dirty adaptation of an airliner,
and as such did suprisingly well as a warplane.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In article ,
M. H. Greaves wrote:
Yes i can actualy understand why an under belly defence position would be a
disaster on a flying boat.
But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber, especially
in the dark.

In the dark - if a fighter closed then the bomber was generally gone
regardless. The best defence was speed, and the dustbin turrets in
the ventral position really sapped that. The tail turret was worth
having as it put a pair of eyes right aft (the four brownings being
less important than the pair of eyes).
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

The trade off was different in daylight, of course.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

The trade off was different in daylight, of course.



The subject of under-turrets came up in a recent thread "Has there ever
been an off-center gun?"

From my reading, only the Sperry ball turret seems to have been
successful. Periscopic arrangements didn't have sufficient field of
view, and it was very difficult to acquire the target in the sights.
Dustbins were cold and draggy, some even being open to the breeze.

In the Manchester, for example, lowering the dustbin under-turret
apparantly produced a marked change in trim, and a gunner described the
experience of manning one as like getting into a refrigerator with the
lights out.

So in addition to being a drag, the ventral positions on British bombers
weren't much good even as look-out positions.

Alan Dicey wrote:

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

The trade off was different in daylight, of course.


The subject of under-turrets came up in a recent thread "Has there ever
been an off-center gun?"

From my reading, only the Sperry ball turret seems to have been
successful. Periscopic arrangements didn't have sufficient field of
view, and it was very difficult to acquire the target in the sights.
Dustbins were cold and draggy, some even being open to the breeze.

In the Manchester, for example, lowering the dustbin under-turret
apparantly produced a marked change in trim, and a gunner described the
experience of manning one as like getting into a refrigerator with the
lights out.

So in addition to being a drag, the ventral positions on British bombers
weren't much good even as look-out positions.

Has anyone mentioned the turrets on the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-8 ??

This had 'normal' nose, dorsal,& tail turrets - but it also had two turrets in
the rear end of the inner engine nacelles.

They would have had a clear view rearwards, and being mounted out on the wings,
they also had a clear field of fire downwards.

I can't say how effective they were - the Pe-8 suffered from the lack of an
efficient engine - plus the ravages of the German attack which forced the
evacuation of of all the production facilities.

But it was an interestiong design nonetheless.

I don't have any pics of the real thing - but my modelling article on the Pe-8
is at :- http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArtic.../Pe8/index.php

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

In article ,
M. H. Greaves wrote:
you thought that was bad; the germans had belly turrets in some of the
ju52's (tante Ju, or autie junkers!!), they werent really turrets in the
strictest sense of the word, it looked like a big pail, hanging down, with a
hatch in the floor of the a/c to drop down into it, must have been bloody
cold in there!!

Not uncommon pre-war - that most improbably-looking of aeroplanes,
the Handley-Page Heyford had a dustbin ventral turret, as did a fair
few other British heavies. As another poster pointed out the original
Avro Manchesters had ventral dustbin turrets, as IIRC did some of
the first Lancasters - but they were found to be useless for defence
and worse than useless because of their effect on the performance
of the aeroplane. I don't imagine the ones on the Ju52 were any more
useful.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

yup, you'd have thought that the sperry ball turrets in the B17's and B24's
would have caused drag too, but they put in bloody big powerfull radial
engines to counter that. That said the B24 could fly at 165mph, and to get
it to fly well, it had to be flown from the step; with the tail high or it
lost alot of power and speed and (ultimately) height!!
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
M. H. Greaves wrote:
Yes i can actualy understand why an under belly defence position would be
a
disaster on a flying boat.
But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber,
especially
in the dark.

In the dark - if a fighter closed then the bomber was generally gone
regardless. The best defence was speed, and the dustbin turrets in
the ventral position really sapped that. The tail turret was worth
having as it put a pair of eyes right aft (the four brownings being
less important than the pair of eyes).
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

The trade off was different in daylight, of course.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

you thought that was bad; the germans had belly turrets in some of the
ju52's (tante Ju, or autie junkers!!), they werent really turrets in the
strictest sense of the word, it looked like a big pail, hanging down, with a
hatch in the floor of the a/c to drop down into it, must have been bloody
cold in there!!
"Alan Dicey" wrote in message
...
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and
losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

The trade off was different in daylight, of course.



The subject of under-turrets came up in a recent thread "Has there ever
been an off-center gun?"

From my reading, only the Sperry ball turret seems to have been
successful. Periscopic arrangements didn't have sufficient field of
view, and it was very difficult to acquire the target in the sights.
Dustbins were cold and draggy, some even being open to the breeze.

In the Manchester, for example, lowering the dustbin under-turret
apparantly produced a marked change in trim, and a gunner described the
experience of manning one as like getting into a refrigerator with the
lights out.

So in addition to being a drag, the ventral positions on British bombers
weren't much good even as look-out positions.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:44:52 +0000, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

[snip]

Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth

As in "Dyson Sphere?"

reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.

Is Dyson possibly the origin of the perhaps apocryphal story
concerning placement of armo(u)r on bombers? As the story goes
this individual made a careful analysis of the damage patterns
on returning bombers and reported that the best use of the limited
amount of weight allocated for armo(u)r was to put it where his
analysis showed no damage.
This, at first, seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the
aircraft he examined had survived, so it could be assumed that
there was little point in armo(u)ring the places that were damaged.
It also seems reasonable that the undamaged places he noted on
returning aircraft might be sites of increased vulnerability.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source