Audio recording of RAF Lancaster under nightfighter attack

"reading.news.pipex.net" wrote in message
t...
It may be that the recording was "cleaned up" before broadcast.


Quite so

Lets not forget though that the recording was done on the night of 3/4
Sept
and broadcast the very next night on the evening of the 4th.

The aircraft would have landed around 6am on the 4th at RAF Spilsby. This
is near Skegness in Lincolnshire, around 3 hours drive from the BBC
broadcasting center in London (Crystal Palace in WWII IIRC) so the
recording
would have arrived at the studio around 9am to be generous.

That doesn't leave much time for any re-recording with actors wouldn't you
agree ? Maybe time to edit the recording but not anything else.


Recall that we are talking of an era when radio plays were broadcast
live and that the BBC had its own rather large stock company.
Even today its not unusual for voice overs to be added
shortly before broadcast.

Keith

"Blair Maynard" wrote in message
...

The sound engineer was Reg Pidsey and he used disc
recorders not a wire recorder

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet...r/wr_intro.htm

Keith


The lack of engine noise is rather odd. One would expect anybody trying to
fake such a recording would be quite capable of adding it.


Unless of course the intent was to subtract it to make the
soundtrack audible.

It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded
like
they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at
least
one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.


Or the crew were recorded using a second non-standard microphone

Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was
hooked
up to the comm system of the aircraft. And information about the comm
system
of this aircraft to see if such a conversation was even possible. The
nature
of the device could explain why the engine noise didn't get recorded.
Early
recorders were probably not very good at recording low frequency sounds.
It
may also explain why the machine gun sounds so tinny.


The equipment used was apparently restricted to the range
60 Hz to 4500 Hz

I don't think the crew was incredibly calm in that situation. They are
flying

Details of the recording equipment used are available at

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.../wr_action.htm
http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet..._recorders.htm

Keith

In message , Blair Maynard
writes

snip

It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded like
they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at least
one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.

Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was hooked
up to the comm system of the aircraft.

Basically all headphones are in parallel, aren't they? My recorder was
across my headphone feed and I got all the intercom chat.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"reading.news.pipex.net" wrote in message
t...
It may be that the recording was "cleaned up" before broadcast.


Any idea on which version of Steinberg Sound Forge they were using? :P
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3hOIFBGDfMEdHggEQKONQCglIOXAW8dDEdFzyPKkh1LFz gXyjAAn3dg
tOgMtLGX75HOpHWVaF+oLjxX
=gprc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi Keith

I'd like to know why the skipper called the Bomb Aimer a Bombaradier?

Cheers...Chris

"av8r" wrote in message
...
Hi Keith

I'd like to know why the skipper called the Bomb Aimer a Bombaradier?

Cheers...Chris


Who knows, maybe he was a Canadian ?

The term bomb aimer and air bomber were both current in the RAF
but I believe bombardier was used by the RCAF and Americanisms
abounded in slang usage even in 1943.

Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
tape.

Keith

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:50:36 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
tape.


Yes, the accents are a little too 'high spotties' in 'elexindra pillice'


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

Stolly wrote:

He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in Vietnam
around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used by
the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions over
Vietnam.

Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.

He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho" (yes
they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
ground fire this and f*cking that"

So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots experiencing
compared to US pilots over Vietnam?

Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not certain
that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.


SMH

In message , Stephen Harding
writes
Stolly wrote:

He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in Vietnam
around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used by
the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions over
Vietnam.

Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.

He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho" (yes
they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
ground fire this and f*cking that"

So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots experiencing
compared to US pilots over Vietnam?

Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not certain
that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.

The RT during the Bob was pretty rough according to some stories. To the
extent that higher command wanted to replace the WAAF operators with
men.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Probably similar amounts, since the US pilots in question were flying over
the south, as far as could be assertained.

As they got further north they couldn't be heard unless there were pretty
high.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Stolly wrote:

He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in
Vietnam
around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used
by
the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions
over
Vietnam.

Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.

He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho"
(yes
they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
ground fire this and f*cking that"

So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots
experiencing
compared to US pilots over Vietnam?

Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not
certain
that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.


SMH