Circus, Ramrods, Rhubarbs & Sweeps July 1941

[timothy]

The FAQ!! What favourite??

I know that so many would opt for the Spit but, really, it's horses for courses. In the early days, yes. But then things like the Sea Fury & Tempest II took ones fancy.

The P47 & 51 - with their comfort zones & ability to SMOKE in them -!!!- the first for dive bombing, the second for getting home low & slow in the clag. And for ferrying Parry's Gin in overload tanks in India!!

The Typhoon was a thing one loved to tame. The 190 & Zeke obviously had the quickest flip of them all.

I loved them all!!

= Tim

PS I'm working on the photo.

[Franek Grabowski]

Several pilots I know and knew complained about a rather limited comfort of the Spitfire, especially lack of anything in kind of air conditioning. Others complained about a rather cramped cockpit of the Hurricane, and I suppose it was the same with the Typhoon, seeing a cockpit section in Duxford.
190 and Zeke, where have you been flying them? Also, I see you have been flying U-2 in Russia, any comments on the bird?
All the best

[timothy]

First - see my PM - I've tried twice today to mail you the photo without success.

Then -

1. Comfort, Cramped, Air Conditioning. Someone has to be joking?? We did not build for comfort - just for economic efficiency - not for people pleasure. I never felt 'cramped'. In fact, it is always said that, in the Spitfire, you were a part of it. Certainly no ashtrays as in US versions, where you were almost a passenger!! And why more space? To lay back in? OK - on a many hour sortie into Germany, yes. Otherwise?? Air Conditioning? You mean Climate Control? We had it. The higher you flew the colder!! Did any WWII aircraft actually have it? More money than sense? The Typhoon? Acres of room!

2. 190 - Tangmere 1945. Zeke - India 1945.

3. U-2? Caveat - 'Ooh dvah' or 'oochebney'. A biplane ambulance - rather like a pregnant Fox Moth!!

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by timothy

First - see my PM - I've tried twice today to mail you the photo without success.

Reply send.

1. Comfort, Cramped, Air Conditioning. Someone has to be joking?? We did not build for comfort - just for economic efficiency - not for people pleasure.

Well, it everything goes for combat efficiency and is a simple calculation of cost of an airman and an aircraft. Even such a simple thing like a floor could save one's life if he dropped his maps. Perhaps British industry did not calculate in the way?

I never felt 'cramped'. In fact, it is always said that, in the Spitfire, you were a part of it. Certainly no ashtrays as in US versions, where you were almost a passenger!! And why more space? To lay back in? OK - on a many hour sortie into Germany, yes. Otherwise??

I suppose it depends on size of a pilot. I know the taller ones complained a lot about it. I think it is more in ergonomy than actual space available. The one did not need a lot of room in Fw 190 as he had everything in the right place.

Air Conditioning? You mean Climate Control? We had it. The higher you flew the colder!! Did any WWII aircraft actually have it?

I believe American and German fighters had a regulated ventilation. Am I wrong?
Several veterans I have talked to, complained that it was really tiring during trips to France, when they had to change altitude several times, and it was not possible to have a proper set of clothes. I think such a 1,5-2 hrs ride could have been enough to get a cold.

More money than sense? The Typhoon? Acres of room!

Well, I am not sure if I would fit into the cockpit and I do not feel oversized! Nonetheless I get your word onto it.

2. 190 - Tangmere 1945. Zeke - India 1945.

Thanks. Was it a pleasure flying?

3. U-2? Caveat - 'Ooh dvah' or 'oochebney'. A biplane ambulance - rather like a pregnant Fox Moth!!

By ambulance do you mean it had an enclosed back cockpit or rather two containers on wings? Later known as Po-2, we still have few flying in Poland. It is interesting to note, that this 1926 design originated from Avro 504!
One more thing, a BoB Hurricane veteran once told me that they were faced with the choice of using fuselage tank first, risking explosion of fumes in case of direct hit, or to keep it full as long as possible risking severe burns. Do you remember such discussions?
Best wishes

[timothy]

Yes, Franek - maybe I was a little flippant in my cups last night. We would have loved some creature comforts. On patrol at 30,000' in '41, my fingers were so numb I could not change to reserve fuel & had to return to base. I subsequently trialled the first pair of electrically heated gloves in service. Heaven!!

Yes - a floor would have been a joy, even to keep the grit out of your eyes when inverted! But we were unquestioning in the early days - just so thrilled to have such fine aircraft. And refinements? In part due to having our backs to the wall, & materials & capacity being short, whereas others had time to think & the capability to produce? And, as you suggest, lack of imagination?

Yes - I would have loved a cockpit like the P47 - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...4/RAF2/p47.jpg - but I still felt more of a passenger than the main cog. And how did we cope in our toy aircraft without all those switches??

190/Zeke? Most memorable was their rate of roll.

Y2? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...F2/y2Small.jpg

Fuel tanks? Perhaps something that was learned later through bitter experience.

= Tim

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by timothy

Yes, Franek - maybe I was a little flippant in my cups last night. We would have loved some creature comforts. On patrol at 30,000' in '41, my fingers were so numb I could not change to reserve fuel & had to return to base. I subsequently trialled the first pair of electrically heated gloves in service. Heaven!!

That is the thing I cannot understand. Technology was just there and it was not any state of the art, nonetheless it was not introduced immediatelly, when needed.
Nevermind, I am just noting facts, and actually I am more interested what was actually a necessary equipment and not luxury. Just an interest in engineering issues.

Yes - a floor would have been a joy, even to keep the grit out of your eyes when inverted! But we were unquestioning in the early days - just so thrilled to have such fine aircraft. And refinements? In part due to having our backs to the wall, & materials & capacity being short, whereas others had time to think & the capability to produce? And, as you suggest, lack of imagination?

Grit? Tools were the problem! One of the Polish pilots almost passed in the cockpit, when hit by a mutter, during cleaning it in the air. Some Frenchman must have left it in the new Curtiss Hawk. Reputedly this happened with several worn and overhauled aircraft.

Yes - I would have loved a cockpit like the P47 - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...4/RAF2/p47.jpg - but I still felt more of a passenger than the main cog. And how did we cope in our toy aircraft without all those switches??

Well, it was a perfect aircraft for long range sorties. You had a plenty of switches to play with, and could have a walk if too tired!
But was it efficient dog fighter? I assume you mostly flew it as a ground attack aircraft.

190/Zeke? Most memorable was their rate of roll.

Personally I am impressed by the range of Zero, but I understand you have not flying it so long. Was not the cockpit a little bit small? The one flying currently in the US has its seat moved a little bit backwards.

Y2? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...F2/y2Small.jpg

Oh, a version with a cabin on the back of the fuselage. I liked the Soviet sollution of flying with CoG moved backwards in ambulance/transport variants. Just press the stick a little bit forward. Is not it simple?

Fuel tanks? Perhaps something that was learned later through bitter experience.

The man told me in regard of his downing that occurred on 5 September 1940. I was just wondering if it was widespread belief.
All the best