Forum

[papasmurf]

We think it is difficult to start an Enfield:-

[Mark B]

And you think it's difficult to start a 4-engined bomber? Huh!

[Rattlebattle]

Interesting video. A friend of mine has a Lancaster bomber starter device. It generates a load of sparks as it rotates, the idea being that one will occur at the right time. Kind of hard to explain without seeing it. As for the Goldie all he needs is a Concentric. I had one on mine and providing I followed the proper procedure it started first kick. No wonder so many main stands are bent....

[jefrs]

My dad was on Lancs. As tail gunner. There's no room for a co-pilot on a Lanc so start up was similar but with less shouting. Interestingly perhaps the tail gunner had to be able to fly the aeroplane from the back seat. Like a lot of them he never talked about operations but did let slip by rattling off the load-out for Berlin and Peenemunde (fuel, bombs, crew and bullets), they preferred him to have an extra couple of hundredweight in bullets by taking a bomb out; if they carried an observer they had to lose another bomb. The Lanc could carry something like six times the bomb load of a B-17.

[PeteF]

The bomb-aimer could act as pilot in an emergency in a Lanc. as he would have received some flying training.
Bomb aimers were introduced in 1942, before that it was the navigators job to aim and release the bombs.

[jefrs]

Yes the Bomb Aimer had control during bombing runs, he was also the forward gunner. The all-important tail gunner had to be able to fly the aeroplane since he had to direct it from the back seat when under attack by commanding the pilot to move the tail around, even to roll or loop. He could not climb over the bombs to the cockpit. I don't know why dad knew the load-out so well other than his pilot probably used his brains to do the maths. Normal crew was 7 or 8 but could fly long missions with only 6 if the flt engineer and nav handled the wireless and radar. Dad would have preferred to have been on Sunderlands - because they had a toilet.