Shows how much the BBC check their stories this morning (Sunday) there still claiming the lanc will be in the flypast. :ugh:

Every cloud though, Ds....It still allowed them to slip in the de rigueur comment about the Bombing Offensive.

"Unfortunately no Lancaster in the RAF Flypast"
'No, but at least the Fighters will still be here'
"Bomber Command of course very controversial still".
'Yes, especially given the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in February'

Something has to be done about the BBC and its predictable prejudice. Having grudgingly concluded that the British war effort as a whole was vital to the defeat of Fascist tyranny, it satisfies itself with making an enormous part of that effort an exception, ie that of Bomber Command, whilst always regretting the 55573 deaths that it cost of course.

That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.

Chug, IMHO you are absolutely right-BBC twisting the history again

A National Broadcaster not proud of its Lancasters?

Ridiculous!

The Lancaster Bomber- D-Day's Workhorse - The National - CBC Player

15 mins HD - Some good in-flight shots, and interviews

Notwithstanding rewriting history [NAZIS ....... never Germans] the BBC trendies had a rough Election night, I bet!

Tough.

****e Ory.

It seems the comment about Fighter Command stayed in, but comment about Bomber Command edited out of the repeat just now

The comment about Dresden was made by the co-commentator - a representative of the Imperial War Museum and not a BBC employee.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.

Don't be. The line before was very BBC, and invited a response confirming the suggestion. I'm under no illusions that the Bombing Campaign is seen as a blight on our otherwise supposedly honourable conduct of the war. You can find it expressed by historians, educationalists, polititicians, clergy, and of course broadcasters. They are all wrong in my opinion. You must fight a war to win, and to win it as quickly as possible lest you might lose it.

I'm also under no illusions that my views are not held by all who post here. No problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that a national broadcasting organisation, funded by taxation, takes a detached view of "the British", as the BBC does. Does it ever contemplate its own name, and what it should mean?

Is the damage really going to be that bad ? Surely that bit of metal called a firewall will have served its purpose to a large extent ? Certainly the cabling etc aft the firewall looks in good condition, so maybe ( fingers crossed ) its an engine / bearer change and some rewiring.

These days they tend to follow civil standards so yes, plus it depends on parts too.

there'll always be at least two schools of thought chugalug

Geoff Taylor (The Hollow Square and Piece of Cake) had a kind
of day of reckoning much later. He had bombed Dresden.
Interviewed twenty years ago on the ABC he said he believed
the fire bombing of innocent civilians was akin to the committing
of atrocities.

This short film is a good reminder of the deaths, the wholesale
destruction and the mental torture. Rollo Kingsford Smith was a
nephew of Charles Kingsford Smith. Rollo became head
of the Hawker de Havilland company in Sydney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6aPUMv6tk

There were quietly ropeable, disgusted responses from RAAF aircrew based in PNG during the war, after they had watched an ABC doco on the campaigns centred on Milne Bay. The script and the delivery of the commentary pissed them right off due to the gross assumptions made by latter day 'experts' who obviously did not think it obligatory to research the subject thoroughly before talking with those who were there, right in the midst of the Japanese onslaught. So callow were some of the questions asked, the tendency was likewise, to switch the idiot box off.

fantome, as I said previously, I have no problem with differing views on the RAF's Bombing campaign, or for that matter any other contentious matters. If the BBC simply stuck to reporting such differences, then again no problem.


The problem is that the BBC has corporate views and sees no problem in expressing them, whether it be politics, military, industrial, economic, or half a hundred other topics. That may be acceptable for commercially owned channels and newspapers, but it is unacceptable for a corporation that is funded out of our taxes. The only views that we should hear from it are reported ones. As it is the daily grilling of those being interviewed by its aggressive presenters tell us far more about the views of the latter than the former.


Interesting that the reported exchange that I and others object to has been edited out of the repeat. Wasn't something we said I hope?

Controversial? Absolute horse****.

The UK has been able and willing to inflict nuclear retribution on its enemies for the last 60 years or so. The U.S. actually did!

I fail to see the difference between firebombing an enemy city and nuking it, in terms of civilian casualties.

If you don't want that to happen, then play nicely at the outset, or the big boys will come and kick your arse right out of the playground.

I can but agree with your succinctly expressed views R280. What really gets my goat is when the blame for the Offensive is placed on Bomber Harris, with the quickly added view that the crews had no option, as though they were mere enslaved automatons. They were all volunteers and many who were not selected for Bomber Command wished to be part of it.

Of course Harris made blood curdling speeches about reaping whirlwinds. That was his job, to put fire in the bellies of his crews. It's called leadership. Similarly he tried to inflict as much damage on the enemy with as little damage as possible to his own side. That was his job. Hence BC flew at night, hence area targets, hence cities.

It is ironic that because it flew by night BC was unescorted, whereas the USAAF was eventually, by day. Hence the latter could target the more predictable and therefore well defended "panacea" sites such as fuel plants. Fighters started to move the goal posts, whether Mustangs by day or Bf 110s by night. When the fuel ran out so did the latter.

As it was the war was carried to the enemy by day and by night for most of the war. Speer said it was another front, certainly it made D-Day possible which in turn liberated Western Europe. I'd say that was something to be proud of. If the BBC doesn't agree so be it, but might I suggest that it is time it keeps its harping on to itself from now on? Then I will, I promise. :)

Why don't you guys say whom you are quoting when you quote? If it's too technically difficult for you, do feel free to ask.

Apart from whatever outrage the BBC has caused, it's funny to note that both ends of the political spectrum appear to be equally outraged. That either means they just piss everyone off just for fun or they're pretty even.

It is their role to report and, sometimes, that means expressing views (not necessarily those of the newscasters) that you don't like.

If you think there's a corporate conspiracy going on there, you have no idea how any journalism works. British television and radio enjoys the services some of the world's best journalists. The suits in the office upstairs don't send them little notes telling them to ignore all the research they did (in some war-torn arse end of the word, for example) and instead substitute some fictitious party line. The professional journos would have left years ago if that were the case.

To talk of a nuclear offensive or defensive as an effective response
is to open again that huge can of worms where the pragmatists
have to repeat ad nauseam that once those warheads are fired off
to their targets , you know what?

THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROW

Sorry I cannot get upset over all of these so called "experts"
I tend to look at them and wonder how would they feel standing inline for a shower at Belsen, or being beaten to death in Burma.
I often wonder if put in that situation with the means to defend themselves would they roll over and die, or fight to survive.

As for Dresden, well Dresden would still be standing if they hadn't started a war against us in the first place, and their memories seem to forget the likes of Coventry.

Firstly, I'm delighted that what could have been a much more significant incident was handled so well. I hope and trust that such an important part of our history is back up in the air, where it should be, as soon as possible. Aviation is never entirely safe, but the risks in flinging a Lanc the best part of a century old about the sky are quite something - as are the reasons it's done

As for the debate over the morality of the bombing campaign - I don't think this will ever be settled, not in our lifetimes nor for some time after that. I can see the arguments from all sides, and I know enough not to know the answer. History is like that. That people are still engaged and discussing this is a good thing: I would hate to live in a culture where strong views and conflict in good faith were taboo or outlawed, and that I don't is absolutely a result of sacrifices made before I was born.

But I must defend the BBC.It has faults. It can be rancid. It also has special responsibilities. I work for it from time to time and know many people in it, and some of them have themselves been in great personal danger while doing their jobs. Most, in fact the vast majority I know and work with, are passionate about fairness - while knowing it's impossible to hit the mark every time; there's no Spock-like path to making perfect editorial decisions - and unlike many other areas of the media it's actually part of the BBC's official remit to be fair. I've seen complaints, some of a frankly farcical and trivial nature, go all the way up to the very top, with a lot of work and distress attached, because the complainant refused to accept any findings until all options were completely exhausted. If you do think Aunty's being unfair and want to prove it, then while I can't guarantee that your complaint will be dealt with to your satisfaction, you can at least expect it to be taken seriously if you're prepared to make it seriously.

Which is a long-winded and pompous way of saying that despite knowing quite how wretched it can be at its worst, I'm proud of being a very small part of what it does. We'd be a lot poorer without it. By all means damn the organisation, but please remember - a lot of good people try hard to make it better, every day. Perhaps those who've worked for other places with a public duty and that attract criticism will recognise that state of affairs...

Fair comment SLF

Thinking of the wide variation in attitudes to warfare it behoves to
spare more than a passing thought for those who fought with
the pity of war, the suffering, deeply impressed in their minds.
If responses are without compassion then nothing of lasting value
has been learned.

Take Wilfred Owen as a case in point. He was the greatest of the poets of the First World War. His death in battle a few days before the armistice
was an incalculable loss to the section of society that is concerned with the causes and the effects of war.

Owen found his voice in the trenches. His poems combine bleak realism with
indignation and compassion. For many he shaped their response and attitude to war.

My sources tell me that the whole wiring loom for the wing will have to be replaced. Sounds like a long downtime but a huge well done to the crew for getting her and themselves down safely.

That wouldn't surprise me, dependant on where it has disconnect plugs. I did wonder about the engine control runs too.

I would guess theres more joints in them, as for wiring as it a wartime design I would think the only joints would be at the wing roots.

Looking at pictures of the engine bearers showing the heat they have had on them, I would say they are probably scrap, I don't know if the BBMF hold such as spares but I believe Just Jane after NDT'ing some they aquired from Canada were looking at having to produce new items, that in itself I imagine will bring up its own problems with Material specs etc....
And that is just one component in a long list of possible damaged parts.

If I was a betting man and allowing for the possible downtime, I would say the sensible option would be to bring the planned 2016 rebuild forward, break it into sections, (they were probably going to have to do that for the inspection anyway) and truck it down to Duxford, you will then be able to kill two birds with one stone, you can progress the repair / overhaul of the aircraft, whille you source / sort the parts needed.. the fly in the ointment for that though is probably hangarage, as I believe they were going to build one to do the overhaul in.

Judging by these pics off twitter it had breached the lower firewall and one image online I have seen shows two trails of white smoke from both engines, so one wonders if it was drawn into the leading edge by the airflow from the inner engine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEgkRhEWYAEnoCr.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEgkRhIWoAAvu_y.jpg

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bbmf

It could hev been worse......
 

I am greatly relieved that this engine problem and emergency landing happened so near to base and that a suitable runway with fire crews were available. (And appears to have been well handled by the crew.......)


It could have been so much worse had an emergency landing not been possible very quickly and I shudder to think what would have been the outcome had V-RA (the Canadian Lanc) had a similar experience in transit to the UK last year.


The crew's only option then would have been to ditch or bail out.


I hope the damage is not going to be either too costly or too long to repair and hope to see her flying in 2016.


MB

IIRC, we carried parachutes but didn't fly high enough for them to be effective.

I wonder if they now have the use of the quick opening ones, I know there was a rush of operators to buy them after the successful bailing out of Big Beautiful Doll at Duxford, that was 500 foot with opening about 250!!!.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...-vintage-plane

The Bearers are steel and may need a bit of heat treatment. The cowling frames are L72, if I remember rightly, and might need a bit more work.

Jack Currie
 

In my late teens and early twenties I had the privilege of serving Jack Currie (and friends) his regular pints of IPA, and the occasional Guinness, in The George Hotel (Easingwold)...

His tales, regaled first hand were even more inspiring even than when read from the books - several of which I have, signed of course!

Nutloose I would imagine Strong Squadron Parachute were uppermost on the agenda after BBDs crash. Possible Integration issues and an OEM change in the published lowest safe operating height of the current chute probably meant no changes for the fighters, as realistically they could zoom climb in most instance's. As for the Lanc, at the time,I believe the chutes were dummy packs, although this may well have changed with MAA involvement. Probably.

I would be amazed if they can do that.

Hopefully, as the Vulcan is grounded after this season, it would be nice if the supporters that have spent millions of there hard earned money on 558 will transfer their support to another worthy Avro renovation - Just Jane !
Perhaps we would be seeing 2 Lancasters flying together again, for longer than only 8 years.

Around 1980 ish, I was the gang boss on a Field Repair Squadron (successor to 71 MU) team who undertook the refurbishment of the wings on PA474. It was a major task and gave me 50 or more technicians and the full support of Abingdons Station workshops. I believe that Abingdon workshops in those days were one of very few allowed to manufacture replacement primary structure for aircraft repair. It took 6 months, and, the wings were stripped to the bare spars, with a complete replacement of each removed part manufactured, on site at Abingdon by station workshops. It was decreed during the repair that all removed items, once duplicated, would be placed in a "cage", and would be sliced up, mounted and sold as souvineers at future B of B displays. I know for fact that certain Canberra bits ended up in the mix. The point is, PA474 has wings, circa 1980, not 1944. Engines and wiring looms are replaceable, the airframe is obviously replaceable. What matters is what that aircraft represents, and that's our respect for a very brave generation of people who, nightly, put their lives on the line to maintain our freedoms and rights when threatened by the Nazi omnipresence. It's a shame that most of what they fought for is being given away by modern politicians that have no conception of service to the country. Whatever the cost, PA474 should be repaired and restored to airworthiness, if only to reconfirm our gratitude to those that gave so much for us. Sorry about the rant, I truly believe the aircraft represents an enormous effort by men for our common good.

Smudge :ok:

So it's your fault.......


Totally agree 100%, the only thing it's going to take is time and sadly money.

Agree with you again Nutty, I wonder if there's the will to pay for the recovery cost? I truly hope so. Certainly, as with the wings, Britain still has the capability to replace damaged structure with "new build" even if the RAF don't. One other interesting fact about PA474. Whilst doing the job on the wings I was informed by my BBMF contact, one Pete Rushen, that the undercarriage was not the original Lancaster one, but a Lincoln undercart. So, with a blend of Merlins across the wing, a mainplane built in the the 1980s and an undercarriage from a later, version. Replacing damaged components should not bother anyone. I'm sure British engineering industry could swing behind any appeal for help, and PA474 can be restored to flying fettle in short order.

Smudge:ok:

The warbird industry did rebuilt LF363 after its fire at Wittering so I'm sure its not beyond all hope.


Just so long as they don't ************ to pay for it


V1

Smuj,

It's not just the wings which are relatively recent. Some time ago, I was involved with a task at DSDA Ashchurch to identify and value shed loads of equipment ( most of it ancient ) which had been consolidated from various storage depots, one of which was RAF Stafford. Among the items were two virtually brand new jigs which had been manufactured in the early 80's for the fabrication of Lancaster tail assemblies.
Due to the effect of RAB, to avoid them being scrapped, arrangements were made to have them moved to RAF Coningsby.
Must try to find the pics taken at the time.

Cpt Pugwash,

Sir, fully agree with your post and thank goodness that the transfer was made to the correct unit. A slight divergence if I may. I was posted to RAF Waddington, to head up the change from Vulcan to Nimrod AEW. No, I wasn't the station Ccommander, just a lowly Sgt rigger, given the Hydraulic Bay as his prize. We received the ubiquitous Mk1 hydraulic rig, suitably primed with OF4 oil, not OM15. On opening the rear stowages on the rig I found trays of adapters, wrapped in grease and waxed paper, labelled Halifax, Mosquito, Stirling and Lancaster. God knows how old that hydraulic rig was, but it's link to aircraft that had historical significance was certainly clear. The Nimrod AEW story is not for this thread, but our Mk1 Static Hydraulic test rig certainly deserves a mention.

Smudge:ok: