Also interested to know how the wartime bomb was spun. Wiki mentions that it was spun by an "auxiliary motor" - but was this electrical? Or thermic? If electrical presumably they had to modify the aircraft electrical systems fairly extensively?

As one who knows about such things, I wasn't at all surprised that there was soliflucation around the sides of the dam - there were no discernable abutments to anchor the dam wall to the sides of the incision. Presumably these were not deemed necessary because of the err, short operational life of the model dam.

Excellent flying in that DC4 (?) - distance shots reminded me of the CP107 Argus (based on the Britannia). I remember seeing one as a cadet in the eraly 1970s.

In terms of telling the story, not as good as 1954, I thought, and with too much pretending-not-to-know-things.

But my hat is off to the good prof for getting a film company to fund him to have such fun with some big, expensive toys. :E

adr

Spinning? Top of my head - Back-spin was to be initiated 10 minutes prior to arrival at a target, and was imparted via a belt driven by a Vickers Jassey hydraulic motor mounted forward of the bomb's starboard side, the motor itself being powered by the hydraulic system normally intended for the upper gun turret, which had been removed as part of the aircraft's modification.

Wiki really. :hmm:
Bouncing bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't forget from Thursday on Freeview (38) Ice Pilots the boys from Buffalo Air and big piston engines.......heaven!

Ps but not the same as Ms York.........

Too right! Period WAAF shirt and webbing, ooh yes....;)

I agree about height keeping. Although the pilot flew very accurately, I would have thought that a rad alt might have been advisable. The weighted dangling string idea would have been just as unsuccessful as it was in 1943 when it simply flew more or less level with the aircraft due to drag on the weight and string.

Perhaps PN might remember as he was probably around at the time, but surely the Upkeep weapon was only spun up shortly before the attack run. I seem to recall having read (or maybe I saw it on TV) that the rotation caused massive vibration through the airframe when the weapon was at pre-drop rotational velocity.

Which reminds me. My Uncle Arthur was a Lancaster gunner with 630 Squadron out of East Kirkby; 32 Ops, 216 operational hours. Anyway, a few years after the war ended he and his brother, my Dad, were shooting the ‘breeze’ and I have a memory of one story from Arthur.

When 617’s first bombs were delivered to Lincolnshire they’d been transported in very substantial hard-wood cases. I seem to remember teak being mentioned. The intention was that the empty cases would be sent back to Vickers for more bombs. When nothing had arrived back Vickers telephoned to ask why.

The reason – some enterprising Scampton armourers had rapidly converted bits of Oriental rain forest into a new bar for the Sergeants’ Mess. :ok:

True? It is for me.

I think it was a submarine steering auxiliary motor, Vickers 4 cylinder.

I have read that the bomb was spun up not less than 10 minutes prior to anticipated drop time.

Several pilots commented on the severe vibration when it was spinning at 500rpm; one said it so bad he could hardly read the instrument panel.

From dambusters.org.uk:

One of the actual trial bombs is displayed at Abbotsbury Gardens and Swannery (strange place to do so, perhaps), in Dorset.

Nah... What really happened is here:

ninja lewis. It's Vickers Jassey - not Janny.

Just as well it wasn't used for real. Obviously a dud. :rolleyes:

Trim Stab. I'd forgotten how funny that was. Genius.

Or the Hollywood remake a la Star Wars/ U571 :ok:

Excellent prog...especially when you consider the dross that passes for TV these days.

I loved the "hurry and wait" bit as they went for the live drop, with associated goatf**k over the unbalanced bomb. Most on here will have seen similar during their time in the mob.

If you've not read it I strongly recommend "Dambusters" by Max Arthur, Virgin Books 2009. A gripping series of eyewitness accounts, including people like the AA commander from one of the Moehne Dam towers. What comes over in this book is not just the incredible skill of the crews, but also what a ruthless bunch Gibson had turned them into. Many of the gunners took extra ammo as a low level run in and out of Germany was just too good a "shoot em up" opportunity to be missed.

Interesting to note that Scheer never understood why they did not come back and bomb the crap out of the repairs to finish the dams off. As it was the effect on industry was negligable, but the moral boost was immense.

Didn't some of the early testing take place at Chesil Beach? Might be the link...

Newark Air Museum has one of the Upkeep test piece bombs dropped at Reculver in 1943 on display.

There is another at East Kirkby and part of one at the Petwood Hotel.

When I last visited Duxford a few years ago they had an Upkeep; maybe it's been moved then ?

The reason why the A26 was included is a mystery [other than an editor that doesn't have any interest in aeroplanes].

Vídeo en VIDEOS.es

Painful to watch.....

The DC4 pilot was a law unto himself wasn't he? Flew at a height He decided was suitable. Released the bomb late and as a result the bomb hit the dam with far too much speed and his comment at the end said it all. I would like to have seen him do the drop at night with gunfire raking the aircraft.........

"We showed those Englishmen we can hit it with the first shot."

Big mouth Captain Arnie.........

Biased because my Father worked for Barnes Wallis and Vickers during WW2

The High ball was indeed spherical been done here http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...sted-land.html

Anyone got a link to the movie mentioned in the last post.

spherical much better in theory because it has no "edge" to lead into water, and thus no chance of deviation from straight line. The levelling of wings is critical for an accurate run of a dustbin shape.

This is the only place where you will hear in one thread the word "soliflucation" and discussion of Ms York's uniform-shirt-and-stockings scene in BoB.

'soliflucation' - good Scrabble word that!

Meanwhile, I give you:


:ok:

Thank you, BEagle
 

This is the only place where you will hear in one thread the word "soliflucation" and discussion of Ms York's uniform-shirt-and-stockings scene in BoB. -- LO

Not just in combination, either. Believe it or not, it's also the only discussion thread where I've encountered the word solifluction.

adr

Maybe to make the point that dropping bouncing bombs from too low can be catastrophic - just warning that doing so may result in getting your tail feathers a bit damp might not be enough (as evidenced by the DC-4 suffering a bit of splashback on one run)...

The A26 footage showed better than any verbal arguement that speed and height were critical to safe delivery. Interestingly the DC4 was below the critical height; one wonders if they showed the bush pilot that earlier film?

Perhaps not as he might have chickened out.

The pilot was simply dangerous and placed the whole trial at risk. Interesting programme that highlighted why properly conducted trials have the safety hurdles in them that they do. Cockpit gradient too........I reckon the guy with 37,000 hours could have flown them both into the lake and the co-pilot would have kept quiet.

Charlie

"Interesting programme that highlighted why properly conducted trials have the safety hurdles in them that they do."

Interesting point, though you should note that the original trials had none of these safety hurdles either, but the programme was a spectacular success.

Misguided though he may have been, the canadian pilot had very good handling skills.

Charlie Time, totally agree ...... a terrifying old boy, and a meek lad, cringe-making.

Give me Ms York

NOW!

Why is so many "educated" people don't understand that the media (TV, newspapers, whatever) show you want they want you to see. How do you think a program about large trucks and even larger truckers driving up and down a very boring, very cold road gets on prime time TV?

Answer, clever editing and dramatic music.

Same deal for the bouncing bomb program...interesting though it was, it is the job of the editor to spice it up for the larger audience, most of whom haven't a scoopies about the safety regimes for trials flying.

Give the guy a break...he probably spent days going over the safety procedures and parameters...wouldn't have made for great TV to show all of that though would it.

PS At the risk of treading on my own point...

Re the release point and the hard impact. Yep spotted that.. I wonder if the boffin briefed effectively. His comms skills did not appear to be all that.

Unfortunately you're about 4 months too late Langleybaston.:(

I should think most FO's would be a bit meek with the knowledge that the guy on their left hand had notched up the equivalent of over 4 years in the air! Yes he cut the odd corner, but he's certainly disproved the old adage about there being no old and bold pilots.

Not in suspenders, but in the shower:

I've no idea why it shows twice. :confused:

I've no idea why it shows twice.

Skilful editing? :E

I'll get me coat.

adr

Quote:

---

Interesting point, though you should note that the original trials had none of these safety hurdles either, but the programme was a spectacular success.

---

I am not sure that is the point. Especially when you consider the video shown of aircraft crashing during the (admittedly post-war) testing.

Even if they did do safety assessments (which clearly wouldn't be shown on TV since they are generally tedious) I doubt the crew had sufficient specialist training to allow them do it correctly (evident from their actions during the testing).

Decisions like spinning up the bomb to full speed for the very next drop after a stores release hang-up (which could have ended in disaster) showed that the team were time pressure driven, on what was hardly a UOR!

However good the pilot was at flying, by deviating from the release parameters he exposed himself and his crew to unknown risk and also meant that the required data was not gathered!

If I were Dr Hunt, I would have been mightily annoyed that he ruined the only permitted opportunity to achieve the desired test point by making an uneducated decision.

That said, it was a good programme.

Fascinating viewing but that pilot's judgment was appalling. If it had been a real bomb he and his crew would be dead (on the real raid one store hit a dam in similar circumstances and went off immediately, taking out the Lanc that had released it); as it was, the splash on the live drop alone must have come pretty close to taking his tail off.

Irrespective of comments on judgement it wasn't a real bomb and was never going to be... complete non statement above :ugh:

While wikipedia etc state that a bomb contains a destructive substance and is designed to explode, the 'store' dropped from the DC4 was by modern usage a BOMB.

A 1000lb Inert Bomb, with no explosive, is still a bomb. Low altitude releases can result in bounce and the splash can down an aircraft, both shown in this programme.

Regardless of whether it was a replica explosive bomb or this scaled replica store it was still capable of downing the DC4.

Had the release mechanism of the rotating store failed is some manner it could have been catastrophic.

The Lanc that dropped the Upkeep that exploded on impact with the Eder Dam (AJ-Z, flown by Sdr Ldr Maudslay) was damaged, not destroyed. Though the damage mot likely resulted in the aircraft having to limp home as far as the German/Dutch boarder, where it was shot down by light flak. In fact I do recall reading somewhere that Maudslay was flying one of the aircraft in footage of the two Lancasters being hit by the water splash from the released Upkeep when senior 617 crews practiced with the weapon a couple of days before the raid.