I heartily agree. I've loved that plane since I was a kid. It's still number one in my book.
Posted on 09/02/2012 8:54:46 AM PDT by Windflier
I hadn't noticed that until someone pointed it out upthread. I've got to agree. That one element of the story can't possibly be correct, although I don't think it detracts from the meat of the report.
The Boeing B-17 is still one of the toughest war birds ever built.
I don’t think it was a question of workmanship as much as design. A lot of American World War II aircraft were sledgehammers, the P-47, the F-6 Hellcat, all the Boeing bombers. The Lancaster was mostly used for night bombing for a reason, they simply would not have survived daytime flying over Germany.
The Lancaster was an impressive weapon and superbly flown and employed, but it was nowhere near as rugged as the B-17.
In that book there is a account of a B-17 landing in England
with no crew aboard. It touched down near a British AA battery.
The first people to access the aircraft got the engines shut
down by trial and error. And while in the plane noticed that
what they thought to be parachutes still in the plane. Turns
out that what they thought to be parachutes were actually
protective bags for the chest type chutes. The crew had bailed
out over the channel with the auto pilot on. The engines
were not making enough power for them to get home so they
bailed. I guess that the engines either picked back up again
or the reduced weight, the crew having left the airplane was
just enough for the plane to get back to England, by itself.
Mike
I heartily agree. I've loved that plane since I was a kid. It's still number one in my book.
Thanks for adding that clarification to the story, DC. Much appreciated.
It seems I was off a day on the book title. It is Actually
titled “Black Thursday”.
Mike
Windflier, thank you for posting this.
You are welcome. Thank you for posting the pictures of
Aluminum Overcast!
Can’t have a B-17 thread without pictures.
Mike
You bet, GF. My pleasure.
http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php?topic=11523.0;wap2
Is a more plausible account. BTW, I believe that the B-17 owned by the Collings Foundation, of Stow MA (about 10 miles from where I sit) is another B-17, renamed and renumbered in honor of this veteran, not the same airframe.
The B-17 waist gunner also acted as photographer and was supposed to take pictures of anything interesting that he saw.
BTW, this waistgunner http://www.harvardpress.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Print.aspx?tabid=2190&tabmoduleid=7735&articleId=8853&moduleId=3353&PortalID=0
saw an FW-190 fly in formation with his B-17 on his first mission, he snapped a picture of it, then proceeded to shoot it down. A strange war.
Yeah, I noticed that there wasn't much in the way of eye candy on the thread, so I grabbed those two shots from my bookmarks.
England? One would think that a bomber damaged over Tunis wold have flown to a base in Malta, Algeria or Libya.
Yet another astute observer. That inconsistency got sorted out on the thread.
Don't know why, but this reminded of a Twilight Zone episode (ball gunner, no landing gear).
5.56mm
Yes, a much better account. The mission logs of the 97th BG show that the mission of 31 Jan 43 was to Bizerti, and the mission of 1 Feb 43 was to Tunis.
Right. I remember that television short. I think Steven Spielberg produced it. What a story.
Agree, still a remarkable story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.