Author Topic: Yeager on Air-to-Air Gunnery (Read 2507 times)

United · « **Reply #30 on:** June 16, 2004, 09:23:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puck
B-24 Emerson nose/ball turret. I still have his (original) gunners file from 'way back when.

Wish we had the dual speed turrets, but he always said the hydraulic rear turret was so jerky you coudn't harldy aim it.

Yep, he said that the hardest part of anything he ever did was to sit in the ball for 3-6 hours and then shoot at enemy planes, then come alll the way back the same time. But he said the ball was so much more easy to aim because it was smoother than the waist and he didnt have to hold it up the entire time.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:04:08 AM »

OT

Puck, United a site that might be of interest, http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

Puck · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2004, 08:48:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
OT

Puck, United a site that might be of interest, http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

404

The gunners file has everything you ever wanted to know about OPERATING the various turrets; from loading, prep, ingress, operation, egress, etc, etc, etc. Pretty interesting stuff. It was designed for the guys getting shot at (my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way...) Every time I visit I make sure I get a couple more stories out of him. Don't have a lot of time left.

United · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2004, 10:05:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puck
The gunners file has everything you ever wanted to know about OPERATING the various turrets; from loading, prep, ingress, operation, egress, etc, etc, etc. Pretty interesting stuff. It was designed for the guys getting shot at (my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way...) Every time I visit I make sure I get a couple more stories out of him. Don't have a lot of time left.

Thats some pretty impressive stuff there. We don't know what happened to his gunners file, lost over the years I'd guess.

Quote

my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way

Did that mean he just popped off the entire cover? or was there a second layer of regular glass beneath the bullet proof glass?

BTW, here's that link http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

Puck · « **Reply #34 on:** June 17, 2004, 11:09:59 AM »

I'm not sure exactly how it worked other than there was a removable panel of armor glass between him and the umwashed heathen hoards who didn't want him bombing them (for some silly reason, I'm sure). Once that armor glass was gone there just wasn't much between him and all the shells that tore it up in the first place.

He liked nose, ball was alright (his secondary station), tail was a beast because it was hydraulic rather than electric, and I don't know how much time he had in the waist.

After the war they transported a bunch of aussie POWs back out of Japan. To get them home they put benches in the bomb bay, which wasn't well sealed. On the ground (in the heat) they suggested these guys put some serious clothes on rather than their shorts, but they refused. Once in the air the poor guys froze their testicles off, so apparently the crew developed some sympathy and brought them up forward a couple at a time to warm up a bit.

fluffy · « **Reply #35 on:** June 17, 2004, 01:11:25 PM »

Billy Bishop and Buzz Beurling would back up Tuck and Yeager on the primacy of shooting skill as the distinguishing factor between aces and others amongst fighter pilots. Bishop was noted for being a sloppy ham fisted pilot. Beurling studied ballistics of his guns and once made an 800 yard 20mm shot on a Macchi from his spitV over Malta by accounting for bullet drop, he hit the cockpit area with 5 rounds. That kill was confirmed. All pilots mentioned here also had exceptionally good eyesight, and the ability to see in depth. Yeager and Anderson spotted GROUPS of aircraft at 50 miles - not individual ones.

United · « **Reply #36 on:** June 17, 2004, 03:07:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puck
I'm not sure exactly how it worked other than there was a removable panel of armor glass between him and the umwashed heathen hoards who didn't want him bombing them (for some silly reason, I'm sure). Once that armor glass was gone there just wasn't much between him and all the shells that tore it up in the first place.

THAT had to be cold. My grandfather always said he was freezing up there all the time because the waist was just an open hole in the side of the plane, with no glass or windscreen. Speaking of getting the plane torn up, he said one time a flak shell (I think on a mission to Iwo Jima, maybe) went through the bottom of the plane and exploded inside. There was no real explosion, and after the mission they found out it had went off inside of a gas can, and since there was no oxygen to fuel the fire it did not cause an explosion.

Crumpp · « **Reply #37 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:27:05 PM »

Yeager must have had some pretty good eyes to see around the curve of the earth.

Crumpp

Arlo · « **Reply #38 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:33:27 PM »

Earth's curvature at a fifty mile range is not a factor at altitude. Size of the object seen is.

Crumpp · « **Reply #39 on:** June 17, 2004, 07:07:43 PM »

You know Arlo as a matter of fact it is a factor.

Having stood on the Ramp of a C-130 opened at 35,000 feet it's hard to spot LARGE objects on the ground a mere 7 miles away. The distance to the Horzion only goes from about 35 miles from it's normal 24 at sea level. Could another object at 35,000 feet be under the Horizon? Possibly.....

Are you going to see it without some extreme optics?? NO

Next time you are in a commercial plane, if you ever leave your couch, at 20,000 feet try looking for a car sized object. Now take that distance and multiply it by 12.5 and you have your 50 miles.

I think Yeager might have been exaggerating just a little unless he had the hubble telescope for eyes.

Crumpp

Arlo · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2004, 07:32:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Could another object at 35,000 feet be under the Horizon? Possibly.....

No.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm

Crumpp · « **Reply #41 on:** June 17, 2004, 07:39:45 PM »

Well,

Arlo it sure does not seem that far and you sure cannot see another airplane 50 miles away.

It still stands that Yeager was exaggerating.

Crumpp

Arlo · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2004, 07:51:23 PM »

Never said otherwise. I just said that the earth's curvature had nothing to do with it. I recalled that as I sat on my couch remembering my days as a P-3 aircrewman.

Crumpp · « **Reply #43 on:** June 17, 2004, 08:45:26 PM »

Figures your an old "SEAMAN".

The Navy - 100 men go out to sea and 50 couples come back.

So you still keep in touch with your "Mates"?

Crumpp

Arlo · « **Reply #44 on:** June 17, 2004, 08:51:33 PM »

Airman ... then Petty Officer ... actually. Never went to sea. Logged many hours flying over it. Last "shipmate" I talked to was about 5 years ago. He was getting close to retirement. Asked me if there were any good prospects locally in the civil sector. I told him to shoot for the thirty year mark.

How about you? Any of your old Army buddies learn to read a phonebook?