Page 2 of 2
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:45 am
by Puhis
ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
I think the Japanese called them flying cigars.
Actually they called them flying zippos...
Edit: Flying zippo might have been american nickname. Japanese called Bettys Type One Lighter... [:D]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:52 am
by Sheytan
Never had the pleasure of that, but while stationed in Germany I was honored to whitness a number of ground attack strikes while serving with the First Infantry Division during the Reforger excercises.
Never ceased to amaze me how low some of strike missions were, and who can forget the sound of a A10 firing its cannon. Truely awesome.
ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton
I've done a bit of low-level flying when I was much younger. If you you have the "need for speed", that's how you satisfy it!
Doing it through that kind of flak, and holding it together, takes balls of steel.
GREAT pictures!
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:54 am
by Sheytan
Pic [8D]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:01 am
by Blackhorse
Warthawgs! [&o]
An (American) tankers best friend . . . [:)]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:13 am
by morganbj
ORIGINAL: Zebedee
Spot the guy who was just pulled out of the pilot pool
Actually, it looks like two of them are going to be in the "pool" pretty soon, if they flinch a little.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:49 pm
by CEDeaton
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Never had the pleasure of that, but while stationed in Germany I was honored to whitness a number of ground attack strikes while serving with the First Infantry Division during the Reforger excercises.
Never ceased to amaze me how low some of strike missions were, and who can forget the sound of a A10 firing its cannon. Truely awesome.
ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton
I've done a bit of low-level flying when I was much younger. If you you have the "need for speed", that's how you satisfy it!
Doing it through that kind of flak, and holding it together, takes balls of steel.
GREAT pictures!
When I was in flight school in Pensacola in 1984, I recall there was a Marine that got kicked off the Blue Angels because he flew under a power line and came back missing about six inches of the vertical tailplane! Locals were'nt too happy about the power outage. I'm not really sure if they booted him because he was flying too low when/where he wasn't supposed to be, or because he made a mess of it. [:-]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:54 pm
by Fallschirmjager
ORIGINAL: NightFlyer
In this dramatic picture of Bettys at Tulagi, a couple of the Bettys seem to be flying only 4m or 13 feet above the water (the length of a G4M is 20m) [X(]
I find it odd that their seems to be no small caliber AA fire. Note the absence of any small shell splashes.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:05 pm
by bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Another...
This photo clearly shows three ships burning, but the after action report that you quoted mentioned only two ships getting hit. What's the story there?
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:12 pm
by lazydawg
ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Never had the pleasure of that, but while stationed in Germany I was honored to whitness a number of ground attack strikes while serving with the First Infantry Division during the Reforger excercises.
Never ceased to amaze me how low some of strike missions were, and who can forget the sound of a A10 firing its cannon. Truely awesome.
ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton
I've done a bit of low-level flying when I was much younger. If you you have the "need for speed", that's how you satisfy it!
Doing it through that kind of flak, and holding it together, takes balls of steel.
GREAT pictures!
When I was in flight school in Pensacola in 1984, I recall there was a Marine that got kicked off the Blue Angels because he flew under a power line and came back missing about six inches of the vertical tailplane! Locals were'nt too happy about the power outage. I'm not really sure if they booted him because he was flying too low when/where he wasn't supposed to be, or because he made a mess of it. [:-]
[:)] Even though he didn't make a mess of anything, one of my relatives had his pilots license suspended for flying his cropduster under the Mississippi River bridge at Memphis.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:19 pm
by NightFlyer
Fog of War maybe [:D]
I think they are flying so low so that the AA can't target them since they can't track so low. They would have had to pop up to a 100' maybe to launch their torps. The B25 also did pre-radar nap-of-the-earth flying for their skip bombing. I like the B25s fitted with the extra cannon for that extra touch. Apparently the whole plane shuddered when it was fired. In the pic below, the guy seems to be fidgeting with yet another add-on gun pod.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:24 pm
by SteveD64
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Another...
This photo clearly shows three ships burning, but the after action report that you quoted mentioned only two ships getting hit. What's the story there?
I think one or two of the burning "ships" are actually downed Bettys.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:37 pm
by NightFlyer
ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Another...
This photo clearly shows three ships burning, but the after action report that you quoted mentioned only two ships getting hit. What's the story there?
I think one or two of the burning "ships" are actually downed Bettys.
I got this off the
http://www.history.navy.mil site, quote:
"Photo #: NH 69114
Guadalcanal - Tulagi Operation, August 1942
Scene just after the Japanese torpedo plane attack on shipping between Guadalcanal and Tulagi, 8 August 1942.
USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) is afire in the left center. She had been hit by a crashing enemy aircraft. The other two smoke plumes mark the locations of planes that crashed into the water.
Collection of Admiral Richmond K. Turner, USN.
U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph."
Those are pretty big plumes for an aircraft and where's the second hit ship? The other two smoke plumes appear to be near other ships. This could be early kamikaze attacks...
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:13 pm
by Sheytan
Destroyer Jarvis was the only ship hit in the attack, she was struck by one torpedo. The other smoke plumes are from crashed Bettys. Bear in mind the Betty had long legs for a reason. It was a flying fuel depot. No idea what kind of av gas they used but it burns all the same.
In the photo you are quoting the USS Elliott was struck by a crashing Betty, likely the pilot knew he was going down and decided to take someone with him.
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Another...
This photo clearly shows three ships burning, but the after action report that you quoted mentioned only two ships getting hit. What's the story there?
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:43 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: NightFlyer
Fog of War maybe [:D]
I think they are flying so low so that the AA can't target them since they can't track so low. They would have had to pop up to a 100' maybe to launch their torps. The B25 also did pre-radar nap-of-the-earth flying for their skip bombing. I like the B25s fitted with the extra cannon for that extra touch. Apparently the whole plane shuddered when it was fired. In the pic below, the guy seems to be fidgeting with yet another add-on gun pod.
Bingo! They are flying lower than defensive AAA guns can depress...effectively exploiting a 'flak gap'.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:55 pm
by stuman
ORIGINAL: ncdawg
ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Never had the pleasure of that, but while stationed in Germany I was honored to whitness a number of ground attack strikes while serving with the First Infantry Division during the Reforger excercises.
Never ceased to amaze me how low some of strike missions were, and who can forget the sound of a A10 firing its cannon. Truely awesome.
When I was in flight school in Pensacola in 1984, I recall there was a Marine that got kicked off the Blue Angels because he flew under a power line and came back missing about six inches of the vertical tailplane! Locals were'nt too happy about the power outage. I'm not really sure if they booted him because he was flying too low when/where he wasn't supposed to be, or because he made a mess of it. [:-]
[:)] Even though he didn't make a mess of anything, one of my relatives had his pilots license suspended for flying his cropduster under the Mississippi River bridge at Memphis.
He is a brave man. There is not a lot of clearence there. Wish I had seen that [:)]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:41 am
by Reg
Another contemporary 'Under the Bridge' incident. Though not caught on film Robert Taylor has commemorated it in one of his art works....
Under the Bridge
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:57 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: NightFlyer
ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
This photo clearly shows three ships burning, but the after action report that you quoted mentioned only two ships getting hit. What's the story there?
I think one or two of the burning "ships" are actually downed Bettys.
I got this off the
http://www.history.navy.mil site, quote:
"Photo #: NH 69114
Guadalcanal - Tulagi Operation, August 1942
Scene just after the Japanese torpedo plane attack on shipping between Guadalcanal and Tulagi, 8 August 1942.
USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) is afire in the left center. She had been hit by a crashing enemy aircraft. The other two smoke plumes mark the locations of planes that crashed into the water.
Collection of Admiral Richmond K. Turner, USN.
U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph."
Those are pretty big plumes for an aircraft and where's the second hit ship? The other two smoke plumes appear to be near other ships. This could be early kamikaze attacks...
guess if the Betties wouldn´t be severly damaged, none would deliberetely crash it into a transport. Those pilots were just too experienced to kamikaze with an undamaged bomber when they know they would hurt the enemy more in upcoming attacks if they would be able to return.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:33 am
by jmscho
A story I once heard from slightly later than the Pacific War.
An RAF Buccaneer taking part in a Red Flag exercise landed with telegraph wire trailing from the tail. When asked about it the pilot said that he was climbing when he hit them. It was also said that the aircraft needed to climb a bit to give it room to put the undercarriage down.
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:41 am
by thegreatwent
Warthawgs!
An (American) tankers best friend . . .
We in the Light Infantry loved them also. Dragons and AT-4's didn't inspire confidence when facing armor [X(]
RE: Flying low enough?
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:09 pm
by NightFlyer
I saw two A-10s at an airshow once. Their agility and speed astounded me. Of course the whole plane was built
around the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun pictured below
There has been talk of retiring this pre-fly-by-wire aircraft, but the pilots who fly it seem to love it.
