Timeline for Can the dome gunner on a B-17 Flying Fortress shoot the plane's tail off?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:37 | comment | added | John K | If you fish around on the web you can prolly find a Sperry or Bendix operating manual. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 15:55 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @supercat This comment by Gary Kindel indicates that the shadow was substantial. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 15:51 | comment | added | Wayne Conrad | @supercat A good way to deal with a related question like that is to ask it as a separate question, but in the question body, link to the related question/answer. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 15:06 | comment | added | supercat | @FreeMan: It is sufficiently related to this question that if anyone would know the answer, I would think it should be included in an answer to this question. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 14:58 | comment | added | FreeMan | @supercat you'd be amazed at the knowledge and mad Google skillz of this community! Also, just because it's only interesting to you doesn't mean it's not a good question. It would also be interesting to me, and a lot of others would read it and think, "Huh... that's a good question! Wish I'd thought of it!" | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 14:55 | comment | added | supercat | @FreeMan: I would expect that anyone with information about the size of the "shadow" would also be reading this question, and many people interested in this question would be curious about how accurately the shadow produced by the mechanism matches the shadow produced by the tail. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 14:53 | comment | added | FreeMan | @supercat - that's a great new question - why don't you ask it! | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 14:46 | comment | added | supercat | How large was the "shadow" created by the cam mechanism? Did it create a "safe area" for ememy aircraft, or was the area created by the cam not really any bigger than that created by the tail itself? | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 13:45 | comment | added | Wayne Conrad | @JohnK Would this then be accurate? "Because the top turret gun had an interrupter mechanism, it could not shoot the airplane even though it could aim at the tail. However, the waist guns, which had no interrupter mechanism, could be aimed at the airplane. Therefore, the waist gunners were the only ones who had to worry about hitting their own plane." | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 13:35 | comment | added | John K | The only gunners that had the ability to shoot directly into their own airplane's structure were the waist gunners. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 13:20 | comment | added | Wayne Conrad | It's this statement that I'm confused about: "Waist gunners were the only ones who had to worry about hitting their own plane." I wonder if John meant to write "were not the only ones." | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 3:45 | comment | added | Jihyun | @WayneConrad as far as I know yes the B-17 specifically did have such a feature in the top gunner position. I think that's what John K meant, but there are bombers with such positions that did not have any such mechanism, ahem some German bombers. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 23:21 | comment | added | Wayne Conrad | Didn't the top turret gunner also have the potential (if there were no interrupter mechanism) to shoot part of the plane, as shown in the question? | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | ivanivan | Not just gunners hitting friendly air craft - the bombs themselves have hit planes flying below them as well. Recall watching old WW2 documentaries w/ various gun cam footage and seeing it happen... | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 18:26 | vote | accept | SnakeDoc | ||
| Sep 24, 2018 at 17:08 | history | answered | John K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |