# BCATP Station Vulcan-Arial view of Vulcan Aerodrome



## SARgirl (30 Oct 2009)

I was out doing some SAR training recently.  While off task briefly, we just happened to fly over the old training aerodrome near Vulcan.  I was able to take seven photos in total.  I would have liked to have taken more photos (some closer up etc...), but we were on route and I only had the time it took to fly by.  What a great opportunity to see it from the air and get photos. 

It's a shame the Vulcan Aerodrome appears to be falling apart.  You sure don't see runways like that any more. 

The photos start here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=gallery&g2_itemId=16625 .

Here is a link on the same topic which might be of interest:  
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/bcatpvulcan.html

Enjoy!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Oct 2009)

The homepage of your link is a wealth of info.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/

I remember kicking the tires of the Lancaster 30? years ago.  It looks in way better shape today.

The thing that impressed me about the Lancaster was how small it was compared to todays commercial aircraft or even fighters.


----------



## mariomike (30 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I remember kicking the tires of the Lancaster 30? years ago.  It looks in way better shape today.
> The thing that impressed me about the Lancaster was how small it was compared to todays commercial aircraft or even fighters.



"The Lancaster surpassed all other types of heavy bomber. Not only could it take heavier bomb loads, not only was it easier to handle, not only were there fewer accidents with this than with any other type throughout the war, the casualty rate was also considerably below other types.
I used the Lancaster alone for those attacks which involved the deepest penetration into Germany and were, consequently, the most dangerous. I would say this to those who placed that shining sword in our hands - Without your genius and efforts we could not have prevailed, for I believe the Lancaster was the greatest single factor in winning the war." (Letter from Sir Arthur Harris to Sir Roy Dobson of Avro)

Gen. Leslie Groves, of the Manhattan Project, had this to say in comparing the Lancaster to the B-29 Superfortress re: A-bombs:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YlHDyi87AQYC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=lancaster+atomic+bomb&source=bl&ots=ZFnn9AQlux&sig=rPULoMyF6jDfofiWc3dnrbtSz2g&hl=en&ei=92DrSo7MLsPdlAfZ-pCABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=lancaster%20atomic%20bomb&f=false


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The thing that impressed me about the Lancaster was how small it was compared to todays commercial aircraft or even fighters.



I guess it was my impression.  F-18 is 56 ft length by 40 ft wingspan.  The Lancaster is 69 ft length by 102 ft wingspan.  Close - other than wingspan.

I talked to an RCAF vet who said he flew nothing but Halifaxes.  Prior to that I thought that Lancasters were universal.


----------



## mariomike (30 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I talked to an RCAF vet who said he flew nothing but Halifaxes.  Prior to that I thought that Lancasters were universal.



Compared to the Lanc, the Halifax was a deathtrap and had to be used sparingly. Harris demanded all the Lancasters he could get. He said to one senior civil servant  in charge of aircraft production, "It's murder, plain murder, to send my young men out to die in an aircraft like that!"


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2009)

Mariomike. Not calling you on the statement that the Halifax was a deathtrap, but did you see this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wXsjZbgipGsC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=halifax+bomber+death+trap&source=bl&ots=w6TVjf9Amx&sig=H-8M85pDOVuNKaNhDJKYmYBe4EU&hl=en&ei=j9HsSqSfLpDGMePltYMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=halifax%20bomber%20death%20trap&f=false

Your posts clesrly indicate you are very knowledgable re the air war, and I enjoy reading them.

Last time I was in Vulcan and Claresholm (1981), you could still see the hut outlines etc.


----------



## mariomike (31 Oct 2009)

Rifleman62, that was a rather arrogant statement I made about the Halifax, and I wish I could take it back. 
I better start reading up!
I have read you had a better chance of escaping a Stirling or Halifax than a Lancaster, but I think you had a better chance of not being shot down in a Lanc. More to come, and thanks for reading!


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Nov 2009)

When you get  chance to get inside or actually view the insides of an aircraft, you have to wonder how anyone could bail out, at night, g force, obstructions, etc.

US designed aircraft I think had more interior room. I got a chance two years ago in San Antonio to crawl around the interior of a B-17G, B-25 and a B-24. The Lancaster was much more cramped inside.

If you get a chance you should try and get to the Imperial War Museum Duxford, near Cambridge, UK:

http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.178

Absolutely fantastic as you will see from viewing the web page. The day I was there (1999), a beautiful sunny day, a Tiger Moth was doing touch and go's and a Hurricane was doing a engine test on the runway (the sweet sound of the Merlin engine).

Also go to Madingley American Cemetery Cambridge, UK WW2 US Military Cemetery: http://madingleyamericancemetery.info/

The great wall of the Missing includes Glen Miller and Lt (JG) Kennedy.

PS Did you read Virgil Byng's story here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89864.0.html


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Mariomike. <snip> but did you see this:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=wXsjZbgipGsC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=halifax+bomber+death+trap&source=bl&ots=w6TVjf9Amx&sig=H-8M85pDOVuNKaNhDJKYmYBe4EU&hl=en&ei=j9HsSqSfLpDGMePltYMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=halifax%20bomber%20death%20trap&f=false



Thank-you for that link, Rifleman62! After reading the preview, I had to add it to my collection. The book finally arrived in the mail. I would like to add something regarding the Battle of Berlin from "The Bomber Command War Diaries":
"The main battle against Berlin was not a week old before the German defences forced a major part of Harris's bomber force to be withdrawn from the front line of operations. The Stirlings, with which most of the 3 Group squadrons were equipped, had never been able to achieve the altitude performance which the other types of bombers could attain and had suffered heavier casualties accordingly because they had never received the full protective cover of the bomber stream. The Lancasters and Halifaxes were often ordered to come down lower and share the more dangerous lower height bands with the Stirlings, but when the night-fighters struck, most of the Lancaster and Halifax crews quickly climbed again. <snip about Stirling losses over Germany>  The Stirlings never flew again to Germany.
A similar fate was soon to befall those squadrons of 4 and 6 Groups which were equipped with the Mark II and V versions of the Halifax bomber. These aircraft too, suffered from having inferior performance and, after the Stirlings left, their casualties soared. <snip about Halifax losses over Germany> Sir Arthur Harris felt that he could not ask the crews of these aircraft to face the German defences again and ten more squadrons disappeared from Bomber Command's front line."

Thanks again for your reply and link, Rifleman62. As you know, I have a keen amateur interest ( not knowledge ) in the subject! They are *still* writing books about it.


----------

