Well, that last clue pretty much handed it to me on a plate. So, since I don't really deserve any credit for getting it, here's an easy one. (Not that today's clues will give it away, but it will get easy pretty fast.)

Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

the Aldis gun sight?

Excellent guess, but not what I'm looking for. But that's about the right level of sophistication. Here's another clue.


Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

Hi! Thought about a drop in after a too long absence.

Sounds like you want a simple bomb aiming device like used on the Dambuster Lancasters because the computational bomb sight didn't work. But I don't know of another application of this type of simple geometric device.

Rubber bands for ,B-58 Hustler navigators. Needed to keep the Astro Navigation running :).

Nothing so far. Let's not go too far down the scale of sophistication. Here's another clue.


Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not involve flying.

Today's clue (and a revision of one of yesterday's):

Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

I'll guess Napalm - a mixture of a thickening/gelling agent and petroleum or a similar fuel for use in an incendiary device.

A quick aviation related aside. When I was taking the USAF System Safety Officer course, one of the instructors, a statistician, was also a retired USMC pilot. He flew AU-1’s (Corsairs) in Korea.

The USN was having trouble getting napalm to explode consistently because the tumbling tanks wouldn't hit the fuse. So they added more and more fuses to insure ignition.

The instructor had to point out to them that they added so many fuses that there was now a MUCH higher probability of the tank exploding on the aircraft because of a bad fuse than there was of it actually going off when it hit the ground.

Not napalm. Here's another clue. Good to see all this participation!


Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

6. The officer who thought of it got the idea from conversations he had with aircrews who complained about the shortcomings of their equipment.

Today's clue:

Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

6. The officer who thought of it got the idea from conversations he had with aircrews who complained about the shortcomings of their equipment.

7. He worked on the project on his own time, and in secret. When he had completed a prototype, he showed it to the authorities, some of whom were interested. After about a year, installation of the device on combat aircraft began.

Flares and chaff as countermeasures - instead of, or in addition to, jammers and other such smart transmitters.

Good guess, but it was a bit higher tech than that. Here's another clue.


Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

6. The officer who thought of it got the idea from conversations he had with aircrews who complained about the shortcomings of their equipment.

7. He worked on the project on his own time, and in secret. When he had completed a prototype, he showed it to the authorities, some of whom were interested. After about a year, installation of the device on combat aircraft began.

8. It used a lot of electricity, and the aircraft on which it was first successfully tested was a bomber which already had a generator.

Something magnetic to detect ...... My search words fail to get accurate results.

Hmmm. This seems to be somewhat harder than I thought it would be. Hope I don't run out of clues before the cartoon light bulb over somebody's head goes on.:) Here's today's clue:

Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

6. The officer who thought of it got the idea from conversations he had with aircrews who complained about the shortcomings of their equipment.

7. He worked on the project on his own time, and in secret. When he had completed a prototype, he showed it to the authorities, some of whom were interested. After about a year, installation of the device on combat aircraft began.

8. It used a lot of electricity, and the aircraft on which it was first successfully tested was a bomber which already had a generator.

9. Named for its inventor.

I don't think that fits many of the clues... Need more hints

Hmmm. This seems to be somewhat harder than I thought it would be. Hope I don't run out of clues before the cartoon light bulb over somebody's head goes on.:) Here are two more clues.

Looking for a piece of equipment carried on a number of combat aircraft.

1. It was somewhat low tech, at least conceptually. More like Miss Tilly's diaphragm than the cavity magnetron.

2. Two distinct varieties were produced.

3. It was needed because of a shortcoming of a much-more-sophisticated item of equipment used by aircraft doing a particular job.

4. It was developed by an officer whose day job was not technical and did not require him to fly, although he had been a pilot in an earlier war.

5. It was so effective that it forced the enemy to change their tactics.

6. The officer who thought of it got the idea from conversations he had with aircrews who complained about the shortcomings of their equipment.

7. He worked on the project on his own time, and in secret. When he had completed a prototype, he showed it to the authorities, some of whom were interested. After about a year, installation of the device on combat aircraft began.

8. It used a lot of electricity, and the aircraft on which it was first successfully tested was a bomber which already had a generator.

10. Named for its inventor.

11. Which gave it an alliterative name, like "Gatling gun," but with a different letter.

[

11. Which gave it an alliterative name, like "Gatling gun," but with a different letter.[/QUOTE]

Images for spandau machine gun

I arrived back from my hunting trip late last night. Looks like a good question, Al. How about the Leigh Light? Thanks; Ernie P.


Early air-to-surface radar sets, namely the ASV Mk. II, had a fairly long minimum detection range. Thus as the aircraft approached the target, it would disappear off the radar at a range that was too great to allow it to be seen by eye at night without some form of illumination. At first aircraft solved this problem by dropping flares to light up the area, but since the flare only lit up the area directly under the aircraft, a string would have to be dropped until the submarine was spotted. Once it was spotted the aircraft would have to circle back to attack, the entire process giving the submarine a fair amount of time to dive out of danger.

Eventually time delayed flares were developed that allowed the attacking plane time to circle. The flare was fired into the air from a buoy previously dropped by the plane. The surfaced submarine could then be seen in silhouette as the plane approached.

Wing Commander Humphrey de Verd Leigh, an RAF personnel officer, came up with his own solution after chatting with returning air crew. This was to mount a searchlight under the aircraft, pointed forward and allowing the submarine to be spotted as soon as the light was turned on. He then developed the Leigh Light entirely on his own, in secret and without official sanction—even the Air Ministry were unaware of its development until shown the completed prototype.\

At first it was difficult to fit on aircraft due to its size. Leigh persisted in his efforts to test the idea, and garnered the support of the Commander-in-Chief of Coastal Command, Sir Frederick Bowhill. In March 1941 a Vickers Wellington DWI that conveniently already had the necessary generator on board, (it had been used for anti-magnetic mining operations using a large electromagnet) was modified with a retractable "dustbin" holding the lamp, and proved the concept sound.

At this point the Air Ministry decided that the idea was worthwhile, but that they should instead use the Turbinlite, a less effective system which had been originally developed as an aid for nighttime bomber interception. After trials they too eventually decided to use Leigh's system, but it was not until mid-1942 that aircraft started being modified to carry it. Development assistance and production was by Savage and Parsons Ltd. of Watford led by Jack Savage.

Two types of Leigh Light entered operational use.
The Turret type, fitted on Wellington aircraft, was a 24 inch searchlight mounted in a retractable under-turret controlled by hydraulic motor and ram. The maximum beam intensity was 50 million candles without the spreading lens and about 20 million candles with the lens. Total weight was 1,100 lbs.
The Nacelle type, fitted on Catalinas and Liberators, was a 20 inch searchlight mounted in a nacelle 32 inches in diameter slung from the bomb lugs on the wing. The controls were electric and the maximum beam intensity was 90 million candles without the spreading lens and about 17 million with the lens. Total weight was 870 lbs.

By June 1942, aircraft equipped with ASV radar and the Leigh Light were operating over the Bay of Biscay intercepting U-boats moving to and from their home ports on the coast of France. The first confirmed kill was the U-502, sunk on 5 July 1942 by a Vickers Wellington of 172 Squadron, piloted by American, Wiley B. Howell. In the five months prior not one submarine had been sunk, and six aircraft had been lost. The Leigh Light turned the tables, and by August the U-boats preferred to take their chances in daytime when they at least had some warning and could fight back.

Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers were trialled with a Leigh Light under the lower port wing. A large battery pack for it was slung under the fuselage where the torpedo would normally be carried. The armament was a rack of anti-submarine bombs carried under the other wing. With such a heavy load performance was poor with a top speed marginally above the stall speed.

Wing Commander Peter Cundy was also given the Air Force Cross for his part in the development of the Leigh Light.

And the Leigh Light it is. You''re up again, Ernie.

Last week I watched Das Boot again and noticed that the British plane that attacked the German sub trying to get through the Straights of Gibraltar had a bright light under one wing. If it was supposed to be a Leigh light, it was an anachronism, because the Leigh light wasn't operational until 1942, and the movie is set in 1941. The plane also looked too small to carry a Leigh light. Interesting that they got to that level of detail, though, unlike certain American films which have jets at Midway and the like.

Thanks, Al. Good question. How about this pretty easy to answer question? Thanks; Ernie P.


“You go to war with the army you have”. That quote (although paraphrased) also applies to aircraft.

Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) The genesis of this aircraft was simple. How could aircraft be best used to destroy enemy tanks?

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) The genesis of this aircraft was simple. How could aircraft be best used to destroy enemy tanks?

(2) Bombing was generally ineffective; and it seemed some form of cannon would be the most effective weapon.

P-39?

I kind of hope not, because I don't have a question handy.

No, not the P-39. You can breathe easy, Al. Maybe this evening clue will get you moving in the right direction. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) The genesis of this aircraft was simple. How could aircraft be best used to destroy enemy tanks?

(2) Bombing was generally ineffective; and it seemed some form of cannon would be the most effective weapon.

(3) Unfortunately, most available cannons were designed to be used against enemy aircraft, and were simply too small to be effective agaiinst the armor of a tank.