[Milsurplus] LF in a B-17?

[Mike Hanz]

Jack Antonio wrote:

>Was LF (200-500) ever used in day to day combat 
>ops in the 8th AF?
>  
>

I haven't seen any combat freq allocations in that region /except/ for 
emergency use over water.  That doesn't mean they don't exist - just 
that my sample is agonizingly small.

>I was wondering, because, I don't feel the
>use of trailing wire antennas would be
>very practical in combat box formations.
>  
>

Heh...the mental image of all those aircraft trailing long wires with 
lead weights is somehow very amusing - like a big jellyfish...  I'm not 
sure why you would need LF in that situation - lots of folks around you 
and the command channels to relay problems (if there was time.)

>But then, if LF wasn't used, did the 8th
>AF heavies have the BC-306, TU-26, and trailing
>wire antenna system even installed?
>  
>

Beyond the basic question, I'm not sure there was a 1:1 ratio between LF 
transmitter usage and long wire usage, Jack.  The liaison antenna on a 
B-17 was resonant on the order of 4 MHz, IIRC (- probably don't), but I 
seem to remember stories about radio ops letting out the trailing wire 
antenna to better hear HF stations on the way back, when formations were 
a great deal less organized than when they were going to the target.  
Also useful when the liaison antenna was damaged.  The mission orders 
(today's ATO) would have the freqs to be used in emergencies - sometimes 
they're recorded in the radio logs for a flight in a particular 
aircraft.  I don't have any for the ETO, just the Pacific, but that's 
where they reside.

>Or, did they have the LF gear installed, and
>use it for emergencies on 500KC. Somehow
>this doesn't sound too practical either.
>  
>

I'll admit that if you were over the narrow English Channel it might not 
be particularly practical, but there were long overwater flights to the 
north (Iceland, Murmansk, etc.) where communicating with ships might be 
useful in an emergency.

>I can see that in the Pacific theater, LF would
>be more useful.
>  
>

Yup.  Just slightly more water under you, on the average.

>Just curious
>  
>

Hmmm, whatever happened to that cat that expressed the same thought?  :-)

73,
Mike