Talk:Westland Lysander/Archive 1

Archive 1

Total Lysander production

Hmm, my data says that around 1,650 were built including 225 in Canada, and that the numbers are a little unclear as a number of aircraft were cancelled.--MoRsE 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• My data (Knightly, James. Westand Lysander. Redbourn, UK: Mushroom Model Publications, 2006. ISBN 83-917178-4-4., pages 110-112) says 1672 built for the RAF and 150 for foreign air forces (and those 150 do not include aircraft diverted from RAF stock)1672 plus 150 = 1822. Dirk P Broer 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Westland Lysander aircraft profile. Aircraft database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

I do not know anything about this aircraft other than what I've been reading here. Here is a link that was included in the now deleted Lysander monoplane article, I will leave it to some more knowledgeable to determine veracity for inclusion. --Born2flie 09:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Beach head defense

Plans were underway to produce "beach head defense" retrofits of the Lysander in order to bolster the bomber force that would be thrown at a Sea Lion type invasion force. These included the mounting of two hispano cannons or adding stub wings carrying 9kg bombs (increasing the overall bomblet load). This is the same project that lead to the Delanne.

Anyway, it is a very interesting note in the history of the Lysander that could be added.

S! --Avimimus (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Special Duties

I am sure that the section on the Special Duties section contains three factual errors, the first is that Special Operations Lysanders operated on moonlit nights, in fact their operations were planned around the moon almanac. The aircraft generally only carried one passenger, but was capable of carrying two reasonably comfortably, and in some cases actual carried three and four passengers in extreme discomfort. Finally their flare paths were lit by trained operatives using just three torches in an L shape, the pilot would line up the aircraft to land on the long length of the L. The source for this information is a book called they landed by moonlight by Hugh Verity, who was the commanding officer of the Special Operations Squadron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.52.130.179 (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! If things need correcting and you've got the reference for it, make the changes! The article is your oyster Emoscopes ^Talk 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The article requests a citation regarding drop-tanks. The photo top left shows a Lysander with the drop-tank fitted. The image at the top left shows the fixed ladder in flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.220.55.100 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Undercarriage extrusion

I think that the undercarriage member was extruded from Hiduminium and not Elektron. (Hiduminum is an aluminium alloy a bit like Duraluminium, Elektron is a magnesium alloy) Have a look at this advert in Flight from September 29. 1938 (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%202735.html). Were later ones manufactured from Elektron? Does anyone have any data that supports the use of Elektron in the Lysander?

KreyszigB (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ISTR that Elektron was used. if so then I suspect the British-manufactured aircraft used Hiduminium, Canadian ones Elektron, but I may be wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft: RCAF 1589 (India)

This article implies that India did not have any surviving Westland Lysanders at this point, and that they traded a Lysander for a Liberator because India did not have any Lysanders on display and Canada did not have any Liberators. "In 1967 Air Chief Marshal (now MIAF) Arjan Singh and Air Marshal (later re-designated Lieutenant-General) E M Reynolds arranged for a Canadian-restored Westland Lysander to be gifted to India, and an Indian-restored Liberator to Canada. The two air forces had both operated these types, and were fortuitously able to fill gaps in each others’ museum inventories."

If this is true, then the Lysander on display at the Indian Air Force Museum must be the one traded with Canada.

However, I'm not sure if this source is strong enough to replace the [Citation Needed] tag with it, so I'll just leave it here for future reference.

Edit before I even posted this:

I have also found another source, this one is probably strong enough to replace the citation needed tag, but having never edited a Wikipedia page I am hesitant to do so.

This is an excerpt from 'Canadian Warplanes' by Harold Skaarup:

"Displayed as IAF 1589. Mk. IIIT (Serial No.1589) on display at the Indian Air Force Museum (IAFM), Palam, New Delhi, India, was traded in 1967 for the Liberator now on display at the CAM in Ottawa, Ontario."

Dj jg (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Take-off run

The take off run in the the article is listed as 279m to 50 feet. On List of STOL aircraft it is listed as 165m. The article also says "the aircraft's exceptional short-field performance enabled...." - but if it is 279m this is not exceptional - compare with the Auster or the Fieseler Storch. I suspect that for the clandestine insertion flights, the key point was the combination of high cruising speed with reasonable short field performance.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at the sources listed in List of STOL aircraft, looks like that article either lists a different way of measuring the take-off run ("unstick" vs "distance to clear an obstacle"), lists stats for a different Lysander version (I vs Mk III), or both. And "exceptional" can be an subjective term - if the main point of the sentence stays the same, I wouldn't worry about removing it. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but List of STOL aircraft has a column heading "Take off to 50ft" - so one of them has to be wrong. Do you have access to the source for this article to double check the figure shown here? Incidentally, reading [1], it appears that the Lysander was not that fantastic an aircraft, as it had insufficient elevator control. I presume that this translated into the lack of manoeuvrability that contributed to their high losses (compare with the Auster when they encountered enemy fighters: fly low and slow circles, ideally round an obstacle like a wood on the top of a hill). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

In List of STOL Aircraft, I was looking at note 40 [2]. Under Lysander 1, it says "Lysander I could clear a 50ft obstacle in 230 yards, the unstick run itself being only 165 yards." So maybe its the 230 yards (690 ft) stat that should be cited in that list - I'll change that article to clarify. I do not have access to the source listed in this article, but because the articles discuss two different versions of the aircraft, it doesn't hurt my head that the numbers a little different. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted and thanks for making the appropriate edit to the STOL list. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to the wide speed range of the aircraft, and large changes in trim when the flaps and slats were automatically extended, the Lysander was designed to be flown at low speed using the tailplane trim wheel for pitch control in addition to the stick. To have made the elevator responsive at the very low speeds required would have made it too powerful and sensitive at high speed. The Storch and Auster AOP were light aircraft, the Lysander, with 800 hp, most definitely wasn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.221 (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Picking up on the last comment - the significance of comparison with the Auster and Storch is not the type of aircraft but the role it was intended to fulfill. The Lysander turned out to be the wrong design for artillery spotting (which is the major Army co-operation role) - see the comments by an Air Observation Post pilot.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Surviving Aircraft: RCAF 2363 (Canada)

This aircraft had been restored to flight but was damaged during an outing several years ago. I was at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum when the Chief Pilot was called away owing to the aircraft having had an unscheduled landing "in a field." It is now marked "Under restoration to static" (emphasis added) on the CWH website. Userboy87 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)