# The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2019)

Okay, so I thought instead of continuing to hijack the other thread, I'd make a new one, because despite my objection to the initial suggestion (and I'll reveal why soon) whykickamoocow's thoughts on this are intriguing and have some merit, and have obviously sparked a bit of discussion. So, could a Lancaster be used and was it really considered for dropping nuclear weapons against Japan?


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 4, 2019)

It is an intriguing idea. I'm stepping way out of my already limited knowledge here but it would seem that weight would be the deciding factor. That is either it can lift the payload or it can't. Other hurdles would be easier to address I believe.
As far as the Lancaster actually being considered for this task when I read one of the other posters mention that in the other thread that was the first I had ever heard of it but I did for sure find that interesting.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It is an intriguing idea. I'm stepping way out of my already limited knowledge here but it would seem that weight would be the deciding factor. That is either it can lift the payload or it can't. Other hurdles would be easier to address I believe.
> As far as the Lancaster actually being considered for this task when I read one of the other posters mention that in the other thread that was the first I had ever heard of it but I did for sure find that interesting.



The weight would not be a factor, considering that the weapons weighed 9,700lb (Little Boy) and 10,300lb (Fat Man).

Lancasters carried the Tallboy (12,000lb) and 12,000lb HC Blockbuster bomb (12,000lb) with just the addition of bulged bomb bays to clear the bombs. 

Lancasters also carried the Grand Slam (22,000lb) and Upkeep (9,250lb, not including bomb bay gear to spin it). 

Carrying the Grand Slam required extensive modifications, including removing turrets and the bomb bay doors. But it was twice the weight of the A-bombs.

Upkeep was 60" long, the same as the width of Fat Man's tail. It was also 50" in diameter. Overall it was similar in size to Fat Man. But it did hang in the breeze, and required modifications to the bomb bay, including removing the doors.

Little Boy was similar in size to the 4,000lb HC "cookie" - 28" x 120" (30" x 110" for the "cookie").

The Lancaster was considered to carry the initial nuclear bomb, the Thin Man. This was the same diameter as the Tallboy and 12,000lb HC bombs. In terms of length, Thin Man was slightly longer than the 12,000lb HC bomb and about 1m shorter than Tallboy.

To carry this the B-29 would need extensive modifications, the possibility of which was not certain at the start of the project. The Lancaster was brought into consideration if the B-29 could not be modified appropriately to carry the bomb. In the end it was possible and the Thin Man bomb turned out to be a failure, so was never used.


The main deficiencies of the Lancaster were its range, altitude and speed.

The Lancaster could not have dropped the bombs from the base used by the USAAF for the missions. But there were closer options had the need arised, such as Okinawa.

Speed and altitude were more of a problem. The Lancaster I/III's ceiling was in the low 20,000ft range. Not even 25,000ft when unladen, IIRC. But there were the Lancaster VI and Lincoln I which had two stage Merlins, which would have improved the height and speed at which the bomb could be carried.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

Tinian was selected because it was out of reach of nearly all of Japanese airpower.

The base had to be completely free of threat and Okinawa and other islands closer to the home islands routinely came under attack.

Little Boy was dropped at 31,000 feet (9,400m) and Fat Man was dropped at 30,000 feet (9,144m) - the relative airspeed of either B-29 was 200+ mph (322kph) at the moment of release.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Hmmm yep, I'd not heard of this either and would like more information. The biggest drawback in my opinion is the distances that needed to be traversed whilst carrying a sizeable load. Aircraft and engines suffer accordingly owing to the humidity and wind at altitude also plays havoc on range in the Pacific theatre. The Brits carried out long range trials in the CBI theatre during the war, but the loads carried to achieve good range were significantly less than what would have been expected from the same conditions as in Europe.

The answer, as had been pointed out in the other thread was in-flight refuelling (ifr). Tiger Force was going to carry out ops using Halifaxes, and Liberators operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd, but by August 1945, the RAF did not have one single aircraft in service that was capable of ifr. I have not seen a timeline which shows when such a capability was to be introduced, or indeed when Tiger Force was to be declared ready.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

LancTest Beds

A couple of pictures of saddle tank trial Lancasters on this page.

I believe they were designed for operations in the far east.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The main deficiencies of the Lancaster were its range, altitude and speed.
> 
> The Lancaster could not have dropped the bombs from the base used by the USAAF for the missions. But there were closer options had the need arised, such as Okinawa.



Correct, as was Iwo Jima, which was used as an emergency landing base by the B-29 units, and was in use from around April 1945.

Having looked at data produced by the A & AEE, the Lancaster would not have been an ideal choice as even from the closer bases, it's performance whilst carrying a heavy load was indifferent at best and under the conditions in the Pacific, i.e. humidity and high winds at height, would have conspired to ruin the best estimates calculated in British skies.

Owing to the special nature of the modifications required to carry a nuclear device, i.e. removal of turrets and armour plating, as well as having the device protruding below the bomb bay, thereby increasing drag, it's worth looking at trials by aircraft modified for special use. In April 1943 Lancaster I ED825/G with no mid upper turret and modifications to carry the Upkeep mine was evaluated. Take-off weight was increased to 63,000 lbs whilst carrying 1,774 gal of fuel and 11,500 lb bomb. Range suffered compared to standard aircraft, at 1,720 statute miles, or 1,290 practical miles (whatever that means). Max level speed was reduced to 256 mph TAS at 11,000 ft whilst carrying the bomb.

This performance rules the Marianas out completely and also casts a shadow over plans to use Iwo Jima and Okinawa, taking into consideration the conditions encountered in theatre. That 1,290 practical miles would definitely shrink, making ops from both bases by similarly configured Lancasters a risky proposition.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

In regards to the Lancaster VI, it may have seemed impressive on paper, but it was actually problematic in it's performance and was withdrawn from service in late '44.

In anycase, I would think that the Lincoln may have been the better candidate with it's better performance and lift/ceiling abilities.

This, of course, is assuming that the B-29's alternate, the B-32 wasn't up for the task.
The B-32 was pressurized, had a ceiling of almost 31,000 feet, max load of 20,000 pounds and was capable of almost 360mph at 30,000 feet.

There was also an alternative that's overlooked: the XB-39. It was an inline powered version of the B-29 and had a max load of 20,000 pounds, top speed of 405mph and a ceiling of 35,000 feet...


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

In April 1945 Lancaster B.I (Special) PB955 was evaluated and its specific air range was calculated with a 22,000 lb bomb fitted. The report contains the following: "The results of the specific air range determination, corrected to ICAN standard conditions and to the mean weight of test to 64,000 lbs... At this weight, the optimum specific air range under ICAN atmospheric conditions at 15,000 ft in FS supercharger gear is 0.99 air miles per gallon. This is obtained by using full throttle and adjusting the RPM to give an ASI of 175 mph. A speed increase to 190 mph causes a 3% loss in range."

A chart on the report shows a consumption figure of 0.96 AMPG for PB995 and 0.99 AMPG for similarly configured PB592, both at a weight of 68,500 lbs.

Report here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PB995_Position_error_and_range.pdf

At 1,774 gallons of fuel, (I don't have fuel load for a B.I (Special) other than the Upkeep aircraft) at a weight of 64,000 lbs and a AMPG of 0.99, its range is 1,756.26 miles. At the same fuel load at a weight of 68,500 lbs and an AMPG of 0.96, its range is 1,703 miles. Again, these figures are in European conditions, not subject to the humidity of the Pacific, which would undoubtedly lower these range figures.

These confirm what I've been saying; the Lancaster, carrying such a weapon couldn't do it safely. Also, look at the height and speed figures. 15,000 ft at a speed of 175 mph. The Short Stirling was being shot out of the sky at an alarming rate by flak in 1941/42 at this performance. Suicide for a bomber over a heavily defended target in 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> LancTest Beds
> 
> A couple of pictures of saddle tank trial Lancasters on this page. I believe they were designed for operations in the far east.



Trials were carried out with such an aircraft in India and the results were promising. The trial involved an aircraft fitted with Merlin 24s and dummy saddle tanks to establish the feasibility of ops in high temperatures at 72,000 lbs. With a full fuel load of 3,154 gallons, a maximum range of 3,470 statute miles was attained - this was carrying a bomb load of 6,000 lbs. This range figure would decrease substantially with an 11,000 lb (or more) load owing to the need to remove fuel to maintain max take off weight.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

Bit of a repost from the other thread:

Operation Catechism (sinking of Tirpitz)








Lancaster Is with Merlin 24s
12,000 lb Tallboy bomb
all-up weight of 68,500 lb
round trip of about 2,400 miles

In early 1945 Lancasters with +18 lb boost Merlins were cleared for 72,000 lb.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Yup, in Europe - again, ignoring the humidity and the effect it would have on performance and the high winds at height prevalent in the Pacific. Look at the figures I've provided.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

Some figures I have re: tropical summer conditions -

Lancaster at 66,500 lb

_ICAN_​_FS gear - 2350 rpm - 4.6 boost - 214 mph - 212 gal/hr - specific air range 1.01 ampg_​​_Tropical Summer_​_FS gear - 2450 rpm - 4.7 boost - 209 mph - 222 gal/hr - specific air range 0.94 ampg_​​_An increase in the weight to 68,500 lb (95% of 72,000 lb) would decrease the specific air range by about 2% but would not appreciably change the optimum ASI._​
Where does that get our 2,400 mile Lancaster trip? Japan still seems to be in range.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Where does that get our 2,400 mile Lancaster trip? Japan still seems to still be in range.



Yes and no. Again, in order to maintain MTOW of 72,000 lbs something has to give. Either fuel or load. If you want 2,400 mile range, you can't carry the big bombs. If you want the big bombs, your range decreases to impractical levels. Again, what impact does this have on speed and altitude performance? Like I said, at 15,000 ft at a speed of less than 180 mph over Japan?


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> _Tropical SummerFS gear - 2450 rpm - 4.7 boost - 209 mph - 222 gal/hr - specific air range 0.94 ampg_



This still only gives us a range of 1,667.56 miles on a fuel capacity of 1,774 gallons. Again, less than what I calculated above, although speed has increased, as stated in the report, with a corresponding loss of range.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

2,400 miles was done at 68,500 lb (12,000 lb Tallboy). With more fuel available with 72,000 lb I think there's plenty of room for some higher throttle/rpm flying. 

Nagasaki/Kokura are less than 500 miles away.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> 2,400 miles was done at 68,500 lb (12,000 lb Tallboy). With more fuel available with 72,000 lb I think there's plenty of room for some higher throttle/rpm flying.



Again, completely ignoring the figures I've just posted and the conditions in the Pacific.

Presuming you are flying direct from Okinawa to Nagasaki and back (say, around 1,000 miles), the range figures under realistic conditions might just be feasible, but there's just not enough meat in the sandwich for any kind of diversion depending on conditions. Also speed and height to enable best AMPG at MTOW make this a suicide mission over heavily contested airspace.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

I read your figures but I can't make out where a 2,400 mile North Sea flight gets hacked down to 1000 miles from Okinawa (with a few thousand pounds extra fuel).


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

Remembering that the return journey is at much less weight, so ampg will increase as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

I keep seeing Okinawa mentioned.

We all realize that the missions were flown from Tinian Island, a round trip of nearly 3,000 miles to and from target, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

Can the bombs not be deployed from Okinawa?


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Dave, the Lanc doesn't have the range to fly from Tinian. Okinawa would be the only realistic option. RAF Tiger Force was looking at Okinawa as a base for ops with Lincolns and Lancs, but the A bombs were dropped before this plan got underway.

Tiger Force (air) - Wikipedia

The other problem with using the Lanc and indeed the Lincoln as nuclear bombers is the fact they could only carry the Little Boy. Fat Man was, well, too fat. This severely limits the flexibility of the mission. Fat Man ws ordered into production, Little Boy was initially unique, although after the war production on a limited scale was undertaken, but not to the same numbers as Fat Man. Also, timewise, the Lincoln entered service in August 1945 with 57 Sqn receiving 3 of them (!), so that rules it out of the equation if the original timeline of this is to be honoured.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I read your figures but I can't make out where a 2,400 mile North Sea flight gets hacked down to 1000 miles from Okinawa



Like I said, according to the figures above, at MTOW and the corresponding fuel consumption figures, range decreases significantly. Flying 2,400 miles at MTOW means no big bombs in the Pacific. Your load carrying capability shrinks to make up for fuel load. From Okinawa to Nagasaki return is around 1,000 miles. 

But again, as you have ignored the situation, you'd be flying at an altitude of 15,000 ft at a speed of under 180 mph to get the best out of your performance, which is crazy in 1945.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

I can't see range shrinking that much based on a 0.07 ampg difference.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 5, 2019)

If I was looking for an alternative bomber to use then I would use the Vickers Windsor.
Vickers Windsor - Wikipedia
It was pressurised and had a range of 2890 miles with 8000 lbs of bombs in the Merlin 65 powered variant. There were better higher altitude Merlin engines in the 70 series that could have been used if necessary. It had a remote control rear facing armament of 4 20 mm cannon. So you could fly from Tinian, bomb Japan, land at Iwo Jima to refuel and then return to Tinian which is a range of about 2400 miles on the first leg of the journey IIRC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Feb 5, 2019)

Measured distances from Google Maps:
- Okinawa (Kadena)- Nagasaki: 420 (statute) miles
- Okinawa- Kokura: 510 miles
- Okinawa- Hiroshima: 590 miles
- Okinawa-Tokyo 930 miles
- Iwo Jima-Tokyo: 760 miles

For comparison: London-Berlin, 580 miles

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 5, 2019)

Timppa said:


> Measured distances from Google Maps:
> - Okinawa (Kadena)- Nagasaki: 420 (statute) miles
> - Okinawa- Kokura: 510 miles
> - Okinawa- Hiroshima: 590 miles
> ...


Using a Lancaster would be daft when the Japs can get to the altitude needed to intercept them. You need a pressurised high altitude bomber like the Windsor which the Jap fighters can't rise to, to intercept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Can the bombs not be deployed from Okinawa?


In my limited reading on the subject, Okinawa was not a good choice because it was still too close to Japanese airpower. The atomic bomber and it's support structure had to be totally safe from enemy harassment or attack. So in reality I believe as a base for atomic attack, Okinawa is out of the picture, you have to do your calculations based on flying from the Tinian airfields.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2019)

If the Lancaster or Lincoln was _suitable (_possible is different) for dropping atomic weapons the RAF sure wasted a lot of time and effort in the early 1950s with the Boeing Washington






The US "loaned" 88 B-29s to the British starting in 1950. They equipped 8 bomber squadrons and one electronic recon squadron. 
They were replaced by Canberra's and the first British V bombers. 

Most of the aircraft the British got were end of war production that had gone into storage upon completion. There was no big money deal (Boeing had been paid years earlier) and the majority of the aircraft were returned to the US as British built planes took over. This was during the Korean war so nobody in the US was looking for any "make work" deals either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Dave, the Lanc doesn't have the range to fly from Tinian. Okinawa would be the only realistic option. RAF Tiger Force was looking at Okinawa as a base for ops with Lincolns and Lancs, but the A bombs were dropped before this plan got underway...


Right, but as I mentioned before, Okinawa was still within reach of Japanese attack elements.

A considerable amount of shipping at Okinawa came under suicide attack, both by sea and by air as late as August '45 - USS La Grange, 13 August, two kamikazes inflicted serious damage.
In addition, airfields were attacked, both conventionally and by Kamikaze aircraft well into summer.

There was also Operation Tsurugi, which was a very real threat right to the end of the war and included a somewhat successful attack on Okinawa in May by the Gerestsu Airborn Unit (of the 1st Raiding Regiment).


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 5, 2019)

I could be off here, but I recall the altitude and speed were critical factors for the aircraft dropping the bomb to get away from the blast shock wave. At 15,000 feet and 175 mph, might this put a Lanc in jeopardy? 
Just thinking out loud here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

Exactly. All this discussion of weight is un important. The 509th practised the wing over and high speed get away for nearly a year. How would any of the Lanc mods or the lincoln or even the B-32 have handled these maneouvers from altitude and the shock wave the way the B-29 did?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

special ed said:


> Exactly. All this discussion of weight is un important. The 509th practised the wing over and high speed get away for nearly a year. How would any of the Lanc mods or the lincoln *or even the B-32 have handled these maneouvers from altitude and the shock wav*e the way the B-29 did?



From my earlier post:


GrauGeist said:


> The B-32 was pressurized, had a ceiling of almost 31,000 feet, max load of 20,000 pounds and was capable of almost 360mph at 30,000 feet.


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

The B-32"s pressure system was crap. That's why it was removed and the aircraft planned for low level missions. The structure was weak or light and when bellied in broke in three pieces.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 5, 2019)

What im getting from this verry interesting discussion is like with most things the answer is not so cut and dried.
Seems like it lies somewhere in the middle.
Could the Lancaster have done the job nearly as well as the B29? Sounds like not but if there were no other option and push came to shove could the Lancaster have done it albeit with more risk to the crew and mission in general? Sounds like yes.


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

Refer to two books on the B-32. Both are a good read and both are named "Consolidated B-32 Dominator". The long read is by William Wolf and is comprehensive. The short read is by Harding & Long. Simply put, it is really a good thing we did not have to depend on the 32 and didn't have the 29. A interesting side note is the Convair model 39 was to be their entry to airlines competing with the Connie and Boeing and Douglas. Two were built and eventually used by the Navy for about a year. I still haven't found accurate dimensions .


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

The allies, although I am not in their long range plans, Planned the invasion of Kyushu Nov of 45. That would have given closer bases. Back in 1960 I read parts of the 12 vol. (I think) which gave the plans f;or the invasions of each island. The last was scheduled for spring 1947 if memory serves. If the Japanese had not quit and the Emperor told them to stop fighting, there would have been problems and encounters for years. The atomic weapons prevented many casualties. Consider the PTSD if young 18 year old allied soldiers had to kill young boys, girls, and old people armed with sharp sticks and swords. I am glad that Japan is today an ally and not still an enemy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 5, 2019)

The B-29 was able to exploit the "High Fast" corridor. Yet the Japanese fighters could labor their way up there, but it was only worth making the effort for a formation. They pretty much had given up on the weather and photo birds. Low and slow would have been a suicide mission with a really irreplaceable weapon. Failure, of even one of the missions would have seriously impacted the effect which finally persuaded surrender. 

The B-29 was long considered to be developed into the delivery vehicle. I suppose in what if's that some other plane would have been developed, wait a bit and B-36??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

special ed said:


> The B-32"s pressure system was crap. That's why it was removed and the aircraft planned for low level missions. The structure was weak or light and when bellied in broke in three pieces.


The only B-32 that crashed due to equipment failure, was 42-108472 who's nose-gear collapsed during a rough landing.
And yes, the B-32's pressurized system didn't work, but then again, how would that stop the B-32 from conducting it's mission?
The B-17 and B-24 could operate at the same high altitudes and they weren't pressurized...


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

The B-29 had been envisioned as the delivery vehicle from it's beginning. Before the tide of war turned in Europe, that conflict was considered a target before Japan. I can not put my hands on the source, as Katrina caused a move and my books are no longer on shelves in my house but stacked in the shop, two B-29s were flown to the 8th AF in Britain for alleged mechanic familiarization. The purpose was to allow German recon to see them. Not long after, the Germans began high altitude development of recip engined fighters. This didn't hit me until I read the Encyclopedia of Russian aircraft and found their tests of Me-262 and Jumo 004B didn't get enough air at altitude.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

The idea for the B-29 goes back to the late 30's and came into being in 1940. It became accelerated when the need arose that the US needed to have the ability to attack German targets in Europe and Britain if Britain failed to hold the line.
The B-19 would have been an ideal candidate, but was plagued by delays and assumed obsolescence amd the B-29 project over-took it.

In regards to an Atomic delivery platform, the Manhattan Project got underway full-scale in 1942, two years after B-29 construction began and when the Atomic project started, they had only a vague idea of what form the bomb would be. It would be in 1943, that they first started testing bomb shapes.

And for the record, the Me262 had a max. ceiling of 37,000 feet, and could have easily overtaken and downed a B-29. Even the Ar234 was capable of an altitude of 33,000 feet. The B-29s that visited England in 1944 and the accompanying misinformation ruse, were aimed at demoralizing the German public - keep in mind that no Allied bombers had encountered the Me262 yet, but they would in a few short months...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> So, could a Lancaster be used and was it really considered for dropping nuclear weapons against Japan?


 
According to James Gibson - History of the US Nuclear Arsenal - Bison 1989.....yes.


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

A couple of quotes from the Wolf B-32 book. "Even after the post-Pearl Harbor Japanese successes American long term air strategy focused on Europe. Both the B-29 and B-32 to be deployed to Europe. AWPD-41 (15 Dec 41 and AWPD-42(9 Sep 42) After which, they would be transferred to Pacific bases." In Feb 45 acting Chief of Air Staff Brig. Timberlake stated" The B-32 in its present form is not an acceptable bomber." Lt Gen kenney overruled him because of time and money invested, and because the B-29 had already been sent to the Pacific. By August 45 the first B-32 units were sent to Okinawa but enroute The Atom bombs were dropped.


----------



## special ed (Feb 5, 2019)

Those 1946 training flights in Alaska would have been for possible Russian intervention as the was with Japan was finished by then.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Right, but as I mentioned before, Okinawa was still within reach of Japanese attack elements.



Yup, which makes the time period of mid 1945 completely unrealistic. Tiger Force was just not ready by that time and the Lanc was just not a good choice from a performance angle, which meant that Okinawa was likely the only choice of base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Graeme said:


> According to James Gibson - History of the US Nuclear Arsenal - Bison 1989.....yes.



Hmmm interesting. Would like to know more specifics about this, such as, which bomb was it meant to carry and how - we know that the US wanted the same bomb crutches that were fitted to the Lanc for carrying Tall Boy for carrying Thin Man, so was it Thin Man that was to be carried - only choice, really, and what of targets? Which targets did they specify for the Lanc?


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmmm interesting. Would like to know more specifics about this, such as, which bomb was it meant to carry and how - we know that the US wanted the same bomb crutches that were fitted to the Lanc for carrying Tall Boy for carrying Thin Man, so was it Thin Man that was to be carried - only choice, really, and what of targets? Which targets did they specify for the Lanc?



As I said before, the size and shape of the Thin Man bomb was problematic for the B-29, but not the Lancaster.

You say that Thin Man was the only choice, ignoring that Little Boy was similar in size to the 4,000lb HC "cookie" which was dropped by the Lancaster by the thousand. 

Fat Man would have been problematic for the Lancaster only in that it would have swung in the breeze.

Consideration for the Lancaster probably never got to the point where targets were planned.

And Thin Man never really worked, so was cancelled.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmmm interesting. Would like to know more specifics about this, such as, which bomb was it meant to carry and how - we know that the US wanted the same bomb crutches that were fitted to the Lanc for carrying Tall Boy for carrying Thin Man, so was it Thin Man that was to be carried - only choice, really, and what of targets? Which targets did they specify for the Lanc?



According to Wiki, the bomb release mechanisms used to hold the Thin Man in the B-29 were faulty, so British type bomb systems were adopted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> You say that Thin Man was the only choice, ignoring that Little Boy was similar in size to the 4,000lb HC "cookie" which was dropped by the Lancaster by the thousand.



I'm not ignoring that the Lancaster might have been able to carry Little Boy, but was it really considered, is my point, and if it was, I'd like to know more. At the time the decision was being made about the Lanc being a nuclear bomber, what ordnance was being considered? Can you provide any evidence that it could actually carry it other than that it might be suitable because it looks and weighs about right? Evidence is key here, not just hypothesising because it looks right.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

What was the impediment to carrying Little Boy in a Lancaster?

No, I don't think the Lancaster was seriously considered beyond the initial bomb (Thin Man) and probably not after a B-29 was successfully modified to carry that shape (the first Silverplate B-29).

FWIW, all the subsequent Silverplate B-29s used the British single point release mechanism, as used for dropping Tallboys.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> What was the impediment to carrying Little Boy in a Lancaster?



Could you read what I said, wuzak? Did I say there was impediment to it? I want evidence that it was considered, not just hypothesis based on shape and weight.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

The original questions were: "So, could a Lancaster be used and was it really considered for dropping nuclear weapons against Japan?"

The answers to those were Yes and Yes.

But it was only seriously considered for Thin Man, and only because the size and shape of the bomb required significant modifications to the B-29. 

It was not considered for Little Boy or Fat Man because B-29s could comfortably carry them in the forward bomb bay, with the addition of a new rack and release mechanism.

I never said that it was considered for those, but I did say that it was possible.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Could you read what I said, wuzak? Did I say there was impediment to it? I want evidence that it was considered, not just hypothesis based on shape and weight.



This is the part I was responding to when I asked "What was the impediment to carrying Little Boy in a Lancaster? " 



nuuumannn said:


> Can you provide any evidence that it could actually carry it other than that it might be suitable because it looks and weighs about right? Evidence is key here, not just hypothesising because it looks right.



So here's the evidence.
Little Boy was dropped from the same mechanisms used in Lancasters to drop Tallboys.
Little Boy was about 10" (254mm) smaller in diameter than Tallboy and quite a bit shorter.

Little Boy weighed in at 9,700lb compared to Tallboy's 12,000lb.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Thanks wuzak. I would like more information about the Lanc being considered; it seems to have eluded virtually everyone whose written a biography about the Lancaster, possibly because of a dearth of information. It would also be interesting to find out what those who proposed it had in mind for targets.



wuzak said:


> So here's the evidence.
> Little Boy was dropped from the same mechanisms used in Lancasters to drop Tallboys.
> Little Boy was about 10" (254mm) smaller in diameter than Tallboy and quite a bit shorter.



Evidence it might be, but it is purely circumstantial evidence however and does not in any way prove that it was actually considered. Sorry. I would like first hand evidence, not just circumstantial evidence. I see what you're doing, though and I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just that I want more than someone's hypothesis as to why it might have fit.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

If we know for certain that Little Boy was actually considered for carriage by Lancasters, that will give us a bit better idea as to what might have been a legitimate target. Little Boy was bigger than Thin Man, which would have had an impact on the Lancaster's range etc; that we know from the figures provided here already, so what did those guys who considered the Lancaster have in mind for its use?

Little Boy was not intended on being put into production initially. Fat Man was to be the production bomb, as it was, although after the war, Little Boy was put into limited production. What that says about considerations about its strategic use during the war is open to question.

Little Boy - Wikipedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

In a book tucked away in my library and covered in dust, called The Making of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is written the following:

"Norman F Ramsay, a tall young Columbia physicist, the son of a general, served under Parsons [William. S 'Deke'] as group leader for delivery: for devising a way to deliver the bombs to their targets and drop them. In June he contacted the US Air Force [_sic_] to identify a combat aircraft that would carry a 17-foot bomb. "As a result of this survey", Ramsey writes, "it was apparent that the B-29 was the only United States aircraft in which such a bomb could be conveniently carried internally, and even this plane would require considerable modification so that the bomb could extend into both front and rear bomb bays... Except for the British Lancaster, all other aircraft would require such a bomb to be carried externally."

The book continues with a telling statement as to the use of a foreign aircraft for such a role, what was discussed in the other thread:

"The Air Force [_sic_] was not about to allow a historic new weapon of war to be introduced to the world in a British aircraft, but the B-29 Superfortress was a new design still plagued with serious problems. The first service test model had not yet flown when Ramsay began his aircraft survey in June; a flight test model had crashed into a Seattle packing house in February and killed the plane's entire test crew and nineteen packing-house workers."

The book then goes on to describing the first test drops of a Thin Man shape from an Avenger.

So, was the Lancaster actually considered, or was it a just a suggestion because the bomb could be carried internally? It does appear that it was only a suggestion because of the latter, rather than that it was in serious consideration as a nuclear bomber. It seems the importance behind the Lancaster being suggested is that it could carry the bomb internally, which, suggests that it was probably not seriously considered for carrying Little Boy, which at this point in time did not exist. It came after Thin Man and arose as a result of being able to shorten the firing gun, thus reducing the overall length of the bomb from 17 ft to 10 ft.

Again however, these are just my thoughts having just read this passage. Any further information is welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2019)

*"Prior to the decision to use the B-29, military officials had given serious consideration to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which the Royal Air Force had used to deliver the 5-ton Tallboy bombs developed in 1944. The Avro Lancaster would have required much less modification, but Major General Leslie Groves, the commander of the Manhattan Project, and General Henry H. Arnold, the Chief of United States Army Air Forces, wished to use an American plane."*

_The first B-29 arrived at Wright Field, Ohio, on December 2 and underwent extensive modification to the bomb bay. To accommodate the length of the gun-type shaped weapon (Little Boy was originally supposed to be approximately 17 ft, but was later reduced to 10 ft), engineers removed the B-29's four bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bays and replaced them with a single 33 ft bomb bay. This modification project resulted in the removal of all the rear gun stations. Each plane was designed to carry either type of device; either Little Boy type in the forward bay or Fat Man type in the rear. New bomb suspensions and bracing were also implemented and separate twin-release mechanisms were mounted in each bay. Engineers also placed motion picture cameras in the bays to record the test of the new release mechanism.

The modifications, which were done completely by hand, were extensive and time-consuming. The process required more than 6000 man-hours of labor and the first B-29 prototype was not complete until February 20, 1944._

Project Silverplate

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2019)

*The Silverplate Fleet*

After successful bomb shape testing, a production phase of Silverplate B-29s was ordered on August 22, 1944. By mid-October the first three Silverplate B-29s were delivered to the USAAF and flown to Wendover Army Airfield, Utah. A new crew position, called the "weaponeer station", was established in the cockpit with a panel to monitor the release and detonation of the bomb during the actual combat drops. Fourteen production aircraft were assigned to the 393rd Bomb Squadron and three to the 216th AAF Base Unit for bomb drop testing to be conducted at Wendover.

The USAAF continued to improve and modify the Silverplate series throughout 1945. The final wartime Silverplates incorporated all technical improvements to B-29 aircraft, as well as the final series of Silverplate modifications that included fuel-injected engines, reversible-pitch propellers, and pneumatic actuators for rapid opening and closing of bomb bay doors. Engineers were also able to significantly reduce the weight of the aircraft by removing all gun turrets and armor plating. These B-29s represented a significant increase in performance over the standard variants.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

*



"Prior to the decision to use the B-29, military officials had given serious consideration to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which the Royal Air Force had used to deliver the 5-ton Tallboy bombs developed in 1944. The Avro Lancaster would have required much less modification, but Major General Leslie Groves, the commander of the Manhattan Project, and General Henry H. Arnold, the Chief of United States Army Air Forces, wished to use an American plane."

Click to expand...

*
Superb. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm after. I'd like to see more information on what discussions they had, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> (Little Boy was originally supposed to be approximately 17 ft, but was later reduced to 10 ft),



This is slightly misleading. The 17 foot bomb was Thin Man and Little Boy followed after the lack of success of the former.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2019)

From Wiki:

*Silverplate operational units[edit]*
Including the Pullman B-29, *a total of 46 Silverplate B-29s were produced during World War II*. Of these, 29 were assigned to the 509th Composite Group during World War II, with 15 used to carry out the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An additional 19 Silverplate B-29s were ordered in July 1945, which were delivered between the end of the war, and the end of 1947. By this time only 13 of the original 46 were still operational. *Thus, a total of 65 Silverplate B-29s were made,* of which 32 were operational at the start of 1948.[27] Martin-Omaha produced 57 Silverplate B-29s. The other 8 were built by Boeing-Wichita. Of these 65 bombers, 31 were eventually converted to other configurations, 16 were placed in storage and later scrapped, and 12 were lost in accidents (including four of the Tinian bombers). The pair of historic weapons delivery aircraft, named _Enola Gay_ and _Bockscar_, are today displayed in museums.[28][29][30]

The only other United States Air Force combat unit to use the Silverplate B-29 was the 97th Bombardment Wing at Biggs Air Force Base in El Paso, Texas. In mid-1949 it received 27 of the aircraft from the 509th Bombardment Wing when the latter transitioned to B-50D bombers.[31] The re-equipment of the 97th Bombardment Wing was part of an expansion of the atomic strike force to ten wings during 1949.[32] Within a year all were converted to TB-29 trainers. One other Silverplate B-29, on temporary assignment in the United Kingdom, was converted into a weather reconnaissance aircraft (WB-29) and transferred to the 9th Bombardment Wing at Travis Air Force Base in California.[31] The last Silverplate B-29 in service as a nuclear weapons carrier was reassigned to another role in November 1951, ending Silverplate after nearly eight years.[33]


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

Yup, have read that page on the Silverplate B-29s on Wiki. Interesting stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> If we know for certain that Little Boy was actually considered for carriage by Lancasters, that will give us a bit better idea as to what might have been a legitimate target. Little Boy was bigger than Thin Man, which would have had an impact on the Lancaster's range etc; that we know from the figures provided here already, so what did those guys who considered the Lancaster have in mind for its use?



Little Boy was smaller, in both diameter and length, than Thin Man.

Little Boy: 28" diameter 10ft long
Thin Man: 38" diameter 17ft long

Little Boy would fit in a Mosquito's bulged bomb bay, if a British style round tail unit had been used instead of the US style box tail.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 5, 2019)

Silverplate - Wikipedia



> The Silverplate project was initiated in June 1943 when Dr. Norman F. Ramsey from the Los Alamos Laboratory's E-7 Group identified the Boeing B-29 Superfortress as the only airplane in the United States inventory capable of carrying either type of the proposed weapons shapes: the tubular shape of the Thin Man, or the oval shape of the Fat Man.[1]
> 
> *Prior to the decision to use the B-29, serious consideration was given to using the British Avro Lancaster with its cavernous 33-foot (10 m) bomb bay to deliver the weapon.* It would have required much less modification, but would have required additional crew training for the USAAF crews. Major General Leslie R. Groves Jr., the director of the Manhattan Project, and General Henry H. Arnold, the Chief of United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), wished to use an American plane, if this was at all possible.[2]
> 
> ...




Silverplate - Wikipedia


> The USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field, Ohio, on 30 November 1943, for a highly classified B-29 modification project.[1] The Manhattan Project would deliver full-sized mockups of the weapons shapes to Wright Field by mid-December, where Army Air Forces Materiel Command would modify an aircraft and deliver it for use in bomb flight testing at Muroc Army Air Field in California. B-29-5-BW 42-6259 (referred to as the "Pullman airplane" from an internal code name assigned it by the Engineering Division of Army Air Forces Materiel Command) was delivered to the 468th Bombardment Group at Smoky Hill AAB, Kansas, on 30 November 1943, and flown to Wright Field on 2 December.[8]
> 
> Modifications to the bomb bays of 42-6259 were extensive and time-consuming. Its four 12-foot (3.7 m) bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bays were removed and a single 33-foot (10 m) bomb bay configured. *The length of the initial gun-type bomb shape was approximately 17 feet (5.2 m), necessitating that it be carried in the aft bomb bay, with some of its length protruding into the forward bay*. The implosion-type bomb was mounted in the forward bay.[8] New bomb suspensions and bracing were attached for both shape types, and separate twin-release mechanisms were mounted in each bay, using modified glider tow-cable attach-and-release mechanisms.[9



Similar to what has been posted by others.

So, to summarise, the Lancaster was _initially_ considered to carry the A-bomb because of the size and shape of Thin Man.
Thin Man failed and led to the development of Little Boy.
Only one Silverplate B-29 was configured to carry Thin Man, because it was cancelled in early 1944.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 6, 2019)

wuzak said:


> So, to summarise, the Lancaster was _initially_ considered to carry the A-bomb because of the size and shape of Thin Man.



Primarily because it could be carried internally, by the looks of things from Ramsay's report. The B-29 was always going to be the nuclear bomber though, Gen Groves and Hap Arnold wanted an American aircraft, so it was always a long shot that it be actually converted (I'm curious to find out what the text Joe linked to that states that the Lanc was 'seriously considered' refers to and to what extent).


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2019)

Grant, here's an overview of the Silverplate project on the Atomic Heritage Foundation's website.

Project Silverplate

It briefly covers the prospect of the Avro being used


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 6, 2019)

Thanks Dave, that's what Joe posted back a bit. I'm keen to find out what 'seriously considered' actually means. From the passages in the book that I posted it looks like the Lancaster was only listed by Ramsay because other than the B-29, it was the only bomber that might be able to carry a Thin Man internally, with less modification than the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## railroader (Feb 7, 2019)

On the B-29 the bomb bay was accessible in flight. The Hiroshima Little Boy was in fact armed, that is the detonation charges installed, while in flight. Would this have been possible to do in a Lancaster?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2019)

railroader said:


> On the B-29 the bomb bay was accessible in flight. The Hiroshima Little Boy was in fact armed, that is the detonation charges installed, while in flight. Would this have been possible to do in a Lancaster?


There was a bomb bay access door at the Engineer's station, so it would have been possible.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 7, 2019)

I think that 'access' was just for visual checks. I think to actually fiddle with a bomb some further modification would be required (Grand Slam pictured).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I think that 'access' was just for visual checks. I think to actually fiddle with a bomb some further modification would be required (Grand Slam pictured).
> 
> 
> View attachment 528584



Agreed...the Lancaster's bomb bay was noting like American designs, so access would have been possible, but I don't think practical.


----------



## CorsairLarry (Feb 7, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Dave, the Lanc doesn't have the range to fly from Tinian. Okinawa would be the only realistic option. RAF Tiger Force was looking at Okinawa as a base for ops with Lincolns and Lancs, but the A bombs were dropped before this plan got underway.
> 
> Tiger Force (air) - Wikipedia
> 
> The other problem with using the Lanc and indeed the Lincoln as nuclear bombers is the fact they could only carry the Little Boy. Fat Man was, well, too fat. This severely limits the flexibility of the mission. Fat Man ws ordered into production, Little Boy was initially unique, although after the war production on a limited scale was undertaken, but not to the same numbers as Fat Man. Also, timewise, the Lincoln entered service in August 1945 with 57 Sqn receiving 3 of them (!), so that rules it out of the equation if the original timeline of this is to be honoured.


It’s possible that had the B-29 program suffered some calamity, the the US would have turned to it’s slightly less advanced stablemate the B-32


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 7, 2019)

CorsairLarry said:


> It’s possible that had the B-29 program suffered some calamity, the the US would have turned to it’s slightly less advanced stablemate the B-32


Lets be frank here. To drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo, Japan, you only need a limited production run of a pressurised bomber that has to fly outward from Tinian 1500 miles and back to Iwo Jima another 750 miles to refuel, take off again and return to Tinian. That's 2250 miles on the first leg, 3000 overall but not the 3000 there and back that the Superforts did. The only other pressurised high altitude bomber is the Vickers Windsor which had a range of 2890 miles carrying 8000 lbs of bombs when powered by Merlin 65's. As I see it, the Windsor is the only viable alternative. You only need a limited production run, so no problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Feb 7, 2019)

The B-32 most likely would not have been structurally able to make the demanding turn and dive to get away from the shock wave. Another commander came to Tinian to try to take over the 509th and fly the mission. Tibbets, who had been practicing since Wendover invited him on one of the dummy missions over Japan to show him what he would need to do with the B-29 after bomb drop. The book said the wanna be turned white at the wing over and once back at base disappeared.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Feb 7, 2019)

In addition, the man who armed the bomb had to get into very close proximity to the front of the weapon. He was incidentally a Naval Lt. Commander who came over with the device on the Indianapolis, if my memory serves.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2019)

Just a thought, but the USAAF did have a prospective alternate if the B-29 wasn't available.

The Douglas B-19A had the ability to lift a max. load over 37,000 pounds with a max. ceiling of 39,000 feet. It's top speed was 265mph and had a range of 4,200 miles (with a load of 18,000 pounds).

In 1944/45, it was literally sitting out the war on a ramp.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 7, 2019)

special ed said:


> The B-32 most likely would not have been structurally able to make the demanding turn and dive



The Lancaster could make the turn and dive, as bomber crews practised such a manoeuvre as defence against night fighters. That's no suggestion it was anyway more suited for this than what we already know, though.




GrauGeist said:


> The Douglas B-19A had the ability to lift a max. load over 37,000 pounds with a max. ceiling of 39,000 feet. It's top speed was 265mph and had a range of 4,200 miles (with a load of 18,000 pounds).



Gee, that's some performance. How big was the bomb bay?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Gee, that's some performance. How big was the bomb bay?


Not sure of the actual dimensions of the bomb bay, but the B-19 was huge.
Wingspan was 212 feet (64.6m), length was over 132 feet (40.0m) and height was almost 43 feet (13m) and the tires on it's main gear were 8 feet tall.

Here's a shot of the command deck (looking back from the co-pilot's seat. Center is the engineer's station.





Here's a shot of it at Douglas, note the man standing in front of the starboard main gear...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

The performance quote was the XB-19A with the V-3420 engines.

The XB-19, shown in that last picture, had lower performance.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Gee, that's some performance. How big was the bomb bay?



Not that big.

Check out some pictures from the Aviation Pictures forum.

Douglas XB-19

In terms of performance, it had a slightly lower top speed than the Lancaster, but was about 100mph slower than the B-29.

With the same engines as the XB-19A, the XB-39 had a top speed of ~400mph.


----------



## Thos9 (Feb 8, 2019)

Even if a Lancaster (or Lincoln) were to drop a 1945 atomic bomb on a Japanese target, given its slow speed and low altitude (vs the B-29) its prospects of escaping the weapon effects would be problematic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The performance quote was the XB-19A with the V-3420 engines.


And that's why I made sure to specify B-19*A*



wuzak said:


> The XB-19, shown in that last picture, had lower performance.


Yep...but it's size remained the same and the photo is a good example of it's scale.

In regards to the B-19's bomb bay - it was capable of carrying 18,000 pounds of bombs internally and had facilities to carry considerable external ordnance.

Fat Man (or a Pumpkin bomb) had an exterior dimension of 10.6 feet long by 5 feet wide, weighing 10,300 pounds.
Little Boy had an exterior dimension of 10 feet long by 2.3 feet wide, weighing 9,700 pounds.

The B-19 could have easily carried either one.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2019)

Thanks guys. Any pics of the bomb bay? It'd be interesting to see what they had in mind in terms of load for the beastie.



> In regards to the B-19's bomb bay - it was capable of carrying 18,000 pounds of bombs internally and had facilities to carry considerable external ordnance.



That's a big load to carry internally for that vintage of aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Fat Man (or a Pumpkin bomb) had an exterior dimension of 10.6 feet long by 5 feet wide, weighing 10,300 pounds.
> Little Boy had an exterior dimension of 10 feet long by 2.3 feet wide, weighing 9,700 pounds.
> 
> The B-19 could have easily carried either one.



But not Thin Man, which was one of the two initial bombs specified (along with Fat Man).

The other issue with the B-19/B-19A was that only one was built.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Thanks guys. Any pics of the bomb bay? It'd be interesting to see what they had in mind in terms of load for the beastie.
> 
> That's a big load to carry internally for that vintage of aircraft.


The max. ordnance loadout was 37,100 pounds - 18,000 being internal - the remainder being external stores. The B-17 was also designed to carry additional stores on external racks, though it wasn't an option used often.

In regards to photos of the bomb bay, there doesn't seem to be any, however there are photos of the B-19 in flight that show it's underside (and thus the bomb bay doors) and it appears rather large, especially when using the 8 foot tire as a guide to scale.

That being the case: in the photo shown, we can calculate that the bomb bay was close to 10 feet wide and close to 17 feet long. The depth of the bay must have been considerable, judging by not only the internal capacity, but by the fuselage's size, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> But not Thin Man, which was one of the two initial bombs specified (along with Fat Man).
> 
> The other issue with the B-19/B-19A was that only one was built.


However, each bomb was dropped by one B-29 on each mission...


----------



## Graeme (Feb 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Lets be frank here.



I keep seeing "protracted development" applied to the Windsor. I could be wrong - but they eventually dispensed with the pressurisation requirement from the specification? It was still covered with fabric? Mason in his British Bomber tome talks about Vickers being "somewhat over-optimistic" with their performance forecasts to the point of being "disturbing".

And did the wings really flap? The Flapping Atomic Bomber...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2019)

I'm inclined to agree, Graeme; the Windsor was an enlarged Warwick, geodetic structure and fabric covering included. It was a noble effort, and despite impressive performance for a heavy, reaching 302 mph at 25,000 ft at a take off weight of 46,000 lbs (It's MTOW was higher, but at a lower speed), it did suffer a few ignominies. One of these was fabric fluttering on the wings at high speeds and without pressurisation in the examples trialled, it was going to be a strain for crews at altitude. Ultimately though, its performance wasn't that much better than the Lincoln, as it was, although it had impressive range. It certainly couldn't match the B-29. It's future development offered better performance fitted with RR Clyde turboprops; 409 mph @ 28,000 ft, but it was cancelled a few months after the end of the war.



> And did the wings really flap? The Flapping Atomic Bomber.



They flexed, as did the fuselage, because of the geodetic structure. The Wellington and Warwick were the same. There were trials carried out to determine the amount of flex, which was a concern because of the remotely operated turrets at the aft end of the outboard engine nacelles. These were operated from a position in the extreme tail, and the flexing would have interfered with aiming the guns, it was determined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> However, each bomb was dropped by one B-29 on each mission...



With backup aircraft available should there be a problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2019)

Not wanting to insinuate that the B-19 was included in the list of aircraft that might possibly be nuclear bombers prepared by Ramsay, but the one thing, other than its performance and load carrying capability, that the B-19 has over the Lancaster is that was American.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 8, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Not wanting to insinuate that the B-19 was included in the list of aircraft that might possibly be nuclear bombers prepared by Ramsay, but the one thing, other than its performance and load carrying capability, that the B-19 has over the Lancaster is that was American.


Hey you could have had the Canadians build some Lincolns for you. Oops, wait a minute, they might decide to steal the bombs and atomise the White House. A sort of War Plan Red in reverse, like a preemptive strike.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 8, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> Even if a Lancaster (or Lincoln) were to drop a 1945 atomic bomb on a Japanese target, given its slow speed and low altitude (vs the B-29) its prospects of escaping the weapon effects would be problematic.



Not if they were equipped with drogue chutes, which became standard later with the multi-megaton bombs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> With backup aircraft available should there be a problem.


However, the discussion came about with a question of "what if the B-29 wasn't ready?"
Then the question came up "why couldn't the Lancaster be used?"
The B-29 project was plagued with problems, particularly with it's R-3350 engines. So if the B-29 weren't ready because of engine issues, than most likely the B-32 would be out of the running because it also used R-3350 engines.
The USAAF did have a proposed backup for the B-29 with the XB-38, which was a B-29 re-engined with the V-1710-97, but it's performance was lower than that of the R-3350 engined B-29.

So the B-29/B-32 is out of the running and the Lancaster/Lincoln out of the running, what do they do?
Time is running short and they need a delivery platform and lo-and-behold, they have a monster just sitting idle out in the desert sun that is more than capable of doing the job.

And I think that in the end, being American or British wasn't so much the issue as it was finding the right ship to get the job done. The US liked big aircraft and they happened to be larger than their British counterparts and if the war had continued for another year, then we may have seen the B-36 become available - and it was larger than the B-19 (not by much, though).


----------



## special ed (Feb 8, 2019)

The XB-19 also used 3350 engines and had engine cooling problems. Some sources indicate the Allisons did not as the XB-19A.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2019)

The B-19 as built used the older A series R-3350 engines It may (or may not) have gotten the Later B series engines used in the B-29, It did get the Allison V-3420 engines well before 1944.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

The XB-19 (no A) had the R-3350 engines, after it was re-engined with the V-3420 engines (which greatly improved it's performance) in 1943, it was redesignated XB-19*A* - which is the type I am referring to.
Particularly since the Atomic program was looking to deliver atom bombs from 43/44 onward...


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

The engine modules on the B-19A were designed to be used on the B-39 (B-29 with V-3420).


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The USAAF did have a proposed backup for the B-29 with the XB-38, which was a B-29 re-engined with the V-1710-97, but it's performance was lower than that of the R-3350 engined B-29.



The XB-38 was a V-1710 powered B-17. It's performance was superior to a regular B-17, but not enough to warrant production.

The XB-39 was a V-3420 powered B-29. Its performance was superior to the B-29, but not enough to warrant a change in production. The XB-39 was a victim of the XP-75 program, as GM's Fisher Body Division were doing the fighter and the engine QECs.

By the time the XB-39 flew most of the R-3350 issues had been resolved.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

Right right, my bad...was in a hurry this morning and tossed the XB-38 out there in error.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 9, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to the Lancaster VI, it may have seemed impressive on paper, but it was actually problematic in it's performance and was withdrawn from service in late '44.
> 
> In anycase, I would think that the Lincoln may have been the better candidate with it's better performance and lift/ceiling abilities.
> 
> ...



The Lincoln used a near identical power plant to the Mk VI. IMHO the Lancaster VI was withdrawn because there was no longer a need need for them in late 1944.

Operating from Okinawa or Iwo Jima a Lancaster Mk VI could have carried either bomb design and dropped it at the same altitude as historically and performed a similar high speed turn away.

The B29 service ceiling wasn't much different from a Mk VI when both were loaded to max TO weight. Both aircraft would have to burn some fuel to operate above 30k ft.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 9, 2019)

Why the Lancaster was ruled out:


> The two leaders next took up the
> question of what type of airplane
> would be required to transport
> atomic bombs. The Manhattan commander
> ...



Given higher production priority a Lincoln could probably have done the job as well.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 9, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Given higher production priority a Lincoln could probably have done the job as well.



I've often read there wasn't any real fire lit under getting Bomber Command better aircraft at a certain point late in the war.

From SAM Publications:
_Although the prototype Lincoln first flew on the 9th June 1944, it was not until the 9th November 1944 that the second prototype took to the air. This gives some indication of the changing pace of the war, and the low priority with which the Lancaster's replacement was viewed. By the end of 1944, Lancasters were fully meeting the requirements of Bomber Command, and there was little need to quickly bring into production a replacement. Which the changing tide of war, even the manufacturers themselves were starting to consider post-war requirements, and so Avro was more concerned with new passenger-carrying aircraft (like the York and Tudor) then the Lincoln._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 10, 2019)

I'm late to this thread, but wouldnt the B-32 have been rushed in as better nuclear bomb carrier? The B-29 was provided to the UK to give the RAF nuclear capability.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Operating from Okinawa or Iwo Jima a Lancaster Mk VI could have carried either bomb design and dropped it at the same altitude as historically and performed a similar high speed turn away.



But not by August 1945 and again, it's not American, not to mention ignoring the issue of Iwo Jima and Okinawa being in range of Japanese aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I've often read there wasn't any real fire lit under getting Bomber Command better aircraft at a certain point late in the war.



Yup, as I mentioned, the first Lincolns did not arrive at squadron level until August 1945, only three equipping 57 Squadron at that time.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> But not by August 1945 and again, it's not American, not to mention ignoring the issue of Iwo Jima and Okinawa being in range of Japanese aircraft.



Why not? Okinawa was in use an a USAAF base by then.

BTW, here's a link to an article on the planned development and deployment of long range Lancasters and Lincolns to the far east:

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...AS_Air_Land_Co-op_in_Op_TELIC_Tiger_Force.pdf


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Why not? Okinawa was in use an a USAAF base by then.
> 
> BTW, here's a link to an article on the planned development and deployment of long range Lancasters and Lincolns to the far east:
> 
> https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...AS_Air_Land_Co-op_in_Op_TELIC_Tiger_Force.pdf


See page 1 post #4 of this thread for the reason.

The atomic bomber and support structure had to be TOTALLY out of reach of Japanese air strikes, no equivocation in that equation.

In July/August 1945, Okinawa was still able to be attacked by Japanese air power.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Feb 12, 2019)

A family friend, passed away two years ago, was with the first unit of anti-aircraft artillery to land and as soon as set up, his gun team was the first AA to shoot down a Betty during a low altitude night attack. Although the island was supposed to be secured, there were still attacks from Japanese soldiers. One night he remembered a small group infiltrated and killed a number of P-51 pilots in their tents.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Why not? Okinawa was in use an a USAAF base by then.
> 
> BTW, here's a link to an article on the planned development and deployment of long range Lancasters and Lincolns to the far east:
> 
> https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...AS_Air_Land_Co-op_in_Op_TELIC_Tiger_Force.pdf



I've been reading your document, fascinating stuff, but to me the saddle tank option looks like turning any mission into a suicide mission if you get intercepted. Likewise removing the mid upper turret. It all looks like ignoring the lessons learnt during the battles over Europe.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> See page 1 post #4 of this thread for the reason.
> 
> The atomic bomber and support structure had to be TOTALLY out of reach of Japanese air strikes, no equivocation in that equation.
> 
> In July/August 1945, Okinawa was still able to be attacked by Japanese air power.



Tinian was easily within reach of IJ twin and single engined Kamikaze attacks:

Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands - Wikipedia

In any event, using in air refuelling, the Lancaster could deliver the bomb from Tinian.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I've been reading your document, fascinating stuff, but to me the saddle tank option looks like turning any mission into a suicide mission if you get intercepted. Likewise removing the mid upper turret. It all looks like ignoring the lessons learnt during the battles over Europe.



The saddle tanks would be empty by the time the aircraft was within reach of interceptors. Historically the USAAF delivered the A-bombs by formations consisting of two aircraft and they met no opposition whatsoever.


----------



## special ed (Feb 12, 2019)

I just finished reading Shinpachi's old thread "IJA secret intelligence team at Chofu". It's a very good read and tells how USAAF could have lost the mission.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The B29 service ceiling wasn't much different from a Mk VI when both were loaded to max TO weight. Both aircraft would have to burn some fuel to operate above 30k ft.


I think you'll find the Silverplate modified B-29s performed a lot different if you're going to compare a stock Mk VI to a stock B-29

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you'll find the Silverplate modified B-29s performed a lot different if you're going to compare a stock Mk VI to a stock B-29



AIUI the initial mods were to fit the aircraft to carry larger bombs and then the aircraft were specially lightened with higher performance engines:

Project Silverplate

Of course the Lancaster would benefit from a similar set of mods (to reduce armament and armour).


----------



## special ed (Feb 12, 2019)

Silverplate mods were done in the US. Where would the Lancaster mods have happened. By involving a second country, security would have been impossible along with the British wanting to have their say with every change. Security in the US was difficult enough. When special requirements were needed, Tibbets only had to mention Silverplate.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

special ed said:


> Silverplate mods were done in the US. Where would the Lancaster mods have happened. By involving a second country, security would have been impossible along with the British wanting to have their say with every change. Security in the US was difficult enough. When special requirements were needed, Tibbets only had to mention Silverplate.


Lots of people were on the Manhattan security clearance list including Cdn PM Mackenzie King. 

In any event if the USAAF had used the Lancaster or Lincoln they would have been free to mod them as they saw fit. Given that these aircraft could carry tallboy bombs, it would not have seemed unusual for the USAAF to have formed a special squadron to fly reverse L-L Lancasters. Of course the RCAF could have been assigned the task...


----------



## special ed (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAF would have been the logical choice in that event.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> In any event, using in air refuelling, the Lancaster could deliver the bomb from Tinian.



Again though, we are looking at timelines. As is often the case in this forum, could'a, would'a, should'a. The Lanc VI was not put into production, the Lincoln was not built in sufficient numbers by that time and neither were American - an important point you're ignoring. Are we to assume an alteration of timeline? I doubt the 'seriously considered' quote to be frank; that the option was discussed is well known by now, but it is highly unlikely that any further action in this regard was carried out. I doubt any real feasibility studies (unless anyone can provide any evidence of such a thing) were carried out, which would have exposed the primary weakness of using the Lancaster; its performance was just not up to scratch.

The Americans wanted Tinian because of its distance from Japan and the infrastructure already in place and when decisions were initially made to plan the raids, neither Okinawa nor Iwo Jima could really be considered feasible, being firmly in Japanese hands. The latter was captured in March 1945 and the former in April. Hinging bets on availability of these islands based on some really big unknowns for such an important raid was not going to enter the equation, let's be serious.

Tiger Force was an interesting undertaking but was dependent on the end of war in Europe to free up crews and aircraft, which at the time investigations were being undertaken in 1944 was entirely uncertain and realistically, once 8 May 1945 happens, we are really looking at late 1945, early 1946 before the RAF is equipped with in-flight refuelling capability and sufficient numbers of long range bombers to be effective, that is, only if the work talked about in that RAF paper was seriously undertaken.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Again though, we are looking at timelines. As is often the case in this forum, could'a, would'a, should'a. The Lanc VI was not put into production, the Lincoln was not built in sufficient numbers by that time and neither were American - an important point you're ignoring. Are we to assume an alteration of timeline? I doubt the 'seriously considered' quote to be frank; that the option was discussed is well known by now, but it is highly unlikely that any further action in this regard was carried out. I doubt any real feasibility studies (unless anyone can provide any evidence of such a thing) were carried out, which would have exposed the primary weakness of using the Lancaster; its performance was just not up to scratch.
> 
> The Americans wanted Tinian because of its distance from Japan and the infrastructure already in place and when decisions were initially made to plan the raids, neither Okinawa nor Iwo Jima could really be considered feasible, being firmly in Japanese hands. The latter was captured in March 1945 and the former in April. Hinging bets on availability of these islands based on some really big unknowns for such an important raid was not going to enter the equation, let's be serious.
> 
> Tiger Force was an interesting undertaking but was dependent on the end of war in Europe to free up crews and aircraft, which at the time investigations were being undertaken in 1944 was entirely uncertain and realistically, once 8 May 1945 happens, we are really looking at late 1945, early 1946 before the RAF is equipped with in-flight refuelling capability and sufficient numbers of long range bombers to be effective, that is, only if the work talked about in that RAF paper was seriously undertaken.



The Tiger Force paper is only of interest in terms of what the Lancaster and Lincoln were capable of in terms of range and payload.

IIRC, the designer of the Lancaster was asked if the Lancaster could carry a bomb with the dimensions of "Fat Man" and he answered in the affirmative.

The Silverplate B-29s were not production aircraft either, but were instead production aircraft given extensive mods.

If at some point, say 1 Jan 1944, the USAAF and Groves decided that the B-29 was too much of a long shot to carry the bomb (and the troubling unreliability of it's engines must have been a consideration) , could the Lancaster/Lincoln have done the job if given the extra priority and resources that went into the Silverplate B-29s? 

For example, Roosevelt tells Churchill and PM King that the USAAF needs to drop Tallboys on Japan and requests A-1 priority for the Lancaster and Lincoln via reverse LL and/or requests that X number of Lancasters and Lincolns be turned over to the USAAF for modification in the USA.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> IIRC, the designer of the Lancaster was asked if the Lancaster could carry a bomb with the dimensions of "Fat Man" and he answered in the affirmative.



Can you verify that with a source, please?



RCAFson said:


> If at some point, say 1 Jan 1944, the USAAF and Groves decided that the B-29 was too much of a long shot to carry the bomb (and the troubling unreliability of it's engines must have been a consideration) , could the Lancaster/Lincoln have done the job if given the extra priority and resources that went into the Silverplate B-29s?



Again, you're ignoring the fundamental fact that neither the Lanc or the Lincoln are American. In 1944, flying from the Marianas was the only option. Without viable (in-service) in-flight refuelling, both have to be ruled out owing to their insufficient performance. The best and only option was to throw money and resources at the B-29 until it worked, or examine other US options. I just don't think the British aircraft were considered enough, firstly because they weren't American; they were dismissed early on for this reason, and then because their performance wouldn't cut it.

Even 'Silverplating' them wouldn't give either type sufficient performance to make a return flight from Tinian safely. As I quoted earlier, the Lanc would be flying at 15,000 ft at speeds lower than 200 mph. Sure, the Lincoln and the Lanc VI offer better performance, but not the same as that of the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> AIUI the initial mods were to fit the aircraft to carry larger bombs and then the aircraft were specially lightened with higher performance engines:
> 
> Project Silverplate
> 
> Of course the Lancaster would benefit from a similar set of mods (to reduce armament and armour).


Would have, could have, should have - we beat this discussion to death a few years ago.

Could a Lancaster or Lincoln have carried and deliver a nuclear weapon?

Absolutely

Would it have been practical and a better platform as far as performance and safety?

NO

A 4 engine, liquid cooled, un pressurized tail dragger heavy bomber does not make a good nuke bomber IMO, and that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster (it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a half a generation away from the Lancaster (and Lincoln) and when we throw the B-50 into the fray, the gap grows further. As history showed us, even the RAF eventually recognized the limitations of the Lancaster and Lincoln in the post war years.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

That's a beaut (cg) picture of a Washington.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

Oh, and I'll also add, had a Lancaster or Lincoln been called to deliver a nuke, I'd feel sorry for the poor sods who had to fly the mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Can you verify that with a source, please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Source:


> Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes.
> Operation Silverplate - The Aircraft of the Manhattan Project



I'm ignoring the fact that neither the Lancaster or Lincoln are American because that's not germane to the topic. Flying from the Marianas or other suitable bases is germane.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

Somewhat unrelated, but of interest. In the 1950s, when the British detonated nuclear bombs on Australian soil, RAAF Avro Lincolns were flown in cloud sampling flights, which irradiated the aircraft so much, to the point that they were taken to the far end of the airfields and burned, others were dumped at sea. The crews suffered terribly, including ground crews, who were not told about the missions the Lincolns had just flown on, but were told to wash them down with water. These guys wore shorts only - no protective gear of any sort in the South Australian heat and had radioactive water pouring down upon them from the aircraft they were washing. Not surprisingly, most ended up living short and rather painful lives. The legacy of the British tests were felt for a looooong time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

Interesting, thanks for the link, RCAFson.



RCAFson said:


> I'm ignoring the fact that neither the Lancaster or Lincoln are American because that's not germane to the topic.



It's enormously relevant as that is the principle reason why the Lancaster was rejected, regardless of Groves' enquiry with Chadwick.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh, and I'll also add, had a Lancaster or Lincoln been called to deliver a nuke, I'd feel sorry for the poor sods who had to fly the mission.


 

The mission would be a low-high-low profile and the bomber crews would not be in any more discomfort than B-17 crews flying over Germany.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Somewhat unrelated, but of interest. In the 1950s, when the British detonated nuclear bombs on Australian soil, RAAF Avro Lincolns were flown in cloud sampling flights, which irradiated the aircraft so much, to the point that they were taken to the far end of the airfields and burned, others were dumped at sea. The crews suffered terribly, including ground crews, who were not told about the missions the Lincolns had just flown on, but were told to wash them down with water. These guys wore shorts only - no protective gear of any sort in the South Australian heat and had radioactive water pouring down upon them from the aircraft they were washing. Not surprisingly, most ended up living short and rather painful lives. The legacy of the British tests were felt for a looooong time.



let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The mission would be a low-high-low profile and the bomber crews would not be in any more discomfort than B-17 crews flying over Germany.


But how much discomfort "would have" it been to avoid the nuclear shock waves, any radiation, and the chance of intercepting aircraft if you're going to try to present that scenario?!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated.


And an unpressuirzed Lancaster at "low-high-low profile" would have been any better?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson - you're hanging your hat on a losing argument. I think in the long term there was a reason why a Lancaster never carried a nuclear weapon

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. *A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated*.


Yep - and Paul Tibbets lived to be 92. Major Sweeney, lived to be 84. Maybe plutonium is a little more toxic!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 12, 2019)

I believe I said it before, but I think the Lancaster was only considered as long as it took the USAAF/Boeing to work out how to modify the B-29 to carry Thin Man.

And that turned out to be moot, as Thin Man would not be used.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But how much discomfort "would have" it been to avoid the nuclear shock waves, any radiation, and the chance of intercepting aircraft if you're going to try to present that scenario?!



The historical A-bomb missions did not do anything in terms of speed or altitude that a Lancaster couldn't do too (IE flown a weapon release profile that didn't entail fatal consequences for the crew). Does that make the Lancaster preferable to the B-29? No, it doesn't, but it was mission capable, and exploring this seems to have been the intent of the thread. The Silverplate B-29 was more capable than the Lancaster or Lincoln but historically the B-29 A-bomb missions met no opposition.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 12, 2019)

The historical A-Bomb missions were flown about 8-10,000ft above the Lancaster's ceiling.

And probably quite a bit faster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A 4 engine, liquid cooled, un pressurized tail dragger heavy bomber does not make a good nuke bomber IMO, and that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster (it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a half a generation away from the Lancaster (and Lincoln) and when we throw the B-50 into the fray, the gap grows further. As history showed us, even the RAF eventually recognized the limitations of the Lancaster and Lincoln in the post war years.



The B-29 was also quite a bit bigger than the Lancaster. 

40% wing span, 38% greater wing area, was heavier empty than the Lancaster's MTOW.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> *The historical A-bomb missions did not do anything in terms of speed or altitude that a Lancaster couldn't do too (IE flown a weapon release profile that didn't entail fatal consequences for the crew)*. Does that make the Lancaster preferable to the B-29? No, it doesn't, but it was mission capable, and exploring this seems to have been the intent of the thread. The Silverplate B-29 was more capable than the Lancaster or Lincoln but historically the B-29 A-bomb missions met no opposition.


 Hard to say that a Lancaster "could have" accomplished the same mission profile as a B-29 over Hiroshima, but I think we'll agree that a Lancaster (or Lincoln) "could have" carried a nuke.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 12, 2019)

Had the Lancaster been required to carry the A-bombs, there would be some modifications, no doubt.

First would be to (minimum) upgrade to Mk VI standard, with two stage Merlins.

Alternatively, two stage Griffons could be fitted.

The longer span wings of the Lincoln may have been an option.

I also wonder if wing tip tanks, such as used on the Shackleton, could have been a useful modification to add range.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 12, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The historical A-Bomb missions were flown about 8-10,000ft above the Lancaster's ceiling.
> 
> And probably quite a bit faster.



The Lancaster VI had a ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb (max TO weight) whilst carrying all three turrets..


----------



## wuzak (Feb 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI had a ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb (max TO weight) whilst carrying all three turrets..



True, but not that many made.

I think we should specify Mk numbers when talking about the Lancaster. I always think of the performance of the Mk I and Mk III when talking about the Lancaster.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 13, 2019)

"Carrying" the nuke and "Delivering" the nuke are two totally different objectives. I'm sure the Lancaster was capable of _carrying_ the nuke, but are you seriously trying to say that a plane that will be flying at maybe 20,000 feet (or less) at less than 200 mph, from a base/support structure that is still well within range of Japanese air power at the time can deliver this bomb?

What about the survival of the crew and a/c? The Enola Gay didn't do that turn and dive away just to look cool.

I'm not trying to be insulting but I think you're not only grasping at straws but the argument of using a Lancaster for this mission is a non starter.

nuuumannns's post #118 is about a concise an argument as you'll get for why the Lancaster was probably never really considered, not to mention it's inability to fulfill the mission profile.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI had a ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb (max TO weight) whilst carrying all three turrets..




B-29 ceilings are all over the place depending on weight (I am willing to bet the Lancasters are too, for both types of engines) but the B-29 carried just over 40,000lbs of fuel in the wing/fuselage tanks (with a tank in each bomb bay over 15,000lbs of fuel was added) so one has to be very careful when considering B-29 performance. 
Running "light" (combat weight) at 101,000lbs a B-29 had a "ceiling" (100fpm climb) of 39.600ft using "normal" power (2400rpm vs take-off and max power of 2800rpm) 

a regular B-29 had a basic weight (empty equipped) of 74,050lbs. Max take-off was 140,000lbs. 

By the time a B-29 was in the target area thousands of pounds of fuel had been burned off. The Lancasters would also burn off fuel and be able to fly higher but the B-29 with it's turbos is going to have an advantage. The engines could make 2000hp at 2400rpm at 35,600ft. That I believe is a max continuous rating, Military rating was 2200hp at 2600rpm and WEP was 2500hp at 2800rpm as of June 1945.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 13, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> "Carrying" the nuke and "Delivering" the nuke are two totally different objectives. I'm sure the Lancaster was capable of _carrying_ the nuke, but are you seriously trying to say that a plane that will be flying at maybe 20,000 feet (or less) at less than 200 mph, from a base/support structure that is still well withing range of Japanese air power at the time can deliver this bomb?
> 
> What about the survival of the crew and a/c? The Enola Gay didn't do that turn and dive away just to look cool.
> 
> ...



Did you not read the previous posts? The Hiroshima mission dropped the bomb at 30k ft, while the Lancaster VI had a service ceiling of 28500ft at Max TO weight while carrying full armour and armament. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament and armour except the tail guns removed. A standard B-29 had a service ceiling of 23800ft at Max TO weight but this rose to 35800ft combat altitude at combat weight (weight over the target). A standard B-29 carrying a 10k lb bomb from Tinian has to TO at near max TO weight to carry enough fuel. Take a Lancaster VI and remove the forward two turrets and their crew and ammo and all armour and the TO service ceiling will be well above 30K ft.

The Lancaster VI's Merlin 85 engines are not even a high altitude rated Merlin even though they have two stage SCs.

We've already established that Tinian was well inside IJ aerial strike range. When flying Atomic strike missions from Tinian aircraft had the option to land on Okinawa or Iwo Jima after weapon release. I haven't done the numbers but this profile might have allowed an overloaded Lancaster VI to have flown from Tinian without resort to in-flight refuelling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (Feb 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Tinian was easily within reach of IJ twin and single engined Kamikaze attacks:
> 
> Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> In any event, using in air refuelling, the Lancaster could deliver the bomb from Tinian.



That's because at the time Japan still had possession of Iwo Jima. Once Iwo Jima was in Allied hands the Japanese attacks on the Mariana Islands pretty much stopped. Both Okinawa and Iwo Jima were far more vulnerable to Japanese attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Did you not read the previous posts? The Hiroshima mission dropped the bomb at 30k ft, while the Lancaster VI had a service ceiling of 28500ft at Max TO weight while carrying full armour and armament. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament and armour except the tail guns removed. A standard B-29 had a service ceiling of 23800ft at Max TO weight but this rose to 35800ft combat altitude at combat weight (weight over the target). A standard B-29 carrying a 10k lb bomb from Tinian has to TO at near max TO weight to carry enough fuel. Take a Lancaster VI and remove the forward two turrets and their crew and ammo and all armour and the TO service ceiling will be well above 30K ft.
> 
> The Lancaster VI's Merlin 85 engines are not even a high altitude rated Merlin even though they have two stage SCs.
> 
> We've already established that Tinian was well inside IJ aerial strike range. When flying Atomic strike missions from Tinian aircraft had the option to land on Okinawa or Iwo Jima after weapon release. I haven't done the numbers but this profile might have allowed an overloaded Lancaster VI to have flown from Tinian without resort to in-flight refuelling.



You need about 2400 miles for a Tinian-Tokyo, Tokyo-Iwo Jima sortie. IIRC you have about 2200 miles without the saddle tank. Removing the dorsal turret without adding some extra fuel would probably do the trick. IIRC the Tallboy raid against the Tirpitz was about 2400 miles. Then of course you have higher altitude Merlin's available. Okinawa-Tokyo-Okinawa is about 1930 miles, no problem. Also, it was estimated during WW2 that removing all the Lancaster's turrets would have added 50 mph to its speed, so does that correspond to about 20% better range? In which case, 2400 miles is well within a Lincoln's reach unarmed and top speed would go up to 367 mph.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2019)

> Take a Lancaster VI and remove the forward two turrets and their crew and ammo and all armour and the TO service ceiling will be well above 30K ft.



Got figures to back that up? On the first page I provided charts and historical information based on trials carried out with B.I Special Lancs, which definitely prove that the Lancaster's performance at MTOW carrying a sizeable load was too slow, at too low an altitude and did not have the range to mount such an operation.

Let's see what the Lanc VI could do. The Impact of the local conditions would have sapped the performance of the Lanc VI as it did the B.I Special in trials, which would, at MTOW reduced its speed, altitude and range with a given load. Yes, it was more powerful, as was the Lincoln, but not that much more powerful, certainly not B-29 powerful. That the B-29 managed the performance that it did flying those ops from Tinian is remarkable for the time, particularly the fact that standard B-29s were doing it on a daily basis. No other bomber _in service _could have done it, frankly.

Also, we are again ignoring the fact that historically, neither the Lanc VI nor the Lincoln were available by August 1945 to be of any use in service bar for training and familiarisation (three, yes, three Lincolns entered service in August 1945 with 57 Sqn), let alone mount a long range special operation of the nature of nuclear attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Tinian was easily within reach of IJ twin and single engined Kamikaze attacks:
> 
> Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> In any event, using in air refuelling, the Lancaster could deliver the bomb from Tinian.


Just to recap on this, Tinian (and neighboring islands) were under attack until February 1945, when the air attacks ceased.

The reason they ceased, is because the base that the Japanese were using as a staging base, was on Iwo Jima - which came under Allied assault in February.

From that point on, the only way the Japanese would able to reach Tinian, is with a G4M clean, as the distance from the Home island or Formosa to Tinian was within it's max. ferry range, but not with a substantial loadout.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Just to recap on this, Tinian (and neighboring islands) were under attack until February 1945, when the air attacks ceased.
> 
> The reason they ceased, is because the base that the Japanese were using as a staging base, was on Iwo Jima - which came under Allied assault in February.
> 
> From that point on, the only way the Japanese would able to reach Tinian, is with a G4M clean, as the distance from the Home island or Formosa to Tinian was within it's max. ferry range, but not with a substantial loadout.



That's not true. The IJ attacks ceased before the US captured Iwo Jima, and they ceased because IJ had run out of resources and US bombing of IJ airfields. In fact there was a variety of other bases from which raids could be staged but Japan was too weak to continue their offensive:


> Even during the months when Iwo absorbed most of its attention, the Seventh went on with its routine neutralization of other enemy bases which could have threatened the Marianas. That mission was to continue until the summer of 1945, and it is useful here to interrupt the Iwo Jima story with a brief summary of operations elsewhere.
> 
> Marcus, through which planes could stage from Japan to Saipan--though with longer flights than via Iwo--was kept under constant surveillance, usually by armed reconnaissance missions of two or three B-24's. Between September 1944 and July 1945 such missions totaled 565 sorties. Using Marcus as a target for shakedown missions, XXI Bomber Command dispatched eighty-five B-29's against it during the last month of the war.35 Woleai was visited occasionally by AAFPOA planes, as was Yap, until responsibility for the latter island was turned over to a Marine air group at Ulithi in November.36 Truk, in spite of its severe mauling earlier, was considered a potential danger spot which needed more than sporadic armed reconnaissance, and missions were sent against its installations until the end of the war. Until 26 June 1945 it was AAFPOA's B-24's that did most of the work there, flying 1,094 sorties after 1 August 1944, of which 595 came after the t groups had moved from Kwajalein to the Marianas. The half-dozen or so fighters that the Japanese managed to keep patched up did not offer much resistance, but AAFPOA was generous with escorts, sending P-38's in 75 sorties, P-47's in 234 escort and strafing sorties.37
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 14, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Got figures to back that up? On the first page I provided charts and historical information based on trials carried out with B.I Special Lancs, which definitely prove that the Lancaster's performance at MTOW carrying a sizeable load was too slow, at too low an altitude and did not have the range to mount such an operation.
> 
> Let's see what the Lanc VI could do. The Impact of the local conditions would have sapped the performance of the Lanc VI as it did the B.I Special in trials, which would, at MTOW reduced its speed, altitude and range with a given load. Yes, it was more powerful, as was the Lincoln, but not that much more powerful, certainly not B-29 powerful. That the B-29 managed the performance that it did flying those ops from Tinian is remarkable for the time, particularly the fact that standard B-29s were doing it on a daily basis. No other bomber _in service _could have done it, frankly.
> 
> Also, we are again ignoring the fact that historically, neither the Lanc VI nor the Lincoln were available by August 1945 to be of any use in service bar for training and familiarisation (three, yes, three Lincolns entered service in August 1945 with 57 Sqn), let alone mount a long range special operation of the nature of nuclear attack.



The Lancaster VI didn't have the range of a B-29 but it certainly had a greater bomb load capacity and proved it during actual missions. Lets not forget that the B-29s failed in their attempt at high altitude precision bombing of Japan under General Hansell due to poor bombing accuracy and unacceptable engine failure rates and instead used stripped aircraft to conduct a low level night bombing campaign under Lemay. The Silverplate B-29s were specially modded and stripped aircraft and by war's end only about 30 had been produced, under the highest production priority, or about the same number as Lancaster VIs and Lincolns with very low production priority. The first Lancaster VI was built in late 1943 under an experimental program but this certainly wasn't due to a lack of production capacity, but rather a lack of suitable targets and production incentive similarly there was little incentive to prioritize production of the Lincoln because there was no need for it in the ETO and Commonwealth participation in the final campaign against Japan had not yet been decided upon.

Lancaster VI performance:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf (p.221)

and given that Iwo Jima and Okinawa were in US hands both could have been used to shorten a Lancaster/Lincoln atomic mission range.

It is pretty obvious that Lancaster VI ceiling would increase as weight decreases (just as in every other aircraft).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mcoffee (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Lets not forget that the B-29s failed in their attempt at high altitude precision bombing of Japan under General Hansell due to poor bombing accuracy and unacceptable engine failure rates and instead used stripped aircraft to conduct a low level night bombing campaign under Lemay



The B-29s discovered the jet stream. Did the Lancaster have a bomb sight that could compensate for 200+mph winds aloft? What would the ground speed of a Lancaster be with a 200 mph headwind?



RCAFson said:


> We've already established that Tinian was well inside IJ aerial strike range.
> That's not true. The IJ attacks ceased before the US captured Iwo Jima, and they ceased because IJ had run out of resources and US bombing of IJ airfields.


So, which is it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Silverplate B-29s were specially modded and stripped aircraft and by war's end only about 30 had been produced, under the highest production priority.


 Not entirely true - what started out as a "modification" actually turned into a production line option. 46 were produced during the war, 65 total.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Did you not read the previous posts?
> 
> *SNIP*



Not trying to be insulting but yes, I have read what has been posted, my question is, have you?

As an aside, how is the Lancaster carrying the A bomb? Is it fully internal or is part of it sticking out like the Grand Slams?

I ask because back on page 4 of this thread, *railroader* and *special ed* brought up the issue of arming the bomb in flight, problematic in a Lancaster?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> That's not true. The IJ attacks ceased before the US captured Iwo Jima, and they ceased because IJ had run out of resources and US bombing of IJ airfields. In fact there was a variety of other bases from which raids could be staged but Japan was too weak to continue their offensive:


The last bombing raid against Tinian was on 2 February, 1945 - Iwo Jima came under attack by Allied forces 17 days later.

The Japanese were losing too many aircraft for little gain plus they lost their staging base to conduct such raids, so the units, most of which were launched from the Home island (using Iwo Jima as a stop-over) were used to either attack Allied units who were now engaged at Iwo Jima or they were held in reserve for Home defense.


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 14, 2019)

Something to bear in mind here was that the bomb's (2) were developed simultaneously with the B-29. Weapon and delivery were sensibly devised to work hand in hand. Had there been no B-29 some other configuration of the bombs and or aircraft used would have been developed. 

Leave it in Tokyo Bay with a submarine?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Did you not read the previous posts? The Hiroshima mission dropped the bomb at 30k ft, while the Lancaster VI had a service ceiling of 28500ft at Max TO weight while carrying full armour and armament. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament and armour except the tail guns removed. A standard B-29 had a service ceiling of 23800ft at Max TO weight but this rose to 35800ft combat altitude at combat weight (weight over the target). A standard B-29 carrying a 10k lb bomb from Tinian has to TO at near max TO weight to carry enough fuel. Take a Lancaster VI and remove the forward two turrets and their crew and ammo and all armour and the TO service ceiling will be well above 30K ft.



The Lancaster (with which ever engines) was not going to _operate_ within several thousand feet of it's service ceiling. Few, if any, planes ever did. 
Service Ceilings are also usually established or rated at standard conditions (59 degrees F/15 degrees C at sea level and standard pressure) with a corresponding drop in temperature at high altitudes. While the air does get colder at high altitudes even in the tropics you have to be a lot higher than 30,000ft for the temperature to be uniform regardless of surface temperature. one old chart shows minus 48 degrees F at 30,000ft on a standard 59 degree F day but a "hot day" (100 degrees F to 6000ft) shows about -5 degrees F at 30,000ft.

Adjust as you see fit but the Lancaster will NOT have the same ceilings in the summer operating from the Marshals as it did in testing in England (no plane would). 

The Turbos on the B-29 allowed the same power ratings as lower altitudes to be maintained well into the 30,000ft altitude range. 

BTW while not used in combat in WW II the B-29 was capable of lifting quite a large bomb load (given enough runway)





perhaps the caption is in error and those are only 12,000lb bombs? in which case the B-29 is carrying a mear 24,000lbs. 



> The Lancaster VI's Merlin 85 engines are not even a high altitude rated Merlin even though they have two stage SCs.



and here we run into a problem, if you fit higher altitude rated Merlins you loose around 30hp per engine at take-off. (on a 59 degree standard day) 
TANSTAAFL. as it was the Merlin 85s were allowed to use 18lbs of boost for take-off. 
The altitude rated Merlin 86 was rated at 1440hp at 22,000ft at 18lbs boost. the Merlin 85 gave 1580hp at 16,000ft at 18lbs. 
Both engines had the same cruise ratings and the same climb rating although the Merlin 86 could maintain int higher. The Merlin 86 was intended for a high altitude Lincoln project.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 14, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Something to bear in mind here was that the bomb's (2) were developed simultaneously with the B-29. Weapon and delivery were sensibly devised to work hand in hand. Had there been no B-29 some other configuration of the bombs and or aircraft used would have been developed.
> 
> Leave it in Tokyo Bay with a submarine?



If plane and bomb were developed together there would have been no need for special modifications.

Thin Man was supposed to be the first bomb used, and the B-29 needed extensive modifications to carry it.

The fact is that the B-29 was being developed before the A-bomb project started, and by the time the B-29 started flying, maybe even became operational, the scientists had no idea what size and shape the A-bombs would be.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2019)

The amount of secrecy exceeded the absurd. Even several years post war the sketchest details possible were given to the aircraft designers charged with designing and build the planes that would carry the bombs. 
Ed Heinemann tells a story in his autobiography about getting a visit from some security people about a drawing of the bomb bay for the A3 Skywarrior. The specs from the government just said how long, how wide and how tall the bomb bay should be. Heinemann drew a bomb shape in the empty space and claims he traced a drawing of a Sante Fe steam locomotive wheel to get the circular shape. It turns out he was within 1 in of the diameter of the proposed bomb the A3 was supposed to carry and the security people wanted to know how he knew the actual dimensions!!!! 
Much like GE Lynn Massachusetts was not allowed to talk to GE Schenectady New York about jet engine problems/solutions because one was working on a centrifugal engine and the other was working an axial engine. (obviously sharing information on burner design, fuel feed, turbine wheels/blades and shafting/bearings would compromise national security

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Lancaster (with which ever engines) was not going to _operate_ within several thousand feet of it's service ceiling. Few, if any, planes ever did.
> Service Ceilings are also usually established or rated at standard conditions (59 degrees F/15 degrees C at sea level and standard pressure) with a corresponding drop in temperature at high altitudes. While the air does get colder at high altitudes even in the tropics you have to be a lot higher than 30,000ft for the temperature to be uniform regardless of surface temperature. one old chart shows minus 48 degrees F at 30,000ft on a standard 59 degree F day but a "hot day" (100 degrees F to 6000ft) shows about -5 degrees F at 30,000ft.
> 
> Adjust as you see fit but the Lancaster will NOT have the same ceilings in the summer operating from the Marshals as it did in testing in England (no plane would).
> ...



The use of twin external bombs on the B-29 was a post war project and the resulting aircraft had a very short range. During WW2 the Lancaster carried heavier bomb loads against actual targets.
The B-29 required about 1/3 more TO run than a Lancaster and 2% reduced Lancaster TO power, due to higher altitude rated engines, could be compensated for by a longer TO run.

The Lancaster VI with full armour and 3 turrets had a service ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb and maximum speed was 313mph at ~18300 FT.

The Lancaster VI with 1 turret (rear - this configuration was used by many of these aircraft) had a service ceiling of 21800ft at 72000lb (22000lb bomb load) while maximum speed was 345mph ( The Avro Machester, lancaster and Lincoln). Fuel load was 1672 IG and range 1550 miles. With a 10k lb bomb, potential fuel load was ~3300IG but this figure might not be possible depending on bomb dimensions and the ability to carry auxiliary tanks. However, both the Fatman and Littleboy bombs were considerably shorter than a Tallboy and this would allow for considerably more internal fuel via auxiliary tanks.

So we see that increasing MTOW by 7000lb reduced service ceiling by 6700ft but aircraft flying from Tinian would have burnt off about
14k lb of fuel for a weight of 58k lb at weapon release. This would equate to a service ceiling of ~35k ft.

EDIT: Air temperature at weapon release was -33c (-27f) for the Hiroshima mission. True wind was less than 10mph for both missions (Malik). Given that the Hiroshima yield was much less than Nagasaki, it is evident that the crew were in little danger since the Nagasaki release was at 28.9k ft versus ~31.6k ft (Malik discusses the uncertainty around Enola Gay's actual altitude at weapon release).



Peter Gunn said:


> "Carrying" the nuke and "Delivering" the nuke are two totally different objectives. I'm sure the Lancaster was capable of _carrying_ the nuke, but are you seriously trying to say that a plane that will be flying at maybe 20,000 feet (or less) at less than 200 mph, from a base/support structure that is still well within range of Japanese air power at the time can deliver this bomb?
> 
> What about the survival of the crew and a/c? The Enola Gay didn't do that turn and dive away just to look cool.
> 
> ...



Why would a Lancaster VI be flying at 20K ft whilst dropping a 10k lb bomb?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 16, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI with full armour and 3 turrets had a service ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb and maximum speed was 313mph at ~18300 FT.



In trials in the UK, not in the Pacific under operational conditions. 

Sigh. This defence of the Lancaster VI is starting to sound like the Fw 187 argument. It was not put into production and on the existing timeline, i.e. arguing about the readiness of Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the use of an aeroplane that didn't enter scale production is just wishful telescoping. Nobody's saying these aircraft couldn't carry a (Little Boy) nuclear bomb, but not on the mission profile and environment the B-29s did. 

The fact that the Fat Man was the prototype of a production weapon meant that the Lancaster would be useless since in whatever form it couldn't carry the Fat Man. Little Boy was intended for a single bomb only and wasn't intended on production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> In trials in the UK, not in the Pacific under operational conditions.


 YEP!

From Wiki;
_"The more powerful engines proved troublesome in service and were disliked by ground maintenance staff for their rough running and propensity to 'surge and hunt', making synchronisation impossible. This was caused by variations in the fuel/air mixture and over time would damage the engine."_

Lancaster VI service ceiling of 28,500 (as posed by RCAF son) - both Atomic missions dropped their bombs at 31,000 feet.

So as mentioned earlier - Could the Lancaster deliver a nuclear weapon? I believe so. As good as a B-29? NO. With greater risk? Definitely! 

I also have issues with a single pilot cockpit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> ... arguing about ... the use of an aeroplane that didn't enter scale production is just wishful telescoping.



In a fantasy scenario (no B-29) it's incorrect to assume everyone involved would follow the exact same course of action as happened in reality.

If we change the reality of the B-29 existing we have to change the reality of everyone's reaction to that fact.

The opportunity to completely avoid Operation Downfall would be up for grabs. I think it's reasonable to assume getting a few Lancaster VIs or (Lincoln Is) up to snuff would have received a bit more attention and resources than it did.

I also think it's unreasonable to set the maximum level of acceptable risk of this pivotal mission to that of what Enola Gay and Bock's Car experienced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2019)

I would note that the performance claimed for the MK VI with two turrets removed seems to be at odds with performance here. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-level-speeds.jpg

about 315mph at 62,000lbs, turret fit not stated. 

and from the information in Flight magazine on the Lincoln. 
lancaster | 1946 | 0103 | Flight Archive

granted it is a Magazine and not an official test but the "gee whiz" attitude of the writer leads one to believe he wasn't being conservative. It is a January 1946 issue. 

from the first paragraph " At that time we referred to the Lincoln as " _the mightiest bomber in the world_," and now, having had an opportunity of examining the machine in detail, our _original opinion is, if anything, emphasised_. "

Italics by me. The B-29 was hardly a secret. So one can only assume more than a little patriotic flag waving.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ... about 315mph at 62,000lbs, turret fit not stated.



- front, mid-upper and rear turrets fitted
- extended bomb-aimer's cupola
- H2S blister
- no exhaust shrouds (not stated but appears this way in a photo from an earlier trial)


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2019)

Thank you. I am not sure that yanking the top turret and smoothing up the nose by pulling the turret and bomb aimers position is going to be worth 30mph. Especially if the plane with the turrets was running 6000lbs or more lighter than the plane that claimed 345mph.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ed.
> 
> and from the information in Flight magazine on the Lincoln.
> lancaster | 1946 | 0103 | Flight Archive



Of interest is the effect of weight on service ceiling and speed.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you. I am not sure that yanking the top turret and smoothing up the nose by pulling the turret and bomb aimers position is going to be worth 30mph. Especially if the plane with the turrets was running 6000lbs or more lighter than the plane that claimed 345mph.



We (and I) don't know what aircraft weight was at the stated speed. However 345mph seems quite reasonable to me that if the weight was, say ~55000lb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2019)

It seems to me that the problems with the B.VI's engine synchronization would have meant erratic fuel consumption that could not be predicted for a critical long-range mission, putting the mission at risk.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> YEP!
> 
> From Wiki;
> _"The more powerful engines proved troublesome in service and were disliked by ground maintenance staff for their rough running and propensity to 'surge and hunt', making synchronisation impossible. This was caused by variations in the fuel/air mixture and over time would damage the engine."_
> ...



Doubtless the engines would have to be changed out frequently, but that seems acceptable given the costs of the weapon to be dropped and the low cost of a Lancaster compared to some other bombers. The flight engineer typically had the ability to fly the aircraft from his station.

Lancaster VI service ceiling was at 65000lb TO weight with full armament and armour. Weight over the target would be much less than 65k lbs. and I would guesstimate that it would be about 57k lbs in an aircraft with the two forward turrets deleted with a consequent increase in speed and ceiling.

A post war B29 at Max TO weight (140k lbs) had a service ceiling of ~24000ft, increasing to 35.6k ft at 120k lbs and 39.6k ft at 101.3k lbs.

Bockscar dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay. Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely.


Except for the extremely accurate Japanese AA which would have brought it down like so many other B-29s - there was a reason for the specific altitude that the A-Bombs were to be dropped.
The primary reason was AA and the other was the allow for the aircraft to egress the area before being over-taken by the shockwave.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> It seems to me that the problems with the B.VI's engine synchronization would have meant erratic fuel consumption that could not be predicted for a critical long-range mission, putting the mission at risk.



Lancaster VIs flew a number of combat missions and did extensive flight testing so their characteristics would have been well known. However, apparently a change to 4 bladed props solved most of the problems.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Lancaster VIs flew a number of combat missions and did extensive flight testing so their characteristics would have been well known. However, apparently a change to 4 bladed props solved most of the problems.


You do realize that you're staunchly defending 9 aircraft that had a questionable service span of less than a year and were replaced by more reliable versions, all in the hopes of making a point that these would be the golden steeds of an Atomic delivery program?

Think about that carefully the next time you poke at anyone who is trying to justify a "wunderwaffe" aircraft


----------



## Greyman (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> You do realize that you're staunchly defending 9 aircraft that had a questionable service span of less than a year and were replaced by more reliable versions, all in the hopes of making a point that these would be the golden steeds of an Atomic delivery program?
> 
> Think about that carefully the next time you poke at anyone who is trying to justify a "wunderwaffe" aircraft



The Merlin 85 issues seem to have been worked out in time (see Lincoln).

There was probably a reason for the lack of effort/production of the Lancaster VI (also see Lincoln).

"... in the hopes of making a point that these would be the golden steeds of an Atomic delivery program?"

That's the entire point of this thread, yes.
a) all other options are off the table​b) can the Lancaster work​


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> You do realize that you're staunchly defending 9 aircraft that had a questionable service span of less than a year and were replaced by more reliable versions, all in the hopes of making a point that these would be the golden steeds of an Atomic delivery program?
> 
> Think about that carefully the next time you poke at anyone who is trying to justify a "wunderwaffe" aircraft



There was more than 9 aircraft, as there were several Lincoln prototypes (Lancaster IV) and the Lincolns themselves and as we've discussed there was little urgency for the development of a long range, high altitude Lancaster but despite that one was developed and flew a number of combat sorties.

If the bomb had been developed historically, but post war, and consequently there was no Silverplate B-29 program and no A1 priority for B-29 development and we had to decide, now, in retrospect, if the B-29 was mature enough to have been worth trying to modify it to carry LITTLEBOY AND FATMAN if they had been available, what would we decide?

We'd be looking at the expense, the needed structural and reliability improvements and the operational track record of the B-29 and I'll bet we'd conclude that the B-29 looked good on paper but just wasn't ready.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you. I am not sure that yanking the top turret and smoothing up the nose by pulling the turret and bomb aimers position is going to be worth 30mph. Especially if the plane with the turrets was running 6000lbs or more lighter than the plane that claimed 345mph.




You can disagree with my assessment but how about coming up with something to show how it is wrong. 

Some of my opinion is based off comparing the normal Lancaster to the Lancastrian airliner.





Which, despite running lighter than the Lancaster bomber, (53,000lbs mean weight vs 55,000lbs for the MK III Lancaster) was not 30mph faster despite the longer, better faired nose, the longer faired tail, and absence of H2S blisters (or any other kind) on the belly of the aircraft. 
It was about 20mph faster at max weak mixture. Power levels are going to be very similar as the Merlin 24 in the Lancastrian, the Merlin 22, 32,38s in the Lancasters all ran at 2650rpm and 7lbs boost for max weak mixture. The Merlin 24 was allowed 18lbs boost due to a stronger clutch in the supercharger drive. 
The Merlin 85 was rated at 2650rpm and 7lbs boost for max weak cruising in low gear and 2850rpm and 7lb in high gear. The Merlin 85 was a low altitude two stage engine. It was rated at 1580hp at 16,000ft in high gear (18lbs boost) The Merlin 24 was rated at 1510hp at 9250ft in high gear (18lbs of boost) so yes the Merlin 85 will give 7-8,000ft more ceiling. 

The Lancastrian airliner was supposed to have a max speed of 310mph at 12,000ft. while weighing 53,000lbs. 
Granted the Lanc Mk VI will be flying higher but getting it to 345mph is going to take an awful lot of doing. 

BTW here is a report on the difference between standard conditions and tropical conditions as regards the Lancaster. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

Make of it what you will but I think the 28,500 ceiling for the Lancaster MK VI is in serious jeopardy. 

See part where the service ceiling of the Lancaster (with Merlin 24s) at 70,000lbs dropped from 20.100ft to 15,700ft and it took 61 minutes to reach the lower height vs 51 minutes to reach the higher altitude. 

The Merlin 85s will improve things (ceiling especially, climb times not so much) as will running at a lighter weight as fuel is burned off but the the idea of getting a Lancaster VI to the same operating altitudes as a B-29 in tropical conditions seems to be an illusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Doubtless the engines would have to be changed out frequently, but that seems acceptable given the costs of the weapon to be dropped and the low cost of a Lancaster compared to some other bombers. * The flight engineer typically had the ability to fly the aircraft from his station*.


Not the same having a dedicated copilot along side the PIC as another set of eyes and to help with the workload. The single pilot Lancaster configuration was always an operational risk based on need but in the end is/ was another outdated aspect of the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Bockscar dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay.



My sources show both bombs dropped at just over 31,000 ft, what's your source for that?


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My sources show both bombs dropped at just over 31,000 ft, what's your source for that?



Here's the official history:


> At any rate, it was Bock's Car, sans Bock, that carried the bomb. (See msg., Wright-Patterson AFB to Hq. USAF, 19 May 1946; 509th Composite Group, Operations Order No. 39, 8 Aug. 1945; 509th Composite Group, Final Mission Report No. 16, 9 Aug. 1945; and interview with Frederick C. Bock by J. L. Cate, 23 Nov. 1952.)
> 
> at both targets. Sweeney's plane reached the rendezvous point--Yakujima off the south coast of Kyushu--at 0909, one minute ahead of schedule, and was joined three minutes later by Bock's instrument plane. Bock spotted the other observation plane, piloted by Maj. James I. Hopkins, but lost contact; Sweeney never saw Hopkins' plane and after circling for three-quarters of an hour he and Bock headed for Kokura without it. There the weather had closed in meanwhile and Sweeney's bombardier, Capt. Kermit K. Beahan, made three runs without getting a glimpse of the target. With gas running low (600 gallons were trapped in the bomb-bay tank) and a few enemy fighters rising to investigate, Sweeney consulted with Beahan and Comdr. Frederick L. Ashworth (USN), the bomb commander and weaponeer. They decided to try the secondary target, make one run, and drop the bomb-visually if possible or by radar if not; this last decision, which ran counter to Sweeney's orders, was made on Ashworth's responsibility because of the shortage of fuel. Over Nagasaki they found 8/10 cloud and the run-in was 90 per cent by radar," but at the last second Beahan found a hole in the cloud and let go. It was then 1058 Nagasaki time.59
> 
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You can disagree with my assessment but how about coming up with something to show how it is wrong.
> 
> Some of my opinion is based off comparing the normal Lancaster to the Lancastrian airliner.
> View attachment 529317
> ...



We'd need to see similar data for the B-29 to make a valid comparison. However, conditions at Tinian in August are not the same as Tropical Summer in India:

Saipan International, MP History | Weather Underground (this data is for Aug 1955)




Comparing an lancastrian with a FTH of 12K ft to one with a FTH of 18-20k ft is fraught with difficulties. if we look at the Lincoln data we can see an increase in speed of ~10mph due to a reduction in weight and if the aircraft were streamlined by removing the forward turrets and fairings, then another 20mph increase seems likely.

A Lancaster 1 at 60k lbs and 12K ft would have a maximum speed of ~278mph which is 32mph slower than the Lancastrian at your stated 310mph at 12k ft.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not the same having a dedicated copilot along side the PIC as another set of eyes and to help with the workload. The single pilot Lancaster configuration was always an operational risk based on need but in the end is/ was another outdated aspect of the Lancaster.



The aircraft has a 2nd pilot when needed and an autopilot. Not requiring a co-pilot significantly reduced Lancaster operational costs.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 17, 2019)

Found some figures for speed increases via turret removal:

Mid-Upper FN50a
490 lb total (turret, mounting, 2 guns, 2000 rounds) I don't think this includes the gunner, so maybe add another 200 lb
-10 mph cruising speed, -12 mph max speed

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The aircraft has a 2nd pilot when needed and an autopilot. Not requiring a co-pilot significantly reduced Lancaster operational costs.


Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2019)

Thank you, I too, would doubt the gunner was included at that weight. the 2000 rounds of ammo is around 120lbs. 

I doubt you are going to see quite the same increase in speed from fairing over the forward turret.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29



The RAF and RCAF had lots of experience flying large multi engine aircraft under combat conditions and they deemed the Lancaster pilot -autopilot-flight engineer with flight controls, as suitable for a variety of attack profiles, many of which had very high inherent risk.

EDIT: USAAF pilot's opinion of Lancaster flight controls: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_Eng-47-1658-F.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, I too, would doubt the gunner was included at that weight. the 2000 rounds of ammo is around 120lbs.
> 
> I doubt you are going to see quite the same increase in speed from fairing over the forward turret.



The Lancaster under test probably had single stage engines. A Lancaster with two stage engines would show a greater increase at altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The RAF and RCAF had lots of experience flying large multi engine aircraft under combat conditions and they deemed the Lancaster pilot -autopilot-flight engineer with flight controls, as suitable for a variety of attack profiles, many of which had very high inherent risk.



And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot *and co-pilot.* Coincidence? 

Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)

An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast. 

Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2019)

Maybe, the air is thinner meaning less drag in general.
right now I can't figure out if that is good or bad for a speed increase. If you are at 22,000ft and the air is 1/2 as dense as sea level you have 1/2 the drag at the same speed. Does that mean you half the speed change from a drag reduction measure? the same speed change or double the speed change?
And since drag goes up with the square of the speed getting really big increases gets a lot harder.

I need a nap 

I would note that on the Lincoln the change in weight (if we throw out the extremes) as about 4mph between 63,500lbs and 69,500lbs at full throttle and 7-8mph at max weak mixture. 

Everything seems to need to be optimistic side for the Lancaster to work, it might be possible but the B-29 worked (barely at times) despite hot temperatures and problems with the engines. It had more performance in hand to cover performance sapping conditions. It was also designed to carry a large payload (weight wise) and a large amount of fuel at high altitudes ,after it burned off fuel, but both planes could take around an hour to get to operational heights so gross weights should be take with a grain of salt for both aircraft.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot *and co-pilot.* Coincidence?
> 
> Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
> 
> ...


I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.





RCAFson said:


> I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.


I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot *and co-pilot.* Coincidence?
> 
> Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
> 
> ...



Joe,

You'll get no disagreement from me that, in an ideal world, 2 pilots are better than one under high-stress situations. However, a couple of points need to be made.

Firstly, the post-war Canberra only had one pilot. All official heavy bombers after the Lanc did have pilot and co...but the Canberra didn't. I know, it's the exception that proves the rule. Nowadays we wouldn't consider such an aircraft without 2 pilots...but we'd also not have the rear-seat crew. You're right about all other postwar heavy bombers though.

Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls. It was far from ideal and probably would have made things interesting for the bomb aimer accessing his position. However, such an installation could have been used (indeed was used operationally on occasion) if the need arose.

Thirdly, your comment about the flight engineer being ballast is a little unworthy. In reality, the flight engineer would come forward to occupy the dickie seat (essentially where a co-pilot would sit on most bombers) for take-off and landing to assist the pilot. While certainly not as capable as a fully-qualified pilot, I think it's a bit harsh to say he was "one step above ballast". 

Bottom line for me is that the B-29 was clearly the better aircraft for the nuke missions. However, it's interesting to consider what options might have been on the table if the B-29 didn't become operational at the right time. I think the Lancaster, while not as well-suited, could have completed the mission, although it may have been a one-way trip for the crew. Then again, the Dambusters Raid didn't hold out much odds of survival. It was a different time and people volunteered for all sorts of crazy one-way missions. It's also worth considering that, apart from the Lanc, the Allies didn't have many other/better options for nuke delivery in 1945. 

I think some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, are being stretched just a little too far. This is my attempt to rein things back just a wee bit 'cos I've found the discussion fascinating.

ATB,
Mark

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)


So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I need a nap


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls.



The weird thing about the Lancaster was its change in cockpit responsibilities from the Manchester, which did have the second set of controls and a dedicated co-pilot, although he had a folding seat to enable the front gunner to access his compartment, not the edifice that the pilot sat on.

Joe has a point regarding crew responsibility falling on the guy in the left hand seat. He was the captain in charge; he had a big workload. Having a permanent Number 2 to his right would have eased his load. The Manchester did, so why did they remove it in the Lancaster?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...



Actually I would require that both guys be FE / pilot qualified.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...


Sure - as long as he sits to the right of the pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> You'll get no disagreement from me that, in an ideal world, 2 pilots are better than one under high-stress situations. However, a couple of points need to be made.
> 
> ...



Just about agree on all counts Mark - maybe my words about the FE were a bit harsh except in the situation of flying IMC or assisting on approaches, there isn't much an FE could do, not to take anything away from the FE function - as we know a few of them actually landed aircraft while the pilot was incapacitated.

I worked with many an FE who would grab the power levers, slap the pilots on the back of the head and say "SHUT UP AND STEER"!

The Canberra - IMO a whole different ball game


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The weird thing about the Lancaster was its change in cockpit responsibilities from the Manchester, which did have the second set of controls and a dedicated co-pilot, although he had a folding seat to enable the front gunner to access his compartment, not the edifice that the pilot sat on.
> 
> Joe has a point regarding crew responsibility falling on the guy in the left hand seat. He was the captain in charge; he had a big workload. Having a permanent Number 2 to his right would have eased his load. The Manchester did, so why did they remove it in the Lancaster?



Perhaps the Manchester required a higher pilot workload? As the USAAF pilot's noted in their report the pilot's workload was greatly reduced by having much of the engine management systems automated and hence their comments and recommendations:


> ...Many automatic features add to the simplicity
> of operations of the Lancaster. The engine radiator shutters are
> automatically positioned and the mixture controls have been eliminated
> completely by using automatic carburettor settings selected from boost
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Perhaps the Manchester required a higher pilot workload? As the USAAF pilot's noted in their report the pilot's workload was greatly reduced by having much of the engine management systems automated and hence their comments and recommendations:



The RAF had to deal with the fact they they just didn't have enough pilots, especially for meeting bomber command requirements. AVRO did a magnificent job in designing a 4 engine bomber that could be flown by a single pilot to meet the operational requirements of the day and that was to drop as much TNT on Germany as possible and IMO they knocked it out of the park. Despite this brilliant design and it's accomplishments, I think it was well recognized that the single pilot configuration was accepted out of need rather than *"operational costs."* As stated - in the post war years this crew configuration just about became extinct with the exception as the Canberra, but when you examine that aircraft's design spec and mission, we're talking apples and oranges.

Repeating previous points and bringing up new ones - sending off a single piloted nuclear armed Lancaster "could have" been accomplished but would have been exercised in desperation if not grossly ignoring potential for disaster. 

Now - how about that tail wheel...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 18, 2019)

Would the Canberra be considered a jet powered Mosquito?


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As stated - in the post war years this crew configuration just about became extinct with the exception as the Canberra, but when you examine that aircraft's design spec and mission, we're talking apples and oranges.



Not sure it's quite so "apples-and-oranges", particularly the B(I)Mk8 variant that was supposed to do low-level ops over Europe.

Incidentally, I think the Canberra really SHOULD have had a second pilot given its rather dangerous asymmetric handling qualities. I arrived at RAF Wyton not long after they lost the Station Commander, Reg McKendrick, in a crash while practicing an engine failure after take-off. A QFI and Staff Nav also perished on that short but deadly flight...and that was a T4 which had dual controls.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot *and co-pilot.* Coincidence?
> 
> Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
> 
> ...


The B-29 was depressurized during combat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The B-29 was depressurized during combat



Read the following

https://www.quora.com/How-come-addi...hus-losing-its-cabin-pressure-all-of-the-time

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 18, 2019)

The B-47 had the co-pilot/gunner seated behind the pilot and there was no FE...just a navigator as the 3rd crew member. 

The B-58 had a pilot, navigator, and weapons operator.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Not sure it's quite so "apples-and-oranges", particularly the B(I)Mk8 variant that was supposed to do low-level ops over Europe.
> 
> Incidentally, I think the Canberra really SHOULD have had a second pilot given its rather dangerous asymmetric handling qualities. I arrived at RAF Wyton not long after they lost the Station Commander, Reg McKendrick, in a crash while practicing an engine failure after take-off. A QFI and Staff Nav also perished on that short but deadly flight...and that was a T4 which had dual controls.



In it's day the Canberra was a hot rod when compared to WW2 heavies although later missions pushed the design growth to its limits. For certain missions I agree, a co-pilot was needed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The B-47 had the co-pilot/gunner seated behind the pilot and there was no FE...just a navigator as the 3rd crew member.
> 
> The B-58 had a pilot, navigator, and weapons operator.



By the time both of those aircraft entered service, the need for a dedicated bomber FE was slowly going away. Both the B-47 and B-58 were almost fighter like so the dedicated crew stations coupled with advances in nav and weapons systems eliminated older crew positions from WW2

The B-50 and B-36 retained FE positions as well as other post war patrol bombers (P2V, P3, de Havilland Comet, Tu95)


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read the following
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-come-addi...hus-losing-its-cabin-pressure-all-of-the-time



Good article FBJ! The funny thing is the USAF makes us go to the chamber twice in pilot training with the second having a rapid depressurization from 43K. Also most airliners today run around with the cabin at 7.5 - 8.0K, while the 787 and A350 are substantially lower at 5K IIRC.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read the following
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-come-addi...hus-losing-its-cabin-pressure-all-of-the-time


Page 149 of the "The B-29 Airplane Commander Training Manual for the Superfortress" (revised February 1945) states "Always depressurize when expecting enemy action, when the ship is on fire, or when preparing to abandon ship."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Page 149 of the "The B-29 Airplane Commander Training Manual for the Superfortress" (revised February 1945) states "Always depressurize when expecting enemy action, when the ship is on fire, or when preparing to abandon ship."



And that seems to contradict some of the operational reports. In a later manual it talks about partial pressurization when operating in combat (AAF 51-126-6 15 December 1945 Page 160). Emergency procedures are the same.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 19, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> By the time both of those aircraft entered service, the need for a dedicated bomber FE was slowly going away. Both the B-47 and B-58 were almost fighter like so the dedicated crew stations coupled with advances in nav and weapons systems eliminated older crew positions from WW2
> 
> The B-50 and B-36 retained FE positions as well as other post war patrol bombers (P2V, P3, de Havilland Comet, Tu95)


Agree Joe, my question though, the "simplicity" of the jet engine over the recip, didn't that make the FE rather unneeded? Or at least altered his task load and duties?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Agree Joe, my question though, the "simplicity" of the jet engine over the recip, didn't that make the FE rather unneeded? Or at least altered his task load and duties?



Peter,

Jets are quite a bit more simplistic than a recip, however the job of an FE back then was a bit more involved. I’m pretty sure the military expected them to be able to do some levels of repairs and or maintenance.

They were also considered systems experts and expected to have a high degree of knowledge on their respective mount. The AF still requires these skills IIRC. My airline has quite a few of them who teach system academics and they are VERY knowledgeable.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 19, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Good article FBJ! The funny thing is the USAF makes us go to the chamber twice in pilot training with the second having a rapid depressurization from 43K. Also most airliners today run around with the cabin at 7.5 - 8.0K, while the 787 and A350 are substantially lower at 5K IIRC.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


On the KC10 it was mostly around 6.5k

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Startiger (Aug 8, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I think that 'access' was just for visual checks. I think to actually fiddle with a bomb some further modification would be required (Grand Slam pictured).
> 
> 
> View attachment 528584



I understand my question could be OT, but surfing the web I can't find useful and detailed information about the British 'Type G' single points attachments and 'Type F' releases. And, in particular, pictures or diagrams of their use with Tall Boy and Little Boy/Fat man
Can anyone provide some help?


----------



## glennasher (Aug 8, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I can't see range shrinking that much based on a 0.07 ampg difference.


Heading toward Japan, they faced headwinds that were pretty bad. That's where/when they discovered the jet stream, after all. That was always a factor until Lemay ordered them to bomb from lower altitudes.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 7, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> Even if a Lancaster (or Lincoln) were to drop a 1945 atomic bomb on a Japanese target, given its slow speed and low altitude (vs the B-29) its prospects of escaping the weapon effects would be problematic.


What about a streamlined Lanc with Griffons for range, jets for sprint to/from target?






You may need RATO to takeoff (like the A-20 below) and in-flight refueling once aloft to have the necessary range.











One added benefit of the streamlined Lancaster is no need for several crewmen, dropping two gunners for certain. Perhaps the Air Bomber too, since you‘re dropping a nuke with little need for accuracy. Perhaps the navigator can crawl forward to make last minute checks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> What about a streamlined Lanc with Griffons for range, jets for sprint to/from target? You may need RATO to takeoff and in-flight refueling once aloft to have the necessary range.
> 
> View attachment 559851
> 
> ...


 How about a B-50 or better yet, a B-36?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 7, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> How about a B-50 or better yet, a B-36?


Well sure, but I’m trying to contribute to the Lancaster thread. If we want the best of any candidates then the Lancaster should stay home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2019)

Why not a B-52, then?

Wait...nevermind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Why not a B-52, then?
> 
> Wait...nevermind.



Has anybody here suggested the Short Shetland as an alternative. I was just thinking, the Japanese had biological weapons, so if we atomise them then maybe they gas us in retaliation. At least with the Shetland you wouldn't need a runway with ground staff to come back to.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> What about a streamlined Lanc with Griffons for range, jets for sprint to/from target?



You do realize the plane pictured flew for the first time, on August 14, 1946 about 1 year too late for WW II. This was the first aircraft to fly with the RR Nene engine. 

I believe FlyboyJ's suggestions of the B-50 and B-36 were sarcasm. 

If you can _magically_ get 1946-47 engines into 1944 airframes for 1945 service use all sorts of possibilities open up.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You do realize the plane pictured flew for the first time, on August 14, 1946 about 1 year too late for WW II. This was the first aircraft to fly with the RR Nene engine.
> 
> I believe FlyboyJ's suggestions of the B-50 and B-36 were sarcasm.
> 
> If you can _magically_ get 1946-47 engines into 1944 airframes for 1945 service use all sorts of possibilities open up.



Yes, I agree, we could have both the EE Canberra and Short Sperrin flying in late 1944 with RR Nene turbojets as they were first run on October 27 1944.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You do realize the plane pictured flew for the first time, on August 14, 1946 about 1 year too late for WW II. This was the first aircraft to fly with the RR Nene engine.
> 
> I believe FlyboyJ's suggestions of the B-50 and B-36 were sarcasm.
> 
> If you can _magically_ get 1946-47 engines into 1944 airframes for 1945 service use all sorts of possibilities open up.


How about we skip the jets, put on four Griffons and keep the streamlining.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 8, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> How about we skip the jets, put on four Griffons and keep the streamlining.



You mean like the post-War Agro Shackleton.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> ...I was just thinking, the Japanese had biological weapons, so if we atomise them then maybe they gas us in retaliation...


Their I-400 class (only 3 of 18 completed) and AM class subs (2 of 7 completed) were built too late in the war for proper training and deployment for the planned Panama and San Diego missions.
Also, one of the I-400 class subs was needed to pick up the Tiger tank from France that the IJA had ordered but the Normandy invasion happened before this could be accomplished.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Well sure, but I’m trying to contribute to the Lancaster thread. If we want the best of any candidates then the Lancaster should stay home.


Read some of my earlier comments and information. As a nuke carrier it should stay home.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe FlyboyJ's suggestions of the B-50 and B-36 were sarcasm.
> 
> If you can _magically_ get 1946-47 engines into 1944 airframes for 1945 service use all sorts of possibilities open up.



Yes and no - the B-36 wasn't going to happen during WW2, but the B-50 "could have" been a possibility, remember it was supposed to the "B-29D." The time frame was there and the first orders were placed in the summer of 45.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 8, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes and no - the B-36 wasn't going to happen during WW2, but the B-50 "could have" been a possibility, remember it was supposed to the "B-29D." The time frame was there and the first orders were placed in the summer of 45.



Also the B-36 was designed in WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Also the B-36 was designed in WW2.


It was - but even under the best situations, it wasn't going to happen for WW2. The B-50 however had a chance and was actually ordered. The prototype of soughs, the XB-44 flew in 1944. The only reason why the B-29D was re-designated "B-50" was due to funding protocol. B-50 development ground to a snail's pace and IIRC it's first flight under the new designation didn't happen until 1947. Had the war progressed on we would have seen the B-29D (B-50) being delivered before years' end 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 16, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> How about we skip the jets, put on four Griffons and keep the streamlining.



Put four single-stage Griffons on a Lincoln (evolved Lanc) and you get a Shackleton! A streamlined Lincoln with two-stage Griffons would likely escape any Jap defence and A-bomb effects. Parachute the bomb if you're nervous.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> ...Parachute the bomb if you're nervous.


Probably not a good idea to be having a nuke dangling from a chute.
Aside from the fact that it's accuracy would be out the window, now the Japanese AA have a big fat target - and I say big fat target because it would take one hell of a parachute to slow down 9,700 (or 10,300) pounds.


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Probably not a good idea to be having a nuke dangling from a chute.
> Aside from the fact that it's accuracy would be out the window, now the Japanese AA have a big fat target - and I say big fat target because it would take one hell of a parachute to slow down 9,700 (or 10,300) pounds.


Lots of nukes had chutes, as here: Remembering A Near Disaster: U.S. Accidentally Drops Nuclear Bombs On Itself And Its Allies


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2019)

The weapons referred to in that artical had yields hundreds of times that of the two deployed over Japan.
Meaning that Fat Man/Little Boy had to be in direct proximity of their intended target. A modern ("modern" for the Cold War) did not need to be nearly as accurate in order to achieve results - dropping bombs over Japan at high altitudes were blown off course by the prevailing winds (which is why the switch in conventional bombing doctrine) and if one (or more) were in a chute, it would go considerably off-course before reaching it's intended target.

Also, the ability to drag-correct/decelerate weapons of that mass in order to maximize yeild matured in the post-war era - the Atomic Bomb program during WWII was breaking new ground all across the board.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 26, 2020)

Reviving this thread somewhat, an article on this subject (without the wild theories being promoted on this thread) has been published in the August 2020 issue of Aeroplane Magazine in the UK. Link here to the magazine website:

VICTORY 75: MISSION IMPROBABLE

If you wish to read it, you have to either buy a copy of the magazine from a news agent or subscribe via the website and download a digital copy.

Aeroplane Magazine Subscription


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 26, 2020)

As an aside, this came as a response to the article and fits with some of the more crazy theories out there. It is posted unedited and names have been omitted to protect the innocent!

"Sirs,
As the ‘Little Boy’ Atomic Bomb was designed by the opposition to be carried by the He 177 Grieff it should have been well within the capacity of the Lancaster.
Considering, a soldier raised the alarm on Sunday morning 8th April 1945, on a rest day, that ‘Yellow Cake’ had been dispatched to a factory located in a salt mine in the Hartz Mountains, the response by the RAF was brilliant. The He 177 was detected on the night of Monday 9th April by a Mosquito NF Mk 30 of 219 Squadron, and shot down over Northern France.
The weapon was recovered from the site and was on display at Hendon. From there years later, it was refurbished by Aldermaston Apprentices and is now on display in the IWM.
The second ‘Little Boy’ was captured by a unit of the US 9th Army, where it was anticipated and this device reported on. See the report featured in the Library of Congress. A second He 177 was on standby on a nearby airfield!"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 27, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> As an aside, this came as a response to the article and fits with some of the more crazy theories out there. It is posted unedited and names have been omitted to protect the innocent!
> 
> "Sirs,
> As the ‘Little Boy’ Atomic Bomb was designed by the opposition to be carried by the He 177 Grieff it should have been well within the capacity of the Lancaster.
> ...


They wrote that as a joke right?

...


Right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> They wrote that as a joke right?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


There are some that truly beleive that Little Boy was German.
While the Germans (and Japanese) had nuclear programs, they didn't possess the ability to process the Uranium to the grade and in sufficient quantities to produce Little Boy.
The processing facility (S-50) was a complex that required a considerable amount of labor and materials that the Germans would have been hard-pressed to make, let alone keep out of sight.
Among some of the materials needed for S-50, was an absurd amount of silver for the cyclotron, used instead of copper (because silver is a more efficient conductor), which came from the U.S. Treasury.

So while it makes for an interesting story, it just wasn't possible.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 27, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> So while it makes for an interesting story, it just wasn't possible.



Absolutely. The Little Boy only came about with the use of Uranium U235 as the isotope for the gun 'bullet' as a result of impurities in the plutonium that came from the Hanford site at Benton, Washington originally designed for use in the Thin Man bomb; the first atom bomb design. The use of U235 meant that the bomb could be reduced in length from 17 feet to 11 feet.

That the Germans got a processing plant to refine the right kind of material, let alone design a workable bomb when lacking the facilities and the thinking behind the Manhattan Project is inexplicable. Not saying they couldn't have done it, but Nazi Germany suffered a brain drain when its Jewish scientists left in the late 30s, which meant it would have taken the Nazis a bit longer than the time they had left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 27, 2020)

Apologies if I'm posting information already covered here, but I didn't have an opportunity to reread the entire thread. Sticking to the Lancaster as anatomic bomber reminded me of a presentation I attended at the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas. One of the things that stood out to me wasn't the difficulty getting the bomb to the target, it was getting the bomber far enough away from the explosion to survive. While the Lancaster may have been able to lug the bomb to Hiroshima I have a hard time to believe that it would be able to reach the safe threshold from the explosion (per wiki this was 8.5 miles).

The flight path for the Little & Fat Man Bombs required dropping the bombs at 30,000 ft+ @ 200 mph, performing an immediate 155 degree turn with 1700' dive and flying away at maximum power. Both bombs fell for an average of 44 seconds before detonation. Doing some sloppy math, a Lancaster dropping the bomb at 20,000+ would have to perform the same maneuver with just 28.6 seconds before detonation. The Lancaster would be significantly closer to the blast and without sitting down and doing proper calculations seems to be within the safety zone.

I'm sure there are members of the forum better equipped to calculate this out, but my feeling is the Lancaster just doesn't have what it takes to survive such a mission.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 27, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> They wrote that as a joke right?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


God, I hope so!
The Alsos Mission pretty much proved that the Germans were years away from a working nuclear weapon and it also seems some of the scientists in Germany were _deliberately_ going down blind alleys in nuclear weapons development.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2020)

The Germans could have produced "dirty" bombs, carried aloft by the proposed A9/A10 Aggregat rocket, but the effects of "dirty" weapons were not really known in the late 30's/early 40's.
Plus the only rocket available was the A4, who's payload was comparable to the A9/10 (about a ton) with a much shorter range.
The A9/A10 was intented to reach the U.S. from France with conventional warheads.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Apologies if I'm posting information already covered here, but I didn't have an opportunity to reread the entire thread. Sticking to the Lancaster as anatomic bomber reminded me of a presentation I attended at the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas. One of the things that stood out to me wasn't the difficulty getting the bomb to the target, it was getting the bomber far enough away from the explosion to survive. While the Lancaster may have been able to lug the bomb to Hiroshima I have a hard time to believe that it would be able to reach the safe threshold from the explosion (per wiki this was 8.5 miles).
> 
> The flight path for the Little & Fat Man Bombs required dropping the bombs at 30,000 ft+ @ 200 mph, performing an immediate 155 degree turn with 1700' dive and flying away at maximum power. Both bombs fell for an average of 44 seconds before detonation. Doing some sloppy math, a Lancaster dropping the bomb at 20,000+ would have to perform the same maneuver with just 28.6 seconds before detonation. The Lancaster would be significantly closer to the blast and without sitting down and doing proper calculations seems to be within the safety zone.
> 
> I'm sure there are members of the forum better equipped to calculate this out, but my feeling is the Lancaster just doesn't have what it takes to survive such a mission.



Please read the whole thread. The Lancaster VI had a service ceiling, at ~58K lb (approximate weight at bomb release) of well above 30K ft due to it's two stage Merlin 85 engines where the typical Lancaster used single stage engines.

see these posts:

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 27, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Please read the whole thread. The Lancaster VI had a service ceiling, at ~58K lb (approximate weight at bomb release) of well above 30K ft due to it's two stage Merlin 85 engines where the typical Lancaster used single stage engines.
> 
> see these posts:
> 
> ...


Greetings RCAFson,

I did look at the Lancaster VI, however, based on its lack of field success felt that it was not an appropriate aircraft. Per wikipedia, only nine were built and due to problems with the engines were retired from service in 1944. Doesn't sound like the right aircraft for the job. I recognize from this thread and others on this site that the Lancaster is a beloved aircraft with an outstanding record of achievements, but it may not be suitable for every application. One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion. 

Reagards,

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings RCAFson,
> 
> One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
> 
> ...



Hi

Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?

Mike


----------



## Greyman (Jul 27, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> There are some that truly beleive that Little Boy was German.



Wow. That must rank pretty high on this chart here ...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2020)

> NevadaK said:
> Greetings RCAFson,
> 
> One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
> ...





MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
> 
> Mike


The B-29 had fabric control surfaces. This had no bearing with it's ability to act as a nuclear bomber.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 had fabric control surfaces. This had no bearing with it's ability to act as a nuclear bomber.


If you don't have a problem with the crew being all 100% homo sapiens what is the issue with fabric control surfaces? I don't think it was an issue of cost, at the time the B-29 was just about the most expensive thing ever made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2020)

pbehn said:


> If you don't have a problem with the crew being all 100% homo sapiens what is the issue with fabric control surfaces? I don't think it was an issue of cost, at the time the B-29 was just about the most expensive thing ever made.



And at the time the design philosophy was to retain fabric control surfaces on a number of large multi-engine aircraft, weight and control surface balance reasons. I believe there were mods to do away with the fabric surfaces on the B-29 and I believe eliminated on the B-50,

I do know that continued radiation probably would not have been too healthy on the fabric but then again I doubt there would have been continual nuclear operations in the post war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 27, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
> 
> Mike


Thanks MikeMeech,

You are correct. The B-29 does have fabric surfaces. From what I recall from the presentation at the testing museum, there was concern for non-metallic surfaces surviving the detonation if they hadn't gotten out of the 8 mile radius.

Kk


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And at the time the design philosophy was to retain fabric control surfaces on a number of large multi-engine aircraft, weight and control surface balance reasons. I believe there were mods to do away with the fabric surfaces on the B-29 and I believe eliminated on the B-50,
> 
> I do know that continued radiation probably would not have been too healthy on the fabric but then again I doubt there would have been continual nuclear operations in the post war.


As I understand it the concern was two fold. The initial concern was the fabric's resistance to the flash burn. The second was the over pressure of the blast radius. From the Trinity Test, there was a rough idea of what these values would be, but nothing certain. As an untested design, Little Boy also represented an unknown as to efficiency and the size of the blast. The 8 mile safety radius was probably conservative, but represented the best guess as to survivability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> As I understand it the concern was two fold. The initial concern was the fabric's resistance to the flash burn. The second was the over pressure of the blast radius. From the Trinity Test, there was a rough idea of what these values would be, but nothing certain. As an untested design, Little Boy also represented an unknown as to efficiency and the size of the blast. The 8 mile safety radius was probably conservative, but represented the best guess as to survivability.


All were valid concerns but were not made priorities in the post war. Apparently the B-50 had at least a fabric rudder

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings RCAFson,
> 
> I did look at the Lancaster VI, however, based on its lack of field success felt that it was not an appropriate aircraft. Per wikipedia, only nine were built and due to problems with the engines were retired from service in 1944. Doesn't sound like the right aircraft for the job. I recognize from this thread and others on this site that the Lancaster is a beloved aircraft with an outstanding record of achievements, but it may not be suitable for every application. One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
> 
> ...



There was no lack of field success.

Only 9 were built because the aircraft had no clear role especially after the collapse of the Luftwaffe air defence system and with it the need for a high altitude/high speed night bomber. The early Lincoln had essentially the same powerplant configuration and various minor mods cured most of the problems.

The Lancaster VI would be dropping either ww2 atomic bomb at the same speed and altitude as historically and I can't see why fabric control surfaces would be a factor.


----------



## Dash119 (Jul 27, 2020)

With the exception of the P-38, I believe all the U.S. aircraft of WWII had at least one fabric covered control surface(s). And most of the aircraft from the rest of the world too. The thought process was that fabric covering was lighter and less prone to flutter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> The Lancaster would be significantly closer to the blast and without sitting down and doing proper calculations seems to be within the safety zone.
> 
> I'm sure there are members of the forum better equipped to calculate this out, but my feeling is the Lancaster just doesn't have what it takes to survive such a mission.



Indeed. This would have been an issue but it is likely that it would have survived the shockwave - Lancasters are pretty tough, but its much lower altitude from which it dropped the bomb would have been a problem. Enola Gay and The Great Artiste suffered no damage from the shockwave but they were higher than the Lancaster could fly. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of around 31,000 ft, a height a Lancaster could not reach and travelled a distance of 2.67 miles to the aiming point, the T shaped Aioi Bridge over a time of around 43 or 53 seconds before exploding according to Paul Tibbetts.

In that time, Enola Gay had made a hard 155 degree turn to the north east from their direction of around 265 degrees heading westwards, but the shockwave hit the aircraft 11.5 miles out and a couple of seconds after making the hard turn, the shockwave travelling at 1,100 ft per second. The aircraft was travelling at over 200 mph at the time, something a Lancaster could easily achieve unladen, although I don't know its exact speed.

As for thoughts that the Lancaster VI could have done the raid, again Fw 187 like wishful thinking on the part of those who reckon it could have. It was barely suitable for normal service owing to technical issues, not to mention poor availability. It didn't have the range, nor the performance to carry out the operation within the timeline of the August 1945 attacks. Nor did the Lincoln, which just three examples were delivered to its first unit three days before Little Boy was dropped.

Fabric control surfaces? Red herring - don't bother dwelling on it. Even the Me 163 had fabric control surfaces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 27, 2020)

To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.

1. The Lancaster was not American.

When Gen Groves approached Hap Arnold for AAF support, Arnold read Norman Ramsay's report stating that the Lancaster was the only bomber that could carry Thin man internally but quickly decided that the aircraft HAD to be American. The ONLY choice was the B-29. This was in 1943, two years before the raid took place, when there was no actual mission parameter available.

2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.

The Lancaster did not have the range, it wasn't fast enough and could not reach the height the raid was flown at. It is worth remembering that performance figures for Lancasters referred to in official documents and on Wiki or wherever we dredge our crap up from on the net were based on conditions found in the UK at the time of testing, unless otherwise stated. The hot and high temperatures of the mid-Pacific sapped aircraft performance and would have reduced the Lancaster's performance even further.

From the figures calculated by me from official documentation recorded by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment during the war, to achieve the objective at its maximum take-off weight carrying the bomb (68,000 lb), either Thin Man or Little Boy, but definitely not Fat Man and enough fuel to reach Japan and return, the Lancaster I (Special) would have had to fly at an average speed of 175 mph at an altitude of 15,000 ft across a round trip of approximately 1,700 miles IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS.

For comparison, at 2am on 6 August 1945, Enola Gay departed Tinian to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, it returned at 2:58pm after a journey time of 12 hours 58 minutes. The distance travelled was an approximate round trip of 2,722 miles. Using these figures, Enola Gay’s calculated average speed was around 216 mph. Loaded with the 9,700 lb bomb and fuel for its mammoth round trip, Enola Gay’s gross weight was 140,000 lbs. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of 31,060ft.

In short, the Lancaster could not have done it.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

Grant, as an aside, the decision not to use the Lancaster may seem to be "flag waving" but in actuality could it have been because of supply and support logistics?

The USAAF operated a couple of Lancasters in the ETO for a short while as well as other British types, so the Army using a British aircraft was not unheard of.

My thinking (or at least first impression) was familiarity and logistics (each bomber would need mechanics familiar with the aircraft) as well as spare engines, parts and such.

Not to mention American pilots who were experienced with the type - they couldn't bring RAF personnel to help because if the secrecy surrounding the project. Also asking for 30 some-odd Lancs without an explanation might have seemed a bit weird, too.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Grant, as an aside, the decision not to use the Lancaster may seem to be "flag waving" but in actuality could it have been because of supply and support logistics?
> 
> The USAAF operated a couple of Lancasters in the ETO for a short while as well as other British types, so the Army using a British aircraft was not unheard of.
> 
> ...



The USAAF could have easily claimed to have Tallboy (or another conventional bomb with large dimensions_ targets that they wanted to hit. The USAAF operated a number of UK built aircraft and it hardly raised any eyebrows. The Lancaster was being built in Canada and any USAAF Lancaster would probably have been fitted with Packard Merlins, so maintenance was unlikely to be an issue. There were already a number of Commonwealth scientists and leaders who were cleared for Manhattan project secrets, including Cdn PM King.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

Possibly Dave, but what is certain was that Arnold made it clear from the outset that the mission was to be carried out by an American aircraft if the AAF was to be involved, before any considerations were taken into account. This was in 1943 at a time when the B-29 was still under development.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

People outside of the loop would have found the US requesting 30+ Lancasters without a plausible explanation a bit odd, though.
Without them knowing about any details of the Atomic weapons, would have wondered why the Army wanted a fleet of Lancs when the B-17 was a heavy lift platform.

What we know today about the program from it's onset to the final days of Japan would have gotten us shot in 44/45, by the way

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

It has to be remembered that from the AAF's point of view at the time, Arnold was not briefed fully about the nature of the bomb, just that it was powerful and that it could bring about the end of the war and so he took it upon himself to ensure that the ailing B-29 program progressed without too much more trouble. He diverted enormous effort to it and gave the program top priority. He selected Tibbets and basically said to him, get a crew together and work out what you need to do to achieve this set of parameters. He ensured that Tibbets could just use the term 'Silverplate' and he could have anything he needed. Tibbetts had no idea about the bomb or its capability or nature, like Arnold, so both were working on what they had been told by Groves and Ramsay. Deak Parsons (often written as 'Deke', but is actually 'Deak') was also sworn to secrecy surrounding the nature of the weapon and was the only one of Enola Gay's crew who had any idea what was going to happen on the mission on 6 August.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> People outside of the loop would have found the US requesting 30+ Lancasters without a plausible explanation a bit odd, though.



I also can't see Harris or Portal (Chief of Air Staff) agreeing to it, to be honest, not in 1943. Since neither Arnold nor Tibbetts knew anything about the weapon, the RAF heads would have said nope, we got a campaign to run. 1943 was a crucial year for Bomber Command in terms of equipment and role in the forthcoming war - it finally had the aircraft it needed in the numbers required to successfully launch a conclusive campaign - Lancaster IIIs and Halifax IIIs, after the unsatisfactory performance of the Stirlings and Merlin engined Halifaxes he'd been lumbered with in the previous year. Harris jealously guarded his Lancasters and with the Americans unable to give a satisfactory response to his questions, he wouldn't have let them go.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.
> 
> 1. The Lancaster was not American.
> 
> ...



Bock's Car dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay. Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely. The bombs weighed ~10k lbs, and were not especially heavy by Lancaster standards.

The Lancaster VI did have the altitude performance to have dropped either bomb at the historical release altitude , having a service ceiling of ~29k ft at 65000lb TOW (full fuel and ~14K bomb load). Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament (except tail guns) and armour stripped where a Lanc VI had full armament, so a "Silverplate" Lanc would perform better than a standard Lancaster VI. 

The Lancaster would have had to have flown a modified flight path that included landing at either Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Bock's Car actually landed at Okinawa. A "Silverplate" Lincoln could probably have flown the same route as Enola Gay.

The Silverplate B-29s probably had a TO weight of 115-120k lbs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb.



What part of this do you not understand? The maximum take off weight at 72,000 would not have given the aircraft the range needed to reach 1,700 miles! You toy with one aspect of the equation it stuffs up something else! At the MTOW of 68,000 lbs you can carry the fuel and warload at range of 1,700 miles at a speed of 175 mph at a height of 15,000 ft. Increase or decrease any of these parameters and you lose out somewhere else, too slow, too short range, too low height!

Lancaster VI equals Fw 187 wishful thinking man! In 1943 it didn't exist!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I also can't see Harris or Portal (Chief of Air Staff) agreeing to it, to be honest, not in 1943. Since neither Arnold nor Tibbetts knew anything about the weapon, the RAF heads would have said nope, we got a campaign to run. 1943 was a crucial year for Bomber Command in terms of equipment and role in the forthcoming war - it finally had the aircraft it needed in the numbers required to successfully launch a conclusive campaign - Lancaster IIIs and Halifax IIIs, after the unsatisfactory performance of the Stirlings and Merlin engined Halifaxes he'd been lumbered with in the previous year. Harris jealously guarded his Lancasters and with the Americans unable to give a satisfactory response to his questions, he wouldn't have let them go.



Nonsense. Roosevelt would have asked for the bombers and Churchill would have agreed. 

30 bombers represented far less than .5% of Lancaster production.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Nonsense. Roosevelt would have asked for the bombers and Churchill would have agreed.



You don't know that. There is a lot that Churchill could do, but if Harris said no, and he had the support of Portal, Churchill would have gone along with it. He listened to those who knew what they were doing...


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Nonsense. You don't know that. There is a lot that Churchill could do, but if Harris said no, and he had the support of Portal, Churchill would have gone along with it. He listened to those who knew what they were doing...



Nonsense. The probability of such a request being refused was about zero.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

How do you know? Not even Roosevelt knew the nature of the weapon! He wasn't included in the secret list! Not even Arnold nor Tibbetts knew! There's no way the British are gonna be let in on it!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

We've beat this to death many pages ago - "Could have, would have should have." This mystical Lanc VI was still an obsolete design and had no further growth as a viable front line bomber after WW2, let alone being a nuke bomber. It's limitations were well documented pages back. If it had the potential to deliver nuclear weapons during or after WW2, then this would have never happened...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

Yup, too true, Joe, too true. RCAFson refuses to accept the facts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> What part of this do you not understand? The maximum take off weight at 72,000 would not have given the aircraft the range needed to reach 1,700 miles! You toy with one aspect of the equation it stuffs up something else! At the MTOW of 68,000 lbs you can carry the fuel and warload at range of 1,700 miles at a speed of 175 mph at a height of 15,000 ft. Increase or decrease any of these parameters and you lose out somewhere else, too slow, too short range, too low height!
> 
> Lancaster VI equals Fw 187 wishful thinking man! In 1943 it didn't exist!



The typical mission was low-high-low, with the high portion limited to the vicinity of the target. Cruise speed is almost irrelevant.

Your numbers are wrong:

*Range with one 400 UK Gal (1,818 l) Aux. fuel tank and 7,000 lb (3,180 kg) bomb load 2,680 miles (4,310 km) (62K lb TOW) *A "Silverplate" Lancaster would have reduced weight and increased service ceiling.

The Tallboy mission against Tirpitz was over 2200 miles.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

My figures are based on those recorded by the A&AEE on the use of the Grand Slam by a B.I Special, and a Upkeep mine having roughly the same weight as a Little Boy. Figures for Tall Boy carrying Lancasters have not survived the war. Silverplate Lancaster? There's that mythical dragon again...

The Tall Boy mission against the Tirpitz was flown in Norway, not the mid Pacific.

Give up mate.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> How do you know? Not even Roosevelt knew the nature of the weapon! He wasn't included in the secret list! Not even Arnold nor Tibbetts knew! There's no way the British are gonna be let in on it!



UK and Cdn scientists were working on the Manhattan project, including Los Alamos, and the bomb design originated from the UK's MAUD report. Churchill and King were "in the know".


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Churchill and King were "in the know".



Got any evidence to back that up? A document, anything other than your imagination and wishful thinking?


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> My figures are based on those recorded by the A&AEE on the use of the Grand Slam by a B.I Special, and a Upkeep mine having roughly the same weight as a Little Boy. Figures for Tall Boy carrying Lancasters have not survived the war. Silverplate Lancaster? There's that mythical dragon again...
> 
> The Tall Boy mission against the Tirpitz was flown from Russia in Norway, not the mid Pacific.
> 
> Give up mate.



The Tallboy mission that sank Tirpitz was flown from and to Scotland.

Grand Slam weighed 22K lbs or 12K more than the a-bombs and had to be carried externally.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

wow...so Churchill knew aboit the Atomic bomb and Roosevelt didn't?

Impressive.

If we're going down that rabbit hole, then the B-19 would have been the obvious choice for the Silverplate project...


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Tallboy mission that sank Tirpitz was flown from and to Scotland.



Yeah, changed it when I realised my mistake. Still, irrelevant, man. Give up. You are bailing out the Titanic with a bucket.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> wow...so Churchill knew aboit the Atomic bomb and Roosevelt didn't?
> 
> Impressive.
> 
> If we're going down that rabbit hole, then the B-19 would have been the obvious choice for the Silverplate project...



The B-19 was a failed design.

Roosevelt did know. Why would you possibly believe otherwise:

Use of Canadian Uranium in the World's First Atomic Bombs


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Got any evidence to back that up? A document, anything other than your imagination and wishful thinking?



see my previous post including:

_"The text [of the Quebec Agreement] was typewritten. At the bottom, in Roosevelt's handwriting, was the single word Approved and the date August 19, 1943 . The signatures of the two leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, were appended. It was then a secret document and long remained so; the text was not seen by the public until tabled in the House of Commons at Westminster in April 1954.
The preamble noted it was "vital to our common safety in the present War to bring the Tube Alloys [A-Bomb] project to fruition at the earliest moment." This might be more speedily achieved if all available British and American brains and resources were pooled. It was agreed that:
_

_"We will never use this agency against each other._
_"*We will not use it against third parties without each other's consent.*_
_"We will not either of us communicate any information about Tube Alloys to third parties except by mutual consent."_
_The fifth and last section [of the Quebec Agreement] outlined arrangements for "full and effective collaboration." It provided for a *Combined Policy Committee*, to be set up at Washington, composed of:_

_The U.S. Secretary of War [U.S.]_
_Dr. Vannevar Bush [U.S.]_
_Dr. James B. Conant [U.S.]_
_Field Marshal Sir John Dill [U.K.]_
_Colonel the Rt. Hon. J. J. Llewellin [U.K.]_
_*The Honourable C. D. Howe [Canada]*._
_... The new committee met for the first time at the War Department on September 8...." (1943)_

Also see:
https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitst...apocalyptic moment.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Roosevelt did know. Why would you possibly believe otherwise:



Sorry, but nothing there proves that he knew about the atomic bomb. Its also approval for the Manhattan Project, the exact nature of which very few knew. All it does is prove that he knew the USA needed uranium for a weapon, the nature of which and what it was capable of HE DID NOT KNOW. It wasn't common knowledge like today. Memory telescoping, I think that's called.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

So, RCAFson, to redeem your argument that has been disproved, you are taking to picking out scraps to validate your stance? Remember, doesn't go any further to justify your views...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The B-19 was a failed design.


"Failed design" really?

lmao...right - it was slow to be developed but it's performance proved it's concept.

It was one of the largest aircraft of the war, it had the undisputed longest range and it could (and did) carry over 37,000 pounds.

Ohhhh..I forgot, it wasn't a Lancaster, my bad.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Sorry, but that doesn't prove that he knew about the atomic bomb. Not at all. All it does is prove that he knew the USA needed uranium for a weapon, the nature of which and what it was capable of HE DID NOT KNOW. It wasn't common knowledge like today. Memory telescoping, I think that's called.



*Your post above shows a profound ignorance of this topic.* Roosevelt was always briefed on a-bomb development and there is an abundance of primary source documents to show this. At the Quebec conference he discussed the bomb with King and Churchill and signed a memorandum of agreement about it's use and it established a Joint UK-USA committee to oversee it's development, and as I previously stated the A-bomb project was initiated by the UK and and the UK MAUD report, and was passed to the USA.

Roosevelt and the bomb:

Franklin D. Roosevelt.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> "Failed design" really?
> 
> lmao...right - it was slow to be developed but it's performance proved it's concept.
> 
> ...



There was one aircraft built, and it never proceeded to production. It was a failed design.


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 28, 2020)

During the "Baby Blitz" of 1943/44 the Heinkel He 177 Greif (Griffon) exhibited a 6% attrition rate per mission. If two weapons were available and two He 177 were sent the chances of both being shot down are about 0.0036. 

If the weapon can be released by a high speed ribbon parachute (which was a German 'invention' and widely used for slowing down assault gliders and jets such as the Ar 234 and Parachute Mines and used as part of escape egress system for the Do 335 and Me 163 ) and the parachute can slow the weapon to zero forward velocity from the release speed of 220mph/100m/s in 7-10 seconds and if the terminal descent velocity can be limited to 70-100ms a good distance could be achieved before the fissionable mass detonated. If released at 2000m altitude at 220mph/100ms I get about 1.5-2.0 km distance between the tail of the bomber and the time the bomb bursts. Doing about a 45 degree turn should get that to about 2km-2.5. If the weapon is less than 10 kilotons it should be survivable for the crew.

The normal strategy of these aircraft was to penetrate British airspace in a shallow dive, release at medium altitude and continue the dive back out to sea.

My recollection is that the parachutes use in aerial mines (to prevent the explosives busting out from hard impact) slowed decent to about 220feet/sec (70m/s) which is about 11 times the speed used for a human parachutist. 


This would be a gold plated Heinkel. Usually only about 1/3rd had a tail warning radar. I would also expect a directional radar warning receiver and likely an escort of night fighters.

I would imagine that there wouldn't be a problem finding crews prepared to go up with the bombs like that B58 Hustler crew in "Failsafe". There is not much worth dying for these days but it was different back then.

An attack on the USA could be done with a Ju 390. There are arguments that the increased MTOW variant, the Ju 390V2, could do a return mission but irrespective of that the standard 6000 mile version could get to the US East coast with one in flight refuelling and return to Europe or if the refuelling wasn't possible ditch half way back across the Atlantic. Ju 290 and Ju 252 conducted many successful refuelling tests in 1942/43. In flight refuelling kits were prepared for the He 177A1 reconnaissance version way back in 1940. They used a drogue type method but the receiver had the drogue.

The weapon could perhaps be extracted MOAB style from the rear trapoklappe (loading ramp door) or could be carried externally. if it was a little boy type weapon.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Roosevelt was always briefed on a-bomb development



Yup, he kew about a weapon, but he didn't know what it was capable of. Very few did. That's what I'm saying. Also, I was reacting to your posts, *nothing in them *revealed that he knew exactly about the bomb.



RCAFson said:


> *Your post above shows a profound ignorance of this topic.*



Profound ignorance, huh. Yet its you who won't accept the Lancaster couldn't do it, and here we are heckling down a side route so you can justify yourself.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> An attack on the USA could be done with a Ju 390.



Problem with this is, what will it achieve? Germany doesn't have an atom bomb, so what are you gonna drop? And then what? The USAAF and RAF combined are slugging thousands of pounds of bombs with hundreds of bombers by day and night on Nazi facilities throughout Europe, what is one freakishly inadequate Ju 390 going to do against the entire USA? And what do they learn from it and how might it bring about an end to the war, which was their objective?


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.
> 
> 
> 2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.
> ...



I doubt that there would have been a problem advancing a small production run AVRO Lincoln, the Lincoln essentially being a Lancaster with a new extended wing and two stage supercharged Marlins.

There was also the saddle tank Lancaster, designed specifically for Tiger Force to bomb the Japanese mainland.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There was also the saddle tank Lancaster, designed specifically for Tiger Force to bomb the Japanese mainland.



Yeah, looked at this already. it had impressive range after trials in India it could cover over 3,000 miles with a 6,000 lb load, but the project was discontinued in favour of in-flight refuelling for the Tiger Force.

Again however, it does not answer the speed and height envelope required. To put the aircraft's performance into perspective, at 175 mph at an average height of around 15,000 feet, Short Stirlings were being withdrawn from Bomber Command in 1942 for demonstrating this performance. Both the Lancaster I and III and Halifax III could do much better than this in Europe. Do you really think that kind of performance is acceptable for a bomber carrying a nuclear bomb over enemy territory in 1945?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> doubt that there would have been a problem advancing a small production run AVRO Lincoln, the Lincoln essentially being a Lancaster with a new extended wing and two stage supercharged Marlins.



MER-lins. Also, you do some research and tell me when the Lincoln entered service and how many equipped the squadron at East Kirkby by 6 August 1945... (Hint, we've already covered why the Lincoln wasn't suitable in an August 1945 timeframe)


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, he kew about a weapon, but he didn't know what it was capable of. Very few did. That's what I'm saying. Also, I was reacting to your posts, *nothing in them *revealed that he knew exactly about the bomb.
> 
> Profound ignorance, huh. Yet its you who won't accept the Lancaster couldn't do it, and here we are heckling down a side route so you can justify yourself.



Sorry, but Roosevelt was briefed on the bomb and it's capabilities and destructive effect:

FDR and the bomb 

It's more than a bit lunatic to suggest that he wasn't fully briefed on the project when there is so much readily available info to the contrary.

The Lancaster VI could deliver a 10K lb bomb and drop it from ~30K ft by flying from Okinawa - that's certain. It could probably do the same by flying from Tinian and landing at Okinawa.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> There was one aircraft built, and it never proceeded to production. It was a failed design.


Interesting - your interpretation of failed is a bit different than other's.

The B-19 project wasn't high priority at thw onset, so development took longer than expected. It's performance, however, was above and beyond what had originally been anticipated...hardly a "failed design".

And while we're on the subject of failed design, tell me again, about that illustrious Lancaster MK VI...


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting - your interpretation of failed is a bit different than other's.
> 
> The B-19 project wasn't high priority at thw onset, so development took longer than expected. It's performance, however, was above and beyond what had originally been anticipated...hardly a "failed design".
> 
> And while we're on the subject of failed design, tell me again, about that illustrious Lancaster MK VI...



The B-19 resulted in a single aircraft that was never approved for production. It seems to compare unfavourably to the B-29 and it seems unlikely to have had the altitude performance of the B-29 due to it's larger size and weight, and lower power to weight ratio.

The Lancaster was highly successful and over 7000 were built. The lanc VI was a low production variant that was used in combat, and was, in effect, an engine test bed for the Lincoln. It performed very well on trials and there is no reason to suspect that it had any insurmountable problems. The Lancaster VI was certainly more reliable than the early variants of the B-29.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

Sorry, but the Lanc MK VI variant had NINE airframes. Nine. That's eight fingers and one thumb.
The MK VI served for five months and was withdrawn from service. Awesome.

The B-19 (as has been exhaustingly stated before) took too long to develop, but it's proof of concept was applied to other heavy-lift aircraft. It was used as a long-range cargo ship, even with an engine change (R-3350 to V-3420), it was reliable and had no mishaps between 1941 and 1946.

Not bad for a "failure".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 28, 2020)

This is starting to remind me of the thread that tried to prove the Helcat could've done the Mustangs escort mission to Berlin and back !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI was certainly more reliable than the early variants of the B-29.


If it was so reliable, along with it's sister, the Lincoln, why did the RAF feel it needed *70 *B-29s? Again you want to ignore the fact by 1945 the Lancaster/ Lincoln series of bombers had been eclipsed in design and operational capability by the B-29/ B-50 series. The Lancaster (and Lincoln) were great aircraft but as been pointed out many times retained features that were obsolete by 1945. The RAF didn't get back into the modern bomber game until the Canberra came along and then later with the V bomber series.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The lanc VI was a low production variant



Yep - only 8 or 9 built.


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Bock's Car dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay. Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely. The bombs weighed ~10k lbs, and were not especially heavy by Lancaster standards.
> 
> The Lancaster VI did have the altitude performance to have dropped either bomb at the historical release altitude , having a service ceiling of ~29k ft at 65000lb TOW (full fuel and ~14K bomb load). Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament (except tail guns) and armour stripped where a Lanc VI had full armament, so a "Silverplate" Lanc would perform better than a standard Lancaster VI.
> 
> ...



I agree, if it had been a high enough priority, either the mission, the aircraft, or both could have been modified enough to have a Lancaster drop Little Boy. As you say, the plane could have been lightened. Two-stage Merlins adding enhance altitude capability, and landing at Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Were the airfields long enough to take off from? With JATO/RATO? RATO and atomic bombs, that's a pucker-inducing mix, isn't it? That was one of the US Navy's strategies in 1948 with the P2V Neptune carrying nuclear weapons launched with JATO off of aircraft carriers. (The planes were too big to land on the carrier.) 

There are two other options: aerial refueling - which wasn't operational in World War II, but post-war showed that it wasn't that difficult; and making it a one-way mission. By one-way, I don't mean suicide. There could have been a designated bail out spot. If any mission was important enough to take a designed bail-out risk, this one was. 

If they deemed it worthwhile to accept some additional risks, they could have even made the dropping plane radio-controlled. 

In the big picture, yes this argument is pointless. The B-29 existed and it was the best aircraft for the job. That didn't stop us before hammering on "what ifs" before, and it won't stop us in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> In the big picture, yes this argument is pointless. The B-29 existed and it was the best aircraft for the job. That didn't stop us before hammering on "what ifs" before, and it won't stop us in the future.



Perfect!


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 28, 2020)

There is a bit of irony in this whole thread. While the argument has been about the Lancaster delivering the atomic bomb, there was another bombing campaign being planned against Japan where the Lancaster was the critical aircraft. If the bomb had proven unsuccessful and the invasion had moved ahead, the allies were preparing an aggressive bombing campaign against Japanese defenses using Tallboy penetration bombs. The lesson learned on Iwo Jima and Okinawa in particular was that it was essential to develop counter measures against Japanese defenses. Thus, the Tallboy. While the US began ramping up production of licensed Tallboy designs for delivery from B-29s, the UK was moving or preparing to move large numbers of Lancaster squadrons to the PTO to support the first landings. One can just imagine what a couple hundred Tallboys being dropped on a target would have been like.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If it was so reliable, along with it's sister, the Lincoln, why did the RAF feel it needed *70 *B-29s? Again you want to ignore the fact by 1945 the Lancaster/ Lincoln series of bombers had been eclipsed in design and operational capability by the B-29/ B-50 series. The Lancaster (and Lincoln) were great aircraft but as been pointed out many times retained features that were obsolete by 1945. The RAF didn't get back into the modern bomber game until the Canberra came along and then later with the V bomber series.
> 
> View attachment 590032



Attacking a nearly defenceless Japan in Aug 1945, is not quite the same as launching a nuclear strike against an intact USSR in the early 1950s, with far more powerful A-bombs than were used against Japan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Attacking a nearly defenceless Japan in Aug 1945, is not quite the same as launching a nuclear strike against an intact USSR in the early 1950s, with far more powerful A-bombs than were used against Japan.


Defenseless as far as an air campaign and even then Japan still had several thousand combat aircraft available.

So at the end of the day the best tool for the job was utilized. But in the cold war years, you're correct. I would not have wanted to see nukes loaded into a single piloted multi engine aircraft that had a tail wheel.


----------



## Acheron (Jul 28, 2020)

rochie said:


> This is starting to remind me of the thread that tried to prove the Helcat could've done the Mustangs escort mission to Berlin and back !


Must have been a fun thread, where can I find it?


----------



## rochie (Jul 28, 2020)

Acheron said:


> Must have been a fun thread, where can I find it?


Starts about here !
Took me a while to find it ax well 

Corsair and Hellcat in Europe


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2020)

I can understand that a Lancaster shouldn't be used to drop an atomic weapon because its a tail dragger, but then I read that unused Tallboys and Grandslams were taken back to base.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I can understand that a Lancaster shouldn't be used to drop an atomic weapon because its a tail dragger, but then I read that unused Tallboys and Grandslams were taken back to base.



Although we know what a Tallboy or Grandslam can do if accidentally set off, would you want to apply the same risk mitigation to a nuclear weapon?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although we know what a Tallboy or Grandslam can do if accidentally set off, would you want to apply the same risk mitigation to a nuclear weapon?


I wasn't advocating landing with a nuke in a Lancaster more advocating dropping the Grandslam anywhere as a better option to landing with it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I wasn't advocating landing with a nuke in a Lancaster more advocating dropping the Grandslam anywhere as a better option to landing with it.


Copy - so another reason why we shouldn't consider the Lancaster as a nuke hauler!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Copy - so another reason why we shouldn't consider the Lancaster as a nuke hauler!


I wasn't. When a bomb load like a Grandslam explodes it turns Merlin engines into pieces of ordenance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I wasn't. When a bomb load like a Grandslam explodes it turns Merlin engines into pieces of ordenance.



Yep! So we agree on what an accidental nuke explosion (even an early one) can do!


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep! So we agree on what an accidental nuke explosion (even an early one) can do!


I have been to Hiroshima, you don't want that happening by accident. Was there ever a contingency for Enola Gay and Bocks car to return with theirs?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I have been to Hiroshima, you don't want that happening by accident. Was there ever a contingency for Enola Gay and Bocks car to return with theirs?



I believe there was


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

I don't recall about Little Boy but Fat Man was armed when Bockscar took off. 
Not sure if the Weaponeer could over-ride it or not.
If not, my guess is that they would have had to drop it at sea before descending.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't recall about Little Boy but Fat Man was armed when Bockscar took off.
> Not sure if the Weaponeer could over-ride it or not.
> If not, my guess is that they would have had to drop it at sea before descending.



Fatman weighed under 10,000 pounds. I think a return landing would have been possible.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Fatman weighed under 10,000 pounds. I think a return landing would have been possible.


I'm sure that the load wouldn't be difficult to land with, but I'm wondering what abort sequence the Weaponeer had at his disposal for Fat Man. 
I know it had a multiple sequence for detonation that started with the drop: 15 seconds after release saw the circuits partially close, then at 7,000 ASL, the barometric pressure switch engaged the radar circuit which in turn closed the firing circuit at 1,800 ASL.

My concern would be returning to base with an armed A-bomb and then something like a rough landing damages the harness between the bomb and the Weaponeer's control board, would the bomb then "think" it had been released and start it's sequencing?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 28, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> I agree, if it had been a high enough priority, either the mission, the aircraft, or both could have been modified enough to have a Lancaster drop Little Boy. As you say, the plane could have been lightened. Two-stage Merlins adding enhance altitude capability, and landing at Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Were the airfields long enough to take off from? With JATO/RATO? RATO and atomic bombs, that's a pucker-inducing mix, isn't it? That was one of the US Navy's strategies in 1948 with the P2V Neptune carrying nuclear weapons launched with JATO off of aircraft carriers. (The planes were too big to land on the carrier.)



I don't think that the Lancaster was ever considered to carry Little Boy or Fat Man. Rather it was Thin Man, the first bomb developed, which brought the Lancaster into consideration. Thin Man was very long which meant that it could not fit in a standard B-29 bomb bay.

But a B-29 was modified so that it could carry that bomb, so the Lancaster was no longer considered.

Fat Man and Little Boy could fit inside a modified standard size B-29 bomb bay, so no need to use a Lancaster for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sure that the load wouldn't be difficult to land with, but I'm wondering what abort sequence the Weaponeer had at his disposal for Fat Man.
> I know it had a multiple sequence for detonation that started with the drop: 15 seconds after release saw the circuits partially close, then at 7,000 ASL, the barometric pressure switch engaged the radar circuit which in turn closed the firing circuit at 1,800 ASL.
> 
> My concern would be returning to base with an armed A-bomb and then something like a rough landing damages the harness between the bomb and the Weaponeer's control board, would the bomb then "think" it had been released and start it's sequencing?


Fat Man weighed 10,300 lbs and was designed as an implosion bomb. It was considered the safer design. The bomb had three physical circuit pins that could be pulled and replaced with dead circuit pins rendering the device inert. This could be done at any point during flight. During the Nagasaki raid, the arming pins were placed at low altitude as the B-29 didn’t have a pressurized bomb bay. Has the raid failed to locate the target the bomb would have been “safed” and returned to Tinian.

Little Boy weighed 9,700 pounds and was a gun type bomb. This bomb contains a literal gun that would shoot a plug of U-235 into a U-235 “post” with polonium initiator. There was a lot of concerns about the safety of this device and on the Hiroshima raid the bombardier had to arm the bomb by loading the cordite bag charges. The bomb could be defused if needed to return to Tinian by pulling the primer and cordite.

A major worry was that dropping an unarmed Little Boy would result in an incomplete fission on impact by the slug being forced into the receiver. On the other hand, there have been a number of accidentally dropped implosion Bomba without incident.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> My concern would be returning to base with an armed A-bomb and then something like a *rough landing* damages the harness between the bomb and the Weaponeer's control board, would the bomb then "think" it had been released and start it's sequencing?



Cross wind landing in a multi engine taildragger...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2020)

So both bombs needed access during flight for final arming and possible disarming? 

this rather rules out the Lancaster without putting hatches at suitable points in the floor above the bomb bay? 
And would the bombardier have room to work in the Lancaster bomb bay even if there were hatche that allowed a man to climb into the bay with a bomb in place.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Cross wind landing in a multi engine taildragger...


That would certainly have a high pucker factor...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I don't think that the Lancaster was ever considered to carry Little Boy or Fat Man. Rather it was Thin Man, the first bomb developed, which brought the Lancaster into consideration. Thin Man was very long which meant that it could not fit in a standard B-29 bomb bay.



Cooo-rect. The Lancaster was listed in Ramsay's report because it was the only bomber that could carry Thin Man internally without modification. Once the AAF was brought on board via Arnold, the Lancaster was ruled out because it wasn't American. Then, as we know, Thin Man gave way to Little Boy. By this time the Lancaster wasn't in the running.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Jul 30, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Cross wind landing in a multi engine taildragger...



My father talked of landing the Lanc in a cross wind...he side slipped it in. These aircraft often took their full load back to base, and sometimes jettisoned some or all of the load depending on available fuel and other factors. He landed with a full load when the Master Bomber called off the raid to Goch, Feb 7, 1945.

Could the Lanc have successfully dropped a nuclear device? I think so. The Mk. VI had engine issues but was extremely fast and could fly at a higher ceiling. The engines in the B-29 were also problematic, remember. The range could have been accomplished with use of a closer base. Ideal? Perhaps not, but in times of war many things were attempted in less than ideal circumstances. The Dams raid comes to mind.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2020)

JDCAVE said:


> My father talked of landing the Lanc in a cross wind...he side slipped it in. These aircraft often took their full load back to base, and sometimes jettisoned some or all of the load depending on available fuel and other factors. He landed with a full load when the Master Bomber called off the raid to Goch, Feb 7, 1945.
> 
> Could the Lanc have successfully dropped a nuclear device? I think so. The Mk. VI had engine issues but was extremely fast and could fly at a higher ceiling. The engines in the B-29 were also problematic, remember. The range could have been accomplished with use of a closer base. Ideal? Perhaps not, but in times of war many things were attempted in less than ideal circumstances. The Dams raid comes to mind.
> 
> Jim



By the time the Enola Gay bombed Hiroshima there was a good grasp of the operational issues with the B-29s to the point where they were meeting their MC rates, General LeMay demanded that one way or another. With that said I think it was shown quite clear the limitations of the Lancaster VI. Could the Lancaster have worked as a nuclear bomber? Maybe - there were a lot of technical issues shown in this thread. At the end of the day the best tool available was used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 5, 2020)

On topic:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2020)

Yes, just watched this. I'd never heard of this 'Black Lancaster Squadron' before and Felton's claim that no official documents exist that mentions them would make it very difficult to find out information, which would be very welcome. Felton does get a few things wrong in this. He does not mention Thin Man, the first aerial atom bomb project, which is why Ramsay suggested the Lancaster as the only bomber that could carry the bomb internally without modification. Then Felton then goes on to incorrectly state that the B-29 could not carry Little Boy and Fat Man internally without modification to its bomb bays. Thin Man was of course 17 feet long, which required a single B-29 to be modified to carry it internally, which Felton references, but Little Boy and Fat Man could fit within the B-29's bomb bay without altering it.

He also mentions that the Lancaster could carry Fat Man, but it was too wide and would require removal of its bomb doors, to say nothing of the drag factor of having it hanging under the aircraft. Little Boy would have been a cinch to carry internally by the Lancaster as we have discussed however, but by the time Thin Man was abandoned and Little Boy was being developed the Americans had ruled out the use of the Lancaster, which Felton acknowledges in his video.

His estimation of the Lancaster's range is also something of a stretch taking into consideration its warload, fuel load and performance figures. To achieve a range of over 2,000 miles as Felton states, the Lanc would have had to reduce its warload and quite probably its performance. As we've discussed here before, if you alter one factor, like increasing range, something has to give, like payload. A bigger payload means less range etc.

Would love to know more about this Black Lancaster Squadron. Sadly, Felton's video provides little more than the base and a number of aircraft...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2020)

Greyman said:


> On topic:




Good clip but "What if?" "Could have, would have, should have." Many of his points were dismissed in this thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2020)

Lordy :rollseyes: thought I'd continue this here since it is more appropriate.



RCAFson said:


> Dr Norman Ramsey was the man tasked with designing the atomic bomb casings and in finding a suitable aircraft for testing and actual delivery. It is very clear from the historical record that Ramsey favoured the Lancaster, and that his research led him to conclude that only two Allied bombers were suitable to carry the proposed weapons, the B-29 and the Lancaster. Ramsey conferred with Roy Chadwick, the designer of the Lancaster and showed him drawings of the proposed bomb casings including FAT MAN, the implosion bomb, and was assured by Chadwick that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb design:
> 
> _"The person at Los Alamos with who, Wilson primarily worked was Norman F. Ramsey.
> Ramsey, son of an army officer, received a Ph.D. in physics from Columbia in 1939, and
> ...



Yes, I have read these sources and have even referenced these highlighted sections in brief in my article, but it in no way changes my statement that the Americans never seriously considered the Lancaster for carrying the Little Boy or Fat Man bombs operationally. Within the passages is the following:

"_Groves had not been Informed about Ramsey's preference and was at a loss for words
when he found out. It was beyond comprehension that Ramsey could consider using a
British plane to deliver an American atomic bomb. Needless to say, Groves found an ally in
General Arnold when he discussed this matter with him. The new Boeing B29
Superfortress would carry the atomic bomb."_

This is after this:

_"When Ramsey returned, he wrote to Parsons suggesting that the Lancaster be seriously
considered and planned a memo to General Groves recommending that a modified
Lancaster be used.(13)"_

So, we know that Ramsey wanted the Lancaster to be seriously considered, because _it was not being so at the time_, otherwise, why would he suggest something that was already happening?

Next, Groves, in charge of the Manhattan Project states that he was at a loss for words when he found out about Ramsey's suggestion, which means that this is the first he is hearing of it. If the Lancaster _was_ being seriously considered, why would he react that way?

The final nail in the coffin is the last two sentences, which state that Groves found an ally in Arnold, which means he was obviously opposed to the idea and that the B-29 was to be _the_ atom bomber. The term beyond comprehension reflects his attitude toward the suggestion.

This ties in neatly with Ramsey's own subsequent official report on the situation and he apparently agreed, emphasising that the Lancaster was to be used for _trials_ only, while the B-29 would be the _operational_ platform. Taken from a report that Ramsey wrote on 27 September 1945 to Brig Gen T.F. Farrell, within which is a history of Project A:

"In view of the critical shortage of B-29's it was at first proposed that a British Lancaster be used for the test work even though a B-29 would almost certainly be used as the combat ship."

Finally, we see that even Ramsey had changed his mind about the use of the Lancaster, indicating that the decision not to use it for testing was the right one, as follows:

"The Air Forces, however, wisely recommended that a B-29 be used for the test work as well, both to avoid non-standard maintenance and to accumulate experience in B-29 operations with such a bomb."

All this does is reinforce what I have maintained all along, that the Lancaster was only ever suggested in letters and conversation, with Ramsey as its biggest supporter and the origin of the suggestion, and even then he later demonstrably changed his stance on the matter in official sources. The theory that it was "seriously considered" just doesn't hold water, not when the head of the Manhattan Project and the Chief of the USAAF both rejected it outright.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Lordy :rollseyes: thought I'd continue this here since it is more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There was a point in time when the B-29 was not considered either but Ramsey looked carefully at both the Lancaster and B-29 and chose the Lancaster.

Ramsey was in charge of bomb casing design and is tasked with finding a training and delivery aircraft. Ramsey's choice is the Lancaster because it requires fewer mods and is considerably more reliable. The decision to go with the B-29 to the exclusion of the Lancaster didn't happen until 21 March 1944:

_The two leaders next took up the
question of what type of airplane
would be required to - transport
atomic bombs. The Manhattan com-
mander noted that Oppenheimer, on
the basis of investigations carried out
at Los Alamos and Muroc Army Air
Field, had concluded that a modified
B-29 probably had the requisite
weight-carrying capacity and range.
Should the B-29, which had gone
into production in September 1943,
prove not feasible, *Groves suggested*_
*the British Lancaster would have to*
_*be considered. *- This displeased
Arnold, who stated emphatically that
an American-made airplane should
carry the bombs, and he promised to
make a special effort to have a B-29
available for that purpose. (3)
(3) *Groves Diary, 21 Mar 44*, LRG; H. H. Arnold. 
Manhattan_ - _The Army and the Atomic Bomb_.

Groves might have been relieved that the USAAF was going to make development of Silverplate B-29s a priority, but it was Groves himself who stated to Arnold that the Lancaster might have to used if the B-29 was found to be unsuitable (mainly because of engine and bomb bay development issues). The fact is that the B-29 had some serious issues and these delayed bomb casing drop testing for some months but because the bomb detonation design itself was not ready there was time for Silverplate to sort out the B-29's reliability. Groves didn't overrule Ramsey rather he went along with Ramsey's choice until he was assured that Silverplate would deliver a reliable aircraft by the time the bomb was operationally ready. 

Delays in bomb development gave the B-29 time to sort out it's issues, but if the atomic bomb detonation designs had been developed sooner (and the B-29 wasn't ready to even carry a practice bomb safely until June 1944) , then the Lancaster would have been the logical choice especially as Germany would then be on the target list. Groves would then have been almost forced to go with the Lancaster despite Arnold's objections because they would have been denying the Allied cause access to a reliable nuclear weapon delivery system. 

The accidentally parallel development of the fission bomb designs and the B-29 makes it look like the B-29 was the inevitable choice but in fact it was just a coincidence.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, just watched this. I'd never heard of this 'Black Lancaster Squadron' before and Felton's claim that no official documents exist that mentions them would make it very difficult to find out information, which would be very welcome. Felton does get a few things wrong in this. He does not mention Thin Man, the first aerial atom bomb project, which is why Ramsay suggested the Lancaster as the only bomber that could carry the bomb internally without modification. Then Felton then goes on to incorrectly state that the B-29 could not carry Little Boy and Fat Man internally without modification to its bomb bays. Thin Man was of course 17 feet long, which required a single B-29 to be modified to carry it internally, which Felton references, but Little Boy and Fat Man could fit within the B-29's bomb bay without altering it.
> 
> He also mentions that the Lancaster could carry Fat Man, but it was too wide and would require removal of its bomb doors, to say nothing of the drag factor of having it hanging under the aircraft. Little Boy would have been a cinch to carry internally by the Lancaster as we have discussed however, but by the time Thin Man was abandoned and Little Boy was being developed the Americans had ruled out the use of the Lancaster, which Felton acknowledges in his video.
> 
> ...



Lancasters attacked Tirpitz with Tallboys whilst operating from Northern Scotland. Total range required was ~2400 miles with the target being 2250 miles from base.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I don't think that the Lancaster was ever considered to carry Little Boy or Fat Man. Rather it was Thin Man, the first bomb developed, which brought the Lancaster into consideration. Thin Man was very long which meant that it could not fit in a standard B-29 bomb bay.
> 
> But a B-29 was modified so that it could carry that bomb, so the Lancaster was no longer considered.
> 
> Fat Man and Little Boy could fit inside a modified standard size B-29 bomb bay, so no need to use a Lancaster for them.



The Dr Ramsey, designer of the Fat Man bomb casing, specifically chose the Lancaster because of it's ability to carry that bomb. See this post:

German Aircraft that could deliver The Bomb

and this is well documented via Dr Ramsey's own files. The B-29 had a rather troubled development and it was not apparent, in 1943, that it would be reliable enough to carry any a-bomb design.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> _Should the B-29, which had gone
> into production in September 1943,
> prove not feasible, *Groves suggested*_
> *the British Lancaster would have to*
> ...



So, this is actually contradictory to your previous post then, which clearly states that Groves disapproved of the Lancaster, now you've dug up something else, which says it may have to be considered, but let's note what is actually said, again.

"Should the B-29, which had gone into production in September 1943, prove not feasible, Groves suggested the British Lancaster would have to
be considered."

Groves believes that the Lancaster would need to be considered, not that it _is_ being considered and _only _if the B-29 doesn't prove feasible, which simply supports my view that it wasn't considered. Also, there is nothing in that sentence that states that Groves actually supports the use of the Lancaster, but that it _might need_ to be considered - not that it actually_ is_ being considered - but again, Arnold says no.

Again, letters and discussions, nothing more. 

Keep them coming; soon you are going to run out of sources that continually prove my point instead of your own.


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2020)

The B-32 was the backup plan. I imagine if both B-29 and the B-32 failed the Lancaster would have been considered. The Superfortress and the Dominator were both going through development issues IIRC initially. The Lancaster was a known asset.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I imagine if both B-29 and the B-32 failed the Lancaster would have been considered. The Superfortress and the Dominator were both going through development issues IIRC initially. The Lancaster was a known asset.



Undeniably, as we can see by what's being posted here, it was certainly discussed by Ramsey and Groves. How the deficiencies in performance were going to be catered for remains an open question for the fantasists since it never got that far and it was never seriously investigated. It remains a tantalising what-if, but with so many caveats.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Undeniably, as we can see by what's being posted here, it was certainly discussed by Ramsey and Groves. How the deficiencies in performance were going to be catered for remains an open question for the fantasists since it never got that far and it was never seriously investigated. It remains a tantalising what-if, but with so many caveats.



"...never seriously investigated..." We have the Los Alamos bomb casing designer, Dr Ramsey, personally conferring with the Lancaster designer, Roy Chadwick, who together decide that the Lancaster can do the job and telling Grove that, who in turn tells Arnold. How much more serious can you get? The Lancaster is already proving in combat that it can carry bombs heavier than any of the A-bomb designs and the Lancaster bomb suspension and release system was in fact fitted to Silverplate B-29s. The only thing that prevented the Lancaster being used for A-bomb training and operational use was delays in A-bomb development.

The fact is that the historical record shows that the Lancaster was chosen in 1943 as more suitable for A-bomb delivery by the A-bomb's bomb casing designer. Delays in A-bomb development allowed the B-29 to reach sufficient maturity via Silverplate to replace the Lancaster as the aircraft of choice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> The B-32 was the backup plan. I imagine if both B-29 and the B-32 failed the Lancaster would have been considered. The Superfortress and the Dominator were both going through development issues IIRC initially. The Lancaster was a known asset.



The first production B-32 wasn't produced until 19 September 1944 and only a handful were produced by the end of 1944. The B-32 was never in the running.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> So, this is actually contradictory to your previous post then, which clearly states that Groves disapproved of the Lancaster, now you've dug up something else, which says it may have to be considered, but let's note what is actually said, again.
> 
> "Should the B-29, which had gone into production in September 1943, prove not feasible, Groves suggested the British Lancaster would have to
> be considered."
> ...



"_Again, letters and discussions, nothing more_." Which is the process that occurs when decisions are being made. The Lancaster was chosen by Ramsey. This is indisputable. 

Groves was an engineer tasked with developing a viable nuclear weapon with a reliable delivery system. What Groves as a US Army officer personally wanted and what he, as an engineer and project manager, would recommend were two different things. Groves told Arnold that the Lancaster was on the table and would remain there unless the USAAF could make the B-29 reliable.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 20, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> "_Again, letters and discussions, nothing more_." Which is the process that occurs when decisions are being made. *The Lancaster was chosen by Ramsey*. This is indisputable.
> 
> Groves was an engineer tasked with developing a viable nuclear weapon with a reliable delivery system. What Groves as a US Army officer personally wanted and what he, as an engineer and project manager, would recommend were two different things.* Groves told Arnold that the Lancaster was on the table and would remain there unless the USAAF could make the B-29 reliable*.



In a total break from convention, I ask without being snarky...

1. What would Ramsey have to do with the delivery aircraft? Wouldn't that choice be made by the U.S.A.A.F.?

2. When/where did Groves tell Arnold that the "Lancaster was on the table..."?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> In a total break from convention, I ask without being snarky...
> 
> 1. What would Ramsey have to do with the delivery aircraft? Wouldn't that choice be made by the U.S.A.A.F.?
> 
> 2. When/where did Groves tell Arnold that the "Lancaster was on the table..."?



(1)Dr Ramsey's job at Los Alamos was to design the bomb casings and to select suitable aircraft for training and delivery - this has been explained and documented in prior posts: German Aircraft that could deliver The Bomb

(2) 
_Should the B-29, which had gone
into production in September 1943,
prove not feasible, *Groves suggested*_
*the British Lancaster would have to*
_*be considered. *- This displeased
Arnold, who stated emphatically that
an American-made airplane should
carry the bombs, and he promised to
make a special effort to have a B-29
available for that purpose. (3)
(3) *Groves Diary, 21 Mar 44*, LRG; H. H. Arnold.
Manhattan_ - _The Army and the Atomic Bomb_. 

Groves was outranked by Arnold, and it appears that he was following military protocol by framing his statement as a "suggestion".


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 20, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> (1)Dr Ramsey's job at Los Alamos was to design the bomb casings and to select suitable aircraft for training and delivery - this has been explained and documented in prior posts: German Aircraft that could deliver The Bomb
> 
> (2)
> _Should the B-29, which had gone
> ...



Mmm... I don't know, I see that as Groves suggesting that the Lancaster would have to be considered, meaning to me, they were *not* considering it and may not have any intent to do so unless the B-29 issues reached critical mass. I can see how it might be _*interpreted*_ that the Lancaster was in the running, but I don't feel anything concrete was really done about it, just my way of looking at it at present, I'm always ready to reevaluate with the proper evidence though.

Thanks for the response.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Mmm... I don't know, I see that as Groves suggesting that the Lancaster would have to be considered, meaning to me, they were *not* considering it and may not have any intent to do so unless the B-29 issues reached critical mass. I can see how it might be _*interpreted*_ that the Lancaster was in the running, but I don't feel anything concrete was really done about it, just my way of looking at it at present, I'm always ready to reevaluate with the proper evidence though.
> 
> Thanks for the response.



Considered = chosen as the training and delivery aircraft. Ramsey, whose job it was, had already considered it and stated that it was his preferred aircraft, over the B-29, in late 1943.

The Lancaster was in the running because Ramsey states that unequivocally; this is indisputable. Groves states that it was the alternative to the B-29 so by definition if the B-29 proved to be unsuitable, for whatever reason, then the Lancaster was the *only* alternative. The Lancaster was able to accept any A-bomb design with really minimal mods so there's no need to acquire any Lancasters for development. Delays in the bomb program itself never forced Groves' hand. This is from Groves himself:

Page 244, _NOW IT CAN BE TOLD

the implosion bomb, although we were quite certain of these factors
for the gun type. However, after discussing this problem with Oppen-
heimer and his senior associates at Los Alamos, I had decided it
would be reasonable to plan on using the B-29 as the carrier plane
for both types, though we might have to make certain modifications,
all of which appeared feasible, in the plane's bomb bay and bomb-
handling equipment, *Nevertheless, we all recognized that problems
then unforeseen might make the use of the B-29 impossible.*

When I told Arnold there was a chance that we might not be
able to fit the bomb into the B-29, no matter how hard we tried, he
asked me what I would do then. *I said that if the B-29 could not*_
*be used, we would have to consider the use of a British plane, the*
*Lancaster, which I was sure the Prime Minister would be glad to*
_*make available to us.*

This brought from him the characteristic reply that I had hoped
and expected to bear: that he wanted an American plane to deliver
our bomb, and that the Air Force would make every effort to ensure
that we had a B-29 capable of doing the job. Because the use of
a British plane would have caused us many difficulties and delays,
I, too, was most anxious to use the B-29 if it could be done.
Fortunately, as time went on, we were able to make changes in the
design of both types of bombs, so that it became possible to fit them
into a specially modified B-29._

Engine issues, for example, might have ruled out the B-29.

I don't quite understand why the logic of the situation, then, meets so much resistance today. Had the A-bomb been ready before the B-29, it's pretty obvious which Allied aircraft would have been chosen to deliver it, especially as the target would have been Germany.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2020)

Since this thread has been revived, here's some info from Groves on aircraft safety due to a-bomb blast:


_To be well removed from the point of burst, the bombing plane
would have to maneuver as no heavy bomber had ever had to maneuver
before. As soon as the bomb was "away," the plane was to make a
sharp diving turn to get as far as possible from the point of explosion.
This was one of the reasons why the run was made at the then un-
precedented altitude of some thirty thousand feet. The high altitude
also greatly reduced the danger of gunfire from enemy airplanes, per-
mitting the removal of the fuselage turrets and all other armament
except for the tail guns. This weight reduction appreciably increased
the plane's range and the height at which it could fly.
Studies made at Los Alamos had determined that with a bomb of
twenty thousand tons of TNT equivalent, a B-29 plane ten miles away
from the burst would be safe from destruction by a factor of two.
Under these conditions, the aircraft, which had been designed to with-
stand a force of four times gravity, would be subjected to a force
equivalent to no more than two times gravity. It was calculated that by
making a sharp diving turn, the sharpest possible consistent with safety,
the B-29 could reach a point at least ten miles from the burst by the
time the bomb exploded._

So we can see that a large safety margin had been built into the calculation, and even a Merlin 24 engined Lancaster could have dropped the bomb with a considerable safety margin, although my druthers would have been for a Merlin 85 engined Lancaster VI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 21, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The first production B-32 wasn't produced until 19 September 1944 and only a handful were produced by the end of 1944. The B-32 was never in the running.



The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks occurred on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, so there is 11 months for the production B-32 to be made operationally ready The CW R-3350 engine was the biggest risk to the plans for an atomic carrier, not the airframe, whether B-29 and B-32 program however the Allison V-3420 seems to have been a satisfactory backup that could have powered either aircraft type reliably.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 21, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks occurred on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, so there is 11 months for the production B-32 to be made reliable. The CW R-3350 was the biggest risk to the B-29 and B-32 program however the Allison V-3420 seems to have been a satisfactory backup that could have powered either aircraft type reliably.




IIRC, there were more Silverplate B-29's built up to Aug 1945 than all combat variants of the B-32 combined. The first production B-32 wasn't delivered until 19 Sept 1944 (Groves was telling Arnold in late March 1944 that they'd have to go with the Lancaster if the B-29 wasn't made reliable) and promptly crashed on it's delivery flight.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The fact is that the historical record shows that the Lancaster was chosen in 1943 as more suitable for A-bomb delivery by the A-bomb's bomb casing designer.



Funny how you choose to interpret what's in front of you. The Lancaster was not chosen by anyone. This has been pointed out to you in virtually every post you have replied with. Ramsay recommended the Lancaster, discussed it with Groves who ultimately rejected it along with Arnold, who had the final say in terms of delivery system, so no, you are once again wrong in interpreting the facts that you are presenting.

The final say as to which delivery system is NOT Ramsey, it is ARNOLD, which means that the Lancaster WAS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED, since Arnold said NO! Which part of that do you not understand?



RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster was chosen by Ramsey. This is indisputable.



Ramsey did not choose the Lancaster. He recommended it. The Lancaster was not considered by anyone else. The ultimate decision was Arnold's AND HE SAID NO!

Read your source material RCAFson. Posting the same stuff over and over doesn't change anything. The facts still remain that the Lancaster was not seriously considered for delivery of the nuclear bombs. Ramsey's report, which I have posted in his words more than twice on this forum confirms this, as do Groves' and Arnold's, the three people at the centre of this debate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2020)

The fact that Arnold wanted an American delivery system is not in doubt, why is the interesting point. Arnold was heavily invested in the B-29 and determined to make it work, for good reason, it was very advanced and offered performance unmatched by any other heavy bomber in service at the time. I don't know what Arnold had in mind as an alternative, but I'm willing to bet that Arnold believed that the B-29 was the only answer, despite its various issues. I'm also willing to bet that regardless of the seriousness of the issues that arose with the B-29 that he was prepared to keep throwing money and resources at it until it was able to do the mission. That it succeeded and carried out the mission using parameters that no other bomber could have flown at the time was evidence that Arnold back the right horse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2020)

RCAFson, here is a suggestion for you. Since you are expending sooooo much time trying to prove your point, why don't you put it to good use? Gather all the evidence you have, get hold of some images, write a thesis or an article about why you believe what you do and cite your sources and get it published. Put your money where your mouth is and do this in the public interest instead of doing it just to prove a point on this forum.

If you are so utterly convinced you are right, do something about it. Be careful though, your arguments are being discredited here (quite easily so because you are misinterpreting your selling points), so it might not work out in your favour. Think about what it is that is motivating you to continually repeat the same thing over and over again and if you still feel it is worth pursuing, do it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2020)

*"I don't quite understand why the logic of the situation, then, meets so much resistance today.* Had the A-bomb been ready before the B-29, it's pretty obvious which Allied aircraft would have been chosen to deliver it, especially as the target would have been Germany."


_"When I told Arnold there was a chance that we might not be
able to fit the bomb into the B-29, no matter how hard we tried, he
asked me what I would do then. *I said that if the B-29 could not*_
*be used, we would have to consider the use of a British plane, the*
*Lancaster, which I was sure the Prime Minister would be glad to*
_*make available to us.*_

_This brought from him the characteristic reply that I had hoped
and expected to bear: that *he wanted an American plane to deliver*_
*our bomb, and that the Air Force would make every effort to ensure
that we had a B-29 capable of doing the job. Because the use of
a British plane would have caused us many difficulties and delays,
I, too, was most anxious to use the B-29 if it could be done.
Fortunately, as time went on, we were able to make changes in the
design of both types of bombs, so that it became possible to fit them*
_*into a specially modified B-29.*_


*The answer is in your own post! *

"Would have, could have, should have."

*Now shall we compare that Merlin 85 engined Lancaster VI to the B-29D (B-50)?*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 22, 2020)

The thread title is discussed in the August issue of "Aeroplane"....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Funny how you choose to interpret what's in front of you. The Lancaster was not chosen by anyone. This has been pointed out to you in virtually every post you have replied with. Ramsay recommended the Lancaster, discussed it with Groves who ultimately rejected it along with Arnold, who had the final say in terms of delivery system, so no, you are once again wrong in interpreting the facts that you are presenting.
> 
> The final say as to which delivery system is NOT Ramsey, it is ARNOLD, which means that the Lancaster WAS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED, since Arnold said NO! Which part of that do you not understand?
> 
> ...




I walk into a bar and am offered several brands of beer and narrow the choice to two different brands. I examine the bottles, read the labels, ask around for opinions, call the brewmasters for detailed info on the brewing process, and then make my selection....according to you I never seriously considered the losing brand!

*The future is unknowable*. In 1943 Ramsey picked the Lancaster as the preferred aircraft. On 22 March 1944, Groves is backing Ramsey and tells Arnold that if the B-29 doesn't come up to acceptable standards, then the Lancaster is the backup plan. This is clear. The fact that the B-29 was made into an acceptable delivery system doesn't mean that the Lancaster wasn't seriously considered; It was and both Ramsey and Groves state that it was. 

It wasn't actually up to Arnold to decide which aircraft would be chosen, but obviously it was desirable that Arnold would be in agreement and provide the needed aircraft and support without Groves having to go around/over him. However, if the B-29's teething troubles and Silverplate conversion process proved to be insurmountable then no matter what Groves might have personally wanted, or what Arnold preferred, the Lancaster was the only alternate to the B-29. This is indisputable. To say that the Lancaster wasn't seriously considered is just plain wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *"I don't quite understand why the logic of the situation, then, meets so much resistance today.* Had the A-bomb been ready before the B-29, it's pretty obvious which Allied aircraft would have been chosen to deliver it, especially as the target would have been Germany."
> 
> 
> _"When I told Arnold there was a chance that we might not be
> ...





What would have happened if the B-29 could not be used? Was the Manhattan project going to be halted? Would the A-bombs be built but put into storage? Or would Groves have picked up the phone and asked Churchill for some reverse lend-lease Lancasters?

Because Ramsey's suggestion to acquire Lancasters in 1943 wasn't acted upon, yes acquiring them in mid 1944 would have caused delays, but surely no more than happened with the B-29.

The Lancaster VI flew in mid (June, IIRC) 1943. The XB-44 (B-50 prototype) didn't fly until May 1945. You may be thinking of the Lancaster IV (Lincoln prototype) which flew in June 1944.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

Graeme said:


> The thread title is discussed in the August issue of "Aeroplane"....
> 
> View attachment 599126



The article has a few flaws.

It states that the Fatman would not fit into a Lancaster bomb bay without removing the doors, but the maximum width was short enough to have allowed for bulged doors to be fitted. Yes, there would have been some extra drag, but probably little more than that already produced by the radome and would have been largely offset by removal of the mid upper and front turrets.

A major flaw is in the range calculation. The Lancasters that flew the Tirpitz raids from Scotland covered about 2400 miles, and one even managed to fly the mission and return with a hung up bomb and this was achieved by using a 400IG internal Wellington aux tank, for a total of about 2560 IG of internal fuel. By the use of custom internal aux tanks, maximum fuel load of a Lancaster VI, minus the front and upper turrets, whilst carrying a FATMAN would be about 3000IG (with aux tanks fore and aft of the bomb) and a range of ~3000 miles. Like the Silverplate B-29s the mission would use a low-high-low flight profile, so that minimal time is spent at high altitude and initial climb to attack altitude is done with a large amount of fuel (1200-1500IG or ~8600-11000lb) of fuel burned off. However, even this is insufficient range for safe mission planning with a return to Tinian, and so TO from Tinian would involve a mission plan that included landing at Okinawa or Iwo Jima after weapon release.

A 'Silverplate' Lincoln should have been able to fly to and from Tinian with aux bomb bay tanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> What would have happened if the B-29 could not be used?



What would have happened if Hitler was killed in WW1?



RCAFson said:


> Because Ramsey's *suggestion* to acquire Lancasters in 1943 wasn't acted upon, yes acquiring them in mid 1944 would have caused delays, but surely no more than happened with the B-29.


And a suggestion, not a decision by any means....


RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI flew in mid (June, IIRC) 1943. The XB-44 (B-50 prototype) didn't fly until May 1945. You may be thinking of the Lancaster IV (Lincoln prototype) which flew in June 1944.


 No I'm thinking the XB-44 and using the same wishful thinking you've been using!


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 22, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *"I don't quite understand why the logic of the situation, then, meets so much resistance today.* Had the A-bomb been ready before the B-29, it's pretty obvious which Allied aircraft would have been chosen to deliver it, especially as the target would have been Germany."
> 
> 
> _"When I told Arnold there was a chance that we might not be
> ...



I've read the Groves quote several times, I suggest (not you Joe) reading it slowly and really taking a good look at what is being said. To me, Groves *DOES NOT* want to use or even consider the Lancaster, but would be _*forced to*_ if the Air Force and Boeing didn't get the B-29 sorted out, which I believe he had every confidence they would do so. I find the words "we would have to consider" very enlightening, as I said earlier, to me that means they _*are not*_ considering it nor do they want to.

Also "_This brought from him the characteristic reply that I had hoped and expected to hear" - _CLEARLY Groves wanted the B-29 and was banking (rightly so and with good reason) that the Air Force and Boeing would make the necessary modifications and produce a reliable delivery system.

I think also that any good planner has a contingency plan, he may have just been pointing out to General Arnold possibilities if the Superfortress development bogged down too badly.

One other thought is that Groves might have been surreptitiously prodding Arnold to get on the stick and get the 29 sorted so as to be ready at the same time as the gadget.

Again I ask, what would Ramsey have to do with aircraft choice? I imagine it was certainly within his purview to make _suggestions_ but I also imagine that's about all.


*Ramsey:* We should use the Lancaster.

*Arnold:* Thanks for the input, now go back to bomb case design bub.

Humor to lighten the moment gentlemen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The article has a few flaws.
> 
> It states that the Fatman would not fit into a Lancaster bomb bay without removing the doors, but the maximum width was short enough to have allowed for bulged doors to be fitted. Yes, there would have been some extra drag, but probably little more than that already produced by the radome and would have been largely offset by removal of the mid upper and front turrets.
> 
> ...


There are no flaws in the “magazine”. It’s a magazine sensationalizing it’s articles like most magazines in a newsstand. It gets that breathless flavor right. Facts are for Walter Cronkite.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2020)

I don't figure out why the "black Lancasters" had no markings because they were on some secret project. If something is secret why draw attention to it by having no markings at all? Just mark them up as individual members of a dozen existing squadrons?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I don't figure out why the "black Lancasters" had no markings because they were on some secret project. If something is secret why draw attention to it by having no markings at all? Just mark them up as individual members of a dozen existing squadrons?


I like the cut of your jib, mate!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I like the cut of your jib, mate!


Even as a civilian today a plane with no markings at all looks unusual, its like disguising a car by taking the number plates off, the first thing everyone notices is it has no number plates on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 22, 2020)

There’s an airfreight company that flies a white, unmarked 747-100 (?) out of JFK. If that ain’t suspicious I don’t know what is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What would have happened if Hitler was killed in WW1?
> 
> 
> And a suggestion, not a decision by any means....
> No I'm thinking the XB-44 and using the same wishful thinking you've been using!



In 1943 and early 1944, there was no certainty that the B-29 could be modded to do the task at hand. Groves states that clearly. If the B-29 doesn't work it was either can the entire program or use the Lancaster. 

I'm not the only one who states that the Lancaster was seriously considered:


_"Scientists working on the atomic bomb quickly realized that the unusual size and weight of the devices--both the tubular "gun-type fission weapon" shape (Little Boy) and the oval plutonium implosion weapon shape (Fat Man)--would be too large to be delivered by a conventional bomber such as the B-17 or the B-24. In October 1943, Dr. Norman Ramsey, a member of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Group, suggested that the only airplane in the U.S. inventory capable of carrying either type of the proposed weapons shapes was the B-29 Superfortress. Even the B-29, however, would require extensive modifications to both its engines and its bomb bay in order to accommodate the enormous weapon.

Prior to the decision to use the B-29, military officials had given serious consideration to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which the Royal Air Force had used to deliver the 5-ton Tallboy bombs developed in 1944. The Avro Lancaster would have required much less modification, but Major General Leslie Groves, the commander of the Manhattan Project, and General Henry H. Arnold, the Chief of United States Army Air Forces, wished to use an American plane."_
Project Silverplate

and:

_"It was a display of nationalism by US General Leslie Groves who thought it “beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb” (he wrote his own book, Now It Can Be Told, still in print in many different versions, even a Kindle edition) that tipped the scales in favor of the B-29 being selected over the British Avro Lancaster. While the B-29 was sophisticated for its day—fully pressurized crew compartments, trick bombing radar, remote-controlled gun turrets with computing sights—it cost a staggering five times as much as a Lanc, over $500,000 apiece, which also would have been much easier to modify. It may well be said, and this book certainly leans in that direction, *that the Silverplate program redeemed an otherwise problematic (in terms of performance, safety, bombing accuracy) aircraft that had failed to live up to expectations in its role as conventional high-altitude daylight strategic bomber and had been only provisionally successful as a low-altitude nighttime fire bomber*." » The Silverplate Bombers: A History and Registry of the Enola Gay and Other B-29s Configured to Carry Atomic Bombs_

I don't understand the relevance of the XB-44 as it was too immature to have been considered.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Again I ask, what would Ramsey have to do with aircraft choice? I imagine it was certainly within his purview to make _suggestions_ but I also imagine that's about all.
> 
> 
> *Ramsey:* We should use the Lancaster.
> ...



Arnold was not Ramsey's superior, nor even Groves' superior, since Groves didn't report to Arnold.

Ramsey:

*"EARLY FLIGHT TRIALS AT NPG DAHLGREN*
_If the Manhattan Project was to succeed, it had to do more than simply build atomic bombs. It also had to fashion a reliable means of delivering those bombs to the enemy. Overall management of atomic weapon delivery was placed in the capable hands of Captain William S. 'Deke' Parsons, USN, and Dr. Norman F. Ramsey. Parsons had been a major player in getting the proximity fuze out to the fleet. Ramsey, a gifted physicist and engineer-organizer, would be the 'fixer' responsible for running day-to-day operations._

_The first scale models of the plutonium gun bomb were fashioned by simply cutting a standard 500 pound aerial bomb in half and splicing a length of sewer pipe in between. Test drops were made from a Grumman TBF beginning in August 1943 at the Naval Proving Ground (NPG) range near Dahlgren, Virginia, but the ballistic characteristics of the 'sewer pipe bomb' were truly awful. Upon release, the bomb invariably went into a flat spin and broke up when it hit the ground broadside. Even as revised scale models of the plutonium gun continued to be flight-tested at Dahlgren, however, Norman Ramsey was beginning to scout out a suitable carrier aircraft for the full-sized weapon._

_In 1943, there were no aircraft in the US inventory with a bomb bay that could contain a 17 foot bomb. Ramsey did consider modifying a Consolidated - Vultee B-24 Liberator bomber for the purpose, only to abandon the idea when he discovered that the Navy had already tried to reengineer the B-24 for internal torpedo carriage and failed. That left the Boeing B-29 as the only other possible American candidate. During a field trip in August, Ramsey made surreptitious measurements of the Superfortress. He found that it could be adapted for the purpose by combining its two 12 foot bomb bays into one, but only if the bomb was no more than two feet in diameter. The reason was that the two bays were separated by the wing spar carry-through box, and the maximum distance between the lower side of the box and the bottom of the fuselage was no more than two feet._

_*MS-469: THIN MAN, FAT MAN, AND THE SILVER PLATED PULLMAN*
By the late fall of 1943, the ballistic problems of the plutonium gun bomb had been largely solved with improved tail surfaces and better weight balance. As its internal arrangements became more firmly established, the casing's layout was modified to follow suit. The final 'pod' or Cornog model (named after a design team member) featured a rounded, bulbous nose to house the fuzing arrangements and the muzzle plug - the 'anvil' - that was to hold the plutonium target, and a long, slender body with an elongated box tail. The full-size models were 18 feet long, and the design team estimated that the final product would weigh about 7,500 pounds._

_Scale model air-drops continued on into the winter at Dahlgren, but it had become obvious that another site was needed. The air near Chesapeake Bay was hazy, and full-sized model testing would have to be conducted from as high as 30,000 feet; good visibility was important. But security was also a concern - there were too many curious eyes in eastern Virginia. Parsons and Ramsey began searching for an alternative test site. In the meantime, Los Alamos scientists and engineers had also made progress in working out the practicalities of an implosion bomb. Its arrangements would be quite different from the plutonium gun weapon, however, and that meant that the search for a suitable bomber had to be expanded. In September, Ramsey was instructed to find an aircraft with a bomb bay that could carry a weapon weighing as much as 9,500 pounds. Unlike the long, slender plutonium gun, this new bomb had to be ball-shaped to contain the bulky explosive charges; Los Alamos' best guess was that the new design could be up to six feet in diameter._

_Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes."_
Operation Silverplate - The Aircraft of the Manhattan Project


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> In 1943 and early 1944, there was no certainty that the B-29 could be modded to do the task at hand. Groves states that clearly. If the B-29 doesn't work it was either can the entire program or use the Lancaster.
> 
> I'm not the only one who states that the Lancaster was seriously considered:
> 
> ...



OK so now it was "considered," (recommened, whatever) but at the end of the day the bugs were worked out and the superior delivery platform was chosen. You seem to keep driving this home to reflect that the Lancaster, because it was "considered" was the superior platform and it was not, no matter how you try to twist this or emphasize the B-29s teething issues, at the end of the day the B-29 stood a generation ahead over the Lancaster and as I repeated before, that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster.



RCAFson said:


> I don't understand the relevance of the XB-44 as it was too immature to have been considered.


It "could have" easily been accelerated and provided better performance than any other Lancaster or Lincoln mark. I'm now using your rationale.



RCAFson said:


> Arnold was not Ramsey's superior, nor even Groves' superior, since Groves didn't report to Arnold.



Ultimately they ALL worked for Arnold with regards of developing how this weapon was going to be deployed. If you look at the AAF command structure Arnold reported directly to General Marshal. There was also a reporting line from Arnold to the Assistant Sec. of War (for air) Robert Lovett. While Groves was the head of the Manhattan project, he was "just" a Major General. Regardless of how many people you show who "recommended," suggested," "considered" the Lancaster, at the end of the day General Arnold had the final word for the delivery system.

The only "what if" to this is if the bomb was ready earlier and Roosevelt wanted it immediately deployed (as you pointed out). I think Arnold "would have" pushed back and tried to hold out to an American delivery system. Whether he would have been overruled by Marshal, Lovett or even Roosevelt is another "what if" discussion.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2020)

From what I read elsewhere, in 50 years time Roosevelt and Arnold will be castigated for not letting the British take the blame for dropping the bomb and in 100 years time it will be common knowledge that an unmarked black Lancaster dropped them both.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> OK so now it was "considered," (recommened, whatever) but at the end of the day the bugs were worked out and the superior delivery platform was chosen. You seem to keep driving this home to reflect that the Lancaster, because it was "considered" was the superior platform and it was not, no matter how you try to twist this or emphasize the B-29s teething issues, at the end of the day the B-29 stood a generation ahead over the Lancaster and as I repeated before, that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster.
> 
> 
> It "could have" easily been accelerated and provided better performance than any other Lancaster or Lincoln mark. I'm now using your rationale.
> ...



Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943. I've never stated that the Lancaster VI was superior to the Silverplate B-29s after they were debugged, rather I've stated that the Lancaster VI had the range and performance to have safely delivered either A-bomb design and could likely have done so with TO from Tinian and landing at Okinawa. The Grand Slam modded Lancasters had a range of ~1700 (and ~1700IG of fuel) miles whilst carrying a 22000lb bomb externally at ~.99 AMG. If we substitute a 10000lb bomb and add 11000lb of fuel (1527 IG) we get a maximum range of ~3100 miles (allowing for tropical conditions), which allows for a low-high-low Tinian -> target-> Okinawa mission (~2400 miles) with an ample reserve of fuel. The Lancaster bomb bay has sufficient volume to carry this extra fuel and a FATMAN or LITTLEBOY bomb, if custom aux tanks are added, fore and aft of the bomb. As a check of my data we can look at an actual operational mission: The Tallboy Lancasters operating from Scotland had a range of over 2400 miles with 2560IG of fuel and could have carried another ~700IG of fuel if bomb weight (and length) was reduced by 2000lb and max TO weight increased from 68000 to 72000lb

The Lancaster VI flew in Mid 1943 - it doesn't need to be accelerated, only prioritized (and at a fraction of the cost of the Silverplate B-29 program). Compared to the B-29, the Lancaster VI, even in late 1943 was a more mature and reliable design.

Groves reported directly to the Whitehouse. He only deferred to Marshall and Arnold as a military courtesy.


----------



## Tom (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Lordy :rollseyes: thought I'd continue this here since it is more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





nuuumannn said:


> The fact that Arnold wanted an American delivery system is not in doubt, why is the interesting point. Arnold was heavily invested in the B-29 and determined to make it work, for good reason, it was very advanced and offered performance unmatched by any other heavy bomber in service at the time. I don't know what Arnold had in mind as an alternative, but I'm willing to bet that Arnold believed that the B-29 was the only answer, despite its various issues. I'm also willing to bet that regardless of the seriousness of the issues that arose with the B-29 that he was prepared to keep throwing money and resources at it until it was able to do the mission. That it succeeded and carried out the mission using parameters that no other bomber could have flown at the time was evidence that Arnold back the right horse.


 There is a good YouTube Podcast by doctor mark Felton, a non aviator academic about this topic. It seems the Lancaster' could probably have done it with in flight refueling. The low top speed and ceiling though would make the blast wave a bit sporty I would think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943. I've never stated that the Lancaster VI was superior to the Silverplate B-29s after they were debugged, rather I've stated that the Lancaster VI had the range and performance to have safely delivered either A-bomb design and could likely have done so with TO from Tinian and landing at Okinawa. The Grand Slam modded Lancasters had a range of ~1700 (and ~1700IG of fuel) miles whilst carrying a 22000lb bomb externally at ~.99 AMG. If we substitute a 10000lb bomb and add 11000lb of fuel (1527 IG) we get a maximum range of ~3100 miles (allowing for tropical conditions), which allows for a low-high-low Tinian -> target-> Okinawa mission (~2400 miles) with an ample reserve of fuel. The Lancaster bomb bay has sufficient volume to carry this extra fuel and a FATMAN or LITTLEBOY bomb, if custom aux tanks are added, fore and aft of the bomb. As a check of my data we can look at an actual operational mission: The Tallboy Lancasters operating from Scotland had a range of over 2400 miles with 2560IG of fuel and could have carried another ~700IG of fuel if bomb weight (and length) was reduced by 2000lb and max TO weight increased from 68000 to 72000lb



Again, this is all "what if." I'm not doubting a Lancaster mission could not have been achieved, at the end of the day history played out that the more advanced and superior aircraft was chosen. And again, it didn't matter what Ramsey preferred.


RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI flew in Mid 1943 - it doesn't need to be accelerated, only prioritized (and at a fraction of the cost of the Silverplate B-29 program). Compared to the B-29, the Lancaster VI, even in late 1943 was a more mature and reliable design.


 Cost agree, but in the end the longevity of the B-29 surpassed the Lancaster. You can say the Lancaster VI was a "more mature and reliable design" but it was half as complicated as the B-29!


RCAFson said:


> Groves reported directly to the Whitehouse. He only deferred to Marshall and Arnold as a military courtesy.


Yea, he did - Arnold went with the B-29, everything else is semantics and "what ifs."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I don't figure out why the "black Lancasters" had no markings because they were on some secret project. If something is secret why draw attention to it by having no markings at all? Just mark them up as individual members of a dozen existing squadrons?



It's like secret service personnel wearing civvies and acting normal to blend into a crowd while all having the same haircut.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It's like secret service personnel wearing civvies and acting normal to blend into a crowd while all having the same haircut.


Its worse, Lancasters normally had camo paint on the upper surfaces, it is like asking a few people to take their clothes off and "blend in" and if anyone asks, you actually don't have a name or address, not even a false one..


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943. I've never stated that the Lancaster VI was superior to the Silverplate B-29s after they were debugged, rather I've stated that the Lancaster VI had the range and performance to have safely delivered either A-bomb design and could likely have done so with TO from Tinian and landing at Okinawa. The Grand Slam modded Lancasters had a range of ~1700 (and ~1700IG of fuel) miles whilst carrying a 22000lb bomb externally at ~.99 AMG. If we substitute a 10000lb bomb and add 11000lb of fuel (1527 IG) we get a maximum range of ~3100 miles (allowing for tropical conditions), which allows for a low-high-low Tinian -> target-> Okinawa mission (~2400 miles) with an ample reserve of fuel. The Lancaster bomb bay has sufficient volume to carry this extra fuel and a FATMAN or LITTLEBOY bomb, if custom aux tanks are added, fore and aft of the bomb. As a check of my data we can look at an actual operational mission: The Tallboy Lancasters operating from Scotland had a range of over 2400 miles with 2560IG of fuel and could have carried another ~700IG of fuel if bomb weight (and length) was reduced by 2000lb and max TO weight increased from 68000 to 72000lb
> 
> The Lancaster VI flew in Mid 1943 - it doesn't need to be accelerated, only prioritized (and at a fraction of the cost of the Silverplate B-29 program). Compared to the B-29, the Lancaster VI, even in late 1943 was a more mature and reliable design.
> 
> Groves reported directly to the Whitehouse. He only deferred to Marshall and Arnold as a military courtesy.



To my mind, Thin Man was the most problematic bomb shape for the B-29. Being long it needed the two bomb bays to be joined underneath the wing. Which was achieved, but also why the Lancaster would be seen as an alternative.

Fat Man is the most problematic bomb for the Lancaster. The 12,000lb HC and Tallboy bombs could fit internally on the Lancaster with bulged bomb bay doors. The 22,000lb Grand Slam could not fit internally in the Lancaster bomb bay, so the doors were taken off for those missions (along with a turret or two to lighten the weight). The Fat Man bomb was larger in diameter than the Grand Slam, so could not fit internally in a standard Lancaster bay.

Getting the Fat Man to fit internally on a Lancaster would require more modification than was done to the B-29s, IMO.

For Fat Man and Little Boy the modifications for the B-29 were somewhat simpler than they were for Thin Man. Both bombs could fit inside the forward bomb bay, once the regular bomb racks were removed and a suitable single point rack installed in their place.

Little Boy was the easiest of the three bombs to accommodate. It was, essentially, the same size as the British 4,000lb HC "Cookie", so would fit easily inside the Lancaster and the modified B-29.

In fact, if the box tail was replaced with a British style round tail, Little Boy would have fit in the Mosquito with bulged bomb bay doors. Getting off the ground would have been unlikely, though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

Tom said:


> There is a good YouTube Podcast by doctor mark Felton, a non aviator academic about this topic. It seems the Lancaster' could probably have done it with in flight refueling. The low top speed and ceiling though would make the blast wave a bit sporty I would think.



A commentary on Mark Felton's youtube clip has been provided further back in this thread. While it is of interest, he gets a few things wrong, including not mentioning at all the Thin Man bomb, which is why the B-29 was modified. His assessment that the bomb bays of the B-29 had to be modified to carry the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs is not right either. In fact, the Fat Man was shaped to enable it to be able to fit inside the B-29's bomb bay.

As far as in flight refuelling is concerned, read about the RAF's Tiger Force.

Tiger Force

The overall assessment is that the Lancaster could not have done it owing to low speed, insufficient altitude and insufficient range. Let's not forget that by the beginning of August 1945, not one RAF aircraft was capable of in-flight refuelling.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Getting the Fat Man to fit internally on a Lancaster would require more modification than was done to the B-29s, IMO.



It's not just your opinion, wuzak. It simply could not be carried internally. The Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, which is approximately the width of the Lancaster's fuselage. Not only that but the drag of having such a thing protruding beneath the aircraft would be severely detrimental to its performance. The Grand Slam, as you know could be carried if its bomb bay doors were removed - and a raft of mods were made to the airframe, but it had a diameter of 1.1 metres, so less effect on drag, and its a streamlined shape. The Fat Man was shaped and sized so it could fit within the B-29's bomb bay.

This pic gives a good impression of its girth.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

By comparison, a nicely coloured image of a Grand Slam under a Lanc.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 22, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I've read the Groves quote several times, I suggest (not you Joe) reading it slowly and really taking a good look at what is being said. To me, Groves *DOES NOT* want to use or even consider the Lancaster, but would be _*forced to*_ if the Air Force and Boeing didn't get the B-29 sorted out, which I believe he had every confidence they would do so. I find the words "we would have to consider" very enlightening, as I said earlier, to me that means they _*are not*_ considering it nor do they want to.
> 
> Also "_This brought from him the characteristic reply that I had hoped and expected to hear" - _CLEARLY Groves wanted the B-29 and was banking (rightly so and with good reason) that the Air Force and Boeing would make the necessary modifications and produce a reliable delivery system.
> 
> ...



Fortunately there is performance data available for the Lancaster VI. The Lancaster VI is basically a standard Lancaster fitted with two stage Merlin engines. With these engines the Lancaster's altitude performance and speed at high altitude increases considerably. * The improvements do not come up to B-29 standards.*


Lancaster Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-level-speeds.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-climb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

The Lancaster VI used in these tests had all 3 turrets and H2S radar fitted.

Lancaster VI speed at 24000ft is 325mph. This is the maximum speed. At 25000ft speed drops of to 320mph. The Lancaster VI service ceiling, where climb drops to 100 feet per minute, is 28000 feet. The operational ceiling, the altitude at which climb rate drops to 500 feet per minute, is 23500. Thus operation above 24000 to 25000ft is impractical.

By Contrast the B29A had an operational ceiling of 30,000ft instead of 23500 and its speed in the 25000ft to 30000ft altitude is about 357mph. (Data below)

Hence the Lancaster VI would be attacking at 83% of the altitude which increases blast by the inverse cube power (1/0.83)^3 which is 50% more blast.
The fall time of the bomb before detonation is about 10% less and the speed of the aircraft is also 10% less in addition the air pressure is more. All of this adds up to the factor of 2 safety margin for blast being reduced to 1.

As far as I can tell early British plans for grand slam bombs and nuclear bombs go back to the Vickers Windsor.

Using a Lancaster requires the yield of the bomb to be dropped 50% or the use of a parachute retarded weapon to maintain safety margins.

A small increase in speed and operational ceiling will occur through deletion of the upper turret.


Boeing B-29A Superfortress
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-57 Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines each with two General Electric turbosuperchargers, delivering 2200 hp for take-off and having a war emergency rating of 2300 hp at 25,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 306 mph at sea level. Maximum continuous cruising speed 342 mph at 30,000 feet. Economical cruising speed 220 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute at combat weight. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 38 minutes. Service ceiling 33,600 feet. Maximum range was 4000 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load. Practical operational radius was 1800 miles. Maximum ferry range was 6000 miles. Weights: 71,360 pounds empty, Normal loaded 120,000 pounds, maximum overload 135,000 pounds with 12,000 pound bombload. Dimensions: wingspan 141 feet 2 3/4 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1738 square feet. Fuel: 8288 US gallons after installation of semi permanent bomb bay tanks. Armament: Twelve 0.50-inch machine guns in four remotely-controlled turrets (two above and two below the fuselage) and in the tail, each with 1000 rounds of ammunition. In addition, early production blocks had a single rearward-firing 20-mm M2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds in the tail position. The 20-mm cannon was deleted on production block 20 and two more 0.50-inch guns were added to the forward top turret.. Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> To say that the Lancaster wasn't seriously considered is just plain wrong.



No it isn't. The evidence has been placed out there time and time again that it wasn't considered by anyone else except Ramsey. Again, for the third time in Ramsey's own words which I have posted before...

"In the fall of 1943 it became apparent that plans for full scale tests should be started. In view of the critical shortage of B-29's it was at first _proposed that a British Lancaster be used for the test _work *even though a B-29 would almost certainly be used as the combat ship. *The Air Forces, however, *wisely recommended that a B-29 be used for the test work as well,* both to avoid non-standard maintenance and to accumulate experience in B-29 operations with such a bomb."

Proposed, not seriously considered, which again was shot down by Arnold.




RCAFson said:


> What would have happened if the B-29 could not be used? Was the Manhattan project going to be halted? Would the A-bombs be built but put into storage? Or would Groves have picked up the phone and asked Churchill for some reverse lend-lease Lancasters?
> 
> Because Ramsey's suggestion to acquire Lancasters in 1943 wasn't acted upon, yes acquiring them in mid 1944 would have caused delays, but surely no more than happened with the B-29.
> 
> The Lancaster VI flew in mid (June, IIRC) 1943. The XB-44 (B-50 prototype) didn't fly until May 1945. You may be thinking of the Lancaster IV (Lincoln prototype) which flew in June 1944.



The Lancaster VI was taken out of service in *late 1944 *owing to troublesome engines! How could it be used?!



RCAFson said:


> The article has a few flaws.
> 
> It states that the Fatman would not fit into a Lancaster bomb bay without removing the doors, but the maximum width was short enough to have allowed for bulged doors to be fitted. Yes, there would have been some extra drag, but probably little more than that already produced by the radome and would have been largely offset by removal of the mid upper and front turrets.
> 
> ...



Flaws? Write your own article then. Do it. Stop criticising other people's efforts and put your money where your mouth is.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the Fat Man was the same diameter as the Lancaster's fuselage, around five feet or 1.5 metres. If you think it wouldn't have that much impact on the Lancaster in terms of drag, you know nothing about aerodynamics. Take a look at the pics I posted above for comparison.

As for range calculations, so the Aircraft and Armament Experimental establishment were lying then?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

Do the calculations! Read the source material!

Silverplate Lincoln? WTF! And you criticise the article for getting it wrong!



RCAFson said:


> Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943.



Aaaand again, by the time the bombs have been dropped and after Arnold and Groves both said no, he changed his mind. But you're not reading anything except your point of view, are you. Your research is flawed, your opinion heavily biased and your conclusion wrong.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

wuzak said:


> To my mind, Thin Man was the most problematic bomb shape for the B-29. Being long it needed the two bomb bays to be joined underneath the wing. Which was achieved, but also why the Lancaster would be seen as an alternative.
> 
> Fat Man is the most problematic bomb for the Lancaster. The 12,000lb HC and Tallboy bombs could fit internally on the Lancaster with bulged bomb bay doors. The 22,000lb Grand Slam could not fit internally in the Lancaster bomb bay, so the doors were taken off for those missions (along with a turret or two to lighten the weight). The Fat Man bomb was larger in diameter than the Grand Slam, so could not fit internally in a standard Lancaster bay.
> 
> ...



Lancaster Bomb-Bay width was 61in. Fat Man width is 60.25in (or 60 or 59in by some sources). Lancaster B-B depth was 38in, IIRC. Fat Man will fit but will require a bulged B-B door that allows for an extra ~24in of B-B depth, (assuming that B-B doors are actually required*). The information that has been published proves that Ramsey presented Chadwick with drawings and dimensions of THIN MAN (gun type bomb) and FAT MAN, (the implosion design) and Chadwick confirmed that both bomb designs would fit. 

*Groves goes into some detail in _Now It Can Be Told_, to explain that inflight arming of the two bomb designs was a needless complication.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> It simply could not be carried internally. The Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, which is *approximately* the width of the Lancaster's fuselage. Not only that but the drag of having such a thing protruding beneath the aircraft would be severely detrimental to its performance. The Grand Slam, as you know could be carried if its bomb bay doors were removed - and a raft of mods were made to the airframe, but it had a diameter of 1.1 metres, so less effect on drag, and its a streamlined shape. The Fat Man was shaped and sized so it could fit within the B-29's bomb bay.
> 
> This pic gives a good impression of its girth.
> 
> ...





RCAFson said:


> Lancaster Bomb-Bay width was 61in. Fat Man width is 60.25in (or 60 or 59in by some sources). Lancaster B-B depth was 38in, IIRC. Fat Man will fit but will require a bulged B-B door that allows for an extra ~24in of B-B depth, (assuming that B-B doors are actually required*). The information that has been published proves that Ramsey presented Chadwick with drawings and dimensions of THIN MAN (gun type bomb) and FAT MAN, (the implosion design) and Chadwick confirmed that both bomb designs would fit.



No, Chadwick DID NOT confirm that Fat Man would fit. Simply because at the time Fat Man had not been completely finished in design, Fat Man's dimensions were designed specifically to fit inside a B-29's bomb bay, so at the time Chadwick saw what Ramsey was proposing, he saw shapes and rough estimates of weight, rather than exact dimensions and specifications. Also, Chadwick DID NOT know that what Ramsey was showing him were potential nuclear weapon shapes. Ramsey did not explain what the shapes were, just asked if he believed the Lancaster could carry them. He didn't mention anything about their purpose.

Again, do your research.

Take a look at the photos. The theory that the Fat Man could fit in a Lanc's bomb bay, just laughable. Again, you are not looking at the evidence.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Fortunately there is performance data available for the Lancaster VI. The Lancaster VI is basically a standard Lancaster fitted with two stage Merlin engines. With these engines the Lancaster's altitude performance and speed at high altitude increases considerably. * The improvements do not come up to B-29 standards.*
> 
> 
> Lancaster Performance Trials
> ...



Historical bombing altitudes were ~32000ft and 29000 ft (Nagasaki)

Lancaster VI service ceiling is 28500ft at 65000lb TO weight. However, at weapon release, the aircraft will have burnt off about 1500-1800 IG of fuel (~11000 to ~13000lb from 72000lb TO weight) and weight will be 61000-59000lb with a consequent increase in service ceiling. However even at 28000ft a Lancaster would have been safe from the ~21kt yield of a FAT MAN bomb as was proved by Bockscar dropping at ~29000ft. The LITTLE BOY bomb only had a yield of 13kt.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> (1) The Lancaster VI was taken out of service in *late 1944 *owing to troublesome engines! How could it be used?!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(1) The Lancaster VI was no longer needed over Germany in late 1944 because of Luftwaffe collapse, which is why it was withdrawn from operational, but not training service. The Lancaster VI and Lincoln used the same engine configuration and vibration problems were largely cured with a 4 bladed prop (See Sweetman).

(2) It was pointed out to you by Greyman in posts 11 to 18, of this thread, that your range calculations were incorrect. He repeatedly pointed out the range calculation flaws that ended up in the article, a year before it was published. If someone publishes an article that contains incorrect info , you can hardly expect that the author will escape criticism. You seem to stating that anything published is beyond criticism, even if it is clearly wrong. Just to reinterate, the Scottish based raids against Tirpitz were flown with Lancasters carrying a Tallboy bomb and 2560IG of internal fuel with a TO weight of 68500lb and their actual range exceeded 2400 miles.

(3) The 'Silverplate' Lincoln was onviously a shorthand form of stating that it would have been specially modded for A-bomb delivery, as per the historical Silverplate program.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> No, Chadwick DID NOT confirm that Fat Man would fit. Simply because at the time Fat Man had not been completely finished in design, Fat Man's dimensions were designed specifically to fit inside a B-29's bomb bay, so at the time Chadwick saw what Ramsey was proposing, he saw shapes and rough estimates of weight, rather than exact dimensions and specifications. Also, Chadwick DID NOT know that what Ramsey was showing him were potential nuclear weapon shapes. Ramsey did not explain what the shapes were, just asked if he believed the Lancaster could carry them. He didn't mention anything about their purpose.
> 
> Again, do your research.
> 
> ...



What you are proving is that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you:

_Ramsey was assigned to head the Delivery Group of the Ordnance Division and later
served as deputy to Pasion." *His immediate tasks were to design the bomb casings that
would carry the gun-assembly bomb and implosion bomb. *By the end of 1943 it had
already been established that the gun-type bomb-Thin Man-would weigh on the order
of five tons. Ramsey assumed that the implosion bomb would weigh approximately the
same. *Given their size and weight*, there were only two possible choices for an aircraft to
deliver the weapons, the British Lancaster or the American B-29, which had begun
production in September._

_Ramsey favored the Lancaster and traveled to Canada in early October 1943 to meet Roy
Chadwick, the plane's chief designer, Chadwick was in Canada to observe the initial
Lancasters coming off the production line at the Victory Aircraft Works, Milton Airdrome,
in Toronto. *Ramsey showed Chadwick preliminary sketches of the large-thin-shaped and*_
*stubby shaped-bombs and later wrote with more details.(12) Chadwick assured Ramsey that*
_*the Lencaster could accommodate them.*_

_When Ramsey returned, he wrote to Parsons suggesting that the Lancaster be seriously
considered and planned a memo to General Groves recommending that a modified
Lancaster be used.(13)*The bomb bay was thirty-three feet long and sixty-one inches wide.
The depth was only thirty-eight inches, but this could be modified*. The Lancaster's ceiling
was 27,000 feet, its speed 285 miles per hour, and takeoff required only 3,750 feet of runway
-a critical matter wherever it would be based.
(12). Norman F, Ramsey Jr. to Roy Chadwick, October 23, 1943, Folder Dr. Norman Ramsey, Box 6,
Tolman Files, RG 227/81, NARA.
(13). Memo, N. F, Ramsey to Capt. W. . Parsons, October 14, 1943, Lancaster Aircraft, Folder Dr Norman Ramsey... NARA
" (Norris, pages 316-317 Racing for the Bomb) _

Again, the actual FAT MAN width was 60.25in or less.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> (1) The Lancaster VI was no longer needed over Germany in late 1944 because of Luftwaffe collapse, which is why it was withdrawn from operational, but not training service. The Lancaster VI and Lincoln used the same engine configuration and vibration problems were largely cured with a 4 bladed prop (See Sweetman).
> 
> (2) It was pointed out to you by Greyman in posts 11 to 18, of this thread, that your range calculations were incorrect. He repeatedly pointed out the range calculation flaws that ended up in the article, a year before it was published. If someone publishes an article that contains incorrect info , you can hardly expect that the author will escape criticism. You seem to stating that anything published is beyond criticism, even if it is clearly wrong.
> 
> (3) The 'Silverplate' Lincoln was onviously a shorthand form of stating that it would have been specially modded for A-bomb delivery, as per the historical Silverplate program.



1) The Lancaster VI was retired from frontline service in November 1944 because it suffered technical issues and was not proceded with because of the Lincoln, which demonstrated better performance going forward, regardless of what modifications were made to it. It played no further part in the war and those surviving aircraft were used for research by the likes of Rolls Royce.

2) The figures are not flawed. Don't be lazy. *Do the maths*. The figures in the report also do not take into consideration the deterioration of performance based on a shift to the Pacific where the ambient temperature would sap performance further.* Again, do your research. *Regarding criticism, it has been pointed out to you by no less than four others on this thread in the last three days that your evidence you are placing in your favour contradicts the point you are making, yet you still refuse to accept what is right in front of you, so, right back at ya, sunshine.

2) Silverplate Lincoln is a fiction invented by you to reinforce a flawed point. The Lincoln first entered service with 57 Squadron at East Kirkby on 3 August 1945 with the arrival of three aircraft. The Lincoln was never considered nor suggested for delivering the US nuclear weapons.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 22, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> 1) The Lancaster VI was retired from frontline service in November 1944 because it suffered technical issues and was not proceded with because of the Lincoln, which demonstrated better performance going forward, regardless of what modifications were made to it. It played no further part in the war and those surviving aircraft were used for research by the likes of Rolls Royce.
> 
> 2) The figures are not flawed. Don't be lazy. *Do the maths*. The figures in the report also do not take into consideration the deterioration of performance based on a shift to the Pacific where the ambient temperature would sap performance further. Again, do your research.
> 
> 2) Silverplate Lincoln is a fiction invented by you yto reinforce a flawed pioint and you know it. The Lincoln first entered service with 57 Squadron at East Kirkby on 3 August 1945 with the arrival of three aircraft. The Lincoln was never considered nor suggested for delivering nuclear weapons.



1) There was no need for a high altitude Lancaster given the pending arrival of the Lincoln because the Lancaster didn't have a prior mission requirement for a high altitude bomb release. 
2) Greyman pointed out to you the figures for the Tirpitz raids. Anyone who had read posts 11-18 knows this and it is rather brazen of you to pretend that your figures are correct since that would mean that the actual mission could not have happened... Greyman clearly pointed out the AMPG adjustments for tropical conditions.

2->3) the Lincoln entered squadron service late because it took a backseat to Lancaster production, again because it was clearly not needed in the ETO and even in the PTO, Tiger Force Lancasters had sufficient range to operate from Okinawa.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Tiger Force Lancasters had sufficient range to operate from Okinawa.


Silverplate could not operate from Okinawa due to constant attack, which is why they operated from Tinian.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Anyone who had read posts 11-18 knows this and it is rather brazen of you to pretend that your figures are correct since that would mean that the actual mission could not have happened



So, you're not going to do the calculations yourself then?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Silverplate could not operate from Okinawa due to constant attack, which is why they operated from Tinian.



This is well known and has been debated to death on this thread alone, Dave. He's talking of Silverplate Lincolns and Lancaster VIs that can carry Fat Man bombs internally. That alone should give you an indication of what we are dealing with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> So, you're not going to do the calculations yourself then?



see: The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

The Tirpitz raid Lancasters were carrying 2560IG of fuel (using a 400IG Wellington Aux tank) and a 12000lb Tallboy and a 68500lb TO weight, Actual range of the aircraft exceeded 2400 miles (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. A Lancaster loaded with a FAT MAN can accommodate two aux tanks in the bomb bay and their is sufficient weight capacity, at 72000lb TO weight for another ~5000lb of fuel or ~700IG, if custom (rather than Wellington) aux tanks are used, however even if we max out the fuel load at 3000IG we get at range of 2820 miles at .94AMPG (tropical). This is easily sufficient for a Tinian->target-> Okinawa mission.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Tirpitz raid Lancasters were carrying 2560IG of fuel (using a 400IG Wellington Aux tank) and a 12000lb Tallboy and a 68500lb TO weight, Actual range of the aircraft exceeded 2400 miles (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. A Lancaster loaded with a FAT MAN can accommodate two aux tanks in the bomb bay and their is sufficient weight capacity, at 72000lb TO weight for another ~5000lb of fuel or ~700IG, if custom (rather than Wellington) aux tanks are used, however even if we max out the fuel load at 3000IG we get at range of 2820 miles at .94AMPG (tropical). This is easily sufficient for a Tinian->target-> Okinawa mission.




Ta dah! There it is! Evidence! Oops, no, still hasn't done the calculations... Is it because you don't know how to calculate specific air range from figures provided? Wikipedia isn't going to help you, you're gonna have to research it yourself. Look, the figures are all there in the paperwork, even under tropical conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I keep seeing Okinawa mentioned.
> 
> We all realize that the missions were flown from Tinian Island, a round trip of nearly 3,000 miles to and from target, right?



Sorry but that's not true. Enola Gay was Tinian-> Hiroshima -> Tinian but Bockscar was Tinian->Nagasaki-> Okinawa (Bockscar was forced to divert to Okinawa)

There's no particular reason that all missions couldn't have been planned for Tinian->target->Okinawa.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Ta dah! There it is! Evidence! Oops, no, still hasn't done the calculations... Is it because you don't know how to calculate specific air range from figures provided? Wikipedia isn't going to help you, you're gonna have to research it yourself. Look, the figures are all there in the paperwork, even under tropical conditions.



See post 13:
The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

Let's look at those figures you provided.



RCAFson said:


> A Lancaster loaded with a FAT MAN can accommodate two aux tanks in the bomb bay and their is sufficient weight capacity, at 72000lb TO weight for another ~5000lb of fuel or ~700IG, if custom (rather than Wellington) aux tanks are used, however even if we max out the fuel load at 3000IG we get at range of 2820 miles at .94AMPG (tropical).



Firstly, a Lancaster could not carry a Fat Man bomb.

Secondly, custom tanks? Fiction.

Thirdly, at this range and load, the Lancaster would be cruising at less than 200 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet. As I stated in my article, Short Stirlings were being shot down over Germany three years earlier at this performance.

Delusional rubbish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> See post 13:
> The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945



Yup, and if you continue to read below that, you'll see the following:



nuuumannn said:


> This still only gives us a range of 1,667.56 miles on a fuel capacity of 1,774 gallons. Again,* less than what I calculated above*, although speed has increased, as stated in the report, with a corresponding loss of range.



Read, read, read...

Yet more evidence you are not reading what you are posting. Now, where are YOUR calculations based on the figures provided?


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, and if you continue to read below that, you'll see the following:
> 
> _nuuumannn said:_
> _This still only gives us a range of 1,667.56 miles on a fuel capacity of 1,774 gallons. Again,* less than what I calculated above*, although speed has increased, as stated in the report, with a corresponding loss of range._
> ...



It must be painfully obvious now, to anyone reading this thread, that you don't know what you're talking about. Where does the fuel capacity figure of 1774IG come from? The Tirpitz raiders were carrying a 12000lb Tallboy and 2560IG (2160IG and 400IG) of fuel. You've made a major error somewhere which explains why you are so lost regarding Lancaster range.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Sorry but that's not true. Enola Gay was Tinian-> Hiroshima -> Tinian but Bockscar was Tinian->Nagasaki-> Okinawa (Bockscar was forced to divert to Okinawa)
> 
> There's no particular reason that all missions couldn't have been planned for Tinian->target->Okinawa.


Not sure how the picture coukd be painted any clearer for you to understand.

ALL of the 509th Composite Group's operations (atomic and conventional practice) were conducted from Tinian because Okinawa was within reach of the home islands and experienced attacks - Tinian was just out of reach of Japanese elements that made it a secure location to store, assemble and deploy atomic weapons.

And because bombers of the 509th landed at Okinawa means absolutely nothing.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> You've made a major error somewhere which explains why you are so lost regarding Lancaster range.



DO THE MATHS.

Here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Let's look at those figures you provided.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I provided a properly cited source to show that it can carry a FAT MAN bomb.

All the Silverplate mods were fiction until they were done. The Lancaster bomb bay is 33ft by 38in by 61in and there's plenty of room for aux tanks fore and aft of either A bomb design.

Tinian->Japan->Okinawa/Tinian is mostly an overwater flight safe from AA or fighters, which is why even the B-29 flew a low-high-low mission profile. Seriously, you didn't know that?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> It must be painfully obvious now,



The only painfully obvious thing is that you are not reading what's put in front of you. I did it _just_ before. Even your own arguments in favour of your case are shown to be contradictory and you are being reminded of this.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I provided a properly cited source to show that it can carry a FAT MAN bomb.



No, you didn't. It was explained to you why not. More evidence you aren't reading what's being posted.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> No, you didn't. It was explained to you why not. More evidence you aren't reading what's being posted.



Sorry, but you don't make the rules regarding evidence. I provided a properly cited source and you've provided your opinion...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I provided a properly cited source and you've provided your opinion



You can't even get right what you yourself are using as evidence. Read the source material again.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> DO THE MATHS.
> 
> Here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf



The above states .95 AMPG at mean mission weight of 66500lb = 2850 miles with 3000IG of fuel. In fact mean mission weight would be less than 66500lb but this is sufficient to show that the mission is possible.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure how the picture coukd be painted any clearer for you to understand.
> 
> ALL of the 509th Composite Group's operations (atomic and conventional practice) were conducted from Tinian because Okinawa was within reach of the home islands and experienced attacks - Tinian was just out of reach of Japanese elements that made it a secure location to store, assemble and deploy atomic weapons.
> 
> And because bombers of the 509th landed at Okinawa means absolutely nothing.



How does a Tinian ->Target -> Okinawa A-bomb mission expose Tinian to attack?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

Dear God...

Ok, let me try this again.

Okinawa could not be used as a staging base for the atomic missions. It was not secure from attack.

Tinian was selected as the base of operations for the Silverplate operations because it was nearly out of reach of Japanese attack.

And again, just because a B-29 landed at Okinawa does not mean a Lancaster could do the mission from Tinian - that literally makes no sense.
So in summary:
Tinian HAD to be the base of operations because it WAS OUT IF REACH OF JAPANESE ATTACK.
Okinawa was UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK until the end of the war nd was NOT secure for atomic weapon operations.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Dear God...
> 
> Ok, let me try this again.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how landing an aircraft, after weapon release, at Okinawa effects the security of a base on Tinian.

Okinawa was used as a staging base for one of the two missions, which made a lot of sense at the time.

Tinian-> Hiroshima->Okinawa is about 2200 miles and somewhat less for Tinian-> Nagasaki->Okinawa


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

No...wrong.
Absolutely NO Silverplate missions originated from Okinawa. Period.

All 15 conventional pumpkin bomb test missions were from Tinian.

Both atomic missions were from Tinian.


----------



## Dash119 (Oct 23, 2020)

Okay, hunkering down in my bunker here anticipating the incoming... And not debating any of the other issues on these 20 pages, but ;
Given that Tibbets demonstrated that he was willing to take some operational risks with the Bockscar mission. If the only way to do the mission(s) is Tinian -> Target -> Okinawa, doesn't he move ahead? No staging on Okinawa, just an empty bomber returning after the mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 23, 2020)

Don't know if this will help any:





Maybe you could do a guppy bomb bay conversion, it would look kind of like the belly fuel tank bulge modification on the EE Lightning F.6?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Oct 23, 2020)

Gentlemen. This all simply boils down to whether the Lancaster, with reasonable modifications, could act as a 1945 nuclear bomber. Not what would be the best nor issues of nationality nor if it were actually considered for it.

Perusing the posts I conclude that it could. The B29 would be better but that is not the OP. If there were no better choices it could do the task.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 23, 2020)

In reference to Post #381, Bockscar only landed at Okinawa because:

1). A faulty transfer pump isolated ~640 gallons of fuel that could not be offloaded so would be dead weight all the way to Japan and back.

2). Sweeney orbited the RV for 45 minutes although Tibbets ordered him to stay only 15 mins

3). They spent 50+ minutes on three bomb runs at Kokura with no visual on the city so diverted (finally) to Nagasaki where:

4). After a three minute bomb run they dropped Fat Man

The end result is that Bockscar did not have the fuel to make it to the emergency site at Iwo Jima, so Sweeney diverted to Okinawa which was NOT the preferred choice. With that in mind, does anyone really think the Lancaster could have pulled off that mission profile? Remember, no plan survives contact with the enemy, what if that HAD been a Lancaster trying to deliver Fat Man?

Now I'm not saying you couldn't do a Tinian --> Target --> Okinawa --> Tinian but the guys planning the mission in 1945 didn't think that was the way to go, who knows, maybe they were wrong.

And for the record, I don't think the Lancaster, for all its accomplishments and capabilities would have been able to deliver the A-Bomb. Realistically, it was no longer ready for Prime Time anymore, those days were past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I provided a properly cited source to show that it can carry a FAT MAN bomb.
> 
> All the Silverplate mods were fiction until they were done. The Lancaster bomb bay is 33ft by 38in by 61in and there's plenty of room for aux tanks fore and aft of either A bomb design.
> 
> Tinian->Japan->Okinawa/Tinian is mostly an overwater flight safe from AA or fighters, which is why even the B-29 flew a low-high-low mission profile. Seriously, you didn't know that?



The 4,000lb HC bomb was 30" in diameter and would fit inside the Lancaster bomb bay.

The 8,000lb HC, 12,000lb HC and 12,000lb Tallboy bombs were 38" in diameter and required bulged bomb bay doors.

The 22,000lb DP Grand Slam bomb was 46" diameter and required the bomb bay doors to be removed - it would not fit inside.

The Fat Man bomb was 60" in diameter.

Your own dimensions show the bomb bay depth (with bulged bomb bay doors) was 38". Fat Man was over 50% bigger than that.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> No...wrong.
> Absolutely NO Silverplate missions originated from Okinawa. Period.
> 
> All 15 conventional pumpkin bomb test missions were from Tinian.
> ...



Bockscar flew Tinian-Nagasaki-Okinawa-Tinian. I've never suggested otherwise.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The 4,000lb HC bomb was 30" in diameter and would fit inside the Lancaster bomb bay.
> 
> The 8,000lb HC, 12,000lb HC and 12,000lb Tallboy bombs were 38" in diameter and required bulged bomb bay doors.
> 
> ...



Grand Slam's length is a issue but there was no operational need to enclose it. FAT MAN is about 12ft shorter IIRC.

So with all the resources at their disposal, the 'Silverplate' team can't fabricate bomb bay doors to enclose FAT MAN? They had no problem spending 6000 man hrs to mod a B-29. The easiest way to do it would be to cut away an opening so that the doors close around the bomb.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> In reference to Post #381, Bockscar only landed at Okinawa because:
> 
> 1). A faulty transfer pump isolated ~640 gallons of fuel that could not be offloaded so would be dead weight all the way to Japan and back.
> 
> ...



Sweeney was roundly criticized for his mission plan and TO with a faulty fuel pump, but then again, he also calculated his available fuel and the possibility of diverting to Okinawa. if Sweeny had even less fuel he would have made different decisions.


----------



## glennasher (Oct 23, 2020)

Presumably, the Lancaster couldn't do carry "the bomb" without air-to-air refueling, which wasn't a common thing in those days, and the Lanc wasn't set up for that anyway. How long would it take to develop the capability to refuel in the air? How would that be any better than waiting to finish development of the B-29?
It seems to me that even thinking about using the Lancaster just isn't a good way to spend the time and effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

glennasher said:


> Presumably, the Lancaster couldn't do carry "the bomb" without air-to-air refueling, which wasn't a common thing in those days, and the Lanc wasn't set up for that anyway. How long would it take to develop the capability to refuel in the air? How would that be any better than waiting to finish development of the B-29?
> It seems to me that even thinking about using the Lancaster just isn't a good way to spend the time and effort.



The Lancaster can carry the bomb without air to air refuelling. However, air to air refuelling was quite feasible and was another alternative:


_In 1934, Cobham had founded Flight Refuelling Ltd and by 1938 had used FRL's looped-hose system to refuel aircraft as large as the Short Empire flying boat Cambria from an Armstrong Whitworth AW.23.[5] Handley Page Harrows were used in the 1939 trials to perform aerial refueling of the Empire flying boats for regular transatlantic crossings. From August 5 to October 1, 1939, sixteen crossings of the Atlantic were made by Empire flying boats, with fifteen crossings using FRL's aerial refueling system.[14] After the sixteen crossings further trials were suspended due to the outbreak of World War II.[15] Aerial refueling - Wikipedia_

However, given the low cost of the aircraft, compared to the bomb, ditching the aircraft after the mission is no big deal, especially as the Allied navies had near complete control of the seas.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> However, given the low cost of the aircraft, compared to the bomb, ditching the aircraft after the mission is no big deal, especially as the Allied navies had near complete control of the seas.



Hmmm....

What about the cost of the crew's lives? Fly a cheaper but inferior aircraft on one of the most important missions of the war with a nuclear device and attach a ditching requirement on the crew after they just nuked a major population center. And that's if everything worked out.

I am so glad this was all a "what if" perspective. Yea, I believe a Lancaster or Lincoln "could have" achieved a nuclear mission, based on arguments on both sided of this discussion it's clear that the way history played out WAS the better option!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> What about the cost of the crew's lives? Fly a cheaper but inferior aircraft on one of the most important missions of the war with a nuclear device and attach a ditching requirement on the crew after they just nuked a major population center. And that's if everything worked out.
> 
> I am so glad this was all a "what if" perspective. Yea, I believe a Lancaster or Lincoln "could have" achieved a nuclear mission, based on arguments on both sided of this discussion it's clear that the way history played out WAS the better option!!!



I'm just saying that the crew had lots of options to successfully complete a mission, including ditching at a number of prearranged locations. Sweeny avoided ditching by about 2mins as he basically began running out of fuel at touch down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I'm just saying that the crew had lots of options to successfully complete a mission, including ditching at a number of prearranged locations. Sweeny avoided ditching by about 2mins as he basically began running out of fuel at touch down.



Well aware about Sweeney's situation, that's called "PILOT ERROR," a little different from a planned ditching to fulfill the most important mission of the war!


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well aware about Sweeney's situation, that's called "PILOT ERROR," a little different from a planned ditching to fulfill the most important mission of the war!



Sweeny was aware that a successful drop might end the war. Yes, he gambled his aircraft and the lives of his crew against the possibility of forcing Japan to surrender. If Sweeny had to wait even longer to strike a target, and then ditched, (and there were prearranged locations for that) he would still have accomplished his mission. A 'Silverplate' Lancaster wouldn't have to ditch either, but if it did then it's just the cost of doing business.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 23, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> What about the cost of the crew's lives? Fly a cheaper but inferior aircraft on one of the most important missions of the war with a nuclear device and attach a ditching requirement on the crew after they just nuked a major population center. And that's if everything worked out.
> 
> I am so glad this was all a "what if" perspective. Yea, I believe a Lancaster or Lincoln "could have" achieved a nuclear mission, based on arguments on both sided of this discussion it's clear that the way history played out WAS the better option!!!



I think the reasoning is essentially that none of the US bombers except the B-29 had a chance of carrying either Little Boy or Fat Man; the Lancaster could with some level of difficulty. The B-32 may have been able to, but its development was even more protracted and troublesome than that of the B-29. The XB-44 didn't fly until May 1945. The XB-39, which may have been one of the missed opportunities, didn't fly until December 1944. 

There was no US-built fallback aircraft to deliver the atomic bomb. On the other hand, the bomb was not developed to attack Japan: it was developed to attack Germany. Any planning of carrier aircraft would have been with that in mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

It was important that the bombers returned as the both had mission data and top secret equipment on board.

We have the luxury of looking back and making suggestion about the entire program, but what we know about the aircraft and missions today, would have most likely gotten us shot in 1945.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 23, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Don't know if this will help any



This probably won't either - an amateurishly hand drawn profile shot (hoping my scaling is right).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

Keep in mind that both Little Boy and Fat Man had to be manually armed by the weaponeer while in flight.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Keep in mind that both Little Boy and Fat Man had to be manually armed by the weaponeer while in flight.



Groves, In _Now it can be told_ disputes this, and states that the arming in-flight was an unnecessary complication, and that the local commanders were overstepping their authority in insisting on that. The bombs were not really designed for in-flight arming.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

And yet, they were...


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

As an aside, read about Dick Ashworth, who was the weaponeer aboard Bockscar:

Frederick Ashworth, 93; Weaponeer on Plane That Dropped 2nd A-Bomb

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 23, 2020)

In a mechanical function sense there was no reason that the bombs had to be armed the way they historically were while in flight, or in any way in flight, except maybe a final arming switch for the fuze(s). Possibly it was considered a safety or security requirement by the local commanders and other higher-ups?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2020)

Again, we're looking back at 1944/45 technology with 21st century eyes.

The bombs were manually armed and in the event on an emergency, disarmed.

Fears of RFI, static electricity and other issues made the weaponeer's job of manually arming/disarming a priority.

These Uranium and Plutonium bombs were completely new technology and there was no real database of "does and don'ts" that existed.
Of course, if they screwed up, then that would certainly be something not to do next time...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 24, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Historical bombing altitudes were ~32000ft and 29000 ft (Nagasaki)
> 
> Lancaster VI service ceiling is 28500ft at 65000lb TO weight. However, at weapon release, the aircraft will have burnt off about 1500-1800 IG of fuel (~11000 to ~13000lb from 72000lb TO weight) and weight will be 61000-59000lb with a consequent increase in service ceiling. However even at 28000ft a Lancaster would have been safe from the ~21kt yield of a FAT MAN bomb as was proved by Bockscar dropping at ~29000ft. The LITTLE BOY bomb only had a yield of 13kt.



i think that’s slightly optimistic.

I calculate a reduction in air density of 17% (ie 83%) between 23500ft and 28000ft which would reduce lift by 17%. In addition as the engines are above FTH the power would also drop 17%. A 12000lb reduction in weight from 72000lb to 60000lb is also a reduction of 17% however the reduction you refer to is from 65000lbs to 59000lbs is only 10%. There is a slightly reduction in parasitic drag. Although I can't see the operational ceiling (500 fpm) going from 23500 to 28000ft I can see it going to half way there, maybe 26000ft but the aircraft would reach 28000ft with maybe a climb rate of only 200fpm. This means the aircraft is hanging on the very edge edge of a stall with the engines at maximum power. This is a problem for an aircraft whose main escape was a corkscrew that generally lost enemy night fighters, The "silver plate" Lancaster VI would no doubt have fishpond for its H2S radar and village inn radar for its tail gunner and have the dorsal turret deleted. I think the Lancaster could drop little boy. Incidently the first atomic bomb to go off was little boy over hiroshima. There was no prototype test so yield could have been higher. Nitrous Oxide was used on single stage Merlin Mosquitos and we know the two stage used them so a nitrous oxide supply was a possibility. I think 26000ft is a good enough altitude and if done at night stood good chances of evading interception. 

Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator
(assuming boyles law on PV = constant

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 24, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> he above states .95 AMPG at mean mission weight of 66500lb = 2850 miles with 3000IG of fuel.



And if you increase the fuel load you have to decrease the warload, which pushes it below the value of even the Little Boy bomb. Trials carried out with the Lancaster fitted with overload saddle tanks showed that with a max take off weight of 72,000lb calculated from a standard 2,154gal internal fuel load, plus the saddle tank fuel load the radius of action was 1,500 miles with a 6,000lb load.

With the saddle tank, the maximum range was 3,154 miles, but again the warload was 6,000lbs.

Range or load? Can't have both.



ThomasP said:


> Don't know if this will help any:



Nice drawing, but it only shows the diameter of the bomb body, not the fins, which equates to a box of the same diameter as the body, of 1.5m each flat side. That cannot be carried internally - the width of the bomb fins is wider than the internal bomb bay walls. It would have to be suspended below the fuselage level. Let's also consider for a minute what impact that will have on drag, not to mention loading on the bomb itself whilst in flight. No aerodynamicist nor engineer would certify that at all. Even if it were enclosed by purpose built doors, what impact does that have on clearance? We are talking a completely fictional scenario that has too many impracticalities written into it.



yulzari said:


> This all simply boils down to whether the Lancaster, with reasonable modifications, could act as a 1945 nuclear bomber. Not what would be the best nor issues of nationality nor if it were actually considered for it.



Correct, but nationality was on the cards, both Groves and Arnold wanted an American bomber.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> i think that’s slightly optimistic.
> 
> I calculate a reduction in air density of 17% (ie 83%) between 23500ft and 28000ft which would reduce lift by 17%. In addition as the engines are above FTH the power would also drop 17%. A 12000lb reduction in weight from 72000lb to 60000lb is also a reduction of 17% however the reduction you refer to is from 65000lbs to 59000lbs is only 10%. There is a slightly reduction in parasitic drag. Although I can't see the operational ceiling (500 fpm) going from 23500 to 28000ft I can see it going to half way there, maybe 26000ft but the aircraft would reach 28000ft with maybe a climb rate of only 200fpm. This means the aircraft is hanging on the very edge edge of a stall with the engines at maximum power. This is a problem for an aircraft whose main escape was a corkscrew that generally lost enemy night fighters, The "silver plate" Lancaster VI would no doubt have fishpond for its H2S radar and village inn radar for its tail gunner and have the dorsal turret deleted. I think the Lancaster could drop little boy. Incidently the first atomic bomb to go off was little boy over hiroshima. There was no prototype test so yield could have been higher. Nitrous Oxide was used on single stage Merlin Mosquitos and we know the two stage used them so a nitrous oxide supply was a possibility. I think 26000ft is a good enough altitude and if done at night stood good chances of evading interception.
> 
> ...



The Lancaster VI service ceiling at 65000lb was 28500ft (100ft/min climb rate) and absolute ceiling was ~29800ft.

A Lincoln with a Merlin 85 engines had it's service ceiling increase from ~30000ft at 69500lb to 32500ft at 63500lb so I think we could predict a similar increase in combat and service ceiling for a Lancaster VI, as per your calculation. However another way to look at the problem, is that of how much fuel is required for a flight from Hiroshima (630 miles)/Nagasaki (490 miles) to Okinawa? I would guesstimate that 800IG would suffice and would provide for at least 900 miles even with a high speed cruise, given the reduced weight. Therefore we can afford to have burned ~2100 IG at ~20min prior to weapon release for a weight of ~57000lb and an increase in combat ceiling to ~27000ft and service ceiling to ~33500ft and therefore only another 3-5 minutes from 27000ft to 29000ft for Hiroshima, which is still well below the service ceiling. For a Nagasaki mission we can return to Okinawa with 700IG remaining at 20min prior to weapon release and about 55000lb for a combat ceiling of ~29000ft.

Of course it is convenient to use the historical Lancaster VI, as an "off the shelf" solution, but the Merlin 85 is really a medium altitude rated engine and a Lancaster VI variant could be fitted with a high altitude rated Merlin such as the Merlin 86, which increases the FTH by ~6000ft ( 16000ft to 22250) over the Merlin 85.

As per earlier data presented by GREYMAN, removing the top turret increases Vmax on the Lancaster VI by about 12mph and IIRC, removing the front turret would add another 4mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 24, 2020)

It's also worth mentioning that at a max take off weight of 72,000lbs the Lancaster was a beast to fly. The A & AEE recommended that only the most skilled pilots fly it, the engine oil temps were at their maximum safe level at less than max rate climb and any speed over 260mph provoked severe vibration throughout the airframe. Cruise was restricted to below 170 to 180mph. Flying at that speed over Japan in 1945?

It's worth remembering that the Lancaster VI suffered vibration and overheating during A&AEE trials resulting in the loss of an airframe during testing, with thankfully no loss of life. Performance figures were an improvement, but the decision was made to not pursue the type, and as posted previously, it was withdrawn from service in November 1944.

Regarding in-flight-refuelling, Lancasters were used in trials in late 1944 and these were promising, but no in service examples were so fitted by August 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2020)

Again, Okinawa *cannot* be used as an Atomic staging base.
It was under constant attack by the Japanese and would put the atom bomb program in jeopardy.
Aside from the fact that there was a limited supply of atom bombs, if one of the bombs was destroyed by a Japanese bomb, there would be the issue of radioactive debris.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 24, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> And if you increase the fuel load you have to decrease the warload, which pushes it below the value of even the Little Boy bomb. Trials carried out with the Lancaster fitted with overload saddle tanks showed that with a max take off weight of 72,000lb calculated from a standard 2,154gal internal fuel load, plus the saddle tank fuel load the radius of action was 1,500 miles with a 6,000lb load.
> 
> With the saddle tank, the maximum range was 3,154 miles, but again the warload was 6,000lbs.
> 
> ...



Tiger Force was formed to drop conventional bombs on Japan and these bombs used a large volume of the bomb bay especially incendiaries and the Tallboy/Grandslam. Therefore to increase fuel load they needed to add extra internal tanks by extending the upper fuselage as a saddle tank. However the saddle tank fuselage mods were heavy and so overall not an efficient aircraft and the saddle tank design was discarded. It has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that during the Operation Catechism Tirpitz raids from Scotland, that Lancasters loaded with 2560IG (2160 + 400IG) of fuel flew a 12000lb Tallboy mission an average of 2400 miles (return) to destroy Tirpitz with a Lancaster TOW of 68500lb. One Lancaster returned from Tirpitz with a hung up bomb . Max TOW of the Lancaster was increased to 72000lb, which along with the more compact and balanced Atomic bombs would have allowed for additional fuel via internal aux bomb bay tanks. So a Lancaster could carry ~3000IG of internal fuel and a ~10000lb Little Boy or Fat Man bomb.

2) Again Fat Man width was 60.25in or less while the Lancaster B-B was 61in wide by 38in deep. So some protrusion, similar to the existing radome. This is assuming that no mods can be made to the ceiling of the bomb bay.

3) irrelevant.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 24, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Max TOW of the Lancaster was increased to 72000lb, which along with the more compact and balanced Atomic bombs would have allowed for additional fuel via internal aux bomb bay tanks. So a Lancaster could carry ~3000IG of internal fuel and a ~10000lb Little Boy or Fat Man bomb.




Again though, this is entirely fictional. If you add extra tanks in the bomb bay plus max internal fuel load and warload, you have exceeded your maximum take off weight. And again, can't carry Fat Man at all.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 24, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Again, Okinawa *cannot* be used as an Atomic staging base.
> It was under constant attack by the Japanese and would put the atom bomb program in jeopardy.
> Aside from the fact that there was a limited supply of atom bombs, if one of the bombs was destroyed by a Japanese bomb, there would be the issue of radioactive debris.



Okinawa was used to stage Bockscar to Tinian *after* the Nagasaki mission.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 24, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Again though, this is entirely fictional. If you add extra tanks in the bomb bay plus max internal fuel load and warload, you have exceeded your maximum take off weight. And again, can't carry Fat Man at all.



Catechism raid = 12000lb Tallboy plus 2560IG of fuel and a TOW of 68500lb on a 2400 mile mission. Hypothetical Hiroshima raid = 10000lb bomb plus ~3000ig (extra 440IG = 3170lb plus ~330lb for the aux tank = 3500lb) of fuel for a TOW of 70000lb or 2000lb less than the allowable TOW of 72000lb.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Okinawa was used to stage Bockscar to Tinian *after* the Nagasaki mission.



Staged? Visit? Irrelevant!!! The fact is the mission* STARTED* from Tinian!!!!


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Stage? Visit? Irrelevant!!! The fact is the mission* STARTED* from Tinian!!!!



Yes, as I previously stated, Bockscar's actual Nagasaki mission staging = Tinian->Nagasaki->Okinawa->Tinian. This would be the staging plan for a Lancaster mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, as I previously stated, Bockscar's actual Nagasaki mission staging = Tinian->Nagasaki->Okinawa->Tinian. This would be the staging plan for a Lancaster mission.



Bockscar should have gone Iwo Jima, that was the emergency landing field. Okinawa was NOT part of the plan! There were many mistakes made during the Nagasaki mission but nothing that would justify the use of an inferior aircraft to complete the same mission!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> 2) Again Fat Man width was 60.25in or less while the Lancaster B-B was 61in wide by 38in deep. So some protrusion, similar to the existing radome. This is assuming that no mods can be made to the ceiling of the bomb bay.



The ceiling of the bomb bay was the centre wing section.

I can't find the dimensions of the H2S radome at this time. However, I doubt it sat as low as the Fat Man bomb would.

As nuuumannn said:, the box tail of the Fat Man bomb was as wide as the bomb diameter - 60in. Which means that the biggest part of the bomb within the actual bomb bay was 60" wide, leaving only 1" extra room, or 0.5" per side. Doesn't seem practical, especially if you want to use some sort of bomb door.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The ceiling of the bomb bay was the centre wing section.
> 
> I can't find the dimensions of the H2S radome at this time. However, I doubt it sat as low as the Fat Man bomb would.
> 
> As nuuumannn said:, the box tail of the Fat Man bomb was as wide as the bomb diameter - 60in. Which means that the biggest part of the bomb within the actual bomb bay was 60" wide, *leaving only 1" extra room, or 0.5" per side. Doesn't seem practical, especially if you want to use some sort of bomb door*.



I was thinking the same thing. Anyone consider the bomb rack in the equation?


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> It's also worth mentioning that at a max take off weight of 72,000lbs the Lancaster was a beast to fly. The A & AEE recommended that only the most skilled pilots fly it, the engine oil temps were at their maximum safe level at less than max rate climb and any speed over 260mph provoked severe vibration throughout the airframe. Cruise was restricted to below 170 to 180mph. Flying at that speed over Japan in 1945?
> 
> It's worth remembering that the Lancaster VI suffered vibration and overheating during A&AEE trials resulting in the loss of an airframe during testing, with thankfully no loss of life. Performance figures were an improvement, but the decision was made to not pursue the type, and as posted previously, it was withdrawn from service in November 1944.
> 
> Regarding in-flight-refuelling, Lancasters were used in trials in late 1944 and these were promising, but no in service examples were so fitted by August 1945.



I'm sure that an A-bomb mission will be assigned to skilled pilots, but the aircraft will lose ~10,000lb minimum during the cruise outbound from Tinian before begining their cruise climb prior to entering Japanese airspace..

This is from page 102 of Mason's _The Secret Years Flight testing at Boscombe Down_ :

_In January 1944 the first Lancaster with Merlin 85
JB675, was delivered and given full handling and cooling
trials; the latter indicated that the radiator was
unsatisfactory in the cruise. ND479, also re-engined with
Merlin 85s, was engaged on stick force tests, but on 26
April 1944, the port outer engine oversped to 4,000 rpm
and could not be feathered; the extreme drag could not
be controlled and the aircraft crashed, but without
casualties. A third aircraft with Merlin 85, ND558, arrived
in June 1944 with tests concentrated on the propeller
constant speed unit. After lengthy climbs to 30,000 ft,
the engines were set at 2,700 rpm (90% maximum) and
plus 2 psi boost and the aircraft dived, reaching 350 mph
(indicated) at about 25,000 ft (equivalent Mach No 0.72).
Apart from the escape hatch disappearing, nothing
untoward happened. Asymmetric handling with the
higher power of the 85s confirmed failure of the port outer
as the worst case on take-off. With full rudder and aileron
combined with significant bank, 130 mph (indicated)
could just be held; without bank, 155 mph was the
minimum_.

Typical teething issues but we then have a Lancaster VI achieving Mach .72 at 25000 ft and no engine problems in June 1944.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

Bockscar ONLY landed at Okinawa as an emergency measure.

All of the 509th CG's bombers were to transit from Tinian, to target and back to Tinian. This was to preserve security of the missions and the chain of secure data gathered on board.

Bockscar broke security protocol by landing at Okinawa due to a faulty fuel transfer pump AND excessive loiter time over both targets.

There was a secure emergency field at Iwo Jima but there was not enough fuel to reach it. As it was, Bockcar's engines were shutting down from fuel starvation AS it was landing at Yontan field.

So the actual flight for Bockscar was:
Tinian to Rendezvous Point at Yakushima
Loitered at Yakushima 30 minutes
Yakushima to Kokura
Loitered at Kokura 50 minutes (3 bomb runs - unable to bomb)
Kokura to Nagasaki
Orbited Nagasaki
Bombed Nagasaki
Nagasaki to Okinawa

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Typical teething issues but we then have a Lancaster VI achieving Mach .72 at 25000 ft and no engine problems in June 1944.



Any by July 1944 the Japanese homeland was being bombed by B-29s


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The ceiling of the bomb bay was the centre wing section.
> 
> I can't find the dimensions of the H2S radome at this time. However, I doubt it sat as low as the Fat Man bomb would.
> 
> As nuuumannn said:, the box tail of the Fat Man bomb was as wide as the bomb diameter - 60in. Which means that the biggest part of the bomb within the actual bomb bay was 60" wide, leaving only 1" extra room, or 0.5" per side. Doesn't seem practical, especially if you want to use some sort of bomb door.



Fat Man would protrude about 22-24in. The Radome extends about 1/4 of the height of the max aircraft fuselage height so they seem quite comparable

Roy Chadwick said it was practical.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Roy Chadwick said it was practical.



Practical vs probable.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Fat Man would protrude about 22-24in. The Radome extends about 1/4 of the height of the max aircraft fuselage height so they seem quite comparable
> 
> Roy Chadwick said it was practical.



Did he say it was practical for the final Fat Man bomb, or for a provisional design that may have had different dimensions?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Did he say it was practical for the final Fat Man bomb, or for a provisional design that may have had different dimensions?



Again, the max width of Fat Man is 60.25in so it will fit. The minimum width of any design was 59in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Again, the max width of Fat Man is 60.25in so it will fit. The minimum width of any design was 59in.



It could fit but can it be safely deployed???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It could fit but can it be safely deployed???



Again, Chadwick assured Ramsey (who concurred) that it could be safely deployed. I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Lancaster to contradict it's designer...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Again, Chadwick assured Ramsey (who concurred) that it could be safely deployed. I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Lancaster to contradict it's designer...



Well I helped load bombs in aircraft that had a bomb bay. I would not want to be on any aircraft that had live ordinance hung with a 1/2 inch clearance between the weapon and structure. I'd contradict Chadwick, Kelly Johnson or Wilbur Wright!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Again, Okinawa *cannot* be used as an Atomic staging base.
> It was under constant attack by the Japanese and would put the atom bomb program in jeopardy.
> Aside from the fact that there was a limited supply of atom bombs, if one of the bombs was destroyed by a Japanese bomb, there would be the issue of radioactive debris.


A destoyed atomic bomb of the little man U235 gun type weapon would produced an insignificant amount of radiation since U235 is not particularly radioactive. Dispersed plutonium 239 from a fat man is probably a more serious matter. The fissile material is inside and extremely strong case.


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 25, 2020)

Hey guys,

I realize that you may have seen the actual blueprints already, but here are some of the basic dimensions of the Mk III 'Fat Man' bomb type (as deployed) from an ordnance manual.

Maximum length of bomb including fins: 128.625"
Maximum diameter of bomb casing: 60.25"
Maximum width across flat of bomb fins: 59.00"

Note: I converted fractional dimensions/tolerances to decimal.

Looking at the tail design I can not see any reason why it could not have been modified to one degree or another while still maintaining the required aerodynamics, possibly including a high drag device of one type or another. I do not think that the original tail dimensions should be used to determine if the 'Fat Man' could be carried by the Lancaster.

As far as the casing diameter is concerned, a guppy bulge bomb bay modification should satisfy the clearance problem. A new section profile could be built up easily enough, and there is no reason that 'enough' clearance could not be incorporated (I think). The effect of such a bulge may (will?) cause increased drag, but I have no way to really estimate the new CD. Would the drag increase be enough to prevent the modified Lancaster from meeting the range requirement? However, I do not think the Lancaster flies fast enough that area rule need be applied.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

So with all this said, could the Lancaster been used as a nuclear bomber? - IMO yes. But based on what's been shown, the mission, deployment and possible modification would have been "shade tree" at best.

Yes, the Lancaster was "considered" for use, this has been well documented. It was also well documented that Generals Groves and Arnold dismissed this possibility from ever happening.

*End of story*.

So what did we get by this decision:

The Siliverplate modification not only enabled the B-29 to carry either bomb, but it turned out to be a well engineered solution that not only provided a superior delivery platform than any Lancaster or Lincoln mark, but was used after the war to provide the US with it's first nuclear delivery fleet. Any Lancaster mod "would have" been a one trick pony, hastily done with huge risks IMO. (Single piloted muti-engine taildragger for starters)

The Silverplate mod was a 6000 man-hour modification that reconfigured interior bulkheads and installed a 33 foot bomb bay. The "weaponeer" position was created, Curtiss Electric Propellers and bomb bay cameras were some of the other airframe mods. Silverplate B-29s were 6000 pounds lighter and also had R-3350-41s in lieu of the -23s that were initially installed on production B-29s, giving a combined 800 additional HP. I read somewhere that Bockscar reached 365 MPH and had a service ceiling of over 31,000 feet. As mentioned, this modification enabled both bomb configurations to be supported and hosted other mods that made these aircraft a true nuclear delivery system. No bulging bomb bays, no bulging bomb bay doors, the payloads fit INSIDE the aircraft with ample room.

So at the end of the day, this modification provided a custom built delivery system that resulted in *65 of these aircraft being produced*, either through field modification or delivered off the production line (The Martin-Omaha facility produced 57 of these aircraft). * Silverplate B-29s remained in service after the war* and were finally taken out of service in 1951.

Despite the "consideration" to use the Lancaster as the first nuclear bomber and despite the performance "wish list" and hypothetical mission calculations pushed by RCAFson, I am not aware of anyone (USAAF, Bomber Command) putting any real thought or effort in converting any Lancaster or Lincoln into operational nuclear bombers in the post war years (although I believe a Lincoln was used in the tests of the UK's first atomic bomb) unless we want to consider those "Black Lancasters."  The Silverplate B-29s "would have" out performed and out delivered any Lancaster modification and this is based on what was shown here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

I was thinking about Sweeney's mission and led me to wonder.

Suppose Bockscar was one of these unicorn Lancasters - would it have been able to follow the exact timeline of eventsbas the actual B-29 or would it have been lost in action?

I've seen a great deal of effort to try and "fit" a Pumpkin Bomb into it's bomb bay, so let's assume the fuselage was widened enough to safely accommodate it's dimensions.
Would it have had enough fuel to not only made the trip from Tinian to the rendezvous point, then on to the primary and secondary target then on to Iwo Jima (Okinawa only in an emergency)? For the record, the Silverplate B-29s had a capacity of 7,250 gallons of fuel.

And what about both the imposed drag penalty of the bulging fuselage as well as additional fuel burn for extended (unscheduled) loiter time?

Nearly an hour was spent trying to find a bombing solution for Kokura before moving on to Nagasaki. Additionally, and extra 15 minutes was spend at Yakushima.

Add to that, the extra fuel consumed during the mission with the altitude change due to bad weather.

And finally, because if the faulty fuel transfer pump, Bockscar could not use 640 gallons if fuel, but instead, had to carry that weight home.

So taking all of these actual events into consideration, could a modified Lancaster have made the exact same journey under the exact same conditions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I was thinking about Sweeney's mission and led me to wonder.
> 
> Suppose Bockscar was one of these unicorn Lancasters - would it have been able to follow the exact timeline of eventsbas the actual B-29 or would it have been lost in action?
> 
> ...



No...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

Just had to put that out there, because I haven't seen any mission snafus taken into consideration.

Tibbets' mission went fairly well, but Sweeny's mission nearly ended in disaster.

So laying out clean waypoints (origin to destination) as a metric for comparison between the two types without factoring in variables (as happened) isn't going to work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I was thinking about Sweeney's mission and led me to wonder.
> 
> Suppose Bockscar was one of these unicorn Lancasters - would it have been able to follow the exact timeline of eventsbas the actual B-29 or would it have been lost in action?
> 
> ...



The B-29 had almost double the TO weight of a Lancaster as well (7250USG = ~6000IG).

As I stated earlier, Sweeny made his decisions based upon his available fuel, with a different range available, he would have made different decisions. Losing an aircraft, via ditching, if necessary is quite a fair trade-off for potentially ending the war and saving, possibly, millions of lives. 

As for drag, we have to consider the reduction due to removal of the front and upper turrets and the masking of the radome by the bulged bomb bay, so overall a probable reduction in drag.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

So what decisions would have Sweeny made?

Cut short the rendezvous?
Drop the bomb at Kokura through the clouds and smoke, hoping for the best?
Go on to Nagasaki and then hope they can make it far enough to reach a USN picket sub to ditch by?

What about all the important data onboard that will be lost?

What is the survival rate of Lancaster crews that historically ditched? Can Sweeny guarentee the safety of his crew doing the same?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> As I stated earlier, Sweeny made his decisions based upon his available fuel, with a different range available,* he would have made different decisions.*



Yea, he would have flown the mission as planned and returned to Tinian! 



RCAFson said:


> As for drag, we have to consider the reduction due to removal of the front and upper turrets and the masking of the radome by the *bulged bomb bay,* so overall a probable reduction in drag.



And the Silverplate B-29 didn't require a bulged bomb bay!


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> So what decisions would have Sweeny made?
> 
> Cut short the rendezvous?
> Drop the bomb at Kokura through the clouds and smoke, hoping for the best?
> ...



Sweeny was prepared to drop by radar - that was his call to make and coastal targets generally provide an accurate radar mapping signal. With less fuel available Sweeny might have chosen to proceed to Kokura or Nagasaki, after 15mins at the Rendezvous point and made a visual drop.

B-29s ditched regularly during conventional bombing runs over Japan. War is hell and Sweeny and every other Allied pilot knew there were no guarantees about anything (C'mon how can you even ask such a question?). The vital data such as bomb yield can be estimated by on-board accelerometers and by post drop photo-recon. Aircrew can also exit via parachute over the ditching point, with the plane on autopilot.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea, he would have flown the mission as planned and returned to Tinian!
> 
> 
> 
> And the Silverplate B-29 didn't require a bulged bomb bay!



It's unlikely that Sweeny could have made it back to Tinian, even if he didn't delay for more than 15min at the rendezvous point, because of the faulty fuel pump (Groves states that 800USG of fuel was unavailable). 

The title of this thread is _*The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945.*_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The title of this thread is _*The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945.*_



It is - and I think it's potential has been shown to be less than adequate when compared to the Silverplate B-29!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The B-29 had almost double the TO weight of a Lancaster as well (7250USG = ~6000IG).
> 
> As I stated earlier, Sweeny made his decisions based upon his available fuel, with a different range available, he would have made different decisions. Losing an aircraft, via ditching, if necessary is quite a fair trade-off for potentially ending the war and saving, possibly, millions of lives.
> 
> As for drag, we have to consider the reduction due to removal of the front and upper turrets and the masking of the radome by the bulged bomb bay, so overall a probable reduction in drag





RCAFson said:


> Sweeny was prepared to drop by radar - that was his call to make and coastal targets generally provide an accurate radar mapping signal. With less fuel available Sweeny might have chosen to proceed to Kokura or Nagasaki, after 15mins at the Rendezvous point and made a visual drop.
> 
> B-29s ditched regularly during conventional bombing runs over Japan. War is hell and Sweeny and every other Allied pilot knew there were no guarantees about anything (C'mon how can you even ask such a question?). The vital data such as bomb yield can be estimated by on-board accelerometers and by post drop photo-recon. Aircrew can also exit via parachute over the ditching point, with the plane on autopilot.



Trying to present a Lancaster mission profile based on the Bockcar debacle is just an attempt to hide the "Silverplate Lancaster's" limitations, you're just moving the gold posts closer. Sweeney was lucky he wasn't court-marshalled and Tibbets even revised his autobiography to dispel claims made my Sweeney to lessen the errors made. Thanks to General LeMay, Sweeney was spared Tibbets' wrath.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Trying to present a Lancaster mission profile based on the Bockcar debacle is just an attempt to hide the "Silverplate Lancaster's" limitations, you're just moving the gold posts closer. Sweeney was lucky he wasn't court-marshalled and Tibbets even revised his autobiography to dispel claims made my Sweeney to lessen the errors made. Thanks to General LeMay, Sweeney was spared Tibbets' wrath.


I know it is a terrible source, but Wikipedia states;

1) *Group Commander Colonel Paul Tibbets and Sweeney therefore elected to have Bockscar continue the mission.* So if Tibbets approves the flight with the broken fuel transfer pump, how is this Sweeney's error?

2) *Though ordered not to circle longer than fifteen minutes, Sweeney continued to wait for The Big Stink, at the urging of Commander Frederick Ashworth, the plane's weaponeer, who was in command of the mission.* I understand that as PIC Sweeney is ultimately responsible for the aircraft, but if the Mission Commander is urging some action doesn't some responsibility for the delay fall on his shoulders?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I know it is a terrible source, but Wikipedia states;
> 
> 1) *Group Commander Colonel Paul Tibbets and Sweeney therefore elected to have Bockscar continue the mission.* So if Tibbets approves the flight with the broken fuel transfer pump, how is this Sweeney's error?
> 
> 2) *Though ordered not to circle longer than fifteen minutes, Sweeney continued to wait for The Big Stink, at the urging of Commander Frederick Ashworth, the plane's weaponeer, who was in command of the mission.* I understand that as PIC Sweeney is ultimately responsible for the aircraft, but if the Mission Commander is urging some action doesn't some responsibility for the delay fall on his shoulders?



Sweeney had the ability to still refuse to take the aircraft and in hindsight should have. Tibbets approved this mission assuming it was to be flown as briefed. Sweeney's CO gave him a SPECIFIC order and he did not follow it. Even though Ashworth was the mission commander, Sweeney was still PIC and at the end of the day, it was Sweeney's decision. 

You quoted Wikipedia - you seemed to neglect what Tibbets said to Sweeney upon his return.


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 25, 2020)

Okay, where’s that quote of Colonel Tibbet’s found?


----------



## Dash119 (Oct 25, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay, where’s that quote of Colonel Tibbet’s found?


Ditto...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay, where’s that quote of Colonel Tibbet’s found?





Dash119 said:


> Ditto...



Actually it was LEMAY who made the comment - "After meeting on Guam with Col. Tibbets and Major Sweeney, General Curtis LeMay, chief of staff for the Strategic Air Forces, confronted Sweeney, stating _*"You f*#ked up, didn't you, Chuck?"*_ to which Sweeney made no reply.

Charles Sweeney - Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 25, 2020)

The things one learns here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> The things one learns here.



I think the only reason why Sweeney wasn't court-martialed was because the mission objective was achieved and LeMay was all about results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 25, 2020)

This is from pages 344-346 of Groves' _Now it can be told_:

"_...One very serious problem came up just before take-off, which
placed Farrell in the difficult position of having to make a decision
of vital importance without the benefit of time for thought or con-
sultation. Despite all the care that had been taken with the planes,
the carrying plane was found at the last moment to have a defective
fuel pump, so that some eight hundred gallons of gasoline could not
be pumped to the engines from a bomb bay tank. This meant that
not only would the plane have to take off with a short supply of fuel,
but it would have to carry the extra weight of those eight hundred
gallons all the way from Tinian to Japan and back. The weather was
not good, in fact it was far from satisfactory; but it was good enough
in LeMay's opinion, and in view of the importance of dropping the
second bomb as quickly as possible, and the prediction that the
weather would worsen, Farrell decided that the flight should not be
held up. Just before take-off Purnell said to Sweeney, "Young man, do
you know how much that bomb cost?" Sweeney replied, "About $25
million." Purnell then cautioned, "See that we get our money's worth."

Because of the weather, instead of flying in formation, the planes
flew separately. To save fuel, they did not fly over Iwo Jima but went
directly to the coast of Japan. Their plan was to rendezvous over the
island of Yokushima, but this did not work out. The planes were not
in sight of each other during their overwater flight and only one of the
observation planes arrived at the rendezvous point. The missing plane
apparently circled the entire island instead of one end of it, as it was
supposed to do according to Sweeney's plans. Although Sweeney had
identified the one plane that did arrive he did not tell Ashworth. Un-
fortunately, because it did not come close enough, Ashworth was
unable to determine whether it was the instrument-carrying plane,
which was essential to the full completion of the mission, or the other,
which was not. Sweeney's orders were to proceed after a short delay
of fifteen minutes but he kept waiting hopefully beyond the deadline,
The result was a delay of over half an hour before they decided to go
on to Kokura, anyway.

At Kokura, they found that visual bombing was not possible, al-
though the weather plane had reported that it should be. Whether this
unexpected condition was due to the time lag, or to the difference
between an observer looking straight down and a bombardier look-
ing at the target on a slant, was never determined.

After making at least three runs over the city and using up about
forty-five minutes, they finally headed for the secondary target,
Nagasaki, *On the way they computed the gasoline supply very care-*_
*fully, Ashworth confirmed Sweeney's determination that it would be
possible to make only one bombing run over Nagasaki if they were
to reach Okinawa, their alternate landing field. If more than one run
had to be made they would have to ditch the plane they hoped near*
_*a rescue submarine.*

At Nagasaki, there was a thick overcast and conditions at first
seemed no better for visual bombing than at Kokura. Considering
the poor visibility and the shortage of gasoline, Ashworth and Sweeney
decided that despite their positive orders to the contrary, they had
no choice but to attempt radar bombing. Almost the entire bombing
run was made by radar; then, at the last moment, a hole in the clouds
appeared, permitting visual bombing. Beahan, the bombardier, syn-
chronized on a race track in the valley and released the bomb. Instead
of being directed at the original aiming point, however, the bomb was
aimed at a point a mile and a half away to the north, up the valley
of the Urakami River, where it fell between two large Mitsubishi
armament plants and effectively destroyed them both as producers of
war materials.

On the way to Okinawa warning ditching orders were announced;
but the plane made it with almost no gas left. Sweeney reported there
wasn't enough left to taxi in off the runway.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped from an altitude of 29,000 feet.
Because of the configuration of the terrain around ground zero, the
crew felt five distinct shock waves.

The missing observation plane, which fortunately was the one
without the instruments, saw the smoke column from a point about
a hundred miles away and flew over within observing distance after
the explosion. Because of the bad weather conditions at the target, we
could not get good photo reconnaissance pictures until almost a week
later. They showed 44 per cent of the city destroyed. The difference
between the results obtained there and at Hiroshima was due to the
unfavorable terrain at Nagasaki, where the ridges and valleys limited
the area of greatest destruction to 2.3 miles (north-south axis) by
1.9 miles (east-west axis). The United States Strategic Bombing Sur-
vey later estimated the casualties at 35,000 killed and 60,000 injured.

While the blast and the resulting fire inflicted heavy destruction on
Nagasaki and its population, the damage was not nearly so heavy as
it would have been if the correct aiming point had been used. I was
considerably relieved when I got the bombing report, which indicated
a smaller number of casualties than we had expected, for by that
time I was certain that Japan was through and that the war could
not continue for more than a few days._"

So Sweeny was truly between a rock and a hard place, and was forced by circumstances to make on the spot decisions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 25, 2020)

Hey guys,

Do we have any idea how much the effective range of the Bockscar (or Enola Gay for that matter) was reduced by the winds aloft? If the winds aloft had a significant effect that might eliminate the possibility of the Lancaster as a delivery platform. At least if making it back to Tinian is a requirement during planning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> So Sweeny was truly between a rock and a hard place, and was forced by circumstances to make on the spot decisions



Agree 100% - the mission was always priority but any kind of risk mitigation played second fiddle. The chain of events started with the faulty fuel pump and just escalated. Fortunately it all worked out

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Do we have any idea how much the effective range of the Bockscar (or Enola Gay for that matter) was reduced by the winds aloft? If the winds aloft had a significant effect that might eliminate the possibility of the Lancaster as a delivery platform. At least if making it back to Tinian is a requirement during planning.



Great question, one would have to examine what the winds aloft were doing those days but they will be a major consideration.


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 25, 2020)

I was wondering if we could use the flight times and the IAS to figure a rough estimate. I have not seen any detailed flight plan/record for these missions, just overall times point-to-point and loiter. If we knew the IAS and altitudes for the different legs we might be able to calculate at least a ball park figure. If the B-29s only used a 100-200 gallons extra it might not matter, but if they were using 500 gallons extra it would matter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

Not sure about wind conditions, but for Sweeny's mission, the planned cruise to rendezvous @ 9,000 ft. was changed to 17,000 ft. due to the bad weather.
This would have also contributed to additional fuel consumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 25, 2020)

I suspect that the a fairly small modification to the spec to which the B-29 and B-32 were built (and the XB-30 and XB-31 were designed for) would make the B-29 impossible to modify for carriage of the atomic bomb by making it impossible to modify the bomb bay to fit either Little Boy or Fat Man.

Does anybody here happen to have knowledge of the B-29's detailed design documents, including how the dimensions of the bomb bays was determined?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that the a fairly small modification to the spec to which the B-29 and B-32 were built (and the XB-30 and XB-31 were designed for) would make the B-29 impossible to modify for carriage of the atomic bomb by making it impossible to modify the bomb bay to fit either Little Boy or Fat Man.



If the spec indicated a maximum fuselage length.



swampyankee said:


> Does anybody here happen to have knowledge of the B-29's detailed design documents, including how the dimensions of the bomb bays was determined?



It was coordinated between the bomb scientist and Material Command.

_"On November 30, 1943, the United States Army Air Forces sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field, Ohio, for a highly-classified B-29 modification project. Scientists at working on the Manhattan Project would deliver full-sized mockups of the Little Boy and Fat Man weapons shapes to Wright Field by mid-December, where engineers there would modify the B-29 and equip it for use in bomb flight testing.

The first B-29 arrived at Wright Field, Ohio, on December 2 and underwent extensive modification to the bomb bay. To accommodate the length of the gun-type shaped weapon (Little Boy was originally supposed to be approximately 17 ft, but was later reduced to 10 ft), engineers removed the B-29's four bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bays and replaced them with a single 33 ft bomb bay. This modification project resulted in the removal of all the rear gun stations. Each plane was designed to carry either type of device; either Little Boy type in the forward bay or Fat Man type in the rear. New bomb suspensions and bracing were also implemented and separate twin-release mechanisms were mounted in each bay. Engineers also placed motion picture cameras in the bays to record the test of the new release mechanism.

The modifications, which were done completely by hand, were extensive and time-consuming. The process required more than 6000 man-hours of labor and the first B-29 prototype was not complete until February 20, 1944."_

Project Silverplate

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Did he say it was practical for the final Fat Man bomb, or for a provisional design that may have had different dimensions?



Good question. Let's examine what's actually being said:

Ramsey showed Chadwick preliminary sketches of the large-thin-shaped and stubby-shaped bombs and later wrote with more details. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate them."

This all sounds convincing enough, but it requires a bit of a leap of faith to go from "preliminary sketches" and "a few more details" to Thin Man and Fat Man as they appeared. Under the circumstances its hard to to believe that Ramsey would give specific details of such an important secret project away to anyone, let alone a foreign national, regardless of why. There is no way that he would have even mentioned the code names for the bombs at all. Chadwick had no idea that these shapes were to be nuclear weapons and again, this statement above doesn't provide us exactly what "more details" actually means, but I'm willing to bet Ramsey didn't specify exact weights, precise diameters and configuration of fins etc.

Let's consider this:

"As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes."

From here: Operation Silverplate - The Aircraft of the Manhattan Project

Chadwick did not know that these were nuclear weapons and with the scarcity of what he was presented with would not have been able to determine what kind of modifications were required to carry the bombs, nor what mission parameters needed to be met to deliver them nor even a potential target. For him to say, "yes, the Lancaster can carry them" tells us little of use within the context of the discussion we are having, but one thing is certain, this in _no way_ confirms that the Lancaster could carry the Fat Man bomb as it finally appeared.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> (Little Boy was originally supposed to be approximately 17 ft, but was later reduced to 10 ft)



I think we can excuse this statement as Thin Man was the 17 foot long bomb, not Little Boy. I think I pointed this out ages ago... I think we are going round in circles...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I think we can excuse this statement as Thin Man was the 17 foot long bomb, not Little Boy. I think I pointed this out ages ago... I think we are going round in circles...


Yes, just quoting the article


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, just quoting the article



Yeah, I gathered that Joe, same as last time, it was more to demonstrate that we aren't covering anything we haven't covered before!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 25, 2020)

Not to put too fine a point on it but what was Chadwick going to say? No, our bomber can't handle it? Of course he's going to say yes. His comment doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of the discussion other than an interesting aside.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2020)

Now I do recall reading in the past, that if atomic weapons were to be used in Europe, it was to be carried to target by the Lancaster.
So for the atomic Lancaster enthusiasts out there, this much is in their favor.
As for the bomb design, yeild, weight, shape, at al, I have no idea - but I imagine that given the ranges in Europe, it would have been up to the task.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 26, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Under the circumstances its hard to to believe that Ramsey would give specific details of such an important secret project away to anyone, let alone a foreign national, regardless of why.



While I agree that people not actually involved in the project wouldn't be given specific details, the idea that "a foreign national" wouldn't be allowed access to the programme is absolutely not correct. The British were heavily involved in the Manhattan Project, indeed Roosevelt was suggesting the US actively engage with Britain on nuclear weapons as early as October 1941...and a whole bunch of the "British" participants had very non-British names. I know it's Wikipedia but take a look at British contribution to the Manhattan Project - Wikipedia for more details.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 26, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it but what was Chadwick going to say? No, our bomber can't handle it? Of course he's going to say yes. His comment doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of the discussion other than an interesting aside.



That makes no sense. Roy Chadwick was presented with drawings and dimensions of several bomb casing and asked whether the Lancaster could carry them. Given his work load. and the myriad demands being made on Avro for Lancasters, it would have been reprehensible for Chadwick to have falsely claimed that the Lancaster could carry the bomb designs if it couldn't and given that he didn't know the nature of the bombs, he was under no pressure to make extravagant claims. If the bombs wouldn't fit Chadwick would have said so and Ramsey would have also have known by looking at the Lancaster specs, as presented by Chadwick. We know the Lancaster B-B specs and we know the Fat Man specs and Fat Man will fit.

The fact is that the Lancaster could carry either bomb design, and this has been confirmed by well documented statements from Ramsey, Chadwick and Groves. There hasn't been any properly referenced data presented that the Lancaster couldn't carry a Fat Man bomb.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 26, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it but what was Chadwick going to say? No, our bomber can't handle it? Of course he's going to say yes. His comment doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of the discussion other than an interesting aside.



Sorry but I strongly disagree with that statement. Chadwick wasn't a sales guy, nor was he a former project manager with a business degree but no technical chops. He was an engineer...and a bloody good one. 

One thing I've learned in my dealings with engineers is that they seldom say they can do something if they haven't worked out the practicality to some level of detail. Bear in mind Chadwick had already integrated a number of unplanned-for bomb loads onto the Lancaster, including Upkeep, Tallboy and Grand Slam. 

For my money, if Chadwick said it could be done, then you could take that to the bank. 

Now, was the Lancaster a better option than the B-29? Of course not. The latter was a generation ahead in technology. 

Could the Lancaster have carried out the nuclear mission? That rather depends on the extent of changes made to the airframe. The mods for the 3 British weapons mentioned involved considerable airframe changes but all were implemented relatively quickly and successfully. 

We will never know what changes would have to be made to the Lancaster airframe but many of the key elements were there (eg saddle tanks for extra range). The key challenge would be bringing together all those elements while attaining a suitable altitude to drop the weapons, and achieving sufficient getaway speed to protect the crew. Those may be intractable problems but desperation is the mother of invention. If the B-29 had flopped, I have no doubt that the Lancaster's problems would have been resolved sufficiently to carry out a nuclear mission. Maybe not the exact profile that was actually flown by Tibbets and Co., but a workable profile was probably achievable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 26, 2020)

Here's a top (plan) view of a Lancaster bomb-bay with an 8000lb HC bomb. This bomb is slightly longer than a Fat Man (which has a max width just less than the B-B), but has a similar CG. I've drawn in 2 aux fuel tanks, fore and aft of the bomb. These two tanks would have a total capacity of 900-1200IG:





for reference here's a look at other Lancaster bomb loads:

Bomb Loads

Note how the CG of the Tall Boy and Grand Slam prevent the use of aux tanks aft of the bomb, but on the Catechism Tirpitz raid a 400IG Wellington aux tank was fitted forward of the TallBoy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> While I agree that people not actually involved in the project wouldn't be given specific details, the idea that "a foreign national" wouldn't be allowed access to the programme is absolutely not correct. The British were heavily involved in the Manhattan Project, indeed Roosevelt was suggesting the US actively engage with Britain on nuclear weapons as early as October 1941...and a whole bunch of the "British" participants had very non-British names. I know it's Wikipedia but take a look at British contribution to the Manhattan Project - Wikipedia for more details.



Yes, as I have pointed out, there were even New Zealanders involved, but the point was that Chadwick WAS NOT involved, therefore he would not be privvy to secret information. Ramsey would have supplied him what he could, not necessarily specifics, so Chadwick would have to make an educated guess based on what he knew. The presumption that he received specific details such as engineering drawings, dimensions and such like is hearsay and can only be proven if we know for certain exactly what he received. It is highly unlikely he would have been aware of the code names Thin Man and Fat Man as in 1943 these were used within the Manhattan Project alone.



buffnut453 said:


> For my money, if Chadwick said it could be done, then you could take that to the bank.



Again, see above. Unless we know exactly what Ramsey sent him, what these details were, then any stipulation that it could definitely carry a Fat Man is merely speculation until proven otherwise, NOT guaranteed fact. And, as I have pointed out repeatedly before, the drag aspect to carrying such a bomb would be enormous and it would be barely flyable, with the engines working hard to overcome the extra drag - see the definition of drag coefficient, which would eat away at its fuel quantities. It's just not a practicable proposition. Just a heads up, I studied aerodynamics when doing my engineering training, so I do know a little about this sort of thing, but it doesn't take a qualified engineer to see that carrying such a bulbous load underneath it would severely impact its performance.

The Grand Slam carrying B.I Specials were dogs to fly and even in the Lancaster I and III's handling notes, at MTOW the aircraft can only be flown straight and level until its weight is below 63,000lbs. Oil temps in the climb were at their highest levels before the engines overheated and the climb had to be skillfully managed, the engines themselves reached extreme temperatures and handling was severely degraded. Not the best condition to be in on a long haul bombing operation of such importance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, as I have pointed out, there were even New Zealanders involved, but the point was that Chadwick WAS NOT involved, therefore he would not be privvy to secret information. Ramsey would have supplied him what he could, not necessarily specifics, so Chadwick would have to make an educated guess based on what he knew. The presumption that he received specific details such as engineering drawings, dimensions and such like is hearsay and can only be proven if we know for certain exactly what he received. It is highly unlikely he would have been aware of the code names Thin Man and Fat Man as in 1943 these were used within the Manhattan Project alone.
> 
> Again, see above. Unless we know exactly what Ramsey sent him, what these details were, then any stipulation that it could definitely carry a Fat Man is merely speculation until proven otherwise, NOT guaranteed fact. And, as I have pointed out repeatedly before, the drag aspect to carrying such a bomb would be enormous and it would be barely flyable, with the engines working hard to overcome the extra drag - see the definition of drag coefficient, which would eat away at its fuel quantities. It's just not a practicable proposition. Just a heads up, I studied aerodynamics when doing my engineering training, so I do know a little about this sort of thing, but it doesn't take a qualified engineer to see that carrying such a bulbous load underneath it would severely impact its performance.



Again, if Chadwick said the Lancaster could carry the weapons, then it's a reasonable assumption that he had access to sufficient information to enable him to say definitively that it was feasible. That's not "speculation" but confirmation from the Lancaster's designer. As an engineer, I find it extremely unlikely that Chadwick would say the Lancaster could do something if he lacked critical information upon which to base such an assertion. 

As to the drag question, again it rather depends on the changes made to the Lancaster to perform the mission. The Lancaster's overall drag could be considerably reduced by removing the H2S blister and mid-upper turret, and replacing the front turret and perhaps the bomb aimer window with a more streamlined design. Such changes would introduce some trade space from a performance perspective.

Again, I'm not saying the Lancaster would be a good option as a nuclear bomber, and certainly not as good as the B-29. As Joe has pointed out, we're dealing in "couldda/wouldda/shouldda" hypotheticals but I have a hard time believing Chadwick would say the Lanc could do something without having done the calculations first to ensure his claims were correct. If you can point to any other instance where Chadwick performed in such a cavalier attitude, I'd be happy to be educated.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I was thinking about Sweeney's mission and led me to wonder.
> 
> Suppose Bockscar was one of these unicorn Lancasters - would it have been able to follow the exact timeline of eventsbas the actual B-29 or would it have been lost in action?
> 
> ...



Sweeney ended up diverting to Okinawa due to lack of fuel. This doesn’t negate the main point though.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> Sweeney ended up diverting to Okinawa due to lack of fuel. This doesn’t negate the main point though.


Right - due to alternate cruise altitude, exceeding planned loiter time at rendezvous point, nearly an hour spent at Kokura and the diversion to Nagasaki and a faulty fuel transfer pump, meant that there was literally not enough fuel remaing to taxi to the ramp at Yontan field.

Someone else brought up the point of unfavorable wind conditions earlier and this may have been the case for the inbound leg. The rendezvous was changed from Iwo Jima to Yakushima and the cruise altitude was raised to 17,000 feet due to "poor weather". As it happens, the poor weather was actually a monsoon - which explains why Kokura, Nagasaki and everything else was obscured by clouds.

Something else that might be interesting to note, is that three hours into the mission, Fat Man armed itself. Ashworth and an assistant actually worked on the bomb and resolved the issue (two switches had been reversed) - a point that is often overlooked in this thread: the bomb (Little Boy and Fat Man) needed to be accessed by the Weaponeer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Right - due to alternate cruise altitude, exceeding planned loiter time at rendezvous point, nearly an hour spent at Kokura and the diversion to Nagasaki and a faulty fuel transfer pump, meant that there was literally not enough fuel remaing to taxi to the ramp at Yontan field.
> 
> Someone else brought up the point of unfavorable wind conditions earlier and this may have been the case for the inbound leg. The rendezvous was changed from Iwo Jima to Yakushima and the cruise altitude was raised to 17,000 feet due to "poor weather". As it happens, the poor weather was actually a monsoon - which explains why Kokura, Nagasaki and everything else was obscured by clouds.
> 
> Something else that might be interesting to note, is that three hours into the mission, Fat Man armed itself. Ashworth and an assistant actually worked on the bomb and resolved the issue (two switches had been reversed) - a point that is often overlooked in this thread: the bomb (Little Boy and Fat Man) needed to be accessed by the Weaponeer.



*Sweeney was quite prepared to ditch the aircraft, in order to accomplish the mission; that's the real point here*. Groves thought arming the bombs in-flight was unsound and would have overruled it if he had been informed:

Groves_, Now it can be told_:

_"Parsons had decided with Farrell's approval to complete the final
assembly of the bomb after takeoff. His purpose was to minimize the
hazards of a crash on Tinian. I had previously said that *I was op-*_
*posed to this as unwise, because it was unnecessary and because it
would be very difficult to do it in cramped conditions in the plane.*
_*I was not informed of the plan until it was too late to interfere...* (p.317)_

_I was not possible to "safe" the Fat Man by leaving the assembly (p.343-4)
incomplete prior to take-off, as had been done in the case of the
Little Boy. There was considerable discussion among the technical
staff about what would happen if the plane crashed, and possibly
caught fire, while it was taking off. They realized that there would be a
serious chance that a wide area of Tinian would be contaminated if
the plutonium were scattered by a minor explosion; some thought that
there was even a risk of a high-order nuclear explosion which could
do heavy damage throughout the island's installations. *Of course, we*_
*had gone into all this at length during our preliminary planning, and
on the basis of my own opinion, as well as that of Oppenheimer and
my other senior advisers, that the risk was negligible I had decided that*
_*the risk would be taken.*_

_*As happens so often, however, there was constant interference*_
*by various people in matters that lay outside their spheres of re-
sponsibility. Throughout the life of the project, vital decisions were
reached only after the most careful consideration and discussion with
the men I thought were able to offer the soundest advice. Generally,
for this operation, they were Oppenheimer, von Neumann, Penney,
Parsons and Ramsey. I had also gone over the problems at con-*
*siderable length with the various groups of senior men at Los Alamos,
and had discussed them thoroughly with Conant and Tolman and*
*with Purnell and Farrell and to a lesser degree with Bush. Yet in
spite of this, some of the people on Tinian again raised the question*
_*of safety at take-off at the last moment.* Their fears reached a senior
air officer, who asked for a written statement to the effect that it would
be entirely safe for the plane to take off with a fully armed bomb.
Parsons and Ramsey signed such a statement promptly though with
some trepidation, possibly with the thought that if they were proven
wrong they would not be there to answer. Ramsey then advised Op-
penheimer at once of the various design changes that must be made
to ensure that future bombs would in fact be surely safe."_

We have to consider, as Groves did, that arming the bombs in-flight, increased the probability of mission failure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The presumption that he received specific details such as engineering drawings, dimensions and such like is hearsay and can only be proven if we know for certain exactly what he received. It is highly unlikely he would have been aware of the code names Thin Man and Fat Man as in 1943 these were used within the Manhattan Project alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see above. Unless we know exactly what Ramsey sent him, what these details were, then any stipulation that it could definitely carry a Fat Man is merely speculation until proven otherwise, .



You won't give up on trying to smear Ramsey and Chadwick's competence:



> What you are proving is that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you:
> 
> _Ramsey was assigned to head the Delivery Group of the Ordnance Division and later
> served as deputy to Pasion." *His immediate tasks were to design the bomb casings that
> ...


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 1, 2020)

If the Lancaster could have achieved the range requirements, we can assume that a 'guppy' bulge modification would have to be done. If a 'guppy' bulge is assumed, then access to the nose of the 'Fat Man' could be easily achieved. The area in the oval below is the part of the 'Fat Man' that had to be accessed in flight. I do not think arming of the bomb in flight would be a problem - unless there is something else involved on that I am not aware of?


----------



## Simon Thomas (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The Grand Slam carrying B.I Specials were dogs to fly and even in the Lancaster I and III's handling notes, at MTOW the aircraft can only be flown straight and level until its weight is below 63,000lbs. Oil temps in the climb were at their highest levels before the engines overheated and the climb had to be skillfully managed, the engines themselves reached extreme temperatures and handling was severely degraded. Not the best condition to be in on a long haul bombing operation of such importance.


That sounds like SOP for normal B-29's. The FI engine in the Silverplate was better, but still needed the crew on their A game.
Fifi takes careful operation, and that is with a light load and a modified version of the 3350.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> As to the drag question, again it rather depends on the changes made to the Lancaster to perform the mission. The Lancaster's overall drag could be considerably reduced by removing the H2S blister and mid-upper turret, and replacing the front turret and perhaps the bomb aimer window with a more streamlined design. Such changes would introduce some trade space from a performance perspective.



Putting it (very) simply, drag is about the shape of the object, its physical size and frontal area and how it moves through the air. Other complexities include the viscosity of the air, the speed of the object etc. With an increase in speed comes an increase in drag, which correspondingly reduces acceleration and increases workload to maintain specific values. Basically, the faster you go, the greater the amount of resistant force on the aircraft and therefore the greater the amount of work required to maintain those values. Acceleration decreases and the engines have to work harder, which means a higher fuel consumption as the aircraft accelerates on take off and into establishing the climb. With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway (a value roughly calculated in a class exercise using a 747, its total fuel load and its MTOW versus its speeds and acceleration). By even fitting a streamlined bulge to the underside covering the Fat Man would be like increasing the frontal area of the Lancaster by nearly twice its value since the bomb is almost the same diameter as the aircraft.

Oh and Mark, _as an engineer_ as you've pointed out, since you don't know the exact content of what Ramsey revealed to Chadwick, it's best not to presume until you do.



RCAFson said:


> you won't give up on trying to smear Ramsey and Chadwick's competence:



Nothing of the sort, so watch it.

So your argument, which comprises an utter lack of understanding of the basics of aviation, fabrications and sheer fantasy are not an insult to their efforts? Lancaster VIs with miracle engines that never fail??? Silverplate Lincolns??? The ability to carry Fat Man with no impact on the aircraft's performance at all??? Fantasy fuel loads???

Gawd...


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> (1)With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway (a value roughly calculated in a class exercise using a 747, its total fuel load and its MTOW versus its speeds and acceleration).
> 
> 
> (2) Nothing of the sort, so watch it.
> ...



(1) Twenty percent? 

Fuel consumption for TO = fuel burned for warm-up and taxi and then fuel burned at full throttle during the acceleration to TO speed, and given that the runways are less than 10K ft long, this cannot exceed ~1min. Maybe you meant two percent?

(2) Sure sounds like it. 

(3) I'd refer readers to (1), above. We know the AMPG of Lancasters with Grandslam being carried externally, and amazingly, it's little different than a Lancaster with all internal bomb loads with a top turret and radome...

Grandslam = 2350rpm, 4.5lb boost. 212TAS = .99

Internal = 2350rpm 4.6lb boost, 214TAS = 1.01


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> 1) Twenty percent?
> 
> (2) Sure sounds like it.



1) Yup, 20 percent. You really don't know about this stuff, do you...

2) Nope, again, you are seeing something and misinterpreting it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Fuel consumption for TO = fuel burned for warm-up and taxi and then fuel burned at full throttle during the acceleration to TO speed, and given that the runways are less than 10K ft long, *this cannot exceed ~1min.*


If a careful start up, taxi, run-up and extra checklist followed because of the payload and mission, I'd say more like 10 to 20 minutes. Even in the tropics, I don't see the engine oil warming up to TO temps in less than 5 minutes. Shoot, when I fly my 172 it could take 5 minutes just to get to the run-up area and that's when I'm the only one on the field!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> 1) Yup, 20 percent. You really don't know about this stuff, do you...
> 
> 2) Nope, again, you are seeing something and misinterpreting it.



1) Rather than admit to a rather obvious mistake, you double down on it...

2) Ditto.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 1, 2020)

I think some of the people criticizing the Lancaster for its range are missing (or bypassing) a fairly important point: when many of these discussions were underway, the Normandy landings had not yet occurred and it was uncertain whether WWII in Europe would last longer than WWII in the Pacific. The original target for the atomic bomb was Germany, not Japan, and that eliminates some of the issues with the Lancaster's range. Clearly, it doesn't address any of its shortcomings with regards to vulnerability, since the Lancaster was both slower and lower flying than the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

When doing ground runs in our turboprops, after start we have to allow the oil temp to warm up into the green before we take the props out of feather, and when the pilots are flying, that's before even contemplating putting the condition levers into Max and pulling the power levers out of flight idle and taking the park brake off. The time that takes depends on a lot of things, how warm the engines were before we began running them, OAT, and if we've done a comp wash, the engine is full of water, so...

But that's very different to fuel consumption on take off at MTOW, and you add all that extra drag of a big bomb underneath and your plane becomes a barn door that gets bigger in size as you accelerate into the climb.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The original target for the atomic bomb was Germany, not Japan, and that eliminates some of the issues with the Lancaster's range.



Well, that makes some sense, but the hypothetical is that the Lancaster could do the trip to Japan. Of course it could if Berlin was the target and they were flying from England...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> 1) Rather than admit to a rather obvious mistake, you double down on it..



Says the internet warrior to the aircraft engineer who works on aircraft every night and has years of experience doing so...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

1 minute to start engines, warm up engines, run through pre-takeoff checks, taxi to the active, and take off?

I’ve never done that in 20 years of flying and crewing.

Not even an aircraft on standby that has been run up, been through all the checks and shut down waiting for a mission.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If a careful start up, taxi, run-up and extra checklist followed because of the payload and mission, I'd say more like 10 to 20 minutes. Even in the tropics, I don't see the engine oil warming up to TO temps in less than 5 minutes. Shoot, when I fly my 172 it could take 5 minutes just to get to the run-up area and that's when I'm the only one on the field!



" cannot exceed 1min" = actual TO run. The warm-up might be 10 min. The fuel allowance for warmup and TO in a Barracuda II = 14IG (merlin32) as per the Pilots Notes. Multiply that by four for a Lancaster, which would be less than 2% of a modded Lancaster's fuel capacity. 

The fuel allowance for a Lancaster I/III to warmup, TO, *and climb to 20K ft *was 270IG:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS.jpg

Also note that internal fuel capacity with two internal aux tanks (Wellington tanks) = 2950IG.

as per the data card. Again, the idea that you could burn 20% on warm-up, and TO alone, is wrong, unless there was some reason to extend the warmup, beyond that needed for the mission.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Says the internet warrior to the aircraft engineer who works on aircraft every night and has years of experience doing so...



You made a mistake and we can all see that.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1 minute to start engines, warm up engines, run through pre-takeoff checks, taxi to the active, and take off?
> 
> I’ve never done that in 20 years of flying and crewing.
> 
> Not even an aircraft on standby that has been run up, been through all the checks and shut down waiting for a mission.



See the next post. You are so quick to try and point out a perceived mistake in my post, but the idea that you would burn 20% of your fuel for warm-up and TO alone, goes right past you...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> ou made a mistake and we can all see that.



Prove it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> See the next post. You are so quick to try and point out a perceived mistake in my post, but the idea that you would burn 20% of your fuel for warm-up and TO alone, goes right past you...



It goes past you too. You do realise Adler was a crew chief on military helicopters, don't you? So he kinda knows what he's talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> See the next post. You are so quick to try and point out a perceived mistake in my post, but the idea that you would burn 20% of your fuel for warm-up and TO alone, goes right past you...



WTF is wrong with you? I didn’t attack you personally, so keep your snarky comments to yourself.

I see no perceived mistake. I see an actual mistake. A plane is not going to start up, run up, warm up, taxi and take off in one minute. I made no comment about the percent of fuel burn during that time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

The snarkiness needs to come down a notch in this thread. Everyone! Got it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> " cannot exceed 1min" = actual TO run. *The warm-up might be 10 min.* The fuel allowance for warmup and TO in a Barracuda II = 14IG (merlin32) as per the Pilots Notes. Multiply that by four for a Lancaster, which would be less than 2% of a modded Lancaster's fuel capacity.
> 
> The fuel allowance for a Lancaster I/III to warmup, TO, *and climb to 20K ft *was 270IG:
> 
> ...



I'm not going to discuss the fuel consumption percentage that you think you might burn during start up, taxi and takeoff until I go into the manual and see the actual numbers, as far as "the clock" is concerned - Start-up, 2 to 3 minutes, warm up, 10 minutes, taxi, 5 to 10 minutes, pre-takeoff run up, 10 minutes. You're burning a lot of fuel before you even take off. 

Let's start here:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/lancaster-pdf.42884/


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Prove it.



I just did. Here's a question that maybe will help you understand your error. What's the maximum fuel flow rate/hr on the engines in question? How long do you have to run the engines at max fuel flow rate (full throttle) to equal 20% fuel capacity? On a four Merlin engined aircraft this equals more than an hour!!!! Ditto for a B-29.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm not going to discuss the fuel consumption percentage that you think you might burn during start up, taxi and takeoff until I go into the manual and see the actual numbers, as far as "the clock" is concerned - Start-up, 2 to 3 minutes, warm up, 10 minutes, taxi, 5 to 10 minutes, pre-takeoff run up, 10 minutes. You're burning a lot of fuel before you even take off.
> 
> Let's start here:
> 
> https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/lancaster-pdf.42884/





WW2 USAAF/USN airforces had a formula for determining range that included a specified allowance for warmup and TO. We are talking combat missions here and the aircraft can always be topped up prior to TO if the warm-up period is too long.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> It goes past you too. You do realise Adler was a crew chief on military helicopters, don't you? So he kinda knows what he's talking about.



I am no expert on WW2 piston engine aircraft regarding takeoff fuel burn. I have no dog in the fight when it comes to the percent of fuel burned during that time in a Lancaster.

I know in the experience I have with modern aircraft. We were looking at about 10 to 20 minutes for a routine start to takeoff in the H60 depending on the start of the day. Probably longer. First start was always slower. Start number 2, then number 1. Wait for oil pressure, temps, etc. to come into the green. Go to fly. Perform system checks. Taxi to the a run up area where we can do checks at full power. Perform hit checks. Taxi to the active. Takeoff. Second and third starts of the day took less time.

When I would do engine runs and test flights on King Airs we were looking at about 5 to 10 minutes as well. Longer if we were taking off. Closer to the H60 as well.

The lil pistons I fly now take time too. When I go to the airfield to fly I have to start the engine. Let everything come into the green. Taxi to an area where I can do system checks at full power. Perform the checks. Taxi to the active and take off. Easily 10 to 15 minutes.

My issue here is not the percent of fuel burned. I only calculate that in pounds. My issue here is the 1 minute from start up to takeoff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> WW2 USAAF/USN airforces had a formula for determining range that included a specified allowance for warmup and TO. *We are talking combat missions here* and the aircraft can always be topped up prior to TO if the warm-up period is too long.



Yea we are and I've used similar "formulas" displayed in chart form on civilian aircraft to calculate fuel burn during taxi and take off. You're going to calculate that into your flight. It is very unlikely you're going to shut down and top off fuel if you spend too much time on the ground and if you have any evidence of this happening during an actual combat mission, I'd like to hear about it. Bottom line, it's going to be more than one minute, even ten minutes from start up to take off in any 4 engine recip aircraft, especially if you're carrying bombs, let alone a nuke!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

I keep changing my numbers above. I’m trying to run through engine starts and takeoff from my recliner. 😂

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm not going to discuss the fuel consumption percentage that you think you might burn during start up, taxi and takeoff until I go into the manual and see the actual numbers, as far as "the clock" is concerned - Start-up, 2 to 3 minutes, warm up, 10 minutes, taxi, 5 to 10 minutes, pre-takeoff run up, 10 minutes. You're burning a lot of fuel before you even take off.
> 
> Let's start here:
> 
> https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/lancaster-pdf.42884/



max fuel flow as per page 33 is is 500IG/hr. How long do you have to burn the engines at max fuel flow to equal 20% (600IG) fuel burn? 600IG fuel burn/500IG/hr = 1.2 hours or 72minutes! C'mon, no sane pilot is going to run his engines for 72mins at full throttle during Warm-up and TO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> max fuel flow as per page 33 is is 500IG/hr. How long do you have to burn the engines at max fuel flow to equal 20% (600IG) fuel burn? 600IG fuel burn/500IG/hr = 1.2 hours or 72minutes! C'mon, no sane pilot is going to run his engines for 72mins at full throttle during Warm-up and TO.


Again, I'm not arguing your fuel flow, I'm arguing your first post about *one minute on the ground!* You seem to conveniently ignoring this!!!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I just did. Here's a question that maybe will help you understand your error.



It was a classroom exercise using a B747 as an example and it happened years ago. I certainly don't have access to the data we used back then. The point stuck in my head though - 20% of total fuel load just to get off the ground seems a ridiculously large amount, but apparently that is what happens with the Big Birds. It's also worth remembering that with modern high bypass turbofan engines, they are ultra efficient at high altitudes, which means at cruise at height as they burn fuel and get lighter they are burning bugger all. That big fan at the front, the N1 compressor is producing all the thrust - another percentage - producing 90% of the engine's total thrust output, with the hot stuff out the back contributing the rest.

As with Adler, I'm not an expert on WW2 piston engines either, and they are very different from the aircraft I do work on, but the reality is that at MTOW on take off and establishment into the climb, more than 2% total fuel load would be being used if the big bulge of the Fat Man bomb was added into the mix, which is what the original post was about, so your figures don't take that into consideration at all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

"Fuel consumption for TO = fuel burned for warm-up and taxi and then fuel burned at full throttle during the acceleration to TO speed, and given that the runways are less than 10K ft long,* this cannot exceed ~1min*. Maybe you meant two percent?"

For a Lancaster or B-29 I find 10 minutes a little hard to believe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

The only way I see this if an aircraft (be it a B-29 or Lancaster) is staged at the end of the runway, fueled, armed and run up with little taxi time, and even then I think 10 minutes is pushing it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

You won’t get all 4 engines even started in one minute.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea we are and I've used similar "formulas" displayed in chart form on civilian aircraft to calculate fuel burn during taxi and take off. You're going to calculate that into your flight. It is very unlikely you're going to shut down and top off fuel if you spend too much time on the ground and if you have any evidence of this happening during an actual combat mission, I'd like to hear about it. Bottom line, it's going to be more than one minute, even ten minutes from start up to take off in any 4 engine recip aircraft, especially if you're carrying bombs, let alone a nuke!



I've already explained that the one minute referred to the TO run alone. I assumed this would be obvious as this is when the engines are going to be running at full throttle.

Warm up for ten minutes = about 1-1.5GPM/engine or about 40-60IG and then 1 minute max power for TO = 1/60 x 500IG/hr = 8.3IG and then we get between ~50-70IG


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I've already explained that the one minute referred to the TO run alone. I assumed this would be obvious as this is when the engines are going to be running at full throttle.
> 
> *Warm up for ten minutes *= about 1-1.5GPM/engine or about 40-60IG and then 1 minute max power for TO = 1/60 x 500IG/hr = 8.3IG and then we get between ~50-70IG



Taxi time? And you're running up each engine individually so multiply that by 4 and consider the other 3 engines sitting there at idle


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You won’t get all 4 engines even started in one minute.



Again, how long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% fuel? This is a straightforward question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I've already explained that the one minute referred to the TO run alone. I assumed this would be obvious as this is when the engines are going to be running at full throttle.
> 
> Warm up for ten minutes = about 1-1.5GPM/engine or about 40-60IG and then 1 minute max power for TO = 1/60 x 500IG/hr = 8.3IG and then we get between ~50-70IG



Yeah, but you are burning fuel before then. Make yourself more clear, before you get snarky with people for no reason.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Taxi time? And you're running up each engine individually so multiply that by 4 and consider the other 3 engines sitting there at idle



You're trying to argue that WW2 combat mission were impossible because they had to burn 20% of their fuel before TO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Again, how long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% fuel? This is a straightforward question.



*And how long do YOU think it takes to start up, warm up, taxi, complete ground runs, complete pre take off checks and then taxi into take off position? Forget about the fuel consumption!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> You're trying to argue that WW2 combat mission were impossible because they had to burn 20% of their fuel before TO.



Go back in my posts - I NEVER said you'd burn 20% of your fuel!!!! I said it had to calculated!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Again, how long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% fuel? This is a straightforward question.



And this is a straightforward answer. I’m not saying fuel burn is 20%. Care to show me where I did? Thats a straightforward question. Knock it off with the snarkiness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah, but you are burning fuel before then. Make yourself more clear, before you get snarky with people for no reason.



Fine. Now please answer the question: How long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% of the fuel?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Fine. Now please answer the question: How long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% of the fuel?



Hello, where did I say 20%????


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And this is a straightforward answer. I’m not saying fuel burn is 20%. Care to show me where I did? Thats a straightforward question. Knock it off with the snarkiness.



OK, if fuel burn isn't 20% then why not take issue with that statement? The fact is that no matter how you cut it, fuel burn up to TO will be ~2%.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

Some data I dredged out of the books on the Grand Slam carrying Lancaster, which might help understanding the issue regarding operating in an overloaded situation - and let's face it, the Lancaster's MTOW did increase carrying the Grand Slam, but not all Lancasters could carry the Grand Slam, only specially modified ones.

Take off figures for the B.I Special with an MTOW at 72,000lbs - note, this is for information only and not designed to prove a point - I've been adding these snippets about the Special Lancs because they are very different to normal service aircraft owing to the modifications made to them.

Take off at 72,000lbs, 1,080 yards, with +18psi boost, 3,000 rpm and 20 deg flap. Landing at 60,000lbs, 1,070 yards, with full flap. Estimated tropical summer conditions increase these distances by 25%.

With a weight of 70,000lbs, max rate climb is 590 fpm at MS gear and 370 fpm at FS gear. Full throttle height MS, 10,300 ft, FS, 16,200 ft. Tropical summer conditions show a marked reduction in these figures: 370 fpm at MS gear, 170 at FS gear. Full throttle height 8,800 ft MS, 14,700 ft FS. These figures are based on ICAN standards.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> OK, if fuel burn isn't 20% then why not take issue with that statement? The fact is that no matter how you cut it, fuel burn up to TO will be ~2%.



I explained that in post *511*. You would know that if you would read first, think, then respond. My issue was not with the fuel burn. I don’t know if it is between 2% and 20%, which I stated in post *511*. I took issue with your 1 minute to take off post, and that is what I was commenting on.

Your stuck on this high all mighty attitude, and don’t realize that maybe you need to communicate your thoughts better instead of getting an attitude with everyone that comments to you.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> OK, if fuel burn isn't 20% then why not take issue with that statement? The fact is that no matter how you cut it, fuel burn up to TO will be ~2%.



It was me who said 20%, not Adler. I have explained why I mentioned 20% and you've taken it in a completely different direction.

I'll repeat it so you get it this time:



nuuumannn said:


> With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway (*a value roughly calculated in a class exercise using a 747, its total fuel load and its MTOW* versus its speeds and acceleration).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

Also remember for what its worth, takeoff power does not stop once the wheels leave the ground. You have to think of climb out too.

Note to a specific person: no mention of 20% fuel burned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hello, where did I say 20%????



Where did I say you did? I am asking a straightforward q


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Also remember for what its worth, takeoff power does not stop once the wheels leave the ground. You have to think of climb out too.
> 
> Note to a specific person: no mention of 20% fuel burned.



Do you agree with this statement from post 533?

"With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway..."


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 1, 2020)

I do not know if this will help?

In some of the Bomber Command operational records I have found, the usual time on the ground from engine start to the start of the TO run was considered to be a minimum of 20 minutes for bombers operating in formations. However, the planners were supposed to use a ground time running of 30 minutes as a minimum to take into account that not all WUTOs went according to plan.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 1, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> I do not know if this will help?
> 
> In some of the Bomber Command operational records I have found, the usual time on the ground from engine start to the start of the TO run was considered to be a minimum of 20 minutes for bombers operating in formations. However, the planners were supposed to use a ground time running of 30 minutes as a minimum to take into account that not all WUTOs went according to plan.



Interesting and although I threw the 20% figure in there, I'm backing away, but this, from a purely informative position is interesting and demonstrates the time required to get these big birds into action. It also explains that after WW2, Bomber Command got former Fighter Command guys in to train bomber crews into the quick reaction mindset of getting airborne within a few minutes, with GPUs and ground handlers at the ready at dispersal pans next to the runways.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Where did I say you did? I am asking a straightforward q
> 
> 
> Do you agree with this statement from post 533?
> ...



I am really getting tired of this. I already stated I do not know in post 511. I never took issue with your fuel burn percent. Do you understand that??? I have no dog in that fight. Without doing fuel burn calculations I do not know. If I was a betting man, I would not bet at 20%, but I can see it being higher than 2% for a heavy 4 engined aircraft.

But yeah I agree with 533, in that I never said it was 20%. Kapeesh? Or do you wanna keep the snarkiness going?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Where did I say you did? I am asking a straightforward q
> 
> 
> *Do you agree with this statement from post 533?*
> ...



I'll answer your question - YES! If we're talking large turbine aircraft like a 747, B-1 or a B-52 considering taxi and run-up times

So now a straightforward question AGAIN!

*How long do YOU think it takes to start up, warm up, taxi, complete ground runs, complete pre take off checks and then taxi into take off position? *(a normal WW2 bomber)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

Damn, I never thought I would see the day where I preferred P39 Expert’s P39 round and round thread.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2020)

For the last time. I’m not saying you are right or wrong on your fuel burn. I took issue with a specific part of your post regarding time from engine start to takeoff, and that is what I was responding to. I still have an issue with that particular part too.

There still was never a reason for the attitude you then gave me. I acknowledged that others were being snarky as well. I told EVERYONE to tone it down, so as to not single a person out, yet the attitude still continues with you for no reason at all.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

From the UK an Allied bomber has to climb rapidly (a Lancaster will cover ~130 miles and ~255IG during a rated power climb to 20K ft as per the Pilot's Notes) to clear the AA along the Axis coastline and over Europe itself. From Tinian, there's ~1400 miles of open ocean to cross before reaching Japan. A bomber flying from Tinian needs to just get airborne to maybe ~1000ft and then it can begin a low power cruise climb to cruising altitude. At ~150 miles from Japan, the aircraft will begin a higher power climb to combat altitude, but by then the aircraft will be ~10K lbs lighter than at TO due to fuel burn.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> From the UK an Allied bomber has to climb rapidly (a Lancaster will cover ~130 miles and ~255IG during a rated power climb to 20K ft as per the Pilot's Notes) to clear the AA along the Axis coastline and over Europe itself. From Tinian, there's ~1400 miles of open ocean to cross before reaching Japan. A bomber flying from Tinian needs to just get airborne to maybe ~1000ft and then it can begin a low power cruise climb to cruising altitude. At ~150 miles from Japan, the aircraft will begin a higher power climb to combat altitude, but by then the aircraft will be ~10K lbs lighter then at TO due to fuel burn.



And agree 100%


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll answer your question - YES! If we're talking large turbine aircraft like a 747, B-1 or a B-52 considering taxi and run-up times
> 
> So now a straightforward question AGAIN!
> 
> *How long do YOU think it takes to start up, warm up, taxi, complete ground runs, complete pre take off checks and then taxi into take off position? *(a normal WW2 bomber)



For an essentially single aircraft mission, where fuel conservation is of the essence, about 10min. Beyond that time, the tanks will have to be topped up before TO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> For an essentially single aircraft mission, where fuel conservation is of the essence, about 10min. Beyond that time, the tanks will have to be topped up before TO.


 For a single aircraft mission (like a nuke strike) possibly (if was staged at the end of a runway) but I never heard or read of any type of operation as such actually happening, let alone "topping off" after start up. The engine start up and pre takeoff checklist in the Lancaster Pilot's notes was 2 1/2 pages IIRC.

This would have to be done perfectly and everything "works" on the first try.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> We are talking combat missions here and the aircraft can always be topped up prior to TO if the warm-up period is too long.


This comment is ridiculous.

You don't just swing by the filling station on your way out. You "run what you brung".

On bombing missions in the ETO, ships could be sitting in line for nearly a half hour as the bombers ahead of them in the que were taking off.
Also, on a four-engined bomber, you start your engines in sequence, not all at once.
So you start #1 engines and let it wind up while checking the gauges to be sure everything is in order, which can take several minutes at best. Then you switch on #2 and start it, repeating the process through #4 - meanwhile, #1 has been idling for *at least 12 minutes*.
The proceedure for a multi-engined aircraft, especially a bomber is not as simple as some seem to think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For a single aircraft mission (like a nuke strike) possibly (if was staged at the end of a runway) but I never heard or read of any type of operation as such actually happening, let alone "topping off" after start up. The engine start up and pre takeoff checklist in the Lancaster Pilot's notes was 2 1/2 pages IIRC.
> 
> This would have to be done perfectly and everything "works" on the first try.



I am assuming that fuel conservation is critical. Minimum airborne fuel flow = 96IG/hr so even at 20min for warm-up, and assuming a fuel burn far more than during ground engine idle, we have used only 32IG and that leaves 2min for full power engine run-up and TO (~17IG) , and we have still used less than 50IG of fuel.

Distance to Hiroshima, with some diversion to Iwo Jima is about 1500 air miles to ~150 miles from the Japanese coast. If we assume .9AMPG average then we've burned ~1700IG and ~12300lb of fuel. The aircraft is now climbing at an AUW of 57700lb. As per Enola Gay we take 1hr20min (80min) from beginning of our climb from final cruise alt (15kft) to bomb release at 31060ft at 285* TAS (from the Enola Gay log) but our Lancaster VI would probably drop at 29-30K ft. During that 80min our max fuel burn can be no more than about .5 AMPG or about 650IG (this is way too high because the engines are well above their FTH - 500IG is more realistic) and thus at bomb release we have burned a max of 2350IG (but ~2200IG is more likely) and now have ~650IG (or ~800IG ) for the flight to Okinawa, which is quite sufficient. Aircraft weight at 20min prior to bomb release is ~54000lb and thus a service ceiling of ~33k ft.**

Enola Gay log:
Hiroshima Log of the Enola Gay (* the speeds in the log must be knots because the aircraft has been flying at a ground speed of ~220 average from 0255 (TO) to 0755 (begin climb to combat altitude) so statute miles doesn't make sense. Enola Gay TO was at ~0245 but the first log entry is at 0255.

**With medium altitude rated Merlin 85 engines; with Merlin 86 engines service ceiling would be somewhat higher.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2020)

Almost tempted to switch each word "Lancaster" with the word "P-39"...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Almost tempted to switch each word "Lancaster" with the word "P-39"...



It's a ~2200 statute mile mission from Tinian-Iwo Jima-Hiroshima-Okinawa. It's completely doable in a Lancaster VI.

BTW, this was the planning in case of diversion to Iwo Jima:

_The Army and the Atomic Bomb_, (p.536 )

_The final briefing took place at
midnight, and the weather planes de-
parted for the target area. Hiroshima
was the primary target, Kokura sec-
ond, and then Nagasaki (see Map 7).
*In the meantime, a C-54 had car-*_
*ried Colonel Kirkpatrick and a crew
from the technical group to Iwo Jima
to stand by to transfer the bomb to a
spare B-29 if the strike aircraft had to*
_*land there*._


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> This comment is ridiculous.
> 
> You don't just swing by the filling station on your way out. You "run what you brung".
> 
> ...



They used trucks for fueling at Tinian. 

Lancaster engine start up:


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2020)

They used fuel trucks at all airfields, but you cannot be "topped off" while idling and most assuredly not out and away from the ramp or hard stand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> They used trucks for fueling at Tinian.
> 
> Lancaster engine start up:



First, this is an edited video so the time from turning three to turning one is more than is shown. However, it is clear that you can get all four Merlins in a Lancaster turning and burning in less than twelve minutes.

Second, I'm pretty sure this was not a cold start but that the engines had been pre-run. Would you pre-run a Lancaster with a loaded Atomic payload, I'm not so sure. Would a cold start take longer than represented in the video?

Third, given that an Atomic mission would include only a single fully loaded Lancaster I think we can eliminate any delay in taxi and takeoff. Priority taxi to the runway and takeoff when correct temperatures are reached. Observation aircraft can depart prior to or after the Lancaster with the Atomic payload has departed.

Not picking sides here, just some observations...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Almost tempted to switch each word "Lancaster" with the word "P-39"...



Only when the mythical Lancaster VI capable of carrying a Fat Man bomb with no detrimental impact on its performance whatsoever/Silverplate Lincoln is mentioned...  [Stopit Nuuumannn...]

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Not picking sides here, just some observations...


Solid observations.

That Lanc was not fired up cold, nor was it started for a flight.
A fighter under combat circumstances will fire off and move out of the hard stand during an alarm, but bombers have an entirely different proceedure.
And an Atomic bomber carrying one of the world's only atomic weapons sure as hell will be meticulous with it's checklist, start up and roll-out.
Any train of thought to the contrary is pure fantasy.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Only when the mythical Lancaster VI capable of carrying a Fat Man bomb with no detrimental impact on its performance whatsoever/Silverplate Lincoln is mentioned...  [Stopit Nuuumannn...]


We shall name it the "flight of the Unicorn", we shall


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Solid observations.
> 
> That Lanc was not fired up cold, nor was it started for a flight.
> A fighter under combat circumstances will fire off and move out of the hard stand during an alarm, but bombers have an entirely different proceedure.
> ...


Just out of curiosity, anyone know what the time was from engine start to takeoff for either the Enola Gay or Bockscar?
Since the Lancaster is a single pilot operation, does another crewmember read a checklist(s) or does the pilot handle the entire affair himself?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Just out of curiosity, anyone know what the time was from engine start to takeoff for either the Enola Gay or Bockscar?
> Since the Lancaster is a single pilot operation, does another crewmember read a checklist(s) or does the pilot handle the entire affair himself?


I'm not sure how long it took between start up and rollout for Bockscar, other than they were on their way at a quarter to four in the morning.
As for the Lanc's checklist rundown, I'm not sure, perhaps one if the other guys have info on that.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Only when the mythical Lancaster VI capable of carrying a Fat Man bomb with no detrimental impact on its performance whatsoever/Silverplate Lincoln is mentioned...  [Stopit Nuuumannn...]



Says the guy who claimed 20% fuel burn prior to TO... and couldn't see the obvious error in that statement.

When I did my back of envelope calculations for a Lancaster mission from Tinian, I estimated way high for fuel burn for warmup, TO, cruise, and climb to combat altitude.

We know what the AMPG is for a Lancaster with a 22000lb Grandslam being carried externally is. We know what it is for a saddle tank modded Lancaster and I used AMPG, figures far higher than for either of these aircraft. 

The fact is that an Lancaster VI can fly either of the historical missions, using a Tinian->target->Okinawa flight plan.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Just out of curiosity, anyone know what the time was from engine start to takeoff for either the Enola Gay or Bockscar?
> Since the Lancaster is a single pilot operation, does another crewmember read a checklist(s) or does the pilot handle the entire affair himself?



The Lancaster has a Flight Engineer to assist, along with the Navigator.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> First, this is an edited video so the time from turning three to turning one is more than is shown. However, it is clear that you can get all four Merlins in a Lancaster turning and burning in less than twelve minutes.
> 
> Second, I'm pretty sure this was not a cold start but that the engines had been pre-run. Would you pre-run a Lancaster with a loaded Atomic payload, I'm not so sure. Would a cold start take longer than represented in the video?
> 
> ...



There's no edit from #2 engine start, to #3 engine start. Again, minimum inflight fuel burn is 96IG/hr. Even 30min warmup at this rather high fuel burn rate = 48IG and then add another 2min at 8.5IG/min for full power runup and TO and we still only get 65IG fuel used. Actual consumption for 30min warmup and TO is likely to be considerably less, and 30mins warmup is way high for a fuel critical mission.


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> There's no edit from #2 engine start, to #3 engine start.


The starting order in the video is 3-4-2-1. So in that sense you are correct, there is no edit between turning 4 and turning 2. However, there are edits between turning 3 and turning 4, between turning 2 and turning 1, and during the removal of the start cart. Frankly, I think it is possible the Lancaster could carry Fat Man, but not while dragging the start cart...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Says the guy who claimed 20% fuel burn prior to TO... and couldn't see the obvious error in that statement.


You have absolutely ZERO idea how much fuel is consumed under full power in an overload condition, ZERO.
Additionally, you have provided absolutely no other credible data that would indicate otherwise, so you really should quite while you're ahead.

In regards to this idiotic fantasy that a Lancaster could nuke Japan - it didn't.
End of story.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> You have absolutely ZERO idea how much fuel is consumed under full power in an overload condition, ZERO.
> Additionally, you have provided absolutely no other credible data that would indicate otherwise, so you really should quite while you're ahead.
> 
> In regards to this idiotic fantasy that a Lancaster could nuke Japan - it didn't.
> End of story.





From the _B-29 Pilot's and flight engineers training manual_...(page 107)

_"INFLIGHT OPERATION
Takeoff
You begin to use Cruise Control as soon as
the engines are started. However, so little fuel
is used during ground operations preceding
takeoff that the fuel flow meters will not regis
ter. Therefore, although fuel flow meter read
ings should normally be used for accurate com
putation of fuel consumption, it is a practical
expedient in the case of ground operation to
assume a fuel flow of 3 gallons per minute and
20 gallons per minute for takeoff power, until
initial climb settings are established.
The time lapse between engine starting and
the beginning of the initial climb after takeoff
is small—seldom greater than 15 minutes. Expe
rience has shown that it's safe to predict a fuel
consumption of approximately 100 gallons for
this series of operations_."


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Putting it (very) simply, drag is about the shape of the object, its physical size and frontal area and how it moves through the air. Other complexities include the viscosity of the air, the speed of the object etc. With an increase in speed comes an increase in drag, which correspondingly reduces acceleration and increases workload to maintain specific values. Basically, the faster you go, the greater the amount of resistant force on the aircraft and therefore the greater the amount of work required to maintain those values. Acceleration decreases and the engines have to work harder, which means a higher fuel consumption as the aircraft accelerates on take off and into establishing the climb. With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway (a value roughly calculated in a class exercise using a 747, its total fuel load and its MTOW versus its speeds and acceleration).



Yes, I'm familiar with the "speed squared law" as it applies to drag, as well as the different types of drag: form, induced, friction, parasitic. 




nuuumannn said:


> By even fitting a streamlined bulge to the underside covering the Fat Man would be like increasing the frontal area of the Lancaster by nearly twice its value since the bomb is almost the same diameter as the aircraft.



How did you work out that carrying a Fat Man would double the frontal area of a Lancaster? Yes, the bomb is almost the same diameter as the Lanc...but the Lanc fuselage was racetrack-shaped and had a depth of 8ft 2in. If we add the canopy onto that (let's say 8in which is not unreasonable), then you have an (approximate) flat-sided oval of height 9ft and width 5ft. 

Also bear in mind that 50% of the Fat Man will fit into the standard Lanc bomb bay, which means only 50% of the bomb is exposed to the airstream. This is based on the fact that the 4000lb Cookie had a diameter of 30in and that fitted into the Lanc bomb bay without bulged doors...although there's an assumption that any Fat Man bomb shackle didn't add more distance between the weapon and the bomb bay ceiling than was the case for the 4000lb Cookie. 

All of the this ignores other sources of form drag...minor things like the wings, engines, propellers, tail surfaces etc. Given the above, carrying a Fat Man wouldn't come near to doubling the frontal area of a Lancaster. 




nuuumannn said:


> Oh and Mark, _as an engineer_ as you've pointed out, since you don't know the exact content of what Ramsey revealed to Chadwick, it's best not to presume until you do.



I'm not presuming. I'm working on a balance of probabilities. Another poster commented that "of course Chadwick would say the Lanc could carry the weapon." I'm afraid I just don't see that as a realistic scenario. You have one engineer, Ramsey, asking another engineer, Chadwick, an engineering question. Even if Chadwick did make the claim without doing calculations, would Ramsey have accepted it...as an engineer? The far more likely scenario is that Chadwick did some rough calculations, based on data provided and some agreed assumptions, and that Chadwick confirmed, to Ramsey's satisfaction, that the statement about the Lancaster's ability was sufficiently solid. 

In all reality, we'll probably never know exactly what information was exchanged. It's highly likely details of bomb size and weight were provided verbally, that any calculations were done pretty quickly and then immediately destroyed. I simply find the idea that 2 engineers would discuss an engineering problem without diving into the mathematics somewhat ridiculous. 

For all the criticism of the "Lancaster Unicorn" (and, trust me, I fully accept that the Lancaster would need extensive modifications and acknowledge that performance would absolutely be affected), let's not swing the other way in seeking for nonsensical arguments just to prove a point. I think arguments about what information Chadwick may or may not have obtained fall into that category and can never be positively resolved because the records likely don't exist. Weight clearly wasn't an issue so the only question is whether an adequate carrying shackle could be designed to accommodate Fat Man's girth given the Lancaster's fuselage width. We're into a balance of probabilities but, ultimately, the Lancaster's chief designer said the weapon could be carried and, unless there's evidence that Chadwick ever was economical with the truth, he should get the benefit of the doubt. 

We also need to bear in mind that when Chadwick was asked the question, the targets for the weapons hadn't been selected. We do need to be careful of not applying the retrospectroscope and automatically applying the same Silverplate mission profile to the Lancaster. Again, with no B-29 in the mix, the decision calculus changes fundamentally. However, there were engineering solutions already in play as early as September 1944 to allow Lancasters to reach Japan. 

At the Quebec Conference in September 1944, Churchill proposed to transfer a force of forty bomber squadrons to the Far East, of which 20 would act as airborne tankers. The tankers would use the Cobham AAR technique had been successfully trialed in 1935 - this was proven, rather than emerging, technology. Frankly, the last few pages of discussion on how much fuel gets burned during engine start-up and take-off are irrelevant. Tiger Force planned to use AAR so why overload a nuke-carrying aircraft on the ground? Much safer to keep the weight down for take-off then refuel in the air. 

Roosevelt accepted Churchill's offer because, at that time, it was still unclear who long the war would continue. Ultimately, the RAF bombers weren't needed because the US was able to roll over Japanese defences and muster sufficient combat power on its own. However, if the B-29 programme had failed, Lancaster-based options were certainly available. It would have involved more aircraft and certainly would have been more complicated, with consequent increase in risk. However, I have no doubt it could have been done...had it been needed. 

For me, there are 2 critical unanswered questions regarding the Lancaster's ability to successfully complete a nuclear weapon mission, and both are related to safe release of the weapon: 
1. Could the Lancaster have attained sufficient altitude to drop the weapon?
2. Could the Lancaster have escaped the target area sufficiently quickly to protect the crew from the blast?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2020)

Final warning. Tone down the snarkiness. Everyome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster has a Flight Engineer to assist, along with the Navigator.


Not the same as having a dedicated, trained and qualified co-pilot.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 2, 2020)

This is probably apropos of nothing but in regards to fuel consumption etc. - for the Lancaster I have no clue but...

I got a digital copy of my uncle's diary he kept whilst on Guam, in it he mentions that a B-29 on an Empire strike did not start engines until 6 minutes before the ship took off, no engine run ups prior to takeoff like say a B-17. The flight engineer would do those checks in the first one-third of the takeoff run to prevent excessive cylinder head temperatures. Also mentioned were three "power settings", power setting one was takeoff followed by power setting two once they were airborne until he mentions airspeed 225 at which time they went to power setting three.

Not much data on the fuel consumption on the ground except one entry that seems to corroborate post 563 in that fuel flow was "minimal" until they really got going down the runway and then initial climb rate.

Now I admit, that's a fully loaded "Stripper" B-29 on a standard Empire strike, things may have been totally different with Enola Gay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> 1. Could the Lancaster have attained sufficient altitude to drop the weapon?
> 2. Could the Lancaster have escaped the target area sufficiently quickly to protect the crew from the blast?



At the end of the day I'd say yes to both but would have reservations about #2. 

I did some rough calculations and come up with a ground fuel burn between 90 and 100 gallons for start up, taxi and take off, roughly 2 - 5% of the fuel load


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

As best I can determine, Guy Gibson, on the Dam Buster raid started engines at 2125 and TO at 2130.

Bricknell's _The Dambusters_ states 2125 for Gibson's engine start and Falconer, _The Dam Buster's Story_ states TO at 2130.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> As best I can determine, Guy Gibson, on the Dam Buster raid started engines at 2125 and TO at 2130.
> 
> Bricknell's _The Dambusters_ states 2125 for Gibson's engine start and Falconer, _The Dam Buster's Story_ states TO at 2130.



Well if if this time table is correct, Gibson managed to get the oil temp to 15C, oil Pres 90 lb/sq inch and the coolant to 60C (quite do-able) as indicted in the pilot's notes. I also believe that for all Merlins, RR recommended a 2 to 4 minute warm up (of course with fighters on alert, this all went out the window). If you're taxiing down an 8000' runway, that alone could take 5 minutes unless you're taxiing like a bat out of hell.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well if if this time table is correct, Gibson managed to get the oil temp to 15C, oil Pres 90 lb/sq inch and the coolant to 60C (quite do-able) as indicted in the pilot's notes. I also believe that for all Merlins, RR recommended a 2 to 4 minute warm up (of course with fighters on alert, this all went out the window). If you're taxiing down an 8000' runway, that alone could take 5 minutes unless you're taxiing like a bat out of hell.



It's in agreement with post 567.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> It's in agreement with post 567.



Yes and no - I believe those occurrences happened but they are also out of operational norms for those aircraft. IMO there was probably an operational requirement to "light up and go" (risk of an enemy airstike at takeoff?) and because it more than likely deviated from the flight manual, at a minimum had to be approved by the squadron commander.


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 2, 2020)

I do not know if this will help, but the following is from the Hiroshima mission record:

*0112:* Trucks pick up the crews of the two observation planes, _The Great Artiste_ and _Necessary Evil_.
*0115: *A truck picks up the crew of the _Enola Gay_.
*0227:* _Enola Gay_’s engines are started. [ie all 4 are running]
*0235: *_Enola Gay_ arrives at her takeoff position on the runway.
*0245: *_Enola Gay_ begins takeoff roll.
[_Enola Gay_ lifts off after using almost all of the 8400 feet of runway, this would take about 80-90 seconds?]
*0247:* _The Great Artiste_ takes off.
*0249: *_Necessary Evil_ takes off.

My comments in [ ].

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> I do not know if this will help, but the following is from the Hiroshima mission record:
> 
> *0112:* Trucks pick up the crews of the two observation planes, _The Great Artiste_ and _Necessary Evil_.
> *0115: *A truck picks up the crew of the _Enola Gay_.
> ...



OK, so start up was at 0227 and take off was at ~0246. Lets call it 20min. According to the B-29 manual we can expect to use 3USG/minute during warmup and and 20USG/min for TO. Let's go with 18min for warm up and 2 minutes for TO (full power) = 18 x 3USG and 2 X 20USG = 94USG out of ~8000USG total *or about 1.2% of total fuel.*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> OK, so start up was at 0227 and take off was at ~0246. Lets call it 20min. According to the B-29 manual we can expect to use 3USG/minute during warmup and and 20USG/min for TO. Let's go with 18min for warm up and 2 minutes for TO (full power) = 18 x 3USG and 2 X 20USG = 94USG out of ~8000USG total *or about 1.2% of total fuel.*



And I can agree with these fuel numbers but if want to take the times noted to the bank, there is a 10 minute pause on the runway before he took off, IMO to do ground runs, Mag checks and other pre-takeoff tasks. I find this all SOP in lieu of firing up engines and launching into the air within 5 minutes.


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 2, 2020)

In the Nagasaki mission report it mentions the pilots doing 'engine checks' during the time in question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 2, 2020)

Why are we even arguing about the Lancaster's specific fuel consumption? As was discussed early in this thread, the contingent British strategy for using the Lancaster involved in-air refueling. Testing showed that it could work. If the Lancaster had to be used, the crews and technical people would have had several months at least to work on the details and protocols. You could refuel the plane on the way out and on the way back, and even if you missed the rendezvous on the way back, the mission was important enough to sacrifice the aircraft anyway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> *Why are we even arguing about the Lancaster's specific fuel consumption?*



Because there are some who believe that the Lancaster "could have" completed this mission without aerial refueling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> How did you work out that carrying a Fat Man would double the frontal area of a Lancaster?



I didn't work it out, Mark, re-read what I said - it's almost the same diameter, NOT SHAPE, SIZE, PROFILE etc, but diameter, the bomb is around five feet, the Lancaster fuselage width is roughly the same at the bomb bay.



buffnut453 said:


> Also bear in mind that 50% of the Fat Man will fit into the standard Lanc bomb bay, which means only 50% of the bomb is exposed to the airstream.



Only if you remove the fins, which are 1.5m square by 1.5 metre square. That won't fit in the bomb bay, so it has to be suspended below the aircraft.



buffnut453 said:


> In all reality, we'll probably never know exactly what information was exchanged. It's highly likely details of bomb size and weight were provided verbally, that any calculations were done pretty quickly and then immediately destroyed. I simply find the idea that 2 engineers would discuss an engineering problem without diving into the mathematics somewhat ridiculous.



Again, you are missing my point. Only if we know _exactly_ what was exchanged can we be absolutely certain of that. Anything else is merely presumption, Mark. I'm sorry, but I'm not working on presumption, but evidence and what is physically known and there is _no _evidence that Chadwick said the Lancaster could carry Fat Man. None. He was offered shapes and descriptions and even the sources provided here state that he was not advised that these were nuclear weapons.



Conslaw said:


> Why are we even arguing about the Lancaster's specific fuel consumption? As was discussed early in this thread, the contingent British strategy for using the Lancaster involved in-air refueling. Testing showed that it could work. If the Lancaster had to be used, the crews and technical people would have had several months at least to work on the details and protocols. You could refuel the plane on the way out and on the way back, and even if you missed the rendezvous on the way back, the mission was important enough to sacrifice the aircraft anyway.



No RAF equipped Lancaster was capable of in-flight refuelling by mid 1945 in reality, although this presumption of this raid as dreamed up on this thread suspends reality, but it could not have carried it out. Lancasters had carried out IFR in trials in 1944, but the RAF was still a wee while before it had operational capability.

For the fictionalists here, there is what might equate to a solution. I recently found out that Avro had drawn up plans for Manchesters to be converted into IFR tankers and receivers, so Avro were thinking about extending the range of its bombers at least. Perhaps RCAFson can add a fleet of Manchester tankers to his Lancaster VIs and Silverplate Lincolns, but of course these are not needed because both types can carry out the raid without IFR.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Says the guy who claimed 20% fuel burn prior to TO... and couldn't see the obvious error in that statement.



Says the guy who STILL hasn't read and acknowledged why I posted it DESPITE it having been pointed out to him - I'm seeing a pattern here - you only accept your opinion and no one else's even when they repeat themselves.



RCAFson said:


> The fact is that an Lancaster VI can fly either of the historical missions, using a Tinian->target->Okinawa flight plan.



Historically, no it can't. It was not in service in 1945 for starters, and it had neither the range nor the reliability and the final reason was that it wasn't American and Arnold had emphatically stated that the B-29 was going to be used, so, yeah, nah.

In your fictional scenario however, probably. Anything is possible in that world and as long as we accept that, we are fine with it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2020)

So are we past this 2% versus 20% crap from yesterday?


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I didn't work it out, Mark, re-read what I said - it's almost the same diameter, NOT SHAPE, SIZE, PROFILE etc, but diameter, the bomb is around five feet, the Lancaster fuselage width is roughly the same at the bomb bay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fins will fit. They are less than 61in wide. Yes, they will protrude about 2ft from below the B-B, but they have almost no frontal area.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The fins will fit.



In your fictional world, yes, quite possibly, in reality, a little bit less easy to establish.





Lancaster bomb bay


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Historically, no it can't. It was not in service in 1945 for starters, and it had neither the range nor the reliability and the final reason was that it wasn't American and Arnold had emphatically stated that the B-29 was going to be used, so, yeah, nah.
> 
> In your fictional scenario however, probably. Anything is possible in that world and as long as we accept that, we are fine with it.



The Lancaster VI was in service in 1945, but it was not in front line combat service because there was no need for it. There would have been no Silverplate B-29s either, if the B-29 hadn't been selected to carry the A-bomb.

The only thing the Lancaster VI lacked was the same kind of production and development priority given to the Silverplate B-29s. 

There's nothing fictional about the Lancaster range according to the actual AMPG figures for the Lancaster, and it's consequent ability to fly a Tinian-Target-Okinawa A-bomb mission.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 2, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VI was in service in 1945, but it was not in front line combat service because there was no need for it. There would have been no Silverplate B-29s either, if the B-29 hadn't been selected to carry the A-bomb.
> 
> The only thing the Lancaster VI lacked was the same kind of production and development priority given to the Silverplate B-29s.
> 
> There's nothing fictional about the Lancaster range according to the actual AMPG figures for the Lancaster, and it's consequent ability to fly a Tinian-Target-Okinawa A-bomb mission.



The lanc VI was still withdrawn from service and it was troublesome, that much is true, also it was being superceded by the Lincoln on Avro's production lines, which meant that it was not about to be chosen to fly long range operations whichever way you look at it - those are facts. Your proposal is fiction, so yeah, in fiction it could have.

An unmodified lancaster with overload tanks in its bomb bay, yes, It would have to fly at a speed of around 170 to 180 mph and an altitude of 15,000 feet, but not at an MTOW of 72,000lbs carrying a nuclear bomb because that is a fiction. In your fictional world, yes, anything is possible.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> In your fictional world, yes, quite possibly, in reality, a little bit less easy to establish.
> 
> View attachment 600576
> Lancaster bomb bay



The bomb-bay is 61in wide. The fins are 1.5m = 59in wide.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 3, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The lanc VI was still withdrawn from service and it was troublesome, that much is true, also it was being superceded by the Lincoln on Avro's production lines, which meant that it was not about to be chosen to fly long range operations whichever way you look at it - those are facts. Your proposal is fiction, so yeah, in fiction it could have.
> 
> An unmodified lancaster with overload tanks in its bomb bay, yes, It would have to fly at a speed of around 170 to 180 mph and an altitude of 15,000 feet, but not at an MTOW of 72,000lbs carrying a nuclear bomb because that is a fiction. In your fictional world, yes, anything is possible.



*Ramsey proposed the Lancaster*. *That's a Fact. *

*Fact:* The Lancaster VI had the altitude, payload capacity and range to carry out the mission. Lancasters carried out operational missions carrying a 12000lb bomb and 2560IG of fuel for an actual mission range of 2400 miles at 68000lb TO weight.

*Fact:* Lancasters carried out actual operational missions carrying a 22000lb bomb at a 72000lb TO weight. The Grandslam was carried externally, below the B-B and the AMPG figures were still high enough that applying them to a Lancaster VI, with a 10K LB bomb and 3000IG of fuel (70K lb TO weight) allows it to complete a Tinian-Nagasaki-Okinawa mission.

AFAIK, Lancasters never carried or dropped torpedoes either, that doesn't mean they couldn't, yet because they never did, according to you they never could have.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 3, 2020)

So why didn't they add a few drop tanks to the Lanc and bomb the secret Nazi base on the dark side of the moon?


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 3, 2020)

Some dimensions:

fuselage height ____98.0" maximum, not including canopy
fuselage width_____68.8" maximum, external at bomb bay ceiling
bomb bay width___ 60.4" minimum, internal at ceiling

Standard Lancaster fuselage sectional area____55 ft2
'Guppy' bulge fuselage mod sectional area____ 76 ft2 (this assumes a 68.8" maximum diameter section centered at ~31.5" below bomb bay ceiling)


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 3, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I didn't work it out, Mark, re-read what I said - it's almost the same diameter, NOT SHAPE, SIZE, PROFILE etc, but diameter, the bomb is around five feet, the Lancaster fuselage width is roughly the same at the bomb bay.



Sorry, but you explicitly stated "By even fitting a streamlined bulge to the underside covering the Fat Man would be like increasing the frontal area of the Lancaster by nearly twice its value." Based on the preceding statements about drag, you seemed to be implying that carrying Fat Man would almost double the amount of drag (form drag to be specific) because it almost doubled the Lancaster's frontal area. If that's not what you meant, then I clearly misunderstood...but I'm not sure what other conclusion I could draw from what you wrote. 




nuuumannn said:


> Only if you remove the fins, which are 1.5m square by 1.5 metre square. That won't fit in the bomb bay, so it has to be suspended below the aircraft.



The Lanc bomb bay was 5ft wide so the fins should fit. If deemed necessary, the fins probably could have been modified (and the mods would only have to be slight). In all likelihood, the bomb bay doors would have to be removed or, if there was a need to carry the bomb in an enclosed fashion, then a fairing that bulges (slightly) in width as well as (more substantially - circa 31-32in) in depth ought to be feasible.




nuuumannn said:


> Again, you are missing my point. Only if we know _exactly_ what was exchanged can we be absolutely certain of that.



Don't disagree but, equally, we can't presume that Chadwick just made stuff up. 




nuuumannn said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not working on presumption, but evidence and what is physically known and there is _no _evidence that Chadwick said the Lancaster could carry Fat Man. None. He was offered shapes and descriptions and even the sources provided here state that he was not advised that these were nuclear weapons.



Chadwick didn't need to know they were nuclear weapons. This is typical compartmentalization of sensitive information. Chadwick didn't need to know the internals of the weapon, the explosion mechanism, explosion altitude or where the item was being made. Look at how little information was given to 617 Sqn before they started training with practice bombs.

At the end of the day, the problem was to carry a weight of a given size and CofG and then drop said weight. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's some kind of weapon but Chadwick didn't need to know the specifics, he just needed to figure out whether the weight and dimensions could be carried and dropped. 




nuuumannn said:


> No RAF equipped Lancaster was capable of in-flight refuelling by mid 1945 in reality, although this presumption of this raid as dreamed up on this thread suspends reality, but it could not have carried it out. Lancasters had carried out IFR in trials in 1944, but the RAF was still a wee while before it had operational capability.



It wasn't operational because it wasn't needed in the European theatre. If Uncle Sam had come begging for a few IFR-capable aircraft for a special mission against Japan, Churchill would have ensured they were delivered. The technology was well understood and was part of the plan for RAF heavy bombers in the Far East from September 1944. Again, if the B-29 is removed from the equation, the decision calculus changes and IFR of Lancasters would be examined as one of the options, along with saddle tanks and other means of obtaining the necessary range.




nuuumannn said:


> For the fictionalists here, there is what might equate to a solution. I recently found out that Avro had drawn up plans for Manchesters to be converted into IFR tankers and receivers, so Avro were thinking about extending the range of its bombers at least. Perhaps RCAFson can add a fleet of Manchester tankers to his Lancaster VIs and Silverplate Lincolns, but of course these are not needed because both types can carry out the raid without IFR.



The whole thread is based on a fictional premise that the B-29 fails so I'm not sure why you're being so critical of fictionalists. Perhaps others have made claims that were excessive but nothing in my last few posts stretches credulity. The force of 40 squadrons promised by Churchill at the Quebec Conference included Halifax tankers (not Manchesters). 

Yes, this is a "what if" scenario but, within the bounds of what was known and possible at the time, I think it's entirely feasible for the Lancaster to complete a nuclear mission with the 2 provisos that I mentioned earlier about altitude and getaway. Others may disagree with my thinking and perspective, and that's ok. If I'm a fictionalist, then so be it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 3, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> Why are we even arguing about the Lancaster's specific fuel consumption? As was discussed early in this thread, the contingent British strategy for using the Lancaster involved in-air refueling. Testing showed that it could work. If the Lancaster had to be used, the crews and technical people would have had several months at least to work on the details and protocols. You could refuel the plane on the way out and on the way back, and even if you missed the rendezvous on the way back, the mission was important enough to sacrifice the aircraft anyway.



Yes, inflight refueling was certainly an option and quite feasible if the planning began in late 1943. However the possession of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, made in-air refuelling unnecessary.

When we look at the actual mission plans, they were designed for a Tinian-target-Tinian mission plan, but diversion to Okinawa or Iwo Jima and/or ditching was always a part of the plans as well. In actuality by July 1945 the mission planners had a myriad of options open to them.

A Lancaster VI, with standard (2160IG) max internal fuel could have flown from Tinian to Iwo JIma, refuelled, embarked the bomb and then flown an IJ-target-Okinawa mission plan. By using a single 400IG B-B aux tank, it could have flown Tinian-IJ (refuel and bomb up)-Target-IJ mission plan.

When we look at the state of B-29 and R-3350 engine development and operational use in Mid-late 1943 through to 1945, we realize that Boeing was facing some truly staggering developmental problems. The R-3350 was terribly unreliable and made the Merlin 85 installation on the Lancasters IV, V and IV and Lincolns fitted with it seem like a paragon of reliability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry, but you explicitly stated "By even fitting a streamlined bulge to the underside covering the Fat Man would be like increasing the frontal area of the Lancaster by nearly twice its value." Based on the preceding statements about drag, you seemed to be implying that carrying Fat Man would almost double the amount of drag (form drag to be specific) because it almost doubled the Lancaster's frontal area. If that's not what you meant, then I clearly misunderstood...but I'm not sure what other conclusion I could draw from what you wrote.
> 
> 
> The Lanc bomb bay was 5ft wide so the fins should fit. If deemed necessary, the fins probably could have been modified (and the mods would only have to be slight). In all likelihood, the bomb bay doors would have to be removed or, if there was a need to carry the bomb in an enclosed fashion, then a fairing that bulges (slightly) in width as well as (more substantially - circa 31-32in) in depth ought to be feasible.
> ...



Damn quotes suffering from gremlins, so bear with me.

I know what I said regarding that, but unlike yourself, I don't believe that Fat Man would fit within the Lancaster's bomb bay with fins, so it would have to be suspended below the fuselage, not only that but it needs to be enclosed, it wouldn't be kept swinging in the open, the force on the mounts would be horrendous because of the bomb's size and shape. Bearing that in mind, with such a large bulge under the aircraft, you are effectively doubling the aircraft's surface area from the front. 

A fictional scenario, so we are gonna have to disagree on our fictional scenarios, which is why I don't like discussing fictional scenarios, because arguing over whose fiction is better is one of the worst internet sh*tf*ckery in my opinion.

Regarding what Chadwick knew and didn't know, like I said, it's all just hearsay until we know exactly what was said, but as you say, we probably won't know, so I'm gonna still disagree with the presumption that he said that the Lancaster could carry the Fat Man bomb, that's what this is about, after all.

I don't agree with your statement that IFR wasn't operational because of a European focus at all, simply because the British had been investigating IFR well before then, and an example is that Avro investigated an IFR Manchester in 1940. Let's also not forget the Tiger Force was drawn up in 1944 and IFR was going to be a component of it.

I'm not being critical of fictionalists, I'm being critical of this particular fictional scenario, because there are lots of leaps of faith and pure conjecture being passed off as being plausible, when much of it is not. If the distinction between fiction and reality is made, then I can accept that. We are going to have to agree on the premise that the Lancaster could carry Little Boy and Thin Man, but it couldn't carry Fat Man, and it did not have the ability or performance to fly the operation as it was flown - on those I simply cannot agree. Another thing that you guys never really address is the aircraft's performance. Based on the data, the Lanc would be flying at speeds between 170 to 190 mph at 15,000 feet! Over Japan in 1945?! As I said in my article, Short Stirlings were being shot down over Germany three years earlier with that performance.

Even using the Lancaster VI modified to have a 72,000lb MTOW, there would be a considerable reduction in that type's better performance, not to mention the issues it suffered with unreliable engines and overheating, alongside the vagaries of the heavier MTOW Lancasters, yet somehow I'm being expected to believe that a Lancaster VI at an MTOW of 72,000lb could carry Fat Man internally and be able to fly the mission from Tinian via Japanese mainland to Okinawa without any degradation of performance at all? Sorry Mark, it's just BS and nowhere near what might be considered as plausible. And don't get me started on Silverplate Lincolns...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> When we look at the state of B-29 and R-3350 engine development and operational use in Mid-late 1943 through to 1945, we realize that Boeing was facing some truly staggering developmental problems. The R-3350 was terribly unreliable and made the Merlin 85 installation on the Lancasters IV, V and IV and Lincolns fitted with it seem like a paragon of reliability.


 The B-29, despite engine issues were flying operationally throughout 44 and into 45 meeting MC rates and making a difference in the airwar in the Pacific so please don't diminish the B-29s development and performance to justify your argument. Eventually a custom made nuclear strike aircraft emerged that served for years after the war and while I think a Lancaster "could have" pulled off a nuclear strike, it "would have" been like using a jalopy pick-up as a limousine. No matter how you want to slice or dice your performance estimates, no Lancaster or Lincoln was going to carry either bomb internally at over 30,000 feet at 360 MPH, the performance of Bockscar and other Silverplate B-29s. 

Now I bet you're going to say that if the same Silverplate effort "would have" been put into the Lancaster it "could have" had the same performance as the B-29. Well if that was a feasible answer, it "would have" been done (and let's not forget how many times you pointed out it was "recommended")

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 4, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29, despite engine issues were flying operationally throughout 44 and into 45 meeting MC rates and making a difference in the airwar in the Pacific so please don't diminish the B-29s development and performance to justify your argument. Eventually a custom made nuclear strike aircraft emerged that served for years after the war and while I think a Lancaster "could have" pulled off a nuclear strike, it would have been like using a jalopy pick-up as a limousine. No matter how you want to slice or dice your performance estimates, no Lancaster or Lincoln was going to carry either bomb internally at over 30,000 feet at 360 MPH, the performance of Bockscar and other Silverplate B-29s.
> 
> Now I bet you're going to say that if the same Silverplate effort "would have" been put into the Lancaster it "could have" had the same performance as the B-29. Well if that was a feasible answer, it "would have" been done (and let's not forget how many times you pointed out it was "recommended")



FBJ,

I agree with your sentiments above. The thing that I would like to add / contribute is risk level. Today, it’s much better defined than in WW2, and is stated in the commanders intent (our tactics are built around it). What’s not being talked about in this thread is risk. IIRC they only had the two bombs to use with a third in production. You only have two of these weapons, you are on a tight timeline (not sure what the Vietnam quality of daily death tolls / body counts was being passed back) but as the President of the US, and a strong member of the Allies, and you want it over. What would be the least risk method of delivering the bomb? Assuming RCAFson is correct on his assumptions, the Lancaster could have delivered the weapon. But given the choice of aircraft, their comparable strengths and the options those strengths gave, I can’t see how the President would have picked other than the way he did. I get the Made in US delivered by Made in the US perspective. But pushing that aside, the risk with a Lancaster VI Silverplate would by much higher than with the B29. Much. Again, I’m not saying it could not have been accomplished by a Lanc, however what I am saying is the risk would have been much greater. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 4, 2020)

Hey guys,

re the potential range problem of using a Lancaster for the A-bomb missions.

 After doing some more research on the subject, I am thinking that the reason there was not more mention during the war in regards to IFR development on the part of the British is that it had already been worked out to a proven level. Tiger Force as immediately envisioned did not require IFR. Although none of the British missions in the war used IFR, the BOAC used IFR for 16 commercial trans-Atlantic flights in the immediate pre-war period, and intended to continue using it on a regular basis. They also conducted ~100(?) successful IFR flight tests before the first commercial flight, and although there were 2(?) pump failures, and 1(?) case of failure of the hose coupling, there were no collisions or fires.

You may already be familiar with the method used, but if not see:
""
in regards to the simplicity.

They were able to transfer 1000 Impgal in 10 minutes. While it may seem somewhat simplistic by modern standards, it worked.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 4, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29, despite engine issues were flying operationally throughout 44 and into 45 meeting MC rates and making a difference in the airwar in the Pacific so please don't diminish the B-29s development and performance to justify your argument. Eventually a custom made nuclear strike aircraft emerged that served for years after the war and while I think a Lancaster "could have" pulled off a nuclear strike, it "would have" been like using a jalopy pick-up as a limousine. No matter how you want to slice or dice your performance estimates, no Lancaster or Lincoln was going to carry either bomb internally at over 30,000 feet at 360 MPH, the performance of Bockscar and other Silverplate B-29s.
> 
> Now I bet you're going to say that if the same Silverplate effort "would have" been put into the Lancaster it "could have" had the same performance as the B-29. Well if that was a feasible answer, it "would have" been done (and let's not forget how many times you pointed out it was "recommended")



The issue here is the claim that the Merlin 85 was unreliable, but when we look at it compared to the R3350, it wasn't. This is not to diminish the B-29; we all know that it made great strides in solving it's problems and that it had superior performance. 

Again, the Lancaster doesn't need to match the B-29 in performance, rather it needs to have sufficient range and ceiling to have delivered the payload to the target, with a mission plan that allows for crew survival.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 4, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> FBJ,
> 
> I agree with your sentiments above. The thing that I would like to add / contribute is risk level. Today, it’s much better defined than in WW2, and is stated in the commanders intent (our tactics are built around it). What’s not being talked about in this thread is risk. IIRC they only had the two bombs to use with a third in production. You only have two of these weapons, you are on a tight timeline (not sure what the Vietnam quality of daily death tolls / body counts was being passed back) but as the President of the US, and a strong member of the Allies, and you want it over. What would be the least risk method of delivering the bomb? Assuming RCAFson is correct on his assumptions, the Lancaster could have delivered the weapon. But given the choice of aircraft, their comparable strengths and the options those strengths gave, I can’t see how the President would have picked other than the way he did. I get the Made in US delivered by Made in the US perspective. But pushing that aside, the risk with a Lancaster VI Silverplate would by much higher than with the B29. Much. Again, I’m not saying it could not have been accomplished by a Lanc, however what I am saying is the risk would have been much greater.
> 
> ...





The point of the thread, AIUI, is to not claim that the Lancaster was somehow superior to the B-29, but rather to demonstrate that it was mission capable. I think I have demonstrated that it was mission capable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The issue here is the claim that the Merlin 85 was unreliable, but when we look at it compared to the R3350, it wasn't. This is not to diminish the B-29; we all know that it made great strides in solving it's problems and that it had superior performance.
> 
> Again, the *Lancaster doesn't need to match the B-29 in performance*, rather it needs to have sufficient range and ceiling to have delivered the payload to the target, with a mission plan that allows for crew survival.



Internal bomb bay, 360MPH over 30,000'??? 

Don't compare your Lancaster speculation to a stock B-29. it seem that's what you have been doing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The point of the thread, AIUI, is to not claim that the Lancaster was somehow superior to the B-29, but rather to demonstrate that it was mission capable. I think I have demonstrated that it was mission capable.



Ok - but it seems you're the one continually pushing the comparison by showing issues during the B-29's development and then show was the Lancaster was issue free!


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 4, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Internal bomb bay, 360MPH over 30,000'???
> 
> Don't compare your Lancaster speculation to a stock B-29. it seem that's what you have been doing.



I stated, pretty clearly, that the B-29 has superior performance.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 4, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ok - but it seems you're the one continually pushing the comparison by showing issues during the B-29's development and then show was the Lancaster was issue free!



I'm replying to claims that the Lancaster VI had unreliable engines.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 4, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The point of the thread, AIUI, is to not claim that the Lancaster was somehow superior to the B-29, but rather to demonstrate that it was mission capable. I think I have demonstrated that it was mission capable.



Based entirely on conjecture and massive leaps of faith. You've ignored the fact that increasing the Lanc VI's MTOW to be able to match the range and load figures would incur a considerable degradation in performance. This is why your entire scenario is based on fiction. You keep posting figures for the Lancaster VI, yet they are figures of a standard aircraft unencumbered by the modifications made to increase its MTOW etc, which nullifies your entire argument. The Lanc Specials had a lot of mods to reach an MTOW of 72,000lbs and that impact meant that their altitude, their range and their speeds were all lower, and this somehow has escaped you, despite being repeatedly advised of it in this thread.

Regardless of the unreliable engines, the Lancaster VI, just like any other Lancaster would have been too low, too slow and not enough range to have flown the missions, let alone been able to carry the Fat Man, which, again, there IS NO EVIDENCE that Chadwick said the Lancaster could carry a Fat Man bomb, so just fantasy, and as long as that distinction is made, then that's okay, you can fantasise about any scenario you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 4, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Based entirely on conjecture and massive leaps of faith. You've ignored the fact that increasing the Lanc VI's MTOW to be able to match the range and load figures would incur a considerable degradation in performance. This is why your entire scenario is based on fiction. You keep posting figures for the Lancaster VI, yet they are figures of a standard aircraft unencumbered by the modifications made to increase its MTOW etc, which nullifies your entire argument. The Lanc Specials had a lot of mods to reach an MTOW of 72,000lbs and that impact meant that their altitude, their range and their speeds were all lower, and this somehow has escaped you, despite being repeatedly advised of it in this thread.
> 
> Regardless of the unreliable engines, the Lancaster VI, just like any other Lancaster would have been too low, too slow and not enough range to have flown the missions, let alone been able to carry the Fat Man, which, again, there IS NO EVIDENCE that Chadwick said the Lancaster could carry a Fat Man bomb, so just fantasy, and as long as that distinction is made, then that's okay, you can fantasise about any scenario you like.



The only major mods on the Grandslam Lancaster Specials were strengthened landing gear and removal of the mid upper turret, and of course removal of the B-B doors to sling the bomb externally ( yet cruise speed, and AMPG was similar to a standard Lancaster at the same weight). Otherwise they were pretty much as any other Lancaster I. of course they had to reduce fuel load to accept a 22000lb bomb, but with a 10K lb bomb 12000lb of fuel can be added to the aircraft. All aircraft, including the B-29, will have lowered performance including ceiling, and will have restricted handling when operating at very high TO weights. Of course, as per the B-29, much of the fuel load will be burned off during the overwater flight to Japan, and so by the time the aircraft enters a combat zone, it's weight will be reduced considerably, increasing its performance and it will be able safely execute maneuvers needed for combat.

The data on Lancaster performance is available and it clearly shows that the Lancaster was mission capable. Why you continue to claim otherwise, when the data is online:

Lancaster Performance Trials

, showing you to be incorrect, is a bit of a mystery.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 5, 2020)

As far as I can see the Lancaster is suited to carry the Little Boy bomb but would struggle with Fat Man. By November 1946, i.e. just over 1 year after Nagasaki Oak Ridge was producing 3.5kg/day of U235 which is enough for one Little Boy every 3 weeks. Production at the end of 1945 must have been enough for 1 bomb every 2 months. Hence the solution would be to use the Lancaster VI only for Little Boy.

More concerning is the performance. The Lancaster VI had a cruise speed of 278 @ 24,000ft with a service ceiling of 28000ft. The maximum speed is unclear to me from this report but may only be 312mph with radiator flaps closed at 18000ft though one line is drawing at 324mph Can someone interpret the graph for me?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

The Ki-84 had a maximum speed of 424 mph at 23,000ft with a service ceiling 37000ft. (Wikipedia) so the aircraft seems vulnerable. Little boy was dropped at 0800 or so, ie daylight.

A gain of 12mph is possible by deleting the dorsal turret.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 5, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> As far as I can see the Lancaster is suited to carry the Little Boy bomb but would struggle with Fat Man. By November 1946, i.e. just over 1 year after Nagasaki Oak Ridge was producing 3.5kg/day of U235 which is enough for one Little Boy every 3 weeks. Production at the end of 1945 must have been enough for 1 bomb every 2 months. Hence the solution would be to use the Lancaster VI only for Little Boy.
> 
> More concerning is the performance. The Lancaster VI had a cruise speed of 278 @ 24,000ft with a service ceiling of 28000ft. The maximum speed is unclear to me from this report but may only be 312mph with radiator flaps closed at 18000ft though one line is drawing at 324mph Can someone interpret the graph for me?
> 
> ...



The service ceiling is at 65000lb. Actual weight at the start of the bomb run would be ~55000lb due to fuel burn. Historically, Enola Gay dropped at 31060 ft (corrected from 30700) and 328mph TAS as per her log, Bockscar dropped at ~29K ft.

Maximum speed is 313mph at 18300ft and is given on page 4. There was some additional speed gain possible via deletion of the front turret. The other factor is that Merlin 86 engines could have been substituted (used on the Lincoln for high altitude variants), and these raise FTH by ~6000ft.

The line to the right of the maximum speeds graph shows boost levels.

Tests showed that carrying the Grandslam externally had little impact on speed. Cruise speed went from 214mph (4.6lb boost at 2350rpm) to 212mph (4.5lb boost at 2350rpm). A carefully faired FATMAN installation, along with turret deletions and a cleaned up airframe should minimize speed loss. The addition of fuel injection in place of carburetors would also help.


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 6, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The service ceiling is at 65000lb. Actual weight at the start of the bomb run would be ~55000lb due to fuel burn. Historically, Enola Gay dropped at 31060 ft (corrected from 30700) and 328mph TAS as per her log, Bockscar dropped at ~29K ft.
> 
> Maximum speed is 313mph at 18300ft and is given on page 4. There was some additional speed gain possible via deletion of the front turret. The other factor is that Merlin 86 engines could have been substituted (used on the Lincoln for high altitude variants), and these raise FTH by ~6000ft.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I'd originally misread the curves and assumed a speed of about 328 @ 24,000ft. With deletion of the dorsal turret a cruise speed of 292mph @ 24,000ft is possible. With fuel burn loss its probably possible to cruise at 292mph @ 27,000ft, perhaps a little higher. I would be reluctant to delete the front turret given the Japanese tactic of head on dives to deal with the B29 speed and altitude.

A quick scan of Japanese fighter types reveals that most could not exceed 360mph @ 6000m/20,000ft. The exceptions were the Ki 44, Ki 84, N1K1-J. (they did have improved turbo chargers and better superchargers under development but its nothing like a Ta 152)

Ki 44* Maximum speed:* 605 km/h (376 mph, 327 kn) at 5,200 m (17,060 ft)
Ki 84 *Maximum speed:* 682 km/h (424 mph, 368 kn) at 7,000 m (23,000 ft)
(N1K1-J) Shinden Kai *Maximum speed: *656 km/h (408 mph; 354 kn) at 6,096 m (20,000 ft)
The remainder such as the Ki 61, Ki 100 or JM2 Raiden generally could achieve no more than 360mph at less than 20,000ft-16,500ft.

So our Lancaster is more vulnerable than a B-29 that can achieve 358mph @ 25,000ft and likely 360mph at 30,000 ft with the ventral and dorsal turrets removed and is beyond practical interception capability.

Fat Man was dia 1.5m x 3.3m long so with an area of 1.766 sqm. I suspect a Cd of about 0.1 which would degrade to 0.2 if half in the slipstream.
at 120m/s speed an air density of about 0.4kg/cubic meter seems to generate about 1272 newtons of drag that would take 152kW (about 200hp) to overcome. The drag is probably about the jet thrust one of the merlin's was producing. The engines are at about 1/2 power (so a total 4 x 1000Ho=4000hp) so we are loosing 5% maybe 10% so with a cubed law we are going to loose about 1.8% speed. Very rough calculation. I could be off by 100% in which case the speed drop is more like 3.3% (12 mph) about the same as turret deletion would gain.

Deleting the rather big dorsal turret compensates for Fat Man in a distended streamlined belly.

The risk to the bomber being shot down would be considerable unless it were part of an escorted formation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Thanks, I'd originally misread the curves and assumed a speed of about 328 @ 24,000ft. With deletion of the dorsal turret a cruise speed of 292mph @ 24,000ft is possible. With fuel burn loss its probably possible to cruise at 292mph @ 27,000ft, perhaps a little higher. I would be reluctant to delete the front turret given the Japanese tactic of head on dives to deal with the B29 speed and altitude.
> 
> A quick scan of Japanese fighter types reveals that most could not exceed 360mph @ 6000m/20,000ft. The exceptions were the Ki 44, Ki 84, N!K!-J. (they did have improved turbo chargers and superchargers under development)
> 
> ...



Twin .303mgs are probably a poor defense against head on attacks and I'd trade that for a speed and altitude gain.

The Merlin 86 produced 1440hp at 22250ft versus 1580hp at 16000ft ( 18300ft with ram air) for the Merlin 85, so there would be an improvement in higher altitude performance but it's not going to match a B-29. 

There's no particular reason not to bomb at night.


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 6, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Twin .303mgs are probably a poor defense against head on attacks and I'd trade that for a speed and altitude gain.
> 
> The Merlin 86 produced 1440hp at 22250ft versus 1580hp at 16000ft ( 18300ft with ram air) for the Merlin 85, so there would be an improvement in higher altitude performance but it's not going to match a B-29.
> 
> There's no particular reason not to bomb at night.



Do you have any further information on the Merlin 86? Sadly my “Merlin every Mark every variant“ is missing. Did it use a larger impeller, faster gear or have a 3rd gear?


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Do you have any further information on the Merlin 86? Sadly my “Merlin every Mark every variant is missing”.
> Did it use a larger impeller, faster gear or have a 3rd gear?



Impeller is identical to Merlin 85 (12 and 10.1in) reduction gear was .42 but F.S gear ratio goes from 7.06 to 8.03 on the Merlin 86. M.S gearing was identical at 5.79.

Merlin 24 TO HP = 1610
Merlin 85 TO HP = 1635
Merlin 86 TO HP = 1605


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 6, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> There's no particular reason not to bomb at night.


I can think of two, precision of delivery and observation. Bombing by RADAR was a last resort, due to reduced accuracy. Keep in mind these weren't just any bombing missions, these were also tests of new and radically different weapon systems. Observation of the weapons delivery, ignition and immediate effects was almost as important as the delivery of the weapon itself.

Since bombing at night would be safer in terms of enemy interference, and was within the capability of the B-29 I wonder why both bombs were dropped in daylight...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 6, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I can think of two, precision of delivery and observation. Bombing by RADAR was a last resort, due to reduced accuracy. Keep in mind these weren't just any bombing missions, these were also tests of new and radically different weapon systems. Observation of the weapons delivery, ignition and immediate effects was almost as important as the delivery of the weapon itself.
> 
> Since bombing at night would be safer in terms of enemy interference, and was within the capability of the B-29 I wonder why both bombs were dropped in daylight...



The IJ air defense system was almost non-existent by August 1945 and both historical missions could have been intercepted by a competent GCI controlled fighter force, by existing IJAAF fighters:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf = 375MPH at 30K ft.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Ki-84-156A.pdf = 400mph at 30K ft.

If the bomb had been ready a year earlier do you think they would have dropped in daylight? German targets would almost certainly have been hit at night.

Coastal cities provide good radar returns and allow for accurate radar bombing. Bockscar was going to drop by radar and almost did. The photoflash effect of the bomb would actually have allowed for good initial photography, but the main analysis of bomb effects was done by follow up missions because the bomb blast and smoke obscured the target anyways.


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 6, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The IJ air defense system was almost non-existent by August 1945 and both historical missions could have been intercepted by a competent GCI controlled fighter force, by existing IJAAF fighters:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf = 350MPH at 30K ft.
> 
> ...


Interesting discussion on Ki 84 performance here. Ki-84 - The Real Maximum Speed?
It’s not as high as usually indicated due to derating of the engine while reliability issues were addressed. The B29 can pull away from a Ki 44 at 30,000ft.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Interesting discussion on Ki 84 performance here. Ki-84 - The Real Maximum Speed?
> It’s not as high as usually indicated due to derating of the engine while reliability issues were addressed. The B29 can pull away from a Ki 44 at 30000ft.



OK, but the fact is that the TAIC numbers were what the USAAF were working with in August 1945. It seems that they didn't think the IJAAF had the capability to intercept the A-bomb missions, even though their own data stated that the IJAAF had aircraft with the needed performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> Since bombing at night would be safer in terms of enemy interference, and was within the capability of the B-29 I wonder why both bombs were dropped in daylight...


You can debate the safety of a night attack with regards to enemy interference, overall it is safer to actually fly in the daytime although they took off in the middle of the night. Also consider there were many who wanted to witness the bomb going off and the aftermath and although there would have been a hell of a night time glow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 7, 2020)

Somewhere, I've read that, in Europe, the RAF night bombers were demonstrating about the similar or possibly better accuracy when compared to USAAF day bombers by mid to late 1944, so the accuracy argument may be moot. 

I think it's also likely the USAAF did not consider Japanese air defenses to be a significant threat: both nuclear attacks were unescorted, day attacks. The choice of day attack was for damage evaluation and, possibly, to catch more people in the open.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 7, 2020)

I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory. The work up with B-29s began at Wendover, Utah, and took constant flying for nearly a year to develop the delivery flight profile. The 509th was subject to absolute secrecy. Some men were dismissed from the program for loose lips. Once at Tinian, there were comments about the 509th being a gold brick outfit because they didn't fly mission with the others. The 509th always seemed to be flying 3or 5 plane missions with no losses or damage. Now imagine if the 509th showed up with Lancasters on a island of B-29s. The troops would say "What the hell is that?" The Japanese would say "What the hell is That?" And any imbeded reporters would wonder "What the hell is that?" It would have been like hiding a mule in a herd of horses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 7, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You can debate the safety of a night attack with regards to enemy interference, overall it is safer to actually fly in the daytime although they took off in the middle of the night. Also consider there were many who wanted to witness the bomb going off and the aftermath and although there would have been a hell of a night time glow.


I agree that it is safer to fly a plane in the daylight rather than at night, and clearly a takeoff in daylight is safer than one at night. My point was that enemy observers, flak and fighters would be at a disadvantage at night, so from that standpoint the mission would have been safer if flown after dark when over enemy territory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I agree that it is safer to fly a plane in the daylight rather than at night, and clearly a takeoff in daylight is safer than one at night. My point was that enemy observers, flak and fighters would be at a disadvantage at night, so from that standpoint the mission would have been safer if flown after dark when over enemy territory.


Agree about being a harder target at night for sure.


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 7, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Somewhere, I've read that, in Europe, the RAF night bombers were demonstrating about the similar or possibly better accuracy when compared to USAAF day bombers by mid to late 1944, so the accuracy argument may be moot.
> 
> I think it's also likely the USAAF did not consider Japanese air defenses to be a significant threat: both nuclear attacks were unescorted, day attacks. The choice of day attack was for damage evaluation and, possibly, to catch more people in the open.


Actually I have read that by flying just a few airplanes on each mission the Japanese air defenses would ignore them in favor of the large formations. Single plane weather/reconnaissance missions were often just ignored by the Japanese air defenses and people. One of the Japanese survivors from Hiroshima recalled seeing Enola Gay, but was not concerned because it was a single plane.


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 7, 2020)

special ed said:


> I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory. The work up with B-29s began at Wendover, Utah, and took constant flying for nearly a year to develop the delivery flight profile. The 509th was subject to absolute secrecy. Some men were dismissed from the program for loose lips. Once at Tinian, there were comments about the 509th being a gold brick outfit because they didn't fly mission with the others. The 509th always seemed to be flying 3or 5 plane missions with no losses or damage. Now imagine if the 509th showed up with Lancasters on a island of B-29s. The troops would say "What the hell is that?" The Japanese would say "What the hell is That?" And any imbeded reporters would wonder "What the hell is that?" It would have been like hiding a mule in a herd of horses.


I believe the original point was that the B-29 has such insurmountable problems that it never comes online. We have to use the Lancaster because that is the only choice available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 7, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree about being a harder target at night for sure.


And keep in mind, at least with Enola Gay, this was the first detonation of the gun-type bomb, the first air drop of an atomic weapon, and the first air burst of an atomic weapon. The Trinity test was of the implosion-type bomb, was conducted on a tower, and for all practical purposes was a ground burst. While the blast itself and the resulting fires in Hiroshima would have provided light, daylight observation and measurement would be far more revealing and accurate. From a scientific standpoint this whole process was still highly experimental.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> From a scientific standpoint this whole process was still highly experimental.


And I think that's a major reason why the powers to be wanted this to be done during the daytime.


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 7, 2020)

Hey special ed,

re:"I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory."

Have you tried asking your singleton socks?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 7, 2020)

As a parallel question:
The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> As a parallel question:
> The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?



Perhaps - but roll back to Ramsey and Arnold's insistence to use a US delivery system. Now had the bomb been ready 1 1/2 years earlier and all the bugs not worked out of the B-29? "What if?"


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 7, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> As a parallel question:
> The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?


The B-29 was not operational in the ETO, but they were not novel to that theater. There were B-29's in England as early as 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2020)



Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 8, 2020)

special ed said:


> I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory. The work up with B-29s began at Wendover, Utah, and took constant flying for nearly a year to develop the delivery flight profile. The 509th was subject to absolute secrecy. Some men were dismissed from the program for loose lips. Once at Tinian, there were comments about the 509th being a gold brick outfit because they didn't fly mission with the others. The 509th always seemed to be flying 3or 5 plane missions with no losses or damage. Now imagine if the 509th showed up with Lancasters on a island of B-29s. The troops would say "What the hell is that?" The Japanese would say "What the hell is That?" And any imbeded reporters would wonder "What the hell is that?" It would have been like hiding a mule in a herd of horses.


All valid observations except my question would be "What the hell" are they using Lancasters for if the B-29 is already operational? Considering the modifications the Lancaster would need like Silverplate B-29s. Are you contending the B-29 would be operational but Silverplate was a failure and that's why Lancasters are in the 509th? That's not a snarky question, just a genuine one thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> As a parallel question:
> The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?


The B-29 (and B-36) were originally designed for the ETO, incidently.
As far as the intention of Atomic weapon delivery to European targets, that was to be the Lancaster.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The only major mods on the Grandslam Lancaster Specials were strengthened landing gear and removal of the mid upper turret, and of course removal of the B-B doors to sling the bomb externally ( yet cruise speed, and AMPG was similar to a standard Lancaster at the same weight). Otherwise they were pretty much as any other Lancaster I.



Hmmm, you need to read more about the Lancaster. The bomb bay was also strengthened and more powerful engines and different prop blades were fitted. All in all, this was quite a lot of modification to a standard Mk.I, so 'pretty much as any other Lancaster' isn't true.

As for performance, the following is taken from The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down by Tim Mason (Hikoki, 1998) extrapolated from Air Ministry files:

"Unlike the Tallboy, the Grand Slam of 22,000lbs required extensive aircraft modification, more power and a considerable increase in weight."

Tables of Performance record B.I (Special) PB592 as at a MTOW of 72,000lbs as having a max rate of climb of 500 ft per min to 10,000 feet, taking 50 minutes to achieve. Ceiling was 18,600 feet and its maximum speed was a true airspeed of 245 mph at an altitude of 16,200 feet. This data is whilst carrying a Grand Slam. 

By comparison, from the same table, Mk.I W4963 with an MTOW of 63,000lbs has a max rate of climb 720 ft per min to 9,200 feet, taking 44 minutes. Its ceiling was 21,000 feet and with a maximum true airspeed of 282 mph at 13,000 feet.

So all round, performance of the Lancaster B.I (Special) was worse than standard Lanc Mk.I, which is precisely what I stated.



RCAFson said:


> The data on Lancaster performance is available and it clearly shows that the Lancaster was mission capable. Why you continue to claim otherwise, when the data is online:
> 
> Lancaster Performance Trials, showing you to be incorrect, is a bit of a mystery.



No mystery about it. If you look at the page you provided, then compare with the page below, you'll see that I am right in stating that a Mk.I (Special) with an MTOW of 72,000lbs has lower performance, again, so once more, you've gone ahead and proven yourself wrong with your own information!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

Wot you posted.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2020)

The reality is a modified Lancaster couldn't do the Tinian raid as it was. How it could have is with in-flight refuelling. It's the _only_ way it could have. Performance wise, with IFR, speeds could be increased as could altitude, but not by as much as the B-29. Carrying out this raid with an MTOW of 72,000lbs gives speeds of between 170 to 190 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet to reach maximum range, which is suicide and performance would definitely need to be increased. A cruise speed of over 200mph at an altitude of 20,000 feet or more is preferable, but with a B.I (Special) modified to an MTOW of 72,000lbs is unobtainable (see figures above), so another option would have to be investigated. Perhaps the Lincoln, which the Lanc VI was a forerunner to at any rate - skip the troublesome Lanc VI and go straight for the big daddy.

With IFR, the range could be met if enough tankers were provided. Avro drew up proposals for tankers based on Manchester airframes in 1940; the modifications could fit within the Lanc fuselage and bomb bay as well, so that is feasible. Here is a plausible scenario.

In September 1943, Ramsey is given the go ahead by Arnold to investigate the Lancaster as a potential second fiddle, IFR mods would need to be undertaken based on Avro's drawings and put into service as quickly as possible, requiring crew training etc to bring about a mission capable op. A fleet of tankers is needed and the aircraft would have to fly from Tinian to Japan and back to Tinian. Let's not dick around with Okinawa. Do this properly. The only way it can be done is with IFR.

I am envisioning a similar scenario of tankers to receivers as the Black Buck raids against the Falklands as flown by Avro Vulcans and Handley Page Victors as the tankers. For each bombing raid, the one Vulcan required fifteen to sixteen Victors, to enable them to refuel each other to match the Vulcan. Diagram here:

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

From here: Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2020)

Keep in mind that both missions (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) involved three advance weather scouts and two data/observer aircraft, too.
And they were all interchangeable - meaning all were capable of carrying either the bombs or the instruments.

So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...



So, you mean to say that the Lancaster op is less plausible than we are assuming here???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> So, you mean to say that the Lancaster op is less plausible than we are assuming here???


Well...

Maybe

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The reality is a modified Lancaster couldn't do the Tinian raid as it was. How it could have is with in-flight refuelling. It's the _only_ way it could have. Performance wise, with IFR, speeds could be increased as could altitude, but not by as much as the B-29. Carrying out this raid with an MTOW of 72,000lbs gives speeds of between 170 to 190 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet to reach maximum range, which is suicide and performance would definitely need to be increased. A cruise speed of over 200mph at an altitude of 20,000 feet or more is preferable, but with a B.I (Special) modified to an MTOW of 72,000lbs is unobtainable (see figures above), so another option would have to be investigated. Perhaps the Lincoln, which the Lanc VI was a forerunner to at any rate - skip the troublesome Lanc VI and go straight for the big daddy.
> 
> With IFR, the range could be met if enough tankers were provided. Avro drew up proposals for tankers based on Manchester airframes in 1940; the modifications could fit within the Lanc fuselage and bomb bay as well, so that is feasible. Here is a plausible scenario.
> 
> ...



It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the aircraft will burn ~1500IG (~11000lb) of fuel prior to the climb to combat altitude during the 1400 mile cruise over the open ocean. So your comment about this being "suicide" is nonsensical - it's almost like you have trouble understanding these basic concepts. Also, MTOW will be ~70000lb, based upon a 10K lb bomb and ~3000IG fuel, and the aircraft will have both forward turrets removed. These numbers are based upon the Operation Catechism Lancasters that had ~2550IG of internal fuel. a 12000lb Tallboy, and were Lancaster Is refitted with Merlin 24 engines.

Merlin 24 TO HP = 1610 / 1510HP at 9.250K ft
Merlin 85 TO HP = 1635 / 1680HP at 16K ft
Merlin 86 TO HP = 1605 / 14400HP at 22.25K ft


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Keep in mind that both missions (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) involved three advance weather scouts and two data/observer aircraft, too.
> And they were all interchangeable - meaning all were capable of carrying either the bombs or the instruments.
> 
> So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...



The weather aircraft and observer aircraft can be any aircraft with suitable range and performance. The only possible weapon exchange has to happen prior to TO. so this means having spare aircraft on Tinian.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The weather aircraft and observer aircraft can be any aircraft with suitable range and performance. The only possible weapon exchange has to happen prior to TO. so this means having spare aircraft on Tinian.


Wrong.
They HAD to be *interchangable* and as it was, Enola Gay flew the data mission for Bockscar on the Kokura/Nagasaki run.

And what's amusing to me, is if everyone was so damned desperate to have one special bomber for this program, they could have used the B-19, but logic (and common sense) dictated that it would require well over a dozen to ensure the missions were able to succeed.

Also, you keep insisting that the Lanc could have ditched after the Nagasaki run - but what the Hiroshima run? What if it had to ditch after Hiroshima then what? Kokura (Nagasaki) still had to be done.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmmm, you need to read more about the Lancaster. The bomb bay was also strengthened and more powerful engines and different prop blades were fitted. All in all, this was quite a lot of modification to a standard Mk.I, so 'pretty much as any other Lancaster' isn't true.
> 
> As for performance, the following is taken from The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down by Tim Mason (Hikoki, 1998) extrapolated from Air Ministry files:
> 
> ...



(1) Yes, I bet the Grandslam bomb attachment points had to strengthened, but neither A bomb will have require that. 

(2) Sigh... *that's the maximum cruise speed!!!*! See:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

I've already shown that econ cruise for a Grandslam Lancaster was 212mph TAS at 15K ft at 4.5lb boost at 2650RPM.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Wrong.
> They HAD to be *interchangable* and as it was, Enola Gay flew the data mission for Bockscar on the Kokura/Nagasaki run.
> 
> And what's amusing to me, is if everyone was so damned desperate to have one special bomber for this program, they could have used the B-19, but logic (and common sense) dictated that it would require well over a dozen to ensure the missions were able to succeed.
> ...



Why did they have to be interchangeable? Were they able to transfer the bomb inflight? The aircraft were used for weather/recon because it was convenient to do so, and not for any other compelling reason.

Your last sentence suggests that only one aircraft would be available for both missions? Really? Anyways both missions required roughly the same range because Hiroshima is north of Nagasaki.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2020)

Ok, let's be realistic - Your attempts to justify the Lancaster for the atomic missions is almost admirable if it weren't for the intrusion into the realm of the fantastic.
Kokura is just a bit south of Hiroshima, Nagasaki is south-west of Kokura.

We've been for the most part, discussing the magic Lancaster's journey retracing Bockscar's mission but yes, Hiroshima was further north - which would have also required a considerable amount of fuel to make the run from Tinian to Tinian.

And nice try, but my last sentence did not, in fact imply that. If one happened to read the rest of my post (reading comprehension helps a great deal, by the way) I stated that it would require *quite a few* of the Unicorn Lancasters to match the requirements if the 509th, which used interchangeable aircraft that could either carry the bomb or carry the nessecary instruments (weather or data).

Maybe I'll start a thread about the Stirling as a candidate for an Atomic bomber, should be fun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, let's be realistic - Your attempts to justify the Lancaster for the atomic missions is almost admirable if it weren't for the intrusion into the realm of the fantastic.
> Kokura is just a bit south of Hiroshima, Nagasaki is south-west of Kokura.
> 
> We've been for the most part, discussing the magic Lancaster's journey retracing Bockscar's mission but yes, Hiroshima was further north - which would have also required a considerable amount of fuel to make the run from Tinian to Tinian.
> ...




Again, a Tinian-target-Tinian mission plan isn't required and Bockscar proved that. Tinian-Target-Okinawa is well inside the Lancaster's capability. 

I think it a reasonable assumption that at least a whole squadron of "Silverplate" Lancasters will be available (at about the same cost as three B-29s), but there's no reason that these have to fly the weather/recon missions as well, although they could. 

Short Stirling:
"_The Stirling had a shallow bomb-bay 12.8 meters (42 feet) long, divided into three parallel "cells", each only 48.3 centimeters (19 inches) -- which would prove a limitation as the war went on, since the Stirling would never be able to carry the oversized "high capacity" or "blockbuster" bombs; it couldn't handle general-purpose bombs bigger than 225 kilograms (500 pounds). Along with the main bombbay, there were bomb-bays in the wings inboard of the main engines, though drawings suggest they were generally used to accommodate long-range tanks. Maximum bomb load was an impressive 6,350 kilograms (14,000 pounds), but that load could only be hauled for a relatively short distance; for long-range missions, the typical bombload was a quarter of that weight, 1,590 kilograms (3,500 pounds)._"
The Short Stirling

Ramsey picked the Lancaster for a reason.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 9, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> *Why did they have to be interchangeable*? Were they able to transfer the bomb inflight? The aircraft were used for weather/recon because it was convenient to do so, and not for any other compelling reason.
> 
> *SNIP*


If you have to ask that question, then you don't understand what it really took to carry out the mission 509th was tasked with. Dave is correct, those planes HAVE to be interchangeable to accomplish this, so yes, you'd need 6 preferably more. They had an all B-29 cast not because it was convenient, mission parameters dictated so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Ramsey picked the Lancaster for a reason.



Ramsey "recommended" the Lancaster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2020)

This thread is generating a surprising amount of heat. If the B-29 and the B-32 had failed, the US didn’t have a second fallback: neither the B-17 nor B-24 could have carried the nuclear bombs of 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> This thread is generating a surprising amount of heat. If the B-29 and the B-32 had failed, the US didn’t have a second fallback: neither the B-17 nor B-24 could have carried the nuclear bombs of 1945.


Agree, and at that point General Arnold would not have had a choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

Could the Barling bomber been used as a fall back? If the nose landing gear was removed a lot of weight could be saved.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet. 

You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29. 

Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

Is there a drawing of the XB-31?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Is there a drawing of the XB-31?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet.
> 
> You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29.
> 
> Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia



Considering that the XB-30 was lighter, with a lower wing loading, and the same engines, I find 18,000 ft somewhat fishy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Considering that the XB-30 was lighter, with a lower wing loading, and the same engines, I find 18,000 ft somewhat fishy.



Yep - Considering the first Connies had a service ceiling of 25,000 feet


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 9, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet.
> 
> You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29.
> 
> Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia



Ramsey, Groves and Arnold had to pick an aircraft that was available and had a viable development track in late 1943/early 1944. Ramsey didn't begin to look for a delivery aircraft until mid 1943.

"_The Douglas XB-31 project was formally cancelled in late 1941 before anything could be built._ "
Douglas XB-31
AFAIK, the XB-30 suffered the same fate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> AFAIK, the XB-30 suffered the same fate.



Actually the XB-30 was based on the Constellation. The first ones were flying in 1943 so this "could have" happened if the other identified deficiencies were addressed

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 601364
> 
> 
> View attachment 601365


That is a cool airplane. I didn’t see any drawings of it on Wikipedia. Kind of weird seeing a description in Japanese (?).


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

Just how many heavy bomber types was the US ordering? I had known about the B-32 being an “also ran” but I never knew about these 2. Were Stinson, Waco and Piper also in on the bidding?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Just how many heavy bomber types was the US ordering? I had known about the B-32 being an “also ran” but I never knew about these 2. Were Stinson, Waco and Piper also in on the bidding?



Boeing, Consolidated, Lockheed, and Douglas had considerable experience in large aircraft, although Lockheed likely had the least of these four. Martin and Sikorsky also had large aircraft experience. While Stinson had done a commercial airliner, I don't think either Waco or Piper had even built a twin at this time. Going from a smallish single (Waco didn't even make monoplanes) to a strategic bomber may have been seen as a bit too much of a jump by both company management and the customer.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

And another one of my jokes crashes and burns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

Knew I should have added Rutan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 9, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> And another one of my jokes crashes and burns.


If it is any consolation, I got it...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Knew I should have added Rutan.



Oh, he'd just build an asymmetric canard with five engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Nov 9, 2020)

For those of us who are a little dim, could someone please explain (preferably using small words) why all the planes on the missions had to be interchangeable?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2020)

Simon Thomas said:


> For those of us who are a little dim, could someone please explain (preferably using small words) why all the planes on the missions had to be interchangeable?


So there would be no down-time in the event the primary bomber was unable to go on the mission.
Bockscar should not have flown primary on the second mission, but a monsoon was overtaking the islands and it was decided to go anyway.
However, if they weren't pressed for time, Bockscar could have been unloaded and the bomb transferred to any other 509th bomber, like Laggin' Dragon, Great Artiste and so on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Oh, he'd just build an asymmetric canard with five engines


Is that so much to ask for?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Is that so much to ask for?


The Horton Ho.XVIII was better

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> (2) Sigh... *that's the maximum cruise speed!!!*! See:



Keep yer hair on. Looks like it is, in translating the data into the book must have missed that. Doesn't really change the premise of what I posted though and my original position still stands, the B.I (Special)s had lower performance than the unmodified B.Is as a result of extra weight despite more powerful engines and more effective propeller blades.



RCAFson said:


> I've already shown that econ cruise for a Grandslam Lancaster was 212mph TAS at *15K ft* at 4.5lb boost at 2650RPM.



Yup, but at 15,000 ft, which is just ridiculous over Japan in 1945. You're gonna want AT LEAST 20,000 feet with a cruise of around 200 mph plus. So, the B.I (Special) still can't do that.

Nothing has changed despite your correction. You are still not going to get the range figures WITHOUT in-flight refuelling, not at the performance and altitude that is necessary.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> If the B-29 and the B-32 had failed, the US didn’t have a second fallback: neither the B-17 nor B-24 could have carried the nuclear bombs of 1945.



Agree in the confines of this sentence only, but in reality, there's no way Arnold would have let the B-29 fail. He would have requested more finances and resources for it. It was at that time the most expensive aircraft project the US had embarked on. This wasn't just about a suitable nuclear bomber, the B-29 promised and delivered performance and capability that exceeded everything else in service and Arnold was determined to get it into the USAAF because of what it promised. That it could carry the nuclear weapons across the mission profile that we are familiar with was remarkable for the time - it certainly showed just how advanced the B-29 was and haggling over the crap we are doing so when considering the Lancaster just proves that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Keep yer hair on. Looks like it is, in translating the data into the book must have missed that. Doesn't really change the premise of what I posted though and my original position still stands, the B.I (Special)s had lower performance than the unmodified B.Is as a result of extra weight despite more powerful engines and more effective propeller blades.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, (how often do I have to repeat this?) the aircraft will burn off ~11000lb of fuel during the low altitude, overwater, cruise before beginning the climb to combat altitude, which will burn another ~4000lb of fuel so that at the beginning of the bomb run, aircraft weight will be ~55000lb. Even a Catechism modded Lancaster would have ~3500lb of fuel remaining after weapon release and a full B-B fuel tank mod, as much as ~7000lb remaining) The time spent at combat altitude, prior to weapon release will typically be less than 2 hours and as little as one hour. As I showed in my posts 609/635, the Merlin 85/86 have the needed TO power to get the Lancaster VI airborne at ~70Klb TO weight and have far superior power at high altitude, in comparison to the Merlin24. A FATMAN bomb in a modded bomb-bay, with both forward turrets removed is likely to be little different from an unmodded Lancaster VI, in terms of drag and thus speed:



Koopernic said:


> Fat Man was dia 1.5m x 3.3m long so with an area of 1.766 sqm. I suspect a Cd of about 0.1 which would degrade to 0.2 if half in the slipstream.
> at 120m/s speed an air density of about 0.4kg/cubic meter seems to generate about 1272 newtons of drag that would take 152kW (about 200hp) to overcome. The drag is probably about the jet thrust one of the merlin's was producing. The engines are at about 1/2 power (so a total 4 x 1000Ho=4000hp) so we are loosing 5% maybe 10% so with a cubed law we are going to loose about 1.8% speed. Very rough calculation. I could be off by 100% in which case the speed drop is more like 3.3% (12 mph) about the same as turret deletion would gain.
> 
> Deleting the rather big dorsal turret compensates for Fat Man in a distended streamlined belly.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> These numbers are based upon the Operation Catechism Lancasters that had ~2550IG of internal fuel. a 12000lb Tallboy, and were Lancaster Is refitted with Merlin 24 engines.
> 
> Merlin 24 TO HP = 1610 / 1510HP at *9.250K ft*
> Merlin 85 TO HP = 1635 / 1680HP at *16K ft*
> Merlin 86 TO HP = 1605 / 14400HP at 22.25K ft



Which bear no reality to the operation being planned here. Firstly, as it has been pointed out to you, altitudes below 20,000 feet over Japan in 1945? REALLY? As soon as you go higher your performance decreases and if you want to increase it, that chews into your fuel reducing your range. Next, the conditions in Northern Europe are very different to the Pacific theatre, which, it has already been pointed out to you would affect the aircraft's performance, so again, these figures as flown during Catechism wouldn't apply.

As for the Lancaster VI, again we run into problems regarding the modifications you intend to make to this aircraft, which would reduce its performance further, so the standard figures as stated on that sheet you continuously promote as evidence the Lancaster could do the raid WOULD NOT APPLY (How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?).

Sigh, the ONLY way this raid could be carried out by a Lancaster, regardless of what mark it is, is with in-flight refuelling. If not, you might as well get a Whitley to do it. It would be less of a waste of a good aeroplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> A FATMAN bomb in a modded bomb-bay, with both forward turrets removed is likely to be little different from an unmodded Lancaster VI, in terms of drag and thus speed:



"Welcome to Fantasy Island!"


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Which bear no reality to the operation being planned here. Firstly, as it has been pointed out to you, altitudes below 20,000 feet over Japan in 1945? REALLY? As soon as you go higher your performance decreases and if you want to increase it, that chews into your fuel reducing your range. Next, the conditions in Northern Europe are very different to the Pacific theatre, which, it has already been pointed out to you would affect the aircraft's performance, so again, these figures as flown during Catechism wouldn't apply.
> 
> As for the Lancaster VI, again we run into problems regarding the modifications you intend to make to this aircraft, which would reduce its performance further, so the standard figures as stated on that sheet you continuously promote as evidence the Lancaster could do the raid WOULD NOT APPLY (How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?).
> 
> Sigh, the ONLY way this raid could be carried out by a Lancaster, regardless of what mark it is, is with in-flight refuelling. If not, you might as well get a Whitley to do it. It would be less of a waste of a good aeroplane.





Where have I ever stated that they would be cruising over Japan at less than 20K ft? Why do you keep repeating this? Can you not read the performance charts for the Lancaster VI?

B-29 ranges all assume a low altitude cruise and then a climb to combat altitude ~30min prior to the bomb run:

_"FORMULA: RADIUS MISSION I & II

Warm-up, take-off, climb on course to 10,000 ft at normal power,
cruise at long range speeds to point where climb is made to arrive at
25,000 ft 30 minutes prior to bomb drop, cruise at long range speeds
for 15 minutes, followed by 15 minutes normal power run into target,
drop bombs and conduct 5 minutes normal power evasive action (no
distance credit) and 10 minutes run out from target area at normal
power, cruise back to base at long range speeds at 25,000 ft. Range
free allowances include 10 minutes normal power at sea level for warm-
up and take-off, 5 minutes normal power evasive action plus 5% of initial
fuel for reserve.

FORMULA: RADIUS MISSION III

Same as I and II except initial climb is to 25,000 ft and bombs are
dropped at 30, 000 ft.

FORMULA: RANGE MISSION I & HI

Warm-up, take-off, climb on course to 10, 000 ft at normal power,
cruise at long range speeds to point where climb is made to arrive at
25,000 ft 30 minutes prior to bomb drop, cruise at long range speeds
for 30 minutes to point where 90% of initial fuel has been used, drop
bombs. Rangefreeallowances include 10 minutes normal power at sea
level for warm-up and take-off plus 10% of initial fuel for evasive action
and landing reserve."_
(B-29B SAC data)

Just as per the historical missions, the aircraft will burn much fuel and lose weight during the cruise over open water; cruise over Japan will be at 28 - 30k ft. We know what the performance of the Lancaster VI is at 65000lb, and it will be considerably better at 55000lb. 

A Lancaster VI is essentially just a Lancaster I/III with Merlin 85 engines. There's no problem with modding it to carry the A-bombs (or modding a Lancaster Special with Merlin 85/86 engines).


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> "Welcome to Fantasy Island!"




Members take the time to work on complex problems to derive meaningful results and this is your reply...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Members take the time to work on complex problems to derive meaningful results and this is your reply...



Yup, especially when you are ignoring the facts and just fantasising. Over and over and over again...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Where have I ever stated that they would be cruising over Japan at less than 20K ft? Why do you keep repeating this? Can you not read the performance charts for the Lancaster VI?



Aaand here is a classic example. Standard figures for the Lancaster VI wouldn't apply. You have indicated that your Lancaster VI needs modifying with fuel tanks in the bomb bay and the weight of the bomb itself, to increase its range. In order to do this you'll need to strengthen the bomb bay, the undercarriage and remove turrets to reduce drag, but performance is going to be considerably reduced and since you keep insisting without evidence that it can carry a Fat Man, the drag penalty would be severe, to say nothing for the impact on the handling. Add to that the Pacific conditions and your Lancaster is not going to achieve the figures you keep promoting... FANTASY ISLAND my friend. The only way you can do it is with in-flight refuelling.

The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW what the Lancaster VI's figures would be with all these mods you talk about, so the only thing we can go on is by applying what we know about B.I (Specials) and how the modifications applied affected those, because, as you have said yourself, both the B.I (Specials) and Lanc VIs are just B.Is, which we know COULD'NT do the raid WITHOUT substantial modification.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Aaand here is a classic example. Standard figures for the Lancaster VI wouldn't apply. You have indicated that your Lancaster VI needs modifying with fuel tanks in the bomb bay and the weight of the bomb itself, to increase its range. In order to do this you'll need to strengthen the bomb bay, the undercarriage and remove turrets to reduce drag, but performance is going to be considerably reduced and since you keep insisting without evidence that it can carry a Fat Man, the drag penalty would be severe, to say nothing for the impact on the handling. Add to that the Pacific conditions and your Lancaster is not going to achieve the figures you keep promoting... FANTASY ISLAND my friend. The only way you can do it is with in-flight refuelling.
> 
> (1)The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW what the Lancaster VI's figures would be with all these mods you talk about, so the only thing we can go on is by applying what we know about B.I (Specials) and how the modifications applied affected those, because, as you have said yourself, both the B.I (Specials) and Lanc VIs are just B.Is, which we know COULD'NT do the raid WITHOUT substantial modification.



Are you ESL? We've already established that the Grandslam Lancasters (modded Lancaster 1) were nearly identical in performance to a standard Lancaster and they were all strengthened for 72K lb TO. Remember when you thought that the Grandslam Lancaster's maximum cruise speed was it's Vmax? Yet you carry on as though you still consider that to be true. Koopernic has already worked out the drag penalty:



Koopernic said:


> Fat Man was dia 1.5m x 3.3m long so with an area of 1.766 sqm. I suspect a Cd of about 0.1 which would degrade to 0.2 if half in the slipstream.
> at 120m/s speed an air density of about 0.4kg/cubic meter seems to generate about 1272 newtons of drag that would take 152kW (about 200hp) to overcome. The drag is probably about the jet thrust one of the merlin's was producing. The engines are at about 1/2 power (so a total 4 x 1000Ho=4000hp) so we are loosing 5% maybe 10% so with a cubed law we are going to loose about 1.8% speed. Very rough calculation. I could be off by 100% in which case the speed drop is more like 3.3% (12 mph) about the same as turret deletion would gain.
> 
> *Deleting the rather big dorsal turret compensates for Fat Man in a distended streamlined belly.*


None of this is rocket science and you should be able to follow it, and if you can't...

The Catechism Lancasters carried a 12000lb Tallboy and 2150IG of internal fuel and a 400IG aux (wellington) B-B tank at 68K Lb TO weight. Carrying a Fatman saves 2000lb. Using custom conformal B-B tanks will save weight and space as I showed in post 482. 70K LB TO weight with FATMAN and ~3000IG of internal fuel is a very realistic figure.

Japan is not a tropical climate. Both the B-29 and Lancaster have their performance figures stated in ICAN standard numbers. I based my fuel consumption figures on ICAN tropical summer numbers with a ~5% allowance for extra drag and I based the high altitude cruise consumption on the Merlin 85's maximum fuel consumption as per the Avro Lincoln/Merlin 85 Pilot's notes.

(1) Your inability to comprehend that the Lancaster VI was just a Lancaster I/III with Merlin 85 engines ( *A Mk.VI Lancaster, which differs from the Mk.I and III by the fitting of Universal power plants (Merlin 85 engines* Lancaster Performance Trials )
, doesn't alter the facts. We know from the online test data available to us what the probable performance of a Lancaster VI/Merlin 85 will be at ~55000lb weight, at the start of it's bomb run. The Merlin 86 engines can always be used if higher altitudes are desired. Both the *Merlin 85 and 86 have the needed TO power to get airborne* and to cruise to the edge of IJ airspace and then to climb to combat altitude. They have considerably more power at higher altitude than the single stage Merlin 24 and consequently have a considerably higher altitude, higher cruise speed and higher maximum speed.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2020)

I’m getting sick of this tit for tat snarky bickering. Everyone chill out, and tone it down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Again, (how often do I have to repeat this?) the aircraft will burn off ~11000lb of fuel during the low altitude, overwater, cruise before beginning the climb to combat altitude, which will burn another ~4000lb of fuel so that at the beginning of the bomb run, aircraft weight will be ~55000lb.


And what happens when there's a monsoon that causes the first leg of the mission to be flown at 17,000 instead of 9,000 feet?

The fleet of Mk.VI Lancasters totaled a number of 9.
Nine ships in that version says volumes. You're casting your lot on a type that saw limited service, did not distinguish itself like the other marks, had a history of maintenance issues all for the sake of insisting it could somehow match the performance of the B-29 on two missions that were, for it's time, incredibly sophisticated.

Please, give it a rest. It wasn't going to happen, no matter how you spin the numbers...


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And what happens when there's a monsoon that causes the first leg of the mission to be flown at 17,000 instead of 9,000 feet?
> 
> The fleet of Mk.VI Lancasters totaled a number of 9.
> Nine ships in that version says volumes. You're casting your lot on a type that saw limited service, did not distinguish itself like the other marks, had a history of maintenance issues all for the sake of insisting it could somehow match the performance of the B-29 on two missions that were, for it's time, incredibly sophisticated.
> ...



i don't have the log for Bockscar's Nagasaki Mission, but AFAIK they didn't climb to 17k ft until several hours into the mission and there's no problem with a Lancaster VI cruising at that Altitude. All the long range AMPG figures are based upon a 15K ft cruise altitude anyways.

It wasn't as if there were no issues with the B-29...in comparison the Lancaster VI and Lincoln development was a very smooth process, as it should have been because it was so low tech and based upon proven components.

There was 9 (or 10) Lancaster VIs, all built in mid 1943 to mid 1944, plus there was over 30 Lincolns built up Aug 1945, and these numbers were low because there was no requirement for an RAF/RCAF long range, high altitude, heavy bomber:

_"The Lincoln prototype PW925 first flew on
9th June 1944 but the urgency to get the type
into service was diluted by events. In 1944 the
well-established Lancaster seemed quite
adequate for 1945 and it left no spare manu-
facturing capacity. As the situation in both
Europe and the Pacific improved, the need
for the new bomber receded and the priority
for its production was reduced."_ (p.131, _ Buttler, British Secret Projects, Bomber and Fighters_...)

However, this would have changed dramatically if the USA had formally requested a high altitude Lancaster for Project Alberta. The key point being that a Lancaster VI was simply a I/III with Merlin 85 engines, and Canada, for example was building the Lancaster X which was just a Canadianized variant of the Lancaster III. These could have been fitted with the required engines (by Packard) and shipped directly to the USAAF to be modded, as required, for either A-bomb. Supplying 10 Lancaster VIs by Mid 1944 and 30-50 by Jan 1945 would have been trivial and supplying an equivalent number of Lincolns by, say May 1945 hardly any more difficult.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2020)

I have to say, your retro-vision is remarkable.
If only the leaders and commanders had a fraction of your knowledge, the war would have turned out quite differently.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I have to say, your retro-vision is remarkable.
> If only the leaders and commanders had a fraction of your knowledge, the war would have turned out quite differently.



Ramsey had a lot more knowledge than me which is why he recommended the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Ramsey had a lot more knowledge than me which is why he recommended the Lancaster.



"Recommended" Arnold chose the B-29. Maybe he had a lot more knowledge and foresight than all of us!


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Recommended" Arnold chose the B-29. Maybe he had a lot more knowledge and foresight than all of us!



I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 11, 2020)

Good point!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...



Politics!

The Lanc could have carried the torch through the Vietnam War. Maybe the Gulf War.

I kid, I kid...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 11, 2020)

Put Luftwaffe markings on it, and it could have been first to land on the Moon ....... ahem !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...



It's not interesting at all and bears no relevance to the topic at hand, because it is predicated on the assumption that the B-29 is not available as an A-bomb delivery platform during WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> It's not interesting at all and bears no relevance to the topic at hand, because it is predicated on the assumption that the B-29 is not available as an A-bomb delivery platform during WW2.



My point being, and not well made, that if the Lanc had so much potential why didn’t it get developed for and used by the RAF post war.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> My point being, and not well made, that if the Lanc had so much potential why didn’t it get developed for and used by the RAF post war.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



The potential the Lancaster had was fully developed in WW2 and it was capable, in WW2, of safely (out of fatal blast radius) dropping available A-bombs on Japanese targets, whilst operating from Tinian. Ditto for Germany from the UK. The Lincoln could push the envelope a bit more.

Both the Lancaster and Lincoln saw post war combat service with the RAF. However dropping a low yield A-bomb on an island like Japan with numerous coastal cities, is not the same as penetrating deep into Warsaw Pact airspace to hit the USSR with higher yield weapons, where a robust GCI air-defense network could be expected. The tactics used by the B-29 against Japan would have been suicidal against the USSR, however the relative abundance of atomic weapons by ~1947 meant that squadron sized attacks could be launched and thus achieve a fair probability (better at night) of at least some aircraft surviving until weapon release. However, once bomb yield passes ~50KT, I'm not sure the B-29 could safely deliver it either, even if it could penetrate hostile airspace.

As an aside, AFAIK, RAF B-29s never carried atomic weapons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> However dropping a low yield A-bomb on an island like Japan with numerous coastal cities, is not the same as penetrating deep into Warsaw Pact airspace to hit the USSR with higher yield weapons, where a *robust GCI air-defense network could be expected*.



And what years do you think the Warsaw Pact had this in place? Maybe by the end of the Korean War.

The Silverplate B-29s remained in service until the early 50s. It was recognized they were no longer a viable weapon and other aircraft replaced them, in the same manner Bomber Command recognized the Lancaster and Lincoln wouldn't cut it in the post war years, so the Washington was used until Canberra, and V bombers entered service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 11, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what years do you think the Warsaw Pact had this in place? Maybe by the end of the Korean War.
> 
> The Silverplate B-29s remained in service until the early 50s. It was recognized they were no longer a viable weapon and other aircraft replaced them, in the same manner Bomber Command recognized the Lancaster and Lincoln wouldn't cut it in the post war years, so the Washington was used until Canberra, and V bombers entered service.



The Soviet air force was certainly far stronger, in say 1947, than the IJAAF was in 1945.

AFAIK, the Washington never flew a combat sortie whilst the Lincoln was flying combat missions until the mid 1950s (actually 1958), in Malaya.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Soviet air force was certainly far stronger, in say 1947, than the IJAAF was in 1945.



It was in certain areas of the country granted, the Soviet Union was huge but they had many gaps in their air defenses as documented in the book the Price of Vigilance.



RCAFson said:


> AFAIK, the Washington never flew a combat sortie whilst the Lincoln was flying combat missions until the mid 1950s, in Malaya.



Actually the Washingtons flew ELINT missions. The Lincoln was perfect for the Malaya operations, no aerial opposition and rain down lots of bombs on gruella positions.


Everything one could ever want to know about the Washington

_After the conclusion of WW2 and the rapid advancement into the late 1940s, the RAF was looking to upgrade its aging bomber fleet of Lincoln's and Lancaster's to the new Jet bombers. However their development would not be completed until the early 50s, leaving Britain with a very troublesome dilemma._

_As America was placing some B-29s into storage, the British took interest. *knowing their nuclear capability would be needed as the Cold War was very much warming up at the time, they acquired 87 B-29s from 20th March 1950 under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.*_

_The new aircraft, in keeping with RAF tradition were to be given the name "Washington" and were retrofitted with standard RAF technology and equipment._

_Squadrons equipped with Washintons:_

_115 - RAF Marham
14 - RAF Coningsby 
90 - RAF Marham
XV - RAF Coningsby
44 - RAF Coningsby
57 - RAF Waddington
207 - RAF Marham
35 - RAF Marham
192 - RAF Watton (These aircraft were actually striped of all gunners and turrets and equipped with Electronic Intelligence equipment, nicknamed "The Spooks")_

_By 1952 however with the Canberra jet bomber well in service the RAF began retiring the Washington and returning them to the US. British pilots flew them back over on what was called the "Home Run" and saw them handed back to the USAF. Two were sent to Australia for training purposes and several crashed when in RAF service._

_No surviving examples survive today._


_*192 Squadron Washingtons 
Dave Forster*_

_192 Squadron acquired three RB-29As as replacements for its three Lincolns in the first half of 1952. The first two aircraft (WZ966, WZ967) arrived at Watton in April and were joined by the third (WZ968) in June. Work then got underway at the CSE to develop an Elint fit for the aircraft.
The modifications, carried out by the CSE, involved the removal of all gun turrets and bombing equipment; fairing over of the rear observation blisters; the conversion of the rear pressurised compartment into an Elint compartment accommodating six Special Operators; the installation of two radomes under the rear fuselage for direction-finding antennae and the fitting of a number of other external antennae._

_The primary tasks of the aircraft were to intercept, analyse and plot the positions of Soviet radar stations; and to intercept Soviet radio communications (including. transmissions between Soviet GCI stations and fighters). The six Special Operator positions comprised two VHF communications intercept positions (AN/ARR-5); two metric radar intercept and D/F positions (AN/APR-4); and two centimetric (X-band and S-band) radar intercept and D/F and positions (ARI 18021, AN/APR-9, AN/APA-11). Wire recorders were also carried to capture signals for later analysis._

_Modification and installation of the first Washington, WZ966, began in May 1952. After a few minor problems work was finally completed at the end of September and the installation cleared early in October. Work was then started on the remaining two Washingtons. Using the experience gained in the first conversion these proceeded quickly and were completed in December._

_During the first half of 1953 the squadron devoted its efforts to the training of its Washington crews and to the installation and trials of equipment in the aircraft. Training Special Operators was a particular problem since* the Washington carried three times the number previously carried by the squadron’s Lincolns. *The training programme was helped by the acquisition of an unmodified Washington (WW346) in April, primarily for pilot continuation training. This aircraft helped take the load off the three Elint aircraft which were flown intensively on combined navigator/special operator training sorties. Training flights were also made to the Middle East for pilot/navigator training. The squadron took advantage of Exercise Jungle King, a NATO naval exercise, in March 1953 to fly a series of Elint sorties using all three Washingtons to locate and track the ‘enemy’ fleet using radar and voice intercepts._

_The first Washington Elint operation carried out during 1953 (Operation REASON) was a one-off operation to intercept the new Soviet cruiser Sverdlov just north of the Shetlands following its visit to the UK in August 1953. This highly successful operation revealed the presence of X-band fire control radar on the ship._

_The squadron took part in a further NATO naval exercise at the end of September when a Washington carried out two long-range sorties in support of Exercise Mariner. The Washington was tasked with the detection and location of the ‘enemy’ Blue force fleet; the detection of AEW and anti-submarine aircraft radar transmissions; and interception of radio traffic between ships and between carriers and their aircraft on both VHF and UHF bands._

_Operational flying began in earnest in October 1953 when two Washingtons, accompanied by WW346 as a support aircraft, were detached to Nicosia. Two Elint flights were carried out during the detachment, probably over the Black Sea._

_During the next four years the Washingtons were flown on three basic types of Elint operation. The first, and least controversial, was the routine Border sortie. These were daylight sorties over West Germany, flown approximately 15 miles or so from the East German border. Roughly four of this type of sortie were flown each month, although these were often cancelled to make way for more important operations. The second type of operation was the shadowing of Soviet naval units. These operations were flown on an opportunity basis and occasionally required the diversion of aircraft from pre-planned Elint sorties. Strict rules governed the conduct of these flights, limiting how close the Washington could approach the Soviet vessel or vessels. The third type of operation, and the most risky, was the monthly series of Elint sorties flown in neutral or international airspace along the borders of the Soviet Union and its allies. The main area of operations for these flights were the Baltic Sea (from Watton or Germany), the Black Sea (from Cyprus) and the Caspian Sea (from Iraq). The Washingtons normally operated in conjunction with the squadron’s Canberras – the Washingtons standing-off a minimum of 70 miles from Soviet territory and monitoring reactions to the Canberras, which approached to within 30 miles of the border. Each of these sorties was reviewed and authorized by the Foreign Minister, before it was flown. Although these operations were flown in international airspace at a respectable distance from Soviet borders they still risked a hostile reaction. To minimize the risk they were always flown in absolute darkness during the period of the new moon.* Since very few Soviet air defence fighters then carried AI radar this offered some protection from interception.*_

_In February 1956 Washington WZ966 carried out the first RAF Elint sortie into the Barents Sea. The 18 hour mission was made even more arduous by the failure of the aircraft heating system and the loss of one engine after 12 hours flying. Following this operation the Barents Sea was added to the list of regular operational areas. However subsequent sorties into the Barents Sea operated from Norwegian airfields._

_In the autumn of 1956 a single Washington was detached to Malta for several months to compile an Egyptian electronic order of battle prior to the joint UK-French operations to reclaim the Suez Canal._

_The Elint suite in the Washington was subject to rolling programme of improvements during the aircraft’s service. The main problem was the accuracy of direction-finding, and thus the accuracy with which Soviet radar stations could be plotted. A number of improvements were made to the ARI 18021 equipment, and also to operating procedures; the ARI 18021 was later supplemented by the addition of US-built APA-17 direction-finders. Provision was also made for an alternative fit of additional HF and VHF receivers to enhance the aircraft’s communications intercept capability. By the time the Washington was replaced by the Comet the intelligence-gathering ability of the aircraft had been transformed. Many of the lessons learnt with the Washington were applied directly to the Comet._

_Maintenance of the 192 Squadron Washingtons was complicated by the withdrawal of the type from Bomber Command service in the early 1954. This made spares harder to obtain and as a result the aircraft were sometimes flown with non-essential equipment inoperable. The autopilot seems to have been an early victim of the spares situation. Mainplane corrosion problems were also encountered. By 1956 the squadron was complaining that it was becoming more difficult to meet its tasks as “the age and flying hours of the Washingtons increase”._

_The end for the Washington came December 1957. By then the maintenance situation had deteriorated to the point where it was considered unlikely the aircraft could successfully complete a sortie without some major unserviceability. As a result all three operational aircraft were stood down. Luckily the Washington replacement, the Comet R.2, was nearly ready for operations. In the end only two months were lost in the changeover, the Comet flying its first operational Elint sortie in February 1958.[/spoiler]_

_http://www.rafwatton.info/History/TheWashington/192SquadronWashingtons/tabid/91/Default.aspx_


_RAF Washington of 192 Squadron_


_*207 Squadrons Washingtons:*_


_WF437: City of Bakersfield in USAAF WW2 service: EM-Y : to 35 Sqn: RU 22.7.53 as 44-69680
WF565: EM-B: RU 15.2.54 as 44-62243
WF549: *EM-M: prev 57, 90 Sqns: RU 19.1.54 as 44-62013
WF566: RU 16.3.54 as 44-62135
WF558: to 57, 90 Sqns: RU 5.1.54 as 44-61978
WF567: RU 16.3.54 as 44-62256
WF559: to 35, 115 Sqns: RU 5.1.54 as 44-62014
WF568: EM-W: RU 15.1.54 as 44-62265
WF560: to 44, 115 Sqns: RU 19.1.54 as 44-61969
WF569: EM-V: RU 15.2.54 as 44-62105
WF561: to 44 Sqn: RU 1.12.53 as 44-62109
WW342: RU 3.11.53 as 44-62242
WF564: RU 15.2.54 as 44-62259
WW352: EM-F: RU 25.2.54 as 44-62255_

_RAF Washington B1 - The British B-29_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2020)

Airframes said:


> Put Luftwaffe markings on it, and it could have been first to land on the Moon ....... ahem !




This was supposed to be a secret.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 11, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Recommended" Arnold chose the B-29. Maybe he had a lot more knowledge and foresight than all of us!



Well, at least he's not saying Ramsey "chose" the Lancaster, so a little bit of progress... Still with the snarky comments and refusal to accept reality, but progress...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> This was supposed to be a secret.
> View attachment 601563

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 11, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Ramsey had a lot more knowledge than me



Clearly! Ramsey's own words.

"In view of the critical shortage of B-29's it was at first proposed that a British Lancaster be used for the test work even though _a B-29 would almost certainly be used as the combat ship_. _The Air Forces, however, wisely recommended that a B-29 be used for the test work as well, _both to avoid non-standard maintenance and to accumulate experience in B-29 operations with such a bomb."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 11, 2020)

Perhaps if we had a sufficient quantity of African swallows . . . .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> Perhaps if we had a sufficient quantity of African swallows . . . .



African, or European...

Great scene! Followed closely by, “merely a flesh wound”!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...



It's pretty impossible to argue against the statement that the B-29 was the most advanced bomber to see service in WW2. And, yes, I'm quite aware of the Ar234.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> And another one of my jokes crashes and burns.


I got it, and thought it quite funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 13, 2020)

pbehn said:


> This was supposed to be a secret.
> View attachment 601563


Secret? Not sure how you could keep those secret, I mean they're sticking right out at you...

Oh, you mean the plane...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2020)

Seeing as how the B-29 is dominating this thread, could the B-32 have been able to carry the bomb?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> ...And, yes, I'm quite aware of the Ar234.


The Ar234 was a great recon and fast bomber platform (and the RLM should have focused on that instead of trying to rework the Me262), but the Ju287 would have been interesting to see how it worked out.



SaparotRob said:


> Seeing as how the B-29 is dominating this thread, could the B-32 have been able to carry the bomb?


The B-32 had issues to iron out, delaying it's entry into service until late January '45, which was not enough time to get it into Silverplate trim and the crews trained by the historic time-frame of the bombing.
It could carry a comparable load as the B-29 along with similar range, so it may have been possible if they wanted to put off the bombing date(s).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 15, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Ar234 was a great recon and fast bomber platform (and the RLM should have focused on that instead of trying to rework the Me262), but the Ju287 would have been interesting to see how it worked out.
> 
> 
> The B-32 had issues to iron out, delaying it's entry into service until late January '45, which was not enough time to get it into Silverplate trim and the crews trained by the historic time-frame of the bombing.
> It could carry a comparable load as the B-29 along with similar range, so it may have been possible if they wanted to put off the bombing date(s).




The Ar234 was a great recon platform. The problem is, once it was available, it only brought back bad news.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 15, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> The Ar234 was a great recon platform. The problem is, once it was available, it only brought back bad news.



Reporting reality isn't a problem except to people who don't want to deal with it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Reporting reality isn't a problem except to people who don't want to deal with it.


Welcome to my world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...


As we've discussed the RAF B-29s (Washington) never carried a nuclear weapon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> As we've discussed the RAF B-29s (Washington) never carried a nuclear weapon.


Yea they didn't, but two things to look at - it gave the bomber command the tools to train if that requirement ever went down (I'm sure the British aircraft industry "would have" been more than capable of doing a Silverplate type mod if required) but more importantly, did the Soviets know that the Washington wasn't able to carry a nuclear weapon? Did anyone else at the time know that either?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea they didn't, but two things to look at - it gave the bomber command the tools to train if that requirement ever went down (I'm sure the British aircraft industry "would have" been more than capable of doing a Silverplate type mod if required) but more importantly, did the Soviets know that the Washington wasn't able to carry a nuclear weapon? Did anyone else at the time know that either?



Apply the same logic to the Lincoln.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Apply the same logic to the Lincoln.


As we've discussed the Lincoln never carried a nuclear weapon. It also played 2nd fiddle to the Washington


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2020)

And at the end of the day the 3rd post war B-29 operator, the Soviet Union DID did have nuclear capability with the Tu-4


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2020)

The RAF took on loan, 87 B-29s as a stop-gap until the Canberra became available in numbers.
They were returned in 1955 except for two, which went to the RAAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As we've discussed the Lincoln never carried a nuclear weapon. It also played 2nd fiddle to the Washington



The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.



That was a good thing! It did fulfil a vital ELINT mission and as mentioned gave Bomber Command a stepping stone into their post WW2 nuclear capability. 

And as mentioned, the Lincoln was perfect for it's post war role - bombing insurgents with no aerial opposition.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.


So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was a good thing! It did fulfil a vital ELINT mission and as mentioned gave Bomber Command a stepping stone into their post WW2 nuclear capability.
> 
> And as mentioned, the Lincoln was perfect for it's post war role - bombing insurgents with no aerial opposition.



ELINT doesn't equal a nuclear bomber. The RAF was given some B-29s and then had to find a mission for them. Assuming the UK had a sizeable number of nuclear weapons they could have delivered by Lincolns at night.


GrauGeist said:


> So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?



AFAIK, the Vickers Valiant was the only RAF aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon. The UK's first non-test nuke, was the Blue Danube and while it would fit in a Lincoln B-B it was too long to be carried in a B-29 B-B.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2020)

Gawd, this thread has been reduced to nit-picking between B-29 and Lancaster derivatives, simply to prove a point rather than to provide information, which is why it was started in the first place...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 15, 2020)

I'm beginning to think it should be closed. I, for one, am just going to ignore the thread from now on.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> AFAIK, the Vickers Valiant was the only RAF aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon.


Whaaat??
A "V bomber" and not a Lancaster?

How is this possible?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Gawd, this thread has been reduced to nit-picking between B-29 and Lancaster derivatives, simply to prove a point rather than to provide information, which is why it was started in the first place...


Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 15, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Whaaat??
> A "V bomber" and not a Lancaster?
> 
> How is this possible?



And not a B-29. I am quite happy to admit that a Valiant was a superior A-bomb delivery platform than a Lancaster or Lincoln. However, the fact is that the B-29 couldn't carry the UK's first nukes, while the Lincoln and Lancaster could.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And at the end of the day the 3rd post war B-29 operator, the Soviet Union DID did have nuclear capability with the Tu-4



The initial TU-4 was not nuclear-capable. The TU-4A introduced nuclear capability. It was more of a contemporary of the B-50, B-36 and B-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> And not a B-29. I am quite happy to admit that a Valiant was a superior A-bomb delivery platform than a Lancaster or Lincoln. However, the fact is that the B-29 couldn't carry the UK's first nukes, while the Lincoln and Lancaster could.


You're certainly dedicated to your mission.

Truth is, the B-29 could have carried anything the Lancaster/Lincoln could, and then some...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 16, 2020)

Isn't that a B-50?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> You're certainly dedicated to your mission.
> 
> Truth is, the B-29 could have carried anything the Lancaster/Lincoln could, and then some...
> View attachment 601992



I’m beginning to think this nothing more than a troll thread, and we should stop feeding it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 16, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Isn't that a B-50?


Unless there's info to the contrary, by the look of the engine nacelles it's a B-29.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> ELINT doesn't equal a nuclear bomber. * The RAF was given some B-29s and then had to find a mission for them.* Assuming the UK had a sizeable number of nuclear weapons they could have delivered by Lincolns at night.
> 
> *SNIP*


Given some B-29's? Find a mission for them?

It's Wiki I know but (emphais mine):
*During the early 1950s, the Royal Air Force urgently needed interim aircraft for its bomber units*, as a "stop gap" replacement for the Avro Lincoln,until British-designed and manufactured jets like the English Electric Canberra and, in the longer term, the so-called "V bombers", became operational. _*From the RAF's point of view the B-29, was a heavy bomber comparable to the Lincoln, albeit with distinct performance and capacity advantages and, as a type that had already been proven operationally, did not detract from the development of the British jets.*_

*A formal agreement with the USA was signed on January 27, 1950 and the USAF loaned the RAF seventy B-29 bombers* which received the serials _WF434_-_WF448_, _WF490_-_WF-514_ and _WF545_-_WF574_. Later another 18 were delivered under serials _WW342_-_WW356_ and _WZ966_-_WZ968_.[9] The aircraft received the service name Boeing Washington B.1 (B.1 from "Bomber Mark 1") with RAF Bomber Command from 1950 as a longer-range nuclear-capable bomber, pending the introduction of the English Electric Canberra in quantity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> And not a B-29. I am quite happy to admit that a Valiant was a superior A-bomb delivery platform than a Lancaster or Lincoln. However, the fact is that the B-29 couldn't carry the UK's first nukes*, while the Lincoln and Lancaster could.*



*BUT THEY DIDN'T!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Isn't that a B-50?


That is a B-29 - and in other news, the B-29 could also (and did) carry the T-12 Cloudmaker bomb, which weighed 43,600 pounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *BUT THEY DIDN'T!*


And if they couldn't it would be the biggest screw up in history, who designs a bomb that they cant drop? The B-29 and the bombs it carried were both modified so the things worked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> And if they couldn't it would be the biggest screw up in history, who designs a bomb that they cant drop? The B-29 and the bombs it carried were both modified so the things worked.



We're talking about the UK's first nukes. They were not designed to be carried in a B-29.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> We're talking about the UK's first nukes. They were not designed to be carried in a B-29.


The Blue Danube was 24 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and weighed 10,000 pounds.
Fat Man was almost 11 feet long, 5 1/2 feet in diameter and weighed 10,300 pounds.

In contrast, the Grand Slam (which the B-29 could carry one in a modified bay OR two externally) was 26 1/2 feet long, almost 4 feet in diameter and weighed 22,000 pounds.

So perhaps you'd like to rethink that?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Blue Danube was 24 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and weighed 10,000 pounds.
> Fat Man was almost 11 feet long, 5 1/2 feet in diameter and weighed 10,300 pounds.
> 
> In contrast, the Grand Slam (which the B-29 could carry one in a modified bay OR two externally) was 26 1/2 feet long, almost 4 feet in diameter and weighed 22,000 pounds.
> ...



The Grandslam was not designed for a B-29 either. The fact that the B-29 could be modded to carry it, for certain special ops is quite irrelevant.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The Grandslam was not designed for a B-29 either. The fact that the B-29 could be modded to carry it, for certain special ops is quite irrelevant.


Conversely, the Little boy/Fat Man was not designed for a Lancaster - so in one short paragraph, you destroyed your entire argument...


----------



## Marcel (Nov 16, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Gawd, this thread has been reduced to nit-picking between B-29 and Lancaster derivatives, simply to prove a point rather than to provide information, which is why it was started in the first place...


Well, if the thread starter thinks this way, I can only agree. Maybe we should close this? Seems to me there is no merit in continuing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Conversely, the Little boy/Fat Man was not designed for a Lancaster - so in one short paragraph, you destroyed your entire argument...



According the bomb's designer, Ramsey, the Lancaster could carry either bomb with the least mods.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2020)

Here we go again...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> According the bomb's designer, Ramsey, the Lancaster could carry either bomb with the least mods.


Ramsey wasn't an aircraft designer.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ramsey wasn't an aircraft designer.



As we've discussed Ramsey was tasked with finding a delivery aircraft for the bombs he was designing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> As we've discussed Ramsey was tasked with finding a *delivery aircraft* for the bombs he was designing.



Yea he did - and those who knew better chose the *better delivery aircraft. * End of story!


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> We're talking about the UK's first nukes. They were not designed to be carried in a B-29.


That wasn't my point, the UK had to have a means of delivery otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time. The grand slam could be carried by a modified Lancaster and reduced performance in range was accepted. If it couldn't be carried by a modified Lancaster it wouldn't have left the drawing board, Barnes Wallace had many ideas for bombs and other weapons, including ideas which needed planes to carry them that didn't yet exist.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That wasn't my point, the UK had to have a means of delivery otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time. The grand slam could be carried by a modified Lancaster and reduced performance in range was accepted. If it couldn't be carried by a modified Lancaster it wouldn't have left the drawing board, Barnes Wallace had many ideas for bombs and other weapons, including ideas which needed planes to carry them that didn't yet exist.



OK, I see your point. The Blue Danube was designed for the jet engined V-bombers (and possibly vice versa).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 16, 2020)

Marcel said:


> Well, if the thread starter thinks this way, I can only agree. Maybe we should close this? Seems to me there is no merit in continuing.


We shouldn't let no merit in continuing, stop us from continuing!

Personally I'm hoping we can get to 85 pages like this thread; XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread

On a more serious note;


GrauGeist said:


> Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.


I am going to second 

 GrauGeist
, there is a lot of good information in this thread. It could have been presented in a better and more succinct method, but it is good information none the less. As with anything else these days, if you don't like the direction of this thread, don't click on the link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 16, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> We're talking about the UK's first nukes. They were not designed to be carried in a B-29.



Yes, but could they be modified to carry them? Or the bomb?

Cheers
Biff


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.



Yes, I agree, but my complaint is that it has degenerated into its current direction from what the original intent was, not that the information within wasn't of use. It clearly is of interest, as we can observe, but the intent has changed. It's become a stage for pointless tit-for-tat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 16, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Yes, but could they be modified to carry them? Or the bomb?
> 
> Cheers
> Biff


According to the always reliable wikipedia, the first bomb wasn't delivered until Nov 1953, by which time the B-29 was being phased out of UK service. The B-29 could have been modded to carry it, but it would have been almost entirely external due to it's length, and the length seems to preclude any minor mods to make it fit a B-29 B-B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Yes, but could they be modified to carry them? Or the bomb?
> 
> Cheers
> Biff


We'd have to look up the serials at Joe Baugher's site to be sure, but I beleive a number of them lent to the RAF were the ones that had external hardpoints.
The RAF started returning the B-29s to the U.S. in 1955.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2020)

What I got from this discourse is “yes” the Lancaster could have been used as an atomic bomber. I tried as best I could to follow the technical stuff. I believe the Lanc could have done it from Okinawa, not Tinian. This is due to the strain of a very high weight, draggy weapon that must be carried over 20,000 feet above the target. The plane must still have a lot of fuel left to go full throttle to clear the blast and maintain high altitude. This would hold true if the target was somewhere in Germany and the strike left from England. The Lancaster would require modifications. The Silverplates were modified B-29’s. With all that said, it would have been a choice of desperation but I think it could have been done. Just not well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 17, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> What I got from this discourse is “yes” the Lancaster could have been used as an atomic bomber. I tried as best I could to follow the technical stuff. I believe the Lanc could have done it from Okinawa, not Tinian. This is due to the strain of a very high weight, draggy weapon that must be carried over 20,000 feet above the target. The plane must still have a lot of fuel left to go full throttle to clear the blast and maintain high altitude. This would hold true if the target was somewhere in Germany and the strike left from England. The Lancaster would require modifications. The Silverplates were modified B-29’s. With all that said, it would have been a choice of desperation but I think it could have been done. Just not well.



Just to summarize my calculations.

The drag of a 'silverplate' modded Lancaster VI and a Fatman would have been similar to a Lancaster with a Grandslam bomb, but of course average weight would have been less due to fuel burn on the long over water flight to Japan.

With a Littleboy and both forward turrets removed, drag would have been somewhat less than a typical Lancaster. 

There's no doubt that a 'Siverplate' Lancaster VI ( ~3000IG internal fuel) could have carried a Littleboy from Tinian - Hiroshima - Okinawa (~2100 miles) because it's range would have been ~3000 statute miles.

A 'Silverplate' Lancaster VI with a Fatman ( ~3000IG internal fuel) would have had a range of at least 2700 statute miles and could have flown a Tinian - Nagasaki - Okinawa (or Kokura, ~2000 miles ) mission. 

These range figures are calculated on a low-high-low mission profile basis with a climb to combat altitude as the aircraft nears Japan, and a bomb release at ~29K ft at a mean aircraft weight of 55k lbs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2020)

*just a reminder*
Per post #731, *none of the above* is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Just to summarize my calculations.



Let me just correct this. Overblown fanciful fiction, of course, since 'Silverplate' Lancaster VI is simply made up for convenience and the assumption that a Fat Man would have little impact on the Lancaster's performance to the same degree as a Grand Slam is assumption without factual evidence, that is, if it could even fit aboard, and there is no evidence that Chadwick EVER said that a Lancaster could carry a Fat Man, so the figures are presumptions at best and fantasy at worst. 

The reality of the situation is that the Lancaster could not have flown the mission as it was flown by B-29s. It might have been able to carry either Little Boy or Thin Man, but if it was to go to Japan from Tinian it would need in-flight refuelling. Without, it couldn't do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 17, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> *just a reminder*
> Per post #731, *none of the above* is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.



Do we have to do this again?

_"Ramsey was assigned to head the Delivery Group of the Ordnance Division and later
served as deputy to Pasion." *His immediate tasks were to design the bomb casings that
would carry the gun-assembly bomb and implosion bomb. *By the end of 1943 it had
already been established that the gun-type bomb-Thin Man-would weigh on the order
of five tons. Ramsey assumed that the implosion bomb would weigh approximately the
same. *Given their size and weight*, there were only two possible choices for an aircraft to
deliver the weapons, the British Lancaster or the American B-29, which had begun
production in September._

_Ramsey favored the Lancaster and traveled to Canada in early October 1943 to meet Roy
Chadwick, the plane's chief designer, Chadwick was in Canada to observe the initial
Lancasters coming off the production line at the Victory Aircraft Works, Milton Airdrome,
in Toronto. *Ramsey showed Chadwick preliminary sketches of the large-thin-shaped and*_
*stubby shaped-bombs and later wrote with more details.(12) Chadwick assured Ramsey that*
_*the Lancaster could accommodate them.*_

_When Ramsey returned, he wrote to Parsons suggesting that the Lancaster be seriously
considered and planned a memo to General Groves recommending that a modified
Lancaster be used.(13)*The bomb bay was thirty-three feet long and sixty-one inches wide.
The depth was only thirty-eight inches, but this could be modified*. The Lancaster's ceiling
was 27,000 feet, its speed 285 miles per hour, and takeoff required only 3,750 feet of runway
-a critical matter wherever it would be based._ 

(12). Norman F, Ramsey Jr. to Roy Chadwick, October 23, 1943, Folder Dr. Norman Ramsey, Box 6,
Tolman Files, RG 227/81, NARA.

(13). Memo, N. F, Ramsey to Capt. W. . Parsons, October 14, 1943, Lancaster Aircraft, Folder Dr Norman Ramsey... NARA
_" (Norris, pages 316-317 Racing for the Bomb)"_

Ramsey specially checked to ensure that the Lancaster could carry the bombs in it's B-B before they were produced.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Let me just correct this. Overblown fanciful fiction, of course, since 'Silverplate' Lancaster VI is simply made up for convenience and the assumption that a Fat Man would have little impact on the Lancaster's performance to the same degree as a Grand Slam is assumption without factual evidence, that is, if it could even fit aboard, and there is no evidence that Chadwick EVER said that a Lancaster could carry a Fat Man, so the figures are presumptions at best and fantasy at worst.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that the Lancaster could not have flown the mission as it was flown by B-29s. It might have been able to carry either Little Boy or Thin Man, but if it was to go to Japan from Tinian it would need in-flight refuelling. Without, it couldn't do it.



The Lancaster VI existed, it could carry either bomb and it had the TO power, lifting capacity and B-B volume to carry the bomb and the needed fuel. I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence but the data is all there. The mission planners had the option for a Tinian - target - Okinawa plan. They also had the option for an Iwo JIma - target - Iwo JIma or Okinawa plan,


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Do we have to do this again?



Well then stop with the 'Silverplate Lancaster VI' nonsense and I'll stop correcting you.



RCAFson said:


> I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence but the data is all there.



The data you present is a hodge podge of information taken from whatever suits you to justify your point, and it doesn't really prove anything since there is NO reliable data that can accurately verify what you are attempting to prove, so, no, the data IS NOT there. Just because Koopernic said so is NOT justifiable conclusive research. You can't just pick and choose what you wanna believe and state that it is fact. Doesn't work like that. 

Yes, as a fictitious scenario what you're proposing warrants as being plausible, because you want it to be, but realistically it's a non-starter; the Lancaster could not do the Tinian raid without in-flight refuelling. It doesn't have the range, the height nor the speeds to do the raid successfully. With IFR it might just be able to.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Well then stop with the 'Silverplate Lancaster VI' nonsense and I'll stop correcting you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's how research works. You take data, from where ever you can find it, analyse it, and use to it prove a hypothesis.

The wartime measured and calculated AMPG for various mods of the Lancaster is available online. The ability of the Lancaster to lift heavier loads than required for a Tinian-target-Hiroshima plan is proven because Lancasters did it on actual operational missions and we have the test reports that were used to verify that the missions were feasible. The B-B volume of a Lancaster is easy to calculate, and when you do it's obvious that it has the volume to carry either A-bomb and needed extra fuel capacity via conformal B-B tanks. 

AMPG = calculated during wartime and available online
operational ceiling data = proven based upon wartime test reports
weight lift capacity = proven based upon test data and operational missions
B-B volume to carry the bomb and extra fuel is a simple calculation and also proven by the ability of the Lancaster to carry a Tallboy and a 400OG aux B-B fuel tank.
Aircraft drag whilst carrying a FATMAN has also been calculated.

Putting this all together, we end up with a "Silverplate" Lancaster VI, with both forward turrets removed, conformal ~850 IG B-B fuel tanks for a total capacity of 3000IG of fuel, a single 10K lb A-bomb, and a TOW of ~70k lbs versus a proven max TO weight of 72K lbs.


_"You can't just pick and choose what you wanna believe and state that it is fact. Doesn't work like that."_

The *factual data* is all there, online. You're the master of picking and choosing what you wanna believe and it seems that no amount of data or reasoned argument is ever going to be enough for you, is it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2020)

This tit for tat bickering is getting very old.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 17, 2020)

Perhaps it's back in the earlier pages (I'm too lazy to look at the moment) but where is it proven that the Lancaster could fly the mission profile? I don't mean the take off from Tinian, I mean the part over Hiroshima and the actual drop. I see a lot of talk of in flight refueling but all the speeds and altitudes seem to be lower and slower than the Enola Gay profile. Is this thing capable of flying the mission successfully in the face of enemy AAA and interceptors? can it get high enough to drop and then speed away from the blast? 

I'm guessing that Enola Gay did the turn and burn at what my uncle would have called Power Setting 1 i.e. BALLS OUT. I mean, I'm all for fighting for king and country but I wouldn't want to be irradiated by Little Boy or Fat Man just because my aircraft didn't have the ability to get me out of the blast zone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Perhaps it's back in the earlier pages (I'm too lazy to look at the moment) but where is it proven that the Lancaster could fly the mission profile? I don't mean the take off from Tinian, I mean the part over Hiroshima and the actual drop. I see a lot of talk of in flight refueling but all the speeds and altitudes seem to be lower and slower than the Enola Gay profile. Is this thing capable of flying the mission successfully in the face of enemy AAA and interceptors? can it get high enough to drop and then speed away from the blast?
> 
> I'm guessing that Enola Gay did the turn and burn at what my uncle would have called Power Setting 1 i.e. BALLS OUT. I mean, I'm all for fighting for king and country but I wouldn't want to be irradiated by Little Boy or Fat Man just because my aircraft didn't have the ability to get me out of the blast zone.


I don't recall mention of it during the Hiroshima mission, but Bockscar got buffeted pretty hard after Fat Man detonated at Nagasaki and they were at 30,000 feet.
Additionally, the AA defences around Kokura were very active due the the previous night's fire-bombing of nearby cities and even at 30,000 feet, it was uncomfortably close to the B-29s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 17, 2020)

I’m going to stop this. I don’t like the tone of the discussion and it sounds like beating a dead horse. If the normal scenario is applicable, this will soon turn ugly and we’ll have to ban people. I don’t like to ban people, so i close the thread. For complains you are free to send me a PM and I’m willing to listen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

