# Versatile Heavy Bombers



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2006)

right, let's start of with the lanc Vs. B-24, right sys, what've you got? what makes you so dillusional you think the B-24 was more versatile than the lanc?


----------



## Magister (Jan 1, 2006)

I have a better idea. Let's start out with the B-29 vs. the Lancaster. The best Brit vs. the best Yank.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2006)

Not a very realistic comparison, is it? Let's keep it in the same class. We know full well that the British had nothing that rated at the B-29's level at the time.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

I wouldnt say the Lanc was less versatile than the B24, and I hope I wasnt misunderstood as saying such that.

I said that both planes were versatile and it would be an even tie for the two in that catagory. And that would be for WW2 versions only, as post war they were both obsolete.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.


----------



## Camarogenius (Jan 1, 2006)

As A Proud Ameican, I Still have to give it to the Lanc. Normal Bomb loads, the dam buster, the grand slam that got the Turpitz, the Lanc was pretty flexible.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> ...as post war they were both obsolete.


As bombers certainly, but both found uses in other areas. Maritime surveillance and search and rescue for example. The Lanc was even used for Arctic surveillance for a time. They were both readily adaptable designs, and while not the newest aircraft in existence by the end of the war, their lives weren't completely over yet either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.



That's unfair - the B-32 was at least a technology decade ahead of the Lanc, it would be like comparing it to the B-29


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

Aside from the more powerfull engines, they were similar. Although the B32 was designed for an operating altitude of 20,000 ft, if used against Japan, they would both be operating from far lower.


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Why lower?


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Timescales seem to be slipping with planes getting later. In a couple of days I will be putting the Canberra in for Tiger Force, design started in in 1945


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

the whole idea of us debating about the B-24 Vs. lancaster was to settle a point sys is undecided about in the best bomber thread, i think that lanc's more versatile than the B-24, which can be proved with her huge bomb bay, the wide range of missions she undertook, the wide range of payloads carried, the fact she was very succesfully fitted with a completely different type of engine, the electronic warfare instruments carried, not to mention all the work she did as an engine test bed not only for piston engines but also for up to two jet engines at the same time! oh yeah and she was converted into a civilian airliner and Britain's best transport of the second world war...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Alright lets make up a list of what they could do (I am sure that this list is incomplete for both aircraft and that more will be thrown in):

Lancaster

Heavy Bomber
Anti Shipping
Maritime Patrole
ASW
Search And Rescue
Electronic Warfare
Transport
Air Refuel Tanker
Photo Recon

B-24 Liberator

Heavy Bomber
Transport
B-29 Trainer (RB-24L)
Flying Bomb Drone
Photo Recon
Maritime Patrol

Like I said though, I am sure that lists for both of these aircraft are incomplete. They both were very versatile. 

Syscom I have read posts by you saying that the B-24 was versatile but you have also used that as an arguement that it was better than a Lanc. I dont think there was any role that the B-24 could do that the Lancaster could not do, and vise versa except for the Lanc carrying Tallboy bombs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

i think there are many the lanc could do that the B-24 couldn't! and i've done a bit of research on the B-24 varients and i haven't really been blown away  i mean how many different combinations of bombs could the B-24 take internally? could she carry large parachute mines? could she carry an upkeep? not a chance, could she carry a tallboy or grandslam, that's even less likely, what about all the electronic aids the lanc carried, how often was the B-24 used as an engine test bed? the lanc was used to test many piston engines mounted in the nose and even how two outboard engines taken out and replaced with jet engines!not to mention jet engines mounted in the tail and bomb bay, the B-24's bomb bay was barely big enough for bombs let alone engines


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think there are many the lanc could do that the B-24 couldn't! and i've done a bit of research on the B-24 varients and i haven't really been blown away  i mean how many different combinations of bombs could the B-24 take internally? could she carry large parachute mines? could she carry an upkeep? not a chance, could she carry a tallboy or grandslam, that's even less likely, what about all the electronic aids the lanc carried, how often was the B-24 used as an engine test bed? the lanc was used to test many piston engines mounted in the nose and even how two outboard engines taken out and replaced with jet engines!not to mention jet engines mounted in the tail and bomb bay, the B-24's bomb bay was barely big enough for bombs let alone engines



Lanc we have been over this before, those are not roles. I really doubt there was any ROLE that the Lancaster could do that the B-24 could not do.

Lanc you add a turret to an aircraft and you call it a role and call it versatile.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

so to you versatile just means the number of roles it could perform? this's where we differ because to me the ammount you can change an aircraft also counts as versatility............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

The B-24 could have been changed just as much.

Lanc I am with you on the fact that the Lancaster was better than the B-24 however versatility is a very futile argument because they were both very very very versatile.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

i see where you're coming from but i hope you can see where i'm coming from, the number of modifications that could be made to an aircraft is surely a good marker of versatility? and there're more modifications made to the lanc that the B-24 couldn't support than vice versa.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

And how is that. The only really big modification I can think of would be the Tall Boy, big deal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

actually the lanc could carry a tallboy without modification, the B-24 couldn't even carry one, let alone the grandslams, could the B-24 even carry a cookie? i doubt her bomb bay would let her, which discounts anything larger, what about lifeboats, the lanc could carry them whilst the B-24 couldn't, what about the engine test beds, could the B-24 do that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Lanc the B-24 carried lifeboats also and would drop them into the water just like a Lancaster to rescue people. 

And lets see the Lancaster B MK.1 was a conversion (aka modification) of the Lancaster MK.1 to carry the Grand Slam bomb. The Bomb Bay doors also had to be removed to do so as well as aerodynamic fairings fitted. So the regular Lancaster could not carry a Grand Slam.

Also my understanding was that the Lancaster required modification to the bomb bay doors as well as the bomb bay in order to carry the Tall Boy bombs.

Also lets see this is just what I found upond doing a quick google search:

*The weight of the Tallboy and the high altitude required of the bombing aircraft meant that the Lancaster bombers used had to be specially adapted. Armour plating and even defensive armament were removed to reduce weight and the bomb-bay doors had to be adapted. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb

So you were saying Lanc that the the Lancaster did not have to be modified to carry a Tallboy bomb? Think that one over again. Basically what I am saying here Lanc is what is good for the Lanc is good for other other aircraft also. Just because other aircraft had to be modified does not mean the Lancaster had to be modified either. The same goes for the Lancaster vs. B-24. 

Dont discredit things about the B-24 and automatically assume the Lancaster was different. They were a lot more equal in versatility than you would like to admit.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Glider said:



> Why lower?



The Jetstream for one. The B29's flying at 30,000 feet couldnt hit anything with winds of 200 mph blowing them and the bombs around 

Second is the fighter threat was nil.

Third is the Japanese flak was poor.


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

I understand that but you said that the B29 would have to operate at less than 20,000 ft over Japan, whilst the Jetstream as I understand it is at 30,000 ft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Jet Streams are found between 7 to 8 miles above the surface. Therfore yes theoretically the B-29's did not need to be below 20,000 ft. I can not tell you at what alltitude they were bombing at though.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Im going to enquire on the B29 website what altitudes they bombed at in the last few months of the war.

I know it was below 30,000 ft, but nothing like getting verifying info from the men who flew the missions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Agreed. I am sure it was not below 20,000ft however. That would have just been dumb, the Japanese airforce was not dead yet. Close but not dead.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed. I am sure it was not below 20,000ft however. That would have just been dumb, the Japanese airforce was not dead yet. Close but not dead.


Agreed.

I'm am with you Lanc on this one, I think that the Lancaster is more versitile than the B-24. Both could do a great many roles well and were used in these roles, both are good aircraft but the Lanc has it for me.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2006)

The B-29 bombed from as low as 7,000ft when firebombing.

I think Adler is right in that the B-24 could do any role the Lanc could do and that through modifications the B-24 could also do most if not all the test bed functions of the Lanc (in fact there is a cargo version of the B-24 still doing fire bombing in the northwest, I've seen it).

I do feel though that tha Lanc, maybe just through the British willingness to try oddball things, slightly more versatile than the B-24 in actual use.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

FOr Oddball I prefer imaginative solutions to problems. Less chance of the white men in coats coming for us


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

to carry a tallboy no modifications were needed, the only one nessisary was the fitting of slightly bulged bomb bay doors, the lancs chosen to carry the tallboy already had these due to the 8,000lb blockbuster, and to carry a grand slam the only modification needed was the romoval of the bomb bay doors (the british liked smooth things so they faired in the bomb bay too), the turrets and men were only romoved in the actual operational lancs to increase range, the could lift it with the turrets and men in place............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to carry a tallboy no modifications were needed, the only one nessisary was the fitting of slightly bulged bomb bay doors, the lancs chosen to carry the tallboy already had these due to the 8,000lb blockbuster, and to carry a grand slam the only modification needed was the romoval of the bomb bay doors (the british liked smooth things so they faired in the bomb bay too), the turrets and men were only romoved in the actual operational lancs to increase range, the could lift it with the turrets and men in place............



Lanc listen to yourself. That is a modification of the Lancaster. The bomb would not fit in there with the standard doors. 

I do have to say Lanc you need to let go of your one sidedness here and realize what you are saying. That is a modification!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

you said it needed modification to take a tallboy! it doesn't, it needs modification to take a grand slam! were you getting your bombs mixed up?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

Putting in slightly modified bomb bay doors for the Lanc. is a minor change. Probably could be done by a few mechanics in a few hours. Wouldnt change the aerodymamics to any big deal of the plane either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

are you aware of how big the tallboy is? the B-24 could just bout take the weight but where're you gonna put it? it aint going in the B-24's bomb bay.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

The B-24 had "sliding" bomb bay doors, this would of been impossible


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

didn't crews also enter the B-24 through the bomb bay?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> didn't crews also enter the B-24 through the bomb bay?


I believe so - I also think there was a door near the tail. I was in one once several years ago, I remember entering from the bomb bay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

i was trying to read up on the B-24 a bit this morning and thought that was a bit weird.........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

To clarify, I reffered to the Lanc as having the change that would be no big deal. I edited my post to clarify that.

The B24 couldnt be modified easily.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

thanks for clarifying that, sorry for the missunderstanding..........

and is that a general statement about the B-24 or just for a tallboy?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

if youre saying that the bomb bays didnt need extensive modification to carry the bombs, I will yield to your facts.

I would consider "extensive" or "moderate" modifications as having the airframe changed to the point it would have to go to hanger for the work, maybe even bringing in an engineer to look at it to see that the plane wont fall apart from the change.

And the B24 couldnt be chnaged without major work done. The center "aisle" was a stress bearing part of the airframe. If you move it, it looks like the longitudal strength of the fuselauge would be compromised.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

which also rules out the B-24 as being able to carry most of the lanc's payloads............


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

It could carry the most widely used bombs.

500 LBS
1000 LBS

and the incenderie cluster bombs.

Anything else was a waste of effort.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

that's america's most widely used bombs, the british 4,000lb cookie was one of the best bombs of the war, and one of the most effective.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2006)

Lanc even you said that the Lancaster could not fit a Tallboy into its bombay with the standard doors. So a modified Lancaster had to carry them. Whether that modification was intended for the Tallboy or the Grandslam or whatever bomber it was. That slight modification is still a modification.

Here are your words:

*to carry a tallboy no modifications were needed, the only one nessisary was the fitting of slightly bulged bomb bay doors, the lancs chosen to carry the tallboy already had these due to the 8,000lb blockbuster,*

Lanc that is a modificaton, and without it the Tallboys would not have fit.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2006)

I think we have to discriminate to allow certain changes. There is a world of difference in trying to fit a bomb such as the Tallboy or even a 4,000 lb bomb into a bomb bay that isn't big enough and would involve structural changes to get it to fit. As opposed to bulged doors and the removal of some armour.
Also of course, the Lancaster changes had been designed, built and used in anger. Any other bomber would have had to start from scratch.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 4, 2006)

I must agree with you. The Tallboy and the Lanc indeed belong together.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2006)

I agree with you 100%. My whole argument is that Lanc is so biased toward the Lancaster that everything on it was perfect, which was far from the truth.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2006)

Lanc, Biased? never noticed myself, honest!!!


----------



## R988 (Jan 4, 2006)

Interestingly Churchill used a B-24 as his personal transport aircraft, his own preferance according to some sources,







B-24 served on every front of the war, Lancaster was Europe only
B-24 production was 18,188 produced to the Lancasters 7,366.
The B-24 did a wider variety of roles during the war than the Lancaster, primarily because there was more of them and because it could do them very well. It was the best maritime patrol aircraft the allies had thanks to its range it could reach deep into the Atlantic to close the gap against the Uboats. It had range second only to the B-29 and by the end of the war was cleared for almost twice it's original take off weight, though it was very difficult to fly in that configuration. The B-24 was the classic all rounder, good in a huge variety of roles but outstanding in none.

The Lancaster was the most versitile bomber, in that it did those other tasks like patrol and transport but not really superior to or even as well as the B-24. But it did a lot more tricky and fancy bombing raids with 'exotic' weaponry like the Dambusters, Tirpitz raid, and various other extremely demanding precision bombing missions that few, if any, other aircraft could have performed as successfully.

If you talking about versitility in all tasks, the B-24 was the best all rounder hands down, but if your talking specificially about versitility in bombing missions then the Lanc is the clear winner.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2006)

yes but then Churchill and the King used an Avro York as their transport of choice, the York of course using a large number of lancaster components.............

and adler I realise that if a lanc intended to carry the tallboy and already had the "straight" bomb bay doors as i call them (not bulged) then they would have to be fitted, i only said the lanc wouldn't need out and out modification because most lancasters already had the bulged bomb bay doors fitted by this point, i can't say for sure but they may already have been standard by this point..........

and the lancaster was used very successfully in the maritime patrol role post war.............


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 5, 2006)

Still I think thats what makes some of these bombers so versatile what the fact that they were so modifiable and it was easy to do too, much easier than it would be to do the same to a B-1 or 52. Not just the Lanc was modifiable but look at all the mutations of the B-17. I think the coolest one was the airsea rescue version. It even appeared in a James Bond movie, I think it was You Only LIve Twice.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

R988 said:


> Interestingly Churchill used a B-24 as his personal transport aircraft, his own preferance according to some sources,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree 100%%%%


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and adler I realise that if a lanc intended to carry the tallboy and already had the "straight" bomb bay doors as i call them (not bulged) then they would have to be fitted, i only said the lanc wouldn't need out and out modification because most lancasters already had the bulged bomb bay doors fitted by this point, i can't say for sure but they may already have been standard by this point..........



Roger that they allready had it, just that we understand that that was a modification.

However my personal take on the matter is, both bombers were extremely versatile and I think they were both equal in that aspects.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2006)

i think the whole arguments dying out now anyway, and the opinion poll's put the lanc ahead of the B-24..........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

Youre going to put your faith in the opinion polls?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2006)

i'm putting my faith in my own knowledge, the opinion polls are backing me up..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Youre going to put your faith in the opinion polls?



Well considering there are some very knowledgable people here that voted in those polls, Id buy them.


----------



## blue swede (Jan 5, 2006)

I guess that I'm going to have to vote for the German HE177 Grief bomber.

The rational is that it served as: 

strategic bomber, 

tacticaul bomber, 

anti-shipping bomber, 

anti-shipping rocket platform, 

anti-tank attack aircraft, 

reconnissance aircraft, 

relief drop aircraft 

and transport.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2006)

an you have it proven with what SG that the Greif appeared as an anti-tank a/c ? you are misguided I believe


----------



## blue swede (Jan 5, 2006)

Thank you for the reasonable response.

I believe it was fitted with an anti-tank gun. Sorry if I was presumming that it meant that it actually saw action in that role. I'll have to check my rescources.

Thanks again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Well while your opinion is valid and all and thankyou for you opinon. The He-177 was no where near as versatile as the B-24, B-17, or the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well while your opinion is valid and all and thankyou for you opinon. The He-177 was no where near as versatile as the B-24, B-17, or the Lancaster.



Agree!


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2006)

I certainly think that the He 177 is one of the 'what might have been stories' if they had hasked for a Heavy Loong Range bombers and left the manufacturers to get on with it.
But I am afraid it wasn't and the B24 and Lanc had he better of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I agree. The He-177 had good potential but never fully developed mostly due to its engine problems....


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 9, 2006)

That seemed to be a major problem of the Axis a lack of heavy long distance bombers. But also in the beginning of the war thier doctorine did not call for it.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

And that is the reason why. The Blitzkrieg tactic did not call for it and because of the initial success of the Blitzkrieg Hitler wanted dive bombers for support of the ground forces. 

This offcourse was a big mistake.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 9, 2006)

So then, and I know I can sit there and look at performance charts all day but I don't think it will answer my questions, how come Luftwaffe mediums had such short legs while USAAF mediums did not? Did thier engines use up that much gas? B-25s and B-26s seemed to be able to stay over the continent for days compared to lets say the 111 over England? 
I know that it would have been more bombs on target vs a heavy but if the 111s could have extended thier legs, in the Battle of Britian, they could have done more damage. 
Again was this a MPG issue 'cause the '25s and '26s where heavier aircraft as far as wieght and it seems to me they had much better range than most of thier Axis counterparts save Bettys and I know why these aircraft could go far.

I hope I made sense
:{)

PS moderators, the last few times I have tried to preview my answers, the server asks me again (and yes I have put it to automatically log me in each time) for password and user name. And then it will not post my post.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

Well here is what I believe the reason for that is:

1. The German bombers such as the He-111 were originally designed as transports. When you fitted all the bombs that took up tank space and then add defensive armament this will all effect the range the aircraft can fly.

2. The German bombers that were in use were designed before the B-26 and so forth. If you look at later German bombers there range was much better than those of the earlier bombers such as the He-111 and Do-17.

3. The German bombers that were designed before WW2 started were designed just for that. They were designed with the Blitzkrieg type of tactics that Hitler thought would win him the war. They were also not designed to be over England for a long time. There mission was to get there blitz and go home. They did not plan on the war lasting very long. 

Again if you look at later German bomber designs, there were designed with this weakness in mind and had longer ranges.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 10, 2006)

Nevertheless, like the 17, were the G version was nothing like the B version. I just wonder if the boys at Hienkel thought of re-doing the 111 or was the design at its limit. Remeber the 17 and the 111 are contemporaries as far as original technology.

:{)


----------



## crowdpleaser (Jan 10, 2006)

im building an 1:72 scale model of a lanc dambuster, does any1 show me theirs.

by the way, are theire any more dutch people registered ?

cp 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2006)

i don't have any pictures of dambuster models, however any questions you have i will gladly answer............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Nevertheless, like the 17, were the G version was nothing like the B version. I just wonder if the boys at Hienkel thought of re-doing the 111 or was the design at its limit. Remeber the 17 and the 111 are contemporaries as far as original technology.
> 
> :{)



Just my thoughts and that would be that the He-111 could not be redesigned much more to accomadate more fuel.


----------



## crowdpleaser (Jan 11, 2006)

well not partically any questions but do you have a nice wallpaper of a nice lanc.

thnx 8) 

cp


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

any varients of the lanc in particular? i have several large shots that could be used as wallpaper, including the ones below, these aren't all of them so if you want something else i'll see what i can do...........

i really am sorry for those of you on dial-up


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 11, 2006)

HMMM I think Lanc likes Lancs, wadda y'all think. Seriously though the 1st shot of the RCAF Lanc with the drones is outstanding! I forgot the designation but they look like the same as the US variants.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

that's the Mk.10 DC (Drone Controller) only two were converted..................


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Nice pics Lanc, stole some for myself...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 11, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's the Mk.10 DC (Drone Controller) only two were converted..................



Are they target drones or recon drones. Just wondering if they are the same the US used.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > that's the Mk.10 DC (Drone Controller) only two were converted..................
> ...



They were.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

i think what FB means is that they were the same as the US had, he didn't really answer your question about thier role  so i will, they were target drones (well as far as i know )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

"The Teledyne-Ryan Firebee drone was acquired by the RCAF to provide training for interceptor crews probably in anticipation of the procurement of the CF-105 Arrow interceptor. At the same time, two Lancaster Mk 10 aircraft were reactivated from storage to act as "mother" ships for the drones. 

The Lancaster modifications were carried out by Fairey Aviation and included fitting of Firebee launch racks under each wing along with the associated electrical wiring and control units. The Lancasters were then operated by the Central Experimental Proving Establishment and the drones were primarily planned for testing and evaluating of then present and proposed future weapons systems. After release from the launch aircraft, the Firebees under remote control could climb to 40,00 feet in approximately 10 minutes and could be made to perform any manouevre of which contemporary high performance aircraft were capable. An airborne duration of 1 hr 20 minutes was typical. The drones could also be fitted with wingtip mounted radar reflector pods to ensure optimum radar energy reflection. Assuming the drone was not shot down, recovery was then effected by means of a two-stage parachute, which had a built-in flotation system. Refurbishment and re-use for up to 15 operational flights was possible."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

That first pic is outstanding, if were like Lanc I would make it my wallpaper too but Im not.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "The Teledyne-Ryan Firebee drone was acquired by the RCAF to provide training for interceptor crews probably in anticipation of the procurement of the CF-105 Arrow interceptor. At the same time, two Lancaster Mk 10 aircraft were reactivated from storage to act as "mother" ships for the drones.
> 
> The Lancaster modifications were carried out by Fairey Aviation and included fitting of Firebee launch racks under each wing along with the associated electrical wiring and control units. The Lancasters were then operated by the Central Experimental Proving Establishment and the drones were primarily planned for testing and evaluating of then present and proposed future weapons systems. After release from the launch aircraft, the Firebees under remote control could climb to 40,00 feet in approximately 10 minutes and could be made to perform any manouevre of which contemporary high performance aircraft were capable. An airborne duration of 1 hr 20 minutes was typical. The drones could also be fitted with wingtip mounted radar reflector pods to ensure optimum radar energy reflection. Assuming the drone was not shot down, recovery was then effected by means of a two-stage parachute, which had a built-in flotation system. Refurbishment and re-use for up to 15 operational flights was possible."



Thanx. I am ignorant when it comes to drones. Its one of those pieces of technology from the '50s and the '60s that I don't think about because for some strange reason my brain thinks that this type of stuff was beyond the technological scope of the era. My subconscious knows they existed but sometimes my consciousness doesn't.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

They just really do not interest me.


----------



## crowdpleaser (Jan 13, 2006)

wow! thanx m8 there great!

cp


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They just really do not interest me.



That too. 

:{)


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 30, 2006)

I was not surprised to see who sterted this topic... 
Guys lanc wants us to keep talking about the lanc forever!!!
Well he is lucky because we never get bored!!


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

At least we quit talking about French Bombers.  

:{)


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> At least we quit talking about French Bombers.
> 
> :{)


Don't get him started...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 31, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> actually the lanc could carry a tallboy without modification, the B-24 couldn't even carry one, let alone the grandslams, could the B-24 even carry a cookie? i doubt her bomb bay would let her, which discounts anything larger, what about lifeboats, the lanc could carry them whilst the B-24 couldn't, what about the engine test beds, could the B-24 do that?



I've seen a photo of a 24 carrying a life boat and I've seen the B-24 described as performing all the rolls Adler had the Lanc doing above. Some of the atributes you have given the Lancaster after the war including engine testing and such were performed by By B-17s which were retained after the war. The transport version of the B-24 was far better than the Lancasters but as that really wasn't a very important use of the aircraft it doesn't reall matter.

The Lanc has the edge because of her bombay and equaly because the British were willing to dedicate the time and resources to persue the "Special Missions", so in a way the AAF has a part of that in the fact that enough pressure was relieved from the situation in Britian to allow such extravagances to occur.  

wmaxt


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2006)

What about the remote control B-24s that were crashed into V1 and V2 sites?


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 1, 2006)

Lanc do you have any pics of the two RAAF Lancasters G-George or Q-Queenie that where used for fund raising tours in Australia. 
Queenie (ED390) was actually the pattern aircraft for local manufacture which did not occur, and made history in 1943 by being the largest aircraft to fly under the Sydney Harbour bridge - what a sight that would have been!!
G-George W7483/A66-2 is the famous 460 squadron RAAF Lanc that flew 90 missions, including 16 to Berlin. Still proudly on display today at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

These are the only pics I have.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

I agree, Queenie VI looks good in Silver.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

> so in a way the AAF has a part of that in the fact that enough pressure was relieved from the situation in Britian to allow such extravagances to occur



that's a bit of a stupid comment, you make it sound like you were doing all the work whilst we were faffing around wasting time...........

and no sorry i don't have any extra pics, lancs in foreign service are hard to get photos of..........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

> and no sorry i don't have any extra pics, lancs in foreign service are hard to get photos of..........



Theyre hard to find because all the countries asked for and received B24's


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

it's waaayyyy too late to be getting into this one again


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2006)

It is but they got B-24's because they were avaliable Lancs were in short supply and priority went to Bomber Command.


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > and no sorry i don't have any extra pics, lancs in foreign service are hard to get photos of..........
> 
> 
> 
> Theyre hard to find because all the countries asked for and received B24's



LOL  It never ends!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Only because he can not admit he is wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

Why admit to be wrong when you know youre right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

LOL 

Keep telling yourself what helps you sleep at night!


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 6, 2006)

Still it would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks was the most modifiable bomber ofthe war. And I am not just talking about cutting out the bomb bay to make space for a bigger bomb either. Out of all these heavies or mediums or lights, which one was the most modifiable. If go with the 24. But I'll post my reasons later, gotta go have a pow wow with the boss.

:{)


----------



## Twitch (Feb 7, 2006)

Since we can have a fantasy flight 60+ years later knowing what we know now and play "let's pretend," we may choose which plane we'd rather fly on a mission.

B-24 crew members have told me and have stated elsewahere, I'm sure, that "when you lose an engine on the Lib you start sweating 'cause unlike the B-17 she doesn't fly on 2!!"

I don't care how many were built or how much they carried, THAT is the deciding factor for me choosing to sortie in a Lancaster.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 7, 2006)

Id rather have a dozen .50's and four radial engines.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Still it would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks was the most modifiable bomber ofthe war. And I am not just talking about cutting out the bomb bay to make space for a bigger bomb either. Out of all these heavies or mediums or lights, which one was the most modifiable. If go with the 24. But I'll post my reasons later, gotta go have a pow wow with the boss.
> 
> :{)


ANYONE GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THE mOSSIE?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 7, 2006)

Glider said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > Still it would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks was the most modifiable bomber ofthe war. And I am not just talking about cutting out the bomb bay to make space for a bigger bomb either. Out of all these heavies or mediums or lights, which one was the most modifiable. If go with the 24. But I'll post my reasons later, gotta go have a pow wow with the boss.
> ...


Or the JU-88...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 7, 2006)

I'd go for Mossie, Lanc or the Hally as most versatile


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 7, 2006)

Ummm, the Mossie could not function in the role of a heavy bomber, and perhaps in the medium bomber role.

If there were also very important roles that the Lanc and B24 performed, it was maritime patrol and transport.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ummm, the Mossie could not function in the role of a heavy bomber.



Good point my fault


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2006)

What was the Halifax like anyway? It's over-shadowed by the Lancaster, so I know nothing about it. Except I've heard it "set itself alight" when the under-carriage was down ... I don't know how, I don't know why ... it's just what I've read.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 7, 2006)

For my money, the Mosquito is actually a light bomber  Just two crew and the orignal unarmed bomber variants weighed just under 13,000 lbs empty. It gets my vote for the most versatile light bomber.

Most versatile medium bomber would obviously be the Ju-88 family. The only real other competitiors in my mind are the Pe-2 and the B-25, altough the excellent and reliable A-20 deserves a mention as does the Japanese G4M, which had 30 examples converted as a heavy escort fighter, as well as recon, transport, paratroop, ELINT, VIP and other roles.

In terms of versatility for 4 engined heavies its the Lancaster 1st by a small margin, the B-24 and Halifax tied for second and closely followed by the immortal B-17. Honourable mentions to the P-108 and the Stirling.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2006)

i'll go along with mossie for most versatile light bomber (although it's hard to class the mossie like that)........

Ju-88 for most versatile medium.........

lanc for most versatile heavy, halibag second..............

and you've said the B-24's so versatile, you haven't really given any examples, how many different loads/bombs could she carry? what special missions was she modified for? what different roles?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 8, 2006)

I'd go along with that. Mossie for light bomber, Ju-88 for medium and Lancaster for heavy bomber.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

Both Lancaster and B-24 did ASW, SAR, transport and ELINT. The B-24 was used as a "tanker" cargo aircraft, delivering fuel over the Hump, the Lancaster was used as an aerial tanker (don't know if it was an operational situation) as early as 1949....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

I believe some B24's also did nighttime maritime strikes in the SW Pacific.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I believe some B24's also did nighttime maritime strikes in the SW Pacific.



They did...

http://www.vpnavy.org/vp_vpb.html


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 9, 2006)

Also if I am not mistaken B-24s also dropped supplies for POWs in both the ETO and PTO.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Also if I am not mistaken B-24s also dropped supplies for POWs in both the ETO and PTO.
> 
> :{)



They probably did!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 9, 2006)

I am pretty sure that both the B-17 and B-24 dropped supplies for POWs. They were also doing supply drops for European civilians during operations Chowhound and Manna. The RAF were the first to drop food for civilians:



> On the 29th of April the food drops started. This first day would be a decisive day for the whole operation. 242 Lancaster's, the four-engine bombers of the RAF, flew that day to six different drop-zones in Holland. Together they would drop almost 535 tons of food on the first day.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2006)

B29's also did that when the war in the PTO ended.

I also remember reading that after the disasterous typhoons of late 1944 and early 1945, the AAF and USN instituted regular weather recon of the central and western Pacific.

Among the dedicated weather recon aircraft were B24's and PB4Y's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> B29's also did that when the war in the PTO ended.
> 
> I also remember reading that after the disasterous typhoons of late 1944 and early 1945, the AAF and USN instituted regular weather recon of the central and western Pacific.
> 
> Among the dedicated weather recon aircraft were B24's and PB4Y's.



They did - B-17s and B-29 were used in the Atlantic and Caribbean...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Id rather have a dozen .50's and four radial engines.



In a B-24 your not likely to have all of that together at the same time....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

Youre right, it was ten .50's and four radial engines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Na more like 12 .50's and 2 maybe 3 engines, if it did not go up in flames.


----------

