# Avro Lancaster vs Handley Page Halifax



## michaelmaltby (Feb 28, 2009)

This is my first thread so please forgive (and re-direct) if the topic has been covered before.

Many Canadian aircrew flew and died in HP Halifaxes over Germany. A recent History Television documentary *Last Flight* claims that the Halifax was seriously inferior to the Lanc ... a death trap. Attributes the casulty rate to the lack of exhaust flame guards on the Merlins, and lack of performance beyond 18,000' . When I compare formal specs the Lanc and Halifax don't seem much different except for range - for some reason the Lanc has a vastly superior range to the Halifax.

Do any memebers of this forum have experience and/or insight on the truth of the real performance of the Halifax?

Historically - aircraft sometimes get maligned when the true fault is with training or application. Think *Widowmaker* B-26 Maurader, *Irondog* P-39 Airacobra or Curtis *the beast* Helldiver.

I'd welcome input on the Lancaster-Halifax comparison.

Chairs,

Michael Maltby
Toronto


----------



## johnbr (Feb 28, 2009)

I would like to now to.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 28, 2009)

G'day Michael. 

From what I’ve read it was the early Merlin Halifax that gave the most trouble. Here’s a few problems which I managed to find…

-Essentially underpowered.
-Severe aerodynamic problems.
-Severe rudder overbalance, possibly the cause of unexplained Service accidents and operational losses. 
-Excessive take-off distances at loaded weights. “Soggy” to unstick. Take-off at 60,000lb meant a 50% longer run, even on concrete, compared to 55,000lb. 
-Poor climbing performance at loaded weights. Boscombe Down’s L7425 was unable to reach 20,000ft at 58,000lb. Performance figures were “disappointing for mid-41.”
-The 4,000lb bomb meant flying with partially closed bomb doors.
-Operational causality rate of 5.5% that was then considered by Bomber Command statisticians as “unsustainable.”
-Landing gear problems.
-Reduction gear problems resulting in 95 failures in a six month period. Over 75% occurred on the No.1 engine (port outer).

Most of these problems were eventually solved with time and the Hercules powered versions 22% greater power “removed the crippling limitations on altitude and speed, and made the Halifax a tractable and totally respected aircraft.”

In the words of Francis K. Mason…



> _“It gave magnificent service during the mid-War years but, in performance and load-carrying ability, it was seriously handicapped by a number of design decisions taken early in its development that so fundamentally compromised the aeroplane’s structure that no viable remedy was possible once the production lines had been established.” _


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks for that, Graeme:

Why the difference in performance - altitude and range - between Merlin Halibags and Merlin Lancs? And why no flame surpression on Merlin exhaust stacks on Halibags and surpression on Lancs? The aerodynamics and landing gear weaknesses I fully understand - the price of a platform in evolution - but the Merlin problems I don't. There were if I'm not mistaken Merlins rated and developed for different altitudes were there not? I wonder if the same Merlins were being used for Lancs, Mosquitos and Halifaxes?

The History TV show I referenced previously - Last Flight - is essentially the story of a middle aged Canadian going to Berlin to locate the spot where his Dad went down - January 1944 - in a MK V Halifax - supposed equipped with Merlins (not radials). And were the Hailfax aircraft losses REALLY that different from Lancs on similar missions? Was the lack of exhaust flame surpression really just the logic of grieving widows - no disrespect intended.
Much to learn and the men with answers are passing on daily.

Halifxes have not been preserved in museums the way Lancasters have been - it's almost as if they were culled immediately post hostilities the way B-26 Mauraders were. One RCAF Halifax was retrieved from a deep lake in Norway a few years back and is being restored at CFB Trenton (east of Toronto) There was still coffee in a crew thermos when they pulled the airframe up and out - but no survivors. Those that got out alive died of hypothermia

Again, thanks for your insights and knowledge.

MM


----------



## Graeme (Mar 1, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Why the difference in performance - altitude and range - between Merlin Halibags and Merlin Lancs?



Can't answer that one Michael, nor could Volkert or Chadwick (identical engines being Merlin XX)...







michaelmaltby said:


> And why no flame surpression on Merlin exhaust stacks on Halibags and surpression on Lancs?



Regards the Mk V version, which was a Dowty equipped Series II, they did experiment with various shrouds and anti-glow paint to minimise exhaust visibility but I don't know if all aircraft were fitted. This is an unducted fishtail saxophone exhaust with anti-glow paint (Halifax II DG221). 





Sounds like an interesting documentary Michael, I hope to see it one day and thanks for the informative posts.


----------



## merlin (Mar 1, 2009)

Sorry, I don't have a reference; but I recall reading that the difference in aerodynamics relates to the longer engine nacelles on the Lanacaster comparewd with the Lancaster - probably to do with the prop wash over the wings.

Found it:-
"Some of the Merlin Halifax's problems were caused by the way the engines were installed by Handley Page. Avro had designed the twin-Vulture instalation for the manchester, but when the Merlin Lancaster alternative was agreed in August 1940, Avro wisely accepted the advice of Rolls-Royce and installed the Merlins well forward and below the leading edge of the wing. The nacelles for the Merlins on the Halifax were shorter, and sited higher bringing the propellers very close to the leading edge of the wings. The high thrust line disturbed the airflow over the wing, causing loss of lift, whilst the proximity of the propellers to the wing's leading edge interfered with the efficiency of the propeller blades, causing heavy vibration, and reduction gear failures.
Plenty of Hercules would be available stirling bomber production stopped, so Hecules VI, and later Hercules XVI engines were fitted on Halifax IIIs and VIs, installed with a lower thrust line in longer nacelles. The subsequent re-design of the Hercules supercharger and re-timing of the engine raised the ceiling, and maximum and cruising speeds of the later Halifax VIs significantly, and some crews found that they easily outclimbed Lancasters."

Source Wilfred Freemans biography, by Anthony Furse p.344.

Hope this helps.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 1, 2009)

Merlin thank you for that and for the photo. Your explanation about the relationship between engine positioning and propwash makes sense - also - the initial Manchester experience - no doubt led to a better overall design.

Graeme - if I can find a link at History to the show *Last Flight* I'll post it. Not a new program - ten years old at least.

Chairs all.

MM


----------



## Glider (Mar 1, 2009)

I always believed that the crew of a Halifax stood a better chance of escaping than a Lancaster crew. I truthfully cannot remember where I read this but will try to find it.
Later Halifax's from the III onwards had quite a respectable performance, if not up to the Lancasters numbers


----------



## Juha (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree with Glider, I have read the same from a couple books, the source being a wartime study. Reasons given were, IIRC, the very long bombbay of Lanc and the fact that navigator and W/O were situated over it and so had a long way to nearest exit.

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 1, 2009)

Was there any role that the Halifax exceeded the Lanc - anybody?

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 2, 2009)

Halibags saw service as maritime patrol aircraft with Coastal Command (GR series machines), but I think this was mainly because Bomber command refused to release Lancasters for the job... you may make of that what you will


----------



## Graeme (Mar 2, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Was there any role that the Halifax exceeded the Lanc - anybody?
> 
> MM



Exceptional cargo capabilities with the later pannier versions and economically successful as the post-War Halton.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 2, 2009)

The Lancaster ( as the Lancastrian ) also saw service as an airliner and freighter with BSAA, Alitalia and Skways, among others


----------



## Graeme (Mar 2, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> The Lancaster ( as the Lancastrian ) also saw service as an airliner and freighter with BSAA, Alitalia and Skways, among others



G'day BombTaxi! 

Appreciate the Lansastrian but my understanding was that it was *less* economical than the Halton? Jackson points out that the "Kangaroo" service provided by QANTAS lost 1.4 million pounds per year using them but considered their "prestige" value offset the cost. Nor could it carry bulky loads like the pannier Halifax. I'll try and find operating costs for both machines.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 2, 2009)

Great stuff - the panier Halifax cargo versions are completely new to me. Air Canada flew Lancastrians at the end of WW2 before getting Canadian made Merlin-powered DC-4's (North Stars).


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 3, 2009)

Graeme said:


> G'day BombTaxi!
> 
> Appreciate the Lansastrian but my understanding was that it was *less* economical than the Halton? Jackson points out that the "Kangaroo" service provided by QANTAS lost 1.4 million pounds per year using them but considered their "prestige" value offset the cost. Nor could it carry bulky loads like the pannier Halifax. I'll try and find operating costs for both machines.



I'd be very interested in those figures Graeme. I know that the Lancastrian cannot have been very economical on a UK-South America or Italy-South America service, but I have no specifics myself. Must admit, I know little about the Halton and Halifax conversions, how were bulky items loaded? Through the pannier/bomb bay


----------



## Graeme (Mar 3, 2009)

The pannier was lowered and moved around to load items. I’m only guessing but would assume that it was winched back into position. Very similar to the Constellation but in this case the pannier must be attached before any flight could occur because of the bomb bay sized ‘hole’ in the fuselage.

Pannier at right...





Loading a two ton Liberty ship rudder pin into the freight pannier...





Apologies BombTaxi, but I can’t find the figures I was looking for. I also can’t find any sources backing my belief that the Halifax/Halton was superior to the Lancaster/Lancastrian. Most state that it was the other way round but don’t elaborate why.

One thing is certain, neither would have been successful airliners based on passenger capacity ranging from 9 to 15. Freight seems to be their forte and they contributed greatly to the Berlin Airlift but the Halifax/Halton disappeared soon after and the Lancastrian around the early 50’s.

Early seating arrangement for the nine seat Lancaster...





...the ten seat Halton... 





...and the unusual luggage hold for the Lancastrian...





If we consider the Avro York as one of the better immediate post-War airliners it’s easy to see the difficulties facing Britain compared to other countries. Looking at the operating costs for the York (24 passengers) Stratoliner (44 passengers) and DC-3 (32 passengers) is interesting. All three were still operating around 1960 when these figures were calculated…

Pence per-seat mile....York (8.09) Stratoliner (4.13) DC-3 (3.16)

Typical total operating cost….York (220) Stratoliner (200) DC-3 (85) 
(Pounds)

No wonder the DC-3 was so successful and hard to replace.

As far as this thread goes is it now a case of whatever the Halifax could do the Lancaster could do as well or better?

I’ve also read that Sir Arthur Harris thought little of the Halifax.


----------



## glennasher (Mar 3, 2009)

I remember a TV show, on a couple of years ago, about finding the engines of a Lancastrian that went down in South America, in Chile, I think it was. They took a pretty basic report and made an hour long show of it, "Secrets of the Dead" or something like that, on PBS. I was interested, because I didn't know about the Lancastrian at all, so it was all pretty new to me. They'd found some Merlin parts scattered on a glacier in the Andes, and by parts numbers traced it back to a missing airliner flying from Rio de Janeiro to ????? when it went missing.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2009)

glennasher said:


> I remember a TV show, on a couple of years ago, about finding the engines of a Lancastrian that went down in South America, in Chile, I think it was. They took a pretty basic report and made an hour long show of it, "Secrets of the Dead" or something like that, on PBS. I was interested, because I didn't know about the Lancastrian at all, so it was all pretty new to me. They'd found some Merlin parts scattered on a glacier in the Andes, and by parts numbers traced it back to a missing airliner flying from Rio de Janeiro to ????? when it went missing.


here you go it was on Nova 

NOVA Online | Vanished!


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 3, 2009)

Graeme,

Thanks for posting those pics, I had seen the last one of the Lancastrian nosecone before, but the others are all new to me 8) The figures on operating costs are also very revealing (and again new to me), you can see at a glance why the world bought from Boeing and Douglas instead of Avro and H-P. Or maybe it was just because the American 'liners didn't have silly seating arrangements....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 4, 2009)

Very enjoyable discussion ... once war is over (or not the mission) it quickly becomes pence-per-seat-mile. Thanks for the stats and the Halton pictures which I'd never heard of.

Chairs,

Michael


----------



## timshatz (Mar 5, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> here you go it was on Nova
> 
> NOVA Online | Vanished!



Saw that one, great show. They went straight in, never knew what hit them. Possible even the pilot got no more than a 1-2 second head's up before plowing into the mountain.

Often wondered how many other birds are out there in similar situations. Take the Alps, the Himilayas and the just the flights over them during WW2 and you are sure to be looking at a large number of airplanes.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 5, 2009)

The feeble abilities of the Lancastrian weren't the only reason the world bought from America. Avro did have a 'proper' airliner for the post 1945 market, the Tudor. Unfortunately they made a complete pigs ear of it and BOAC refused to operate the type even though it was designed for them, which is hardly going to encourage other airlines.


----------



## glennasher (Mar 5, 2009)

Thanks, pbfoot, I knew it was one of those shows. I watch a lot of PBS, to avoid commercials!, but often enough, they come up with something interesting. I'm not sure if it was a York or a Lancastrian, but it made for an excellent hour's worth of time.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 5, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Historically - aircraft sometimes get maligned when the true fault is with training or application. Think *Widowmaker* B-26 Maurader, *Irondog* P-39 Airacobra or Curtis *the beast* Helldiver.



From what I have read, the reputations of the B-26 and the Helldiver were well earned....in the beginning. The Helldiver spent a lifetime trying to iron out all it's wrinkles. 

The early B-26's had a relatively small wing, which resulted in a high wing loading, thus, a very high speed landing. It's label as being a "Widowmaker" may not be quite accurate. What would have been more fitting would be "Rookie Killer". This was not a plane for beginners.

And for what the American's and British needed, the P-39 was a dog. It's lack of a quality supercharger gave it horrible high altitude performance. But at low altitudes, it worked out great for the Russians.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2009)

All true Thorlifter. Lindberg (I believe) liked the B-26 and demonstrated it to a gathering of dis-spirited B-26 crews - stopping engines during take-offs, tossing it about - one engine landings .. that kind of stuff - and the Widowmaker name stopped. BUT .. interestingly almost B-26 were destroyed in the field. So they definately were "sensitive" -- but had the best USAAF survivability of any bomber in Europe.

From what I know the Curtis Helldiver was never "ironed out". Some were made by CanadaCar in Thunder Bay but the specs from Curtis HQ kept changing everyday - working under Curtis was the undoing of Elsie McGill - the famous production engineer who built Hawker Hurricanes.

The Helldiver is the canary-in-the-coalmine of the Curtis Wright Company - they were in decline and dissolution.

Michael


----------



## rogerwilko (Mar 6, 2009)

I'd like to know if many british pilots got the chance to fly all four heavy bomber types for direct comparisons, and maybe the fortress and liberator as well. I guess there were test pilots doing this, but would love to read their thoughts!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 6, 2009)

So would I, rogerwilko.

On a momentary off topic diversion: Is incompetence too strong a word?
Scareoflot

M


----------



## timshatz (Mar 6, 2009)

glennasher said:


> Thanks, pbfoot, I knew it was one of those shows. I watch a lot of PBS, to avoid commercials!, but often enough, they come up with something interesting. I'm not sure if it was a York or a Lancastrian, but it made for an excellent hour's worth of time.



Glen, get a DVR, the things are great. Just FF through the commercials. When you watch normal TV, it really sucks. But when you record the shows, you're day is free to do what you want.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The feeble abilities of the Lancastrian weren't the only reason the world bought from America. Avro did have a 'proper' airliner for the post 1945 market, the Tudor. Unfortunately they made a complete pigs ear of it and BOAC refused to operate the type even though it was designed for them, which is hardly going to encourage other airlines.



The BSAA Tudor Is developed a nasty habit of breaking up in mid-air, IIRC. One was among the victims claimed by the 'Bermuda Triangle'. The Tudor IV was a much better effort, unfortunately the bad press meant, as you say, BOAC disowned theirs and they ended up as freighters and troopers with the charter airlines. 

The British airliner industry post-WW2 was full of broken promises and gross failures. The Comet 1 springs to mind, as do the following should-have-been-worldbeating types:

VC10 - Labour govt insisted that the original Vickers design was downgraded to the point where no-one but BOAC would operate them. The same govt then forced BOAC to buy 707-420s as well, further crippling VC10 sales.

BAC 1-11 - all plans to build follow-ups were scotched by the govt, who would not let BAC go ahead.

Trident - again, the govt insisted on downgrades to the design. They then showed the original plans to Boeing, who built the aircraft the Trident should have been - namely, the 727.

Of it's generation of British airliners, only the 1-11 achieved 'major' export success, serving with American Airlines, Mohawk, and eventually USAir. The period from 1945 to about 1970 was a tragic death of what had once been a pioneering, world-class aviation industry. Mainly due to govt bungling as well


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> So would I, rogerwilko.
> 
> On a momentary off topic diversion: Is incompetence too strong a word?
> Scareoflot
> ...



Scary stuff, but not confined to the Russians. There have been several cases of pilot drunkenness in the US and Europe in the past few Years. The journalist obviously knows squat about civil aviation as well, IMHO, as he slates Illyushin and Tupolev designs in Aeroflot service. After all, the Tu-114 and Il-76 in particular, as well as the An-12, are outstanding designs that have seen Aeroflot service.


----------



## Graeme (Mar 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Unfortunately they made a complete pigs ear of it and BOAC refused to operate the type even though it was designed for them, which is hardly going to encourage other airlines.





BombTaxi said:


> The BSAA Tudor Is developed a nasty habit of breaking up in mid-air, IIRC. One was among the victims claimed by the 'Bermuda Triangle'. The Tudor IV was a much better effort, unfortunately the bad press meant, as you say, BOAC disowned theirs and they ended up as freighters and troopers with the charter airlines.



Thanks for the informative breakdown of Britain’s post-War airliner woes BombTaxi! Some interesting facts there that I was unaware of. Maybe a thread on the subject would be worthwhile?

Regarding the Tudor, a couple of questions you guys may be able to help me with.

Why did Britain retain tail-wheels for early Post-War airliners?
Why did BOAC even consider the Tudor II? 

From what I’ve read BOAC rejected the Tudor I as being “incapable of North Atlantic operations” (its intended purpose). They must have been pretty ticked off with that. However it’s hard to fathom how they thought it was ever going to be profitable…

70,000lb
7,000hp
5 flight crew
2 toilets
All for 12 passengers.

You would think that any customer who is so disappointed with a product would not return to the same manufacturer and I wonder why they even looked at Chadwick’s next proposal, but they did, with gusto. They even planned a lot of publicity for their upcoming Tudor II fleet printing leaflets that contained the paragraph…

“Wherever the Tudor II flies the streamlined simplicity, elegance and character of her interior decoration will make the aircraft a flying ambassador of sound British design and consummate craftsmanship”.

Optimistic or gullible?

(Was the later Tudor the longest tail dragger in the post-War world ?)


----------



## Waynos (Mar 8, 2009)

I think I'll put my threads on the subject on the postwar board. I posted them before but they are mine and I don't any of you guys (except Graeme) will have seen them. All I have to do now is find the buggers


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 8, 2009)

Go for them Waynos - I'd be really interested in reading them.

Chairs,

Michael


----------



## Waynos (Mar 9, 2009)

They are up Now, concerning Jet transports. I'll see what other stuff I have


----------



## paul61 (Sep 7, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> This is my first thread so please forgive (and re-direct) if the topic has been covered before.
> 
> Many Canadian aircrew flew and died in HP Halifaxes over Germany. A recent History Television documentary *Last Flight* claims that the Halifax was seriously inferior to the Lanc ... a death trap. Attributes the casulty rate to the lack of exhaust flame guards on the Merlins, and lack of performance beyond 18,000' . When I compare formal specs the Lanc and Halifax don't seem much different except for range - for some reason the Lanc has a vastly superior range to the Halifax.
> 
> ...



Michael,

Lack of flame guards was not the problem here, as shown on the posted photos, rather than the placement of the Merlin with respect to the wing's leading edge. A Lanc's exhaust was directly inline with the wing root thereby shielding the exhaust from the rear, this was impossible in the Halifax and all attempts to shield the exhaust failed. The Merlin engined Halifax had exceptional range, witnessed by the mid 1942 raids on Italian targets, from bases in England. When, I might add, Lancs were far and few between!
I guess that to truthfully understand the difference between the 2 a/c, one must know that the design requirements from the Air Ministry were quite different for each a/c.
The Halifax's design was specified as a multi roll a/c, where as the Lanc was designed as a bomb carrier only.
True, the Halifax excelled in it's Hercules engined versions but, with the added power, fuel load vs. bomb load was always a problem. Butch Harris hated this, hence his hatred for the Halifax.
I've spoken @ length with hundreds of aircrew re. the 2 aircraft and always hear the same comments:
- gunners loved the 4 gun mid upper turret on the Hali vs. the Lanc. as well as the single gun mid UNDER turret of some of the 6 Group Halifaxes. This turret saved lives before it was abandoned for H2S radar.
- aircrew who only flew the early Merlin engined Halifaxes.... loved them wouldn't trade for a Lanc, eg. 35 Sqdn PFF.... who protested when they finally switched to Lancs in early 44, after 3 years on Halifaxes!!
- most Pilots who flew both a/c preferred the Lanc because of it's smooth control characteristics.

One final note. I personally know 2 crew members who would not be alive today if they had been in a Lanc when their # came up! 

Cheers!
Paul


----------



## Milosh (Sep 8, 2010)

What are your opinions on the Vickers Viscount and Vanguard?

Nice site on BC statistics and Lancaster info,
BC - Statistics

Not sure if it still available but the RAF Museum Hendon had a nice little booklet (32 pg) on Lancaster R5868. This a/c completed 136 missions. 

It would be greatly appreciated for any info on the loss of Halifax III, MZ906, AL* H, 429 Sqn, from Leeming, Yorkshire on the night of 23/24 Oct 1944 on a mission to Essen.


----------



## cherry blossom (Sep 8, 2010)

paul61 said:


> ......
> I guess that to truthfully understand the difference between the 2 a/c, one must know that the design requirements from the Air Ministry were quite different for each a/c.
> The Halifax's design was specified as a multi roll a/c, where as the Lanc was designed as a bomb carrier only.
> ......


I have heard (but alas cannot remember my sources) that the Lancaster design achieved higher performance than the Halifax by simply ignoring some of the specifications. In particular, the escape hatch of the Lancaster was smaller, which caused relatively fewer aircrew to succeed in bailing out from Lancasters, and the radiator openings were smaller than specified, which caused overheating of the Merlins on Indian airfields in 1945. Hopefully, there are experts who will either confirm or refute the above vague memories of secondary sources. I think that the hatch might have been mentioned in Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" on his time in operational research.


----------



## paul61 (Sep 12, 2010)

cherry blossom said:


> I have heard (but alas cannot remember my sources) that the Lancaster design achieved higher performance than the Halifax by simply ignoring some of the specifications. In particular, the escape hatch of the Lancaster was smaller, which caused relatively fewer aircrew to succeed in bailing out from Lancasters, and the radiator openings were smaller than specified, which caused overheating of the Merlins on Indian airfields in 1945. Hopefully, there are experts who will either confirm or refute the above vague memories of secondary sources. I think that the hatch might have been mentioned in Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" on his time in operational research.



I believe you're correct with your statement re. design specs. Simply put, the designer (Chadwick) was allowed these mods by the Air Ministry while Handley Page was not. The hatch size comparison has been mentioned many times (in print), My friend, F/L Tom Lane, DFC - 35 sqdn. PFF, would not have survived bailing out of a Lanc!
A large man, he became stuck in the lower escape hatch of his burning Halifax and was only just able to free himself. BTW, all 7 of the crew survived their downing on June 22/23, 43 (Krefeld).
As for the rad openings, The Lanc was useless in hotter climate theaters due to overheating, also as a glider tug due to lower take off power compared to the Hurcules powered Hallis Sterlings.
Another point to add re. the MK. 1's 2's.........I personally know many pilots of these early types and not one of them had a single issue with the so called rudder problems. I questioned several of these fellows specifically on these "rudder failures". I was told that @ times they threw their a/c around like fighters and never had a hint of a problem. This included fighter evasions which were so violent that the over stressed airframe was cause to scrap the a/c, (G/C Reg Lane, DFC Bar, DSO, 1943)!

Not to beat the Lanc up too much (!)............it's larger wing area lower drag design profile served it well with regards to range, height, speed. 
Not to forget though, the Lanc was born of a design failure...........the "Manchester".
Cheers.
Paul


----------

