# Lancaster Vs. B-24



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

firstly, could a mod please move this topic to the polls section, i wanted to put it in there but it kept shouting at me saying only a mod could, i would be much obligied if you could

secondly, syscom, or anyone else, I DON'T want the argument between the two bombers in this thread, i feel it belongs more in the best bomber thread, i just want to use this thread to get the public opinion, as currently it's just us two slugging it out, capiche? (is that how you spell that?)

so, which do you think was the better bomber? taking into account their service records and stats, and anything else me and sys have argued about


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 1, 2006)

In my opinion it was the Lancaster. Taking into account all of the factors I see it as the better bomber, even though it flew mainly at night (without large fighter escort) and never flew in the PTO, it was still in my opinon the better bomber.

EDIT: Lanc did you actually vote in the poll (as u never normally do)?


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2006)

Its the Lanc. Range, Payload, Flexibility and ease of adaptability re defence and the bomb bay could have been used for other loads such as extra fuel tanks, electronics whatever.
The B24 was a fine plane and its a close call but to add things to it eg H2S you had to take things off.


----------



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

yes, i'm definately voting in this one  and don't let the fact she flew mostly by night (she flew over 40,000 daylight sorties) put you off, flying by night wasn't easy you know........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 1, 2006)

OK and I haven't that is why I voted for the Lancaster...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

B24 wins by the proverbial RCH.

Its ease of manufacture, adaptability, defensive firepower and the two pilot design and the radial engines give it an ever slight edge over the Lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

No syscom the B-24 does not win just because you say it does. If you look at the poll upthere the Lanc is winnning by good odds so far.

You are going to have to prove that the Lanc was harder to build, that the Lanc was not more adaptable (which I am sure the Lanc was), that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament), that the Lanc coudl not have had a 2nd pilot (because there are 2 pilot Lancs that were built), and that the Lanc could not operate with radial engines (because a lot were built with them). 

Your arguments do not hold up syscom.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24. The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available. Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production. The B-24 was highly modified throughout it's production, the Lancaster remained basically the same with the exception of the 300 built with radial engines.

I'm a B-24 fan, but I have to give it to the Lancaster, as previous posted my only criticism of the Lanc was the single pilot operation which I feel would of overburdened the pilot in IMC.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

Agreed FBJ.

I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.

One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed FBJ.
> 
> I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.
> 
> One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.



Agree!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No syscom the B-24 does not win just because you say it does. If you look at the poll upthere the Lanc is winnning by good odds so far.





> You are going to have to prove that the Lanc was harder to build,



I pointed out the B24 could be built quickly in a mass production method. Since noone has ever posted information on the time a Lanc was built, my assertion stands.



> that the Lanc was not more adaptable (which I am sure the Lanc was),



The Lanc was versatile. The B24 was versatile.



> that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament),



But they didnt. 



> that the Lanc coudl not have had a 2nd pilot (because there are 2 pilot Lancs that were built),



Not many were deployed, if at all.



> and that the Lanc could not operate with radial engines (because a lot were built with them).



A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32


----------



## WEISNER (Jan 1, 2006)

Two words, "radial Engine", Granted a handfull of Lanc's were built with these engine's. I'll take the B-24 anyday....
Kevin


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24.



Perhaps not. Untill we see some manufacturing time data for the Lanc, then the B24 wins



> The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available.



If thats true, why was the B24 built more efficently and faster than the B17?



> Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production.



The B24's production didnt ramp up untill 1943. Remember many of the plants that were to build the planes were still being constructed in 1942.



> The B-24 was highly modified throughout it's production, the Lancaster remained basically the same with the exception of the 300 built with radial engines.



Im aware of only one significant modification to the B24, and that was the introduction of the nose turret, which wasnt a big deal. Im not counting the single rudder PB4Y's, as they werent built in a lot of numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I pointed out the B24 could be built quickly in a mass production method. Since noone has ever posted information on the time a Lanc was built, my assertion stands.



And both me and FBJ and proven that your assumption on that is wrong. It did not take one hour to build a B-24. That is just how much the US could put them out.



syscom3 said:


> The Lanc was versatile. The B24 was versatile.



Yeap and how does that prove the B-24 is better? It does not.



syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > ] that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament),
> ...



And that again does not prove that it could not be done and does not prove that the B-24 was better.



syscom3 said:


> Not many were deployed, if at all.



Again does not prove anything. It could be done, was done, and if the British had seen the need for it, they would have done it.



syscom3 said:


> A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32



No it is not a completly different aircraft. It is a different varient. So the B-24D and the B-24G are different aircraft then because the nose is different which means that the B-24G does not count because it had more armament than the B-24D which is a modification and a different aircraft.

Sorry You Lose!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32
> ...


Bingo. A different engine type doesn't make it an entirely different aircraft per se. It's a variant of the Lancaster, nothing more.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

Thankyou NS, I am glad that there are other people with common sense as well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thankyou NS, I am glad that there are other people with common sense as well.


You're talking about _me_? Hmmm. Interesting thought.


----------



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

i said i didn't want to turn this into annother slugging match between me and sys, however if he would like to engage me in a separate thread about which was more versatile, the lanc or the B-24, i would be more than glad to, infact, i think i'll go start one now! and i'm glad i'm not the only one to see the fact that i'm arguing with a different varient of a plane so he's using a completely different plane as crazy and stupid


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > 7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24.
> ...



From Wikipedia

The majority of Lancasters during the war years were manufactured by Metropolitan-Vickers, Armstrong Whitworth and Avro. The plane was also produced at the Austin Motor Company works in Longbridge, Birmingham later in World War II. Only 300 of the Lancaster Mk II with Bristol Hercules engines were made. The Lancaster Mk III had newer Merlin engines but was otherwise identical to earlier versions; 3,030 Mk IIIs were built, almost all at A.V. Roe's Newton Heath factory. Of later versions only the Canadian-built Lancaster Mk X was produced in any numbers, built by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, 430 of this type were built. They differed little from earlier versions, except for using Packard-built Merlin engines and having a differently configured mid-upper turret. 7,377 Lancasters of all marks were built over the war; a 1943 Lancaster cost £45-50,000.



> The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available.





syscom3 said:


> If thats true, why was the B24 built more efficently and faster than the B17?



Because unlike Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing who built their subassemblies in "segments" and moved them to various parts of the plants for assembly, Consolidated teamed with former automobile manufacturers who developed automotive type production lines for the B-24 where the whole line moved, that why Willow Run, Fort Worth and the Old plant in San Diego are so long. Henry Ford's VP of production (his name escapes me) assisted in setting up Willow run and several other Consolidated facilities. Although achieving numbers, Lockheed Boeing and Douglas for the most part did not adopt this on their 4 engine bomber programs and stayed conventional.

Lockheed did adopt this assembly methodology on the P-38 line being produced in Burbank plant B-1. The line had a steam driven chain that actually moved the entire line of aircraft being assembled.



> Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production.





syscom3 said:


> The B24's production didnt ramp up untill 1943. Remember many of the plants that were to build the planes were still being constructed in 1942.



Ramp up? By 1943 there were several hundered B-24s in service, 177 attacked Ploesti in August 1942, the Lancaster first models were't deliveered to squadron until April 1942. What happened in 43 was willow run put the production into "overdrive."

For the Brits to build almost 7,000 Lancaster's is a commendable feat. they did not have the manpower or resources like we had here in the states and also maintained the "segment " production methodology....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

Some Photos - the top one is Plant A1, Lockheed Burbank - not all the sub assemblies


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

Here's the Lancaster, notice all the subassemblies like Lockheed.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2006)

Can I pick the one I want?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

Wasnt Ploesti in 1943?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Can I pick the one I want?



If you accept bare aluminum, you could have on in 58 minutes...

Here's another photo of williow run, note how the sub assemblies come together on a really long production line, "segments" aren't set aside, other heavy bomber production lines were probably 1/4 of the size of willow run... 

Notice the overhead conveyor inserting fuselage sections along the assembly line.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Wasnt Ploesti in 1943?



you're right


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

The first raid was in 1942 - 13 aircraft participated from Egypt....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

Operation tidal wave was on Aug 1 1943.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

By Sept 1942, at least 300 B-24s were already built and being delivered or already deployed - Consolidated SD and Douglas Tulsa...

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1941_2.html


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2006)

I see this is as an almost endless debate gentlemen, the B-24 used in the day role primarily and the Lanc used in the evening role primarily. Both needed Allied escorts in the day time or they were sitting ducks, the historical archival reports testify to this. the Lanc could fly the higher altitudes and the B-24 was used under the B-17 altitude for the miles strung out to clobber the Reich by day. maybe it would be better to compare the B-24 vs the Halibag ? Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.

both could take a bit of punishment and then both could also be carved like a hot knife to butter


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2006)

Erich said:


> Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.



Very Very true.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2006)

I am still uncertain why all the posting of production on the other thread of the B-24 vs the Lanc. Seems pretty silly to me as both planes were used for the job intended. You guys are beating a dead turnip into salad fixings in my opinion. comparison as to the best for a/c is a useless point. look at all the pages listed and for really what reason ? nobody is going to have a changed mind. you can endlessly quote passages from books and the net because that is what is happeneing and it really isn't your free opinion of the a/c since you were not living in that time frame.

so the figures given for production and graphs of altitude performance just seem like a total bore and really prove nothing. the a/c comparisons can only be done by and with the veterans themselves. the threads like this loose their integrity too fast and continue to show random thought


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.


----------



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

just like most of sys's arguments


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2006)

gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

Erich said:


> gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it



Agree - LANCASTER 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.



I proved plenty. One of them is the Lanc experts didnt have any information about the production untill I made them go dig up the info.

I also proved that the B24 was easier to build as it was put under a mass production technique with phenominal results. The Lanc wasnt, so its just conjecture it could have been done too. Thats among many of the hypotheticals the Lanc has.

Anyway you dice it, nearly 3 times more B24's were produced than the Lanc. One every 56 minutes. What were the Lanc averages? A couple per day?


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2006)

I admit to not understanding what this is all about. The fact that a plane is built at one every 56 mins compared to one every hour and say ten minutes has absolutely nothing to do with how easy it is to build.

Put it another way. If two factories are building the same aircraft one will be faster than the other. The logic that seems to be applied here is that the plane produced in the faster factory is easier to build than plane bult in the slower factory. Am I the only person who thinks this is about as stupid a bit of logic as can Be?

Then to apply this fundamentally madly flawed logic to two different aircraft built in two different countries, in totally different circumstances, make this I would suggest, one of the biggest wastes of time this Forum has ever seen.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.

So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.
> 
> So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?



The B24 was superior in the paint catagory too!

Ever see those assembly ships with the outrageous paint schemes?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

Yes I have. Colourful, to say the least.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I also proved that the B24 was easier to build



No you didn't


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

I provided evidence that the B24 could be built in one hour. 

The only evidence I saw for the Lanc was a few per day.

Since the British and US industrial engineers were just as smart as each other, theres no other explanation for the faster assembly of thye B24.

The 1944 and 1945 production rates of the Lancs should have been far higher than what they were.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 5, 2006)

Just because you can 'build' (should really be assemble) it in an hour doesn't mean it is easier to build. The USA had a huge number of people working on assembling the B-24 from it's components compare that to Britain who had a workforce that was at least a tenth of the size of America's and who where being bombed (something that the B-24 factories didn't risk). By 1944/45 Britain was running out of man-power, there were not enough people to do all the jobs that were needed (the infantry in particular). The British didn't very well to produce the number of Lancasters that they did (alongside other types - more than 20,000 Spitfires alone). Britain did not have the production capacity of the US and as result could not manufacture aircraft (any type) in as a large numbers or as quickly (at least for bombers). The number of people the USA devoted to building aircraft was huge compared to the UK and as a result the number of bombers was more (a lot more) and the time it took to assemble them was less as well, it is all part and parcel of having a huge (almost inexhausible) workforce. You have not provided concrete evidence that a B-24 is easier to build than a Lancaster, just because the took less time over each individual unit and more where built doesn't mean it was easier to build, it means you have a larger workforce (and maybe more efficient production techniques) but *not* an easier bomber to built.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2006)

If I can offer another reason. The UK wasn't increasing the production capacity of the Lancaster as it tooling up and preparing for the production of the Lancaster MkIV renamed the Lincon. Massive preperations were going into the mass production of that aircraft in the UK, Canada and Australia to ensure that it was ready for use in the Tiger force against Japan.

This has been mentioned before syscom without comment from yourself.

Also we had to use shadow factories and didn't have secure supplies, communications, power, raw marterials, spare machine tool capacity and couldn't afford the exposure of a production line as it was too vulnerable to attack.

Again this has been mentioned before without comment from yourself although this time you did reply and ducked the points.

You haven't proved that you could build a plane in an hour that is obviously rubbish. You can complete a plan an hour but not build one in an hour.

Others have proved that the B24 was buit in a more productive manner and you don't see the obvious logic in that. 

In short you have proved nothing to anyone.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

Willow Run built a B24 per hour. Are you denying that? (Im saying 60 minuts is more or less 56 minutes in the scheme of things).

The Lincoln was more or less a beefed up Lanc? Right?

And in 1943, the UK was not subject to the mass bomb raids of 1940 and 1941.

And your "shadow" factories would still be nearby the assembly plant(s).


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

Boys this is all very well, but I have to ask. What the hell do production numbers have to do with the merits of the bomber itself? I thought this was supposed to be about the aircraft themselves, not so much the numbers produced. We're becoming bogged down with reasons why each nation could produce a certain number in a given period. 

The B-24 served in every theatre of the war, but the Lancaster _would_ have served in the PTO had the war dragged on a little longer. It was already in the works. Nothing hypothetical about it, it would have been there and it would have even had improvements. I happen to agree that the Liberator was an overall superb bomber, but to disqualify the Lancaster just because it didn't actually serve in the Pacific is a bit ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. It's akin to calling the F-4 Phantom superior to the F-22 just because of the F-4's actual combat record. It doesn't really prove anything one way or the other, and it's meaningless.


My god, I think this is the first time I've ever actually tried to steer a thread back *on* topic! 

I think maybe I'd better lay down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I provided evidence that the B24 could be built in one hour.



One rolled out the door each hour - after being assembled - the subassemblies took at least a week to build, I would guess there were 5 or 6 of them comprising the B-24 (just like any other WW2 bomber)

Faster to build - YES Easier to build NO - you turn a bolt and drive a rivet the same way, the B-24 had the set up to do it the most efficently, but even then it wasn't 100% perfect....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

The B24 was either by good fortune or by design, to be easily mass produced. I havent really looked at in detail the B17 center section, but there was somehting different between the two that favored the B24 for mass production.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 was either by good fortune or by design, to be easily mass produced. I havent really looked at in detail the B17 center section, but there was somehting different between the two that favored the B24 for mass production.



Yes - Ford Motor Company designing a 1 1/2 mile production line around the aircraft!  

Actually in the history of aircraft manufacturing, very few aircraft had that luxury, especially for an aircraft that was already in production...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

sys it proves nothing, willow run alone emplyed more people than the entire A.V. Roe production group! go back to my toilet seat example, and almost anything can be mass produced, no matter what it is, especailly if you have a 1 1/2 mile assembly line 

i'm with everyone else, you're the one that started the whole easier to build stuff, but let's get back to the lanc's statistical superiority.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom said:


> One of them is the Lanc experts



if you meant me i never claimed to be a lancaster expert at all, i know i have allot more to learn, it's jsut that i know more than most 



> didnt have any information about the production untill I made them go dig up the info



ok so i didn't know the figures off memory, what does that prove? everyone here uses books no one's gonna say the B-24's better because i had to use a book


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

statistics can prove anything. I was looking at your figures and its comparing apples to oranges.

A better statistical comparison would be B24 and Lanc stats for night missions and B24 and lanc stats for day missions.

Now back to the production details. The simple fact is the Lanc was built by twice as many factories as the B24, yet only produced less than 1/2 of them. And all those factories building the lanc were geographically close to each other (except the Canadian plant). 

It doesnt matter if the Willow Run plant was 1.5 miles long. It could have easily been split up into smaller buildings and still be able to produce the same number of aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2006)

You boys are really stuck on this production debate, aren't ya? There's not much to discuss really. The US had the most production going in every area, employing the most economical methods. Short 'n sweet if you ask me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It doesnt matter if the Willow Run plant was 1.5 miles long. It could have easily been split up into smaller buildings and still be able to produce the same number of aircraft.



Yes it does - inside these large buildings Architechs need to set up pillars and columns to support the roof. It it's designed around an aircraft configuration (size) you have more floor space to configure assembly. That's why Lockheed had to build plant 10 in Palmdale, there was nothing in Burbank to support the size of the then new jet. Notice how plant to has one set a pillars down the middle. One side of the line assembled the fuselage barrels, flightstation and tail, the wings were built at an outside supplier and shipped in and assembled at a specific station. Final assembly ran up the other side of the building....












Boeing had to do the same thing for the 747 assembly line






You need to be able to flow sub assemblies into their "station." Willow run was successful because all of the sub assembly movement was designed around the aircraft and then the building designed around that!











Unless you are talking about a substantial difference in size there is no difference in driving rivets into a B-24, -17 or Lancaster, it was a matter of resources, people and production efficiency that determined the production numbers...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> You boys are really stuck on this production debate, aren't ya? There's not much to discuss really. The US had the most production going in every area, employing the most economical methods. Short 'n sweet if you ask me.



I agree! Although its fun showing this to someone who never built an airplane before.... 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2006)

Ah, gotcha. Great pics by the way.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

If the Lanc was as easy to build, then they should have been able to build them faster. You would see the production blocks being completed sooner, and then output drop as subassemblies are used up.

And its still irrelevent whether Willow Run was 1.5 miles long or a series of buildings of shorter lenghts. The sub assemblies could be built anywhere and brought in by truck or train, when it was needed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If the Lanc was as easy to build, then they should have been able to build them faster. You would see the production blocks being completed sooner, and then output drop as subassemblies are used up.


I never said easier - my point is the same as far as producibility and assembler skill. The B-24 was superior in numbers because of resources and production planning.


syscom3 said:


> And its still irrelevent whether Willow Run was 1.5 miles long or a series of buildings of shorter lenghts. The sub assemblies could be built anywhere and brought in by truck or train, when it was needed.


And that is exactly how it is done, but how long to you think it takes to build say the nose section of a B-24 as a sub assembly? You can't build it in a machine (If there were limited internal structure a machine called a drivematic cane be used) it has to be located in an assembly jig and because of the size there is a space restriction on how many bodies can effectively assemble the thing. Two weeks per sub assembly and that's pushing it...

Oh it would be the same for the Lancaster.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

If you have all the componants needed to build a sub assembly, it can be built in no time at all. Theres nothing complicated at all about the assembly. You can even send to the assembly line partially completed sub assemblies that are at least structurally complete (hold up the final assembly line cause the nose turret isnt available?).

If the sub assembly is small enough, smaller feeder factories can build them according to the production requirements. If Willow Run needed "x" number of Rudder assemblies made each day, then its just a matter of how many jigs and people are needed. If the factory is "x" miles away, then all they have to do is just factor in the transport time and deliver it when its needed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

are you totally oblivious to the difference in size of the production lines we're talking about, at it's peak the ENTIRE A.V. Roe production group (that accounts for every factory, excluding the canadian one) employed 29,000 staff for lancaster production, willow run alone exployed 42,000, does that mean nothing to you?

you're not proving anything with this argument, i'm willing to drop it..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If you have all the componants needed to build a sub assembly, it can be built in no time at all.



Wrong! How long to you think it will take to assemble this!?







Ribs and formers are jig located and positioned. All longerons have to be layed up, drilled, deburred, temporially installed with "clecos" (do you know what that is?) and then riveted together. You could only stick so many people within the assembly to do this....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> are you totally oblivious to the difference in size of the production lines we're talking about, at it's peak the ENTIRE A.V. Roe production group (that accounts for every factory, excluding the canadian one) employed 29,000 staff for lancaster production, willow run alone exployed 42,000, does that mean nothing to you?
> 
> you're not proving anything with this argument, i'm willing to drop it..........



I don't think our friend Sys had a clue how long it takes to assemble an aircraft sub assembly, especially one entirely riveted together...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

If twenty five B24's rolled off the assembly line, then 25 B24's rolled off the assembly line. Sub assembly assembly time is irrelevent. What counts is the total number of bombers produced per day/week/month.

Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.

And the B24 still stands as being more efficient to build as if the Lanc design was as good, then it could be built just as fast.

Perhaps theres something in its design that held up the mass production? Perhaps the wings were complex enough it couldnt be built fast?

Lets see some numbers.

None of this conjecture.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.



WRONG - There are government inspectors that will make sure every part on the drawing is accounted for -

If you do that in the civilian world the FAA would fine and bring criminal action unless any deviations are documented.....


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 6, 2006)

I agree with you FBJ, what matters is the total time to produce 1 bomber from it's components not the time it takes to assemble 1 bomber from sub assemblies.

Found this pic of a Lancaster production line:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> what matters is the total time to produce 1 bomber from it's components not the time it takes to assemble 1 bomber from sub assemblies.



YEP!! 

Oh - nice photo! 8)


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Willow Run built a B24 per hour. Are you denying that? (Im saying 60 minuts is more or less 56 minutes in the scheme of things).
> Many people have told you that you can complete a plane an hour but not build one
> 
> The Lincoln was more or less a beefed up Lanc? Right?
> ...


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

You would think that I would hav the hang of using quotes by now wouldn't you.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.
> ...



Im refering to the 2nd world war aircraft. The USAAF gave waivers whenever it wanted just to get aircraft in service.

Why did you think I would compare commercial aircraft of these days as opposed ot 1941-1945?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im refering to the 2nd world war aircraft. The USAAF gave waivers whenever it wanted just to get aircraft in service.



So am I - the USAAF was not going to allow half built aircraft in service, if so they would of left out armor plate, self sealing tanks and radios.


syscom3 said:


> Why did you think I would compare commercial aircraft of these days as opposed ot 1941-1945?



Becuase of your own words..



> Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

Self sealing tanks are important enough. So why would the production planners allow the wings to be built without them?

And armour plate can be installed at depots or on the tarmac while the plane is readied for acceptance. You think an assembly line would be stopped over that? I think not.

Note - this discussion is about WW2 bombers not year 2005 commercial aircraft. Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2006)

> Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.


Thats a pretty brash statement there...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

Because the subject of this post is Lanc vs B24 in the war years, and has nothing to do with commercial aircraft manufacture of 2005.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Self sealing tanks are important enough. So why would the production planners allow the wings to be built without them?


Initial production B-17s, P-40s, SDBs and *B-24s* were built without them.


syscom3 said:


> And armour plate can be installed at depots or on the tarmac while the plane is readied for acceptance. You think an assembly line would be stopped over that? I think not.


 No it wouldn't - but it also won't be sent in combat without them.


syscom3 said:


> Note - this discussion is about WW2 bombers not year 2005 commercial aircraft. Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.



Hey, your words were quoted, not mine....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today. 

I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011

And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.

Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today.
> 
> I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011


and the B-24 was still easier to build?!?   


syscom3 said:


> And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.
> 
> Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.



And that was the ORIGINAL intent of mod centers!!!! All that stuff plus the guns and radios were "GFE." Installing that stuff after production was probably one of the only situation of an aircraft "legally" leaving the factory "incomplete."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Syscom it is really easy for you to tell people how aircraft are built and made when you have never built or worked on a plane. I have never built one but I work on them and repair them every day. I see the complex things that go into them, the structure, the sparring, the ribs, the electrical wiring and components, the flight controls (you try taking them apart and putting them back together let alone build them in 1 hour!  ). Listen to people like FBJ and myself who have some understanding of this. Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.


About 100 P-3s, 4 F-117s, 20 L-1011s and 3 B-2s...


Thanks Adler....

It was a fact that more B-24s were built. To say it was easier to build or designed for mass producibility is false. As already stated, factories were built around the bomber and an a huge manufacturing infrastructure was thrown at the program. Any American aircraft could of been subjected to the same numbers if they were given the chance under Charles Sorrenson. The B-24 was hastily designed as reflected in some of its featrures (ie. no MLG doors). Ruben Fleet pushed the design team to meet the original contract requirements. Had the B-24 been given more time during its design phase, it probably would of looked more like the XB-32.

"The "Liberator", as it became known, was conceived in haste and it showed it. That statement, however, in no way detracts from the remarkable job that Laddono and his crew of engineers did, given the deadline they labored under. Nevertheless, when Davis bitterly remarked later that with wing such as his, "leaving the main landing gear half exposed when retracted was almost sacrilegious," he had a point. Furthermore, the bomb bay doors which rolled up the sides of the fuselage, while easily facilitating bomb loading on the ground, were far from air tight when closed, and when aloft, the draft in the rear end of the aircraft was fierce. The various systems in the airplane also left a lot of room for improvement. Fuel gages looked like something from a basement furnace boiler; the fuel transfer system seemed to have been designed by Rube Goldberg. If you can imagine an engineer abroad the B-24 crawling down that narrow catwalk between the bomb bays to affix a "U" hose to an electrical pump to transfer fuel, you begin to get an idea. 


The three best features of the B-24 were its wing, the reliable Pratt Whitney engines (R-1830s of 1200 hp) and its tricycle landing gear. The latter made the B-24 easy to land and since the wing was through flying once the aircraft touched down there was no tendency to bounce once the aircraft touched down. The rival B-17, on the other hand, with its so-called conventional gear and thick wing, would float if the airspeed on landing was the slightest bit too high, and most pilots "wheeled it in" - that is landed on the main gear and then lowered the tail wheel, in order not to bounce back into the air. Properly handled, though, the B-17 could make a very nice three point landing, and it was a forgiving aircraft."

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/requiem.htm


----------



## book1182 (Jan 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed FBJ.
> 
> I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.
> 
> One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.



Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24. Two bombers with different missions. What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

book1182 said:


> Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24.



I disagree. The small amount of the weight of the defensive armament compareed to the weight of the bombs it could carry would not have effected the performance as much as you think.



book1182 said:


> What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.



That is false. The Liberator was used in exactly the same ammount of roles and even maybe a few more than the Liberator.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 8, 2006)

I belive the weight difference would make a large difference. As an example the B-17G could carry 6,000lbs bombs 2,000mi. Eliminate the Waist gunners and chin turret which equal ~2,500/3,000lbs and you can easily add 500+mi range and 1,000+lbs of bombs which would match/exceed the Lancasters 2,400mi with 7,000lbs bombs. The B-17 could lose another 1,500+ if the ball turret were removed.

Rember these aircraft have esentialy the same min weight, gross weight and load capacity. The major restrictions to their load capacity are
1. Mission configuration
a. Day armor/defense
b. Night config for max bomb load
c. Marritime patrol

2. Fuel tankage
a. B-24 best
b. B-17 next, internal tankage 2,000+mi
c. Lancaster requires bombay tankage for 2,000+mi

3. Bombay configuration
a. Lancaster Best
b. B-24 next
c. B-17 in most restrictive

The mission configuration was critical to the weight capability of the various aircraft, the Lanc took this to an extream using a reduced crew, .30 caliber guns and virtualy no armor to allow a few more lbs of bombs. I personaly give the nod to the Lanc because of its huge bombay, not because of some percieved advantage anywhere else.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 8, 2006)

I think the biggest limitation for the B17 was that the bomb bay volume was smaller than the others.

Even if it had all new engines, no guns or armour, it still was limited by the those dimensions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

and exactily how much did the guns and armour on the B-17 and -24 weigh? remember .303 ammo's lighter than .50cal, you're only looking at fitting a few hundred lbs of armour and possibly a 1,000lb ventral turret, let's call it 1,500lbs all together? that's not much of a problem for a plane like the lanc........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

It may have lowered the ammount of payload a bit, but I dont think it would have made the performance suffer.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2006)

I would leave off the waist gunners, I don't think that they were worth the weight.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Agree'd. Although in the PTO, the waist gunners were frequently used to watch for things in the air and ocean. If theyre going to be on board, might as well as give them some guns.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.



The Ball turret was about 1,200lbs + 200/250 for the gunner and his personal equiptment then 750 rds x 2 + oxygen + aircraft structure to support it. Similarly the waist gunners 250lbs ea. + personal eqpt (parachute, heated suite, etc) + mg +750rnds (typ)+ oxygen etc. call it 800/1,000lbs ea plus any armor for blind spots or fairings. Rough count 1,800/2,000lbs for a ball turret and 800/1,000 for each waist gun or about 3,600/4,000lbs total. that adds up to approximately 1 ton of bombs for an additional 200/400mi radius. That is signifigant to me.

SYS if you look at my post just above yours you'll see that I rated the B-17s bombay as the most restrictive and the huge bombay on the Lanc as its greatest feature.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2006)

Okay in that sense youa re correct, I did not realize that it all weighed that much.


----------



## Haztoys (Jan 10, 2006)

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc?? 

Thanks David 

Hazardous Toys inc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

Haztoys said:


> Just was wanting to know is ...
> 
> "What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??
> 
> ...



Good Question! Erich, any info?


----------



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

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.
> ...



the british weren't fans of waist gunners, the only plane the really had them was the wimpy, mainly because they're spray and prey weapons, baisically very inaccurate, british prefered turrets, so waist gunners would not be fitted, and secondly that's data for the american ball turrets, which are quite large and heavy, the british ventral systems were much smaller and lighter, as the gunner didn't sit in them, reducing weight further, furthermore, the british ventral turrets were fed from two 500 round boxes. Normally the rear turret's 4 guns were each fed by 2,500 rounds EACH! giving well over two minutes firing time, as this much was very rarely needed, the ammo count of two of the rear guns was reduced to 2,000 rounds each, the spare 1,000 rounds for the ventral guns- result? no extra weight for ammo! i'll look for figures on the weight of the actual turrets...........


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 10, 2006)

Lanc,

That may be so, but a pacific/daylight model may be a different thing altogether - remember were talking about equiping similar to the US daylite bombers in this sub-discussion.

If you can come up with a weight for a british ventral turret - great! I'll bet the extra motors and servos to complete the required functions match the weight of having a man in it. The gunner etc weight still remains the same, as does the ammo weight, subtracting from another station (normaly done or not) is not acceptable it may have been deemed required in its new role. Ammo weight is not minor either, the P-47 left 48% of its ammo behind if it was carring more than 500lbs on the wings!

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Haztoys said:


> Just was wanting to know is ...
> 
> "What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??
> 
> ...



I think it would be a toss up. The B-24 had better defensive armament meening it would be harder for the Luftwaffe fighters to get to the formations to shoot them down but the B-24 was also prone to going up in flames easily.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

The B24's operated in the ady, making it far easier to shoot at it from any angle. The Lancs operated at night where they could sneek up on it.

The B24's had a weak wing, but the dual pilot system no doubt saved more than one plane from being shotdown. The Lancs single pilot setup meant that was a weak point.

Adler is right, its a toss up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

Wow, I think we're in agreement!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...


----------



## Erich (Jan 11, 2006)

here for a moment only today it appears........

When both the Lanc and the B-24 were flown at night they were easily brewed up by Schräg waffen of German Nachtjägers as niether had a belly turret to forewarn the crew.

As to Lancasters flying in day formation I am not sure if the ops were deviated from night time flying formation ? B-24's on the other hand flew in tight "pulks" or boxes but the GErman day fighter guys that I have interviewed felt they were easy to knock down from the rear same as the B-17's, once the tail gunners position was knocked out, it was then attacked toward the inboard wing and engine or both engines on one side of the heavy bomber. It must be said that the German pilots knew as they flew through the US bomber formations that they would receive a full fullsaide of fire from the waist gunners station, so yes this position on the bomber was certainly needed. Maybe not so with RAF night time characteristics but you can be well aware that the tail position was probably given too much responsibility in issuing warnings to pilot/co-pilot. Had there been the waist positions in place then some relief and of course a much better standing of looking out for the protection of the craft and crew as a whole when German nf's were flying about. Besides the belly turret position was a necessary installation one never fully resolved till wars end and thus the demise of too many RAF bombers both Lancs and Halibags


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...



I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.



Wanna Bet?!?

"Perhaps at this point I should say that I flew both airplanes and preferred the Liberator. The B-24 was faster than the B-17, but it could not reach the altitudes that the Fortress could. (A fact that the Lib pilots envied.) The B-24 was heavier on the controls than the B-17, but its response was crisp and instant when properly rigged (although not many were.) Unlike the later B-29, which I also flew, the lateral control response on the B-24 was instant, and it was a highly maneuverable aircraft. *I surprised many a P-38 pilot when, with a lightly loaded Lib, I could drop half flaps and turn inside of the Lightning." *

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/requiem.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.
> 
> Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.



Not a thing to do with a full bomb load, HOWEVER

We're talking about turning if you're able to add more power you could remain in the turn without loosing altitude or airspeed and keep the same bank angle....provided you keep half flaps....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

Also, remember Lancasters are generally accepted as the most manoeverable 4 engined heavy. Also remember the fact that night fighters arent expected to be manoeverable as dogfighting at night didnt really exist, Lancasters on many occasion managed to shake Ju-88's and suchlike by out manoevering them. Ok it didnt always work and doing it with a bombload will make things harder, but it *did* happen.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Once a fighter has a visual on a 4 engine bomber, it will be able to maneuver at will and put it in its gun sight.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Once a fighter has a visual on a 4 engine bomber, it will be able to maneuver at will and put it in its gun sight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

Its night time remember. Seeing what and where another plane is doing at night is hard. Especially when your guns actually have to hit the bomber, and the bombers guns can just spray a load of bullets to try and deter the attacker, at the same time as out manoevering.


----------



## Erich (Jan 11, 2006)

out manoevering is not the right term, as it could not do that with a German nf whether single engine or twin engine. Providing a corkscrew with a violent jolt up and down and then sideways is a possibility but this is not known as out - manoevering


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

While I agree somewhat with you CC, in the end the fighter can still outmaneuver a Lanc if it wishes and in the end if the Lanc shakes it loose, the fighter can still come around and get him. Yes at night it will be harder but also look at the German night fighter radar which was getting pretty accurate.


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2006)

inexperienced GErman nf pilots were too eager to attack from the rear and slightly below which would give their ID away to the lanc rear gunner who then of course would give the call to the pilot and the corkscrew would begin and the heavy could eveade. During 1945 the German crews with some kills to the more experienced would actually "dare" the RAF crew to do this and would just watch with their eyes and time the rear attack as the RAF Lanc or Hali would come out of the death defying leap and plunge and then let fly with 2cm rounds


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

sys read up on the lanc, many a pilot have said she handles like a much smaller twin engined plane, she could very easily be barrel rolled and there are examples of her being put through an entire loop-the-loop at night to evade german fighters................

also it's generally accepted that 90% of attacking fighters would break off an attack if they knew the rear gunner of the bomber had seen them (normally indicated by a burst of fire), it was much easier for the attacking fighter to go off and look for another plane with a less vigilant crew, why? because he knows once he's spotted, unlike the Americans, the RAF bombers would go into evasive manoeuvres so...



> You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass



...isn't true at night..........



> Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.



let me introduce you to one of the more common "evasive" manoeuvres, it's actually very simple and quite hard to counter, ok, so, the rear gunner of a lanc at night sees an attacking fighter getting into position, he gives it a few bursts to see if he can scare jerry off, but jerry's more determined, so, the rear gunner sees the fighter closing in (they often had to get in close in order to identify the target) so he shouts to the flight engineer over the intercom "attacking fighter- prepare to drop" to which he hopes to get the reply "prepared to drop", then, when the rear gunner shouts "DROP" what do you think the flight engineer does? speed up? tells the pilot to go into violent manoeuvres? no, he all but closes all the throttles! this causes the aircraft to slow down very quickly, what's the point of this? well now jerry's going to overshoot! and will more than likely not come round again, and don't even think about a head on pass! opening of the throttles would then bring the aircraft beck to normal, total time for manoeuvre? 5-10 seconds? so not only was loosing speed used as a defence, this would only be done if the aircraft would gain speed quickly again, which the lanc did, this move was sometimes combined with a corkscrew, sometimes it would be very effective, sometimes jerry was a bit wiser, well, you win some you loose some...............


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2006)

and Deutsche Nachtjäger waiting for her to come down out of the lopp to get fried by German 2cm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

Erich can confirm whether your night fighting evasions where effective or not. The Luftwaffe pilots were not going to disengage just because the tail gunner was shooting at them. If they were brave enough to go up against .50's during the day, they werent going to be afraid of .303's at night.

The Lanc doing barrel rolls? Unless you can provide evidence of that I'd say it was highly improbable. And if the Lanc was as maneuverable as you make it out to be, why wasnt it converted to an over sized fighter?
Maneuverable for its size I agree with. More maneuverable than small fighter planes? Nope.

Some nights had bad visibility which made it hard to reaquire visual contacts. Some nights had good enough visibility that no matter what the Lanc did, it was not going to break off contact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Well I am not going to say the Lanc could do Barrel Rolls because I do not know if it could or not, but a C-130 can do a Barrel Roll so why cant a Lancaster?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

Imagine a Lanc loaded with 20,000 lbs of bombs, a full load of fuel, and then doing barrel rolls.

And C130's as a matter of policy dont do barrel rolls.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Yes but I have seen it an Airshow. It was a British C-130 at the 1998 Air Feat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2006)

Although the Lancaster was very maneuverable for its size, in general its bad for any large mulit-engine aircraft with wing mounted recip engines to be subjected to adverse maneuvers. Many multi-engine American WW2 aircraft prohibited spins in the POH.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Agreed


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2006)

Concord's did a number of barrel roles. They wanted to do it at an air display, Farnborough?) but were banned because they didn't want to worry potential passengers. So I don't see why a C130 couldn't do it. If done well the G forces are very low.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2006)

Glider said:


> Concord's did a number of barrel roles. They wanted to do it at an air display, Farnborough?) but were banned because they didn't want to worry potential passengers. So I don't see why a C130 couldn't do it. If done well the G forces are very low.


A 130 could do it - it's a matter of continual exposure. Additionally the C-130 had several "TCTOs" (Time Compliance Change Order) which is like a service bulletin to modify the wing, earlier C-130s were notorious for having wing cracks.

A former USAF C-130 that didn't fully comply with the TCTO and was operating as a fire bomber crashed because of wing failure in an area close to where I used to live.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2006)

Poor sods. Willing to bet the penny pinchers got anyway without punishment


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2006)

Barrel roll in a Lanc at altitude and followed eagerly by a Ju 88G-6....... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

Glider said:


> Concord's did a number of barrel roles. They wanted to do it at an air display, Farnborough?) but were banned because they didn't want to worry potential passengers. So I don't see why a C130 couldn't do it. If done well the G forces are very low.



It can and has done it. Ive seen a C-130 do a Barrel Roll in England. What FBJ is talking about is continual exposure doing it over and over. It puts a lot of stress on the wings and structure.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2006)

just about any a/c could loop or barrel roll they are not hi g maneuvers 2-3 gs however neither maneuver would be of any advantage in escaping a fighter in fact they would be more vulnerable i would assume because of loss of maneuvering speed is there any info on idling 2-3 engines and use of rudder which would be a fine task for co pilot to assist in


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> just about any a/c could loop or barrel roll they are not hi g maneuvers 2-3 gs however neither maneuver would be of any advantage in escaping a fighter in fact they would be more vulnerable i would assume because of loss of maneuvering speed is there any info on idling 2-3 engines and use of rudder which would be a fine task for co pilot to assist in



Agree, I know the Lanc dived pretty well, I wold use full power and dive....


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2006)

i was fortunate enough to talk to 2 pilots today 1 flew b24 in CBI the other a 2 tour halifax guy and the guy in the Halifax says the most important crew member was a good tail gunner who would be able to direct him where to go and a good tail gunner at night was one that didn't fire his weapons unless he was under attack the reason being was not to draw attention to the A/C he recalled flying in formation with a ju88 for about 5 minutes the 88 did not see him and he did not want to do anything fancy that might attract the 88's attention including firing any weapons. His favourite tactic was to drop everything from gear to flaps cut power and hope the guy overshot


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

Great Info!!!


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2006)

pbfoot you bring up an interesting point the Ju 88 flying behind the RAF heavy and not firing. this is quite feasible that the pilot and crew wre on theri first mission as it has been admitted to me on several occassions. you can bet the Ju 88G saw the Lanc and was probably watching.

the tail gunner and you have proven it with the crewmans words was the all important EYE.

thank you for the short summary, maybe we can get you to go back for a further interview possibly ?? would loe to hear more from this gent and even the B-24 guy if this is possible ?


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2006)

dang fingers..........

another short note and to be breif but both in the Lanc and Halibag, the tail gunners would allow the German nf's to get as close as possible within reason and then fly with the .303's in the cockpit if possible. Definately a nasty cat and mouse game ..............


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2006)

Great info pbfoot!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2006)

Erich said:


> pbfoot you bring up an interesting point the Ju 88 flying behind the RAF heavy and not firing. this is quite feasible that the pilot and crew wre on theri first mission as it has been admitted to me on several occassions. you can bet the Ju 88G saw the Lanc and was probably watching.
> 
> the tail gunner and you have proven it with the crewmans words was the all important EYE.
> 
> thank you for the short summary, maybe we can get you to go back for a further interview possibly ?? would loe to hear more from this gent and even the B-24 guy if this is possible ?


no this particular meeting the 88 was about 100 metres at tbe 4 0 clock he just never saw the halifax the same gent said he lost about 4ft of his starboard wing to an 88 with the schrage on another occasion I'll try my best to talk again


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> i was fortunate enough to talk to 2 pilots today 1 flew b24 in CBI the other a 2 tour halifax guy and the guy in the Halifax says the most important crew member was a good tail gunner who would be able to direct him where to go and a good tail gunner at night was one that didn't fire his weapons unless he was under attack the reason being was not to draw attention to the A/C he recalled flying in formation with a ju88 for about 5 minutes the 88 did not see him and he did not want to do anything fancy that might attract the 88's attention including firing any weapons. His favourite tactic was to drop everything from gear to flaps cut power and hope the guy overshot



Good info.


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2006)

that far back, interesting still that the Ju 88 pilot to did force the situation as the hali would of been picked up on radar and then a visual set in. the Ju 88 pilot may have been even fear struck...........one never knows again on the weirdness of evening missions.

again would love to hear more.

E


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2006)

having worked radar all sorts of things can affect it and considering that this was the early stage off radar the gains could have been turned down or the set was U/S or just sitting in a blind spot or atmospherics or any multitude of things


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2006)

To repeat the others, good stuff there pb. Interesting. 
I work with radar on occasion, myself.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2006)

Good extra info there pbfoot, would love to be able to hear some more from the contacts you have.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 13, 2006)

Just an idle wonder: if the B-24 and the Lancaster were to switch production facilities, would we have seen 18,000 Lancasters produced, or one made every hour, given a similar level of manpower and supply?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Just an idle wonder: if the B-24 and the Lancaster were to switch production facilities, would we have seen 18,000 Lancasters produced, or one made every hour, given a similar level of manpower and supply?



There is no doubt in my mind that could of been done! It's commendable that the 7500 Lancs were built considering the conditions endured by the UK during WW2...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2006)

Probably could have built that many.

But only putting out 7500 Lancs isnt much of an achievement at all. The Germans showed that production could be decentralized and yet output could go way up. 

Either the UK production engineers werent daring enough to think of ways to boost production, or maybe the RAF was wasting its aviation production capability on trying to build too many different types of planes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2006)

Good stuff pb...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Probably could have built that many.
> 
> But only putting out 7500 Lancs isnt much of an achievement at all. The Germans showed that production could be decentralized and yet output could go way up.
> 
> Either the UK production engineers werent daring enough to think of ways to boost production, or maybe the RAF was wasting its aviation production capability on trying to build too many different types of planes.



NO! They had these funny little planes with bent crosses on their tails flying over them dropping bombs, I think that might slow things down a bit!  

The Germans made no real attempt to seriously mass produce a plane like the Lancaster or the B-24, and dont count that flying disaster the -177 Grief!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

Its only a matter of sub assembly's being bolted together.

Four one engined airplanes = a single four engined bomber


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its only a matter of sub assembly's being bolted together.
> 
> Four one engined airplanes = a single four engined bomber


BOLT TOGETHER?!?  
Have you ever witnesses two large aircraft sub assemblies go together?!? In some of the application you don't use rivets, you use a steel pin called a hi loc which needs to be precision drilled and swedged into place. You also need an assembly jig to hold everything together or else you build a crooked plane, you just don't "bolt together" a large aircraft!  

Remember you hand build a bomber it takes over 200,000 manhours per plane, that's how long the first B-24s took to build if you put in you're example?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

The rate per assembly went down to 15,000 or so for the whole thing. Call it bolting or riviting, it doesnt matter. If the aircraft is designed correctly, its just line up the jigs and start the assembly process.

Excuse me if I didnt specify that the sub assemblies had to be on jigs, there had to be people on hand to do the thing, the factory had to have some type of power turned on, there had to be a cup of coffee or tea brewing somewhere, blah blah blah, blah blah

The US proved it could be done quickly and there was no reason for the brits not to be able to do it. In some ways, they should have been able to do it faster than the US as all their production facilities were located near each other as compared to the US.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The US proved it could be done quickly and there was no reason for the Brits not to be able to do it. In some ways, they should have been able to do it faster than the US as all their production facilities were located near each other as compared to the US.



Its called manpower and resources and they (the UK) didn't have it to the extent we did. Much of the aircraft manufacturing industry methodology was actually learned from them, we improved on it (willow run) by inviting automotive manufacturers into the situation and at the time the US was a world leader in that industry. They probably could of adopted some of the things we did built it would of meant shutting down a production line to incorporate those improvements, you don't do that if you're fighting for your life...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

Even if they produced it in a more conventional manner, they still should have been able to boost production. Remember the US was never at full war emergency as the Brits were. They could move people and material around with far more ease.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Its only a matter of sub assembly's being bolted together.
> ...



Oh and dont forget to mention that it is not a Ford Car. Putting together an aicraft is precision work. I have been stating that over and over but it just does not sink in. 

I* think tomorrow I will take my Blackhawk apart and Bolt the Sub Assemblies back together because its easy!*


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Probably could have built that many.
> 
> But only putting out 7500 Lancs isnt much of an achievement at all. The Germans showed that production could be decentralized and yet output could go way up.
> .



I think you will find that Germany produced less aircraft than the UK in straight numbers and generally less complex aircraft.

4 engine aircraft UK around 16-17,000 Germany around 1000

We also out produced Germany in the first half of the war when we were nd definately on the defensive. The UK doesn't have to apologise for our ability to build under pressure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

I think Germany built more than a 1000 4 engine aircraft during the war. Not sure I might be wrong, I will have research this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Even if they produced it in a more conventional manner, they still should have been able to boost production. Remember the US was never at full war emergency as the Brits were. They could move people and material around with far more ease.



Thety didn't *have* the people or resources!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2006)

They had enough to concentrate on 3 or 4 planes and produce them by the thousands.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

And they did do just that. They concentrated on what they needed for survival: Fighters! You have to remember that they were being attacked at the hight of the Blitz. Had the US been in there shoes they would have concentrated on fighters too just like England did. 

Look at the time line man!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> They had enough to concentrate on 3 or 4 planes and produce them by the thousands.



And that's it! They didn't have the ability to bring in the raw materials necessary to construct modern factories (Like Willow Run) and to even attempt to do so could of spelled disaster to an already taxed demand. Why do you think they (the UK) purchased P-40s, Baltimores, Marylands, B-24s, etc., etc. They were fighting for their lives. At the same time this doesn't diminish the effort they put into their aircraft industry and the products they produced....


During the Blitz several of their major aircraft factories were bombed (Supermarine factory in Southampton for one) as a matter of fact, there was an all-out effort to destroy the British ability to manufacture aircraft on August 12, 1940. The Brits had less people, resources, and were being bombed - to attempt to say they should of matched US production numbers is ridiculous!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

It is rather a matter of common sense. The British did the best they could at the time and built what was necessary to survive. What did they concentrate on at first? Fighters. Bingo you need fighters to destroy the enemy offensive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is rather a matter of common sense. The British did the best they could at the time and built what was necessary to survive. What did they concentrate on at first? Fighters. Bingo you need fighters to destroy the enemy offensive.



YEP!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > It is rather a matter of common sense. The British did the best they could at the time and built what was necessary to survive. What did they concentrate on at first? Fighters. Bingo you need fighters to destroy the enemy offensive.
> ...


Agreed, and then you need heavy bombers to take the offensive back to him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

And at that point the bomber offensive was not longer just the RAF Bomber Command but also the USAAF B-17 and B-24.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And at that point the bomber offensive was not longer just the RAF Bomber Command but also the USAAF B-17 and B-24.


Exactly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

and this was wartime, FB made some good points, do you really honestly think that we wouldn't be producing to our fullest capacity? we don't have the manpower of america, to claim we do is rediculous, i shall point out again that at the peak of production Avro had 29,000 men working on lancasters, that's for every factory and many sub-contractors, willow run alone employed 42,000, why? becuase america had the man power, we did not...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Dont forget the Women also. While the men went off to fight the women went it and did the job of building aircraft for them. More so in the US than in Britain.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

my figure for Avro includes women, i think it did for willow run too..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Yes I am sure it did, I am just saying that I think that in the US that was more so than in England.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2006)

In 1943, the bombing threat was over. The brits and the US had lots and lots fo fighters to take care of the Luftwaffe.

So what three or four planes should the RAF concentrated on?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

And they concentrated on what was necessary. Why are you the only one who does not understand this. 

They concentrated on Spitfires, Mossies, and Lancasters. They did not have the production capacity to build as many as the US did. Again why are you the only one that does not understand this?


----------



## Glider (Jan 15, 2006)

Can I remind you again of the thousands of V1 and V2 rockets that were landing on us. You keep forgetting those.
Plus of course. 
Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.
I suggest you anwser your own question which would you drop. Typhoon? and leave us without any ground attack
Halifax bit like saying the USA should have stopped building the B17 as the B24 could be produced more easily.
Mossie And leave us without so much
Sunderland and leave us without any long range A/S recce
Spitfire and leave us without a fighter.

In 1940 when we were in our darkest hour we did drop production of all but a few key types just as the germans did in their darkest hour. This is one reason why the MB3 and MB5 didn't enter service, the Mossie was delayed, the development of the jet engine was slowed down and with it the delay to the Meteor and Vampire.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 15, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> my figure for Avro includes women, i think it did for willow run too..........


here are some of the women at willow run and they had a different group called blacks which was unusual as well and it was forced on the war plants by FDR


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

but we did have the sence to stop production lines for a bit to make changes, unlike the americans who sent their newly produced obsolete B-24s off to mod. centres  

and sys do you really think we could've produced more than we were? do you think we were sitting back drinking tea the whole time? no, it would've been very hard for us to make more aircraft, given we were working at full capacity!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

Remember, we are only a small country syscom. Besides, what is the most important quality in a bomber- it's bomb-carrying capacity which I believe the Lanc wins hands down.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

yes bombers are designed to drop bombs, few bombers in history have done this as well as the avro lancaster, very few planes have their load carrying ability classed and legendary, the lancaster is one of them.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Good info all of you guys, BUT YOUR WRONG!!!!! THERE IS NO REASON WHY ENGLAND COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE USA IN BUILDING BOMBERS!!!!!! HELL WHO CARES THAT YOU GUYS WERE BEING BOMBED, WHO CARES THAT THE US WASN'T!!!!!! NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!!!!


Okay I am done now!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2006)

Woah.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

I hope you sense the sarcasm! Im on Lancs side in this argument.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

thanks for the support, i realise how hard that must have been for you to say


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2006)

Oh yeah, of course I do Adler. But still...Woah.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> thanks for the support, i realise how hard that must have been for you to say



I know it is very wiered!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2006)

> Can I remind you again of the thousands of V1 and V2 rockets that were landing on us. You keep forgetting those.



V1's and V2's couldnt hit anything they were aimed at. 



> Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.



No need to move anything. The factories are there and tooling can be produced in a fair enough time. All it means is some factories will build sub assemblies, some assemble the final product. Plus theyre all close to each other, so its not like in the US where the distance between the plants can be 2000 miles.



> I suggest you anwser your own question which would you drop. ......



I would drop the Beaufighter and put the Spit into a very low rate of production. All other multiengine bombers would be dropped in favor of nothing but Lancs. Maritime patrol really wasnt as important after 1943 as the number of escort carriers took up that mission just fine. And all carrier based aircraft would be stopped as the USN had better aircraft available by the thousands.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > Can I remind you again of the thousands of V1 and V2 rockets that were landing on us. You keep forgetting those.
> 
> 
> 
> V1's and V2's couldnt hit anything they were aimed at.



Come on, that statement was pretty lame!!!!  If you fired enough of them you're going to hit something, and that they did...













15 June 1944, with 244 fired at London and 50 fired at Southampton. 144 crossed the English coast; 73 managed to reach London; some were shot down; most of the rest landed south of the Thames; and a few hit Southampton. One went wildly astray and ended up in Norfolk. You try going to work under those conditions



> Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.





syscom3 said:


> No need to move anything. The factories are there and tooling can be produced in a fair enough time. All it means is some factories will build sub assemblies, some assemble the final product. Plus theyre all close to each other, so its not like in the US where the distance between the plants can be 2000 miles.



Again you're ignorance of aircraft manufacturing is apparent. Do you think you could just sh*t out an assembly jig?!? The most time consuming part of aircraft production is the developing of the tooling. I briefly worked as a tooling inspector and I could tell you sometimes it took 2 years to build, develop and correct a major assembly tool, mind you during WW2 the task would have been heavily expedited, but still time consuming 



syscom3 said:


> > I suggest you anwser your own question which would you drop. ......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what do you do to those commanders in the field who want or need an aircraft like a Beaufighter?!? What do you replace it with?!? The military dictates what aircraft are needed, industry attempts to support that need - 

As far as Naval aircraft - that last time I looked at information about the FAA, they had numerous American Aircraft - Hmmmm, didn't a Brit teach us how to land a Corsair on a carrier?!?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2006)

Flyboy, youre really ignorant in the production of WW2 aircraft. Tooling can be built fast. This is basically 1930's technology, not the stuff you worked on.

The fact that so many different types of planes could be built by the thousands by all of the combatants meant it was not a complex job.

Think about it. B1 production line of the 80's was a tad different than a Lanc line in 1943. So dont pretend you are an expert in aircraft production lines of WW2 because you didnt work it, you didnt design the tooling and you werent in the front office planning the work. Switching the tooling from one aircraft to another would take a couple of months at the top. If it was done in the US witha ll the inneficiencies and wastage we inccured, it could be done in Britain under their more efficient resource allocation

If you want to talk about production in the 60's and 70's I will listen to you.

And the V1's and V2's had an accuracy measured in miles. They managed to hit cities and not individual factories. They didnt hit any of importance unless it was a lucky hit. In fact a V2 landed right on top of my Grandfather in 1945 and it missed the London dockyards by at least a mile. Great accuracy huh? . And I know damn well the Brits did not slow down under the V1 or V2 attacks anymore than the Germans stopped their work because of the bombing.

If a british commander in the field wanted a Beaufighter, then he would be told none are available. Tough luck to him. He can have a Typhoon, Mosquito or a B25.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2006)

Excuse me? Since when are _you_ the expert on WWII aircraft manufacturing. Joe has been working in the industry for a long time and he probably knows more about the manufacture of airplanes than the rest of us. Tooling and what he was taling about may have changed a bit, but the basic premise of making the tooling and setting up the lines have not really changed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2006)

Agreed. I think Joe might know a thing or two about his craft. 
I'll take his first-hand knowledge of the industry - past and present - over someones musings any day.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

I was in the aerospace field for 21 years and I know a thing or two about tooling. He extrapolates modern production lines of complex aircraft of today applying them to aircraft production of 65 years ago.

I dont think his age is in his 80's and has ever had first hand experience building any airplane of that era in a factory under mass production, or designing tooling for WW2 aircraft during those years. Like I said, he knows his stuff for postwar, but for him to say that the tooling of that era was so complex as to take years to design, is sort of disproven by the vast numbers of airplanes designed and built within months.

Back then there were lots of machinists and tool makers who could produce those jigs in a jiffy. And the production tolerances were much looser than today so they could all be built in a hurry.

Back in the 80's I worked at TRW (Evans, remember that company in Redondo Beach? huh) and the big project I was working on was being delayed because of the tooling we were required to use was far more close fitting than what was needed. The project engineer in charge of that portion of our project started his life as a tool maker at Lockheed for the PV-1 Ventura and he gave a screaming discourse on why they could build airplanes "back then" so fast was the simple tooling and specs needed for aircraft of that era. And he was right on.

Flyboy has undoubtably heard second hand accounts of production, and so have I.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy has undoubtably heard second hand accounts of production, and so have I.



I built or was in volved with the construction of close to 200 airplanes, HANDS ON, far from second hand...

Production tooling in the 1970s and early 80s changed little from the 1940s - even on the 1011 and DC-10 production lines...

I remember TRW, I lived close by - Let's see, how many *AIRPLANES *rolled out of that facility!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

We built plenty of complex things there.

And since you mentioned you lived in the south bay, I'm sure you remember that the machinists tended to go to any facility in the area that had the contracts. Or did you forget that?

Now I'm curious, what factory did you assemble airplanes at in 1941-1945?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> We built plenty of complex things there.


complex?!? Satellites?!? Rockets?!? BUT NOT AIRPLANES?!?  


syscom3 said:


> And since you mentioned you lived in the south bay, I'm sure you remember that the machinists tended to go to any facility in the area that had the contracts. Or did you forget that?


Oh I remember that well, it was the "good ole days" when you could change jobs for more pay like you were changing under-ware, god bless Ronald Regan, I worked for Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, Sikorsky, and that's for starters....


syscom3 said:


> Now I'm curious, what factory did you assemble airplanes at in 1941-1945?


I assembled aircraft in Building 304 Burbank which was built in 1942. The tooling that assembled the P-3 had its linage from tooling designed in the 1940s, as a matter of fact some of the minor tooling details (clamps, stops, etc)were drawn in 1944!!!!!!

About half of the people I worked with had senority PRIOR TO 1950 - which means they were around in the war years, I learned a lot from these folks especially how Lockheed aircraft were assembled then and now....

And for your edification, the F-117 tooling was little different, it was very basic. the only modern tooling used to assemble aircraft in Southern California during that period was found at Rockwell on the B-1, and at Northrop's B-2 facility which had computer alignment tapes similar to a CNC machine that lined up their B-2 sub- assemblies. Lockheed and Douglas (on their MD-80 and DC-10 lines) were still using tooling based on 1940s technology...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

LOL Wow now I am really really laughing my ass of here. That was a pretty dumb remark syscom about FBJ! I have more experience tooling around on "Actual Aircraft" than you do syscom and FBJ puts me to shame. Hes been doing this job propbably longer than I have been alive. 

You just entered the world of ignorance! 

I think FBJ can tell you this syscom:


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 16, 2006)

I have been told there was alot of labour strife(strikes) in the UK during the war was this true and was there similar problems in the US


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

There werent any major labor incidents in the US during the war. The unions agree'd to a govt proposal to have no strikes for the duration. With workers having the freedom to work at any plant they wanted to, they moved about if they had problems with management.

Australia had some labor disputes in the ports, but that was quickly solved when US troops threatened to remove the strikers at gun point and do the work themselves. I think it had to do with some dockworkers refusing to unload a transport because it was raining really hard. The transport had some vitally needed material onboard, and when the US authorities heard about it, they went "ballisic". It might have been in Darwin, but I'm not sure.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> LOL Wow now I am really really laughing my ass of here. That was a pretty dumb remark syscom about FBJ! I have more experience tooling around on "Actual Aircraft" than you do syscom and FBJ puts me to shame. Hes been doing this job propbably longer than I have been alive.
> 
> You just entered the world of ignorance!
> 
> I think FBJ can tell you this syscom:



Deradler, you dont know anything about my background, so as in the words of Archie bunker, "stifle yerself". 

FBJ, obviously you have never seen a satelite structure or a rocket motor being built. Some parts easy to make, some more difficult. Some tooling built in a jiffy, some needed some time to build. And none of it was difficult to duplicate once the blueprints were finalized.

A drill press is a drill press. If its already in place building parts for one plane, its in place to build parts for another. Building the dies, jigs and whatever is an easy process.

Go read what I said before. Converting an existing factory to build a plane thats already in production is not a difficult task. Blueprints already exist and it only takes a couple of months to build all the tooling you need. It doesnt take two years. Hah. How do you suppose the Mustang (Apache) was designed and put into production in less than a year? Plus the brits werent dumb so their was always some spare jigs and tools held back as insurance in case they were needed due to bombing, fire accident, what have you. They could be used at the new factories.

And take a hint, the P3 was not a B17. Two different era's for manufacturing. The P3 was not built in a war emergency scenario like the other aircraft of the WW2 era. If management wanted tooling built really fast, it was done quickly without fanfare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > LOL Wow now I am really really laughing my ass of here. That was a pretty dumb remark syscom about FBJ! I have more experience tooling around on "Actual Aircraft" than you do syscom and FBJ puts me to shame. Hes been doing this job propbably longer than I have been alive.
> ...


I worked on Trident missile liners and was a source inspector for Lockheed Missiles and Space Division while doing some TDY. Simple tube structures very big but simple, but you're right my exposure to Space Vehicles is limited, it's a whole different world, but to say overall tooling is easy to make, well maybe if you're building a satellite......



syscom3 said:


> A drill press is a drill press. If its already in place building parts for one plane, its in place to build parts for another. Building the dies, jigs and whatever is an easy process.


TOTALLY DISAGREE! While some tooling is simple, you have other pieces of tooling that have to hold tolerances tighter than .001, have to be maintained continually on level ground and have to be periodically inspected for ground movement, especially in Southern California - the only way you're doing this and keeping the production line moving if you have a lot of bodies......

A drill press is a drill press?!? Tell that to a tool maker - they were a cut above the normal assembler because their trade is basically an art. Don't say that to an old Douglas guy, he'll try to kick you in you're nuts!!!!

And try building dies and Jigs when you're being bombed, it IS a difficult process.......


syscom3 said:


> [
> Go read what I said before. Converting an existing factory to build a plane thats already in production is not a difficult task. Blueprints already exist and it only takes a couple of months to build all the tooling you need. It doesnt take two years. Hah. How do you suppose the Mustang (Apache) was designed and put into production in less than a year?


*It was a single seat fighter* DESIGNED to go together with little production tooling. The P-80 was also done quickly using tooling from the P-38, in fact the P-80s nose is the same as the P-38s, its just inverted.....

Go read my early posts, we're talking bombers, big 4 engine guys.....



syscom3 said:


> Plus the brits werent dumb so their was always some spare jigs and tools held back as insurance in case they were needed due to bombing, fire accident, what have you. They could be used at the new factories.



That they weren't, and they realized that if a piece of tooling was destroyed, they may not of had the manpower available to replace it..


syscom3 said:


> And take a hint, the P3 was not a B17. Two different era's for manufacturing. The P3 was not built in a war emergency scenario like the other aircraft of the WW2 era. If management wanted tooling built really fast, it was done quickly without fanfare.



And I been inside both aircraft (Have you?). And I'm talking inside the wings and internal structure. I could tell you the methodology that went into the manufacturing of both changed little from the 40s, into the Mid 50, when the initial Electra tooling was constructed.

Take a hint - many aircraft tooling engineers design things based on earlier experiences and things they were familiar with. Many of the Tooling guys I worked with started off at the Vega Plant. Have you ever bothered to look at the B-17 Vertical Stabilizer and compare the shape to some later Lockheed airplanes? That wasn't a coincidence, just like using a modified P-38 nose on the P-80, but then again they don't probably don't do things like that at a facility that builds satellites...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Deradler, you dont know anything about my background, so as in the words of Archie bunker, "stifle yerself".



Stop being stupid in this thread then.  



syscom3 said:


> FBJ, obviously you have never seen a satelite structure or a rocket motor being built. Some parts easy to make, some more difficult. Some tooling built in a jiffy, some needed some time to build. And none of it was difficult to duplicate once the blueprints were finalized.



Neither have I, but obviously you dont know what all goes into building an aircraft.



syscom3 said:


> And take a hint, the P3 was not a B17. Two different era's for manufacturing. The P3 was not built in a war emergency scenario like the other aircraft of the WW2 era. If management wanted tooling built really fast, it was done quickly without fanfare.



And you know exactly how a B-17 bomber was build and what it took. I dont think so. Unless you worked on the assy line and really know differently, dont tell other people they dont know what they are talking about, when you really dont either!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 16, 2006)

Keep in mind that the early B-17s were also not built in a war emergency scenario either. Most of the basic structure was not changed during production either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Keep in mind that the early B-17s were also not built in a war emergency scenario either. Most of the basic structure was not changed during production either.



Yep - when major design changes are implemented during aircraft production, the busiest people in the plant are the tooling folks. Engineers design the thing, manufacturing engineers have to figure out how to build it, tooling engineers have to figure to pull both of their efforts together so the thing will be built right. Like putting 10 pounds of sh#t in a 5 pound bag...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that the early B-17s were also not built in a war emergency scenario either. Most of the basic structure was not changed during production either.
> ...



 Are you Serious! I thought it was so easy to buld a plane. I thought they just got together and folded pieces of paper and cardboard and then just went out and flew it! Man am I shocked!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > evangilder said:
> ...


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Switching the tooling from one aircraft to another would take a couple of months at the top. If it was done in the US witha ll the inneficiencies and wastage we inccured, it could be done in Britain under their more efficient resource allocation
> .



What total rot. If it was that easy to switch production we would have stopped building Sterlings and switched to Lancs way back in 1942. Hurricanes would also have stopped being produced in 1942. Germany would have stopped the 109 in around 1943 and gone to the 190. He111 would have been switched to something say a Ju188. P40's would have been converted to say a P51. Dare I say B17 to B24, C47 to C46, Ju52 to almost any other transport, the examples are endless

Syscom. You are big on statements but light on facts. Can I ask for ANY example of a Major factory switching from one type to another in two months.

And as for this
quote If a british commander in the field wanted a Beaufighter, then he would be told none are available. Tough luck to him. He can have a Typhoon, Mosquito or a B25.
I didn't realise it was so easy to convert from one plane to another. Crew training, spares, maintanence, pity if your on Anti Shipping patrol and want to drop a torpedo, never mind I am sure the Germans/Japs will not mind.

You also seem to think that we had an excess of machine tools, you are so so wrong. Did you know that at the start of the war we had One machine making Merlin crakshafts.
When I was training in the Fleet Air Arm we were using Lathes marked Wartime Tolerances Only. When I asked, was told these were only to be used for training and non critical parts because they had failed the QA test but rather than throw them away were used for other roles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Good info there Glider and I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2006)

and sys, a single 4 engined bomber is not the same as 4 single engined fighters, the empty weight of a spit Mk.IX was about 5,634lbs, the empty weight of a lanc? 36,811lbs, so, is the empty lanc the equivilant of 4 empty spits? NO! 

and you say you work at this company making stalites? have you ever actually put anything together in your life? i'm a farmer's son, what does that mean? it means i've worked around machinery, now i'm not saying i know as much about machinery about many of the other members, but i'm 15 and i can tell you that when making anything with machinery you HAVE to be precise, even working on farm machines, if you make a mistake, it aint gonna go, so don't say that standards were lower during the war, because you can't skimp...........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

> and you say you work at this company making stalites?



you mean satellites?



> have you ever actually put anything together in your life?



Ummmm..... actually I have. In factoroies, customer sites and labs, for almost twice the number of years as you have been alive 




> i'm a farmer's son, what does that mean? it means i've worked around machinery, now i'm not saying i know as much about machinery about many of the other members, but i'm 15 and i can tell you that when making anything with machinery you HAVE to be precise, even working on farm machines, if you make a mistake, it aint gonna go, so don't say that standards were lower during the war, because you can't skimp...........



As in any manufactored product, some parts are precision built to high tolerances, some to wide tolerances. If youve ever bothered to look at a blueprint you will see the classic symbol next to a measurement "+/- .00x"
In WW2, production was paramount, and those designs that had a minimum of pecision built componants usually got built en mass.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

Good points there guys! It's a lot easier to build single engine fighters under conventional assembly methods as opposed to multi engine aircraft. Speaking in WW2 standards, larger multi engine aircraft were a lot more complicated than single engine fighters. Besides your normal engine and flight controls multiplied by 4, you had tons of electrical wiring and hydraulic lines for gun turrets, electronic provisions, and other items like Syncrophasers (someone ask what this is and I'll tell you). Saying that building 4 single engine fighters is like building one 4 engine bomber is ridiculous, it's like saying 4 motorcycles make a car!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As in any manufactored product, some parts are precision built to high tolerances, some to wide tolerances. If youve ever bothered to look at a blueprint you will see the classic symbol next to a measurement "+/- .00x"
> In WW2, production was paramount, and those designs that had a minimum of pecision built componants usually got built en mass.


Actually the "classic" tolerance was and is as follows....

.XXX - +/- .003
.XX - +/- .010

For highly precision parts you'll see tolernce four places.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

A Syncrophaser ensures the props spin at the same RPM. Besides making them sound better, it might also have something to do with minimizing low frequency resonance that might be coupled to the airframe. Perhaps it also slightly increases aircraft performance by eliminating asynmetric thrust angles?

For production purposes, one heavy bomber = four fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> A Syncrophaser ensures the props spin at the same RPM. Besides making them sound better, it might also have something to do with minimizing low frequency resonance that might be coupled to the airframe. Perhaps it also slightly increases aircraft performance by eliminating asynmetric thrust angles?


Very good, perhaps striaght from a Ham Standard site...
The amount of wiring for those probably could wire 8 single seat fighters.


syscom3 said:


> For production purposes, one heavy bomber = four fighters.


You're on drugs!  OK - 4 P-38s make a B-36?!?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Hes not on drugs, he just lives in a world of illusions and has no clue about aircraft production.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2006)

sys go back to my example, one bog standarn single engined fighter, in this case a standard Spitfire Mk.IX, empty weight 5,634lbs, that means there's 5,634lbs of materials going into a single plane, so the engine, all the wiring and skins, tanks, everything...........

so, if a single four engined bomber is the equivilant of 4 single engined fighters, logically it should weigh four times as much, as there will be four times the ammount of material gone into it? correct? no, an empty lanc weighed about 6.5 times more than an empty spit, thats 14,275lbs of extra material gone into the lanc, that extra weight isn't going to produce itself, it takes more time to produce and install that extra material!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

There were no definitions of synchrophasers I could find, so I deduced what it was from some bits of information from synchrophasers that were for sale.

Besides, the root words indicate that it has something to do with "same phase". 

Lanc, just for you, one spit = 6.5 bombers. In a macro economic sense, its irrelevant.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

There's a great movie clip that shows P-51 production at NAs old LAX facility. It shows one guy "mating" wing halves on an assembly line, actually bolting them together. Later in the clip it shows much of the final assembly which looked more like an automotive production. Little production tooling was utilized at this stage of production, it seems all the components that were jig built were completed as large sub assemblies that needed little or no special tooling for assembly. Most WW2 fighters I've seen up close and personal seem to be assembled this way.

Now let’s talk big planes (Listen Up Syscom). From your B-17 to B-24 through your B-52 and modern airliners, putting the wings on was done at an assembly "segment" or "station" called "Wingmate," pretty much common through-out the aircraft industry. At that point the wings were joined to the fuselage using tooling that usually set the wing into splice plates that were already installed on the aircraft fuselages. This had to be done with care and precision to ensure things weren't going together crooked. On the B-17 there also was a large fitting that incorporated 2 high strength bolts (upper and lower)

Here’s a photo of a B-17 fuselage on a crane, the lower and upper portions of the wing rib profile is where the splice plate would be.









Here a B-17 Right wing (upside down)


Here's the wing mate station, if you look closely you could see the special dollies supporting the wings as they go together....





Once at wing mate dozens of high tolerance holes were drilled through the splice plates for close tolerance "Hi Locs" or "Hi Shear" pins cold be installed. These are close tolerance steel pins that are installed similar to a rivet but they have a threaded stem. A nut is screwed on and when seated an upper portion "snaps" off ensuring proper torque and semi-permanent installation (these could be removed but it could be real tough.)

The complexity of this assembly is ten fold when compared to a single engine fighter. The B-24 employed a similar installation but the wings were first joined to a "Stub Wing" and then assembled to the rest of the fuselage.






Here’s a crashed B-24 wing. The blue and red things that look like nuts are hi-loc or hi-shear collars





This one tore away inboard from its splice plane, note the sheared wing spar.

Here's the P-51 wingmate - notice no jigs or platforms needed for this operation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

Part 2....






There you have it - there's a lot more involved, systems, assembly, operationally, and maintainability-wise when comparing a WW2 bomber to a fighter, and I just scratched the surface, I didn't go into radios, radar, bombsights etc. To say 4 fighters equal one 4 engine bomber is a simplistic way of looking at the picture based on size, it reminds me of the old skit when a boss question his workers - "How long does it take to get that thing built." The worker answers "It takes 3 guys 4 days to complete the job." Then the boss tells his worker, "Get 12 guys on it and complete it in a day."

I actually saw that kind of mentality at McDonnell Douglas and on the L1011 production line while at Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas drifted into oblivion and then was swallowed up by the competition (Boeing) and the L1011 was a financial disaster...

So tell me Sys, are you a Boss?!?!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

It will take a few more hours as they need lunch and restroom breaks.

Back in the 80's at Chino, they had their newly aquired P38 on display "in pieces". The center section where the wings attached looked really complex to produce. It looked like they needed some huge pins to pound in to hold the thing together.

I remember they had some ex P38 mechanics and assemblers there to help show them how things fitted during assembly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It will take a few more hours as they need lunch and restroom breaks.


    


 syscom3 said:


> Back in the 80's at Chino, they had their newly aquired P38 on display "in pieces". The center section where the wings attached looked really complex to produce. It looked like they needed some huge pins to pound in to hold the thing together.
> 
> I remember they had some ex P38 mechanics and assemblers there to help show them how things fitted during assembly.



I heard from guys I worked with at Lockheed who was on ythe P-38 assembly line that it was a hard aircraft to produce, but eventually methods were developed to make things easier. These guys I worked with told me that never thought they'd produce more than 100 P-38s. Lockheed actually hired midgets to assemble the tail assemblies and paid them top dollar....

Lockheed ran 3 lines at Plant B-1 (which was located at the end of Van Owen Street in Burbank) and eventually moved a line in Building 304, Plant B-6, which was just east of the new contol tower.

From Lockheed...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 17, 2006)

I think the anticipated order size of the original P-38 contract was 66 planes so they were designed to be more or less hand built.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

Yep!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Good info up there FBJ. Basically that same concept is still how they make planes today (as you are full aware of). The technology changes but the concept is the same. I was looking at that crashed B-24 wing and realized how much that looks like my aircraft. Hi-locs and all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

Thanks Adler - the only "jump" from WW2 to today is composites, and even in an "all plastic plane" (ie the B-2) you still have Hi-locs and cherry max rivets all over the place.

I'm hoping to post some more numbers here within the next few days to get this topic back on track....


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 17, 2006)

Good info FBJ.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 17, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Good info FBJ.


It sure is. Great stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2006)

I put together some numbers with a Lanc B.1 challenging a B-24J. Some of the numbers were extracted from various Internet sites and the Lancaster POH. When I did some calculations and conversions, some of the final results were quite interesting. If any one has anything to add or if there is an error here, let me know. Looking at this as a pilot, the Lanc had a heavier bomb load and way better power loading, and a lower stall and landing speed in all configurations. The B-24 was slightly faster, flew higher, and had a better rate of climb. If I had my choice, I'd take the Lancaster based on performance, I'd take the B-24 on armament and operational safety (2nd pilot). Over all, I think the Lancaster is still the superior bomber aircraft based on its ability to carry bombs to a target, its ability to house numerous electronic aids, its ability to be modified and finally its longevity. Keep in mind, this is a comparison of an early Lanc to a late model B-24!!!

Sorry for the small text, it was the only way I could get all the data on the sheet and then be able to post....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2006)

Great data.

Still a tie for me. The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2006)

Here's the excel spread sheet....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Great data.
> 
> Still a tie for me. The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup.



You're opinion - I agree about the 2 pilot set up but the primary purpose here was to drop bombs.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 18, 2006)

And the Lanc was more efficient at it and so gets my vote...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2006)

What's interesting is the Lancaster's higher power loading. I would guess this gave the Lanc better acceleration and maneuvability, many of the other categories both aircraft were almost a dead match. The Lanc lands slower, a major safety plus, but it's a tail dragger, a bit harder to fly than a "trike" configuration. The -24 had the nose gear but landed like a bat out of hell, especially when heavy, a major issue, especially with "green" pilots.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2006)

The wing loading was similar too. Thats the most surprising thing I saw. I figured the lanc with its big wings would have a lower loading.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2006)

Don't forget how fragile the nose wheel on the B-24 was too, Joe. When the Germans captured a B-24 intact and tried to land it on a grass strip, the broke it and nosed over.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2006)

Yep - My wife's Grandfather' airplane was damaged in the nose, some of the photos of the aircraft you could actually see the repairs. The B-24 was tail heavy (heavy on the controls all around) and had a weak NLG, a set up for disaster!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2006)

Yep. I was talking to one of our docents at the museum, Russ, who was an instructor pilot for the B-24 during the war. He described the nose gear as "pretty fragile".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Great data.
> 
> Still a tie for me. The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup.



What! The whole time you have been argueing so much that the B-24 was better and now you just change your mind and its a tie. What happened!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

Ive always thought it was a tie. The only tie breaker for me was the more theaters the B24 flew in. That made the B24 superior by the proverbial RCH.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ive always thought it was a tie. The only tie breaker for me was the more theaters the B24 flew in. That made the B24 superior by the proverbial RCH.


No, the tie breaker should be how many years the aircraft served, in which the Lancaster beats the -24 hands down!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 19, 2006)

Yeah but the Lanc is winning by 10 points so what can you do?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did.

But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)

B24 wins again!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did.
> 
> But then, you don't count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)


Get ready, here it comes, one, two three - *WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!*
Look at all the post war bombers (1945 and early 1946) and there was nothing, except the B-29 that remotely compete with the Lancaster. This was the norm until the B-36 came on the scene, and the early models didn't become fully operational until late 1948, and even then many of the earlier models were retrofitted to the "J" configuration because it was believed the aircraft was already obsolete when it entered service. The B-47 didn't come on scene until 1953, and the only other aircraft besides these listed that could offer better better all round operational performance was the B-50 (first flew in 1947) and lastly the TU-4, the Russian copy of the B-29 which didn't enter service until late 1947!!!!!

Now if you want to throw the Privateer into the mix, its mission, as a Navy Patrol Bomber and ASW platform is an entirely different mission and is no way flown as hard and into the same hostile environment as a heavy strategic bomber. Navy VP squadrons operated the Privateer until 1954 when most of them were replaced by either the P-2 Neptune or the P-5 Marlin.

Don't even compare the Privateer to the Lancaster as a Heavy bomber, although it carried up to 12 .50 caliber machine guns, it could only carry a 4-6000 pound bomb load because of the electronic equipment housed within the aircraft. The last Privateers were used as multi engine trainers and left the fleet in 1956...

And if you want to count the "Hawkins and Powers" fire bombers, the only reason why they were used for this role was because it was one of the last large bomber type WW2 aircraft left at Davis Monthan that had a Bomb bay, it was easier to convert an aircraft with a bomb bay into a fire bomber than one with out - remember 6000 B-24s were scrapped between late 1945 and 1946!!!! THEY ALL MADE GREAT STUDEBAKER'S! Since 1972 Hawkins and Powers lost 5 PB4Ys out of an original fleet of 10 while fighting Fires, the last one in 2002 had its wings fall off.

Once again you've proved nothing. The Brits brought on the Lincoln, supplemented their Lincoln and Lancaster bomber force with 87 B-29s through 1955. By that era the Canberra entered service (1950) followed by the Vickers and Valiant (1955) and it wasn't until that time the Lancaster started going away, it served well in basically 2 eras of aerial warfare and did so because it could still do the job. Face it Sys, if the B-24 was an operational gem, the USAAF wouln't of been so quick to get rid of them. Although it served well, we've shown here the B-24 was a heavy aircraft to fly, could present numerous maintenace problems, and could also be turned into a flying cigerette lighter. 

In the post war years and as the Cold War Started, the UK had to provide a European deterant, the Lancaster evidently was more cost effective to operate, carried a larger bomb load, offered the ability to house all types of electronic packages and had the duribility within its airframe to last close to 20 years in service. If the Brits were so desperate as you claim in the post war years, they could of held on to* their* B-24s (insted they gave several to India) and asked for more. After all 6,000 of them got parked in Arizona in 1946!!!


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2006)

I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's. They called them "Washingtons".

A privateer is still a B24 airframe.

And who cares if the majority of B24's were melted down after the war. The USN and USAF had better aircraft to perform the roles it could have done.

Note to flyboy....... aircraft are mostly aluminum. I doubt any airplane scrap went into an automobile. Toys and household products, but not any vintage "Detroit Iron". 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

Glider said:


> I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.



Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's. They called them "Washingtons".


Washingtons B.1s to be exact - they used them to supplement their stategic capability and gave the UK a Nuclear Strike capability, they just picked an aircraft that could do that job and rightfully so, it was the only aircraft capable of carrying an atomic bomb and the only bomber better than the Lancaster.


syscom3 said:


> A privateer is still a B24 airframe.


I guess the same way a Lincoln is a Lancaster airframe, we'll bring those into the fray as well!  


syscom3 said:


> And who cares if the majority of B24's were melted down after the war. The USN and USAF had better aircraft to perform the roles it could have done.


 Yep so did the RAF - it was called the Lancaster!


syscom3 said:


> Note to flyboy....... aircraft are mostly aluminum. I doubt any airplane scrap went into an automobile. Toys and household products, but not any vintage "Detroit Iron". 8)


Yea you're right, they probably made good pots and pans!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.
> ...



And let's talk about the WW2 Years...

739 of them were built, they were heavily armed and had a very long range. They did have some interesting combat situation but really didn't come on scene untill 1944.

They served well but you can't compare their combat record with that of the Lancaster, it would be like comparing the Maytag Repairman to a Navy Seal. Just for your reference, heres the PB4Y site...
http://alanc.carey.freeservers.com/index.html


----------



## Haztoys (Jan 20, 2006)

How come the tail on the PB4Y and the B-24 are not the same? 

Is one tail ( for lack of a better word) "Better" then the other?


----------



## Haztoys (Jan 20, 2006)

A little off the subject here..

Anyone know of David J Blain... A nav on a B-24...459th bomb group..757th squadron..15th Army Air Corps.... Plane was "The Peace Maker"... Did 37 missions  ...

Anyone know him or info on him... He's a friend ...Real hard old guy to get info out of .. I findlee got him to wright some of it down..

And the B-24 info has been great guys by the way ... Lanc info to has been a treat also

Thanks 

David 

Hazardous Toys inc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.
> ...



And you said this yourself so who cares about the privateers or the B-36 or anything else after the war. The Lancaster was better, sorry bud but again you have proven nothing but yet you still managed to contradict yourself. Here I will show you how:

You said:



> But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)
> 
> B24 wins again!



and then you said:



> Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.



You just contradicted yourself and based off of what you said, you proved nothing again! Basically if its good for the B-24 it can be used but if its good for the Lancaster, you dismiss it automatically.

Sorry bud, youve lost again!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

My point is who cares what they did after the war. They were good bombers for that era, and really useless after the war.

If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more usefull role of fire fighting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

Well said Adler! I've shown performance specifications that show the aircraft were similar in speeds, wing loading and fuel consumption, the Lanc had lower landing and stall speeds, a big plus. The fact that the B-24 was quickly removed from service indicates that it was not operational desirable in any role in the post WW2 era. B-17s were used for SAR roles, as drones, and many other secondary roles. The B-25 spent many years as a trainer. Why was the B-24 passed up? Here are the severe negatives - It was a heavy aircraft to fly, it was tail heavy (a very undesirable characteristic in a multi engine aircraft, unless you want to spin easy) landed fast, had inherent maintenance problems (hydraulic and fuel problems) and the worse thing, had very poor engine out characteristics because of its long Davis wing, something that the -17 and Lancaster didn't have. I'll state again, the B-24 served well, but was essentially a dump truck, once the war was over it quickly was sent into the abyss. The Lancaster lended it self for post war applications well, and the argument about it having to supplemented it with other bombers (ie the B-29) is just bogus as the B-24 just supplemented the post war aluminum scrap metal supply!!!

Sys you have given no operational data to show the B-24 was better than the Lancaster. I see only 3 operational characteristics that the B-24 had over the Lancaster...

1. A co-pilot
2. More Armament but a caveat - I recently read that despite using waist gunners, this position of US bombers was the most difficult position to score a hit from and some historians have stated that the waist gunner might of even been a waste (no pun attempted) of time as they actually achieved little in the defense of the bomber. They also had the highest casuality rate...
3. It flew slightly higher

The Lancaster carried a heavier bomb load over longer distances, lended it self better for special operations (dam busting and tall boy operations) was able to carry the most advanced electronic suites available in its day, the the most important in my book - it probably handled a hell of a lot better than the -24 in all cases. Although the wing loading was almost the same, the Lancaster's engine out characteristics were way better than the B-24 and probably as many B-24s were lost because of its poor engine characteristics as Lancasters were lost because of the single pilot situation.

Saying that the -24 gets more points because it served in two theaters is just dumb. The P-39 served in 2 theaters, was it better than the P-51?!?!

Until you could show data that the B-24 was better flown and operationaly superior, the Lancaster wins hands down was the evidence shown here it was the superior aircraft....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> My point is who cares what they did after the war. They were good bombers for that era, and really useless after the war.



Useless?!? SAR roles, transports, drones, trainers ELINT platforms - that's what the Lanc and B-17 did after the war, the B-24s were scrapped, reasons already shown!!!


syscom3 said:


> If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more useful role of fire fighting.



Only 10 of them were used, 5 crashed, sure they were useful in ONE limited role. The Lanc did many roles almost 20 years after the war....

You're grasping at straws Sys, look at the voting. Until you show some substance, the Lanc is and has been shown as a superior aircraft!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

Agreed FBJ, well said.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

P51's served in the PTO, MTO and ETO.

Why should the US keep any B24's after the war when we had B29's? ELINT went to the B29's. SAR? B17 had the most rugged airframe of the three so it was kept on for that reason. B25 trainer? Not a 4 engine bomber is it. B17 transport? Ummm...... maybe a transport for a General. But a transport for general service? Hahahahahah. Not with C54's, C69's and C119's available. Maritime patrol? That was a USN responsibility and they wanted their own purpose built aircraft to do that. Perhaps you should be asking why didnt the RAF have better aircraft around so that they had to keep the Lanc around for so long.

Like Ive continually proven, the Lanc had its good points and the B24 had its. They all concelled each other out so it was a tie. The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Perhaps you should be asking why didnt the RAF have better aircraft around so that they had to keep the Lanc around for so long.


They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...


syscom3 said:


> Like Ive continually proven, the Lanc had its good points and the B24 had its. They all concelled each other out so it was a tie. The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios.


You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 20, 2006)

As much as I admire the Liberator, the Lanc was a better bomber- the Lib was better in the MR role IMO though


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

> They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...



In the post war years, there was nothing that the B24 could have done just as well as the Lanc. The only reason they were declared surplus so quickly is aviation technology for the US marched on a rapid pace and there were better designs that had evolved as the war ended. Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more? 
Think about it. The AAF had the B29 and B32 under production, and the B35 and B36 under development. Why would any air force want to keep obsolete aircraft on the inventory? Perhaps Britain saw a need, but that doesnt mean it was superior. If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldnt have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.



> You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.



Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.


----------



## Glider (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Syscom. It was you that said that you didn't care about post war wasn't it?

As for the data, you have to be kidding. Can you explain how that becomes a draw?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

I don't see a B-24 being able to carry a Tallboy, a Grandslam or a bouncing bomb (forgotton its name). The Lanc could (and did) carry all.

Britain kept the Lanc because there was plenty of them and along with the Lincoln they made a good bombing force in the post war years. Not the best but still pretty damn good.



> If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldnt have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.



No they would have kept the B-17 and upgraded it, the B-24 would of still ended up as pots and pans albeit in maybe less numbers.



> Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.



If you look at the data you will see that the Lanc has a better payload and range and flies at a similar altitude. The B-24 flies higher, has less range and payload, has no electonics (or very little), 2 pilots and more armament. On the most important things for a bomber the Lanc is better, it carrys more bombs further, that is the whole aim of a heavy bomber. B-24's relied more on the escort than their own defensive guns, had the Lanc been in the same position it would of suffered similarly. With an escort to protect it daylight the Lanc is a much superior bomber than the B-24 being more efficient at the job of dropping bombs.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 20, 2006)

Gnomey, the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep.

I always thought that a second pilot was a disadvantage because it meant another dead man in every plane that went down. The practice of having 2 pilots was stopped in 1941 (I think) by the RAF but the flight engineer, wireless operator and navigator were trained by the pilot in basic flying in case he was hit


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...
> 
> 
> 
> In the post war years, there was nothing that the B24 could have done just as well as the Lanc. The only reason they were declared surplus so quickly is aviation technology for the US marched on a rapid pace and there were better designs that had evolved as the war ended. Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?


And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots


syscom3 said:


> Think about it. The AAF had the B29 and B32 under production, and the B35 and B36 under development. Why would any air force want to keep
> obsolete aircraft on the inventory?


Right - that's why the B-24 went away so quickly. Operationally, Technically and maintainability wise it was obsolete, although the Jet was on its way in, the Lanc, becuase it was a better airframe had room in a postwar world...



syscom3 said:


> Perhaps Britain saw a need, but that doesn't mean it was superior.


In some of the posted sites it was stated the RAF had something like 1600 B-24s by wars end. many of them wound up in a bone yard in India later to be used by the IAF - the only airforce to keep the Liberator around a few more years. The RAF kept the Lanc around along with the Lincoln cause it was able to do the job....



 syscom3 said:


> If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldn't have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.


 Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!  



> You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.





syscom3 said:


> Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.


Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

> Syscom. It was you that said that you didn't care about post war wasn't it?
> 
> As for the data, you have to be kidding. Can you explain how that becomes a draw?



I dont care how either aircraft did post war because Britain didnt have the resources to dvelope new aircraft while the US did. All the roles the Lanc did post war were performed admirably by the B24 DURING the war.

I look at the statistics and for every plus for the Lanc, theres a plus for the B24. Some have more weight than others, and in the end, they balace each other out.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

> Britain kept the Lanc because there was plenty of them and along with the Lincoln they made a good bombing force in the post war years. Not the best but still pretty damn good.



All the roles that the Lanc did postwar were done by the B24 during the war. Lets face it, while the USAF and USN were designing their airplanes a generation removed from WW2, you were still using a WW2 design cause you couldnt afford to design and build your own.



> No they would have kept the B-17 and upgraded it, the B-24 would of still ended up as pots and pans albeit in maybe less numbers.



The B17 was withdrawn from service in the PTO for various reasons. The only reason it continued to fly in the ETO was its solid airframe. There was little that could be done to improve or modify the airplane.



> If you look at the data you will see that the Lanc has a better payload and range and flies at a similar altitude....



I have never disputed its range and payload.



> .....has no electonics (or very little)...



Not true. B17's and B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar. The Gee or OBOE systems used by the RAF were not effective at the longer ranges they both flew into Germany. The Lanc needed them because it bombed by night. The AAF figured it wasnt worth the effort to install it on the B17/B24's due to they flying during the day.

In the PTO, only the radar bombing system was useable. B24's were equiped with it.



> B-24's relied more on the escort than their own defensive guns, had the Lanc been in the same position it would of suffered similarly. With an escort to protect it daylight the Lanc is a much superior bomber than the B-24 being more efficient at the job of dropping bombs.



Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc. At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter. Plus, the B24 was just marginably able to defend itself without escort in the PTO. The Lanc with its .303's was just a sitting duck.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> Gnomey, the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep.
> 
> I always thought that a second pilot was a disadvantage because it meant another dead man in every plane that went down. The practice of having 2 pilots was stopped in 1941 (I think) by the RAF but the flight engineer, wireless operator and navigator were trained by the pilot in basic flying in case he was hit



In a single pilot setup, if he is incapacitated for any reason during the mission, the mission is in jepordy. If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort. If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

> And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots



fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.



> Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!



True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.



> You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.



There were way better aircraft around that were doing the roles the Lanc was doing, but doing it even better. The Brits were stuck with what they had. 



> Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...



But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.



In the PTO, belly turrets were dispensed with starting with the B17's flying out of the PI and Java. Most B24's Ive seen in pics from the PTO had a tunnel gun setup.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots
> 
> 
> 
> fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.



And some bombers fly better than others. Because of the B-24's Davis wing, one engine out or any holes in the wing and it flew like a truck with 3 wheels


syscom3 said:


> > Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.


Same thing! You're throwing out a would of, could of, should of - bottom line 6,000 B-24s were quickly scrapped, B-17s and Lancaster stayed around for a few more years cause they were just better aircraft...


syscom3 said:


> [
> 
> 
> > You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.
> ...


No they had a choice - they had the Halifax, and access to B-17s and even more B-24s, it wasn't nationalistic pride, the fact was it was a better aircraft....


syscom3 said:


> > Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...
> 
> 
> 
> But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.


Why don't you throw in arctic operations vs. south African operations!  It has nothing to do with the better of the two aircraft, only where they operated out of, in fact there was never anything negative shown about the mission capable rate of the Lancaster because of the coolant system. If you really want to get technical concerning engine fluids, although the radial is recognized as being more robust, it carried a dry sump oil system which placed most of the engine oil outside of the engine. The Lanc also had external oil tanks but the Merlin still was a dry sump system, which meant there was always a percentage of oil within the crankcase, knock the oil tank out and the engine will still have an oil sump. Knock out the oil system on a radial, there's no sump - it will seize....The argument is almost null. The Radial engine did have the advantage over the in line but there is nothing shown anywhere that this prohibited Lancaster operations.

If anything, an in line engine was more capable in a quick turnaround. You let a radial engine sit and it develops a condition called hydraulic lock and it had to be cleared by the ground crew before the engine could be started...

Again Sys, you have brought nothing to the table...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

"At the same time it was a complicated and advanced machine, leading to prolonged pilot training programs and on occasion to severe attrition. Not only was it demanding to fly, even to a pilot fully qualified on the type, but it was eventually cleared to operate at such high weights that take-offs became marginal even with full power on all engines. Flight stability was also marginal, and escape from a stricken machine was extremely difficult once the pilot or pilots had let go of the controls. Moreover, though more modern and in most ways more efficient than the B-17, the overloaded late-model B-24s were hardly any improvement over their more primitive partners, and several commanders, including 'Jimmy' Doolittle, famed commanding general of the 8th Air Force, preferred the old B-17."
http://www.b24.net/aircraft.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

The proven Rolls Royce Merlin engines were much in demand for many types of aircraft. For this reason a version of the aircraft was produced which made use of Bristol Hercules radial engines. Lancasters first flew operationally in March, 1942 and were well received by the RAF aircrew. It was regarded as "a pilot's airplane" which inspired confidence. Evidence of this is the story of a Lanc flight engineer who, having feathered two engines and facing the prospect of flying over several hundred miles of cold, unfriendly ocean, turned to his pilot and said, "I suppose this means we shall be bloody late for breakfast!"

"The finest bomber of the war! Its efficiency was almost incredible, both in performance
and in the way it could be saddled with ever-increasing loads without breaking the camel's back.
The Lancaster far surpassed all the other types of heavy bombers. 
Not only could it take heavier bomb loads, not only was it easier to handle,
and not only were there fewer accidents than with other types,
the casualty rate was also consistently below those of other types." 

"The Lancaster took the major part in winning the war with its attacks on Germany.
On land it forced the Germans to retrieve from their armies half their sorely needed
anti-tank guns for use by over a million soldiers who would otherwise have been serving in the field.
The Lancaster won the naval war by destroying over one-third of the German submarines in their ports,
together with hundreds of small naval craft and six of their largest warships.
Above all, the Lancaster won the air war by taking the major part in forcing Germany to concentrate
on building and using fighters to defend the Fatherland, thereby depriving their armies of
essential air and particularly bomber support." 

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancbomber.html

I agree with all of the with the exception of the Lancaster being the finest bomber of WW2 - that distinction goes to the B-29 hands down!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.

And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2006)

Radial vs Inline. You keep saying this, but you know that Lanc has produced loss stats which show that the two planes had identical loss rates so any weakness in having a radial is balanced by other benefits in the Lancaster favour.

Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

sorry i haven't been here for a few days, busy with homework!



> The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup



if the B-24's defensive armourment was so good why were so many lost?? i can tell you, because no heavy bomber has a hope in hell of surviving a fighter attack, the fighter can pick and choose when, where and how it's going to attack, and it will go straight for the weakest parts, it the case of most heavies the wings with the fuel and engines, if the B-24's defensive guns were so amazing why weren't they shooting down every single attacker? the lanc's primary defence was darkness, the B-24's primary defence was fighter escort............

although don't get me wrong i know the B-24's guns were better, they just aren't anything special............



> The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did



name an american aircraft that could do what the lanc did for the same price  and not just in the bombing role, i'm not saying there aren't better aircraft, just that you never seem to mention anything but the bombers...........



> But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's



that would be because the privateer is not the B-24........

and i seriously suggest you do not get picky over this issue, why? becuase technically the Lancaster is still in service with the RAF today 



> The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's



yes, untill we got more lincolns.............



> A privateer is still a B24 airframe



stop the presses!

so, you think that you can redesign half a B-24 and still call it a B-24, but if you give a lancaster radial engines you no longer considder it a lancaster? does that seem odd to anyone else?

and again i wouldn't get picky over the privateer issue, why? because strictly speaking the Lincoln I and II started out as the lancaster IV and V respectively, so i could bring them in as lancs  why haven't i yet? because it would be stupid.........



> Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years



during which time the lancaster proved itself to be a superior bomer.........



> If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more usefull role of fire fighting



that's one more role that a plane we're not even arguing about did and 50% of the tiny fleet crashed anyway, that's without even being shot at, may i suggest you don't write home about this...........



> The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios



please list the "could have" senarios we've suggested?



> Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?



because the 1972 truck is available in numbers, is sufficient for the job, is cheap and needs little or no development costs..........



> the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep



yes but remember it was classed as a mine and not a bomb............



> B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar



in what numers? because most lancs had H2S by the war's end.........



> Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc



problem is though you don't realise just how small that "tad" is...........



> At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter



so did the lanc, and obviously many gunners took these opertunities as some got enough confirmed kills to become aces in their own right...........



> If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort



why would the pilot be injured shortly after take off? and if any bomber has a problem after take off it will abort, if it's a serious problem, supposing the pilot of a B-24 is killed shortly after take off somehow, the mission will abort, they wouldn't say "oh well we'll go all the way to germany, we've still got one more pilot"...........



> If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.



there are numerous stories of how lancaster pilots were seriously injured and they kept going, they could do this because the lanc was quite a forgiving aircraft at times, there's also a story of the pilot being knocked out, and the radio operator and navigator managed to fly the aircraft onto the target, then making it all the way back to england again, not bad going for crewmen who aren't pilots..........



> bombers are trucks



numerous lancaster pilots said that the lancaster handled like a much smaller aircraft, they say that concorde handles like a fighter (numerous concorde pilots were infact fighter pilots previously), large doesn't always equal truck.............



> Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials



yeah and barely any horsepower, why do you think heavily laden lancs had good engine out charactoristics? becuase of the extra horsepower, the lanc could loose an engine and still have more power than a B-24.........

and why do you keep going on about the radials? more radial engined B-24s were lost than inline engined lancs, given you're logic if it was changed around (b-24s with inlines, lancs with radials, which may i remind you was done) then even fewer lancs would be lost and even more B-24s lost............



> Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again



yes he does, which is odd given he doesn't believe in stats............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.


And Doolittle prefered the B-17


syscom3 said:


> And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.


cause it was!


syscom3 said:


> Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.


Dry sump vs. wet sump - same argument. There's no evidence that the Lancasters Mission Capable Rate or effectiveness was ever diminished becuase of this - you're grasping at straws!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2006)

Lanc, look at you statistics for both planes. Lancasters flew at night, B24's flew during the day. The B24 loss rate would be lower if it only flew at night and the Lancasters rate would be higher if it flew in the day. I believe in stats when they're put into perspective. 

Ten .50's are far more effective than ten .303's, any way you cut it. And if there is one thing we all know about the .303 (or US .30), is it was next to useless against fighters. The .50 was effective at a far longer range than the pop guns carried on the Lanc. 

Not all B24's had the H2S as they flew in the daytime in squadrons which meant only a few were needed. If they flew at nighttime, there was no reason to not equip more of them.

Lanc..... If the pilot on a Lanc is incapacitated after takeoff from a stomach ailment or whatever, the mission ends right then. On a B24, the other pilot can takeover flying the plane without interfering with the duties of the other aircrews. And like I said before. A pilot is a pilot. A flight engineer is a flight engineer. Anyone can fly the plane straight and level. But its flying a damaged aircraft through bad weather is where piloting skills come in. And the other crewmen wouldnt have that skill, because if they did, they would be classified as regular pilots.

Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

I agree on the armament issue



syscom3 said:


> Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.


Beside the alledegd problems with in line engines and coolant, another reason the US Navy stayed away from in line engines was becuase it would introduce another fluid within the stores aboard a carrier.

You again proved nothing to show that the inline configuration on the Lancaster was a detrement to its performance - 

I've read that the RR Merlin was TBO'd at 150-200 hours, some of the Packard engines in Mustangs were TBO'd at 400 hours. Allegedly the R2800 had wartime TBOs 3x that but in many cases some of the aircraft that utilized them had 2 or 3 engine changes when on an overseas hop. 

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001242;p=0

Here's a comment from a former RCAF radio operator who flew Lancs in the Paciafic in the post war...

"During WWII I used to listen to a radio program called "L for Lanky" and my hero was Sparks the radio op .* Little did I know that about 12 years later I was to be "Sparks" in Lancs for almost 1700 hours . In all that time I NEVER experienced an abort due to a mechanical malfunction *although a few test flights got exciting at times . Flying at 300 feet or below over the Pacific Ocean it was comforting to see those four fans turning over . Definitely my favorite aircraft of anything I ever flew in . 
Fred Burton Age 67 
Oakville, ON Canada - June 26, 2003"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 21, 2006)

Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Joe.



Thanks NS - I'm assuming he was an ASW guy....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 21, 2006)

I won't hold it against him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

"My father, John H. White was a Captain and Gunnery Instructor with the United States Fifteenth Air Force, 449th Bomb Group, 718th Armament Section, based in Taranto, Italy during World War II. 
I decided to interview him for material and opinion for this web page. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the name? 
*The B-24 Liberator was also known as the "Flying Boxcar" for its shape and also as the "Flying Coffin" due to the early mishaps caused by a faulty tail design.* I believe the British gave the B-24 the name "Liberator" due to the crisis in England and the reliability of the bomber. Supposedly, the President of Consolidated, Reuben Fleet said, "This airplane can carry destruction to the heart of the Hun, and thus help us to liberate those nations finding themselves under Hitler's yoke." From this point forward, the Allies stuck with the nickname. The Liberator web site at the University of Western Ontario concurs with this opinion. (www.csd.uwo.ca) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Controversy over the B-17 and the B-24? 
The B-24 "Lib or Liberator" had increased range and could fly higher and slightly faster than the B-17 "Forts or Flying Fortresses." In addition, it could carry a heavier bomb load. However, many pilots stated that they preferred the B-17, claiming it was much easier to fly and was far easier to keep in the tight bombing formations necessary over Europe. 
*The B-24 was also terrible to crash land, as the shutter-type bomb bay doors invariably rolled up upon impact, after which the fuselage had a tendency to buckle and break apart. 
The crews in the Pacific relayed to operations that they dreaded the prospect of ditching at sea, as the aforementioned doors would pop and allow the fuselage to fill with sea water, causing the aircraft to sink rapidly."*
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ite/talk.htm+B-24+Liberator+reliability&hl=en


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

And one more real interesting bit of information.....

In 1943, US General G. C. Kenney (commander of Allied Air Forces in South West Pacific) decided that RAAF should form seven bomber squadrons equipped with Liberators. The first B-24s were intended to be supplied to 99 Squadron (scheduled to be formed in March 1944 in Queensland), but a withdrawal of the Vultee Vengeance of 21, 23 and 24 Squadrons from New Guinea meant that Liberators would be supplied to these squadrons first.

Australian crews were attached to 380th BG for training and operational experience. The first bombers were delivered in February 1944 to 7 OTU and then to 24 Squadron. The 21 Squadron was operational in January 1945 and 23 Squadron three months later. Other RAAF operational units equipped with B-24s were: Nos 12, 99, 25 and 102 Squadrons. Also Nos 200 and 201 Flights flew Liberators on electronic surveillance and covert missions.

Australian heavy bombers played an important role during the last months of the war, particularly in the Borneo campaign. *Total of 287 aircraft were delivered to RAAF including 12 B-24Ds, 145 B-24Js, 83 B-24Ls and 47 B-24Ms. They remained in service until 1948 and were replaced by Avro Lincolns.*
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7252/b24.htm

*Hmmm - I wonder why the Aussies decided to replace their B-24s with Lincolns when there were THOUSANDS of B-24s, some late model "Ms" sitting at Kingman Arizona?!?!  *

Oh the Lincoln is the same airframe as is the Privateer is to the Liberator?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2006)

The Aussies were still loyal to Britain. They probably got those Lincs cause they ahd low hours on them. Did you notice it was 1948, which was three years after the war? Plus who cares. While the Brits were still toying with the Lincoln, we had the B50 and B36.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Aussies were still loyal to Britain. They probably got those Lincs cause they ahd low hours on them. Did you notice it was 1948, which was three years after the war? Plus who cares. While the Brits were still toying with the Lincoln, we had the B50 and B36.


Loyal to the UK?!?! *WRONG!!!!!*
It proved it was the better bomber - I've worked with Aussies, they'll purchase equipment they feel will give them the best bang for their buck. They purchased P-51s and Sabers during the same period as well - Products from the US and Canada...

It also once again proves the longevity of this aircraft compared to the Liberator

"By late 1945, the RAAF had received or ordered about 500 P-51 Mustangs, for fighter/ground attack purposes. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation initially assembled US-made Mustangs, but later manufactured most of those used."

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

"The type was produced under licence by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation in Australia, re-engined with the Rolls-Royce Avon, and also by Canadair in Canada. Later improvements led to the F-100 Super Sabre, which was a larger aircraft with more powerful engines.

Sabre Mk 2 - 290 built. 
Sabre Mk 3 - One aircraft built in Canada, to test the Orenda jet engine. 
Sabre Mk 4 - 438 built in Canada for the RAF. 
Sabre Mk 5 - 370 built. 
Sabre Mk 6 - 655 built. 
Sabre Mk 30 - 21 built in Australia for the RAAF. 
Sabre Mk 31 - 20 built in Australia for the RAAF. 
Sabre mk 32 - 69 built in Australia for the RAAF."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86

And the Lincolns they got were new - the first few were built from "knockdown kits" - parts made in the UK....

Here's a list of RAAF Lincolns.....

A73-1 Mk.30 05/46 First Australia Assembled Lincoln, assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. First Flight 12/03/46. Listed for disposal 06/59, converted to componants. 
A73-2 Mk.30 08/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. 'Nyhuan' Long Range Navigation Trainer and Survey Aircraft. At some stage it was fitted with seats to be used as a transport and had no turrets. Converted to componants 12/53. 
A73-3 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-4 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-5 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-6 Mk.30 11/46 First Australian Manufactured Lincoln. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-7 Mk.30 01/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-8 Mk.30 11/46 'Gundawarra' of Air Amraments School. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-9 Mk.30 06/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-10 Mk.30 07/47 Listed for disposal 10/58. Fire Dump Point Cook VIC. 
A73-11 Mk.30 04/47 Served with 21 Sqn. Stalled and Crashed, 19/02/48. RAAF Amberly QLD. All 16 onboard killed.
A73-12 Mk.30 05/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-13 Mk.30 06/47 Listed for disposal 10/58. Fire Dump Point Cook VIC. 
A73-14 Mk.30 07/47 Converted to Long Range Comms Aircraft. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-15 Mk.30 07/47 'Brenool' of of School of Air Navagation. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-16 Mk.30 07/47 Disabled Cloncurry QLD, 04/53, then hit by A73-51 while it was landing, converted to componants. 
A73-17 Mk.30 08/47 Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-18 Mk.30 09/47 Converted to Long Range Comms Aircraft. At some stage it was fitted with seats to be used as a transport and had no turrets. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-19 Mk.30 11/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-20 Mk.30 10/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-21 Mk.30 11/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-22 Mk.30 11/47 Instructional Airframe, Wagga. Then Wagga Fire Dump. 
A73-23 Mk.30 12/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-24 Mk.30 02/48 Served at Tengah Singapore during the Malayan Emergency 1950. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-25 Mk.30A 02/48 Listed for disposal 06/59. Fire Dumb RAAF Amberly QLD. 
A73-26 Mk.30A 12/47 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-27 Mk.30A 02/48 Listed for Disposal 01/59 then Fire Dump Sydney. Cockpit on display Camden Aviation Museum NSW.
A73-28 Mk.30A 07/47 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Listed for disposal 09/60. 
A73-29 Mk.30A 04/48 Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Used for rainmaking experiments in 1958. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-30 Mk.30A 04/48 Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-31 Mk.30A 07/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On the 04/04/52, this aircraft departed with a load of bombs for a mission and not long after takeoff had a motor cut and returned to base. The crew used another aircraft A73-46 to complete their mission. Crashed on Landing 04/53, RAAF Amberly QLD. Converted to componants. 
A73-32 Mk.30A 07/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-33 Mk.30A 08/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-34 Mk.30A 10/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-35 Mk.30A 09/48 Crashed on Landing 03/49, RAAF Amberly QLD. Converted to componants. 
A73-36 Mk.30A 11/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. During a night strike a parachute flare became hung up in the bomb bay. The flare ignited and set fire to the aircraft. The tail Gunner Flt lt K.I.Foster put out the fire and was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. The first RAAF member since WW2. The Badly damaged aircraft returned to base, it was cannibalised for spares for a short time before being rebuilt and flown back to Australia. Later to Fire Dump Richmond, noted there 09/61. Later it was used for trials on new 50 Ton aircraft lifting cranes. On the last lift of A73-36, the operator jerked the boom on lowering, and it broke the Lincolns back.
A73-37 Mk.30A 12/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-38 Mk.30A 02/49 Converted to Prototype Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-39 Mk.30A 02/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Overshot Runway 30/11/51, Tengah Singapore after completing a test flight after a 100 hour inspection. Pilot: WO Peel. The wreck was onsite at Tengah until it was converted to componants and scrapped. 
A73-40 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On one flight the aircrafts engines failed after the fire extinguishers were inadvertantly operated, they were obviously restarted - date unknown. On the 25/05/56 the tailwheel broke off upon landing at Tengah, the tail fins were badly damaged and couldnt be repaired until some new parts arrived from Australia. Pilot Sqn Ldr Britt. Had an Engine failure and struck Trees after takeoff at Tengah for a night strike and ditched 01/02/57. The crew survived with minor injuries. Pilot: Sqn Ldr E Goldner. 
A73-41 Mk.30A 07/49 Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-42 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59. 
A73-43 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Damaged by Cyclone at Townsville, 03/56. Converted to componants. 
A73-44 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Crashed near RAAF Amberly, 03/50. 
A73-45 Mk.30A 09/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 01/59. Then Fire Dump Sydney Airport. 
A73-46 Mk.30A 10/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On the 04/04/52 after the crew had a problem with A73-31, the same crew used this aircraft to complete its mission. On their return they found that the aircraft had a fault in its compressed air system. They rigged up a parrachute that was deployed once tha aircraft landed. The aircraft stopped in half the Tengah airstrip, usually the aircraft used 3 quarters. Overshot Runway at Townsville and burned 04/57. 
A73-47 Mk.30A 01/50 Destroyed in a storm, 03/02/57, RAAF Amberley. Converted to componants. 
A73-48 Mk.30A 03/50 Prototype Mk 31, Stored 04/54. Listed for Disposal 06/59. 
A73-49 Mk.30A 05/50 Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-50 Mk.30A 11/48 Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Listed for disposal 01/59. Then Fire Dump Eagle Farm QLD. 
A73-51 Mk.30A 11/48 Hit disabled A73-16 on landing, Cloncurry QLD 04/53. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-52 Mk.30A 08/50 In Storage 04/55. Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-53 Mk.30A 09/50 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-54 Mk.30A 11/48 Destroyed in a storm, 03/02/57, RAAF Amberley. Converted to componants. 
A73-55 Mk.30 ? Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31).
A73-56 Mk.30 12/50 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-57 Mk.30 ? Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31).
A73-59 Mk.30 05/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Then Converted to Aircrew Trainer 07/55.
A73-60 Mk.30 05/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Firefighting aid 1962. 
A73-61 Mk.30 06/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Then Maritime Recon Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap. 
A73-62 Mk.30 08/51 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-63 Mk.30 12/52 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Crashed Townsville, 03/53. 
A73-64 Mk.30 02/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Crashed Mt Superbus QLD, 04/55 while on Mercy Flight. Crew and Pax; WG CDR J.P. Costello, SQN LDR J.W. Finlay, SQN LDR C.S. Mason, FLT LT W.G.S. Cater, M. Grey (Nurse), Baby Huxley (Patient). A prop blade and a rudder from A73-64 are currently located at the Caboolture Warplane Museum. A rock from the crash site of this aircraft on Mt. Superbus has also been relocated to outside RAAF Amberley (under Canberra A84-201).
A73-65 Mk.30 05/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. To Fire Dump Darwin.
A73-66 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap. 
A73-67 Mk.30 03/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap. 
A73-68 Mk.30 05/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap. 
A73-69 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Fuselage Damaged 01/56, Converted to Componants. 
A73-70 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Damaged by cyclone at Townsville QLD. Converted to componants. 
A73-71 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. In storage until listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-72 Mk.30 08/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. In storage until listed for disposal 06/59. 
A73-73 Mk.30 09/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Listed for disposal 06/59.

You were saying?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2006)

Did they fly the Lincolns in the war? Nooooooooooooooo. They flew B24's because they thought they were the best aircraft to use in the PTO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Did they fly the Lincolns in the war? Nooooooooooooooo. They flew B24's because they thought they were the best aircraft to use in the PTO.



Come on sys - you're grabbing at straws again!!!  

"The Avro Lincoln was a long-range, high altitude version of the successful Avro Lancaster four-engined bomber. *The first RAF Lincoln BI flew on June 9, 1944,* and operational squadrons were preparing to join Tiger force in the war against Japan, when V-J Day was declared." 

I will say they held on to their B-24s for a few years BUT - gave em up for the Lincoln, and again reminding you they did this while several thousand B-24s sat in the Arizona desert.

AND....

I think it already was posted that the Lancaster was not available to the Aussies, the reason why they went with the B-24 to begin with...

AND.....

Look at the retirement dates of some of those Lincolns!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2006)

The retirement dates of the Lincolns? 1959..... hehehehehe, theyre using Lincolns while we have B52's....... heheheheheh.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The retirement dates of the Lincolns? 1959..... hehehehehe, theyre using Lincolns while we have B52's....... heheheheheh.



Yes, but during that time there were only 3 or 4 B-24s left operationally, all with the Indian AF.....  

Oh and in 1959 we were still flying B-29s!!!


http://137.240.249.5/pa/fs_b-29.asp


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2006)

They were B50's and were mainly for target practice. They sure werent front line aircraft as even the B47 was far superior.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> They were B50's and were mainly for target practice. They sure werent front line aircraft as even the B47 was far superior.



WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!!!!!!

THE LAST WB-29s WERE RETIRED IN 1960!!!!!!!

And now you're trying to compare SAC with the RAAF!!! 

"*The Air Force phased out its last B-29 aircraft – a WB-29—in September 1960*. Tail number 44-27343 stayed at Army Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Md. for 30 years before the Air Force decided it needed a B-29 at Tinker again."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Syscom you keep throwing out stuff that the B-24 did after the war yet you keep saying that you dont care about after the war only during the war. Thats cool, but then only use stuff after 1945 please.

Second you said the Lancaster did stuff that the B-24 did admirably during the war. Yes you are correct, but you know what the Lancaster did it better.

In almost every post you contradict yourself. It is starting not to make sense. You have not proven a tie between the aircraft, rather you have proven nothing.

I dont harp over crap here. I personally like the B-17 and the B-24 better than the Lancaster but I will not deny that the Lancaster was the better bomber of the 3.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

Im not contridicting myself at all. I correctly pointing out that the AAF had such a vast fleet of aircraft from which to use, plus unlimitless funds to develope new jet aircraft, that there was no need to use the B24. The Brits didnt have those options and were forced to use a great bomber from WW2 into various postwar rolls.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 22, 2006)

We didn't use the Lancaster as a sandwich filler, we used it in many _roles_ in the post war period that it did very well at until superceded by jet aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 22, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im not contridicting myself at all. I correctly pointing out that the AAF had such a vast fleet of aircraft from which to use, plus unlimitless funds to develope new jet aircraft, that there was no need to use the B24. The Brits didnt have those options and were forced to use a great bomber from WW2 into various postwar rolls.


I think syscom is correct in that the RAF was hard pressed after the war there is no doubt that the Lancaster was the better a/c but the UKs economy was in tatters after 6years of war they had large bills to pay off etc proof being in that rationing in the UK continued until 1954 the US was able to upgrade its fleet of a/c and the Brits used what was at hand they were forced to use fighters like the vampire and meteor after they were outdated and import F86s until the Hunter came online.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Agree to a point pb - the Brits went on with the Lincoln and the B-29 gave them their initial nuclear strike capability, but with that said if a better aircraft would of been available, they (the UK) would of snatched it up, especially in the cash-strapped post war period. I'm sure there were many in Bomber Command who had thoughts of acquiring dozens of bargain basement B-24s. The -24 was a well used work horse and although it served well I think many military planners in the post war period also knew the -24s limitations and that's why they were quickly scrapped. Although close to the same performance on many WW2 bombers used in the post war years, it had many undesirable characteristics that caused it to be passed by....

You also have to consider the cost of fleet operation and maintenance. Although the B-24 has no cooling system (as pointed out numerous times) it may have also been cost effective to stay with a well proven airframe that has a large spares inventory...

The accolades of the Lancaster's and B-17's handling were lauded throughout WW2 - the B-24 had some notorious idiosyncrasies that followed it to the scrapyards of Arizona...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2006)

I don't understand how all the B-24 points cancel out the Lancaster good points. Explain to me, syscom, how better defensive armament cancels out the better payload of the Lancaster? The better payload is more important than the defensive armament, since defensive armament wasn't really that important as bombers weren't fortresses in the sky - they needed little friends at every moment for any chance of survival. 

Come on, point for point how does the Liberator equal the Lancaster?

Do you think higher ceiling cancels out longer range? More guns cancels out better payload? Second pilot cancels out better handling, adaptability, better speed, survivability, longetivity?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Yep - well said D - the main object here was to drop bombs!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

Because I think the design of the Lanc made it an inferior aircraft for the PTO. That offsets its fine attributes of payload and range. 

Quite simply, in the PTO, without fighter cover, it had no chance of flying the long range missions prevalent in that theater.

The B24 could.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2006)

And that one aspect that you've thought up make it tied to the Lancaster? No. You cannot prove that the Lancaster could not perform in the PTO. The weather in the theatre is not a problem because Lancasters did, in fact, operate in those conditions post-war (proving the airframe could handle it in the war) and Merlin engines were well in use over the PTO and CBI. The Lancaster has a longer range than Liberator, so the range isn't a problem. And the Japanese interceptors were weaker than their German counter-parts, and .303 could actually tear them to pieces. 

So, nothing about the Liberator operating in the PTO cancels out the fact that the Lancaster did what a bomber was designed to better ... fly further, and drop more bombs. 

The Lancaster has more good points, and it's good points are more important (range and payload being two most important about any bomber). Defensive armament is somewhat far down the list on priorities given the benefit of hindsight, we know it's pretty much useless.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 22, 2006)

Agreed well said pD.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Very well said pD and you are correct. I dont understand what syscom is tryign to say about the Lancasters defensive armament would have made it impossible for it to fly in the PTO when the ETO was by far the most deadly for bombers.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

Japanese fighters were more effective than you give them credit for. As effective as the Luftwaffe? Nope. Capable of shooting down a B24 or Lanc? Yes.

The B24 had enough defensive firepower to make things tough for the Japanese, and on many occasions went on missions without escort. The Lancaster had weak defensive firepower, engines vulnerable to damage and a single pilot. All taken together, the Lanc could not have performed mssions in the PTO unless it was escorted. And that was a problem where missions were flown that were 1300-1600 miles from base.

I would sum it up this way. In the ETO, both were vulnerable to being shot down by fighters and needed escorts. In the PTO, the B24 was better able to handle unescorted missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

There you go again contradicting yourself:

You said: 



> Japanese fighters were more effective than you give them credit for. As effective as the Luftwaffe? Nope. Capable of shooting down a B24 or Lanc? Yes.



Then you said: 



> The B24 had enough defensive firepower to make things tough for the Japanese, and on many occasions went on missions without escort. The Lancaster had weak defensive firepower, engines vulnerable to damage and a single pilot. All taken together, the Lanc could not have performed mssions in the PTO unless it was escorted. And that was a problem where missions were flown that were 1300-1600 miles from base.



Basically what you just said was this: YOu admitted that the ETO was more dangerous than the PTO for bombers. Then you said that the Lancaster could fly in the ETO but not in the PTO because it would be too dangerous because of its lack of defensive fire power.

********HELLO NEWS FLASH********

By DER ADLER IST GELANDET, Bullshit Alert Press Writer
5 minutes ago

SOMEWHERE IN CYBERSPACE - Japanese fighters were very effective however I dont think anyone can argue that the more dangerous skies for bombers due to fighters was the European Theatre of Operations. The Lancaster had a superb career in the ETO and would have done so in the PTO as well because if it could defend itself in the ETO it could defend itself in the PTO also. 

In the ETO neither the Lancaster or the B-24 Liberator would have done well without a fighter escort. What does this say about the PTO, they would have done equally as well in the PTO. Maybe the B-24 would have done better but not for any reasons that Mr. Syscom3 has stated. 

In an interview today he has done nothing but contradict himself. Mr. Syscom why do you do this? "Because I have come to the conlusion that I have not proven anything and I am running out of arguments."

Ladies and Gentlemen clearly the Lancaster is better than the B-24. Many people have disproven Mr. Syscom3's very vivid to say the least arguments and facts but I am sure we will continue to hear more of them.

********Hello News Flash********


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

In the ETO both planes needed escorts.

In the PTO, the B24 often performed missions without escort. 

In the PTO, the Lanc would have been unable to perform missions without escort. If no P38's were available, then the Lanc wouldnt fly the mission.

What part dont you understand?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

What part dont you understand that there is no reason why the Lancaster would not perform just as well unescorted in the PTO?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2006)

You are stating the defensive armament of the Lancaster was weak by ETO standards. By PTO standards, it was more than enough. Japanese interceptors were weak and .303 would easily tear them to pieces. 

On unescorted missions it was still rare for the B-24 to achieve many fighter kills. The Lancaster could have gone in unescorted. It's engines could handle the fight. And the only real problem was the single pilot, but all the advantages of the Lancaster over the B-24 far out-weigh that problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

plan_D said:


> You are stating the defensive armament of the Lancaster was weak by ETO standards. By PTO standards, it was more than enough. Japanese interceptors were weak and .303 would easily tear them to pieces.



Exactly!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > You are stating the defensive armament of the Lancaster was weak by ETO standards. By PTO standards, it was more than enough. Japanese interceptors were weak and .303 would easily tear them to pieces.
> ...



The .303 also had a limited range against the 20mm of the Japanese fighters. They didn't even have to get close enough to be hit by the .303s.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

In that case they easily could have used .50 Cal if needed. The Germans used 20mm in the ETO on all there major interceptors and the Lanc did not have a problem there.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2006)

And while the Japanese pilots are concentrating on staying out of the Lancasters range, how are they going to concentrate on shooting the aircraft down? Especially if the Lancaster takes evasive, what then? The Japanese fighter has to not only concentrate on staying out of range, but he has to avoid going too slow, get the deflection shooting right, not run out of ammo, keep an eye for all his friends doing the exact same thing ...all of a sudden, guns that are out-ranged become a freakin' hazard and keep the aircraft safe. 

Don't tell me you actually think fighters used to just sit on the tail of a bomber and blast away like no one was around but them. You want to go in fast and get out fast - even attacking a formation equipped with .303 is freakin' hard work when you're flying a plane that'll explode if some dude with a high alcohol content in his piss took a fuckin' leak on it. The only reason the .303 was piss poor in the ETO is 'cos the German planes could take the damage on the chin and still come roaring at you to ram a 30mm up your arse, and spit on you as you fall to the deck. 

Comparing the ability of the Fw-190 to the Zero against the Lancasters armament is like comparing W.Bush intellect to that of Stephen Hawkin ... no fuckin' competition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The only reason the .303 was piss poor in the ETO is 'cos the German planes could take the damage on the chin and still come roaring at you to ram a 30mm up your arse, and spit on you as you fall to the deck.



LOL, I do not know why I thought that was funny, but I could not stop laughing for somereason.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

The Japanese fighters in 1943 and later were well armed. And if its one thing the Japanese fighters were, and thats maneuverable. A Lanc maneuvering around would have meant nothing to them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Yes you are correct, however the Luftwaffe was far more deadly than the Japanese AF there fore if they could survive in the ETO they could survive in the PTO and your argument has no weight.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2006)

It doesn't matter how well armed they are. You can still snap their wing off by pissing on it. And you didn't pay attention to the whole post, did you? The Lancaster taking evasive is just another consideration for the pilot trying to follow and aim, while trying to stay out of the Lancaster's gun range. Basically ... saying a Lancaster formation couldn't fend off Japanese fighters ...is, well, quite frankly bullshit. Since British bombers were doing unescorted raids all the time through the war in the CBI.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

It looks like most of the RAF bomber squadrons in the CBI after 1943 were B24's.

And there is no evidence that Japanese pilots in the CBI and PTO were not brave enough to close in on their target and take some shots at it. To think they were afraid to get within range of the "popgun" .303's is ridiculous.

Doing some internet searches about this, I found this interesting page regarding B24's in service with the RAF. 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_21.html


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 22, 2006)

The B24 had one advantage over every other bomber in WW2 and that was the fact you would find it easier to deploy the 24 world wide because the spares and infrastructure were in every theatre of operations


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2006)

USAAF Heavy Bomber Losses in the Pacific were actually very light, it seems the chances of a Japanese fighter bringing down ANY heavy bomber was very slim. Here are the Statistics....

332 Heavy Bombers were brought down by fighters in all Pacific Theaters, this includes the Aleutians

By contrast Heavy bombers operating in the same theaters claimed 1839 enemy aircraft destroyed..

5.554 to 1

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

And before someone says "the claims weren't accurate or over-stated," its all relative, even if you divide these numbers in half, it shows the Japanese were not good at bringing down heavy bombers in air-to-air combat, in fact even the numbers for medium and light bombers are low. It is my belief that

1. Encounters were infrequent
2. The Japanese pilots did not conduct an effective attack (poor tactics)
3. Their aircraft were inferior in an intercept role

With that said there is no reason to believe that the Lancaster, even armed with .303 guns WOULD OF been able to effectively operate in the Pacific, this is a would of, could of, should of.

If the war would of went on the Lancaster WOULD OF been supplemented with the Lincoln - Twin .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, alternatively twin 20mm Hispano cannon in dorsal turret. 

There is no rational argument to show that the Lancaster (Or Lincoln) COULD OF operated unsescorted anywhere in the Pacific...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> The B24 had one advantage over every other bomber in WW2 and that was the fact you would find it easier to deploy the 24 world wide because the spares and infrastructure were in every theatre of operations



Great point and I think this was part of the thought process in mass producing the B-24 "automotive style." You actually make more money supporting an aircraft fleet with spare parts than you do selling the complete airframe....


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 23, 2006)

The Japanese found the US 4 engined heavies very difficult to bring down for a lot of the war. It wan't until the advent of 4 cannon armed high alt interceptors like the Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 that they had an real kind of counterpunch. Sabro Sakai goes into some detail in 'Samurai' about how for at least the first 12 months of war against the US, the B-17 was probably the most effective combat aircraft the USA had, fighter or bomber  He rated it as more difficult to deal with than the P-40 and F4F. The heavies gave the Japanese absolute fits. They had nothing that could match their strength, defensive power, bombload and, probably most importantly fot the PTO, their range or endurance for reconnisance. 

As for bomber gunner claims, they were often incorrect by several orders of magnitude. Even experianced fighter pilots commonly overclaimed by 2 or even 3 to 1 in heavy engagements. Some of the more thoughtful articles on the subject of bomber gunner claims suggest that, at least for VIII Bomber Command, claims were around 6 times actual losses. Part of that is the unusual size, confusion and intensity of the air war over Northern Europe, part of that is having 10+ gunners in the same bomber box firing at the same briefly seen target and all claiming it, and part of that is just the natural overclaiming that went on in all airforces. 

In the PTO bomber claims are probably more accurate, due to the smaller formation sizes. I'm not attempting to diminish the heavies effect, but I think that even halving kill claims to bomber gunners is generous. In my mind claims are more likely to be 3-4 times actual losses. The most frustrating thing is that we will never be able to really know though, so (as usual) i'm just running off my gut and best guesswork.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2006)

I never mentioned the Japanese interceptors staying out of range of the .303 cal. It was wmaxt that mentioned the possibility because the Japanese 20mm out-ranged the .303 cal. Do not compare the durability of the German interceptors and the ETO to the Japanese interceptors and the PTO/CBI. 

Throughout the war in the CBI the RAF were using various .303 armed aircraft, and all were capable of taking down a Japanese fighter. If the Japanese came within range of the Lancaster's guns there's no doubt that the Lancaster could fend them off just as much as the Liberator did. 

There is no proof that states the Lancaster would not be an effective aircraft in the PTO/CBI. The defensive armament of the Lancaster would be enough to deal with the Japanese interceptors. 

In 1939 and early 1940, RAF raids against Wilhelmshaven provided excellent information on defensive armament. The Luftwaffe quickly developed tactics to avoid the arcs of fire of the Hampdens and Wellingtons attacking them. This says A) Interceptors will always get in range of the defensive guns, B) .303 cal weren't useless against interceptors, even German ones (except the Fw-190). On one raid against Wilhelmshaven, unescorted bombers shot down four German interceptors with .303 cal (They did claim 12 though) and this was the days of Wellingtons and Hampdens. Now, upgrade that to the defensive armament of Lancasters against the weaker airframe of the Zero, or Oscar, or Shiden.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2006)

Points Made...

1. If you cut the stats shown in half, USAAF Heavy Bombers outgunned Japanese fighters by almost 3 to 1. I believe the original numbers are pretty accurate based on the operational environment of the PTO.

2. Although recognized that a radial engine is a lot more durable than a water cooled in line, there is no evidence that the Lanc or Merlin WOULD OF performed poorly.

3. The structural limitations of Japanese fighters were well documented. The .303 WOULD OF still brought down any Japanese fighter easily. If you include later better armed and better armored Japanese fighters, you're looking at too little, too late. Bring the Lincoln into the argument and there is no argument.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2006)

Good posts there about the kill ratios and stuff in the PTO. Very interesting FBJ.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 23, 2006)

Yep, interesting stuff especailly the stuff of kill ratios.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2006)

Thanks Guys, I got more coming this week (I hope)...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 25, 2006)

Remember to, the bombers had effective fighter escort almost from the first in the PTO.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2006)

During heavy bomber operations around Rabual, New Guinea, and New Ireland, the Japanese were able to field a sizable contingent of aircraft from JAAF and IJN. By this time the P-38 had made its entry and began its decimation of the JAAF and IJN. While the USAAF had the luxury of escorts for much of their operations, the Japanese never developed a good strategy for dealing with heavy bombers, they couldn't figure out how to regain air supremacy!

I think it was a matter of tactics and the P-38 that rendered JAAF and IJN interception of heavy bombers ineffective. In keeping on topic, I think the Lancaster, if placed in the same situation WOULD OF came out about the same....

Here's a great site documenting much of this action during 1943 and into 1944

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/248th/248th.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Remember to, the bombers had effective fighter escort almost from the first in the PTO.
> 
> wmaxt



The bombers had little if any escort at all, untill the P38's and F4U's came about.

Remember the ranges needed to fly in the PTO. 500 - 1000 mile missions were the norm.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Remember to, the bombers had effective fighter escort almost from the first in the PTO.
> ...



There was little heavy bomber activity in the PTO (Token B-17 raids) until 1943. By that time the B-24 and P-38 were on scene.

Marine F4Us didn't start heavy bomber escort mission until early 1943. I believe VMF-122 and VMF-124 was one of the first squadrons to participate in B-24 escort missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks for the site FBJ.

One also has to remember until the Island Hopping Campaign really got going, there were no places to really launch bombers from.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

Yep, and I think that's why the medium bomber and tactical applications were favored...


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2006)

Agreed FBJ, they also required shorter runways and so could be up and running quicker as they could run from shorter more primitive strips.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thanks for the site FBJ.
> 
> One also has to remember until the Island Hopping Campaign really got going, there were no places to really launch bombers from.



Not true.

The few heavy bombers groups available in all of 1942 were based in Australia, New Guinie, New Caledonia, CBI, and Aleutions.

Fortunatley for the allies, the US had developed enough airfields along several islands between Hawaii and Australia to allow the heavy and medium bombers to fly from one island to the next. 

What held up operations in the first half of 1942 was the lack of bombers and crews to be everywhere. Priorities dictated that the bombers be held in Hawaii, or sent to the SW Pacific. Plus, even though many of the islands had airfields to allow an orderly transit of aircraft, they didnt have the facilities at the time to support bombing activities.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep, and I think that's why the medium bomber and tactical applications were favored...



I was looking at a list of all the bomber groups deployed in the 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th AF's and there were actually more heavy bomber groups than medium and light groups.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, and I think that's why the medium bomber and tactical applications were favored...
> ...



What years?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



The US had three heavy bomber groups in the SW Pacific by the end of 1942, one in the CBI and one in the aleutions. That doesnt count the one or two held back in Hawaii.

The B17 group operating in the SW Pacific since the start of the war were flying regular missions every day, although it was sub-squadron size. Remember B17's were quite involved in the Guadalcanal campaign flying out of New Caledonia and Townsville/Port Moresby

The first B24 group to get out to NG was the 90th "Jolly Rogers". They started operations in Oct 1942.

The P38's getting out to the 5th and 13th AF were really not in force untill Feb or March 1943. Even though they had been around for awhile, maintanence problems meant there were only a few available each day. It didnt help too that most P38's sent to this area at first were the F5 photo jobs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

In the Early PTO years there were between 6 and 7 heavy Bomber Groups, and about 5 and 6 Medium/ Light, FEAF.

From April - July 1942 medium and light bombers actually dropped more bombs than heavies (more sorties flown). By Mid 1943 the heavies started making their precence known, my belief is the availibilty of aircraft and airfields to operat out of.

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t146.htm

There were only 21 pacific Island Bases in 1942, 65 in 1943 and 100 by the end of 1944


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's getting out to the 5th and 13th AF were really not in force untill Feb or March 1943. Even though they had been around for awhile, maintanence problems meant there were only a few available each day. It didnt help too that most P38's sent to this area at first were the F5 photo jobs.



Try Oct - Dec 1942, and what data do you have about P-38 maintenance problems? Combat sorties in the FEAF Jumped by 200 from Sept. to Oct., 1942! Why? P-38s! June 1942 the 39th FS received their first P-38s, they were combat ready by the end of Sept/ beginning of October.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

This is a listing of the BG's used throughout the Pacific Theater.

If I use a time period of late 1944, there are ten heavy bomber groups and nine light/medium groups.

This list is what was present in Spring 1945. This does not count B32 groups. The 5th and 13th AF combined into the FEAF but still retained their groups.
*5th AF*
3rd BG	A20/B25
22nd BG B26/B24
38th BG B25
43rd BG B17/B24
90th BG B24
312nd BG A20
345th BG B25
380th BG B24
417 BG A20

*7th AF*
11 BG B24
30th BG B24
41st BG B25
319th BG A26
494th BG B24

*11th AF*
28th BG (composite)

*13th AF*
5th BG B24
42nd BG B25
307th BG B24

*10th AF*
7th BG	B24
12 BG	B25/A26	

*14th AF*
308th BG
341st BG


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2006)

CC should be able to telly uo more about the P-38's pacific escort duties.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the site FBJ.
> ...



Um no when the US first entered the war and Japan controled most of the Islands the US was not able to reach Japan until they had taken over Islands in the Island Hopping Campaign. They could not reach Japan from Australia, They could not reach Japan from Pearl Harbour. As a matter of fact that is why they used Carriers to do the Doolittle Raid because they could not reach the Main Islands of Japan.

Maybe from the tip of the Alleutions thay may have been able to reach, but what air strips did the US have there.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

Im refering to using the islands in the PTO to allow a plane to fly from Hawaii to Australia. There were lots of islands that had airfields developed on them in 1941 and 1942


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

Im refering to using the islands in the PTO to allow a plane to fly from Hawaii to Australia. There were lots of islands that had airfields developed on them in 1941 and 1942


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im refering to using the islands in the PTO to allow a plane to fly from Hawaii to Australia. There were lots of islands that had airfields developed on them in 1941 and 1942


I don't thnk you're going to find many. Here's a map, most Islands were in Japanese hands...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Fiji, Christmas, and New Caledonia were where the USAAF had units based protecting the bases them selves as they were part of the supply route to Australia. As you can seen on the map, the action at the time was in New Guinea, Solomon and Coral Sea, outside the range of any bomber.




here's a good link...

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-12.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

And what were they going to bomb Australia for?  

No seriously. Even from Australia they could not reach the mainland of Japan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And what were they going to bomb Australia for?
> 
> No seriously. Even from Australia they could not reach the mainland of Japan.



Yep! based on the numbers I posted earlier that showed medium and light bombers showing more bombs dropped early in the war proves that there were not alot of heavy bombers on hand and one reason for that is there was no place to base them where they could be used effectively...

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t146.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

Exactly and good maps up there also.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

B17's and B24's were based on New Caledonia, Townsville, Port Moresby, Guadalcanal, and Canton island and Howland/Baker islands.

They had plenty of bases to operate from. It was just a matter of deploying the bomb groups. Only one beat up and under strength B17 group was operational through the start of the Guadalcanal operation, and two more bomb groups arrived in the SW Pacific by the end of the year. The heavy bomber groups in Hawaii didnt have the range to hit any targets so they were used only for scouting patrols.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> B17's and B24's were based on New Caledonia, Townsville, Port Moresby, Guadalcanal, and Canton island and Howland/Baker islands.
> 
> They had plenty of bases to operate from. It was just a matter of deploying the bomb groups. Only one beat up and under strength B17 group was operational through the start of the Guadalcanal operation, and two more bomb groups arrived in the SW Pacific by the end of the year. The heavy bomber groups in Hawaii didnt have the range to hit any targets so they were used only for scouting patrols.



5 Islands? Guadalcanal was secured and used by B-24s way later. Port Moresby was the only base close enough in the slot where targets like Rabual and New Britain could be hit.

From new Caledonia to the Solomons was just under 2000 miles, a one way trip?!?

Howland/ Baker? Look at where they on on a map!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

A survey of the islands that had the 30th bomb group showed they were operating out of the Ellice islands (now the nation of Tuvulu), Tarawa and Kwajelein.

I was incorrect about New Caledonia. The correct forward operating base was on Espiritu Santo island (New Hebrides, now Vanuatu).

Other islands where the B24's were based include the Admiralties, Biak and Middleburg (all in 1944)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> A survey of the islands that had the 30th bomb group showed they were operating out of the Ellice islands (now the nation of Tuvulu), Tarawa and Kwajelein.
> 
> I was incorrect about New Caledonia. The correct forward operating base was on Espiritu Santo island (New Hebrides, now Vanuatu).
> 
> Other islands where the B24's were based include the Admiralties, Biak and Middleburg.



All later in the war. We're still talking mid 1942, there wasn't many bases initally available until Guadalcanal was secured. B-24s weren't in numbers at Espiritu Santo until late 42, early 43, here's a nice little site:

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/vanuatu_espiritu.html

And I could tell you that B-24s didn't reach Kwajelein untill mid 1944. My wife's grandfather bombed it and then when it was taken back by the US he flew from there to other islands. Look at the history of the 819th Bomb Squadron....

http://www.sonofisaac.8m.com/page27.html#B-24 Memorial Site

"The 30th Bombardment Group (Heavy) was activated at March Field in California on January 15, 1941. During its first six months of operation, the group was primarily concerned with recruiting and organizing air and ground crews. Gradually, it built up to a strength of 33 officers and 419 enlisted men. On June 7th the group was transferred to New Orleans where future pilots learned to fly B-18s, A-29s, and PT-17s. Returning to California on December 24, the group was stationed at Muroc Army Air Base (later Edwards AFB), for six weeks of operational and maintenance training on new B-24 "Liberators." On February 7, 1942, it proceeded to March Field for combat training. 

Following the Japanese attack at Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands on June 7, six aircraft of the 30th Bombardment Group were dispatched to Alaska for combat sorties. The remaining aircraft were dispersed along the West Coast from San Diego, California, to McChord Field in Washington, patrolling against possible surprise attacks by the Japanese. 

In September 1943, 134 officers and 1,270 enlisted men of the 30th Bombardment Group's ground echelon left March Field for duty overseas via Camp Stoneman, California. The first of the flight echelon arrived at Hickham Field, Oahu, Hawaii, on October 1, 1943. The remaining personnel and planes arrived in Hawaii by October 20. The group's 27th and 38th Squadrons were based at Kahuku, Oahu, while the 392d and 819th Squadrons were at Barking Sands on the Island of Kauai. The 819th Squadron was the newest addition to the Group. Previously designated the 3d Anti-Submarine Squadron, it was redesignated and assigned to the group as a replacement unit for the 21st Squadron that had been sent to Alaska. The 21st was subsequently dropped from the records of the group. While in Hawaii, the group was assigned to the 7th Army Air Force. 

Movement to the Forward Line 

Movement to the forward area began in early November 1943 when the 27th and 38th Bombardment Squadrons moved to Nanomea in the Ellice Islands, and the 392nd to Canton in the Phoenix Islands. The 819th Squadron remained at Wheeler Field, Oahu, where it processed new crews and airplanes that were later dispatched to the front line. When the Central Pacific drive began in the Gilbert Islands in November 1943, the 30th Bombardment Group mounted bombing raids against enemy installations on those islands. It also raided airfields in the Marshall Islands to help prevent the launching of Japanese planes against the amphibious assault on Tarawa. 

Following the hard-fought victory in the Gilberts, American amphibious forces under a blanket air cover from bombers and fighters advanced into the Marshall Islands in January 1944. Staging through the recently captured Tarawa and Mankin Islands, bombers of the 30th Group attacked several atolls in the Marshalls, including Kwajalein. 

Between November 14, 1943 and April 1, 1944, the group carried out 42 bombing missions over the Marshall Islands and participated in the actual invasion of Kwajalein in February 1944. 

*After capturing Kwajalein Atoll and nearby Majuro Atoll early in February, American forces seized Eniwetok Atoll at the western end of the Marshall chain.* As the war moved closer to Japan, the 30th Bombardment Group joined with the 11th Bombardment Group of the Thirteenth Air Force in neutralizing Truk. The 30th also bombed Wake Island, Guam, Saipan, and harassed other islands in the Carolines and Marianas, bypassed by American amphibious forces. In August 1944, the 30th Bombardment Group moved to Saipan where it was joined by the 819th Squadron, bringing together all four squadrons for the first time since Hawaii. During the next six months, the group conducted intensive bombing strikes against airfields and shipping at Bonin and Volcano Islands, Iwo Jima, ChiChi Jima, and Yap. Its final bombing mission was at Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945, the same day three Marine divisions invaded the island"


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

I know all that. 

I was just pointing out that the B17's and B24's operated from a variety of island bases throughout the war. As the AAF sent most BG's to Europe in 1942, the PTO (which includes the SW Pacific and CBI) had to wait untill the JCS made available a few BG's. 

The lack of any heavy bombers in this part of the world was due to their non-availability, not because a lack of suitable airstrips.

I have heard though, some pilots based on these islands would swear that when they would come in to land, the sharks would gather on the approach end waiting for an undershoot. After the plane crossed over the beach, they would swim to the other end and wait for an overshoot.


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 28, 2006)

No one has mentioned the heavy Bomber units stationed in and around Darwin. As early as May 1942 B-17's of the 64th BS 43rdBG had conducted a few missions from Batchelor airstrip against shipping off Koepang and targets such as Penfoie airfield. However there was a high unserviceability rate of the B-17's due to a lack of maintenance facilities and spares.
Also in November 1942 B-26's of the 22nd BG were detached to Darwin from Queensland where they reinforced RAAF Hudsons. The B-26's were only deployed to the Darwin area for five days, but flew missions over Timor, particularly Dili, and managed to shoot down 6 Jap fighters.
1943 was however, the year the USAAF heavies really established themselves in the Darwin area. The 319thBS of the 90thBG arrived at Fenton on the 3rd Feb, to fulfill a requirement of reconnaisance on MacArthurs Southern Flank. The squadron flew 75 missions, 48 of them being recon, before they were joined by the 380th BG.
the 380th arrived at Fenton and Manbulloo on the 1st of June. The 528th and 530th sqaudrons went to Fenton while the 529th and 531st went to Manbulloo. Missions were flown immediately against enemy shipping and land targets on Timor, Celebes, BAli ,Java, Ceram, PNG and Borneo. 
In January 1945 the 380th moved North to Mindoro ending 21 months of combat operations from Australia.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I know all that.
> 
> I was just pointing out that the B17's and B24's operated from a variety of island bases throughout the war. As the AAF sent most BG's to Europe in 1942, the PTO (which includes the SW Pacific and CBI) had to wait untill the JCS made available a few BG's.
> 
> The lack of any heavy bombers in this part of the world was due to their non-availability, not because a lack of suitable airstrips.



I half agree, there were not many bases in the area. It was shown earlier that the amount of bases in the area doubled within a year and a half. At this point medium and light bombers were dropping more bombs than the heavies..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Wildcat said:


> No one has mentioned the heavy Bomber units stationed in and around Darwin. As early as May 1942 B-17's of the 64th BS 43rdBG had conducted a few missions from Batchelor airstrip against shipping off Koepang and targets such as Penfoie airfield. However there was a high unserviceability rate of the B-17's due to a lack of maintenance facilities and spares.
> Also in November 1942 B-26's of the 22nd BG were detached to Darwin from Queensland where they reinforced RAAF Hudsons. The B-26's were only deployed to the Darwin area for five days, but flew missions over Timor, particularly Dili, and managed to shoot down 6 Jap fighters.
> 1943 was however, the year the USAAF heavies really established themselves in the Darwin area. The 319thBS of the 90thBG arrived at Fenton on the 3rd Feb, to fulfill a requirement of reconnaisance on MacArthurs Southern Flank. The squadron flew 75 missions, 48 of them being recon, before they were joined by the 380th BG.
> the 380th arrived at Fenton and Manbulloo on the 1st of June. The 528th and 530th sqaudrons went to Fenton while the 529th and 531st went to Manbulloo. Missions were flown immediately against enemy shipping and land targets on Timor, Celebes, BAli ,Java, Ceram, PNG and Borneo.
> In January 1945 the 380th moved North to Mindoro ending 21 months of combat operations from Australia.



Good post Wildcat!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

Wildcat, ever hear of the book "King of the Heavies"?

Its a great book written about the 380th BG. 

Although were far off topic here, Ive always thought that the RAF should have deployed a Lanc squadron here and the 5th AF deploy another B24 group and begin around the clock attacks on the oil fields in Borneo. If this was performed in middle 1943 and supported fully, then the war in the Pacific would have taken a different turn.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > I know all that.
> ...



I have to look at the stats closer. I cant open that statistics web page from home, so I will look at it when I'm at work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t146.htm 

There were only 21 pacific Island Bases in 1942, 65 in 1943 and 100 by the end of 1944


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

there would be no point in sending out such a small force, getting parts and replacements out there wouldn't be worth it in the RAF's eyes, in '43 there weren't enough lancs as it was, they were all needed to bomb germany back to the middle ages.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I know all that.
> 
> I was just pointing out that the B17's and B24's operated from a variety of island bases throughout the war. As the AAF sent most BG's to Europe in 1942, the PTO (which includes the SW Pacific and CBI) had to wait untill the JCS made available a few BG's.
> 
> ...



And what were they able to bomb of Mainland, Japan? Nothing. These bases that you are talking about coudl be used to bomb the Islands in the Island Hopping Campaign but not Mainland Japan. They had to take Islands first in order to do that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Yep, and this the point, the amount of bases tripled in a year. Sure there weren't many bombers to be had in mid 1942, but more importantly there was no place to stage them from. Although there were missions flown from Darwin, it wasn't until Guadalcanal and the Islands around it were secured. If you look at that site I posted it shows the tonnage of bombs dropped substantially increase into 1943 as more bases were built and more aircraft (primarily B-24) were deployed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Yeap, but next we will probably be discussing that if that had not changed we would have seen teh B-52 entering service in 1943, because that woudl have made it possible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

although quite how this is to do with the original argument i don't know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Good point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

YEP!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

Never stop a thread if it goes into interesting new directions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

YEP!


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Wildcat, ever hear of the book "King of the Heavies"?
> 
> Its a great book written about the 380th BG.
> 
> Although were far off topic here, Ive always thought that the RAF should have deployed a Lanc squadron here and the 5th AF deploy another B24 group and begin around the clock attacks on the oil fields in Borneo. If this was performed in middle 1943 and supported fully, then the war in the Pacific would have taken a different turn.



I haven't heard of that book Sys, sounds interesting though.

As for using Lancs in the Pacific, the Australian Government in 1943 laid plans to start local manufacture of the Lancaster. A pattern aircraft arrived in June that year, however there was a period of confusion as to how many and what model would be built. The Government finally decided to build Lincolns, which it did, but this was not decided until mid 1945!!
In the meantime however, Gen. George Kenney, decided that due to the vast amounts of Liberators being produced, the RAAF would be supplied with enough B-24's the equip 7 heavy bomber squadrons. The first Libs were delivered in Feb 1944 and went to 7OTU and shortly after that to no. 24 squadron. To gain experiance, RAAF aircrew were attached to the 380th BG in New Guinea for conversion and operational training. Due to delivery delays, the remaining squadrons weren't operational until Jan 1945.
Nos. 21, 23,and 24 squadrons operated as no. 82 bomber wing which played an important part in the Borneo campaign along side the USAAF.
Whats interesting with the Borneo campaign is the Balikpapan operation, in which general orders stated "seize and occupy the Balikpapan, Borneo, area, establish naval, air and logistics facilities and conserve petrolium producing and processing insallations therein.." This seemed to be ignored however, because Balikpapan was virtually blown off the map due to heavy bombing raids and naval gunfire! The Dutch Government (who owned it before the Japs invaded) even complained that the bombardment of Balikpapan was way too excessive and caused unnecessary damage!
Anyway the Lincolns replaced the 287 B-24's in RAAF service in 1948.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

Great info Wildcat!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Wildcat!


Agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Never stop a thread if it goes into interesting new directions.



Ill agree with that also.


----------



## Bf109_g (Oct 13, 2006)

Hi all.

Why does an argument ALWAYS start when comparing the Lancaster to some other WW2 heavy four-engine bomber?? I mean, all WW2 bombers each made a contribution to the war effort, and helped end the war.

James.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2006)

If you read all the threads you would see why?

These arguments are very informative actually and everyone learns from them as well. Both sides of the arguments learn from them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 14, 2006)

> Why does an argument ALWAYS start when comparing the Lancaster to some other WW2 heavy four-engine bomber??



it's normally either mine or syscom's fault  but na i quite enjoy our debates on the subject............


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 14, 2006)

Its because theres no doubt the Lancaster deserves to be ranked #3 or #2.

The B29 was magnitudes better than any other WW2 bomber, so why rank the B17/24/Lanc against the best bomber of WW2?


----------



## ndicki (Oct 14, 2006)

OK, so what about the B-17 vs the Mossie? You know AVM Don Bennett's comments to Mrs Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune while watching Mosquito bombers taking off:

Mrs R: I guess it's the usual milk run to Berlin. Tell me, what is their bomb load?
DB: The Mosquito bombers carry a 4,000lb Blockbuster to Berlin.
Mrs R: And what do the B-17 Flying Fortresses carry to Berlin?
DB. At present...they are carrying3,500lbs. In any case, they cannot carry a blockbuster as it is too large for their bomb bays.
Mrs R: I only hope that the American public never realizes those facts.

("Pathfinder", AVM Don Bennett, CB, CBE, DSO)

Later in the same book, he compares the Mossie to the Lanc:

"A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin.Its casualty rate was about 1/10th that of the Lancaster.Its cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in its crew instead of seven...value for war effort was well on the side of the Mosquito compared to any other aircraft ever produced..."

The only real advantage of the heavies was range, and in Europe at least, there was not much that a Mossie couldn't do.

Best bomber of WW2?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Best bomber of WW2?



B-29....


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 15, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> B-29...


No question about that.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 15, 2006)

I utterly disagree; the only serious advantage the B-29 (or any other heavy) had over the Mossie was range.

Chew on this:

How many Mossies could you build for the cost of one B-29?
How does the bomb load in tonnage compare for that sum of money spent?
What is the difference in price, ie manpower, resources, time and money, of training a B-29 crew compared to a Mossie's?
What is the degree of survivability of each?
What is the cost in terms of gallons per ton of bombs delivered?
Can B-29s operate with the same degree of precision which reduces the liklihood of having to return to the target again?
Do B-29s need fighter escort? What is the added cost of that?

I could go on.

Big aircraft just make big targets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2006)

While I surely understand and can somewhat agree with you, the Mossie can not put down the tonnage that the B-29 can, nor can it carry the large size of bombs that the B-29 can including the A-Bomb.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2006)

The mossie did not carry the sophisticated navigation eqmt that the B29 had.

Nor did it have the payload and range.

Nor did the mossie have the survivablity of receiving damage like the B29/B24/B17 and Lancaster had. Big airplanes meant more tolerance to damage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2006)

ndicki said:


> I utterly disagree; the only serious advantage the B-29 (or any other heavy) had over the Mossie was range.
> 
> Chew on this:
> 
> ...


 The B-29 had about a 10% loss rate through out its career and that includes Korea - its longevity is what give it the major edge over the Mossie the items you tried to point out, additionally the Mossie cold not carry the WMDs of the day. Bottom line, the Mossie didn't routinely carry 22,000 pounds of bombs. BTW - the B-29 was so good the RAF had to use it to close a "gap" in the early 50s.

Chew on this - the life expectancy of the airframe of a Mossie? If your lucky 5 years because of the wood structure. Wood doesn't do too well in changing climates unless the operator could hangar the aircraft - just ask the IAF who had to get rid of their Mossies because they were literary falling apart.

Wood doesn't get repaired that easy in the field - the more it's damaged, the weaker it gets....


ndicki said:


> What is the degree of survivability of each?
> What is the cost in terms of gallons per ton of bombs delivered?


 The B-29 entered the war in late 1944, here are the stats for very heavy bomber tonnage...

United States Army Air Forces in World War II



ndicki said:


> Can B-29s operate with the same degree of precision which reduces the liklihood of having to return to the target again?


Yes and it did over Japan and North Korea, at one point in both conflicts the aircraft was unstoppable..


ndicki said:


> Do B-29s need fighter escort? What is the added cost of that?


 it depended on the the scenario. Sometimes they needed escorts, in Korea they were fored to operate at night but when they did they did not have escorts.


ndicki said:


> I could go on.
> 
> Big aircraft just make big targets.


Technically, operationally, and strategically the B-29 was leaps and bound over the Mossie (and that's not taking anything away from it, it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a complete weapons system and probably the fire control system was more advanced than the whole Mossie airframe. The bombing roles of each were different, but the B-29, even operated conventionally was a war winner, It leveled Japan (and I'm not even talking about the atomic bomb) and squashed communist forces in Korea to the point where they could not openly assemble a large military presence in their major cities.

Hands down the B-29 was the most effect and advanced bomber of WW2


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 15, 2006)

100% correct Joe but you forget the Brits didn't design or build the B29 so it can't be as good as the Mosquito


----------



## ndicki (Oct 15, 2006)

Range, agreed. Obviously in SEA, the Mossie suffered primarily from limited range (and glue problems).

In Europe, however, I do not think I can agree with you; sophisticated nav kit was clearly adequate in the Mossie, as proven by No.8 Grp's LNSF, and No.5 Grp's Master Bombers. Their record for target identification was second to none.

Tolerance to damage is a function of probability of receiving damage; the Lanc was certainly the sturdiest heavy used in Europe, but far more Lancs, expressed as a proportion of those engaged, were lost per sortie flown. It remains to be seen if the B-29 would be able to operate more cheaply (=effectively) in the same conditions.

How many Mossies would you need to carry the bomb load of one B-29? Well, it says in my little book that a B-29 carried a load of 9072Kg, while the Mosquito B.MkXVI carried 4,000lbs, or pretty well 2,000Kg. So 4.5 Mossies for the same bomb load. It's going to be close... You'll be looking at survivability, loss rates, etc. Hum... Cost to build both in money and man-hours (perhaps more importantly)? 

And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.

Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Range, agreed. Obviously in SEA, the Mossie suffered primarily from limited range (and glue problems).
> 
> In Europe, however, I do not think I can agree with you; sophisticated nav kit was clearly adequate in the Mossie, as proven by No.8 Grp's LNSF, and No.5 Grp's Master Bombers. Their record for target identification was second to none.


 The B-29 had about 5 tons of sophisticated nav and communications gear - it a matter of the bigger plane carrying more, the Mossie couldn't come close. In Europe missions were flown over several hundred miles, in the Pacific missions over several thousand were commonplace, not taking anything away from the Mossie crews, but they were literary operating in their own back yard, especially late in the war.


ndicki said:


> Tolerance to damage is a function of probability of receiving damage; the Lanc was certainly the sturdiest heavy used in Europe, but far more Lancs, expressed as a proportion of those engaged, were lost per sortie flown. It remains to be seen if the B-29 would be able to operate more cheaply (=effectively) in the same conditions.


 That it would of but the bottom line wood is not an easy structure to work on in the field and it has limited longevity.


ndicki said:


> How many Mossies would you need to carry the bomb load of one B-29? Well, it says in my little book that a B-29 carried a load of 9072Kg, while the Mosquito B.MkXVI carried 4,000lbs, or pretty well 2,000Kg. So 4.5 Mossies for the same bomb load. It's going to be close... You'll be looking at survivability, loss rates, etc. Hum... Cost to build both in money and man-hours (perhaps more importantly)?


A B-29 carried 40 500 pound bombs routinely - only the Lancaster came close to this, I don't have man hour costs on Mossie production, but the B-29 was posted here in earlier threads and were in the same range as other "smaller " heavies of the period and the production man hours was shrinking by the time the war ended.



ndicki said:


> And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.


 Perhaps, but when you have one big one that could to the job of the 5 and have the weapons system available for 15 years, it's pretty obvious which one is more effective...


ndicki said:


> Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...


In today's world true, anti-aircraft systems rendered "big" lumbering aircraft obsolete for the most part, unless one develops an aircraft like the B-1 or the Backfire and operates fast at low level. At the same time an aircraft like the B-52 is used with great effectiveness when air superiority was achieved, this just seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2006)

Gentlemen. 
The honest truth is that you need both types of aircraft to do different jobs.

You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29. 

Trying to picture a Mossie with a Tallboy is almost as daft as using a B29 for ultra low marker missions.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 15, 2006)

Glider said:


> You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.



AVM Don Bennett actually did...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 15, 2006)

ndicki said:


> AVM Don Bennett actually did...


well as you have a military background you would have to agree that not all officers are smart


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2006)

Agreed Glider and FBJ. There is no realistic way to compare the Mossie to the B-29. To do so is absured. 2 different aircraft for 2 different roles. For Strategic bombing the B-29 is the king. It was the most capable, cost effective and got the job done the best. 

Hands down can not be argued.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Glider said:


> Gentlemen.
> The honest truth is that you need both types of aircraft to do different jobs.
> 
> You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.
> ...



My point....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 15, 2006)

> the B-29 was so good the RAF had to use it to close a "gap" in the early 50s.



hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............

and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............


Hey, not blowing it out of proportion, just proving a point...


the lancaster kicks *** said:


> and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........


Agree...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2006)

Thats the point though Lanc, neither aircraft was better than the other in there role, but the Mossie was not a strategic heavy bomber.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Comparing the two aircraft in their designed role is like apples and oranges. Comparing the two aircraft technically is where the B-29 is clearly superior (and I'm not speaking of only size). It was a least a generation a head of the Mossie...


----------



## ndicki (Oct 15, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> well as you have a military background you would have to agree that not all officers are smart



Is that a personal comment?  

Mind you, it got the thread off again, didn't it? And anyway, I have a soft spot for Mossies.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 23, 2006)

**Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster


----------



## davparlr (Oct 24, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> **Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster



Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work. As a results the B-24 was adapted to the PB4Y patrol aircraft for the Navy and it was also modified to the C-87 configuration for cargo carrying in which it flew the Hump (not the best conversion, but several hundred were built). All in all, I would say this is pretty good adaptablity.

As a point of interest, the Willow Run Ford plant, when up to capacity in 1943, was producing B-24s at the rate of one per hour! This was just one factory building the B-24, albeit the largest in the world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2006)

I think for the most part we can agree that the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24 and was the best heavy bomber of the ETO. Now having said that the B-24 was a magnificent bomber as well and did a very good job with what it did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2006)

> Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work



the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 25, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work. As a results the B-24 was adapted to the PB4Y patrol aircraft for the Navy and it was also modified to the C-87 configuration for cargo carrying in which it flew the Hump (not the best conversion, but several hundred were built). All in all, I would say this is pretty good adaptablity.
> 
> As a point of interest, the Willow Run Ford plant, when up to capacity in 1943, was producing B-24s at the rate of one per hour! This was just one factory building the B-24, albeit the largest in the world.



By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country 

yes i am a lancaster fan unabashed for sure because of my father being a lancaster gunner. but he taught me one thing. give honour and respect to all crews regardless to whence they come from. and give honour and respect to those who did not return whether they are posted missing or killed in action. as one forum writer has on his signiture. They gave their today for our tomorrow. and its a sediment i couldn't agree more so. I came late into this debate but i think we are missing an essential point here b25 and lancaster crews did their individual jobs and that is something we have to be proud of. because i know i am proud of my father serving his country as a lancaster gunner. can we agree to disagree but agree on one thing without these men and women during WW2 regardless of being a humble machinist at a factory or a gunner or a pilot or even a ground crew armourer they all performed valuable work and did so to our gratitude and our future. to which we owe so much


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think for the most part we can agree that the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24 and was the best heavy bomber of the ETO. Now having said that the B-24 was a magnificent bomber as well and did a very good job with what it did.



Couldn't agree more so


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 25, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........



I will give you one thing me old mate. did you start a rumble in the jungle with this debate right from go to whoa hahaha


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2006)

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2006)

again because there was a surplus of them available to send out there, why not compare the aircraft from the same theatre? and the figures for each aircraft used have, for the most part, been for the entire war in every theatre, and the lanc still carried more per sortie, more per aircraft lost and more in total, not only that she had a far greater payload-to-range than the B-24 and could flat out carry more! and that's just their bombing performances! so far the only reason you've been able to come up with as to why the lanc couldn't operate in the PTO was the fact she had four of the most reliable inlines of the war! on top of this your much loved P-38 and P-51 served in the PTO with their inlines without issue........


----------



## ndicki (Oct 26, 2006)

The only significant reason the Lanc was not used in the FEAF/SEA (PTO is an American term, so inappropriate for the Lanc!) is a simple question of availability and priority. Priority went to the destruction and defeat of Nazi Germany, so that is why the limited number of Lancs available (a question of ressources, not any indicator of some spurious superiority) were used to that end. 

RAF and SAAF Liberators were used in the Med, again owing only to questions of availability, and RAF Libs in SEA. Once the Germans had been defeated, the Liberator would have been quickly replaced in the FEAF with Lancasters B.MkI(FE) and B.MkVII(FE), or even, had it lasted, the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name. These Merlin-engined variants were modified or built specifically for Far Eastern operations.

No Liberators were kept on post-war in the RAF, except for a few transport versions.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 26, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country



By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.

As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.

As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.


 And the B-24 was superior to the Space Shuttle in the PTO...


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 26, 2006)

davparlr said:


> By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.
> 
> As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.
> 
> As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.



Oh no didn't take it any way other than what you said but as i replied and you agreed to it was the crews that made the aircraft great. Not sure if the RAF would have traded Lancasters for b29s and relegated Lancasters to the scrape heap. Lancasters had a record all their own as for example 617's use in dam buster raid tripitz raid and ems canal. not sure if Barnes Wallace would have liked designing a bomb for B29 to carry to a specific targets like mentioned before. I do remember seeing a documentary recently on history channel that RAF had accepted some b17s in early 1942 i think and they were unimpressed with them or use of and relegated them to maritime operations. but one has to remember the RAF had their objectives as per say bomber command and the USAAF had their own agendas. but one thing you are correct about we measure short according to the generation who went through a depression and a world war and you will find in later part of WW2 Lancasters were armed with 50 cals in the tail replacing 4x4 303s brownings but this was only a very minor amount of Lancs fitted with this extra punch. but a night time bomber being as the Lancaster was its only rivals were Sterlings and Halifaxes as 4 engined bombers in use in Europe by the RAF. Any way i am enjoying the debate for what it is but keeping in mind one thing it was the crews not just the aeroplane but a combination of crews aeroplane ground staff fitters turners armourers mets mechanics manufacturers etc etc etc the whole lot that got those aircrafts to target. but i still perfer the Lancaster overall call me biased if you want. once a Lancaster fan always a Lancaster fan and no ofeence to B25s fans or any other aircraft etc


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.



do you want to detail Lancaster Squadrons in Pacific operations as i don't have information on that or are you referring to Lincolns perhaps. and by the way Lincolns were used very effectiviely in Malayan campaign in the 1950s


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

I see this thread flairing back up again.  We argued this over and over and pretty much everyone is convinced that the Lancaster was superior to the B-24 except syscom.

Having said that the B-24 was a magnificant aircraft as well and due her praise as well.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 26, 2006)

The only significant reason for the deployment of the Boeing Washington - for the four years in question - is only that the Lincoln was designed for use with conventional bombs; its bomb bay was therefore long and relatively shallow, compared to the squat, deep bomb bays on the B-17, B-24 and B-29 - the very reason why the RAF did not like the American aircraft for bombing ops in WW2. They could not carry large bombs. For a nuclear bomb, however, the Lincoln's bomb bay was rather the wrong shape, and it would have ended up hanging outside, much in the way Grand Slam bombs did on B.I Specials. Not ideal for long distances. The Washington, as shown over Japan, did not have this problem.

To come back to it, No.90 Sqn RAF was the first offensive user of the B-17c/Fortress B.MkI (8th July 1941, against Wilhelmshaven), before the Americans joined the fight, and while Boeing had marketed the aircraft as able to out-fly (especially in terms of ceiling) and out-fight the opposition, this turned out not to be the case. The USAAC had, however, neglected to read the manual, and considered that Fortresses should be used in mutually-supporting formations. By then, the RAF had decided that the Fortress was really not what it needed for bombing operations, and rather than scrap the things, inflicted them on Coastal Command instead after they had made a brief and again unsuccessful tour of Egypt.

The only further use made by Bomber Command of Liberators MkVI et al, and Fortresses MkIIa and III was as radio countermeasures aircraft, with No.100 Group; here, their cavernous bomb bays were modified into R/Os offices, and equipped with all the latest toys.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2006)

I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.

The crappy weather, very long mission times and problematic fighter escort were serious issues to deal with, and the B24 offered capabilities to make a mission successfull.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2006)

> the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name



the Mk.IV and V lancasters were never given the B. designation, that came later in the war..........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2006)

phew sys, it's a good thing there was never any fighters over Europe, what would the lanc have done  and the second pilot issue was easily solved by the addition of a second controll colum, which there was provision for on all lancs and indeed it is the original second pilot control system that allows the present day flying lancs to have dual controlls........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2006)

Lanc, the missions in the PTO were so long, that parts of the mission had to be done during the daylight. Unlike Europe where the missions were far shorter and done with a high probability of being in darkness.

Thats why you had to be able to defend yourself if there were no fighters escorts available.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 26, 2006)

Geez ya Maroon.

Taking off in daylight within friendly airspace, outside of enemy fighter range by 3 hours flying time and meeting your fighter escort two hours later.

You could have carried a bloody 9mm pistol for protection up to that point.

NO ENEMY FIGHTERS HAD THE RANGE TO GET YOU.

and once again.

*Lancasters were not used in the PTO*

Which part of that is confusing you?????????


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Geez ya Maroon.



And youre an ***?



> Taking off in daylight within friendly airspace, outside of enemy fighter range by 3 hours flying time and meeting your fighter escort two hours later.



Quite a few missions were of 10 to 11 hours of duration



> You could have carried a bloody 9mm pistol for protection up to that point.



The AAF issued .45's to the crews, mainly for jungle survival.



> NO ENEMY FIGHTERS HAD THE RANGE TO GET YOU.



Japanese fighters were based through out the PTO and frequently intercepted the bombers

and once again.[/quote]



> Lancasters were not used in the PTO
> 
> Which part of that is confusing you?????????



Which is why the B24's were superior. They fought there and not the Lancs.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 27, 2006)

At this point Kiwi retires for more beer remembering the old adage

"There are only two things that I know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not so sure about the former."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom at this point i would like to take the oppertunity to remind you that the lancaster did not melt in the sunlight, as was capable enough to operate in the daytime to the tune of over 40,000 daylight missions over Europe for a 0.7% loss rate, what's more the japanese arial opposition was worse (or atleast less heavy or concentrated) as it was over europe, .303s worked against flimsy japanese planes as had been proven........


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.
> 
> The crappy weather, very long mission times and problematic fighter escort were serious issues to deal with, and the B24 offered capabilities to make a mission successfull.



The Lanc never got the chance to operate in the "PTO" though, did it, so we'll never know.

And the FE type Lancs were fitted with .50 cal guns in the rear and mid-upper turrets ( FN82 and Martin), so that alone negates one of your points. Some were even fitted with Bristol B.17 MU turrets with twin 20mm cannon. Superior firepower?

The Lanc's range, depending on type, load and mission parameters, was about 2,350 miles with 7,000lbs. This could go up to about 14,000lbs of assorted types of bomb, or even 22,000lbs with the Grand Slam, although with a corresponding drop in range and ceiling (One reason why one has to be very careful with performance stats.) The Liberator B.MkVI had a range of 1,470 miles; I have not been able to determine the bomb load or gross T/O weight for this figure.

Flight Engineers were usually frustrated pilot wannabees, and were generally capable of flying the aircraft, with occasional help from George, in most non-combat situations.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

Here you are, extracts from (first) A.P. 2026A-PN Pilot's Notes for Lancaster, and then A.P. 1867C,D,E,F,G,J-PN Pilot's Notes for Liberator III, V, VI and VIII.

Have fun.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.


It's side-by-side. Tandem is what you have in say a trainer (SNJ)



ndicki said:


> The Lanc never got the chance to operate in the "PTO" though, did it, so we'll never know.


BINGO!


ndicki said:


> Flight Engineers were usually frustrated pilot wannabees, and were generally capable of flying the aircraft, with occasional help from George, in most non-combat situations.


As pointed out earlier probably the only real operational advantage the B-24 had over the Lanc (The second pilot), especially when nursing a shot up plane back home or when attempting to shoot an early beam approach in the fog - probably more hazardous than the actual mission.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> phew sys, it's a good thing there was never any fighters over Europe, what would the lanc have done


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Lanc, the missions in the PTO were so long, that parts of the mission had to be done during the daylight. Unlike Europe where the missions were far shorter and done with a high probability of being in darkness.



Allright lets look at this way. Not to say the PTO was not dangerous and you did not have to deal with fighters and FLAK because we all know you did but lets look at the ETO a bit too.

The moment you took off from England you were withing range of enemy fighters. In the PTO you had a good ways until you were within range of enemy fighters. The moment you crossed the Channel you were over enemy held territory, in the PTO you were over water that was not controled by anyone unless there were ships in the area (granted water is very dangerous too, I would hate to crash in the water). In the ETO the whole time rought to the target was covered by Luftwaffe fighters and FLAK from the ground (dont tell me they were not shot at all the time from teh FLAK, I know this, but the threat was there and everytime they came near a larger city they had to deal with FLAK). In the PTO you did not have to deal with this...

Also the Luftwaffe had effectively developed very sophisticated and very successful night fighter aircraft. Also I dont care how many guns the B-24 has, the gunners can not shoot at what they can not see in the darkness of the night. There were no aircrews with night vision devises so the B-24 so the argument of total darkness is thrown out the window...

Thats why you had to be able to defend yourself if there were no fighters escorts available.[/QUOTE]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Which is why the B24's were superior. They fought there and not the Lancs.



I am going to try and use your logic here. The P-80, Meteor, and Me-262 were not used in the PTO and therefore since the Corsair was it is superior to the above mentioned aircraft.

That is your logic....

Good one syscom for not proving anything again, and just babbling...


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

I think I've said this before - Lancasters fought in Europe because there were limited numbers of them (Britain and Canada did not have the USA's capacity for virtually unlimited production), and the Allies as a whole had decided to concentrate on the elimination of Nazi Germany first. Therefore no operational Lancasters were sent to the FE before VE-Day. That is the only reason.

The Liberator had been judged inappropriate for use as a heavy bomber by Bomber Command - we have already discussed why.

The fact that Liberators were used by the RAF in the Far East would tend to indicate actually that it was in fact an inferior type, as the RAF continued to use aircraft types in SEAC long after they had been withdrawn from service in Bomber Command. The Blenheim and the Wellington are prime examples of this.

Sorry, but there you are.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> syscom at this point i would like to take the oppertunity to remind you that the lancaster did not melt in the sunlight, as was capable enough to operate in the daytime to the tune of over 40,000 daylight missions over Europe for a 0.7% loss rate,



But thats a combined night/day rate. The Lanc in daylight was the most vulnerable of the three heavy bombers during daylight simply because if inadequate defensive capabilities for day time role.



> what's more the japanese arial opposition was worse (or atleast less heavy or concentrated) as it was over europe, .303s worked against flimsy japanese planes as had been proven........



Later model Japanese fighters did have armor and were not as vulnerable.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As pointed out earlier probably the only real operational advantage the B-24 had over the Lanc (The second pilot), especially when nursing a shot up plane back home or when attempting to shoot an early beam approach in the fog - probably more hazardous than the actual mission.



Thats what a lot of these PTO bomb group histories keep mentioning. Crappy weather over vast stretches of ocean and jungle, without nav aids, and treacherous mountains to watch out for.

Can you imagine the strain on the pilot and copilot flying on three engines, 1300 miles from base, with multiple weather fronts to penetrate and nothing but water, jungle and enemy soldiers underneath you. And then your approach pattern to the airfield means you have to watch for sinister cloud enshrouded mountains not to far away.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am going to try and use your logic here. The P-80, Meteor, and Me-262 were not used in the PTO and therefore since the Corsair was it is superior to the above mentioned aircraft.



Not true. Youre comnparing apples with banana's.

The Lanc and B24 were "peers".

The above mentioned fighters were jet propelled, thus a magnitude better than the B24 or Lanc.

And people here have produced evidence that the F4U might have been the best fighter in the PTO.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

ndicki said:


> .....The fact that Liberators were used by the RAF in the Far East would tend to indicate actually that it was in fact an inferior type, as the RAF continued to use aircraft types in SEAC long after they had been withdrawn from service in Bomber Command. The Blenheim and the Wellington are prime examples of this.



No doubt the Lanc had advantages over the B24 in the ETO, and thus was superior.

But in the PTO some B24 charchteristics were superior over the Lanc.

And once the USAAF had the B29's (and soon, the B50's) in quantity, there was no reason to use obsolete airframes like B17/B24/Lanc/Blenheim/Wellington.

So there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> No doubt the Lanc had advantages over the B24 in the ETO, and thus was superior.
> 
> But in the PTO some B24 charchteristics were superior over the Lanc.
> 
> ...



The Blenhien and Wellington were well obsolete before the war's end. The B-24 was not economical operationally and was harder to train on and fly than the B-17, that's why something like 8000 of them were scrapped between Sept. 1945 and May of 1946. The B-17 and Lanc stayed on scene for a number of years because of their ease of operation and longevity - the B-24 disappeared quicker than a condom in a Bangkok whore house once the war ended!!!


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats what a lot of these PTO bomb group histories keep mentioning. Crappy weather over vast stretches of ocean and jungle, without nav aids, and treacherous mountains to watch out for.
> 
> Can you imagine the strain on the pilot and copilot flying on three engines, 1300 miles from base, with multiple weather fronts to penetrate and nothing but water, jungle and enemy soldiers underneath you. And then your approach pattern to the airfield means you have to watch for sinister cloud enshrouded mountains not to far away.



Not to mention the radars, Bf110gs, He219s, Do217s, Wilde Sau Bf109s, the predicted FlaK, searchlights and the added danger of being in the middle of a stream of some 300 - 400 other aircraft that you can't see. And fog when you get back.

And the only reason that the Lanc/Lincoln was not used had nothing to do with its obsolescence - rather with the fact that Japan surrendered before they could be deployed.

The final Lancaster derivative, the Avro Shackleton, was withdrawn from RAF service in 1991! The SAAF had retired its Shacks in 1984, primarily as a result of the inavailability of parts.

The final user of the Lancaster was the French Naval Air service, which withdrew them in 1962.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 27, 2006)

ndicki said:


> The final user of the Lancaster was the French Naval Air service, which withdrew them in 1962.


The RCAF didn't retire it's last Lancs until 1964.

Awesome pics.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

I stand corrected!

The RCAF taught my father to fly, back in the old days, at 30 EFTS at Assiniboia and 33 SFTS at Carberry. His photo album from 1942-3 is entitled "Memories of Happy Days"! says it all!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 27, 2006)

Good stuff! Here's an old Air Force one of my grandad from about 1940-41 or so. I _think_ it was taken in Borden, Ontario. Could be wrong about that. I'll have to check. 

Maybe they crossed paths at one time or another. Who knows?


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

Could very well have done - the Air Works isn't that big a place, even then. Did he make it over to this side of the Pond?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 27, 2006)

Yep. He flew a Lanc with No.6 Bomber Group, and a Halifax for a bit as well.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

Figures. Mine did a tour with 5 Group, then a bit of flight testing, and as he didn't like that, got into the Glider Pilot Regt in time for Varsity. After that, it was trash-hauling in a Dakota until he was sent to do recruiting in Swansea in 1946!


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 27, 2006)

not to many high mountains in pacific countries where aircrews were stationed in the pacific with only a few exceptions being PNG (Papua New Guinea) Owen Stanley region. and these were short missions as 2 engine bombers were used for example beuafighters and beuaforts used by RAAF single engine fighters as well like spitfires hurricanes and kittyhawks etc. But if you are referring to other pacific islands not seen to many with exceptionally high mountains to bother aircrews as you are claiming. and the only island i can think of in pacific with high mountain would be iwo jima. unless you are referring to aircrews flying the hump being the himalayian mountains but this is in asia and not part of the pacific. transport fighter and bomber squadrons also had routes via himalayas. but i seem to remember when it came to B29 crews trying to bomb Japan from this locality it was accord to be a failure. not due to crews or bombers but by sheer logistics alone because of vast distances and lack of supplies and logistics. all said and done flying over europe in total darkness with primitive naviagation aids compared to today standards with anti aircraft fire and search lights coming up at you plus with the threat of constant night fighters with primitive radar detection system that had successes. i would compare both flying over europe day or night or flying over pacific islands or asia as equally hazardous to air crews. me thinks you are making moutains out of mole hills or either that playing devil's advocate just because you can to see what reaction you get to this i believe its just a game to you and you are stirring the pot hahaha
Syscom this is what i believe you are doing just stirring the pot so to speak


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 27, 2006)

The B-24 Liberator was a good plane, undoubtedly, with good range etc, but it had some real flaws. The speed governor on it's propellors were notorious for failure at take off causing overspeed and engine fires with props separating from the engine. 

This wasn't only at take off... Just that this was the most critical moment. If it happened en-route to target the B-24 would fall out of formation and immediately fall prey to fighters away from the protection of box formation. I don't think they would have been popular with crews for that reason.

Normally if you lose an engine, that's fine. You just limp home on three, but over Europe in daylight that was a death sentence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2006)

Kiwikid said:


> The B-24 Liberator was a good plane, undoubtedly, with good range etc, but it had some real flaws. The speed governor on it's propellors were notorious for failure at take off causing overspeed and engine fires with props separating from the engine.


 The failures happened because of the Curtiss electric propellers which would go flat during take off (many other aircraft had the same problem as the propeller hub was used on a wide variety of propeller models). I have an uncle who was the only survivor of a 12 man crew which had a prop failure. 


Kiwikid said:


> This wasn't only at take off... Just that this was the most critical moment. If it happened en-route to target the B-24 would fall out of formation and immediately fall prey to fighters away from the protection of box formation. I don't think they would have been popular with crews for that reason.
> 
> Normally if you lose an engine, that's fine. You just limp home on three, but over Europe in daylight that was a death sentence.


The B-24 had very poor engine out performance period, mainly because of the thin Davis Airfoil. When all four engines were turning the wing was very efficient and was one of the reasons why the B-24 was faster than the B-17 and had a greater range, loose an engine and the aircraft started becoming a brick.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 27, 2006)

SOOOO

The Lanc WAS better than the B-24 in the PTO.

It could get home on one engine.

Now where did I leave that trench to take cover in.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Tthe B-24 disappeared quicker than a condom in a Bangkok whore house once the war ended!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

> And the only reason that the Lanc/Lincoln was not used had nothing to do with its obsolescence - rather with the fact that Japan surrendered before they could be deployed.



We had another thread that showed the B29 and B50 were both far more advanced than the Lincoln. Both the Lanc and Lincoln were outclassed by Aug 1945, although the Lincoln had enough potential to be usefull for a year or so longer.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2006)

> not to many high mountains in pacific countries where aircrews were stationed in the pacific with only a few exceptions being PNG (Papua New Guinea) Owen Stanley region.



The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.



> and these were short missions as 2 engine bombers were used for example beuafighters and beuaforts used by RAAF single engine fighters as well like spitfires hurricanes and kittyhawks etc.



The raids against Balikpapen in 1943 and 1944 were of 1300-1600 mile missions, one way. The there were the raids from the PI against Vietnam that were long enough to as not have fighter escort. There simply were not enough P38 groups available to cover every missions.



> But if you are referring to other pacific islands not seen to many with exceptionally high mountains to bother aircrews as you are claiming. and the only island i can think of in pacific with high mountain would be iwo jima.



I'm, not referring to those islands. Although, I would like to point out that the PI has some impressive mountains in the north.



> all said and done flying over europe in total darkness with primitive naviagation aids compared to today standards with anti aircraft fire and search lights coming up at you plus with the threat of constant night fighters with primitive radar detection system that had successes. i would compare both flying over europe day or night or flying over pacific islands or asia as equally hazardous to air crews. me thinks you are making moutains out of mole hills or either that playing devil's advocate just because you can to see what reaction you get to this i believe its just a game to you and you are stirring the pot hahaha



The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK. If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix. In the PTO, you didnt have that luxury. The jungle and ocean all looks the same. And the jungle was bad enough that even if you crash landed a couple dozen miles from your base, survival was still dicey.



> Syscom this is what i believe you are doing just stirring the pot so to speak



I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific. as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip. as for your reference to aircraft being lost in Papua New Guinea Owen Stanleys that is correct. Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is. How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons. the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific.



They were considered part of the PTO. In WW2, the dutch east Indies were considered as part of the PTO for planning and operations. Even the Aleution's were considered part of the PTO.



> as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip.



The missions in Europe were shorter and there were plenty of land masses to take a fix. And the one big drawback of operating over the ocean without nav aids is how easy it is to get lost. 



> .....Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons.



The aircraft lost in the Dutch Coastal regions were due to battle damage, not because an aircraft got lost in a cloud and flew into a mountain.




> the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme



I have said the Lanc was the better of the two in the ETO. And I found the proof by myself and not by what others said. Now just because the Lanc was better in Europe doesnt mean it was better in the Pacific. Just like the P51 was the best long range allied fighter in Europe doesnt mean it was the best in the PTO either.

And I have never said that the Lanc was inferior because of the crew or eqmt. Now show me where in the past 3809 posts where I said such a thing.

And its pretty early for a newbie to call me an ******* when obviously you havent read even a tiny fraction of the many threads of contributed to this forum.

Now thicken your skin, debate the issues and dont namecall. It makes you look like a schmuck.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 28, 2006)

Thanks FlyboyJ ... It wasn't just me who thought that. The early C-130A/B Hercules had the same problems with Curtiss propellors.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Not true. Youre comnparing apples with banana's.
> 
> The Lanc and B24 were "peers".
> 
> ...




No syscom, absolutely not. Using your logic it does not matter. Any aircraft that flew in the PTO was superior than the ETO aircraft. Maybe you need to word your feeble arguements better. 

That makes no sense since the Luftwaffe is proven more deadly than the Japanese airforce and navy aircraft.

Besides the Lanc had to deal with the Luftwaffe night fighters which were very deadly and advanced.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK.



Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy... 



syscom3 said:


> If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix.



Not at night you cant. Those features that you pic out, you fly into them before you can pick them out if you are low eneogh. Ive got plenty of low level experience in Europe at night and I dont think the features have changed much since 1943. 



syscom3 said:


> I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.



 Yeah for the most part you do make some interesting conversations and that is why I like you, but you have to admit you are very very biassed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2006)

> But thats a combined night/day rate



no no i can assure you it's not, the combined day/night rate is something like 2.4%, for the lanc's 40,000+ *daylight* missions the loss rate was *0.7%* ................


i can't really quote much more from the last couple of pages because you haven't been debating anything particularly relivant, yes there are mountains in the PTO, but one of the novelties of an aircraft is that you can go over or around them, they would be no more a problem for the lanc as the B-24

next is this crap about navigation, are you claiming the lanc wouldn't be able to operate in the PTO because you can't navigate in a lanc but you can in a B-24  bigger map table is there  there was no problems with RAF navigation, if you can navigate your way in a B-24 you can do it in a lanc as well so why're we arguing about this 

and syscom we've proved our points over and over, the only reason you can give for the lanc not being able to operate in the PTO was the fact she didn't have a co-pilot, which as we have discussed is easily fixable, other than that the lancaster was a supperior bomber in terms of load carrying and range so why couldn't she operate in the PTO?


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

And if the Lincoln - and therefore the Shack - were already out of date before they even entered servoce, why did the RAF chuck the Washington at the first possible opportunity?


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

Actually, Lancs as a whole had a far better navigation and radar defence suite ( K2S, Gee, LORAN, Oboe, Monica, etc) than American aircraft because they had to navigate individually to the target and back, rather than in a big herd like the USAAF by day.

And if you feel that that somehow makes the Liberator a better crate, I really do not see why.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> They were considered part of the PTO. In WW2, the dutch east Indies were considered as part of the PTO for planning and operations. Even the Aleution's were considered part of the PTO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i do appologise for calling you an ***. however i have read most of your post and such. however you seem to think flying in wartime Europe was a walk in the park. it definitely wasn't a walk in the park at all. and some of those aircraft posted missing on the dutch coast which have never been found there is no record for the reason as to why they disappeared at all. battle damage maybe one reason there maybe a myriad of reason as to why aircraft go missing. if the lancaster was to be used in the pacific it would have been done in a way that suited the purposes it was to be used for. seeing it wasn't there is no debate. yet the lancaster was modified to suit purposes that it had to meet. I seem to remember reading about recon aircraft being posted as missing in europe that only recently they recovered along with pilot. europe of all places not a jungle in sight yet pilot and aircraft missing. 

the pacific in itself was a different style of warfare. mostly fought over water and between islands etc but hazardous in itself. and had its subsquent dangers. like the japanese executing shot down allied servicemen etc or jungle dieseases if crew came down over land etc. however allied servicemen often faced similar aspects if shot down over german or occupied territory. countless times allied airmen were either shot after bailing out by either german patrols or townsfolk themselves or by the gestapo and especially the gestapo who were infamous in their treatment of prisoners of war 

now another area you are ignoring RAF bomber crews if you hadn't realised had already down the england to italy leg on numerous occassions. these were done by crews flying short sterlings and lancasters to turin. not an insignificant flying time or distance by any means and returning to base. 617 squadron also flew from southern european russia to complete bombing missions over tirpitz and return back to england not an insignificant feat in mileage at all. and the mediterrian campaign with also the north african airwar. easy to get lost over desert from the air then water with no points of reference either syns. but you are trying to compare it was easier in europe then it was in pacific. it simply wasn't the case for either theatre of operations syns. the same concurrent dangers occured the same possiblity of not returning from mission was there and the same avenues could befall aircrews no matter where they were fighting. and this is the point most people are trying to make to you. the total allied crews lost in the european air war was comparable in ratio during 1942 to 1945 as 3 months on the somme battlefield in WW1 and casualities on that battlefield. its something you seem to be missing this point casuality rates in european air war were staggering in comparison to other areas. this included all casualities from all allied airforces operating in europe. as it wasn't just british (commonwealth)or american airmen dying but also french and russian and if you add numbers of axis pilots lost the number increases dramatically. and the consquent damage these raids had on european countries themselves, germany for example was systematically raised to the ground from one major city and town to the next and it wasn't always strategic in the reasons why a city was selected for targetting. for example dresden in 1945. was bombed not just for it being a transport junction but was bombed for political reason as it has been claimed old joe stalin wanted it done. nurumberg was targetted for what reason syns industrial no political yes. same as berlin itself not for industrial but for political reasons on its own. same as munich and several other cities. can same be said about air war in pacific. yes tokyo was bombed but was the imperial palace nope. could the emperor of japan been a target at the time and low level b29 strikes were occuring. was the USAF navigation that bad over tokyo they couldn't find their way to that part of the city. was the bomb aimer that bad in a b29 that the bombing of the palace couldn't have been done and put the emperors life at peril. after all it was total war and according to you it was somewhat more difficult in the pacific. maybe if it was left to 617 squadron to scratch the emperor of the list as a target it would have been done with no questions as to why not. yet the reichstag in berlin was obliterated and every other building within a radius of 5 miles of the place was flattened. i know tokyo and most other japanese cities were levelled yet some how imperial palace was left alone. and emperor was never a serious target. but we all know german and other axis leaders were always targetted regardless. one wonders why the difference sysn


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2006)

and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really  but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.
> 
> Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...
> 
> ...



at last some one said the biased word tsk tsk tsk Adler


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really  but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........



its ok Kick i can look after myself in a debate. i admit i shouldn't have called sysc an *** but to me he was coming off as one. my opinion only and sysc i appologise for calling you an ***, you schumack is much better hahaha


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


>



must admit i like that quote myself. b25 was quicker to disappear then a condom in a bangkok whore house. now that is funny fly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Agreed with both things said by Lanc and Emac.

The arguements that you propose syscom have never proved anything and that has been said by everyone in this forum from myself, Lanc, FBJ,and now Emac.

They are just quatsch as Germans say it...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

> And if the Lincoln - and therefore the Shack - were already out of date before they even entered servoce, why did the RAF chuck the Washington at the first possible opportunity?



Because of national pride.

And if you think the Lincoln was superior to the B29/B50, boy are you mistaken.

And so what about the Shackleford? Whoop de doo. The US had the B36 which was magnitudes better.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Actually, Lancs as a whole had a far better navigation and radar defence suite ( K2S, Gee, LORAN, Oboe, Monica, etc) than American aircraft because they had to navigate individually to the target and back, rather than in a big herd like the USAAF by day.
> 
> And if you feel that that somehow makes the Liberator a better crate, I really do not see why.



The USAAF ended up using them all. In 1945, some of them were standard installation for B24's going to the PTO.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

> The failures happened because of the Curtiss electric propellers which would go flat during take off (many other aircraft had the same problem as the propeller hub was used on a wide variety of propeller models)



Are you sure about the electric type props?

Only reference I've found is the use of Hamilton Standard hydraulic types.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Because of national pride.



Like you are the one talk here... 



syscom3 said:


> And so what about the Shackleford? Whoop de doo. The US had the B36 which was magnitudes better.



And the discussion is about the B-24 and Lancaster which clearly the Lancaster is more superior.

Better range
Better performance
Bigger bombload

The disadvantages of the Lancaster are outweighed by the advantages.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

> Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.
> 
> Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...



I've had experince doing it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I've had experince doing it.


Over Southern California?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Are you sure about the electric type props?
> 
> Only reference I've found is the use of Hamilton Standard hydraulic types.



Some early B-24s had Curtiss Electric Propellers (B-24 Es)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I've had experince doing it.



 

 

Yeah in a flight sim! That is no where near the same as the real thing buddy! You aint gonna die...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

> Like you are the one talk here...



The reason the B24 was better than the Lanc in the PTO has nothing to do with national pride. If it was true, then i would have said it was also better than the Lanc in the ETO.





> And the discussion is about the B-24 and Lancaster which clearly the Lancaster is more superior.
> 
> Better range
> Better performance
> Bigger bombload



Which in the PTO, was offset by the B24's advantage's.
Pilot/Copilot setup - which reduced workload on the long long missions and flying in to the expected crappy weather particular to that part of the world.

Better defensive firepower - which gave it a better chance than the Lanc to fend off the Japanese fighters.

Superior assembly techniques and times which enabled the plane to be built by the 10's of thousands.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah in a flight sim! That is no where near the same as the real thing buddy! You aint gonna die...



You keep making assumptions about that.

Ever heard of cross country plane rides in "cessna's?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Superior assembly techniques and times which enabled the plane to be built by the 10's of thousands.


Sys give it up, that 's been beat to death - Any WW2 aircraft if given the resources could of been produced like the B-24 and we shown that previously. the only reason why the B-24 was able to be produced in such quantities was the foresight of Rubin Fleet to team up with Ford and to have Charles Sorenson run the whole program....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Which in the PTO, was offset by the B24's advantage's.
> Pilot/Copilot setup - which reduced workload on the long long missions and flying in to the expected crappy weather particular to that part of the world.



Which if the Lanc had served in the PTO it would have been equipped with the second pilot station which was a rather easy modification for the Lanc. The Lanc did not serve in the PTO during the war as the B-24 did and therefore the only think we can truely use to compare the 2 aircraft is the ETO. Therefore the Lancaster is better than the B-24. Get over it.



syscom3 said:


> Better defensive firepower - which gave it a better chance than the Lanc to fend off the Japanese fighters.



The Lancaster did just fine in the ETO and the Luftwaffe fighters were much more of a threat than the Japanese fighters. Proven fact that the Luftwaffe had better tactics and better aircraft.



syscom3 said:


> Superior assembly techniques and times which enabled the plane to be built by the 10's of thousands.



As FBJ said it, you are beating the dead horse again because you have run out of arguements.

The B-24 was able to be built in larger numbers because of the US industrial capacity. *That does not make the B-24 a better aircraft than the Lancaster when you are comparing the aircraft not the production methods!*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You keep making assumptions about that.
> 
> Ever heard of cross country plane rides in "cessna's?



Yeah over California with lit up cities every mile.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

And that b*lls about superior firepower we've also already dealt with - the FE type Lancs carried .50 cal Brownings and even 20mm cannon in the MU turret.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

Furthermore, it'd be interesting to look at survivability after receiving significant damage. Lancs could - and often did - hold the air on two engines. Start there, and work back to things like losing tailplanes, elevators, ailerons, etc. I think you'll find that the Lanc remained controllable after a higher degree of damage than the Liberator.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2006)

even with almost every light in the city on it's a struggle to see some cities from long ranges, the best way to spot a city is to set it ablaze  but as i've said the B-24's crews managed to navigate so there's no reason why the lanc crews, with superior electronic aids (flying over water crews would be given a lot more of the sophisticated equiptment as its impossible to retrive from the bottom of the ocean... unless the japanese did simulated dives in a swimming pool, hey sys  ) wouldn't be able to navigate just as well so why is it we're arging about this?

yes sys the two pilots is an advantage to the B-24 however the fitting of a second pilot's control set was a fairly easy and very much a standard modification (not in the sense it was widely done but officially reconised).........

and did all those guns really help the B-24? was she impervious to japanese fighters? no, the japanese fighters were no more a threat than the German ones, less so in fact, and remember it's a bomber's job to deliver bombs to the target, the lanc delivered more bombs to any range than the B-24 period! what's more some lancs were carrying .50cals by the end of the war, and the FE models were planned to be fitted with .50cals............

so are you gonna come up with anything new or do we play the same broken record over and over?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> so are you gonna come up with anything new or do we play the same broken record over and over?


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

Must admit, we do seem to have to keep saying the same things again and again. Perhaps they're not being read.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

I happen to agree with you there ndicki.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

It goes with the saying "I give you books and you eat the covers."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah over California with lit up cities every mile.



See, you keep making assumptions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> See, you keep making assumptions.


Well where? Just about any point on the west coast it lit up well enough to give enough reference on any given night with no weather obscurities. Even out in Eastern Colorado or Western Nebraska there is still enough lights to make pilotage and DR go together without being that challenging.

With that said - using DR during WW2 was a little different. Aircraft were at altitude, flying a lot faster than most GA aircraft and had the jet stream and more adverse weather to deal with. Unless you really stayed on top of your game, you could get very lost very quick, hence the term "NAVIGUSSER."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

On our cross country trips across the SW, he (my friend who was a instructor pilot that was transporting small aircraft) gave me a map and told me to practice some basic trigonometry.

It didnt matter if I could identify our route by the cities, as I had to prove to him through compass heading, windage and elapsed time where we were.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> On our cross country trips across the SW, he (my friend who was a instructor pilot that was transporting small aircraft) gave me a map and told me to practice some basic trigonometry.
> 
> It didnt matter if I could identify our route by the cities, as I had to prove to him through compass heading, windage and elapsed time where we were.



Try doing that at 20,000 feet, @ 230 knots with no winds aloft information...


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Because of national pride.
> 
> And if you think the Lincoln was superior to the B29/B50, boy are you mistaken.
> 
> And so what about the Shackleford? Whoop de doo. The US had the B36 which was magnitudes better.



National pride maybe. Indebt for Millions upon millions of Pound Sterling more of a case. England used the aircraft she had on hand for her own defense capabilities post war time up until the early and late 1960s sys. It wasn't until 1978 that England managed to pay of her lend lease debts to the USA. Look up the term LEND LEASE. IT MEANS YOU BORROW IT AND PAY LATER. So it would make practical and common sense for a country so indebted to another financialy to use her own equipment and aircraft on hand then continue to buy aircraft from the country you owe money too on a lend lease scheme


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Try doing that at 20,000 feet, @ 230 knots with no winds aloft information...



also in total darkness and being shot at during the evaluation of the flight. with what limited training of 6 months to be trained as a qualified navigator because of the high rate of crews being lost in battle and high attrition rate of crews. flying in europe in war time in my opinion bit different from flying across peace time USA countryside. Not unless the city gang thugs in the USA have stepped up their anti social behaviour and all qualified as pilots


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> also in total darkness and being shot at during the evaluation of the flight. with what limited training of 6 months to be trained as a qualified navigator because of the high rate of crews being lost in battle and high attrition rate of crews. flying in europe in war time in my opinion bit different from flying across peace time USA countryside. Not unless the city gang thugs in the USA have stepped up their anti social behaviour and all qualified as pilots


Only over LA or Washington DC....


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

You are a funny man Flyboy. by the way at moment reading the Log Book from the Navigator who was in my father's crew who were in a Lancaster Squadron. From his accounts in the Log Book and him informing myself and other members of our family over many years prior to my father passing away. This Navigator didn't have it as easy as some are claiming flying over wartime Europe. Perhaps some do not realize the situation for a Navigator in Europe during WW2 was perilous and same for Navigators in SW Pacific. Same inherit danger. Sys maybe you need to come to realization war is confusing to the senses and there is a vast difference navigating in peace time to navigating during wartime. You are a smart man sys work it out for your self. The crews performed their duties to the best of their abilities. saying one did better or comparing the different war zones they found themselves in is silly and niave to the extreme. You are trying to compare war in the Pacific to War in the European theatre. You are hair splitting sys Lancaster Sterling Halifax Crews faced the same dangers as b25 b29 b17 aircrews had done just in different war zones and at times of day. Being shot at is still being shot at sys regardless of time of day or geographic region or what aircraft they were using. And to this i think you are marginally missing the point. As your posts seems to suggest RAF crews had it easy over Europe. They certainly didn't have it easy sys. I will now give you the casuality rate for RAAF crews in Europe and pacific regions and other areas.

Europe 5,504 KIA 969 injured total 6473
Pacific 3,527 KIA 1,706 injured total 5,233
Middle East 1,132 KIA injured 473 total 1,545
India Burma 247 KIA 89 injured total 336
Canada Training 145 (Accident Death ) 54 injured total 199
Far East 138 KIA 46 injured total 184
Other areas 61 KIA 13 injured total 74

Total RAAF loses for Killed in action or training
10,754
Total RAAF personal injured
3,290
Overall total RAAF personal Killed or Injured
14,044
Also remember that the RAAF had the worlds 4th largest volunteer airforce at the time in compared with our population at the time. Total enlistments for RAAF during war 189,700 men 27,200 women who joined the WAAAF, but the majority of deaths and injury occured in the European area sys also take into account the middle east and north african region casuality rates were high for aircrew in European theatre of operation
this is just one Allied airforce Numbers. i haven't the numbers for british canadian french russian or US allies airforces but can imagine much higher in comparison. given those accounts on casualties sys was it easier in Europe to the Pacific. no it wasn't the casuality rates in Pacific and Asia was just as horrific. so stop splitting hairs sys because i feel that is what you are doing


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 28, 2006)

another site you may find interest sys and they do have actual war time footage in this site for aircrews is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra Australia . i suggest you go and have a look sys it may enlighten you to what actually occured. some of the footage is actual bombing mission by aircrews during wartime and comes from courtesy of Imperial War Musuem England

sorry had to edit part of the post www.awm.com.au


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Try doing that at 20,000 feet, @ 230 knots with no winds aloft information...



If i had a sextant, I could have plotted the course. Not enough to drop bombs, but enough to know where we were at within a box of so many miles.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Only over LA or Washington DC....



Dont laugh. During the LA riots in '92, the thugs were shooting at aircraft.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 29, 2006)

> Not enough to drop bombs, but enough to know where we were at within a box of so many miles.



With that we can relax. You will never drop bombs, or land on the runway.  

Wait until your in the boonies somewhere with a topographical map and compass, you get handed a blade of grass with the words "Where are we."

You are supposed to know.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 29, 2006)

I'll agree the lanc probably carried the most tonnage with exception of the 29 but it in no way could have suceeded in the day enviroment with the 17 or 24 its niche was night bombing I shudder to think what the losses would be if Bomber Command had attempted a Regensberg or Ploesti type raid. Even if the technology used by Bomber Command to target the objective was as accurate as the MK1 eyeball used in day missions was as accurate as the 17/24 in CEP is something I've never seen


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If i had a sextant, I could have plotted the course. Not enough to drop bombs, but enough to know where we were at within a box of so many miles.


If you'd had a sextant I'd advise you to throw it out the window because it's only going to tell you you're exact position providing you could get a fix. You still cannot determine winds aloft which will blow you easily off course in a matter of minutes and above seven or eight thousand feet you could start encountering winds in excess of 40 mph. Sextants were installed on aircraft but for the most part they were useless, and I haven't even brought up high clouds obscuring the night sky.... That box of many miles could turn into a few hundered real quick!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> This Navigator didn't have it as easy as some are claiming flying over wartime Europe. Perhaps some do not realize the situation for a Navigator in Europe during WW2 was perilous and same for Navigators in SW Pacific. Same inherit danger.


Or North Africa, just ask the Navigator of "Lady be Good."


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Or North Africa, just ask the Navigator of "Lady be Good."



Damn who would want to be a navigator anywhere in that time of historical period flyboy night day evening morning. depending on the aircraft you could be responsible for others lives as well as your own. make one stuff up in calculations read wind speed velocity wrong take one bearing incorrectly and you could be history and along with other men in the aircraft and it didn't matter in which theatre of war you was flying in. mistakes could and did cost men their lives


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Dont laugh. During the LA riots in '92, the thugs were shooting at aircraft.



in 1939 to 1945 German Italian Vichy French and Japanese were also shooting at Allied Aircraft too. but its ok Allies shot back at the enemies aircraft so it seemed to even itself if you could call it that. If in doubt refer to Herman Georing's claim about enemy bombs falling on the Third Reich. After that Herman's Nickname was Meyer when he got proved wrong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> Damn who would want to be a navigator anywhere in that time of historical period flyboy night day evening morning. depending on the aircraft you could be responsible for others lives as well as your own. make one stuff up in calculations read wind speed velocity wrong take one bearing incorrectly and you could be history and along with other men in the aircraft and it didn't matter in which theatre of war you was flying in. mistakes could and did cost men their lives


That's right - and my point from the earlier post, comparing DR in a Cessna somewhere over the Southwestern US (Even in the most desolate places) is still a piece of cake when compared with what a WW2 navigator had to do, even in the most simplest situations.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

Just start with the fact that the Nav would, after his first mission, tie bits of string to all his implements, to anchor them to his table. On the first sortie he did, the whole lot ended up scattered all down the fuselage after a brisk corkscrew by the pilot... On subsequent sorties, the only piece of navigation equipment to get thrown around was himself. Start with that.

And to confirm what Emac44 says, my father was one of two survivors out of the 30-odd cadet pilots at his SFTS in Carberry, Manitoba. The rest got the chop.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

Oh, and Lancs did operate by day from time to time. And got chopped up just the same way the early, unescorted or inadequately escorted USAAF raids did. The difference was that the US could afford to bull it out and take the casualties, the RAF could not. A question not only of resources in men and machines, but also a decision on whether or not the cost was worth it, given the damage done to the target. Until the advent of the Mustang MkIII and IV, the British answer was that it was not.

It is of significant interest to note that as a rule, by 1944-45, the degree of damage done by the RAF by night was equivalent to that done by the USAAF by day. Admittedly, in the early years, up into 1943, it was none too precise, but that changed.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 29, 2006)

The Lanc if it flew daylight missions in the same time period as the 17/24 combo1943 early 44 would not have faired anywhere as well as the 8th airforce . The fact the box was not flown by nor practiced by Bomber Command led to some awful losses . I believe in late Mar 45 6 group got caught without fighter cover on a daylight mission and got crushed . If you look at the Nuremburg raid with its extremely heavy losses of 100+/- aircraft and ask the crews about it they will say it was a daylight raid full moon over overcast skies . Descibed by some as flying in a well lit arena it was akin to a turkey shoot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2006)

haha! the B-17s and B-24s did not survive over Europe, they flew in local air superiority becuase of their P-51 escorts, remember american losses were so high before the 'stang that they were considdering not carrying on the offensive! unescorted B-17s were shot down in droves as no ammount of guns can save you completely, which is why the British had the corkscrew amoung other manouvers, so don't you dare compare the lanc's 40,000 dalight missions at 0.7% losses with the american bombing under heavy escort..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

First of all syscom, dont give me reasons to make assumptions then, because that is all you ever give me.




FLYBOYJ said:


> If you'd had a sextant I'd advise you to throw it out the window because it's only going to tell you you're exact position providing you could get a fix. You still cannot determine winds aloft which will blow you easily off course in a matter of minutes and above seven or eight thousand feet you could start encountering winds in excess of 40 mph. Sextants were installed on aircraft but for the most part they were useless, and I haven't even brought up high clouds obscuring the night sky.... That box of many miles could turn into a few hundered real quick!!!



Oh and dont forget the illusion of *False Horizon* and Vertigo that the clouds will give you, especially IFR at night. Make you think you think you in a different attitude. If you are not on your game and cant follow your instruments you will get lost real quick if you have not allready dove the aircraft into the ground...

False Horizon and vertigo is the craziest thing I ever felt on an IFR flight. We were wings level and I thought I was upside down in a dive!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2006)

Everytime I fly IFR I get vertigo - you learn to keep the scan going on those flight instruments.

BTW, last week my father in law got me an hour in the 737 sim, shot some approaches and did IFR work (vertigo of course set in).


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 29, 2006)

The Regensburg and Schweinfurt missions were flown without fighter cover for the most part so was ploesti and many others if the Lanc had done either of those missions I'll bet the loss rates would have been much higher. The Lanc flew most of its daylight missions after the Luftwaffe had started to fade you probably could have used Battles or Hampdens and had lower rates for losses . One must realize we are talking apples and oranges daylight was harder but far more accurate it can't help but be the Pathfinders did good work but were far from perfect . 
heres a question are Bomber Command losses including those that crashed due to primitive landing aids upon return or just losses due to enemy action


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Everytime I fly IFR I get vertigo - you learn to keep the scan going on those flight instruments.
> 
> BTW, last week my father in law got me an hour in the 737 sim, shot some approaches and did IFR work (vertigo of course set in).



I learned to control it as well. It scared the **** out of me the first time and then after that I learned how to control and beat it and never had a problem since.


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 29, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Just start with the fact that the Nav would, after his first mission, tie bits of string to all his implements, to anchor them to his table. On the first sortie he did, the whole lot ended up scattered all down the fuselage after a brisk corkscrew by the pilot... On subsequent sorties, the only piece of navigation equipment to get thrown around was himself. Start with that.
> 
> And to confirm what Emac44 says, my father was one of two survivors out of the 30-odd cadet pilots at his SFTS in Carberry, Manitoba. The rest got the chop.



Not just the Navigator but the gunners would be sitting on their parachutes the whole time. Especially the mid upper gunner who virtually in a Lancaster is just sitting on a wooden board. you try sitting on that for 7 to 8 hours see how you would feel when you got home to base. And bad enough practise parachute drill. imagine trying to get out of a damage Lancaster and crawling over main spar and the aircraft is spinning and all in pitch dark


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 29, 2006)

Mid uppers parachute was stored beside the turret clipped to the fuselage, he sat on a leather strap.

Prefered escape was, out of turret, clip on chute, climb over two spars going forward, drop into nose section past pilot, drop through escape hatch in floor.

Rear gunner had his chute stored against the fuselage outside the turret. he needed to rotate the turret to facing straight back open the turret door, reach out, grab chute, clip it on his chest, rotate turret and then bail out.

Not fun in daylight flying level. Night time in an aircraft spinning, a nightmare.

photo from Kiwi Aircraft Images


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 29, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Mid uppers parachute was stored beside the turret clipped to the fuselage, he sat on a leather strap.
> 
> Prefered escape was, out of turret, clip on chute, climb over two spars going forward, drop into nose section past pilot, drop through escape hatch in floor.
> 
> ...



Nightmare is understatement Kiwi. and mid upper gunner still had to climb over main spar to escape. normal flying conditions awkward but in spinning aircraft possibley on fire with smoke billowing through aircraft near impossible. father had said it was a wooden board he sat on with parachute. he claimed it was most uncomfortable all the time


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2006)

Plus all sorts of exposed metal and eqmt that the chute harness can get tangled on.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

And the Elsan...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2006)

i wonder if any crews ever crapped down the flare chute


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

Well, Hampdem pilots had to keep on very polite terms with their ground crews, or otherwise, they'd tie a knot in the p*ss-tube...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2006)

after a violent corkscrew it was not uncommon to have the contents of an Elsan spilled all over the rear of a lanc


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

And half the navigator's unattached junk lying in the contents.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2006)

That is just a site that I did not need to picture right now...


----------

