Recent content by ALEX Hogarth

Sorry wasnt aware i had only just noticed

I could be wrong here but i thought multiple copies were made and transported by different routes to ensure a ful copy was available and iam old enough to have been taught engineering drawing to a level

Duplicating had already been done for the canadian avro, however i will grant that any us plant would require bigger changes as they used a different projection and i think a different notation for tolerances let alone the changes to threads etc

My bad i didnt realise that its design was so early but saying that i would not have fath in it being avail It was in a report i read i think it was by someone called norman f ramsey, i do remember it is refered to in leo mckinsktry lancaster book I have looked it up and i miss remembered it...

Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay? Having fail back position is sound planning Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln

But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond

The lancaster had access to the bomb bay, there was a series of hatches all down the roof and a larger access port at the far end, these were however quite small, suffcient to get to a hung bomb but little else

I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us