Avro Lancaster vs Handley Page Halifax

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

Chairs,

Michael
 
pbfoot said:
here you go it was on Nova

NOVA Online | Vanished!
Click to expand...

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

Often wondered how many other birds are out there in similar situations. Take the Alps, the Himilayas and the just the flights over them during WW2 and you are sure to be looking at a large number of airplanes.
 
The feeble abilities of the Lancastrian weren't the only reason the world bought from America. Avro did have a 'proper' airliner for the post 1945 market, the Tudor. Unfortunately they made a complete pigs ear of it and BOAC refused to operate the type even though it was designed for them, which is hardly going to encourage other airlines.
 
Thanks, pbfoot, I knew it was one of those shows. I watch a lot of PBS, to avoid commercials!, but often enough, they come up with something interesting. I'm not sure if it was a York or a Lancastrian, but it made for an excellent hour's worth of time.
 
michaelmaltby said:
Historically - aircraft sometimes get maligned when the true fault is with training or application. Think *Widowmaker* B-26 Maurader, *Irondog* P-39 Airacobra or Curtis *the beast* Helldiver.
Click to expand...

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

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

And for what the American's and British needed, the P-39 was a dog. It's lack of a quality supercharger gave it horrible high altitude performance. But at low altitudes, it worked out great for the Russians.
 
All true Thorlifter. Lindberg (I believe) liked the B-26 and demonstrated it to a gathering of dis-spirited B-26 crews - stopping engines during take-offs, tossing it about - one engine landings .. that kind of stuff - and the Widowmaker name stopped. BUT .. interestingly almost B-26 were destroyed in the field. So they definately were "sensitive" -- but had the best USAAF survivability of any bomber in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M
Click to expand...

Scary stuff, but not confined to the Russians. There have been several cases of pilot drunkenness in the US and Europe in the past few Years. The journalist obviously knows squat about civil aviation as well, IMHO, as he slates Illyushin and Tupolev designs in Aeroflot service. After all, the Tu-114 and Il-76 in particular, as well as the An-12, are outstanding designs that have seen Aeroflot service.
 
Waynos said:
Unfortunately they made a complete pigs ear of it and BOAC refused to operate the type even though it was designed for them, which is hardly going to encourage other airlines.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimistic or gullible?

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

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

Michael,

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

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

Cheers!
Paul
 
What are your opinions on the Vickers Viscount and Vanguard?

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

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

It would be greatly appreciated for any info on the loss of Halifax III, MZ906, AL* H, 429 Sqn, from Leeming, Yorkshire on the night of 23/24 Oct 1944 on a mission to Essen.
 
I have heard (but alas cannot remember my sources) that the Lancaster design achieved higher performance than the Halifax by simply ignoring some of the specifications. In particular, the escape hatch of the Lancaster was smaller, which caused relatively fewer aircrew to succeed in bailing out from Lancasters, and the radiator openings were smaller than specified, which caused overheating of the Merlins on Indian airfields in 1945. Hopefully, there are experts who will either confirm or refute the above vague memories of secondary sources. I think that the hatch might have been mentioned in Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" on his time in operational research.
 

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

H
Handley Page Hampden top speed?
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
NevadaK
N
Halifax A VII Serial needed
Replies
15
Views
2K
fubar57
P
Avro Lincoln Sciff Transport
Replies
7
Views
487
peteravia
P
Y
Halifax DT627
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
yahya
Y
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register