B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[FLYBOYJ]

From sitting in the pilots seat of the Lancaster I'd say it was pretty easy to drag a wounded pilot out of it and into the lower side well...

The Lancster was fitted as a norm with only one yoke, but a second could have been fitted it it has been felt that one was needed but it never was, so that in itself must say something surely

And the b24 was noted as a pig to fly, very heavy controls.. it probably needed 2 men on the controls in a storm

Simon

The B-24 becuase a pig when it lost one or more engines or when the wing itself was damaged, at that point the Davis airfoil ceased to be effective. I think today the last of the Lancs that are flying require a second pilot by order of the CAA.

the Pilot was the most expensive crew member to train, putting two in every bomber would cost twice as much as putting one in every bomber. The next bit of logic is that there will always be some attacks that even a second pilot can't save you from, such as your fuel blowing up and ripping the aircraft to shreads, so you've lost two pilots in one go and there was no point in having the other pilot. The RAF figured they'd put this extra pilot in annother aircraft, that way they can, for the same money as having a co-pilot, put an extra 14,000lbs on target, furthermore if the one plane has that attack that no co-pilot can save you from, you've only lost one pilot not two, because the other one's miles away in a completely different plane! slightly morbid thinking perhaps, but in a way it makes sence, experience with the twin pilot stirling made them think there's not many situations where a co-pilot can save you, and they occour so rarely that it's not worth the extra expence.........

While Lanc brings up good points in the early WW2 way of thinking about crew resources, a second pilots proved to be the safer and more reliable course to go. It was proven that the pilot can go into "overload." Too many things happening for him to keep control of the aircraft. Battle damage, bad weather, wounded or incapacitated crew members, etc. Combine this with a low time pilot (200-300 hours) it could be a set up for disaster and this is the only thing I think the B-17 and B-24 had over the Lanc. Pilot resources were scarce for the RAF, especially early in the war so I understand the rationalle for going with the a single pilot in large multi-engine aircraft. There were early instrument landing procedures used over England and they were difficult enough to fly under routine conditions, accomplish them at night with a damaged aircraft and one pilot, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Taking nothing away from the brave and skilled crews of the Lancaster, I think many more would of made it home had the aircraft been equipped with a second pilot.

 

[bomber]

No there's no requirement to shorten the bombbay as the Lanc was designed but not fitted (in most cases) with a mid-lower turret in mind... granted the addition of a one would have had a drag inpact.

Looking at the 0.5 cal turret in comparrision to the .303 turret I'd say fitting the 0.5 cal turret would actually reduce the drag.. and certainly it makes no difference one way or the other with regards the tail turret.

look at these stats

Bomber Statistics

Now if not withstanding that the B24's stats seem somewhat odd... if we load all 3 on a level playing field of 6000lb bombload... I still can't see how the Lanc becomes a mediocre bomber...

regards

Simon

p.s. really enjoying this debate...

 

[bomber]

Flyboyj... you're floggin a dead horse there mate...

It's been explained that a second pilot rated crewmember existing no more than 2ft away from the controls, should the pilot become incapacitated..

Yes there's a lot to do as a pilot, but with half the instrumentation removed from his control panel and placed on the flight engineers controll panel, the pilot is offered a far less cluttered working area.

And the Lancaster could lose 3 of it's 4 engines and still fly....

Simon

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboyj... you're floggin a dead horse there mate...

It's been explained that a second pilot rated crewmember existing no more than 2ft away from the controls, should the pilot become incapacitated..

Yes there's a lot to do as a pilot, but with half the instrumentation removed from his control panel and placed on the flight engineers controll panel, the pilot is offered a far less cluttered working area.

And the Lancaster could lose 3 of it's 4 engines and still fly....

Simon

I think Lanc has point out that the "second rated pilot" had limited flying experience and sometime that limited experience will cause more harm that good. It better to have both pilots in the proximity of each other working as a functional team, that's known as "Cockpit Resource Management" and is still used today.

The norm for a single pilot never stayed as after the war these liabilities were realized and the co-pilot made his resurrection in post war multi engine RAF aircraft

 

[pbfoot]

you put a turret on the bottom you have no room for waist gunners plus the drag and change to CG would definately change not including the extra weight for the controlling system for the turret be it electric or hydraulic this is my best pic which features the area we are discussing. The door location would have to be changed . The fuselage I think have to be stressed a great deal great .

 

[bomber]

Ok if the argument is it's better to have 2 pilots sat in their seats with a yoke in their hands than 1.... then of course it is, I'd have to be an argumentative fool to disagree.

However this was what was orignally said..

Throw in a single pilot, and the Lanc was far more vulnerable than the -17 and -24.

And It's from this statement that I've argued the case that there wasn't just a single person capable of flying the plane.... and lets not forget he was RAF trained to fly.

regards

Simon

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In looking at the single engine pilot configuration, it was only more vulnerable when placed in the situation I showed. If all was well and functional through the mission, I see this being a non-issue.

Once an aircraft is incapacitated, there are usually 2 or more factors that will cause its demise. Mind you this doesn't include the direct 88mm hit. There have been many aircraft lost while distressed because the pilot neglected to do a simple task, as realized the inclusion of a second pilot mitigates this risk, although there have been instances then both pilots made the same fatal mistakes that caused the loss of their aircraft. As you mentioned its obvious that a second crewmember would never bring a disadvantage to the situation.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I do trust you on this Eagle, the point I made was that there is a trade off between the extra weight versus range/payload. I am sure that all the members of the site are fully aware that there is a 24kg (54lb)difference between the M2 and the model 1919 brownings, but I do wonder whether everyone realises how much difference it actually makes - roughly the equivilent of a Ford Escort - which has got to be hauled to and from the target. This would downgrade performance a large amount.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just the operational tactics of the B17, B24, Lanc where different and the aircraft where optimised for the tactics.

Yes it may have changed the mission profile due to the less amount of bomb load carried but it still would have been more than the B-17 or the B-24.

The nearest thing I can think of on the UH60 is replacing the M60's with M2 HBs and the same amount of ammo..it would change the mission profile.

I fly the UH-60. That has allready been done. We have the mounts for the M2 built into our aircraft. It did not great reduce the performance or the amount of payload or troops that could be carried on a standard typical mission. The only reason it was discontinued was because of the stress the aircraft took from firing the M2 caused cracks in the airframe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It better to have both pilots in the proximity of each other working as a functional team, that's known as "Cockpit Resource Management" and is still used today.

Nope that has not changed today. Same as it was in 1944. Infact we even still call it that in the Blackhawk.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

this's all getting very interesting, however i would like to make a few points before making further comments with regards to the .50cals tomorrow morning after some research tonight.........

firstly, waist gunners would never be carried on the lanc, experience in the wellington made the RAF favour a turret as the "spray and prey" tactics of the wait posistion were considdered useless (and i personally must agree), the RAF hated them and there was no provision to carry them in the lancaster, further more the twin fins which the wellington and B-17 don't have would restrict their arc of fire and put the fins themselves in danger of getting hit.......

secondly bomber, no lancaster varient ever carried any of the twin .50cal rear turrets as standard as you're making out, many individual lancs were trialed with them towards the end of the war however, some crews actually prefering the 4x .303 to the .50s!.........

next, don't trust any stats on that site, some of them made me chuckle, not only do they not even give models/marks but there are numerous inaccuracies for example the Polish Air Force never used the lancaster........

next to pB, the crew entry door would not have to be re-located nor the aircraft strengthend to carry a ventral turret, as it would have been fitted in the location of the H2S radome, which some would argue could be lost as it was less useful by day, the bomb bay would not be adjusted as this would be a task of epic proportions!

i shall come to the issue of "up-gunning" the lancaster tomorrow morning, although i have commented on it in the past............

and to the other guys arguing the cause for the lanc, flyboy's right a second pilot would be an advantage so don't try to convince anyone otherwise, i have simply tried to explain the RAF's logic which does make some sence and have tried to testify to the skill of the lancaster pilots.......

 

[pbfoot]

Ah Lanc a question I've been meaning to ask about the HS2 it required cooling as it was heavy user of Electric meaning it got hot and unless cooled would be next to useless what method did they use to cool the HS2

 

[bomber]

secondly bomber, no lancaster varient ever carried any of the twin .50cal rear turrets as standard as you're making out, many individual lancs were trialed with them towards the end of the war however, some crews actually prefering the 4x .303 to the .50s!.........

To my knowledge the MkVII destined for the 'tiger force' was fitted with 0.5 cal rear turret as standard....

It's was also designed to have 0.5 cal mid-uppers as standard but due to supply chain issues some where fitted with .303 turrets

 

[k9kiwi]

Re the Lower Turret.

The original lower turret was situated behind the bomb bay and was a hydraulicly operated turret, It's main limitation was the use of a periscope for the gunner which significantly reduced his ability to detect targets.

The plane was designed with this in mind. Normal flight in a Lanc is slightly nose down, insert a lower turret and you would probably end up with a level / nose high angle, but no serious impact otherwise.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsML.htm shows the general arrangement of the F.N. 64 turret, altough it neglects the sighting periscope and head rest that would have come from the lower rear of the turret on an angle similar to the control yoke shown.

Also a number of squadrons put a gimbal mounted setup in the floor as well to give themselves at least a chance against a belly attack.

Yes the change from the Fraser Nash F.N. 50 to the Martin 250 Mid Upper did require moving the turret forward for CG reasons. It was also universaly hated by aircrew as it was significantly deeper into the aircraft and made exit / entry tricky, especially when everything went pear shaped.

Ammunition was dropped from 2,000 .303 rounds to 1,600 for the .50 Mid Upper turret.

The change to the .50 in the tail saw a dramatic drop in the firing time for the gunner as the ammunition had been reduced from 2,500 rounds per gun to a figure (that Lanc can provide, I can't remember ) from memory it reduced from just over 4 minutes at 600 rpm for the .303 to about 30 seconds worth in the .50 turret.

Also note, no operational unit flew with the .50 rear turret in the ETO, they were all for Tiger Force.

HS2 radar and avionics controls were in the perspex dome underneath the fuselage, a nice cold place to be at 18,000 + feet. The main box was up by the navigator just behind the pilots seat and required no cooling except for normal vents in the case.

The rear of the perspex dome was kept clear (unpainted) due to covering 2 of the 3 IFF lights. They needed to be able to shine though for observation from below.

 

[k9kiwi]

Maybe this will help.

The view underneath shows the large round space where the lower turret was sited (then the H2S as lanc said).

The No 13 shows the 3 IFF lights, and the top right corner schematics show the clear part of the H2S dome over the lights.

Damn that came out BIG

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok almost there, am just missing one peice of info which seems very illusive on the internet, what was the average weight of a .50cal cartridge? not just the projectile weight but the weight of the whole lot, casing, explosive etc..........

 

[Glider]

To my knowledge the MkVII destined for the 'tiger force' was fitted with 0.5 cal rear turret as standard....

It's was also designed to have 0.5 cal mid-uppers as standard but due to supply chain issues some where fitted with .303 turrets

I undersatand that Lancaster III's built in Canada were due to have the Martin twin .50 turret but supply wasn't sufficient. The turret was moved forward to accomadate the extra weight but the standard twin .303 was fitted in its place. There wasn't a different version number if I recall.

 

[k9kiwi]

Glider.

The Victory factory in Canada produced the Mk.X and the Mk.XII not the Mk.III

The Mk.X was bog standard .303

The Mk.XII had a .50 Mid Upper Turret from memory. As per the Mynarski Lanc, the only one flying apart from the BBMF Lanc.

 

[Nonskimmer]

The Mk.X's built in Canada were essentially Mk.III's. The major difference was in the avionics, being of Canadian and American origin.

 

[Glider]

Glider.

The Victory factory in Canada produced the Mk.X and the Mk.XII not the Mk.III

The Mk.X was bog standard .303

The Mk.XII had a .50 Mid Upper Turret from memory. As per the Mynarski Lanc, the only one flying apart from the BBMF Lanc.

Thanks for that. I admit to never having heard of the MkXII, as ever, you live and learn on this site

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the reason you've never heard of the Mk.XII is because it doesn't exist maybe you're thinking of the Mk.XII hurricane which i believe Canada produced...........

and as for the Mk.VII, the first 50 odd, serial numbered NX548-589 and NX603-610 were fitted with the standard Frazer-Nash FN.50 mid upper turret in the further forward position and these went into service as Mk.Is.............

the remaining Mk.VIIs were all fitted with the Martin 250 mid upper, with the exception of the Mk.VII (Western Union), some Mk.VIIs were later fitted with the FN.82 rear turret............

now then, if someone could tell me the weight of a .50cal round or even better the weight of say 100 plus links, i can post more about this little turret debate.........