B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Waynos · Feb 13, 2010

This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?

What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.

That does not place it in any kind of context against the B-17 and 24, but nor does is it even remotely imply any sort of vulnerability or fragility?

Does anyone have a any info on whether the B-17 or B-24 could climb and maintain formation with the main bomber stream/formation on three engines?

Are there any accounts of either of these types landing on one engine?

I do know there are accounts of the B-17 making it back to base with entire sections of the nose or tail missing, as there are with the Lanc too, but I'm wondering where this impression of fragility is coming from?

The pilots choice would appear to be the Lancaster,I read only yesterday ab account that said the B-17 'lumbered' into the air while the Lanc was eager to go, 'like a racehorse' even when fully laden, and supremely light and easy to fly, whilst also being manouverable (I think we've all heard of Henshaw Rolling it).

Regarding the lightness of control in flight, there was a great quote when a 5 foot 4 woman ATA ferry pilot was told by an RAF officer that he was amazed that she was going to deliver the squadrons new Lancaster single handed, she replied "Well sir, I am not proposing to carry it, I rather hope that it will be carrying me"

billswagger · Feb 14, 2010

Waynos said:
This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?

What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.

That does not place it in any kind of context against the B-17 and 24, but nor does is it even remotely imply any sort of vulnerability or fragility?

Does anyone have a any info on whether the B-17 or B-24 could climb and maintain formation with the main bomber stream/formation on three engines?

Are there any accounts of either of these types landing on one engine?

I do know there are accounts of the B-17 making it back to base with entire sections of the nose or tail missing, as there are with the Lanc too, but I'm wondering where this impression of fragility is coming from?

The pilots choice would appear to be the Lancaster,I read only yesterday ab account that said the B-17 'lumbered' into the air while the Lanc was eager to go, 'like a racehorse' even when fully laden, and supremely light and easy to fly, whilst also being manouverable (I think we've all heard of Henshaw Rolling it).

Regarding the lightness of control in flight, there was a great quote when a 5 foot 4 woman ATA ferry pilot was told by an RAF officer that he was amazed that she was going to deliver the squadrons new Lancaster single handed, she replied "Well sir, I am not proposing to carry it, I rather hope that it will be carrying me"

Those are good questions.

My guess is that its more of an assumption because its not heavily fortified like the B-17 was.
I can understand that larger planes are going to absorb more damage but flak was downing planes left and right regardless.

I know of one account where a B-17 did fly home on one engine, often two or three.

I might also broach the subject on the B-24 as having a laminar flow wing, if it hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not sure which variant but its worth noting.

I was reading up on laminar flow and it mentions its discovery well before they ever made a wing intended to have laminar flow. In fact, the P-51s laminar flow may not have been so laminar after all, as defined by what laminar actually means, but it did have a wing that reduced drag over the wing.

Bill

FLYBOYJ · Feb 14, 2010

Waynos said:
This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?

What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.

That does not place it in any kind of context against the B-17 and 24, but nor does is it even remotely imply any sort of vulnerability or fragility?

Does anyone have a any info on whether the B-17 or B-24 could climb and maintain formation with the main bomber stream/formation on three engines?

Are there any accounts of either of these types landing on one engine?

I do know there are accounts of the B-17 making it back to base with entire sections of the nose or tail missing, as there are with the Lanc too, but I'm wondering where this impression of fragility is coming from?

The pilots choice would appear to be the Lancaster,I read only yesterday ab account that said the B-17 'lumbered' into the air while the Lanc was eager to go, 'like a racehorse' even when fully laden, and supremely light and easy to fly, whilst also being manouverable (I think we've all heard of Henshaw Rolling it).

Regarding the lightness of control in flight, there was a great quote when a 5 foot 4 woman ATA ferry pilot was told by an RAF officer that he was amazed that she was going to deliver the squadrons new Lancaster single handed, she replied "Well sir, I am not proposing to carry it, I rather hope that it will be carrying me"

I think over the years there's been a lot of folklore passed down through the generation about both Lancaster and B-17 and IMO based on eyewitness accounts to some of the battle damage attained by both, it was well accepted that the B-17 could sustain more damage. On the outside discussed many times here, there is no doubt that the Lancaster did suffer from somewhat anemic armament, although it was thrusted into some of the most hazardous flying during the air war over Germany. There is no doubt the Lanc was superior in range, speed and bombload when compared to the B-17 or B-24. It's faults lie in its defensive armament, single pilot operation and landing gear configuration. Lastly although maneuverable for its size (btw almost any airplane can be rolled if the same Gs forces and be maintained on the airframe during the maneuver), it was not a high flyer and used in-line engines. Glycol just provided another thing to leak and go wrong with the engine.

In the end it did what it was designed to do - lob a lot of bombs on the enemy.

billswagger said:
Those are good questions.

My guess is that its more of an assumption because its not heavily fortified like the B-17 was.
I can understand that larger planes are going to absorb more damage but flak was downing planes left and right regardless.

I know of one account where a B-17 did fly home on one engine, often two or three.

I might also broach the subject on the B-24 as having a laminar flow wing, if it hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not sure which variant but its worth noting.

I was reading up on laminar flow and it mentions its discovery well before they ever made a wing intended to have laminar flow. In fact, the P-51s laminar flow may not have been so laminar after all, as defined by what laminar actually means, but it did have a wing that reduced drag over the wing.

Bill

I've always questioned these stories about B-17s (or any 4 engine WW2 bomber) flying on one engine. If even remotely possible it would have to be on one of the inboard engines. Additionally I don't believe any flight manual ever gave parameters on such operations. The only thing I see coming of this is a 4 engine bomber losing 3 engines at altitude and was able to sustain a minimal descent rate to either accomplish an effective landing or bailout.

As far as the B-24. It had a high lift low drag Davis airfoil - long thin and thick, it worked well when all 4 engines were running and it had no holes in it. Loose an engine or put some holes in the wing and now you have a handful.

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

I agree regarding the armament of the Lancaster, a definite achilles heel, though I venture due to the calibre of the guns, rather than the number of them.

I've always found it odd that the RAF chose to delete the belly turrets of its heavy bombers, making them vulnerable to shrage musik, when protoype fighters with fixed guns that could fire up into the belly of an attacking bomber were actually built and flown in Britain in the twenties and thirties!

The single pilot argument is also clear enough, although there was always at least one other crew member capable of taking over from the pilot so it was not not quite as terminal a problem as it might appear.

The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial poin' were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.

Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?

Colin1 · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial point were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.

Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?

Did it though?
How can this survivability-through-manoeuverability be quantified?
Nachtjaegers were hacking Lancasters out of the sky in 1943, surely the corkscrew was just borrowing time?
The only limit on their success against the RAF was their supply of ammunition. Lancasters owed little or nothing to their own structural qualities, the heavily-armed Luftwaffe twins were ripping them open; the RAF owed the survival of their bombing campaign to their own nightfighters.

With both the USAAF and the RAF facing heavily cannon-armed opposition, the point of structural survivability is a largely academic one.

If Lancasters did have ventral turrets, how much better do you think they would have fared against Schrage Muzik-configured nachtjaegers?

Demetrious · Feb 15, 2010

Colin1 said:
Did it though?
With both the USAAF and the RAF facing heavily cannon-armed opposition, the point of structural survivability is a largely academic one.

I'd think that'd make it more, rather then less, important. The AWESOME POWER of cannons has been exaggerated to an almost ludicrous degree sometimes, as well as the supposed weakness of rifle-caliber guns. The accounts of Russian aces on that site where they detail their P-40/39/Hurricane experiences (which we've all probably read by now) explains quite nicely how fast-firing rifle-caliber armament could saw the tails clean off the fuselage given half a chance. (Their big failing in a bomber defense role was reach, and with only single/mounted guns, power became more of an issue.)

Also, while it undoubtedly can be attacked as anecdotal evidence, the pictures we've all seen of B-17s quite literally blown in half that still came home- with their trained and experienced aircrews- would seem to indicate that extreme structural survivability could save you from cannon fire. Even if those cannons totaled the aircraft, the truly valuable thing was that your experienced aircrew made it back. The Japanese learned that lesson the hard way- while they still had plenty of aircraft after the initial huge battles of the war, all their trained and experienced pilots had been killed, and they would never replace those losses.

Even if greater structural strength only saved 20% of cannon-struck bombers that might have otherwise not returned, I'd still consider it significant.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
The single pilot argument is also clear enough, although there was always at least one other crew member capable of taking over from the pilot so it was not not quite as terminal a problem as it might appear.

The point there is that second crewmember going to be proficient enough to perform in the same capacity as the assigned pilot? Additionally the second crewmember isn't along side the pilot the whole time, sharing the workload and relieving some of the operational stress. Lastly that's where the extra set of eyes come into play.

Waynos said:
The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial poin' were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.

Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?

In the end I think it would be a matter of where and when the damage to the aircraft occurred and how absorbed. There is no doubt that a radial engine will out survive and inline. Additionally one would have to look at how the aircraft performs with engines out and parts of the airframe shot away. As mentioned earlier the B-24 was a handful when one or more engines were gone or if there was damage to the wings. I've heard of stores (and seen photos) where pieces of B-17s were shot away and the pilots saw little or no change in performance.

Colin1 · Feb 15, 2010

Demetrious said:
Even if greater structural strength only saved 20% of cannon-struck bombers that might have otherwise not returned, I'd still consider it significant.

Don't misunderstand me
my money's on the B-17, the same pics of which you speak, of B-17s returning with more bits missing than present and of course the durability factor of the radial over the inline, do it for me

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

I think you may be overstating the case for the 'nachtjaegers' a little Colin. From late 41 whewn ops began to late 43 when tactics changed to 'wild boar' and 'tame boar' and the advent of better radar control, the Lancaster had an excellent survival rate with several ops concluding without loss at all. From late 43 on though, Bomber Command classed loss rates as serious when they reached 8%, that means 92% of aircraft, on average, got back. Or about 20-30 bombers from raids of around 500+

How can this survivability-through-manoeuverability be quantified?

Only in the statements from Lancaster crews that were caught in a cone of searchlights feeling like 'the last turkey in the shop' that broke free by virtue of the corkscrew and got home. At least it worked for them, which I suppose is all that matters from their perspective. I have also been looking for a passage I read, alas without luck, where a German pilot talks of the difficulty in getting a good shooting position on a corkscrewing Lancaster, in the dark of course, and many a pilot saved himself and his crew after contact with an NF by virtue of this.

Of course there is no statistical evidence, that I know of, that compares the number of attacks with those completed successfully or those aborted because of a corkscrew. But neither is it the case that a Lanc, once seen, was as good as shot down. So long as he had seen the enemy of course, which is where shrage musik was so effective.

If Lancasters did have ventral turrets, how much better do you think they would have fared against Schrage Muzik-configured nachtjaegers?

Quite a lot better IMO. a few of the NF's would be shot down and even where they weren't, there's nothing like someone shooting back at you to spoil your aim.

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
The point there is that second crewmember going to be proficient enough to perform in the same capacity as the assigned pilot? Additionally the second crewmember isn't along side the pilot the whole time, sharing the workload and relieving some of the operational stress. Lastly that's where the extra set of eyes come into play.
In the end I think it would be a matter of where and when the damage to the aircraft occurred and how absorbed. There is no doubt that a radial engine will out survive and inline. Additionally one would have to look at how the aircraft performs with engines out and parts of the airframe shot away. As mentioned earlier the B-24 was a handful when one or more engines were gone or if there was damage to the wings. I've heard of stores (and seen photos) where pieces of B-17s were shot away and the pilots saw little or no change in performance.

I agree, I just wanted to point out that there was an alternative as these crew members would be able to fly and land the lanc so survival was a possibility. It is no substitute for having two pilots though.

Another thought occurs. In one way (and on rare occasions) might the RAF way have been better? In the Lanc a 'semi trained' pilot could climb into the cockpit if the pilot was hit, and take the plane home, but in a direct hit on a B-17 cockpit that incapacitates both pilots, what would happen?

I dont think the durability of a radial engine is particularly relevant for a four engined plane that can fly quite happily on two, especially two of the most reliable and durable inlines in history.

I believe the biggest failing in the Lancaster was the aforementioned lack of a belly turret, which was the result of official policy decisions as Avro had designed it with one. I don't think it can be faulted in any other area, except for the only toilet being right at the back, meaning the pilot was out of his seat for longer than necessary (though many resorted to taking a po with them)

FLYBOYJ · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
Another thought occurs. In one way (and on rare occasions) might the RAF way have been better? In the Lanc a 'semi trained' pilot could climb into the cockpit if the pilot was hit, and take the plane home, but in a direct hit on a B-17 cockpit that incapacitates both pilots, what would happen?

Not really - in the USAAF usually the Navigator or flight engineer could fly as well and at least one FE did manage to land a crippled B-17 and got the MOH for it. The chances of pilot incapacity were very slim - the fact that a single pilot could make twice the mistakes when flying a 4 engine aircraft is the point, and I remain that there would have been a lot less lancaster losses if they were flown with a dedicated co-pilot, and that's not taking anything away from the plane or the crews that flew her.

Waynos said:
I dont think the durability of a radial engine is particularly relevant for a four engined plane that can fly quite happily on two, especially two of the most reliable and durable inlines in history.

As reliable as the Merlin is/was, it still carries a coolant system and is a lot more vulnerable than a radial hands down. The point is a radial can be shot to pieces and still work. You ain't flying with pistons missing from a Merlin...

Waynos said:
I believe the biggest failing in the Lancaster was the aforementioned lack of a belly turret, which was the result of official policy decisions as Avro had designed it with one. I don't think it can be faulted in any other area, except for the only toilet being right at the back, meaning the pilot was out of his seat for longer than necessary (though many resorted to taking a po with them)

The Lancaster for the most part had little or no faults in its operational career and it was the perfect bomber at the perfect time, but technology quickly eclipsed the aircraft as it quickly disappeared from front line squadrons at war's end and those that survived saw many years in secondary roles. IMO it was the best heavy bomber of the European Theater.

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

We would have to see how many otherwise flyable aircraft were lost due to the loss of the pilot to prove that, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Common sense says that it must have happened, but was it a significant number?

I do agree on the radial v inline engines point, but I just feel that to lose the power or coolant for three of your four engines would be extremely unfortunate, and you would probably have other problems with that many hits in close proximity. Interestingly, the radial powered Lancaster II had lower performance and was generally disliked in comparison to the Merlin Lanc. Production of this model ended after only 300 had been built

I agree with your last paragraph. If anything the Lancaster was the ultimate expression of pre-war bomber technology. The B-29 was the future and it had its equivalents on the drawing boards of Avro, Handley Page and Shorts, but once the war began there was no way British industry was going to be allowed to pursue such lengthy, expensive and risky development paths. Did you know there was a move during 1943-44 to have an anglicized B-29 built in the UK for the RAF, but the length of time it would take to put bombers into service meant it was dropped, only for us to have to buy 2nd had ex USAF 'Washington's ' in 1950.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
We would have to see how many otherwise flyable aircraft were lost due to the loss of the pilot to prove that, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Common sense says that it must have happened, but was it a significant number?

Somewhere on here I seen that lancasters had high weather related losses or losses during landing, but I don't think specifics were given. It would be at that time where this should be the most prevalent.

Waynos said:
I do agree on the radial v inline engines point, but I just feel that to lose the power or coolant for three of your four engines would be extremely unfortunate, and you would probably have other problems with that many hits in close proximity. Interestingly, the radial powered Lancaster II had lower performance and was generally disliked in comparison to the Merlin Lanc. Production of this model ended after only 300 had been built

Try operating any in line engine without coolant. Heads and head gaskets don't do well...

I know the Lanc II didn't do well but wasn't it built just as a stopgap until there were enough merlins available?

Waynos said:
I agree with your last paragraph. If anything the Lancaster was the ultimate expression of pre-war bomber technology. The B-29 was the future and it had its equivalents on the drawing boards of Avro, Handley Page and Shorts, but once the war began there was no way British industry was going to be allowed to pursue such lengthy, expensive and risky development paths. Did you know there was a move during 1943-44 to have an anglicized B-29 built in the UK for the RAF, but the length of time it would take to put bombers into service meant it was dropped, only for us to have to buy 2nd had ex USAF 'Washington's ' in 1950.

Didn't know that!

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?

Almost right on the Lancaster II, it was built in anticipation of a shortage of Merlins that never actually materialised, but so great was the loss of performance that it was dropped ASAP. In contrast to this the Halifax III (Hercules radial) was vastly superior to the Merlin Halifax, but still inferior to the Lancaster I.

In the spring of 1943 Ralph Sorley (after evaluation of several new designs) nominated the B-29 as ' the only prospective short term replacement for the Lancaster'. Discussions to this end were led by Lord Portal and a delegation travelled to the US to discuss it. Alas my source lacks any fine detail and concludes only with the statement that 'the problems in adapting the type for night bombing from England proved insurmountable in the time available and so the type was never used'

Any further specifics on this from anyone who has them would be welcome

FLYBOYJ · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?

Each engine had its own supply.

Waynos said:
Almost right on the Lancaster II, it was built in anticipation of a shortage of Merlins that never actually materialised, but so great was the loss of performance that it was dropped ASAP. In contrast to this the Halifax III (Hercules radial) was vastly superior to the Merlin Halifax, but still inferior to the Lancaster I.

In the spring of 1943 Ralph Sorley (after evaluation of several new designs) nominated the B-29 as ' the only prospective short term replacement for the Lancaster'. Discussions to this end were led by Lord Portal and a delegation travelled to the US to discuss it. Alas my source lacks any fine detail and concludes only with the statement that 'the problems in adapting the type for night bombing from England proved insurmountable in the time available and so the type was never used'

Any further specifics on this from anyone who has them would be welcome

Great info.

Colin1 · Feb 15, 2010

Waynos said:
This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?

Wayne
look at it this way
think how utterly stuffed all four engines would be if a sole coolant reservoir was perforated

That's a big glider...

renrich · Feb 15, 2010

The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?

Waynos · Feb 15, 2010

Colin1 said:
Wayne
look at it this way
think how utterly stuffed all four engines would be if a sole coolant reservoir was perforated

That's a big glider...

Thats why I asked, after I said to FBJ that IMO the reliability issue of the Merlin losing coolant wasn't *that * much of a problem due to their being four of them, I thought to myself 'ah, but what if......?'

renrich said:
The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?

I dont think that works as a defence in this case because the aircraft did not operate at its altitude limit, but at the altitude from which the target could be bombed, which would have been the same for all three types on the Lanc's mission. The dam busters bombed from 60ft.

renrich · Feb 16, 2010

I don't believe you are correct Waynos. The bombers bombed from the highest altitude they could reach where accurate bombing was possible. They did this to make the flak less effective. I believe the B17s often bombed from 25000 feet up whereas the B24 had to bomb from lower altitudes. If the Lancaster had been used for daylight bombing it's lower service ceiling might have been a handicap. That lower service ceiling would have made it more vulnerable to altitude challenged fighters like the FW190 also.

Milosh · Feb 16, 2010

renrich said:
The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?

Are those altitudes for a bomber with its typical bomb load?

B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Staff Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads