B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
The key word was "hooks." If you listen to what he says you're talking about 800 pounds of additional incendaries.

Yes, I never pretended anything else. As the B-29 has more hooks it accomodates 1520x6lb bombs, whereas the more voluminous bomb bay of the Lancaster accomodates 504x20lb bombs. The point was only ever that the Lanc carried a heavier poundage overall of incendiaries. I may be missing the point - but I dont think I am - but I took that as an illustration of the usefulness of the Lancs large one piece bomb bay. I don't think anyone, least of all an Air Marshall, would try to say the Lanc could lift a heavier load than a B-29.
I think the key to this is what exactly was the difference between the 6lb incendiary and the 20lb incendiary and what was the max load of the B-29 with 20ld inceniaries, if it carried them ? It is not only a question of weight but also of volume if ther weapons are to be carried internally.

You would have to do the math with data from performance charts and also consider what kind of head wind (if any) was available. It's obvious that the B-17 or B-24 isn't carrying that kind of bomb load, but I don't see where runway length would be a player in the way the war actually turned out.

Sorry, I seem to be missing something here. If it simply cannot lift off in that distance, with that load, under ANY circumsances (which is spelled out in the quote - cf "even under the most favourable of conditions") what calculations remain to be done?

The relevance of the point was that the USAAF was engaged in extending existing runways from 6000ft to 85000ft to accomodate the B-29. He was just saying that Lancasters could fly from those fields as they were and deliver heavy loads to boot.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos said:
Yes, I never pretended anything else. As the B-29 has more hooks it accomodates 1520x6lb bombs, whereas the more voluminous bomb bay of the Lancaster accomodates 504x20lb bombs. The point was only ever that the Lanc carried a heavier poundage overall of incendiaries. I may be missing the point - but I dont think I am - but I took that as an illustration of the usefulness of the Lancs large one piece bomb bay. I don't think anyone, least of all an Air Marshall, would try to say the Lanc could lift a heavier load than a B-29.
I think the key to this is what exactly was the difference between the 6lb incendiary and the 20lb incendiary and what was the max load of the B-29 with 20ld inceniaries, if it carried them ? It is not only a question of weight but also of volume if ther weapons are to be carried internally.

You also need to look at the "hook" and how it could be installed in the aircraft - that's the point here. Additionally bomb racks can be interchanged between aircraft, it's a matter of modifying structure to accept them. To really determine this one would have to install the Lancaster's bomb racks that carry incendiaries into a B-29

Waynos said:
Sorry, I seem to be missing something here. If it simply cannot lift off in that distance, with that load, under ANY circumsances (which is spelled out in the quote - cf "even under the most favourable of conditions") what calculations remain to be done?

I'm assuming we're talking about calculating take off distances or distances and weight combined? To make that statement one would have to look at how the aircraft could perform with a max bomb load with a lighter fuel load and determine runway takeoff length.

Waynos said:
The relevance of the point was that the USAAF was engaged in extending existing runways from 6000ft to 85000ft to accomodate the B-29. He was just saying that Lancasters could fly from those fields as they were and deliver heavy loads to boot.

His opinion, 2000' feet more on operational runways was not that big of a deal and considering what you're getting in the end result justified the cause. This brings in the debate about operating Lancasters in the Pacific vs. B-29. I don't there's much of a comparison. You're looking at bringing in a very good bomber that was soon to be obsolete operating at the far end of its performance spectrum. I see the B-29 as the perfect weapon to accomplish the job it was assigned to do just as the Lancaster was the perfect night bomber over Germany.

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
I'm assuming we're talking about calculating take off distances or distances and weight combined? To make that statement one would have to look at how the aircraft could perform with a max bomb load with a lighter fuel load and determine runway takeoff length.

His opinion, 2000' feet more on operational runways was not that big of a deal and considering what you're getting in the end result justified the cause. This brings in the debate about operating Lancasters in the Pacific vs. B-29. I don't there's much of a comparison. You're looking at bringing in a very good bomber that was soon to be obsolete operating at the far end of its performance spectrum. I see the B-29 as the perfect weapon to accomplish the job it was assigned to do just as the Lancaster was the perfect night bomber over Germany.

Agree the point about the hook, I suppose we'll have to leave that to one side, just to reiterate, a major advantage of the Lanc over other bombers of the time was not only its ability to lift heavy loads, but also to accomodate them. The advantage this provides in the ability to carry a variety of weapons not available to other aircraft should not be undervalued. The most immediate example of this was that the Short Stirling, despite a 14,000lb load, could not carry the 4,000lb cookie. Thats the area covered by this point, not lifting capacity.

It was actually quite a bit of a deal to have all that manpower employed in extending runways. The runway argument was not that the Lanc should be used instead of the B-29. It was just that here was a heavy bomber that could start operations immediately without major building works to extend the runways, that could launch a bomber offensive against Japan even as the B-29 fields were being prepared. It was borne of his frustration that the USAAF felt it did not need the co-operation of the RAF in bombing Japan and he was convinced that the abilities of the Lanc were being seriously undervalued in the US. Both of which points were basically true. The US was entirely capable of bombing Japan on its own, and the Lanc would have offered a 'better than we have' capability before the B-29 was fully ready. Maybe the USAAF just didn't want somebody elses heavies hitting Japan before their own, as also happened with the A bomb tests?

syscom3 · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos, your argument about the length of the runways is irrelevent.

The US had so many engineering resources at its disposal, that whatever length runway the B29's needed, it would be be built, and built quickly.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos said:
Agree the point about the hook, I suppose we'll have to leave that to one side, just to reiterate, a major advantage of the Lanc over other bombers of the time was not only its ability to lift heavy loads, but also to accomodate them. The advantage this provides in the ability to carry a variety of weapons not available to other aircraft should not be undervalued. The most immediate example of this was that the Short Stirling, despite a 14,000lb load, could not carry the 4,000lb cookie. Thats the area covered by this point, not lifting capacity.

Agree...

Waynos said:
It was actually quite a bit of a deal to have all that manpower employed in extending runways. The runway argument was not that the Lanc should be used instead of the B-29. It was just that here was a heavy bomber that could start operations immediately without major building works to extend the runways, that could launch a bomber offensive against Japan even as the B-29 fields were being prepared. It was borne of his frustration that the USAAF felt it did not need the co-operation of the RAF in bombing Japan and he was convinced that the abilities of the Lanc were being seriously undervalued in the US. Both of which points were basically true. The US was entirely capable of bombing Japan on its own, and the Lanc would have offered a 'better than we have' capability before the B-29 was fully ready. Maybe the USAAF just didn't want somebody elses heavies hitting Japan before their own, as also happened with the A bomb tests?

Right there I have to disagree - The B-29 was actually planned and on the drawing board before the Lancaster. By late 1943 it was pretty evident that the B-29 was going to be the bomber to strike Japan. To bring in the Lancaster would have been a huge shift in priorities and resources that was already supporting a dedicated weapons system. Although US factories could have been set up to build the Lancaster under license, there is no doubt there would have been resources taken away from the already needed production lines supporting the war in Europe, and there is no way the existing production effort in Canada could have supported another 1000 bombers a year. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Lancaster would have been stretching its operational capabilities, would have needed tankers and twice the men and personnel to do the same job. There is no doubt the B-29 had its teething pains but in the end not only was it the right tool to do the job but it was able to be used years after the war. The Lancaster was approaching obsolescence and I think many in the USAAF saw that (as well as the RAF). Again, I guess those who felt the Lancaster could have done the same job in the Pacific as the Lancaster probably ate their words when the first Washingtons landed in the UK . Additionally, if the Lancaster would have offered anything close to the b-29 in capability and performance, I'm sure the Soviets would have copied it in lieu of the B-29.

And in the middle of all this, don't forget the B-32.

Now as far as the A bomb tests - your point?

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

syscom3 said:
Waynos, your argument about the length of the runways is irrelevent.

The US had so many engineering resources at its disposal, that whatever length runway the B29's needed, it would be be built, and built quickly.

Its not my argument.

This quote seems to have been turned, over the last few posts, into something it was not.

It was not an argument in favour of the US license producing the Lancaster.

It was not an argument in favour of abandoning or delaying the B-29

It was not an argument that the Lancaster was better than, or even quivalent to, the B-29,

It was an argument, by an RAF Air Marshall, that a valuable allied asset, already existing in large numbers, the Lancaster, could perform a useful role against Japanese forces and was better suited than either the B-17 or the B-24 to local conditions but that the RAF was being sidelined.

As you know, FBJ, the Lanc was proposed for the A bomb tests, but there was no way the USAAF was going to let its prized new weapon be dropped by a foreign aeroplane, even on trial. I was, tongue in cheek, wondering if there was an element of this in the USAAF's reluctance to allow RAF bombers in theatre.

renrich · Feb 17, 2010

Few Lancasters had the two speed two stage supercharged Merlins which accounted for it's relatively low service ceiling.

Some interesting points about the Lancaster are: Rolls Royce signed a contract in September, 1940, with Packard in the US, to build Merlin engines under license. That increased the supply of Merlins to the point that the Lancaster was possible. A radial engined Lancaster was produced in case the supply of Packard Merlins were curtailed by US needs but that subtype was never very effective.
The ammo supply for the tail turret was huge, some 10000 rounds in each bin located approximately amidships. The tail guns were fed from the bins by chutes that ran aft, almost half the length of the AC.
All the crew including the tail gunner were supposed to evacuate in case of emergency by way of the nose hatch. Just over ten per cent of Lancaster crews survived a shoot down.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos said:
As you know, FBJ, the Lanc was proposed for the A bomb tests, but there was no way the USAAF was going to let its prized new weapon be dropped by a foreign aeroplane, even on trial. I was, tongue in cheek, wondering if there was an element of this in the USAAF's reluctance to allow RAF bombers in theatre.

And that was the statement from General Leslie Groves - "beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb".

Also keep in mind that Groves was not a pilot - he was an engineering officer. I'd bet dollars to donuts that when given the choices and analyzing the risks, the brass of the day who were pilots would have opted for the B-29 even though the Lancaster was "seemingly" readily available.

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

given an even choice, yes I agree. The RAF did not have that choice

ren - the rear gunner bailed out by opening the doors at the back of the turret, retrieving the parachute hanging on the inside of the fuselage, closing the doors again and rotating the turret to one side where the doors were opened again and he tumbled out backwards. Quite a procedure!

There were examples of crewmen, in their panic, jumping out without their chute. There is also a famous incident where a rear gunner who didn't have a choice (other than jump or burn), jumped without his chute from 18,000ft and survived!

Although the Lanc had a far higher survival rate than the Halifax, of those that were shot down 35% of Halifax crews survived the experience compared to only 19% ( not ten, but still crap) of Lancaster crews. Does anyone have figures for the USAAF of 'shootdown survivals'?

renrich · Feb 17, 2010

It is my understanding that the Lanc could not be used to drop the A bomb because it could not get high enough or go fast enough to escape the blast.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

renrich said:
It is my understanding that the Lanc could not be used to drop the A bomb because it could not get high enough or go fast enough to escape the blast.

I think that might be consideration although the bomb was dropped from over 30,000 feet at Hiroshima and I believe the same for Nagisaki which put the Lancaster out of the running as an atomic bomber, at least on these missions.

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

Altitude may have been an issue, but an unladen Lanc was not that much slower than the B-29. 287mph is the oft quoted top speed of the standard Lanc, but a 'special' would have been faster. The more streamlined Lancastrian topped out at 310mph. I believe the B-29 top speed was 345mph? In this case though, more is better, by whatever margin

Lest this develop into another debate I'm not particularly looking for, I'm not making a case for the Lanc to drop the A bomb. Only mentioning the historical fact that it was identified as the only allied bomber other than the B-29 capable of dropping it for trials purposes.

If you were thinking of using the Lancaster to drop one operationally you would need the long range saddle tank designed for the Tiger Force PLUS the high altitude pressure cabin that was tested on the Wellington VI PLUS no guns. A development too far I feel.

RCAFson · Feb 17, 2010

The A-bomb B29s were special builds. A stripped Lancaster with modded engines and reduced armament should have been able to deliver a 10000lb payload at close to 30k ft, and the 345mph Lancaster Mk VI with Merlin 85/87 engines and paddle blade props, seems a likely candidate.

pbfoot · Feb 17, 2010

Some compelling arguments Waynos but if I was a pilot looking for surviving which would I opt for .The B29

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

RCAFson said:
The A-bomb B29s were special builds. A stripped Lancaster with modded engines and reduced armament should have been able to deliver a 10000lb payload at close to 30k ft, and the 345mph Lancaster Mk VI with Merlin 85/87 engines and paddle blade props, seems a likely candidate.

Could of would of should of - all fairy taie specualtion with no historical merit. Can you say "B-50???"

"Special Build" No the term is "modified" and if done away from the factory its called "field modified."

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos said:
Altitude may have been an issue, but an unladen Lanc was not that much slower than the B-29. 287mph is the oft quoted top speed of the standard Lanc, but a 'special' would have been faster. The more streamlined Lancastrian topped out at 310mph. I believe the B-29 top speed was 345mph? In this case though, more is better, by whatever margin

B-29, depending on who you quote or how you do some of the calculations out of the flight manual had a top speed of 353 - 360 MPH

Waynos said:
Lest this develop into another debate I'm not particularly looking for, I'm not making a case for the Lanc to drop the A bomb. Only mentioning the historical fact that it was identified as the only allied bomber other than the B-29 capable of dropping it for trials purposes.

If you were thinking of using the Lancaster to drop one operationally you would need the long range saddle tank designed for the Tiger Force PLUS the high altitude pressure cabin that was tested on the Wellington VI PLUS no guns. A development too far I feel.

The Lanc was considered but that was the mention of one man, an engineer who would not have been in the decision process if a choice was to made by many of which aircraft should have been used, but I totally understand your point.

All this talk of modified Lancasters when the B-50 would have been available much quicker and in substancial numbers. 200 were ordered during the sumer of 1945 and had the war continued I'm sure you "would have" seen another thousand within the following year. You're now looking at an aircraft that could carry 28,000 pounds of bombs at a max speed of close to 400 mph over 35,000 feet with a combat radius of over 2,000 miles.

RCAFson · Feb 17, 2010

Enola Gay

"The bomber was one of 15 B-29s with the "Silverplate" modifications necessary to deliver atomic weapons. Enola Gay was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company at its Bellevue, Nebraska, plant at what is now known as Offutt Air Force Base and was personally selected by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th Composite Group, on 9 May 1945 while still on the assembly line. This would be the B-29 that he would use to fly the atomic bomb mission."
Enola Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The final wartime Silverplates incorporated all technical improvements to B-29 aircraft, as well as the final series of Silverplate modifications that included fuel-injected Wright R-3350-41 engines, Curtiss Electric reversible-pitch propellers, and pneumatic actuators for rapid opening and closing of bomb bay doors.[1]:14 Weight reduction was also accomplished by removal of all gun turrets and armor plating. These B-29s represented a significant increase in performance over the standard variants."
Silverplate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

RCAFson said:
Enola Gay

"The bomber was one of 15 B-29s with the "Silverplate" modifications necessary to deliver atomic weapons. Enola Gay was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company at its Bellevue, Nebraska, plant at what is now known as Offutt Air Force Base and was personally selected by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th Composite Group, on 9 May 1945 while still on the assembly line. This would be the B-29 that he would use to fly the atomic bomb mission."
Enola Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The final wartime Silverplates incorporated all technical improvements to B-29 aircraft, as well as the final series of Silverplate modifications that included fuel-injected Wright R-3350-41 engines, Curtiss Electric reversible-pitch propellers, and pneumatic actuators for rapid opening and closing of bomb bay doors.[1]:14 Weight reduction was also accomplished by removal of all gun turrets and armor plating. These B-29s represented a significant increase in performance over the standard variants."
Silverplate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point??? Oh, you could cut and paste from Wikipedia!

Oh - you figured out the definition of MODIFICATION?!?!

BTW - haven't you "cut and pasted" that before????

Waynos · Feb 17, 2010

Exactly FBJ, that is what I meant by 'a development too far'. What would be the point? The Lincoln would have been more suitable and easier to modify............and still out of date. With the wartime limitations on the aircraft industry removed there was no need to keep wringing every last drop out of the original Manchester airframe, and so development of the V bombers began.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 17, 2010

Waynos said:
Exactly FBJ, that is what I meant by 'a development too far'. What would be the point? The Lincoln would have been more suitable and easier to modify............and still out of date

Agree Waynos 100% - and right now it seems unlike a few brainless twits trolling around here, you can debate this without having to burn up the cut and paste program on your computer.

I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward.

B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads