FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Lanc was configured with one set of flight controls, this is a definate disadvantage when flying in bad weather and when the aircraft is damaged, my only critisium of the Lanc...bomber said:
B-17, B-24, or Lancaster (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
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 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 lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
actually bomber for the most part it was a single pilot, at the start of the war there, technically, was a co-pilot but he was later renamed as the Flight Engineer, however the flight engineer could almost always fly the aircraft comfortably for several hundred miles back to base and there are infact stories of the flight engineer actually landing the craft, although with not as much grace as the proper pilot
it'd have to be pretty bad by that stage however as there are just as many stories of pilots landing the craft with just one hand, she was a very forgiving aircraft to fly as all her pilots will testify.......that being said it wasn't unheard of for a second proper pilot to be carried, infact it was standard proceedure, newly trained pilots would fly a few missions with an experienced crew as a "second dickie", so there will always be someone around that can fly the bird.........
Next point bomber is very correct in saying it was possible to fit a second set of controls if nessisairy, as has been done with today's flying lancs, obviously it wasn't considdered very important to the RAF, and this's what i can make of why........
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.........
now on to the issue of daytime bombing, this was covered last time we we argued the case of the lanc and B-24, and i calculated that in a daytime bombing career of over 40,000 daylight missions the lanc carried out, she suffered an average loss rate of only 0.7%, which for over 40,000 sorties isn't bad!
The point I was making was that you can call the man a co-pilot, flight engineer or stewardess for all that it matters as long as if the main pilot (captain for want of a better word) became incapacitated then this other trained person who alos performs anothe rrole within the plane could fly the Lanc back to base and land her...
I was simply countering the point made that with only a single pilot onboard the Lancaster was more vulnerable
Regards
Simon
personaly I don't really care for which was the better, as I've said before it was 'horses for course'... and if anyone wants to skin a b24 for me I have 2 of those as well...
I was simply countering the point made that with only a single pilot onboard the Lancaster was more vulnerable
Regards
Simon
personaly I don't really care for which was the better, as I've said before it was 'horses for course'... and if anyone wants to skin a b24 for me I have 2 of those as well...
The Lancaster would not have done worse than the B-17 or B-24 in daytime bombing syscom. Your arguements are based off of your biased speculation and opinion but are not based on facts.
The Lancaster would have been fitted with more defensive armament for day time and it would have flown in tighter formations. I know that, everyone else knows that, you know that....
The Lancaster may not have been able to fly at 30,000ft. Who cares, what kind of arguement is that? Luftwaffe fighters were able to hit bombers well above 30,000ft so the 30,000ft is no advantage to the B-17.
There you go again syscom, making arguements without thinking because you own biased opinion can not admit something was better than a US built aircraft.
The Lancaster would have been fitted with more defensive armament for day time and it would have flown in tighter formations. I know that, everyone else knows that, you know that....
The Lancaster may not have been able to fly at 30,000ft. Who cares, what kind of arguement is that? Luftwaffe fighters were able to hit bombers well above 30,000ft so the 30,000ft is no advantage to the B-17.
There you go again syscom, making arguements without thinking because you own biased opinion can not admit something was better than a US built aircraft.
I like all 3 bombers.... and lets not forget the Halifax..
But if we talk about the B24 we have to remember that this was a bomber rejected in it's early builds by the US forces...
And when trialed by the RAF was deemed unsuitable in it's present state for the European Theatre...
Now I have to assume that those issues were removed in preference to ignoring the RAF's comments, for it to then take part in European operations.
But that said the Lanc, Halifax, B17 B24 are all good bombers of their day and were capable airframe upon which to mount the rapidly increasing development that was occuring during those dark days.
I salute them all, the designers, the engineers and fitters that made them and the young men that flew them...
>S<
Simon
But if we talk about the B24 we have to remember that this was a bomber rejected in it's early builds by the US forces...
And when trialed by the RAF was deemed unsuitable in it's present state for the European Theatre...
Now I have to assume that those issues were removed in preference to ignoring the RAF's comments, for it to then take part in European operations.
But that said the Lanc, Halifax, B17 B24 are all good bombers of their day and were capable airframe upon which to mount the rapidly increasing development that was occuring during those dark days.
I salute them all, the designers, the engineers and fitters that made them and the young men that flew them...
>S<
Simon
Hi Eagle, just read your comments about the heavier armaments for the Lanc in day time missions. I think that if the Lanc was reconfigured with the Browning M2 .50 there would be a major detrimental effect simply because of the much greater weight of the guns and ammo. (The M2 weighed at least 20kg than the Browning model 1919 and the ammo was about 4 times heavier)
If the Lanc had been uprated to carry 10 M2's you are talking about nearly 600lb extra, and thats without ammo and 2 gunners, so assume in total about an extra 2,000lb+. This does not take into account the fact that the turrets would need to be redesigned as well.
The extra weight of the guns and crew would degrade the range/payload figures which would mean that the Lanc would at best become mediocre.
As I have said before the operational tactics dictated the aircraft cabability.
If the Lanc had been uprated to carry 10 M2's you are talking about nearly 600lb extra, and thats without ammo and 2 gunners, so assume in total about an extra 2,000lb+. This does not take into account the fact that the turrets would need to be redesigned as well.
The extra weight of the guns and crew would degrade the range/payload figures which would mean that the Lanc would at best become mediocre.
As I have said before the operational tactics dictated the aircraft cabability.
bomber said:
Agreed 100%.
I personally like the B-17 as my favorite but I know the Lancaster was better. Now having said that all were great aircraft. Some of us just cant comprehend that...
daishi12 said:
I disagree. The Lancaster could carry 22,000lb of bombs. The average payload carried by the Lancaster was just over 14,000lb. Okay so fine you add 2000lb of defensive armament and then you take away 2000lb of bombs to make up for the weight and what do you have 12,000lb of bombs. Still more than the average B-17 and B-24 carried on any given mission.
Trust me daishi12 I know all about weight and balance, center of gravity drag and so forth. I am an aircraft mechanic. Granted I work on helicopters but weight and ballance, center of gravity and so forth effect a helicopter more than a fixed wing aircraft.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I'd like to bring up a point I think that has been missed night flying was inherently more dangerous than daylight the number of aircraft relying on basic instruments with poor weather forecasting and pilots that were less skilled then required. The pilots being less skilled is not an insult but a fact of life they were less skilled simply because of requirements the training was good but they probably could use great deal more particularly in instrument flying . the instrument flying was rudimentary when compared to today how many aircraft crashed not from enemy combat but because of poor instrunent flying and weather. One particular mission 0n 16/12/43 25 aircraft were lost due to enemy action and 32 crashed or were abandoned because of the weather upon returning thats out of 483 dispatched to Berlin. So you saved losses due to enemy action at night but the recovery was inherently more dangerous. Were these weather related accidents considered combat losses or other?
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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.
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.
bomber said:
The MkVII had 2 x .50 cals in the tail
The MkXX had 2 x .50 cals in the tail, 2 in the mid-upper
The turrets for both varients where heavier than normal, and in particular the MkXX mid-upper had to be re-sited.
I took the idea of 10 x .50 cals from the B17G along with having waist gunners.
I wish I had my Lancaster Manual on me, but I had to lend it back to the library
the number of m2 rounds that were taken was different to the .303
Now ok the mission profile I'll agree would have changed... to what level could be an interesting debate. but you also said
"The Lanc would at best become mediocre"
You've yet to prove this statement... apart from the fact that she'd have to lug more weight to target, which you've not said she's not capable of doing, but in doing so how would it have made her mediocre at best...
Simon
the number of m2 rounds that were taken was different to the .303
Now ok the mission profile I'll agree would have changed... to what level could be an interesting debate. but you also said
"The Lanc would at best become mediocre"
You've yet to prove this statement... apart from the fact that she'd have to lug more weight to target, which you've not said she's not capable of doing, but in doing so how would it have made her mediocre at best...
Simon
bomber said:
It is not just a case of lugging the weight to the target, it's getting it back as well, admitedly there would be ammo expenditure but you are still bringing back the guns, turrets and crew. The unladen weight would go up to nearly 39,000lb, this in turn means less fuel or bomb load which in turn either decreases range or strike capacity. Depending on the size of the mid-upper and lower turret there would also be additional drag - this would cut cruise speed. I would also imagine that there would also be an effect on the control surfaces which in turn would make it harder to fly.
I stand corrected on the MkX
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
To make the lanc viable as day bomber it would require some sort of defence from attacks from below which aside from the weight incurred with the position would require the shortening of the bombay
