Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[Nonskimmer]

Flt. Lt.- alreet sir, i canne weet (he's scottish )

Nice.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

LOL

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so are we all agreed now that the Lanc was the second best 4-engined heavy bomber of the war, behind the B-29??

let the battle for 3rd begin!

 

[Magister]

I know that if given the option, I'd rather be in a Flying Fortress than a Lancaster if under attack from German fighters.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and i'm equally sure that people on the ground would rather be attacked by the B-17's small payload than the lanc's large one although i'm sure there'd further prefer not to be under attack at all

 

[syscom3]

Not so fast.

I've been reading some pilot accounts of the really long range missions the B24's went on and I am now convinced that the Lanc as used in the ETO would not have lasted in the PTO.

Some of the missions the B24's went on were 15 hours in length. There is no way a single pilot in the Lanc could have handled that alone, especially if the plane was going to fly through inclimate weather where two pilots were needed to keep control of the bomber.

Plus, like I said, the lack of heavy MG meant the Lanc was going to quite vulnerable to Japanese fighters.

And the liquid cooled engines were also vulnerable. A small coolant leak caused by flak on a 3 hour flight might be tolerable to get the plane back to England. But any coolant leak on a flight of 8 hours, over jungle and ocean, is flirting with disaster.

Untill you disprove my assertions about these issues, I am going to say the B24 was the 2nd best bomber simply cause it flew in all theaters and we know what it could do. The Lancs performance in the SW pacific is a big unknown.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either!

plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up!

and about the single pilot "issue", i've said this over and over again, but you obviously keep missing it, so

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING ALONG AN EXTRA PILOT?

and we're talking about japaneese planes here, their armourment was often no more that little pea shooters, she could defend herself in Europe against huge combinations of 2030mm, i think she's manage over japan........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either!

plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up!

and about the single pilot "issue", i've said this over and over again, but you obviously keep missing it, so

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING ALONG AN EXTRA PILOT?

and we're talking about japaneese planes here, their armourment was often no more that little pea shooters, she could defend herself in Europe against huge combinations of 2030mm, i think she's manage over japan........

Nothing - the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations. Actually I think the most dangreous mode would be while flying in the soup. That's the time where a co-pilot with another set of controls can make the differance between life and death...

I think there would of been many more Lancasters returning from combat had the aircraft been configured with a dedicated 2 man flight crew, however that does not take way the effectiveness and greatness of this aircraft....(it that good Lanc ? )

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations

well they managed it fine over europe??

 

[syscom3]

hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems

Lancs did not fly in the Central Pacific and SW Pacific. There is no combat record of them flying in these regions in 1943 and 1944 (and 1945 for the PI)

and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either!

Radials dont have a coolant system. I dont care whether its an Allison, a Merlin, or whatever, if a flak fragment or a bullet puts a hole in the cooling system, its eventually going to empty out. And being 1000 miles from the nearest airfield, with nothing but jungle and ocean below you and an engine that is GOING to eventually fail, is not something thats desireable.

plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up!

We are talking about what was deployed, not with a hypothetical modification.

and about the single pilot "issue", i've said this over and over again, but you obviously keep missing it, so

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING ALONG AN EXTRA PILOT?

Having two pilots in the cockpit to handle a heavily loaded bomber flying through a thunderstorm is not only desireable, its mandantory. Having a pilot at the controls during a bomb run when the pilot is incapacitated is not only desirable, but it should be mandantory. It would be a shame to send an aircrew on a mission 1300 miles away, only to fail to drop their bombs because the pilot had his arms shot off and there was noone else at the controls to fly the plane to complete the bomb run.

and we're talking about japaneese planes here, their armourment was often no more that little pea shooters, she could defend herself in Europe against huge combinations of 2030mm, i think she's manage over japan.

While the Japanese fighters were not as capable as the German types, they still had the capability to shoot down allied bombers. NEVER under estimate them. You seem to think that all Japanese fighters were of the "Oscar" type with only two light MG. Well, as the war progressed, more capable types did get deployed and they did shoot down bombers.

Also remember, what can be considered light damage on a short range mission, could easily become critical damage after several hours. An example of this was descibed by the author of the book "Morotai". He was a 307th BG pilot on one of those long long range misisons and he descibed how intercepting Japanese fighters put a cannon shell into one of the engines and caused a propellor hydraulics leak. After flying for three or so hours, the prop showed signs it was going to fail into flat pitch so it was shutdown. And they still had 4 more hours of flying! You have to get into the mindset of long range missions in the PTO and its operational problems.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

There is no combat record of them flying in these regions in 1943 and 1944 (and 1945 for the PI)

no, but to claim that they couldn't just because they didn't is equally stupid, when they served all over the world without problems...........

Radials dont have a coolant system. I dont care whether its an Allison, a Merlin, or whatever, if a flak fragment or a bullet puts a hole in the cooling system, its eventually going to empty out. And being 1000 miles from the nearest airfield, with nothing but jungle and ocean below you and an engine that is GOING to eventually fail, is not something thats desireable.

i think you're taking this a bit far, no inlines couldn't take as much damage as a radial but they weren't made of paper, and redails aren't indestructable!

We are talking about what was deployed, not with a hypothetical modification.

the hurcules redail engined Mk.II wasn't a "hypothetical modification", 300 were made and they saw allot of service

Having a pilot at the controls during a bomb run when the pilot is incapacitated is not only desirable, but it should be mandantory. It would be a shame to send an aircrew on a mission 1300 miles away, only to fail to drop their bombs because the pilot had his arms shot off and there was noone else at the controls to fly the plane to complete the bomb run

Flight engineers were more often than not capable and trained to some extent to flying the aircraft, infact they are sometimes refered to as second pilots, and so i will say again, what is the problem with taking a second pilot along?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nothing - the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations. Actually I think the most dangreous mode would be while flying in the soup. That's the time where a co-pilot with another set of controls can make the differance between life and

That is the truth....

 

[cheddar cheese]

And if one inline engine fails on the lanc, big deal. It can fly on 3 just fine.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and like i said radials aren't the best thing since sliced bread, they're just as likely to be hit as inlines, and no a few hit's wont completely dissable the engine but it'll take out a few cylinders, and and engine that isn't fuctioning properly on any bomber is gonna be shut down, because it's effects aren't gonna be worth it as most four engined bombers can fly happily on 3 engines, hell the lanc could fly on one when not carrying a payload and with about 1/4 fuel...........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes but as FBJ brought up in the heat of combat the stress on one pilot can be too great. For daytime bombing it would have been better to have two pilots to handle the load at one time.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well remember the flight engineer was often more than capable of taking the controlls of the aircraft and did actually controll about half the work load, the actual pilot didn't even controll the throttles in flight, the flight engineer did! the lanc pilot did little more than actually control the plane........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not quite the same there.....

Dont worry Lanc I still think the Lancaster is 2nd though...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations

well they managed it fine over europe??

That they did, but I think they could of done better if configured with 2 pilots. Many Lancasters (as well as other aircraft) sustained more accidents during training than in combat, and many of those accidents attributed to flying in the soup. The old saying goes "two heads are better than one," this being especially true when back in WW2 the only "IFR" instruments used were maybe a LF homing beacon combined with airbases that used gas fires to light a runway - this combined with a prayer sometimes got you home.

I know the Lanc had a slightly higher loss rate than the B-17, we discussed this earlier and attributed it to night ops, I think had there been a pilot and co-pilot in the Lancaster the loss rate would of been LOWER than the B-17 including all the night operations the Lanc participated in over Europe.

 

[Nonskimmer]

If I remember correctly, early Lancasters (I forget the mark) did carry two pilots with dual flight controls, but the second pilot was soon deemed unnecessary. At least that was the official reasoning.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And if one inline engine fails on the lanc, big deal. It can fly on 3 just fine.

Read Below

and like i said radials aren't the best thing since sliced bread, they're just as likely to be hit as inlines, and no a few hit's wont completely dissable the engine but it'll take out a few cylinders, and and engine that isn't fuctioning properly on any bomber is gonna be shut down, because it's effects aren't gonna be worth it as most four engined bombers can fly happily on 3 engines, hell the lanc could fly on one when not carrying a payload and with about 1/4 fuel...........

During engine shutdown even with a 4 engine bomber you still have to compensate for the dead engine, that being more profound on the outboard engines. What you rarely see in movies when this is happening is the pilot attempting to trim the aircraft to keep it straight and level and to keep pressure off the yoke so he's not fighting the controls. This process could take several minutes Addi tonally when shutting down the engine you have to 1. shut off fuel (some aircraft have an oil shut off as well), 2. shut down electrical, 3. feather the propeller, 4. put out the fire (if there is one). Although this sounds relatively simple, try doing this when flying through flack, on the bomb run or being attacked by fighters. Many times due to the inexperience of the pilot the wrong engine was shut down and then the aircraft really became a brick.

Now you are both correct in saying the Lanc could fly just fine on 3 engines, definitely correct, it could probably fly well on 2 - the situation gets sticky when the aircraft has to climb - there is a formula used for this but is is my guess an aircraft like the Lancaster will loose 30-40% of its climb rate and probably about 20% of its speed if flying on one engine. That could be a problem if having to keep up in a formation or having to climb over an obstacle.

well remember the flight engineer was often more than capable of taking the con trolls of the aircraft and did actually control about half the work load, the actual pilot didn't even control the throttles in flight, the flight engineer did! the lanc pilot did little more than actually control the plane........

Very correct the FE takes up much of the load and many of them actually became pilots, and was very good of taking probably a third of the workload off the pilot, where a co-pilot would of been an asset would be in the soup or during emergency procedures. B-17s and -24s, with a two man flight crew many a times called upon the FE to actually help them fly the aircraft if controls surfaces were shot away....