Nonskimmer
Captain
As I recall, the RCAF retired it's last Liberators in 1948. They were used for a few years post-war as transports I think.
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think the RCAF had a few doing ASW.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Ah yes, you're right. They weren't used long after the war, but they served a purpose for a bit.
(BTW, I like how they call the Argus "present day".
)
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/features/liberator/index.php
(BTW, I like how they call the Argus "present day".
)http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/features/liberator/index.php
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B24 and B17 disapeared because the B29 made them obsolete.
A whole new generation of cargo planes meant the B24 wasnt needed for that role.
Maritime patrol was given over to the navy where it rightfully belonged, and a new generation patrol planes that were better at that role were developed and deployed.
The B25 was used after the war for twin engine trainers. The A26 was obsolete after the Korean war, although usefull for COIN warfare for awhile. Neither the B25 or A26 could have been considered important postwar aircraft.
If the UK needed the Lanc for important roles, that was an indication they were hurting for development money and not because the Lanc was such a good aircraft after hostilities ended.
A whole new generation of cargo planes meant the B24 wasnt needed for that role.
Maritime patrol was given over to the navy where it rightfully belonged, and a new generation patrol planes that were better at that role were developed and deployed.
The B25 was used after the war for twin engine trainers. The A26 was obsolete after the Korean war, although usefull for COIN warfare for awhile. Neither the B25 or A26 could have been considered important postwar aircraft.
If the UK needed the Lanc for important roles, that was an indication they were hurting for development money and not because the Lanc was such a good aircraft after hostilities ended.
Nonskimmer
Captain
syscom3 said:
The UK didn't use it, Canada did, and no: It wasn't because we were hurting for developement money, it's because the Lanc was good enough for the roles it fulfilled and was available in numbers. We're not stupid. Nowadays we're cheap, I'll grant you, but the Lancaster was enough to see us through those first few post-war years. We made it work, and yes, it did work adequately. No it wasn't the most advanced by 1945 by any stretch, but it was good enough to do the job for a few years to come. Yes, it was such a good aircraft that it could be used for multiple roles.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
NO the B-24 disappeared!
The B-17 served with the USCG for many years and saw SAW services during Korea. In the Post WW2 years it was one of the first "Hurricane Hunters."
The B-24 made many Chevys!
And don't forget the drones!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Kingman Az, 1946
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"It is now over half the century since the Lancaster last flew operationally. The last RAF machines where withdrawn in 1956. The last users, Canadian, French Navy and Argentinean air forces retired their last Lancasters in 1964."
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm
Nonskimmer
Captain
Uh...yeah, like I said. The UK did use it too.
(Tee-hee, nice recovery. They'll never notice.
)
(Tee-hee, nice recovery. They'll never notice.
)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Why did the B-17 and other WW2 bombers hang around for a few years and the B-24 disappear? The B-24 served well but was crude and could be a maintenace nightmare - it also was not as docile in the air as the B-17 and Lancaster.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs. What happened to it after the war, so what.
The B17 had the better airframe of the two for strength and maintainability. But the B24 had a better range and payload for what it was supposed to do, and thats drop bombs.
The jet age made everyone one of those piston engined aircraft obsolete.
The B17 had the better airframe of the two for strength and maintainability. But the B24 had a better range and payload for what it was supposed to do, and thats drop bombs.
The jet age made everyone one of those piston engined aircraft obsolete.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I wonder what happened to all the brit aircraft after the war. Were there depots like Kingman?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
While true, it shows the versitality and adaptability of those aircraft from WW2 that stayed around for a few years, the B-17 and Lancaster were among them.syscom3 said:
syscom3 said:
Amoung the heavy bombers yes, and although it was a common belief that the jet made all WW2 era aircraft obolete, whell hindsight being 20/20, not necessarily true
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
I know some were actually flow to Canada and scrapped, but I believe they had their own versions of Kingman.
- Thread starter
- #955
Syscom no offense but you have no argument that states that Lanc could not do what a B-24 did in the Aleutions. You supposed arguments have no weight and are pointless. This is getting very old and stupid.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Its amazing how I keep finding roles and locations that the B24 performed and the Lanc didnt.
Points for the B24 for proving to be so versatile.
Points for the B24 for proving to be so versatile.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
odd, you've become rather good at that, you ceem to enjoy ignoring the radial engined Mk.II amoung other things............
most of the more well informed members here agree with it being the lancaster...........
and just how many encounters were there with the enemy? and records of this intense flak they flew through?
again just how many missions? and really that's proved very little, there are lots of things the lancaster did that it would be impossible for the B-24 to do!.............
and just because a plane doesn't do something in combat conditions it doesn't mean it couldn't, the Lancaster's the only bomber to have dropped the grandslam opperationally, does that mean the B-29 couldn't? of course not, post war they tested her with a grandslam and two tallboys........
so, sticking with the grandslam, let's have one of them simulations you love so much! let's simulate the B-24 carrying a grandslam, ummm, where do we put it?? sorry i can't even find anywhere to mount it
no that doesn't automatically mean that at all, primarily because there weren't many specialised aircraft out there! go on, how many perpose built maritime patrol aircraft were designed and built, and entered service up to say, 1950?? very few were developed because converted bombers were more than adiquite, something being old doesn't nessisarily make it obselete...........
that's it, i'm never letting you forget you said that! why? because i have proved that the lancaster was better at dropping bombs than the B-24! and i'll prove it again if you wish...............
yes, in every role EXCEPT heavy bombing, transport and maritime patrol, due to their high fuel consuption and often their unreliability, it would be a while after the war before jets became viable for these roles, look at most of the piston engined planes that served longest after the war, what are they? some are carrier born naval fighters, most are heavier planes!
most were sent to the scrapman..........
you make it sound like no one else has found out all this before! it's about as amazing as me finding some shit in our slurry pit, it's not amazing at all, please, don't "big yourself up" because i'm 15 years old and my arguments are atleast equal to and mostly superior to yours.........
and the fact is most of the locations the B-24 flew in, the lancaster did too! just post war, and i doubt the weather conditions changed much over the pacific or the arctic between 1939 and 1960
operating in different theatres is NOT a measure of versatility, a measure of versatility is the roles she performed in and the apdaptations that were made to the planes, in which case i feel the lanc deserves those points which you seem so willing to give out.............
please just give some of your arguments a rest, you haven't exactily proved much, you just keep saying the same stuff over and over again...........
Nonskimmer
Captain
Most of this thread has been like beating your head off a wall. The really funny part is though, after all of this going in circles I've seen no evidence whatsoever of the Liberator's versatility over, or superiority over the Lancaster. Almost fifty pages and nadda.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Nonskimmer said:
Lets see; ease of production, Longevity, armament, bomb load, maneuverability, I think we left out heating and air conditioning and the softness of the pilot's seat....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I will repeat it for you.
Better defensive firepower
Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
Two man cockpit
Better production record
Flew in more theaters
All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.
Better defensive firepower
Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
Two man cockpit
Better production record
Flew in more theaters
All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.
- Status
