FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Nonskimmer said:
Yep - I remember reading the same thing - shame
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
- Status
Yep - I remember reading the same thing - shame
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
mmmm, i don't know where you read that, as far as i know they weren't fitted with dual controlls, however early on the flight engineer was officially deemed a "second pilot", however it was changed when flight engineer was deemed more approppriate, maybe this's what you're thinking of?
engine management was the flight engineer's job, shutting down an engine and fuel management was their bread and butter!
FB said:
engine management was the flight engineer's job, shutting down an engine and fuel management was their bread and butter!
Nonskimmer
Captain
I've seen the dual controls mentioned in a couple of different books, lanc. I own one here somewhere. Problem is they don't mention the mark, so I can only assume it was the early Mk.I. It may not have even flown any missions that way. I'll root around in the basement for that book when I get home.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes it was, especially in the Lancaster that didn't have the benefit of another pilot to assist and or accomplish that task along with an FE who on American aircraft were sitting right behind the pilot and co-pilot if not occupying the top turret. Here's a photo of the Lanc pilot and FE position - Do you think that optimum flight crew coordination compared to a 3 man flight station?the lancaster kicks ass said:
And although engine management was one part of the equation, you still have the flight through fighters and flak, and then foul weather where the only thing the FE could offer is engine management and an extra set of eyes.
Here's a photo of the Halifax with he same set up...
Now look at the B-17. The FE positioned himself between the 2 pilots during TO and landing and assisted during emergency operations. So effective was this set up it became the norm of postwar designs that had FEs.
The WW2 FE - although possibly having the capability to fly, did not normally have the training to fly the aircraft proficiently especially during instrument operations, and not taking anything away from RAF crews who flew Single pilot multi engine aircraft (if anything I think these guys were outstanding pilots doing the work of 2 people) I think there would of been many more RAF bombers returning from training and operational missions had there been a 2 pilot set up.
Attachments
evangilder
"Shooter"
Umm, Joe, that cockpit is the B-24, not the B-17. That's "All American", the Collings Foundation B-24.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
it was the general concencus with the lanc pilots however that she was quite light on the controlls and that she was very manourverable for a plane of her size,, i'm not saying a second pilot wouldn't be useful i'm simply addressing the picture you posted with the writing.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
evangilder said:
Yep - I realized that after I posted it!
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Yes she was very manuverable and that pic with the writing does mention the role of the FE and how important he was.
I got some more info coming in this later today....
Nonskimmer
Captain
Oh lanc, I found that book I was talking about, but it's not exactly the best reference. It's "The Gatefold Book of World War II Warplanes". 
And it only has this to say:
"Early Lancasters carried a pilot and a second pilot, and were fitted with dual controls, but it was soon decided that the use of two pilots was unnecessary, especially since the second pilot acted as a systems manager. Use of a dedicated flight engineer improved efficiency and speeded up the flow of new crews from the Operational Training Units. The shortage of personnel was a key problem in the growth of Bomber Command's Lancaster force."
So as you can see, it's not very informative at all. Some nice diagrams in this book though. I wish I had a scanner.
And it only has this to say:
"Early Lancasters carried a pilot and a second pilot, and were fitted with dual controls, but it was soon decided that the use of two pilots was unnecessary, especially since the second pilot acted as a systems manager. Use of a dedicated flight engineer improved efficiency and speeded up the flow of new crews from the Operational Training Units. The shortage of personnel was a key problem in the growth of Bomber Command's Lancaster force."
So as you can see, it's not very informative at all. Some nice diagrams in this book though. I wish I had a scanner.
evangilder
"Shooter"
It looks like a personnel shortage may have been one of the factors as well.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
ah not quite, personell shortage wasn't a problem, remember for years RAF bomber command was seen as the best way of striking back at the enemy which so many men wanted to do! the problem came with training times and at the time of the lanc going into production it was TRAINED personell that was an issue..............
and rest assured skimmey i'll be looking into this tonight! i do doubt it however, this's the first i've heard of it!
and rest assured skimmey i'll be looking into this tonight! i do doubt it however, this's the first i've heard of it!
evangilder
"Shooter"
Still a personnel problem. If you put 2 pilots in the plane, then you have effectively half of the pilots you would otherwise have.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
evangilder said:
So deploy half of the bombers you have and you can lower your loss rate by having two pilots
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
losses ore expect for almost all missions, no matter wether they're aircraft or soldiers, the aim of most missions is to do the most damage, acceptable losses are expected, you don't get something for nothing. halving the bombers will more than half the damage done, but despite having two pilots many planes will still get shot down, there's nothing two pilots can do about an aircraft that's had a wing blown off! if your stragagy really works sys then why didn't the RAF do it? because it wouldn't work, and you talk about the lanc having a greater loss ratio, what about the tonnage per aircraft lost??
lanc- dropped 710,081 tons for 3,498 aircraft lost = 202.9 tons dropped per aircraft lost
B-17 (although i admit the figures i'm using might not be correct, Adler posted them a long time ago)- dropped 640,036 for 4,688 aircraft lost = 136.5 tons dropped for each aircraft lost
lanc- dropped 710,081 tons for 3,498 aircraft lost = 202.9 tons dropped per aircraft lost
B-17 (although i admit the figures i'm using might not be correct, Adler posted them a long time ago)- dropped 640,036 for 4,688 aircraft lost = 136.5 tons dropped for each aircraft lost
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm back - had to teach a class today, doesn't my boss know I have more important things to do like discuss the Lancaster!
OK - Some more points...
I found a great site that has information about a Lancaster crew station reproduction...
http://website.lineone.net/~norman.groom/index.htm
I'm going to use some of their photos....
Although the FE and pilot were in a close proximity, for the FE to manage power settings he had to be up front with the pilot, at his station were water and oil temperature gages, oil pressures plus fuel contents gages, oil dilution buttons, fuel booster pump switches and various other items. There are three fuel tanks in each wing, two main and one reserve, hence the six gages to the right of the main fuel cocks.
It seems fuel shut off was accomplished at his station
The on the pilot's panel there were Tachometers, prop feather buttons and fire extinguishers.
During flight any change in power setting will result in a climb or descent so to maintain a constant altitude the pilot is continually trimming the aircraft, this sounds a lot easier than done especially in a 4 engine bomber, and although the Lanc was easy to fly, there is still a lot going on, especially if the pilot only has a few hundred hours.
Now in an emergency situation you may have the FE assisting the pilot in managing power settings; where things may get real sticky is when an engine (or two) is lost and the aircraft has to be trimmed and configured to maintain a given altitude. Now combine that with any other adverse condition that "loads up" the pilot (damaged flight controls etc.) you only have one set of controls, although the FE is there and will help, the second pilot may be the difference between disaster and surviving if the situation worsens and more muscle is needed, especially if that light docile aircraft now becomes a beast in the air to maneuver.
Now a third perspective to this - blind flying. The Lancaster had a blind flying instrument panel.
For the most part the only thing you're going to get out of that panel is the ability is stay straight and level, maintain altitude and fly a general heading. The only real "homing" nav feature available to the pilot at the flight station was a DF receiver indicator. I believe the indicator is second from the right, second row. The main unit was at the wireless operator's panel.
Now let's put all this together...
Pilot flies, FE assists in power settings, fuel management, etc.- Pilot has to fly a crippled aircraft further increasing his workload, compound that with being in the "soup." Without visual aid the navigator is virtually useless unless he has radar, which will only guide him to a vicinity.
Here's a gee radar
So now worse case scenario - you have a shot up Lanc, flying blind using radar to and a DF beacon to find its way base to base, the base has 1/2 visibility and a 500 foot ceiling. the radar isn't going to be able to paint a precision picture for you to make the landing so you have to use the DF. Here's where it gets fun....
As far as I know there were only 2 ways to make an instrument approach during WW2 one was to follow an audible signal that guided you left or right of a target (the airport). While following that tone you monitored your altitude and airspeed and began to let down at a certain point. If you're airspeed is correct, you interpreted the tone properly you would wind up at the runway's threshold, hopefully seeing the runway at least 1/2 before landing. The second method was the use of the DF what was similar to the homing tone. With the needle aligned at a given which was a given distance from the end of the runway at a specified heading. The pilot would follow that heading until over the station. Once over the station the needle would swing backwards and the pilot would begin a timed descent at a given altitude. If done properly and the descent was on speed the pilot should reach the runway threshold at a given time and be at an altitude where the runway could be visually sighted. If the approach is accomplished and the runways isn't sighted, the pilot goes back to the station, over flies it, turns around and does the same thing all over again.
Today this is known as an NDB approach and is actually being fazed out in favor of GPS.
Approach plates were made to assist the pilot in accomplishing this...
NOW - you have a Shot up Lanc, an engine out (or two), in the soup, the FE managing engine controls and the pilot making this approach that requires you to be within 1/8 mile of course so you could see the runway(easier said than done since you're relying on an "AM radio") to guide you to the runway and the pilot only had say 200 hours and received no formal instrument approach training (very common at the beginning at WW2) - putting this much work load on a single pilot is crazy! A tribute to those RAF pilots who had to do this and also a reason why the 3 man flight crew eventually became the norm after WW2, and I believe after WW2 the Lincoln and Shackleton had a co-pilot
OK - Some more points...
I found a great site that has information about a Lancaster crew station reproduction...
http://website.lineone.net/~norman.groom/index.htm
I'm going to use some of their photos....
Although the FE and pilot were in a close proximity, for the FE to manage power settings he had to be up front with the pilot, at his station were water and oil temperature gages, oil pressures plus fuel contents gages, oil dilution buttons, fuel booster pump switches and various other items. There are three fuel tanks in each wing, two main and one reserve, hence the six gages to the right of the main fuel cocks.
It seems fuel shut off was accomplished at his station
The on the pilot's panel there were Tachometers, prop feather buttons and fire extinguishers.
During flight any change in power setting will result in a climb or descent so to maintain a constant altitude the pilot is continually trimming the aircraft, this sounds a lot easier than done especially in a 4 engine bomber, and although the Lanc was easy to fly, there is still a lot going on, especially if the pilot only has a few hundred hours.
Now in an emergency situation you may have the FE assisting the pilot in managing power settings; where things may get real sticky is when an engine (or two) is lost and the aircraft has to be trimmed and configured to maintain a given altitude. Now combine that with any other adverse condition that "loads up" the pilot (damaged flight controls etc.) you only have one set of controls, although the FE is there and will help, the second pilot may be the difference between disaster and surviving if the situation worsens and more muscle is needed, especially if that light docile aircraft now becomes a beast in the air to maneuver.
Now a third perspective to this - blind flying. The Lancaster had a blind flying instrument panel.
For the most part the only thing you're going to get out of that panel is the ability is stay straight and level, maintain altitude and fly a general heading. The only real "homing" nav feature available to the pilot at the flight station was a DF receiver indicator. I believe the indicator is second from the right, second row. The main unit was at the wireless operator's panel.
Now let's put all this together...
Pilot flies, FE assists in power settings, fuel management, etc.- Pilot has to fly a crippled aircraft further increasing his workload, compound that with being in the "soup." Without visual aid the navigator is virtually useless unless he has radar, which will only guide him to a vicinity.
Here's a gee radar
So now worse case scenario - you have a shot up Lanc, flying blind using radar to and a DF beacon to find its way base to base, the base has 1/2 visibility and a 500 foot ceiling. the radar isn't going to be able to paint a precision picture for you to make the landing so you have to use the DF. Here's where it gets fun....
As far as I know there were only 2 ways to make an instrument approach during WW2 one was to follow an audible signal that guided you left or right of a target (the airport). While following that tone you monitored your altitude and airspeed and began to let down at a certain point. If you're airspeed is correct, you interpreted the tone properly you would wind up at the runway's threshold, hopefully seeing the runway at least 1/2 before landing. The second method was the use of the DF what was similar to the homing tone. With the needle aligned at a given which was a given distance from the end of the runway at a specified heading. The pilot would follow that heading until over the station. Once over the station the needle would swing backwards and the pilot would begin a timed descent at a given altitude. If done properly and the descent was on speed the pilot should reach the runway threshold at a given time and be at an altitude where the runway could be visually sighted. If the approach is accomplished and the runways isn't sighted, the pilot goes back to the station, over flies it, turns around and does the same thing all over again.
Today this is known as an NDB approach and is actually being fazed out in favor of GPS.
Approach plates were made to assist the pilot in accomplishing this...
NOW - you have a Shot up Lanc, an engine out (or two), in the soup, the FE managing engine controls and the pilot making this approach that requires you to be within 1/8 mile of course so you could see the runway(easier said than done since you're relying on an "AM radio") to guide you to the runway and the pilot only had say 200 hours and received no formal instrument approach training (very common at the beginning at WW2) - putting this much work load on a single pilot is crazy! A tribute to those RAF pilots who had to do this and also a reason why the 3 man flight crew eventually became the norm after WW2, and I believe after WW2 the Lincoln and Shackleton had a co-pilot
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
i believe the forerunner of the ndb(non directional beacon) approach was called the aural null it along with ndb they are both hard approaches compared with what is available today requiring a skilled pilot which is an sort of an oxymorn
this link will further cloud the issue
http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/VAR Markers Ops Notes 1953.htm
this link will further cloud the issue
http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/VAR Markers Ops Notes 1953.htm
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
pbfoot said:
Great Site PB! That's what I was looking for! I have an old text book that explains it in detail - I wan't sure if it was used in conjuction with an NDB or it was stand alone. In either case I can't see using the system with anything worse than say 3/4 miles and 800'.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
i've never said that a second pilot wouldn't be useful, but you cannot deny the fact that the RAF pilots did a stirling (see what i did there ) job on their own, and you're forgetting FIDO i have a question and a point to make, what do you mean by in the soup? becuase in RAF slang that's ditching in water and the point i wanted to make is what does this really have to do with the lanc vs. B-17 argument, it's more speculation and we're focusing too much on this one point that is just going round in circles, can't we get back to figures and suchlike for the planes?
) job on their own, and you're forgetting FIDO i have a question and a point to make, what do you mean by in the soup? becuase in RAF slang that's ditching in water and the point i wanted to make is what does this really have to do with the lanc vs. B-17 argument, it's more speculation and we're focusing too much on this one point that is just going round in circles, can't we get back to figures and suchlike for the planes?
By soup he means low visiblity - ie in low level clouds, fog etc... Where you are unable to see very far thus not being able to see the runway or any landmarks to guide you to the airfield as result you rely on instruments.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
so turn on the FIDO
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:i've never said that a second pilot wouldn't be useful, but you cannot deny the fact that the RAF pilots did a stirling (see what i did there
That's the whole point - Lanc pilots were continually doing the work of 2 people, even though the FE was there you still had other elements of the flight where a second pilot was needed - A small plus I have to give to the B-17 and B-24, although I think the Lanc was a better over-all bomber. I guess the moral of this story is if I was in a shot up aircraft flying in the soup (Zero Visibility) and have to accomplish a WW2 type instrument approach, I'd rather be in a B-17 or B-24....
Although thought effective during WW2, FIDO (or any other visual lighting system) is only effective for about 1 mile and 800' ceiling. Below that it's useless and being a resident of the UK you know your weather could be a lot worse, today aircraft land with a 500' ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility. Under normal landing conditions you want to be "stabilized" on final, have a good 2 miles in front of you hnd have a good visual view of the runway. This is easily attained under normal conditions, thow in battle damage and a single pilot and you're looking at flirting with death. At 500' and 1/4 mile if you don't see the runway you have to go around and attempt the approach again - going any lower and attempting to feel out the runway is suicide and many times that's what all bomber crews faced when returning to base.
Oh - don't mention a "Stirling" job - the Stirling had 2 pilots.
- Status
