Admiral Beez
Major
That was my thinking. Though the B-36 used turbo props and jets, so the same fuel could be used. Our hybrid Lancaster/Lincoln would need to carry two fuels.
edit… my bad, the B-36 was Wasp powered, so also dual fuel.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That was my thinking. Though the B-36 used turbo props and jets, so the same fuel could be used. Our hybrid Lancaster/Lincoln would need to carry two fuels.Is that why the B-36 used a combination of propellor and jet engines?
My dad was in the USAF during those years and he said that B-36 pilots would often cut the prop engines and coast on the jets alone, once they reached altitude.
It was a fuel saving strategy.
I've been reading Stanley Hooker's "Not much of an Engineer" & he describes tests with a Lancaster converted to run with two turbojets in place of two of the Merlins. Calculations showed a 4 jet version would have a speed in excess of 400mph at 30,000ft with a full bombload making it 'essentially uninterceptable'. Great and all but there's no mention of range.........
Sure, there's a lot to be said about the plausibility (or otherwise) of the hypothetical scenario - but would anyone care to take a guess at a 4 jet Lancasters combat radius in say 1944-45?
B-36 cut prop engines as the big cigar would cruise on just a couple Wasps. (which says a lot about the efficiency of the airframe.Is that why the B-36 used a combination of propellor and jet engines?
My dad was in the USAF during those years and he said that B-36 pilots would often cut the prop engines and coast on the jets alone, once they reached altitude.
It was a fuel saving strategy.
Seems like the hypothetical jet Lancaster would need a redesign of the undercarriage. The Merlin Lancaster had the main gears in the inner nacelles, behind the engines. Doesn't work for a jet, obviously. Secondly IIRC the early tail dragger prototype of the Me 262 had issues with melting the tarmac. So you probably want a tricycle gear designed from scratch.
All in all, I think we're getting close to the point where a from scratch design is less work..
Hurrying up the Canberra project was probably the best way forward they had for getting a jet bomber ASAP.
So, swap out the four Merlins for a pair Griffons driving five blade contra rotating props and a pair of jets.B-36 cut prop engines as the big cigar would cruise on just a couple Wasps. (which says a lot about the efficiency of the airframe.
Note: Jets were just used for takeoff and for the dash over target. The rest of the time, the jets were shutdown as they were too inefficient to run. Early jets had great power to weight, atrocious fuel economy.
Doesn't do what you want it to do.So, swap out the four Merlins for a pair Griffons driving five blade contra rotating props and a pair of jets.
I've been reading Stanley Hooker's "Not much of an Engineer" & he describes tests with a Lancaster converted to run with two turbojets in place of two of the Merlins. Calculations showed a 4 jet version would have a speed in excess of 400mph at 30,000ft with a full bombload making it 'essentially uninterceptable'. Great and all but there's no mention of range. AIUI they were facing increasing problems with German Nightfighters late-war. I recall a discussion in another forum years back with someone who might have been uncharitably called a 'wheraboo' who argued that in a straight Britain vs Germany drawn out fight (the scenario given was Khalkin-Gol erupts into a Soviet-Japanese war resulting in no Pearl Harbour, Hitler dies accidentally & Goering thinks it better to try a Mediterranean strategy than Barbarossa. Britain is left with Lend-Lease, but not enough U.S divisions onside to try Sicily or D-Day) the Germans would have ultimately been able to stop Bomber Command & so win.
Sure, there's a lot to be said about the plausibility (or otherwise) of the hypothetical scenario - but would anyone care to take a guess at a 4 jet Lancasters combat radius in say 1944-45?
HiWe used to use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) soaked rags to clean and degrease parts.
There have been numerous reports over the last ten years relating to the hazardous nature of modern jet fuels which contain aromatics
I used to work in a chemistry lab in the steel works as part of my training. As a matter of course in steel analysis you use all concentrated acids Sulphuric, Hydrochloric and Hydrofluoric. Cleaning out the store one day when we had little to do we found a full one gallon "bottle" of Carbon Tetrachloride, it had been outlawed years ago as a cleaning agent, apart from attacking the nervous system and liver at high temperatures in air it decomposes to phosgene. Those were the days.We used to use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) soaked rags to clean and degrease parts.
I worked with HF in training but not in actual analysis. It cant be washed off skin in the conventional sense, you have to use glycerine in the hope that any residual acid reacts with the glycerine in preference to skin. It was used in a reaction that had to be done at high temperature needing platinum crucibles, they looked like knackered small tin cups but were worth a small fortune.Do not forget that carbon tetrachloride was used in many fire extinguishers for many years - including aircraft cabins.
Thankfully we now know how bad some of those "good" things were that we and our parents used so often before we learned our lessons.
And hyroflouric acid is another nasty from memory - never been around it thank goodness but my memory is that it is a major health hazard.
You can, but she'll be woefully underpowered.So, swap out the four Merlins for a pair Griffons driving five blade contra rotating props and a pair of jets.
I remember using MEK straight out of the can, to get the stickum residue off the gas tanks of the big rigs I used to work on.We used to use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) soaked rags to clean and degrease parts.