Lancaster as an escorted, daylight bomber ala B-17/24?

[Greg Boeser]

B-24s had very bad ditching characteristics The shoulder mounted wing and the deep fuselage meant that the force of impact was absorbed by the lower fuselage, which as previously mentioned often meant failure of the bomb bay doors. the resultant inflow of water would often tear the rear half of the aircraft away. The fuselage also tended to rupture at the cockpit, with the top turret crushing the roof.
The B-17 with its low mounted wing could often hydroplane with the impact spread over more of the lower surface of the wings and fuselage.

 

[pbehn]

A poster here who works (worked) on B-24s in a museum said the bomb doors/slats of a B-24 cannot take the weight of a person.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I bet it really depended on where a -24 was hit. An 88 in the wing would stand a good chance of being fatal. In the fuselage, possible but less-likely (especially after bombs had been dropped). While the Pacific was the better theater for a more-fragile airplane, my understanding is that -17s were replaced by -24s was due to range, rather than concerns about survivability, though the latter was a good benefit (not much flak over open ocean.

I've worked inside #2 nacelle wheel well on Collings' B24 right near where the wing spar passes through. The (single) spar is a sheet metal web with heavy cap strips top and bottom. A structure like that is lightweight and relatively strong against bending straight up and down, but depends for torsion resistance on its web and the stiffening effect of the D tube formed by the spar, the leading edge ribs, and the heavy leading edge skin. It's a lightweight, stiff structure formed almost entirely out of sheet metal. Now explode a 90MM fragmentation shell inside that D tube near the wing root where the stress is greatest and you've just excavated most of the sheet metal, and what do you think is going to happen?
Now anyone who has seen photos of B17 production lines knows the 'Fort has a main and a secondary wing spar, that both of them are constructed of a trusswork of U-shaped, thick, aluminum segments riveted to heavy L-bracket capstrips riveted back to back to form a "T". Also the two spars are stiffened against tortion by robust diagonal struts running between them. A fragmentation shell could explode in there without tearing things up so much.
The science of all metal monocoque cantilever monoplane construction was in its infancy when the 'Fort and the Dakota were designed, the B17 was the B52 of its time, and it and the 'Three were over-built just to be on the safe side. I know which bomber I'd rather take in harm's way.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A poster here who works (worked) on B-24s in a museum said the bomb doors/slats of a B-24 cannot take the weight of a person.

I know Ambrose is a doubtful source in some instances, but he did report that McGovern said the same thing about the bomb-bay doors.

And plenty of modern jets have "no-step" surfaces redlined off for fuelies/maintenance crews, too. We're not talking a lot of sheet-metal.

 

[JDCAVE]

i cant really comment on the Liberator, except that dad was briefly attached to 224 Squadron in Coastal Command in 1943. He flew the aircraft on an operation doing a grid search for U-Boats. He said the aircraft was very heavy on the controls, I.e. it flew like a cow.

 

[ClayO]

The high aspect-ratio wing would also mean that the lifting force on the wing tip would have a lot more leverage on the wing root. You can see that when you look out of the window of a modern jet airliner: on the ground, the wing tip is a little above eye level, but to see the wing tip in the air, you have to crunch down in your seat and peer out of the top of the window.

 

[Simon Thomas]

My grandfather's next door neighbour flew B-24's for the RAAF. He mentioned that the only reason it took off was the curvature of the earth.

 

[ClayO]

I've worked inside #2 nacelle wheel well on Collings' B24 right near where the wing spar passes through. The (single) spar is a sheet metal web with heavy cap strips top and bottom. A structure like that is lightweight and relatively strong against bending straight up and down, but depends for torsion resistance on its web and the stiffening effect of the D tube formed by the spar, the leading edge ribs, and the heavy leading edge skin. It's a lightweight, stiff structure formed almost entirely out of sheet metal. Now explode a 90MM fragmentation shell inside that D tube near the wing root where the stress is greatest and you've just excavated most of the sheet metal, and what do you think is going to happen?
Now anyone who has seen photos of B17 production lines knows the 'Fort has a main and a secondary wing spar, that both of them are constructed of a trusswork of U-shaped, thick, aluminum segments riveted to heavy L-bracket capstrips riveted back to back to form a "T". Also the two spars are stiffened against tortion by robust diagonal struts running between them. A fragmentation shell could explode in there without tearing things up so much.
The science of all metal monocoque cantilever monoplane construction was in its infancy when the 'Fort and the Dakota were designed, the B17 was the B52 of its time, and it and the 'Three were over-built just to be on the safe side. I know which bomber I'd rather take in harm's way.

U.S. Army WWII Photograph of Army Air Force Soldiers with B-24 Bomber in Warton | eBay

View attachment 581181

...but don't tell that to these guys.

 

[SaparotRob]

Somewhere under all those feet there's got to be a "NO STEP" warning.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Then someone's going to have to buff out all the scuff marks.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

...but don't tell that to these guys.

Just about the ideal static weight distribution!

Somewhere under all those feet there's got to be a "NO STEP" warning.

They're all sitting on the D-tube leading edge, which is the main stress bearing part of the wing and pretty thick skinned.

Then someone's going to have to buff out all the scuff marks.

See above. EXCEPTION: If the deice boots have already been installed, they're going to have to be inspected and tested again. If this plane was destined for PTO, it might not have boots at all.

 

[ClayO]

Just about the ideal static weight distribution!

They're all sitting on the D-tube leading edge, which is the main stress bearing part of the wing and pretty thick skinned.

See above. EXCEPTION: If the deice boots have already been installed, they're going to have to be inspected and tested again. If this plane was destined for PTO, it might not have boots at all.

The caption says it's the inspection dept., Warton, England - that's incoming inspection, guessing that these guys wouldn't climb all over a plane they've already inspected and make more work for themselves. I thought it might be one that had done its missions and was being retired, but the paint's not worn on the edges of the cowlings, so it's definitely a new plane.

 

[ThomasP]

B.A.D. 2 (Base Air Depot #2) Warton Aerodrome

1 of 2 primary incoming inspection and modification centers for American aircraft sent to England.