Lancaster Vs. B-24

Here's the excel spread sheet....

syscom3 said:

Great data.

Still a tie for me. The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup.

Click to expand...

You're opinion - I agree about the 2 pilot set up but the primary purpose here was to drop bombs.

And the Lanc was more efficient at it and so gets my vote...

What's interesting is the Lancaster's higher power loading. I would guess this gave the Lanc better acceleration and maneuvability, many of the other categories both aircraft were almost a dead match. The Lanc lands slower, a major safety plus, but it's a tail dragger, a bit harder to fly than a "trike" configuration. The -24 had the nose gear but landed like a bat out of hell, especially when heavy, a major issue, especially with "green" pilots.

The wing loading was similar too. Thats the most surprising thing I saw. I figured the lanc with its big wings would have a lower loading.

Don't forget how fragile the nose wheel on the B-24 was too, Joe. When the Germans captured a B-24 intact and tried to land it on a grass strip, the broke it and nosed over.

Yep - My wife's Grandfather' airplane was damaged in the nose, some of the photos of the aircraft you could actually see the repairs. The B-24 was tail heavy (heavy on the controls all around) and had a weak NLG, a set up for disaster!

Yep. I was talking to one of our docents at the museum, Russ, who was an instructor pilot for the B-24 during the war. He described the nose gear as "pretty fragile".

syscom3 said:

Great data.

Still a tie for me. The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup.

Click to expand...

What! The whole time you have been argueing so much that the B-24 was better and now you just change your mind and its a tie. What happened!!

Ive always thought it was a tie. The only tie breaker for me was the more theaters the B24 flew in. That made the B24 superior by the proverbial RCH.

syscom3 said:

Ive always thought it was a tie. The only tie breaker for me was the more theaters the B24 flew in. That made the B24 superior by the proverbial RCH.

Click to expand...

No, the tie breaker should be how many years the aircraft served, in which the Lancaster beats the -24 hands down!!!

Yeah but the Lanc is winning by 10 points so what can you do?

The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did.

But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)

B24 wins again!

syscom3 said:

The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did.

But then, you don't count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)

Click to expand...

Get ready, here it comes, one, two three - WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!
Look at all the post war bombers (1945 and early 1946) and there was nothing, except the B-29 that remotely compete with the Lancaster. This was the norm until the B-36 came on the scene, and the early models didn't become fully operational until late 1948, and even then many of the earlier models were retrofitted to the "J" configuration because it was believed the aircraft was already obsolete when it entered service. The B-47 didn't come on scene until 1953, and the only other aircraft besides these listed that could offer better better all round operational performance was the B-50 (first flew in 1947) and lastly the TU-4, the Russian copy of the B-29 which didn't enter service until late 1947!!!!!

Now if you want to throw the Privateer into the mix, its mission, as a Navy Patrol Bomber and ASW platform is an entirely different mission and is no way flown as hard and into the same hostile environment as a heavy strategic bomber. Navy VP squadrons operated the Privateer until 1954 when most of them were replaced by either the P-2 Neptune or the P-5 Marlin.

Don't even compare the Privateer to the Lancaster as a Heavy bomber, although it carried up to 12 .50 caliber machine guns, it could only carry a 4-6000 pound bomb load because of the electronic equipment housed within the aircraft. The last Privateers were used as multi engine trainers and left the fleet in 1956...

And if you want to count the "Hawkins and Powers" fire bombers, the only reason why they were used for this role was because it was one of the last large bomber type WW2 aircraft left at Davis Monthan that had a Bomb bay, it was easier to convert an aircraft with a bomb bay into a fire bomber than one with out - remember 6000 B-24s were scrapped between late 1945 and 1946!!!! THEY ALL MADE GREAT STUDEBAKER'S! Since 1972 Hawkins and Powers lost 5 PB4Ys out of an original fleet of 10 while fighting Fires, the last one in 2002 had its wings fall off.

Once again you've proved nothing. The Brits brought on the Lincoln, supplemented their Lincoln and Lancaster bomber force with 87 B-29s through 1955. By that era the Canberra entered service (1950) followed by the Vickers and Valiant (1955) and it wasn't until that time the Lancaster started going away, it served well in basically 2 eras of aerial warfare and did so because it could still do the job. Face it Sys, if the B-24 was an operational gem, the USAAF wouln't of been so quick to get rid of them. Although it served well, we've shown here the B-24 was a heavy aircraft to fly, could present numerous maintenace problems, and could also be turned into a flying cigerette lighter.

In the post war years and as the Cold War Started, the UK had to provide a European deterant, the Lancaster evidently was more cost effective to operate, carried a larger bomb load, offered the ability to house all types of electronic packages and had the duribility within its airframe to last close to 20 years in service. If the Brits were so desperate as you claim in the post war years, they could of held on to their B-24s (insted they gave several to India) and asked for more. After all 6,000 of them got parked in Arizona in 1946!!!

I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.

The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's. They called them "Washingtons".

A privateer is still a B24 airframe.

And who cares if the majority of B24's were melted down after the war. The USN and USAF had better aircraft to perform the roles it could have done.

Note to flyboy....... aircraft are mostly aluminum. I doubt any airplane scrap went into an automobile. Toys and household products, but not any vintage "Detroit Iron". 8)

Glider said:

I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.

Click to expand...

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.

syscom3 said:

The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's. They called them "Washingtons".

Click to expand...

Washingtons B.1s to be exact - they used them to supplement their stategic capability and gave the UK a Nuclear Strike capability, they just picked an aircraft that could do that job and rightfully so, it was the only aircraft capable of carrying an atomic bomb and the only bomber better than the Lancaster.

syscom3 said:

A privateer is still a B24 airframe.

Click to expand...

I guess the same way a Lincoln is a Lancaster airframe, we'll bring those into the fray as well!

syscom3 said:

And who cares if the majority of B24's were melted down after the war. The USN and USAF had better aircraft to perform the roles it could have done.

Click to expand...

Yep so did the RAF - it was called the Lancaster!

syscom3 said:

Note to flyboy....... aircraft are mostly aluminum. I doubt any airplane scrap went into an automobile. Toys and household products, but not any vintage "Detroit Iron". 8)

Click to expand...

Yea you're right, they probably made good pots and pans!!!

syscom3 said:

Glider said:

I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.

Click to expand...

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.

Click to expand...

And let's talk about the WW2 Years...

739 of them were built, they were heavily armed and had a very long range. They did have some interesting combat situation but really didn't come on scene untill 1944.

They served well but you can't compare their combat record with that of the Lancaster, it would be like comparing the Maytag Repairman to a Navy Seal. Just for your reference, heres the PB4Y site...
http://alanc.carey.freeservers.com/index.html

How come the tail on the PB4Y and the B-24 are not the same?

Is one tail ( for lack of a better word) "Better" then the other?