Lancaster Vs. B-24

[FLYBOYJ]

And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots

fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.

And some bombers fly better than others. Because of the B-24's Davis wing, one engine out or any holes in the wing and it flew like a truck with 3 wheels

Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!

True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.

Same thing! You're throwing out a would of, could of, should of - bottom line 6,000 B-24s were quickly scrapped, B-17s and Lancaster stayed around for a few more years cause they were just better aircraft...

[

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

There were way better aircraft around that were doing the roles the Lanc was doing, but doing it even better. The Brits were stuck with what they had.

No they had a choice - they had the Halifax, and access to B-17s and even more B-24s, it wasn't nationalistic pride, the fact was it was a better aircraft....

Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...

But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.

Why don't you throw in arctic operations vs. south African operations! It has nothing to do with the better of the two aircraft, only where they operated out of, in fact there was never anything negative shown about the mission capable rate of the Lancaster because of the coolant system. If you really want to get technical concerning engine fluids, although the radial is recognized as being more robust, it carried a dry sump oil system which placed most of the engine oil outside of the engine. The Lanc also had external oil tanks but the Merlin still was a dry sump system, which meant there was always a percentage of oil within the crankcase, knock the oil tank out and the engine will still have an oil sump. Knock out the oil system on a radial, there's no sump - it will seize....The argument is almost null. The Radial engine did have the advantage over the in line but there is nothing shown anywhere that this prohibited Lancaster operations.

If anything, an in line engine was more capable in a quick turnaround. You let a radial engine sit and it develops a condition called hydraulic lock and it had to be cleared by the ground crew before the engine could be started...

Again Sys, you have brought nothing to the table...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"At the same time it was a complicated and advanced machine, leading to prolonged pilot training programs and on occasion to severe attrition. Not only was it demanding to fly, even to a pilot fully qualified on the type, but it was eventually cleared to operate at such high weights that take-offs became marginal even with full power on all engines. Flight stability was also marginal, and escape from a stricken machine was extremely difficult once the pilot or pilots had let go of the controls. Moreover, though more modern and in most ways more efficient than the B-17, the overloaded late-model B-24s were hardly any improvement over their more primitive partners, and several commanders, including 'Jimmy' Doolittle, famed commanding general of the 8th Air Force, preferred the old B-17."
http://www.b24.net/aircraft.htm

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The proven Rolls Royce Merlin engines were much in demand for many types of aircraft. For this reason a version of the aircraft was produced which made use of Bristol Hercules radial engines. Lancasters first flew operationally in March, 1942 and were well received by the RAF aircrew. It was regarded as "a pilot's airplane" which inspired confidence. Evidence of this is the story of a Lanc flight engineer who, having feathered two engines and facing the prospect of flying over several hundred miles of cold, unfriendly ocean, turned to his pilot and said, "I suppose this means we shall be bloody late for breakfast!"

"The finest bomber of the war! Its efficiency was almost incredible, both in performance
and in the way it could be saddled with ever-increasing loads without breaking the camel's back.
The Lancaster far surpassed all the other types of heavy bombers.
Not only could it take heavier bomb loads, not only was it easier to handle,
and not only were there fewer accidents than with other types,
the casualty rate was also consistently below those of other types."

"The Lancaster took the major part in winning the war with its attacks on Germany.
On land it forced the Germans to retrieve from their armies half their sorely needed
anti-tank guns for use by over a million soldiers who would otherwise have been serving in the field.
The Lancaster won the naval war by destroying over one-third of the German submarines in their ports,
together with hundreds of small naval craft and six of their largest warships.
Above all, the Lancaster won the air war by taking the major part in forcing Germany to concentrate
on building and using fighters to defend the Fatherland, thereby depriving their armies of
essential air and particularly bomber support."

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancbomber.html

I agree with all of the with the exception of the Lancaster being the finest bomber of WW2 - that distinction goes to the B-29 hands down!!!

 

[syscom3]

General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.

And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.

 

[Glider]

Radial vs Inline. You keep saying this, but you know that Lanc has produced loss stats which show that the two planes had identical loss rates so any weakness in having a radial is balanced by other benefits in the Lancaster favour.

Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sorry i haven't been here for a few days, busy with homework!

The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup

if the B-24's defensive armourment was so good why were so many lost?? i can tell you, because no heavy bomber has a hope in hell of surviving a fighter attack, the fighter can pick and choose when, where and how it's going to attack, and it will go straight for the weakest parts, it the case of most heavies the wings with the fuel and engines, if the B-24's defensive guns were so amazing why weren't they shooting down every single attacker? the lanc's primary defence was darkness, the B-24's primary defence was fighter escort............

although don't get me wrong i know the B-24's guns were better, they just aren't anything special............

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

name an american aircraft that could do what the lanc did for the same price and not just in the bombing role, i'm not saying there aren't better aircraft, just that you never seem to mention anything but the bombers...........

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

that would be because the privateer is not the B-24........

and i seriously suggest you do not get picky over this issue, why? becuase technically the Lancaster is still in service with the RAF today

The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's

yes, untill we got more lincolns.............

A privateer is still a B24 airframe

stop the presses!

so, you think that you can redesign half a B-24 and still call it a B-24, but if you give a lancaster radial engines you no longer considder it a lancaster? does that seem odd to anyone else?

and again i wouldn't get picky over the privateer issue, why? because strictly speaking the Lincoln I and II started out as the lancaster IV and V respectively, so i could bring them in as lancs why haven't i yet? because it would be stupid.........

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years

during which time the lancaster proved itself to be a superior bomer.........

If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more usefull role of fire fighting

that's one more role that a plane we're not even arguing about did and 50% of the tiny fleet crashed anyway, that's without even being shot at, may i suggest you don't write home about this...........

The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios

please list the "could have" senarios we've suggested?

Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?

because the 1972 truck is available in numbers, is sufficient for the job, is cheap and needs little or no development costs..........

the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep

yes but remember it was classed as a mine and not a bomb............

B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar

in what numers? because most lancs had H2S by the war's end.........

Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc

problem is though you don't realise just how small that "tad" is...........

At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter

so did the lanc, and obviously many gunners took these opertunities as some got enough confirmed kills to become aces in their own right...........

If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort

why would the pilot be injured shortly after take off? and if any bomber has a problem after take off it will abort, if it's a serious problem, supposing the pilot of a B-24 is killed shortly after take off somehow, the mission will abort, they wouldn't say "oh well we'll go all the way to germany, we've still got one more pilot"...........

If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.

there are numerous stories of how lancaster pilots were seriously injured and they kept going, they could do this because the lanc was quite a forgiving aircraft at times, there's also a story of the pilot being knocked out, and the radio operator and navigator managed to fly the aircraft onto the target, then making it all the way back to england again, not bad going for crewmen who aren't pilots..........

bombers are trucks

numerous lancaster pilots said that the lancaster handled like a much smaller aircraft, they say that concorde handles like a fighter (numerous concorde pilots were infact fighter pilots previously), large doesn't always equal truck.............

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials

yeah and barely any horsepower, why do you think heavily laden lancs had good engine out charactoristics? becuase of the extra horsepower, the lanc could loose an engine and still have more power than a B-24.........

and why do you keep going on about the radials? more radial engined B-24s were lost than inline engined lancs, given you're logic if it was changed around (b-24s with inlines, lancs with radials, which may i remind you was done) then even fewer lancs would be lost and even more B-24s lost............

Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again

yes he does, which is odd given he doesn't believe in stats............

 

[FLYBOYJ]

General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.

And Doolittle prefered the B-17

And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.

cause it was!

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.

Dry sump vs. wet sump - same argument. There's no evidence that the Lancasters Mission Capable Rate or effectiveness was ever diminished becuase of this - you're grasping at straws!!!!

 

[syscom3]

Lanc, look at you statistics for both planes. Lancasters flew at night, B24's flew during the day. The B24 loss rate would be lower if it only flew at night and the Lancasters rate would be higher if it flew in the day. I believe in stats when they're put into perspective.

Ten .50's are far more effective than ten .303's, any way you cut it. And if there is one thing we all know about the .303 (or US .30), is it was next to useless against fighters. The .50 was effective at a far longer range than the pop guns carried on the Lanc.

Not all B24's had the H2S as they flew in the daytime in squadrons which meant only a few were needed. If they flew at nighttime, there was no reason to not equip more of them.

Lanc..... If the pilot on a Lanc is incapacitated after takeoff from a stomach ailment or whatever, the mission ends right then. On a B24, the other pilot can takeover flying the plane without interfering with the duties of the other aircrews. And like I said before. A pilot is a pilot. A flight engineer is a flight engineer. Anyone can fly the plane straight and level. But its flying a damaged aircraft through bad weather is where piloting skills come in. And the other crewmen wouldnt have that skill, because if they did, they would be classified as regular pilots.

Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree on the armament issue

Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.

Beside the alledegd problems with in line engines and coolant, another reason the US Navy stayed away from in line engines was becuase it would introduce another fluid within the stores aboard a carrier.

You again proved nothing to show that the inline configuration on the Lancaster was a detrement to its performance -

I've read that the RR Merlin was TBO'd at 150-200 hours, some of the Packard engines in Mustangs were TBO'd at 400 hours. Allegedly the R2800 had wartime TBOs 3x that but in many cases some of the aircraft that utilized them had 2 or 3 engine changes when on an overseas hop.

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001242;p=0

Here's a comment from a former RCAF radio operator who flew Lancs in the Paciafic in the post war...

"During WWII I used to listen to a radio program called "L for Lanky" and my hero was Sparks the radio op . Little did I know that about 12 years later I was to be "Sparks" in Lancs for almost 1700 hours . In all that time I NEVER experienced an abort due to a mechanical malfunction although a few test flights got exciting at times . Flying at 300 feet or below over the Pacific Ocean it was comforting to see those four fans turning over . Definitely my favorite aircraft of anything I ever flew in .
Fred Burton Age 67
Oakville, ON Canada - June 26, 2003"

 

[Nonskimmer]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Joe.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Joe.

Thanks NS - I'm assuming he was an ASW guy....

 

[Nonskimmer]

I won't hold it against him.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"My father, John H. White was a Captain and Gunnery Instructor with the United States Fifteenth Air Force, 449th Bomb Group, 718th Armament Section, based in Taranto, Italy during World War II.
I decided to interview him for material and opinion for this web page.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the name?
The B-24 Liberator was also known as the "Flying Boxcar" for its shape and also as the "Flying Coffin" due to the early mishaps caused by a faulty tail design. I believe the British gave the B-24 the name "Liberator" due to the crisis in England and the reliability of the bomber. Supposedly, the President of Consolidated, Reuben Fleet said, "This airplane can carry destruction to the heart of the Hun, and thus help us to liberate those nations finding themselves under Hitler's yoke." From this point forward, the Allies stuck with the nickname. The Liberator web site at the University of Western Ontario concurs with this opinion. (www.csd.uwo.ca)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Controversy over the B-17 and the B-24?
The B-24 "Lib or Liberator" had increased range and could fly higher and slightly faster than the B-17 "Forts or Flying Fortresses." In addition, it could carry a heavier bomb load. However, many pilots stated that they preferred the B-17, claiming it was much easier to fly and was far easier to keep in the tight bombing formations necessary over Europe.
The B-24 was also terrible to crash land, as the shutter-type bomb bay doors invariably rolled up upon impact, after which the fuselage had a tendency to buckle and break apart.
The crews in the Pacific relayed to operations that they dreaded the prospect of ditching at sea, as the aforementioned doors would pop and allow the fuselage to fill with sea water, causing the aircraft to sink rapidly."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ite/talk.htm+B-24+Liberator+reliability&hl=en

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And one more real interesting bit of information.....

In 1943, US General G. C. Kenney (commander of Allied Air Forces in South West Pacific) decided that RAAF should form seven bomber squadrons equipped with Liberators. The first B-24s were intended to be supplied to 99 Squadron (scheduled to be formed in March 1944 in Queensland), but a withdrawal of the Vultee Vengeance of 21, 23 and 24 Squadrons from New Guinea meant that Liberators would be supplied to these squadrons first.

Australian crews were attached to 380th BG for training and operational experience. The first bombers were delivered in February 1944 to 7 OTU and then to 24 Squadron. The 21 Squadron was operational in January 1945 and 23 Squadron three months later. Other RAAF operational units equipped with B-24s were: Nos 12, 99, 25 and 102 Squadrons. Also Nos 200 and 201 Flights flew Liberators on electronic surveillance and covert missions.

Australian heavy bombers played an important role during the last months of the war, particularly in the Borneo campaign. Total of 287 aircraft were delivered to RAAF including 12 B-24Ds, 145 B-24Js, 83 B-24Ls and 47 B-24Ms. They remained in service until 1948 and were replaced by Avro Lincolns.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7252/b24.htm

Hmmm - I wonder why the Aussies decided to replace their B-24s with Lincolns when there were THOUSANDS of B-24s, some late model "Ms" sitting at Kingman Arizona?!?!

Oh the Lincoln is the same airframe as is the Privateer is to the Liberator?!?

 

[syscom3]

The Aussies were still loyal to Britain. They probably got those Lincs cause they ahd low hours on them. Did you notice it was 1948, which was three years after the war? Plus who cares. While the Brits were still toying with the Lincoln, we had the B50 and B36.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Aussies were still loyal to Britain. They probably got those Lincs cause they ahd low hours on them. Did you notice it was 1948, which was three years after the war? Plus who cares. While the Brits were still toying with the Lincoln, we had the B50 and B36.

Loyal to the UK?!?! WRONG!!!!!
It proved it was the better bomber - I've worked with Aussies, they'll purchase equipment they feel will give them the best bang for their buck. They purchased P-51s and Sabers during the same period as well - Products from the US and Canada...

It also once again proves the longevity of this aircraft compared to the Liberator

"By late 1945, the RAAF had received or ordered about 500 P-51 Mustangs, for fighter/ground attack purposes. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation initially assembled US-made Mustangs, but later manufactured most of those used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF

"The type was produced under licence by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation in Australia, re-engined with the Rolls-Royce Avon, and also by Canadair in Canada. Later improvements led to the F-100 Super Sabre, which was a larger aircraft with more powerful engines.

Sabre Mk 2 - 290 built.
Sabre Mk 3 - One aircraft built in Canada, to test the Orenda jet engine.
Sabre Mk 4 - 438 built in Canada for the RAF.
Sabre Mk 5 - 370 built.
Sabre Mk 6 - 655 built.
Sabre Mk 30 - 21 built in Australia for the RAAF.
Sabre Mk 31 - 20 built in Australia for the RAAF.
Sabre mk 32 - 69 built in Australia for the RAAF."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86

And the Lincolns they got were new - the first few were built from "knockdown kits" - parts made in the UK....

Here's a list of RAAF Lincolns.....

A73-1 Mk.30 05/46 First Australia Assembled Lincoln, assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. First Flight 12/03/46. Listed for disposal 06/59, converted to componants.
A73-2 Mk.30 08/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. 'Nyhuan' Long Range Navigation Trainer and Survey Aircraft. At some stage it was fitted with seats to be used as a transport and had no turrets. Converted to componants 12/53.
A73-3 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-4 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-5 Mk.30 09/46 Assembled in Australia from parts made in Britain. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-6 Mk.30 11/46 First Australian Manufactured Lincoln. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-7 Mk.30 01/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-8 Mk.30 11/46 'Gundawarra' of Air Amraments School. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-9 Mk.30 06/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-10 Mk.30 07/47 Listed for disposal 10/58. Fire Dump Point Cook VIC.
A73-11 Mk.30 04/47 Served with 21 Sqn. Stalled and Crashed, 19/02/48. RAAF Amberly QLD. All 16 onboard killed.
A73-12 Mk.30 05/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-13 Mk.30 06/47 Listed for disposal 10/58. Fire Dump Point Cook VIC.
A73-14 Mk.30 07/47 Converted to Long Range Comms Aircraft. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-15 Mk.30 07/47 'Brenool' of of School of Air Navagation. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-16 Mk.30 07/47 Disabled Cloncurry QLD, 04/53, then hit by A73-51 while it was landing, converted to componants.
A73-17 Mk.30 08/47 Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-18 Mk.30 09/47 Converted to Long Range Comms Aircraft. At some stage it was fitted with seats to be used as a transport and had no turrets. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-19 Mk.30 11/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-20 Mk.30 10/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-21 Mk.30 11/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-22 Mk.30 11/47 Instructional Airframe, Wagga. Then Wagga Fire Dump.
A73-23 Mk.30 12/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-24 Mk.30 02/48 Served at Tengah Singapore during the Malayan Emergency 1950. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-25 Mk.30A 02/48 Listed for disposal 06/59. Fire Dumb RAAF Amberly QLD.
A73-26 Mk.30A 12/47 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-27 Mk.30A 02/48 Listed for Disposal 01/59 then Fire Dump Sydney. Cockpit on display Camden Aviation Museum NSW.
A73-28 Mk.30A 07/47 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Listed for disposal 09/60.
A73-29 Mk.30A 04/48 Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Used for rainmaking experiments in 1958. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-30 Mk.30A 04/48 Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-31 Mk.30A 07/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On the 04/04/52, this aircraft departed with a load of bombs for a mission and not long after takeoff had a motor cut and returned to base. The crew used another aircraft A73-46 to complete their mission. Crashed on Landing 04/53, RAAF Amberly QLD. Converted to componants.
A73-32 Mk.30A 07/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-33 Mk.30A 08/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-34 Mk.30A 10/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-35 Mk.30A 09/48 Crashed on Landing 03/49, RAAF Amberly QLD. Converted to componants.
A73-36 Mk.30A 11/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. During a night strike a parachute flare became hung up in the bomb bay. The flare ignited and set fire to the aircraft. The tail Gunner Flt lt K.I.Foster put out the fire and was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. The first RAAF member since WW2. The Badly damaged aircraft returned to base, it was cannibalised for spares for a short time before being rebuilt and flown back to Australia. Later to Fire Dump Richmond, noted there 09/61. Later it was used for trials on new 50 Ton aircraft lifting cranes. On the last lift of A73-36, the operator jerked the boom on lowering, and it broke the Lincolns back.
A73-37 Mk.30A 12/48 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-38 Mk.30A 02/49 Converted to Prototype Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-39 Mk.30A 02/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Overshot Runway 30/11/51, Tengah Singapore after completing a test flight after a 100 hour inspection. Pilot: WO Peel. The wreck was onsite at Tengah until it was converted to componants and scrapped.
A73-40 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On one flight the aircrafts engines failed after the fire extinguishers were inadvertantly operated, they were obviously restarted - date unknown. On the 25/05/56 the tailwheel broke off upon landing at Tengah, the tail fins were badly damaged and couldnt be repaired until some new parts arrived from Australia. Pilot Sqn Ldr Britt. Had an Engine failure and struck Trees after takeoff at Tengah for a night strike and ditched 01/02/57. The crew survived with minor injuries. Pilot: Sqn Ldr E Goldner.
A73-41 Mk.30A 07/49 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-42 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-43 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Damaged by Cyclone at Townsville, 03/56. Converted to componants.
A73-44 Mk.30A 08/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Crashed near RAAF Amberly, 03/50.
A73-45 Mk.30A 09/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Listed for disposal 01/59. Then Fire Dump Sydney Airport.
A73-46 Mk.30A 10/49 Converted to Long Range Navigation Aircraft 1949. Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. On the 04/04/52 after the crew had a problem with A73-31, the same crew used this aircraft to complete its mission. On their return they found that the aircraft had a fault in its compressed air system. They rigged up a parrachute that was deployed once tha aircraft landed. The aircraft stopped in half the Tengah airstrip, usually the aircraft used 3 quarters. Overshot Runway at Townsville and burned 04/57.
A73-47 Mk.30A 01/50 Destroyed in a storm, 03/02/57, RAAF Amberley. Converted to componants.
A73-48 Mk.30A 03/50 Prototype Mk 31, Stored 04/54. Listed for Disposal 06/59.
A73-49 Mk.30A 05/50 Listed for disposal 09/59.
A73-50 Mk.30A 11/48 Served with 1 Sqn during Malayan Emergency. Listed for disposal 01/59. Then Fire Dump Eagle Farm QLD.
A73-51 Mk.30A 11/48 Hit disabled A73-16 on landing, Cloncurry QLD 04/53. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-52 Mk.30A 08/50 In Storage 04/55. Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-53 Mk.30A 09/50 Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-54 Mk.30A 11/48 Destroyed in a storm, 03/02/57, RAAF Amberley. Converted to componants.
A73-55 Mk.30 ? Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31).
A73-56 Mk.30 12/50 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-57 Mk.30 ? Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31).
A73-59 Mk.30 05/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Then Converted to Aircrew Trainer 07/55.
A73-60 Mk.30 05/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Firefighting aid 1962.
A73-61 Mk.30 06/51 Converted to Ground Recon Aircraft (Mk.31). Then Maritime Recon Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-62 Mk.30 08/51 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-63 Mk.30 12/52 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Crashed Townsville, 03/53.
A73-64 Mk.30 02/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Crashed Mt Superbus QLD, 04/55 while on Mercy Flight. Crew and Pax; WG CDR J.P. Costello, SQN LDR J.W. Finlay, SQN LDR C.S. Mason, FLT LT W.G.S. Cater, M. Grey (Nurse), Baby Huxley (Patient). A prop blade and a rudder from A73-64 are currently located at the Caboolture Warplane Museum. A rock from the crash site of this aircraft on Mt. Superbus has also been relocated to outside RAAF Amberley (under Canberra A84-201).
A73-65 Mk.30 05/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. To Fire Dump Darwin.
A73-66 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-67 Mk.30 03/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-68 Mk.30 05/53 Converted to Maritime Recon Aircraft (Mk.31) prior to delivery. Sold to Hookway Aviation 06/62 for scrap.
A73-69 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Fuselage Damaged 01/56, Converted to Componants.
A73-70 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Damaged by cyclone at Townsville QLD. Converted to componants.
A73-71 Mk.30 07/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. In storage until listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-72 Mk.30 08/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. In storage until listed for disposal 06/59.
A73-73 Mk.30 09/53 Converted to Mk.31. prior to delivery. Listed for disposal 06/59.

You were saying?!?

 

[syscom3]

Did they fly the Lincolns in the war? Nooooooooooooooo. They flew B24's because they thought they were the best aircraft to use in the PTO.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did they fly the Lincolns in the war? Nooooooooooooooo. They flew B24's because they thought they were the best aircraft to use in the PTO.

Come on sys - you're grabbing at straws again!!!

"The Avro Lincoln was a long-range, high altitude version of the successful Avro Lancaster four-engined bomber. The first RAF Lincoln BI flew on June 9, 1944, and operational squadrons were preparing to join Tiger force in the war against Japan, when V-J Day was declared."

I will say they held on to their B-24s for a few years BUT - gave em up for the Lincoln, and again reminding you they did this while several thousand B-24s sat in the Arizona desert.

AND....

I think it already was posted that the Lancaster was not available to the Aussies, the reason why they went with the B-24 to begin with...

AND.....

Look at the retirement dates of some of those Lincolns!!!

 

[syscom3]

The retirement dates of the Lincolns? 1959..... hehehehehe, theyre using Lincolns while we have B52's....... heheheheheh.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The retirement dates of the Lincolns? 1959..... hehehehehe, theyre using Lincolns while we have B52's....... heheheheheh.

Yes, but during that time there were only 3 or 4 B-24s left operationally, all with the Indian AF.....

Oh and in 1959 we were still flying B-29s!!!


http://137.240.249.5/pa/fs_b-29.asp