Lancaster Vs. B-24

[the lancaster kicks ass]

are you totally oblivious to the difference in size of the production lines we're talking about, at it's peak the ENTIRE A.V. Roe production group (that accounts for every factory, excluding the canadian one) employed 29,000 staff for lancaster production, willow run alone exployed 42,000, does that mean nothing to you?

you're not proving anything with this argument, i'm willing to drop it..........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you have all the componants needed to build a sub assembly, it can be built in no time at all.

Wrong! How long to you think it will take to assemble this!?

Ribs and formers are jig located and positioned. All longerons have to be layed up, drilled, deburred, temporially installed with "clecos" (do you know what that is?) and then riveted together. You could only stick so many people within the assembly to do this....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

are you totally oblivious to the difference in size of the production lines we're talking about, at it's peak the ENTIRE A.V. Roe production group (that accounts for every factory, excluding the canadian one) employed 29,000 staff for lancaster production, willow run alone exployed 42,000, does that mean nothing to you?

you're not proving anything with this argument, i'm willing to drop it..........

I don't think our friend Sys had a clue how long it takes to assemble an aircraft sub assembly, especially one entirely riveted together...

 

[syscom3]

If twenty five B24's rolled off the assembly line, then 25 B24's rolled off the assembly line. Sub assembly assembly time is irrelevent. What counts is the total number of bombers produced per day/week/month.

Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.

And the B24 still stands as being more efficient to build as if the Lanc design was as good, then it could be built just as fast.

Perhaps theres something in its design that held up the mass production? Perhaps the wings were complex enough it couldnt be built fast?

Lets see some numbers.

None of this conjecture.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.

WRONG - There are government inspectors that will make sure every part on the drawing is accounted for -

If you do that in the civilian world the FAA would fine and bring criminal action unless any deviations are documented.....

 

[Gnomey]

I agree with you FBJ, what matters is the total time to produce 1 bomber from it's components not the time it takes to assemble 1 bomber from sub assemblies.

Found this pic of a Lancaster production line:

 

[FLYBOYJ]

what matters is the total time to produce 1 bomber from it's components not the time it takes to assemble 1 bomber from sub assemblies.

YEP!!

Oh - nice photo! 8)

 

[Glider]

Willow Run built a B24 per hour. Are you denying that? (Im saying 60 minuts is more or less 56 minutes in the scheme of things).
Many people have told you that you can complete a plane an hour but not build one

The Lincoln was more or less a beefed up Lanc? Right?
Wrong. It had so many differences it was renamed and new factories were needed. Try looking it up

And in 1943, the UK was not subject to the mass bomb raids of 1940 and 1941.
We had air raids until mid 1944. Not as heavy certainly but we couldn't ignore the danger. Plus of course the thousands of V1's that were launched against us and the hundreds of V2's

And your "shadow" factories would still be nearby the assembly plant(s).
Depends on the bit your producing.
Depen

 

[Glider]

You would think that I would hav the hang of using quotes by now wouldn't you.

 

[syscom3]

Ive never heard of an airplane being flown into service without a major structural assembly. Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.

WRONG - There are government inspectors that will make sure every part on the drawing is accounted for -

If you do that in the civilian world the FAA would fine and bring criminal action unless any deviations are documented.....

Im refering to the 2nd world war aircraft. The USAAF gave waivers whenever it wanted just to get aircraft in service.

Why did you think I would compare commercial aircraft of these days as opposed ot 1941-1945?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Im refering to the 2nd world war aircraft. The USAAF gave waivers whenever it wanted just to get aircraft in service.

So am I - the USAAF was not going to allow half built aircraft in service, if so they would of left out armor plate, self sealing tanks and radios.

Why did you think I would compare commercial aircraft of these days as opposed ot 1941-1945?

Becuase of your own words..

Theres been plenty of planes flown into service minus parts that dont distract from its airworthyness.

 

[syscom3]

Self sealing tanks are important enough. So why would the production planners allow the wings to be built without them?

And armour plate can be installed at depots or on the tarmac while the plane is readied for acceptance. You think an assembly line would be stopped over that? I think not.

Note - this discussion is about WW2 bombers not year 2005 commercial aircraft. Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.

 

[lesofprimus]

Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.

Thats a pretty brash statement there...

 

[syscom3]

Because the subject of this post is Lanc vs B24 in the war years, and has nothing to do with commercial aircraft manufacture of 2005.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Self sealing tanks are important enough. So why would the production planners allow the wings to be built without them?

Initial production B-17s, P-40s, SDBs and B-24s were built without them.

And armour plate can be installed at depots or on the tarmac while the plane is readied for acceptance. You think an assembly line would be stopped over that? I think not.

No it wouldn't - but it also won't be sent in combat without them.

Note - this discussion is about WW2 bombers not year 2005 commercial aircraft. Dont use twisted logic to imply Im reffering to today and not 65 years ago.

Hey, your words were quoted, not mine....

 

[syscom3]

I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today.

I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011

And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.

Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today.

I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011

and the B-24 was still easier to build?!?

And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.

Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.

And that was the ORIGINAL intent of mod centers!!!! All that stuff plus the guns and radios were "GFE." Installing that stuff after production was probably one of the only situation of an aircraft "legally" leaving the factory "incomplete."

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Syscom it is really easy for you to tell people how aircraft are built and made when you have never built or worked on a plane. I have never built one but I work on them and repair them every day. I see the complex things that go into them, the structure, the sparring, the ribs, the electrical wiring and components, the flight controls (you try taking them apart and putting them back together let alone build them in 1 hour! ). Listen to people like FBJ and myself who have some understanding of this. Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.

About 100 P-3s, 4 F-117s, 20 L-1011s and 3 B-2s...


Thanks Adler....

It was a fact that more B-24s were built. To say it was easier to build or designed for mass producibility is false. As already stated, factories were built around the bomber and an a huge manufacturing infrastructure was thrown at the program. Any American aircraft could of been subjected to the same numbers if they were given the chance under Charles Sorrenson. The B-24 was hastily designed as reflected in some of its featrures (ie. no MLG doors). Ruben Fleet pushed the design team to meet the original contract requirements. Had the B-24 been given more time during its design phase, it probably would of looked more like the XB-32.

"The "Liberator", as it became known, was conceived in haste and it showed it. That statement, however, in no way detracts from the remarkable job that Laddono and his crew of engineers did, given the deadline they labored under. Nevertheless, when Davis bitterly remarked later that with wing such as his, "leaving the main landing gear half exposed when retracted was almost sacrilegious," he had a point. Furthermore, the bomb bay doors which rolled up the sides of the fuselage, while easily facilitating bomb loading on the ground, were far from air tight when closed, and when aloft, the draft in the rear end of the aircraft was fierce. The various systems in the airplane also left a lot of room for improvement. Fuel gages looked like something from a basement furnace boiler; the fuel transfer system seemed to have been designed by Rube Goldberg. If you can imagine an engineer abroad the B-24 crawling down that narrow catwalk between the bomb bays to affix a "U" hose to an electrical pump to transfer fuel, you begin to get an idea.


The three best features of the B-24 were its wing, the reliable Pratt Whitney engines (R-1830s of 1200 hp) and its tricycle landing gear. The latter made the B-24 easy to land and since the wing was through flying once the aircraft touched down there was no tendency to bounce once the aircraft touched down. The rival B-17, on the other hand, with its so-called conventional gear and thick wing, would float if the airspeed on landing was the slightest bit too high, and most pilots "wheeled it in" - that is landed on the main gear and then lowered the tail wheel, in order not to bounce back into the air. Properly handled, though, the B-17 could make a very nice three point landing, and it was a forgiving aircraft."

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/requiem.htm

 

[book1182]

Agreed FBJ.

I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.

One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.

Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24. Two bombers with different missions. What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.