Lancaster Vs. B-24

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.

Wanna Bet?!?

"Perhaps at this point I should say that I flew both airplanes and preferred the Liberator. The B-24 was faster than the B-17, but it could not reach the altitudes that the Fortress could. (A fact that the Lib pilots envied.) The B-24 was heavier on the controls than the B-17, but its response was crisp and instant when properly rigged (although not many were.) Unlike the later B-29, which I also flew, the lateral control response on the B-24 was instant, and it was a highly maneuverable aircraft. I surprised many a P-38 pilot when, with a lightly loaded Lib, I could drop half flaps and turn inside of the Lightning."

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

 

[syscom3]

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.

Not a thing to do with a full bomb load, HOWEVER

We're talking about turning if you're able to add more power you could remain in the turn without loosing altitude or airspeed and keep the same bank angle....provided you keep half flaps....

 

[cheddar cheese]

Also, remember Lancasters are generally accepted as the most manoeverable 4 engined heavy. Also remember the fact that night fighters arent expected to be manoeverable as dogfighting at night didnt really exist, Lancasters on many occasion managed to shake Ju-88's and suchlike by out manoevering them. Ok it didnt always work and doing it with a bombload will make things harder, but it did happen.

 

[syscom3]

Once a fighter has a visual on a 4 engine bomber, it will be able to maneuver at will and put it in its gun sight.

 

[syscom3]

Once a fighter has a visual on a 4 engine bomber, it will be able to maneuver at will and put it in its gun sight.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Its night time remember. Seeing what and where another plane is doing at night is hard. Especially when your guns actually have to hit the bomber, and the bombers guns can just spray a load of bullets to try and deter the attacker, at the same time as out manoevering.

 

[Erich]

out manoevering is not the right term, as it could not do that with a German nf whether single engine or twin engine. Providing a corkscrew with a violent jolt up and down and then sideways is a possibility but this is not known as out - manoevering

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While I agree somewhat with you CC, in the end the fighter can still outmaneuver a Lanc if it wishes and in the end if the Lanc shakes it loose, the fighter can still come around and get him. Yes at night it will be harder but also look at the German night fighter radar which was getting pretty accurate.

 

[Erich]

inexperienced GErman nf pilots were too eager to attack from the rear and slightly below which would give their ID away to the lanc rear gunner who then of course would give the call to the pilot and the corkscrew would begin and the heavy could eveade. During 1945 the German crews with some kills to the more experienced would actually "dare" the RAF crew to do this and would just watch with their eyes and time the rear attack as the RAF Lanc or Hali would come out of the death defying leap and plunge and then let fly with 2cm rounds

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sys read up on the lanc, many a pilot have said she handles like a much smaller twin engined plane, she could very easily be barrel rolled and there are examples of her being put through an entire loop-the-loop at night to evade german fighters................

also it's generally accepted that 90% of attacking fighters would break off an attack if they knew the rear gunner of the bomber had seen them (normally indicated by a burst of fire), it was much easier for the attacking fighter to go off and look for another plane with a less vigilant crew, why? because he knows once he's spotted, unlike the Americans, the RAF bombers would go into evasive manoeuvres so...

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass

...isn't true at night..........

Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

let me introduce you to one of the more common "evasive" manoeuvres, it's actually very simple and quite hard to counter, ok, so, the rear gunner of a lanc at night sees an attacking fighter getting into position, he gives it a few bursts to see if he can scare jerry off, but jerry's more determined, so, the rear gunner sees the fighter closing in (they often had to get in close in order to identify the target) so he shouts to the flight engineer over the intercom "attacking fighter- prepare to drop" to which he hopes to get the reply "prepared to drop", then, when the rear gunner shouts "DROP" what do you think the flight engineer does? speed up? tells the pilot to go into violent manoeuvres? no, he all but closes all the throttles! this causes the aircraft to slow down very quickly, what's the point of this? well now jerry's going to overshoot! and will more than likely not come round again, and don't even think about a head on pass! opening of the throttles would then bring the aircraft beck to normal, total time for manoeuvre? 5-10 seconds? so not only was loosing speed used as a defence, this would only be done if the aircraft would gain speed quickly again, which the lanc did, this move was sometimes combined with a corkscrew, sometimes it would be very effective, sometimes jerry was a bit wiser, well, you win some you loose some...............

 

[Erich]

and Deutsche Nachtjäger waiting for her to come down out of the lopp to get fried by German 2cm

 

[syscom3]

Erich can confirm whether your night fighting evasions where effective or not. The Luftwaffe pilots were not going to disengage just because the tail gunner was shooting at them. If they were brave enough to go up against .50's during the day, they werent going to be afraid of .303's at night.

The Lanc doing barrel rolls? Unless you can provide evidence of that I'd say it was highly improbable. And if the Lanc was as maneuverable as you make it out to be, why wasnt it converted to an over sized fighter?
Maneuverable for its size I agree with. More maneuverable than small fighter planes? Nope.

Some nights had bad visibility which made it hard to reaquire visual contacts. Some nights had good enough visibility that no matter what the Lanc did, it was not going to break off contact.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I am not going to say the Lanc could do Barrel Rolls because I do not know if it could or not, but a C-130 can do a Barrel Roll so why cant a Lancaster?

 

[syscom3]

Imagine a Lanc loaded with 20,000 lbs of bombs, a full load of fuel, and then doing barrel rolls.

And C130's as a matter of policy dont do barrel rolls.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes but I have seen it an Airshow. It was a British C-130 at the 1998 Air Feat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Although the Lancaster was very maneuverable for its size, in general its bad for any large mulit-engine aircraft with wing mounted recip engines to be subjected to adverse maneuvers. Many multi-engine American WW2 aircraft prohibited spins in the POH.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed

 

[Glider]

Concord's did a number of barrel roles. They wanted to do it at an air display, Farnborough?) but were banned because they didn't want to worry potential passengers. So I don't see why a C130 couldn't do it. If done well the G forces are very low.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Concord's did a number of barrel roles. They wanted to do it at an air display, Farnborough?) but were banned because they didn't want to worry potential passengers. So I don't see why a C130 couldn't do it. If done well the G forces are very low.

A 130 could do it - it's a matter of continual exposure. Additionally the C-130 had several "TCTOs" (Time Compliance Change Order) which is like a service bulletin to modify the wing, earlier C-130s were notorious for having wing cracks.

A former USAF C-130 that didn't fully comply with the TCTO and was operating as a fire bomber crashed because of wing failure in an area close to where I used to live.