Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Eng: the Canadian built Lancasters were capable of the same Bomb loads as those built in the UK. 6-Group Lancaster took a bomb load of 14,000 lbs to Wangerooge on 25-April-1945. And as mentioned above, the 5-Group Lancs had different bomb loads depending on engine type. 6-Group flew a longer route than squadrons further south in the UK, to the same target, but the Bohlen force flew a pretty lengthy route that night. I would have to calculate the distances and compare with 6-Group. Bohlen route in Yellow:
March 5-6, 1945 Target Chemnitz Route. All layers - Google My Maps
Map includes route and turning points with Seale's Nav Log entries, "Y" Reports and 100-Group operationswww.google.com
The Bohlen force followed along just behind the Chemnitz force before turning SSE towards Bohlen.
Jim
Yes, I've gone through the ORB's (541's) for these and I'm certain on the 419 and 428 squadron bomb loads. For the most part they match the Form B's (operational orders). I haven't looked at 1-Group though, to see if there were different bomb loads by engine type.Hi Jim,
Yes, no probs with your details. I am just responding to your points that concentrate on engine types to some degree and trying to offer possible considerations that might apply from my own experience of Ops on more modern types and known engine data.
I would have thought that there is strong PRO data on these specific raids? Beyond that, the Command and Group orders at the time would have had all manner of specifics that might not be recoverable today. Also, I would suggest there were also specific reasons that peculiar things were done.
You might find that you can access the F540 from the particular squadrons and discover interesting info, although the quality of F540 information is a mixed bag.
Great to hear these raid specific details!
Cheers
Eng
The important take-away I have from this is the Lancaster III with the PM 224 had a 10,000 lb load. So why weren't the Lanaster X's with the PM 224's permitted with a higher load? On the same night as this raid to Bohlen, Dad flew KB.865 to Chemnitz. He had a 2154 gallon petrol load and the same bomb load as all of the lancasters with the PM-38 engine (7,500 lbs). He could have carried 9,500 lbs. In fact, at no time, Feb-April 1945, did 6-Group Lancaster X's with PM-224 carry a higher load than the PM-38 equipped aircraft. A question for the OC 6-Group I suppose.
. This led to the practice of some crews, in heavily laden aircraft, to jettison part of their bomb load over the North Sea in order to lighten the aircraft and allow it to climb to a higher altitude.
Geoffrey: I hadn't looked as closely at your post here, but I notice the "Merlin 33" engine, which I confirm is identified on the Movement Cards you have referenced above. Harry Holmes doesn't mention this type. What was the HP of the Merlin 33 and was it a RR engine or made by Packard?
KB700 has Merlin 28, KB701 no engine type, KB702 and 3 are missing, KB704 has Merlin 38. From then on until KB775 where the aircraft card is present and the engine listed it is Merlin 38, with the following exceptions
KB731 Merlin 31 or a very skinny 8?.
KB745, KB752, KB754, KB756 Merlin 33
Then there is a change over
Merlin 224, KB776, KB777 (Overwriting 38?), KB779, KB781
Merlin 38, KB778, KB780, KB782
KB783 onwards where the aircraft card is present and the engine listed it is Merlin 224, except Merlin 38 in KB799. Then comes any engine changes in service.
According to the British, Merlin 28 production ended in February 1943, 5,200 built. Merlin 31 had 560 built March 1942 to February 1943. Merlin 38 production began in March 1943, Merlin 33 in April 1943. The report ends in November 1943, by which time 880 Merlin 33 (production ending in October?) and 6,286 Merlin 38 had been built. Production of single stage Merlins for the US ending in March 1943.
Geoffrey: I hadn't looked as closely at your post here, but I notice the "Merlin 33" engine, which I confirm is identified on the Movement Cards you have referenced above. Harry Holmes doesn't mention this type. What was the HP of the Merlin 33 and was it a RR engine or made by Packard?
Anyone?
Thanks!
Jim
Thanks for the clarification. So yet another engine variant to consider for the Mk X. Similar to the 38 for HP.From Alec Harvey-Bailey : Merlin 33 is a Packard-built Merlin 23 with British-type 2-pieces cylinder blocks, and is same as Merlin 38 except reverse flow colling. Initially intended for canadian and australian-built Mosquitoes.
The same book gives 1400 hp at take-off for Merlin 33 and 1635 hp for Merlin 224. And no Merlin 228....
Geoffrey: I hadn't looked as closely at your post here, but I notice the "Merlin 33" engine, which I confirm is identified on the Movement Cards you have referenced above. Harry Holmes doesn't mention this type. What was the HP of the Merlin 33 and was it a RR engine or made by Packard?
Anyone?
Thanks!
Jim