Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[Erich]

As for RAF 4 engine jobs I could never understand why the belly was not covered as the German Schräge-Musik weapon(s) were so effective on the under sides of the fuselage and wings...........

yes please find the article on the B-24. would love to read it.

E ~

 

[MP-Willow]

Thanks I will try. I found it while looking for somthing elts and now I will try.

 

[plan_D]

You'll never find it while trying to, it always happens.
I think the RAF 4-engined bombers cared more for payload, as they were bombing at night. Having less guns is less weight, and more room which gives you a larger bomb-bay, and more excess lift for more weight in bombs.

 

[Lightning Guy]

That was an advantage but was partially offset by the ammunition the RAF bombers carried. Yes .303cal is a lot light than .50cal but the tail turret on a Lanc had 10,000 rounds! I haven't run the numbers but I imagine the weight in ammo for a US and a British heavy bomber would be pretty similar.

 

[MP-Willow]

10,000 rounds, if only a B-24 could have had that

I have a question for you all? In my surch for all things Liberator I am baffled by that in the program they never increased the P&W engines from the 1200hp. Even with the greater armor, guns gear, and bombs. Why not have moved up to the larger P&W engines? I can only think it was because the couls had to fit and the wing design. Any thoughts?

 

[cheddar cheese]

what i don't get is how the B-17 had more armour than the lanc, but the lanc was heavier...............

errrrrm...because the b-17 had a carbon fibre space frame fuselage?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

That was an advantage but was partially offset by the ammunition the RAF bombers carried. Yes .303cal is a lot light than .50cal but the tail turret on a Lanc had 10,000 rounds! I haven't run the numbers but I imagine the weight in ammo for a US and a British heavy bomber would be pretty similar.

i doubt it, the B-17 carried 1.5 tons of ammo on a normal mission, and that's with a mer 4 tons of bombs

I think the RAF 4-engined bombers cared more for payload, as they were bombing at night. Having less guns is less weight, and more room which gives you a larger bomb-bay, and more excess lift for more weight in bombs.

you're right, the lanc was 69ft long, with a 33 ft long bomb bay, that left no room for a dorsal posistion................

 

[MP-Willow]

Ok lanc it you say "no room" then why is your nice color photo of the Lanc showing a dorsal gun? Or the different information and photos I seen with it. Some with 4 .303 guns others twin .5?

 

[plan_D]

The Liberator was probably fine, and there was no need for an uprated engine. If not being that, fitting would have been a problem.

The Lancasters with dorsal guns probably had a smaller bomb bay.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Lanc, I was referring to the fact that the fewer guns of the Lancaster did not make that much difference as those guns carried more ammo than an American plane (a considerable amount of weight). MP-Willow, the PB4Y2 Privateer was a naval version of the B-24 featuring a single tail. It's engines were rated at 1350bhp each. However, they were unsupercharged since patrol bombers spend their time at lower levels.

 

[plan_D]

You forget the weight of the guns though, add weight of ammo (even if less) you have a lot more weight. And the B-17s were higher calibre, which is a heavier gun as well as ammo.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I decided that I should run the numbers and I believe the B-17's guns and ammo weighed about twice that of a Lanc. So I was wrong on that point.

That being said I still believe the longer bombbay of the Lanc and the more powerful engines were what allowed in a heavier bombload.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

then why is your nice color photo of the Lanc showing a dorsal gun?

because all lancs carried a dorsal turret, there was no room for a dorsal and ventral...............

That being said I still believe the longer bombbay of the Lanc and the more powerful engines were what allowed in a heavier bombload.

true, also the lanc had less crew and other things a daylight bomber needs.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Lanc could carry a dorsal and ventral turret. Granted it was very cramped, but could be done.

 

[MP-Willow]

LG, thanks for the reminder of the Priviteer. I have read about it, but have not remembered the engines. But then I like the PB4Y1 with the twin tail, but that said thanks for the help. Still would have liked to see it atleast tested on the Liberators. With 5 plants putting out airframes why not let one say the Conalidated plant in Sandiago work up a prototype. so the Js could have had the speed proformance that they once had. i should read up more on the engines. It is an interesting thought.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The Lanc could carry a dorsal and ventral turret. Granted it was very cramped, but could be done.

only 150 were fitted with both................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Thus it could be done. And removing the ventral guns had more to do with their ineffectiveness that the space they took up.

 

[plan_D]

Or you they could have tried to fit Rolls-Royce Merlin straights in the Liberator...

The Ventral and Dorsal guns could be done on the Lanc, but that's more crew, more weight and more to go wrong. So, you've either got less bombload or less range none of which you want to lose.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I don't think it really made THAT much difference. We are only talking about a few hundred pounds for turret, ammo, and crewman (not that much when talking about a 30 ton plane) and the drag on the ventral turret was minimal.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

they must of had their reasons or they wouldn't have taken it off..............