the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well you don't know unless you have summit to compare it two, it could be suprisingly good............
it isn't though..................
it isn't though..................
Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?
- Thread starter bronzewhaler82
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
cheddar cheese
Major General
But any fool can see how bad it is, and couple that to the previous comment its easy to see it was bad...
Nonskimmer
Captain
First, let me start by saying that I am certainly no expert on the Lancaster.
Now by the account of my granddad, who piloted one, the plane was a "right royal bitch" to get out of. The pilot couldn't fit through the cockpit door with a parachute on. A dream to fly, he said, but a terror to get out of.
He never exactly commented on which position was the worst, and quite honestly it didn't occur to me to ask him.
When I see him next, I'll try to remember to ask him about it. He's now in his eighties, and the memories may be a little faded, but I'd be interested to hear his views on the subject!
Now by the account of my granddad, who piloted one, the plane was a "right royal bitch" to get out of. The pilot couldn't fit through the cockpit door with a parachute on. A dream to fly, he said, but a terror to get out of.
He never exactly commented on which position was the worst, and quite honestly it didn't occur to me to ask him.
When I see him next, I'll try to remember to ask him about it. He's now in his eighties, and the memories may be a little faded, but I'd be interested to hear his views on the subject!
Medvedya
Master Sergeant
I bet he'll remember the dreaded main spar. It goes right through the fuselage. Gives the Lanc huge strength, but you have to crawl over it. I have a picture in one of my Lancaster books of someone doing just that.
It says that many a shin lost an argument there - and that's with the plane sitting on the concrete, so trying to climb over that when the Lanc is in a death dive is just not going to happen. If the aircraft recieved at direct hit by flak, there was little chance of anyone surviving, save perhaps the pilot if he was wearing a seat-type chute, which was standard issue by 1944, and later extended to rear gunners.
Just a bit of trivia, the Lanc was a bit erratic where heating arrangements were concerned. All the hotness from the engines was piped out round the wireless op's position, so, coupled with the warmth from the set, he sweltered - even at high altitude. On the other hand, it was brass monkey time for the poor rear gunner, and, although he had a hot air hose, it got so cold back there, that many would put it up their trouser leg - hey, it's not as if you can be seen by anyone, and you gotta protect those fundamentals!
It says that many a shin lost an argument there - and that's with the plane sitting on the concrete, so trying to climb over that when the Lanc is in a death dive is just not going to happen. If the aircraft recieved at direct hit by flak, there was little chance of anyone surviving, save perhaps the pilot if he was wearing a seat-type chute, which was standard issue by 1944, and later extended to rear gunners.
Just a bit of trivia, the Lanc was a bit erratic where heating arrangements were concerned. All the hotness from the engines was piped out round the wireless op's position, so, coupled with the warmth from the set, he sweltered - even at high altitude. On the other hand, it was brass monkey time for the poor rear gunner, and, although he had a hot air hose, it got so cold back there, that many would put it up their trouser leg - hey, it's not as if you can be seen by anyone, and you gotta protect those fundamentals!
Nonskimmer
Captain
Yeah, I believe he did mention the spar, but I'll ask him Med.
In fact, I wouldn't mind hearing the old stories again.
Granddad was never too talkative about the war, but with a little coaxing (i.e. booze
) he becomes quite a story teller!
In fact, I wouldn't mind hearing the old stories again.
Granddad was never too talkative about the war, but with a little coaxing (i.e. booze
) he becomes quite a story teller!Medvedya
Master Sergeant
Cool, I wouldn't mind scanning some of these pictures from my book, 'cause some of them are real works of art. There aren't many pics of life in Bomber Command, because the goverment was really anti-camera, and officially, taking pictures was forbidden. Fortunately, crews were desperate to get a picture of themselves and their plane, and would get a sneaky pic in for posterity.
There's a really good one of a row of Lancasters all covered in snow, which had to be brushed off by hand, with teams of really cold and sodded off looking air and ground crew!
There's a really good one of a row of Lancasters all covered in snow, which had to be brushed off by hand, with teams of really cold and sodded off looking air and ground crew!
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I read a story awhile back about a box of 4 Lancs that was attacked aggressivly by Fw-190's.... One had it wing blown off with his bombs armed and in the insuing collisions that happened, all 4 bombers went down.... And not one single chute was opened.... 2 men got out of 1 bomber, but without chutes....
I've read that the Lanc was a really difficult plane to bail from....
I've read that the Lanc was a really difficult plane to bail from....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
oh it was, here's a run through
bomb aimer-he had it the best, escape hatch right under where he lies
pilot- small window, starbord side of canopy, had to be small to fit
flight engineer- same on port side i believe, not to sure
radio operator navigator- very small hatches in the roof of the fusilage
mid-upper turret gunner- port side entry hatch
tail gunner- this one's the funniest, open the armoured entry doors, get your 'cute, turn the turret 90 degrees to one side, and roll out back wards
escape was one of the lanc's biggest drawbacks...............
bomb aimer-he had it the best, escape hatch right under where he lies
pilot- small window, starbord side of canopy, had to be small to fit
flight engineer- same on port side i believe, not to sure
radio operator navigator- very small hatches in the roof of the fusilage
mid-upper turret gunner- port side entry hatch
tail gunner- this one's the funniest, open the armoured entry doors, get your 'cute, turn the turret 90 degrees to one side, and roll out back wards
escape was one of the lanc's biggest drawbacks...............
Medvedya
Master Sergeant
There all kinds of strange things that have happened when bombers were hit. You hear of stories of a single bloke being thrown out of the plane as it disintergrates in the explosion - not a scratch on him, but the only survivor.
cheddar cheese
Major General
armament being the other...
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
So the arguments for the B-24 just got better! She had her ow falts, the thin wing did get shot up and fuel pumps had problums, but her crews could get out, well the Ball gunner had it worst. He was doomed if the waits or tail guners were hurt or forgot about him.
So Lance, if your plane had these issues why did the RAF dismiss the B-17 so fast?
So Lance, if your plane had these issues why did the RAF dismiss the B-17 so fast?
Medvedya
Master Sergeant
Simple. It's bomb-load is weedy compared to the Lancs. Whether or not the crew can get out easily is secondary.
Also the B17 was originally designed for defending the American mainland - not heavy bombing raids, which the Lanc was souly created for.
Also the B17 was originally designed for defending the American mainland - not heavy bombing raids, which the Lanc was souly created for.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
lance?? i'll assume you're talking to me..........
the RAF rejected the B-17 because it caused so many problems, we didn't like it's load carrying ability, when flying at high altitude there were numerous problems with the oxygen supply and personal heating even at high altitude it was vaunerable to fighters, the guns froze, baisically, it sucked and we didn't need it..................
the lanc had enough armourment for a night bomber, a ventral turret would have been usefull but it would have meant a reduction in range and/or payload..................
the RAF rejected the B-17 because it caused so many problems, we didn't like it's load carrying ability, when flying at high altitude there were numerous problems with the oxygen supply and personal heating even at high altitude it was vaunerable to fighters, the guns froze, baisically, it sucked and we didn't need it..................
the lanc had enough armourment for a night bomber, a ventral turret would have been usefull but it would have meant a reduction in range and/or payload..................
Well I would always thought other than the ball turret that the bombadier in his all glass work area would be quite deadly but from what I have read up there it was not that bad for the bombadier. probably because the fighters would dive down on the bombers from the rear and not attacking directly to the front. And to MP-Willow pretty much what I do is fly passengers around to wherever they go day after day. Every once in a while we get an air assault mission which are pretty cool.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Of the whole war, the B-29 was easily the best bomber.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
We have argued over the "Best Bomber" already, but that will never go away.
But Why in the Long life of the Lancaster were some of these questions for armore and escape not fixed?
But Why in the Long life of the Lancaster were some of these questions for armore and escape not fixed?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well there's many reasons the ball turret wasn't fittet, it would have meant a reduction in range, payload, manouverability, airspeed, it would have meant that the H20 bombing aid could be carried, and it was also a bit ugly, but the ball turret was fitted to around 150 aircraft.......
Frasier Nash 64
position: ventral
guns: 2x .303 Browning Mk.II
RPG: 500
gunsight: periscopic
Traverse: +/-90 degrees
Elevation: 0 degrees
Depression: 60 degrees
as you can see the figures aren't shockingly impressive, and along with the factors listed above and the fact that they were used before the introduction of Schrage Musik when the attack from the rear was still the most common made the RAF deem them as, well, useless...................
and there wasn't a great deal they could do about the escape issues.............
Frasier Nash 64
position: ventral
guns: 2x .303 Browning Mk.II
RPG: 500
gunsight: periscopic
Traverse: +/-90 degrees
Elevation: 0 degrees
Depression: 60 degrees
as you can see the figures aren't shockingly impressive, and along with the factors listed above and the fact that they were used before the introduction of Schrage Musik when the attack from the rear was still the most common made the RAF deem them as, well, useless...................
and there wasn't a great deal they could do about the escape issues.............
cheddar cheese
Major General
[/quote]and it was also a bit ugly[/quote]
if they didnt like it cos it was ugly, why didnt they scrap the whole plane in the first place
if they didnt like it cos it was ugly, why didnt they scrap the whole plane in the first place
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Lanc, thanks again. We are as our air arms two different thoughts on the same problum.
Now here is a question for you all I was looking at some drawings while thinking of this issue of tail attacks and want to ask about the top/ dorcal guner. Could that gun placement help protect the tail gunner?
Now here is a question for you all I was looking at some drawings while thinking of this issue of tail attacks and want to ask about the top/ dorcal guner. Could that gun placement help protect the tail gunner?
I believe the top gunner could to some extent help in an attack from the rear because of its 360 degree turn radius however I believe it would have been limited in the fact that you did not want to shoot of your rudder especially in a bomber like the Liberator with its 2 rudders. It gave a clearer view of the rear to engage but if the gunner turned without sieze firing he would have shot them up pretty good.
- Status
