The most underrated and overlooked heavy bomber of ww2. I often compare the Halifax to a beautiful but shy twin, that's confident and brash sister (The Lancaster)even to this day has totally overshadowed it's RAF kin. As a combat aircraft the Lanc is almost unparalleled in achievements and combat effectiveness. But i doubt anyone would disagree that when it comes to looks, the Lanc is a bit of an ugly duck to say the least. Plus the Halifax was very versatile, being easily adapted and upgraded. It could also use either the RR PV12 "Merlin"inline engines or the Bristol Hercules radials. It went into service much sooner than the Lanc and could almost match it in specs. I have read the Lanc was 5 times more effective than a Halifax. But also that the survival rate for a Halifax was 29%. Compared to just 11% for a Lanc. Or is this just because of a comparative in numbers of a/c built/Used in combat..... I know the early Hali's were a bit of a dog, but the Manchester/Lancaster wasnt without problems early on. I have heard that Arthur Harris took a dislike to the Halifax and put sole priority in Lancaster production. Whereas crews believed the Halifax was easier to escape from compared to the Lanc which had a terrible loss rate. I think this one is a bit like the Spitfire/Hurricane debate. And ultimately comes down to which a/c you favour most. I'd be interested to hear any ideas on this matter.