Why would they build Lancasters in USA when they were being built in Canada, from late 1944 the RAF were running out of targets. The problems with the B29 were mainly material and cooling technology and largely solved in 1944.
The Best Bomber of WWII: #4
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-32 WAS NOT a paper design.
Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Several things that aren't being taken into consideration.
Fisrt of all, the B-29's concept first started in 1938 and first flew in 1942, the Lancaster was developed from the Manchester, which started on the drawing board in 1936. The Lancaster first flew in 1941.
At that point in time, no one knew which way the war was going and they certainly had no idea how long it would last.
And no one had any idea at the time the B-29 or Lancaster was being developed, that there would be Atomic Bombs deployed during the war. A few people "in the know" were aware of the Atomic project when it was established in 1942, but by then, the Lancaster and B-29 were well under way in production.
By the time the Atomic bomb program had narrowed down the design and dimensions of a workable atomic bomb, it was July 1945.
The B-36 was already under development by July 1945 and would take it's first flight a year later.
So the notion of cancelling the B-29 program after it was already in development and starting up a production line in the U.S. midwar, for the Lancaster makes no sense.
As had been mentioned before, there were a series of options that could be turned to, if the B-29 program showed signs of trouble.
And technically, there was yet another heavy, long range bomber in the wings that eventually died out, being the XB-19, which had a range far beyond that of the B-29 at 4,200 miles.
This also points to the Lancaster's range of 2,530 miles versus the B-29's range of 3,250 miles. And the comparison in speed also needs to be taken into consideration. The B-29 was fast enough to avoid all but the most modern fighter/interceptor types that Japan had to offer. The Lancaster was nearly 80 miles an hour slower than the B-29 and had a much lower service ceiling than the B-29, by roughly 10,000 feet.
The Lancaster would not have been suitable for operations against Japan
Fisrt of all, the B-29's concept first started in 1938 and first flew in 1942, the Lancaster was developed from the Manchester, which started on the drawing board in 1936. The Lancaster first flew in 1941.
At that point in time, no one knew which way the war was going and they certainly had no idea how long it would last.
And no one had any idea at the time the B-29 or Lancaster was being developed, that there would be Atomic Bombs deployed during the war. A few people "in the know" were aware of the Atomic project when it was established in 1942, but by then, the Lancaster and B-29 were well under way in production.
By the time the Atomic bomb program had narrowed down the design and dimensions of a workable atomic bomb, it was July 1945.
The B-36 was already under development by July 1945 and would take it's first flight a year later.
So the notion of cancelling the B-29 program after it was already in development and starting up a production line in the U.S. midwar, for the Lancaster makes no sense.
As had been mentioned before, there were a series of options that could be turned to, if the B-29 program showed signs of trouble.
And technically, there was yet another heavy, long range bomber in the wings that eventually died out, being the XB-19, which had a range far beyond that of the B-29 at 4,200 miles.
This also points to the Lancaster's range of 2,530 miles versus the B-29's range of 3,250 miles. And the comparison in speed also needs to be taken into consideration. The B-29 was fast enough to avoid all but the most modern fighter/interceptor types that Japan had to offer. The Lancaster was nearly 80 miles an hour slower than the B-29 and had a much lower service ceiling than the B-29, by roughly 10,000 feet.
The Lancaster would not have been suitable for operations against Japan
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A B-24 rolled out of Willow Run every hour at peak production.
B-24 Liberator Willow Run Assembly Plant in Michigan run by Ford, history, facts and hotographs
B-24 Liberator Willow Run Assembly Plant in Michigan run by Ford, history, facts and hotographs
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The B-29 (and XB-19) was also seen as a way to strike German targets in the event Britain fell, too
As I mentioned earlier, when these concepts were set in motion, no one knew which way the war was going to go.
We have the luxury of sitting back over 70 years later and say "why didn't they..." or "they should have done..." but at the time, these decisions were made in real-time based on what they knew.
As I mentioned earlier, when these concepts were set in motion, no one knew which way the war was going to go.
We have the luxury of sitting back over 70 years later and say "why didn't they..." or "they should have done..." but at the time, these decisions were made in real-time based on what they knew.
ALEX Hogarth
Recruit
- 8
- Jul 15, 2016
My bad i didnt realise that its design was so early but saying that i would not have fath in it being avail
It was in a report i read i think it was by someone called norman f ramsey, i do remember it is refered to in leo mckinsktry lancaster book
I have looked it up and i miss remembered it, it was a proposal only made by a member of the atom bomb project tasked with evaluating delivery systems, it was killed off by happ
Last edited:
Thats what I remembered, since you have the book look up how long duplicating the drawings for the lanc took.
ALEX Hogarth
Recruit
- 8
- Jul 15, 2016
Duplicating had already been done for the canadian avro, however i will grant that any us plant would require bigger changes as they used a different projection and i think a different notation for tolerances let alone the changes to threads etc
So the Canadians carry on with no drawings? I am just old enough to remember drawings being done by hand, it was part of my school syllabus, if you want another drawing in 1944 you draw it
ALEX Hogarth
Recruit
- 8
- Jul 15, 2016
I could be wrong here but i thought multiple copies were made and transported by different routes to ensure a ful copy was available and iam old enough to have been taught engineering drawing to a level
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A Few things here folks -
The "Ramsey Letter" (as I now remember it) was a proposal made by one individual. As stated, the proposal of using the Lancaster was made by someone who had little insight into the already implemented B-29 program. Although these folks were probably very intelligent individuals, I doubt they truly had any concept of what it took to manufacture aircraft.
There is no record of any US manufacturer ever being approached to build the Lancaster AFAIK.
"Drawings" are just one part of the equation. Production tooling, jigs, fixtures, templates are what's going to put everything together (of course with the manpower)
AVRO received the first Lancaster drawings in January 1942. A pattern aircraft arrived in Canada August 1942. From the first blueprint to the first test flight - sixteen months. The Canadian prototype, with serial number KB-700, rolled off the Victory Aircraft assembly line on August 1, 1943.
A total of 430 Lancaster Mk. X's were built.
The Canadian Lancasters
The Lancaster was a great aircraft, 2nd best bomber of WW2, but there were other aircraft either in the design or early production stage that would have negated any thought of the US producing Lancaster for the AAF.
The "Ramsey Letter" (as I now remember it) was a proposal made by one individual. As stated, the proposal of using the Lancaster was made by someone who had little insight into the already implemented B-29 program. Although these folks were probably very intelligent individuals, I doubt they truly had any concept of what it took to manufacture aircraft.
There is no record of any US manufacturer ever being approached to build the Lancaster AFAIK.
"Drawings" are just one part of the equation. Production tooling, jigs, fixtures, templates are what's going to put everything together (of course with the manpower)
AVRO received the first Lancaster drawings in January 1942. A pattern aircraft arrived in Canada August 1942. From the first blueprint to the first test flight - sixteen months. The Canadian prototype, with serial number KB-700, rolled off the Victory Aircraft assembly line on August 1, 1943.
A total of 430 Lancaster Mk. X's were built.
The Canadian Lancasters
The Lancaster was a great aircraft, 2nd best bomber of WW2, but there were other aircraft either in the design or early production stage that would have negated any thought of the US producing Lancaster for the AAF.
Last edited:
I was just quoting from memory FBJ I no longer have the book, without the drawings you cannot have meaningful or worthwhile discussions with suppliers for all the jigs fixtures and templates. I presume the time taken to produce them was the time from deciding to make them in Canada and the drawings arriving, I cant actually remember how long but I do remember how surprised I was.
parsifal
Colonel
Im trying to follow the discussion guys but its a level or three above my limited grasp of the issue. so at the risk of garnering some short dismissal id like to ask a bit of a "Dumbed down" question about the B-29. Was it a cost effective weapon system for the ETO , to replace or reinforce the more conventional B17/B24 combination? It two critical advantages over the older bombers, height and speed, and one rally bad element, cost and complexity. were the latter outweighed by the former?
wuzak
Captain
I think that by the time the B-29 could have been deployed to the ETO the threat from enemy fighters was largely over. And on of the main threats that still remained, the Me 262, would have been quite capable of giving the B-29 serious headaches.
You are also missing one vital advantage the B-29 had over the B-17 and the B-24 - range. It was range that was the feature most required in the PTO and why B-29 deployment to the Pacific was prioritised.
As for cost and complexity, you have to consider the weight of bombs a B-29 could carry. Maximum bomb load was 20,000lb - I'm sure that was available for typical mission ranges in the ETO. Which is more than twice the load that could be carried by the B-17 or B-24. So when the cost is calculated it would need to be comparing one B-29 with two or more B-17s or B-24s.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-32 was to be operated in the ETO, replacing both B-17 and B-24.
High altitude daylight bombing with the B-29 was pretty much ineffective. The real results came when they stripped it down and used it at night. Certainly the Lancaster could not have operated from the Mariannas but it could have been used from Iwo Jima and Okinawa. When fitted with high altitude, two stage, Merlin engines Lancaster performance increased considerably.
It's doubtful that the B-29 could have performed high altitude missions in the ETO while carrying a 20,000lb bomb load. The engine failure rate would have been prohibitive.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
