Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29The aircraft has a 2nd pilot when needed and an autopilot. Not requiring a co-pilot significantly reduced Lancaster operational costs.
Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29
Thank you, I too, would doubt the gunner was included at that weight. the 2000 rounds of ammo is around 120lbs.
I doubt you are going to see quite the same increase in speed from fairing over the forward turret.
The RAF and RCAF had lots of experience flying large multi engine aircraft under combat conditions and they deemed the Lancaster pilot -autopilot-flight engineer with flight controls, as suitable for a variety of attack profiles, many of which had very high inherent risk.
I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?
Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.
Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!
I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.
I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.
And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?
Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.
Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!
So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)
Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls.
So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...
Sure - as long as he sits to the right of the pilot.So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...
Joe,
You'll get no disagreement from me that, in an ideal world, 2 pilots are better than one under high-stress situations. However, a couple of points need to be made.
Firstly, the post-war Canberra only had one pilot. All official heavy bombers after the Lanc did have pilot and co...but the Canberra didn't. I know, it's the exception that proves the rule. Nowadays we wouldn't consider such an aircraft without 2 pilots...but we'd also not have the rear-seat crew. You're right about all other postwar heavy bombers though.
Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls. It was far from ideal and probably would have made things interesting for the bomb aimer accessing his position. However, such an installation could have been used (indeed was used operationally on occasion) if the need arose.
Thirdly, your comment about the flight engineer being ballast is a little unworthy. In reality, the flight engineer would come forward to occupy the dickie seat (essentially where a co-pilot would sit on most bombers) for take-off and landing to assist the pilot. While certainly not as capable as a fully-qualified pilot, I think it's a bit harsh to say he was "one step above ballast".
Bottom line for me is that the B-29 was clearly the better aircraft for the nuke missions. However, it's interesting to consider what options might have been on the table if the B-29 didn't become operational at the right time. I think the Lancaster, while not as well-suited, could have completed the mission, although it may have been a one-way trip for the crew. Then again, the Dambusters Raid didn't hold out much odds of survival. It was a different time and people volunteered for all sorts of crazy one-way missions. It's also worth considering that, apart from the Lanc, the Allies didn't have many other/better options for nuke delivery in 1945.
I think some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, are being stretched just a little too far. This is my attempt to rein things back just a wee bit 'cos I've found the discussion fascinating.
ATB,
Mark
The weird thing about the Lancaster was its change in cockpit responsibilities from the Manchester, which did have the second set of controls and a dedicated co-pilot, although he had a folding seat to enable the front gunner to access his compartment, not the edifice that the pilot sat on.
Joe has a point regarding crew responsibility falling on the guy in the left hand seat. He was the captain in charge; he had a big workload. Having a permanent Number 2 to his right would have eased his load. The Manchester did, so why did they remove it in the Lancaster?
...Many automatic features add to the simplicity
of operations of the Lancaster. The engine radiator shutters are
automatically positioned and the mixture controls have been eliminated
completely by using automatic carburettor settings selected from boost
pressure...
D. - Recommendations.
1. The vision qualities, automatic features, bomb-bay arrangement,
and other excellent items of this airplane should be closely studied by
our engineers for possible improvement of our own equipment.
Perhaps the Manchester required a higher pilot workload? As the USAAF pilot's noted in their report the pilot's workload was greatly reduced by having much of the engine management systems automated and hence their comments and recommendations:
As stated - in the post war years this crew configuration just about became extinct with the exception as the Canberra, but when you examine that aircraft's design spec and mission, we're talking apples and oranges.
The B-29 was depressurized during combatAnd if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?
Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)
An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.
Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!