The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In it's day the Canberra was a hot rod when compared to WW2 heavies although later missions pushed the design growth to its limits. For certain missions I agree, a co-pilot was needed.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
By the time both of those aircraft entered service, the need for a dedicated bomber FE was slowly going away. Both the B-47 and B-58 were almost fighter like so the dedicated crew stations coupled with advances in nav and weapons systems eliminated older crew positions from WW2
The B-50 and B-36 retained FE positions as well as other post war patrol bombers (P2V, P3, de Havilland Comet, Tu95)
Good article FBJ! The funny thing is the USAF makes us go to the chamber twice in pilot training with the second having a rapid depressurization from 43K. Also most airliners today run around with the cabin at 7.5 - 8.0K, while the 787 and A350 are substantially lower at 5K IIRC.
Cheers,
Biff
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,444
- Dec 6, 2006
Page 149 of the "The B-29 Airplane Commander Training Manual for the Superfortress" (revised February 1945) states "Always depressurize when expecting enemy action, when the ship is on fire, or when preparing to abandon ship."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And that seems to contradict some of the operational reports. In a later manual it talks about partial pressurization when operating in combat (AAF 51-126-6 15 December 1945 Page 160). Emergency procedures are the same.
Attachments
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Agree Joe, my question though, the "simplicity" of the jet engine over the recip, didn't that make the FE rather unneeded? Or at least altered his task load and duties?
Peter,
Jets are quite a bit more simplistic than a recip, however the job of an FE back then was a bit more involved. I'm pretty sure the military expected them to be able to do some levels of repairs and or maintenance.
They were also considered systems experts and expected to have a high degree of knowledge on their respective mount. The AF still requires these skills IIRC. My airline has quite a few of them who teach system academics and they are VERY knowledgeable.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
soulezoo
Senior Airman
On the KC10 it was mostly around 6.5k
I understand my question could be OT, but surfing the web I can't find useful and detailed information about the British 'Type G' single points attachments and 'Type F' releases. And, in particular, pictures or diagrams of their use with Tall Boy and Little Boy/Fat man
Can anyone provide some help?
glennasher
Senior Airman
Heading toward Japan, they faced headwinds that were pretty bad. That's where/when they discovered the jet stream, after all. That was always a factor until Lemay ordered them to bomb from lower altitudes.
Admiral Beez
Captain
What about a streamlined Lanc with Griffons for range, jets for sprint to/from target?
You may need RATO to takeoff (like the A-20 below) and in-flight refueling once aloft to have the necessary range.
One added benefit of the streamlined Lancaster is no need for several crewmen, dropping two gunners for certain. Perhaps the Air Bomber too, since you're dropping a nuke with little need for accuracy. Perhaps the navigator can crawl forward to make last minute checks.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Admiral Beez
Captain
Well sure, but I'm trying to contribute to the Lancaster thread. If we want the best of any candidates then the Lancaster should stay home.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Why not a B-52, then?
Wait...nevermind.
Wait...nevermind.
Kevin J
Banned
Has anybody here suggested the Short Shetland as an alternative. I was just thinking, the Japanese had biological weapons, so if we atomise them then maybe they gas us in retaliation. At least with the Shetland you wouldn't need a runway with ground staff to come back to.
Shortround6
Major General
You do realize the plane pictured flew for the first time, on August 14, 1946 about 1 year too late for WW II. This was the first aircraft to fly with the RR Nene engine.
I believe FlyboyJ's suggestions of the B-50 and B-36 were sarcasm.
If you can magically get 1946-47 engines into 1944 airframes for 1945 service use all sorts of possibilities open up.
Kevin J
Banned
Yes, I agree, we could have both the EE Canberra and Short Sperrin flying in late 1944 with RR Nene turbojets as they were first run on October 27 1944.
Admiral Beez
Captain
How about we skip the jets, put on four Griffons and keep the streamlining.
- Status
