Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greetings RCAFson,
One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
Reagards,
Kk
There are some that truly beleive that Little Boy was German.
NevadaK said:
Greetings RCAFson,
One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
Reagards,
Kk
The B-29 had fabric control surfaces. This had no bearing with it's ability to act as a nuclear bomber.Hi
Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
Mike
If you don't have a problem with the crew being all 100% homo sapiens what is the issue with fabric control surfaces? I don't think it was an issue of cost, at the time the B-29 was just about the most expensive thing ever made.The B-29 had fabric control surfaces. This had no bearing with it's ability to act as a nuclear bomber.
If you don't have a problem with the crew being all 100% homo sapiens what is the issue with fabric control surfaces? I don't think it was an issue of cost, at the time the B-29 was just about the most expensive thing ever made.
Thanks MikeMeech,Hi
Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
Mike
As I understand it the concern was two fold. The initial concern was the fabric's resistance to the flash burn. The second was the over pressure of the blast radius. From the Trinity Test, there was a rough idea of what these values would be, but nothing certain. As an untested design, Little Boy also represented an unknown as to efficiency and the size of the blast. The 8 mile safety radius was probably conservative, but represented the best guess as to survivability.And at the time the design philosophy was to retain fabric control surfaces on a number of large multi-engine aircraft, weight and control surface balance reasons. I believe there were mods to do away with the fabric surfaces on the B-29 and I believe eliminated on the B-50,
I do know that continued radiation probably would not have been too healthy on the fabric but then again I doubt there would have been continual nuclear operations in the post war.
All were valid concerns but were not made priorities in the post war. Apparently the B-50 had at least a fabric rudderAs I understand it the concern was two fold. The initial concern was the fabric's resistance to the flash burn. The second was the over pressure of the blast radius. From the Trinity Test, there was a rough idea of what these values would be, but nothing certain. As an untested design, Little Boy also represented an unknown as to efficiency and the size of the blast. The 8 mile safety radius was probably conservative, but represented the best guess as to survivability.
Greetings RCAFson,
I did look at the Lancaster VI, however, based on its lack of field success felt that it was not an appropriate aircraft. Per wikipedia, only nine were built and due to problems with the engines were retired from service in 1944. Doesn't sound like the right aircraft for the job. I recognize from this thread and others on this site that the Lancaster is a beloved aircraft with an outstanding record of achievements, but it may not be suitable for every application. One thing that stood out to me about the Lancaster is that it appears to have fabric covered controls. This may not be true in later models, but that would be a significant weakness in the aircraft if it were closer to either nuclear explosion.
Reagards,
Kk
The Lancaster would be significantly closer to the blast and without sitting down and doing proper calculations seems to be within the safety zone.
I'm sure there are members of the forum better equipped to calculate this out, but my feeling is the Lancaster just doesn't have what it takes to survive such a mission.
Grant, as an aside, the decision not to use the Lancaster may seem to be "flag waving" but in actuality could it have been because of supply and support logistics?
The USAAF operated a couple of Lancasters in the ETO for a short while as well as other British types, so the Army using a British aircraft was not unheard of.
My thinking (or at least first impression) was familiarity and logistics (each bomber would need mechanics familiar with the aircraft) as well as spare engines, parts and such.
Not to mention American pilots who were experienced with the type - they couldn't bring RAF personnel to help because if the secrecy surrounding the project. Also asking for 30 some-odd Lancs without an explanation might have seemed a bit weird, too.
People outside of the loop would have found the US requesting 30+ Lancasters without a plausible explanation a bit odd, though.
To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.
1. The Lancaster was not American.
When Gen Groves approached Hap Arnold for AAF support, Arnold read Norman Ramsay's report stating that the Lancaster was the only bomber that could carry Thin man internally but quickly decided that the aircraft HAD to be American. The ONLY choice was the B-29. This was in 1943, two years before the raid took place, when there was no actual mission parameter available.
2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.
The Lancaster did not have the range, it wasn't fast enough and could not reach the height the raid was flown at. It is worth remembering that performance figures for Lancasters referred to in official documents and on Wiki or wherever we dredge our crap up from on the net were based on conditions found in the UK at the time of testing, unless otherwise stated. The hot and high temperatures of the mid-Pacific sapped aircraft performance and would have reduced the Lancaster's performance even further.
From the figures calculated by me from official documentation recorded by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment during the war, to achieve the objective at its maximum take-off weight carrying the bomb (68,000 lb), either Thin Man or Little Boy, but definitely not Fat Man and enough fuel to reach Japan and return, the Lancaster I (Special) would have had to fly at an average speed of 175 mph at an altitude of 15,000 ft across a round trip of approximately 1,700 miles IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS.
For comparison, at 2am on 6 August 1945, Enola Gay departed Tinian to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, it returned at 2:58pm after a journey time of 12 hours 58 minutes. The distance travelled was an approximate round trip of 2,722 miles. Using these figures, Enola Gay's calculated average speed was around 216 mph. Loaded with the 9,700 lb bomb and fuel for its mammoth round trip, Enola Gay's gross weight was 140,000 lbs. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of 31,060ft.
In short, the Lancaster could not have done it.
Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb.