The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

[FLYBOYJ]

Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943. I've never stated that the Lancaster VI was superior to the Silverplate B-29s after they were debugged, rather I've stated that the Lancaster VI had the range and performance to have safely delivered either A-bomb design and could likely have done so with TO from Tinian and landing at Okinawa. The Grand Slam modded Lancasters had a range of ~1700 (and ~1700IG of fuel) miles whilst carrying a 22000lb bomb externally at ~.99 AMG. If we substitute a 10000lb bomb and add 11000lb of fuel (1527 IG) we get a maximum range of ~3100 miles (allowing for tropical conditions), which allows for a low-high-low Tinian -> target-> Okinawa mission (~2400 miles) with an ample reserve of fuel. The Lancaster bomb bay has sufficient volume to carry this extra fuel and a FATMAN or LITTLEBOY bomb, if custom aux tanks are added, fore and aft of the bomb. As a check of my data we can look at an actual operational mission: The Tallboy Lancasters operating from Scotland had a range of over 2400 miles with 2560IG of fuel and could have carried another ~700IG of fuel if bomb weight (and length) was reduced by 2000lb and max TO weight increased from 68000 to 72000lb

Again, this is all "what if." I'm not doubting a Lancaster mission could not have been achieved, at the end of the day history played out that the more advanced and superior aircraft was chosen. And again, it didn't matter what Ramsey preferred.

The Lancaster VI flew in Mid 1943 - it doesn't need to be accelerated, only prioritized (and at a fraction of the cost of the Silverplate B-29 program). Compared to the B-29, the Lancaster VI, even in late 1943 was a more mature and reliable design.

Cost agree, but in the end the longevity of the B-29 surpassed the Lancaster. You can say the Lancaster VI was a "more mature and reliable design" but it was half as complicated as the B-29!

Groves reported directly to the Whitehouse. He only deferred to Marshall and Arnold as a military courtesy.

Yea, he did - Arnold went with the B-29, everything else is semantics and "what ifs."

 

[PAT303]

I don't figure out why the "black Lancasters" had no markings because they were on some secret project. If something is secret why draw attention to it by having no markings at all? Just mark them up as individual members of a dozen existing squadrons?

It's like secret service personnel wearing civvies and acting normal to blend into a crowd while all having the same haircut.

 

[pbehn]

It's like secret service personnel wearing civvies and acting normal to blend into a crowd while all having the same haircut.

Its worse, Lancasters normally had camo paint on the upper surfaces, it is like asking a few people to take their clothes off and "blend in" and if anyone asks, you actually don't have a name or address, not even a false one..

 

[wuzak]

Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943. I've never stated that the Lancaster VI was superior to the Silverplate B-29s after they were debugged, rather I've stated that the Lancaster VI had the range and performance to have safely delivered either A-bomb design and could likely have done so with TO from Tinian and landing at Okinawa. The Grand Slam modded Lancasters had a range of ~1700 (and ~1700IG of fuel) miles whilst carrying a 22000lb bomb externally at ~.99 AMG. If we substitute a 10000lb bomb and add 11000lb of fuel (1527 IG) we get a maximum range of ~3100 miles (allowing for tropical conditions), which allows for a low-high-low Tinian -> target-> Okinawa mission (~2400 miles) with an ample reserve of fuel. The Lancaster bomb bay has sufficient volume to carry this extra fuel and a FATMAN or LITTLEBOY bomb, if custom aux tanks are added, fore and aft of the bomb. As a check of my data we can look at an actual operational mission: The Tallboy Lancasters operating from Scotland had a range of over 2400 miles with 2560IG of fuel and could have carried another ~700IG of fuel if bomb weight (and length) was reduced by 2000lb and max TO weight increased from 68000 to 72000lb

The Lancaster VI flew in Mid 1943 - it doesn't need to be accelerated, only prioritized (and at a fraction of the cost of the Silverplate B-29 program). Compared to the B-29, the Lancaster VI, even in late 1943 was a more mature and reliable design.

Groves reported directly to the Whitehouse. He only deferred to Marshall and Arnold as a military courtesy.

To my mind, Thin Man was the most problematic bomb shape for the B-29. Being long it needed the two bomb bays to be joined underneath the wing. Which was achieved, but also why the Lancaster would be seen as an alternative.

Fat Man is the most problematic bomb for the Lancaster. The 12,000lb HC and Tallboy bombs could fit internally on the Lancaster with bulged bomb bay doors. The 22,000lb Grand Slam could not fit internally in the Lancaster bomb bay, so the doors were taken off for those missions (along with a turret or two to lighten the weight). The Fat Man bomb was larger in diameter than the Grand Slam, so could not fit internally in a standard Lancaster bay.

Getting the Fat Man to fit internally on a Lancaster would require more modification than was done to the B-29s, IMO.

For Fat Man and Little Boy the modifications for the B-29 were somewhat simpler than they were for Thin Man. Both bombs could fit inside the forward bomb bay, once the regular bomb racks were removed and a suitable single point rack installed in their place.

Little Boy was the easiest of the three bombs to accommodate. It was, essentially, the same size as the British 4,000lb HC "Cookie", so would fit easily inside the Lancaster and the modified B-29.

In fact, if the box tail was replaced with a British style round tail, Little Boy would have fit in the Mosquito with bulged bomb bay doors. Getting off the ground would have been unlikely, though.

 

[nuuumannn]

There is a good YouTube Podcast by doctor mark Felton, a non aviator academic about this topic. It seems the Lancaster' could probably have done it with in flight refueling. The low top speed and ceiling though would make the blast wave a bit sporty I would think.

A commentary on Mark Felton's youtube clip has been provided further back in this thread. While it is of interest, he gets a few things wrong, including not mentioning at all the Thin Man bomb, which is why the B-29 was modified. His assessment that the bomb bays of the B-29 had to be modified to carry the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs is not right either. In fact, the Fat Man was shaped to enable it to be able to fit inside the B-29's bomb bay.

As far as in flight refuelling is concerned, read about the RAF's Tiger Force.

Tiger Force

The overall assessment is that the Lancaster could not have done it owing to low speed, insufficient altitude and insufficient range. Let's not forget that by the beginning of August 1945, not one RAF aircraft was capable of in-flight refuelling.

 

[nuuumannn]

Getting the Fat Man to fit internally on a Lancaster would require more modification than was done to the B-29s, IMO.

It's not just your opinion, wuzak. It simply could not be carried internally. The Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, which is approximately the width of the Lancaster's fuselage. Not only that but the drag of having such a thing protruding beneath the aircraft would be severely detrimental to its performance. The Grand Slam, as you know could be carried if its bomb bay doors were removed - and a raft of mods were made to the airframe, but it had a diameter of 1.1 metres, so less effect on drag, and its a streamlined shape. The Fat Man was shaped and sized so it could fit within the B-29's bomb bay.

This pic gives a good impression of its girth.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

By comparison, a nicely coloured image of a Grand Slam under a Lanc.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg

 

[Koopernic]

I've read the Groves quote several times, I suggest (not you Joe) reading it slowly and really taking a good look at what is being said. To me, Groves DOES NOT want to use or even consider the Lancaster, but would be forced to if the Air Force and Boeing didn't get the B-29 sorted out, which I believe he had every confidence they would do so. I find the words "we would have to consider" very enlightening, as I said earlier, to me that means they are not considering it nor do they want to.

Also "This brought from him the characteristic reply that I had hoped and expected to hear" - CLEARLY Groves wanted the B-29 and was banking (rightly so and with good reason) that the Air Force and Boeing would make the necessary modifications and produce a reliable delivery system.

I think also that any good planner has a contingency plan, he may have just been pointing out to General Arnold possibilities if the Superfortress development bogged down too badly.

One other thought is that Groves might have been surreptitiously prodding Arnold to get on the stick and get the 29 sorted so as to be ready at the same time as the gadget.

Again I ask, what would Ramsey have to do with aircraft choice? I imagine it was certainly within his purview to make suggestions but I also imagine that's about all.


Ramsey: We should use the Lancaster.

Arnold: Thanks for the input, now go back to bomb case design bub.

Humor to lighten the moment gentlemen.

Fortunately there is performance data available for the Lancaster VI. The Lancaster VI is basically a standard Lancaster fitted with two stage Merlin engines. With these engines the Lancaster's altitude performance and speed at high altitude increases considerably. The improvements do not come up to B-29 standards.


Lancaster Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-level-speeds.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-climb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

The Lancaster VI used in these tests had all 3 turrets and H2S radar fitted.

Lancaster VI speed at 24000ft is 325mph. This is the maximum speed. At 25000ft speed drops of to 320mph. The Lancaster VI service ceiling, where climb drops to 100 feet per minute, is 28000 feet. The operational ceiling, the altitude at which climb rate drops to 500 feet per minute, is 23500. Thus operation above 24000 to 25000ft is impractical.

By Contrast the B29A had an operational ceiling of 30,000ft instead of 23500 and its speed in the 25000ft to 30000ft altitude is about 357mph. (Data below)

Hence the Lancaster VI would be attacking at 83% of the altitude which increases blast by the inverse cube power (1/0.83)^3 which is 50% more blast.
The fall time of the bomb before detonation is about 10% less and the speed of the aircraft is also 10% less in addition the air pressure is more. All of this adds up to the factor of 2 safety margin for blast being reduced to 1.

As far as I can tell early British plans for grand slam bombs and nuclear bombs go back to the Vickers Windsor.

Using a Lancaster requires the yield of the bomb to be dropped 50% or the use of a parachute retarded weapon to maintain safety margins.

A small increase in speed and operational ceiling will occur through deletion of the upper turret.


Boeing B-29A Superfortress
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-57 Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines each with two General Electric turbosuperchargers, delivering 2200 hp for take-off and having a war emergency rating of 2300 hp at 25,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 306 mph at sea level. Maximum continuous cruising speed 342 mph at 30,000 feet. Economical cruising speed 220 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute at combat weight. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 38 minutes. Service ceiling 33,600 feet. Maximum range was 4000 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load. Practical operational radius was 1800 miles. Maximum ferry range was 6000 miles. Weights: 71,360 pounds empty, Normal loaded 120,000 pounds, maximum overload 135,000 pounds with 12,000 pound bombload. Dimensions: wingspan 141 feet 2 3/4 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1738 square feet. Fuel: 8288 US gallons after installation of semi permanent bomb bay tanks. Armament: Twelve 0.50-inch machine guns in four remotely-controlled turrets (two above and two below the fuselage) and in the tail, each with 1000 rounds of ammunition. In addition, early production blocks had a single rearward-firing 20-mm M2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds in the tail position. The 20-mm cannon was deleted on production block 20 and two more 0.50-inch guns were added to the forward top turret.. Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.

 

[nuuumannn]

To say that the Lancaster wasn't seriously considered is just plain wrong.

No it isn't. The evidence has been placed out there time and time again that it wasn't considered by anyone else except Ramsey. Again, for the third time in Ramsey's own words which I have posted before...

"In the fall of 1943 it became apparent that plans for full scale tests should be started. In view of the critical shortage of B-29's it was at first proposed that a British Lancaster be used for the test work even though a B-29 would almost certainly be used as the combat ship. The Air Forces, however, wisely recommended that a B-29 be used for the test work as well, both to avoid non-standard maintenance and to accumulate experience in B-29 operations with such a bomb."

Proposed, not seriously considered, which again was shot down by Arnold.

What would have happened if the B-29 could not be used? Was the Manhattan project going to be halted? Would the A-bombs be built but put into storage? Or would Groves have picked up the phone and asked Churchill for some reverse lend-lease Lancasters?

Because Ramsey's suggestion to acquire Lancasters in 1943 wasn't acted upon, yes acquiring them in mid 1944 would have caused delays, but surely no more than happened with the B-29.

The Lancaster VI flew in mid (June, IIRC) 1943. The XB-44 (B-50 prototype) didn't fly until May 1945. You may be thinking of the Lancaster IV (Lincoln prototype) which flew in June 1944.

The Lancaster VI was taken out of service in late 1944 owing to troublesome engines! How could it be used?!

The article has a few flaws.

It states that the Fatman would not fit into a Lancaster bomb bay without removing the doors, but the maximum width was short enough to have allowed for bulged doors to be fitted. Yes, there would have been some extra drag, but probably little more than that already produced by the radome and would have been largely offset by removal of the mid upper and front turrets.

A major flaw is in the range calculation. The Lancasters that flew the Tirpitz raids from Scotland covered about 2400 miles, and one even managed to fly the mission and return with a hung up bomb and this was achieved by using a 400IG internal Wellington aux tank, for a total of about 2560 IG of internal fuel. By the use of custom internal aux tanks, maximum fuel load of a Lancaster VI, minus the front and upper turrets, whilst carrying a FATMAN would be about 3000IG (with aux tanks fore and aft of the bomb) and a range of ~3000 miles. Like the Silverplate B-29s the mission would use a low-high-low flight profile, so that minimal time is spent at high altitude and initial climb to attack altitude is done with a large amount of fuel (1200-1500IG or ~8600-11000lb) of fuel burned off. However, even this is insufficient range for safe mission planning with a return to Tinian, and so TO from Tinian would involve a mission plan that included landing at Okinawa or Iwo Jima after weapon release.

A 'Silverplate' Lincoln should have been able to fly to and from Tinian with aux bomb bay tanks.

Flaws? Write your own article then. Do it. Stop criticising other people's efforts and put your money where your mouth is.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the Fat Man was the same diameter as the Lancaster's fuselage, around five feet or 1.5 metres. If you think it wouldn't have that much impact on the Lancaster in terms of drag, you know nothing about aerodynamics. Take a look at the pics I posted above for comparison.

As for range calculations, so the Aircraft and Armament Experimental establishment were lying then?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

Do the calculations! Read the source material!

Silverplate Lincoln? WTF! And you criticise the article for getting it wrong!

Ramsey stated that the Lancaster was his preferred platform in 1943.

Aaaand again, by the time the bombs have been dropped and after Arnold and Groves both said no, he changed his mind. But you're not reading anything except your point of view, are you. Your research is flawed, your opinion heavily biased and your conclusion wrong.

 

[RCAFson]

To my mind, Thin Man was the most problematic bomb shape for the B-29. Being long it needed the two bomb bays to be joined underneath the wing. Which was achieved, but also why the Lancaster would be seen as an alternative.

Fat Man is the most problematic bomb for the Lancaster. The 12,000lb HC and Tallboy bombs could fit internally on the Lancaster with bulged bomb bay doors. The 22,000lb Grand Slam could not fit internally in the Lancaster bomb bay, so the doors were taken off for those missions (along with a turret or two to lighten the weight). The Fat Man bomb was larger in diameter than the Grand Slam, so could not fit internally in a standard Lancaster bay.

Getting the Fat Man to fit internally on a Lancaster would require more modification than was done to the B-29s, IMO.

For Fat Man and Little Boy the modifications for the B-29 were somewhat simpler than they were for Thin Man. Both bombs could fit inside the forward bomb bay, once the regular bomb racks were removed and a suitable single point rack installed in their place.

Little Boy was the easiest of the three bombs to accommodate. It was, essentially, the same size as the British 4,000lb HC "Cookie", so would fit easily inside the Lancaster and the modified B-29.

In fact, if the box tail was replaced with a British style round tail, Little Boy would have fit in the Mosquito with bulged bomb bay doors. Getting off the ground would have been unlikely, though.

Lancaster Bomb-Bay width was 61in. Fat Man width is 60.25in (or 60 or 59in by some sources). Lancaster B-B depth was 38in, IIRC. Fat Man will fit but will require a bulged B-B door that allows for an extra ~24in of B-B depth, (assuming that B-B doors are actually required*). The information that has been published proves that Ramsey presented Chadwick with drawings and dimensions of THIN MAN (gun type bomb) and FAT MAN, (the implosion design) and Chadwick confirmed that both bomb designs would fit.

*Groves goes into some detail in Now It Can Be Told, to explain that inflight arming of the two bomb designs was a needless complication.

 

[nuuumannn]

It simply could not be carried internally. The Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, which is approximately the width of the Lancaster's fuselage. Not only that but the drag of having such a thing protruding beneath the aircraft would be severely detrimental to its performance. The Grand Slam, as you know could be carried if its bomb bay doors were removed - and a raft of mods were made to the airframe, but it had a diameter of 1.1 metres, so less effect on drag, and its a streamlined shape. The Fat Man was shaped and sized so it could fit within the B-29's bomb bay.

This pic gives a good impression of its girth.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

By comparison, a nicely coloured image of a Grand Slam under a Lanc.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg

Lancaster Bomb-Bay width was 61in. Fat Man width is 60.25in (or 60 or 59in by some sources). Lancaster B-B depth was 38in, IIRC. Fat Man will fit but will require a bulged B-B door that allows for an extra ~24in of B-B depth, (assuming that B-B doors are actually required*). The information that has been published proves that Ramsey presented Chadwick with drawings and dimensions of THIN MAN (gun type bomb) and FAT MAN, (the implosion design) and Chadwick confirmed that both bomb designs would fit.

No, Chadwick DID NOT confirm that Fat Man would fit. Simply because at the time Fat Man had not been completely finished in design, Fat Man's dimensions were designed specifically to fit inside a B-29's bomb bay, so at the time Chadwick saw what Ramsey was proposing, he saw shapes and rough estimates of weight, rather than exact dimensions and specifications. Also, Chadwick DID NOT know that what Ramsey was showing him were potential nuclear weapon shapes. Ramsey did not explain what the shapes were, just asked if he believed the Lancaster could carry them. He didn't mention anything about their purpose.

Again, do your research.

Take a look at the photos. The theory that the Fat Man could fit in a Lanc's bomb bay, just laughable. Again, you are not looking at the evidence.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg

 

[RCAFson]

Fortunately there is performance data available for the Lancaster VI. The Lancaster VI is basically a standard Lancaster fitted with two stage Merlin engines. With these engines the Lancaster's altitude performance and speed at high altitude increases considerably. The improvements do not come up to B-29 standards.


Lancaster Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-level-speeds.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-climb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

The Lancaster VI used in these tests had all 3 turrets and H2S radar fitted.

Lancaster VI speed at 24000ft is 325mph. This is the maximum speed. At 25000ft speed drops of to 320mph. The Lancaster VI service ceiling, where climb drops to 100 feet per minute, is 28000 feet. The operational ceiling, the altitude at which climb rate drops to 500 feet per minute, is 23500. Thus operation above 24000 to 25000ft is impractical.

By Contrast the B29A had an operational ceiling of 30,000ft instead of 23500 and its speed in the 25000ft to 30000ft altitude is about 357mph. (Data below)

Hence the Lancaster VI would be attacking at 83% of the altitude which increases blast by the inverse cube power (1/0.83)^3 which is 50% more blast.
The fall time of the bomb before detonation is about 10% less and the speed of the aircraft is also 10% less in addition the air pressure is more. All of this adds up to the factor of 2 safety margin for blast being reduced to 1.

As far as I can tell early British plans for grand slam bombs and nuclear bombs go back to the Vickers Windsor.

Using a Lancaster requires the yield of the bomb to be dropped 50% or the use of a parachute retarded weapon to maintain safety margins.

A small increase in speed and operational ceiling will occur through deletion of the upper turret.


Boeing B-29A Superfortress
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-57 Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines each with two General Electric turbosuperchargers, delivering 2200 hp for take-off and having a war emergency rating of 2300 hp at 25,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 306 mph at sea level. Maximum continuous cruising speed 342 mph at 30,000 feet. Economical cruising speed 220 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute at combat weight. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 38 minutes. Service ceiling 33,600 feet. Maximum range was 4000 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load. Practical operational radius was 1800 miles. Maximum ferry range was 6000 miles. Weights: 71,360 pounds empty, Normal loaded 120,000 pounds, maximum overload 135,000 pounds with 12,000 pound bombload. Dimensions: wingspan 141 feet 2 3/4 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1738 square feet. Fuel: 8288 US gallons after installation of semi permanent bomb bay tanks. Armament: Twelve 0.50-inch machine guns in four remotely-controlled turrets (two above and two below the fuselage) and in the tail, each with 1000 rounds of ammunition. In addition, early production blocks had a single rearward-firing 20-mm M2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds in the tail position. The 20-mm cannon was deleted on production block 20 and two more 0.50-inch guns were added to the forward top turret.. Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.

Historical bombing altitudes were ~32000ft and 29000 ft (Nagasaki)

Lancaster VI service ceiling is 28500ft at 65000lb TO weight. However, at weapon release, the aircraft will have burnt off about 1500-1800 IG of fuel (~11000 to ~13000lb from 72000lb TO weight) and weight will be 61000-59000lb with a consequent increase in service ceiling. However even at 28000ft a Lancaster would have been safe from the ~21kt yield of a FAT MAN bomb as was proved by Bockscar dropping at ~29000ft. The LITTLE BOY bomb only had a yield of 13kt.

 

[RCAFson]

(1) The Lancaster VI was taken out of service in late 1944 owing to troublesome engines! How could it be used?!



(2) Flaws? Write your own article then. Do it. Stop criticising other people's efforts and put your money where your mouth is.

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the Fat Man was the same diameter as the Lancaster's fuselage, around five feet or 1.5 metres. If you think it wouldn't have that much impact on the Lancaster in terms of drag, you know nothing about aerodynamics. Take a look at the pics I posted above for comparison.

As for range calculations, so the Aircraft and Armament Experimental establishment were lying then?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

Do the calculations! Read the source material!

(3) Silverplate Lincoln? WTF! And you criticise the article for getting it wrong!

(1) The Lancaster VI was no longer needed over Germany in late 1944 because of Luftwaffe collapse, which is why it was withdrawn from operational, but not training service. The Lancaster VI and Lincoln used the same engine configuration and vibration problems were largely cured with a 4 bladed prop (See Sweetman).

(2) It was pointed out to you by Greyman in posts 11 to 18, of this thread, that your range calculations were incorrect. He repeatedly pointed out the range calculation flaws that ended up in the article, a year before it was published. If someone publishes an article that contains incorrect info , you can hardly expect that the author will escape criticism. You seem to stating that anything published is beyond criticism, even if it is clearly wrong. Just to reinterate, the Scottish based raids against Tirpitz were flown with Lancasters carrying a Tallboy bomb and 2560IG of internal fuel with a TO weight of 68500lb and their actual range exceeded 2400 miles.

(3) The 'Silverplate' Lincoln was onviously a shorthand form of stating that it would have been specially modded for A-bomb delivery, as per the historical Silverplate program.

 

[RCAFson]

No, Chadwick DID NOT confirm that Fat Man would fit. Simply because at the time Fat Man had not been completely finished in design, Fat Man's dimensions were designed specifically to fit inside a B-29's bomb bay, so at the time Chadwick saw what Ramsey was proposing, he saw shapes and rough estimates of weight, rather than exact dimensions and specifications. Also, Chadwick DID NOT know that what Ramsey was showing him were potential nuclear weapon shapes. Ramsey did not explain what the shapes were, just asked if he believed the Lancaster could carry them. He didn't mention anything about their purpose.

Again, do your research.

Take a look at the photos. The theory that the Fat Man could fit in a Lanc's bomb bay, just laughable. Again, you are not looking at the evidence.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/77-BT-187 Fat Man being lowered and checked on transport dolly for airfield trip.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5217759.15635471...g_gen/derivatives/original_780/grand-slam.jpg

What you are proving is that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you:

Ramsey was assigned to head the Delivery Group of the Ordnance Division and later
served as deputy to Pasion." His immediate tasks were to design the bomb casings that
would carry the gun-assembly bomb and implosion bomb. By the end of 1943 it had
already been established that the gun-type bomb-Thin Man-would weigh on the order
of five tons. Ramsey assumed that the implosion bomb would weigh approximately the
same. Given their size and weight, there were only two possible choices for an aircraft to
deliver the weapons, the British Lancaster or the American B-29, which had begun
production in September.

Ramsey favored the Lancaster and traveled to Canada in early October 1943 to meet Roy
Chadwick, the plane's chief designer, Chadwick was in Canada to observe the initial
Lancasters coming off the production line at the Victory Aircraft Works, Milton Airdrome,
in Toronto. Ramsey showed Chadwick preliminary sketches of the large-thin-shaped and
stubby shaped-bombs and later wrote with more details.(12) Chadwick assured Ramsey that
the Lencaster could accommodate them.

When Ramsey returned, he wrote to Parsons suggesting that the Lancaster be seriously
considered and planned a memo to General Groves recommending that a modified
Lancaster be used.(13)The bomb bay was thirty-three feet long and sixty-one inches wide.
The depth was only thirty-eight inches, but this could be modified. The Lancaster's ceiling
was 27,000 feet, its speed 285 miles per hour, and takeoff required only 3,750 feet of runway
-a critical matter wherever it would be based.
(12). Norman F, Ramsey Jr. to Roy Chadwick, October 23, 1943, Folder Dr. Norman Ramsey, Box 6,
Tolman Files, RG 227/81, NARA.
(13). Memo, N. F, Ramsey to Capt. W. . Parsons, October 14, 1943, Lancaster Aircraft, Folder Dr Norman Ramsey... NARA
" (Norris, pages 316-317 Racing for the Bomb)

Again, the actual FAT MAN width was 60.25in or less.

 

[nuuumannn]

(1) The Lancaster VI was no longer needed over Germany in late 1944 because of Luftwaffe collapse, which is why it was withdrawn from operational, but not training service. The Lancaster VI and Lincoln used the same engine configuration and vibration problems were largely cured with a 4 bladed prop (See Sweetman).

(2) It was pointed out to you by Greyman in posts 11 to 18, of this thread, that your range calculations were incorrect. He repeatedly pointed out the range calculation flaws that ended up in the article, a year before it was published. If someone publishes an article that contains incorrect info , you can hardly expect that the author will escape criticism. You seem to stating that anything published is beyond criticism, even if it is clearly wrong.

(3) The 'Silverplate' Lincoln was onviously a shorthand form of stating that it would have been specially modded for A-bomb delivery, as per the historical Silverplate program.

1) The Lancaster VI was retired from frontline service in November 1944 because it suffered technical issues and was not proceded with because of the Lincoln, which demonstrated better performance going forward, regardless of what modifications were made to it. It played no further part in the war and those surviving aircraft were used for research by the likes of Rolls Royce.

2) The figures are not flawed. Don't be lazy. Do the maths. The figures in the report also do not take into consideration the deterioration of performance based on a shift to the Pacific where the ambient temperature would sap performance further. Again, do your research. Regarding criticism, it has been pointed out to you by no less than four others on this thread in the last three days that your evidence you are placing in your favour contradicts the point you are making, yet you still refuse to accept what is right in front of you, so, right back at ya, sunshine.

2) Silverplate Lincoln is a fiction invented by you to reinforce a flawed point. The Lincoln first entered service with 57 Squadron at East Kirkby on 3 August 1945 with the arrival of three aircraft. The Lincoln was never considered nor suggested for delivering the US nuclear weapons.

 

[RCAFson]

1) The Lancaster VI was retired from frontline service in November 1944 because it suffered technical issues and was not proceded with because of the Lincoln, which demonstrated better performance going forward, regardless of what modifications were made to it. It played no further part in the war and those surviving aircraft were used for research by the likes of Rolls Royce.

2) The figures are not flawed. Don't be lazy. Do the maths. The figures in the report also do not take into consideration the deterioration of performance based on a shift to the Pacific where the ambient temperature would sap performance further. Again, do your research.

2) Silverplate Lincoln is a fiction invented by you yto reinforce a flawed pioint and you know it. The Lincoln first entered service with 57 Squadron at East Kirkby on 3 August 1945 with the arrival of three aircraft. The Lincoln was never considered nor suggested for delivering nuclear weapons.

1) There was no need for a high altitude Lancaster given the pending arrival of the Lincoln because the Lancaster didn't have a prior mission requirement for a high altitude bomb release.
2) Greyman pointed out to you the figures for the Tirpitz raids. Anyone who had read posts 11-18 knows this and it is rather brazen of you to pretend that your figures are correct since that would mean that the actual mission could not have happened... Greyman clearly pointed out the AMPG adjustments for tropical conditions.

2->3) the Lincoln entered squadron service late because it took a backseat to Lancaster production, again because it was clearly not needed in the ETO and even in the PTO, Tiger Force Lancasters had sufficient range to operate from Okinawa.

 

[GrauGeist]

Tiger Force Lancasters had sufficient range to operate from Okinawa.

Silverplate could not operate from Okinawa due to constant attack, which is why they operated from Tinian.

 

[nuuumannn]

Anyone who had read posts 11-18 knows this and it is rather brazen of you to pretend that your figures are correct since that would mean that the actual mission could not have happened

So, you're not going to do the calculations yourself then?

 

[nuuumannn]

Silverplate could not operate from Okinawa due to constant attack, which is why they operated from Tinian.

This is well known and has been debated to death on this thread alone, Dave. He's talking of Silverplate Lincolns and Lancaster VIs that can carry Fat Man bombs internally. That alone should give you an indication of what we are dealing with.

 

[RCAFson]

So, you're not going to do the calculations yourself then?

see: The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

The Tirpitz raid Lancasters were carrying 2560IG of fuel (using a 400IG Wellington Aux tank) and a 12000lb Tallboy and a 68500lb TO weight, Actual range of the aircraft exceeded 2400 miles (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. A Lancaster loaded with a FAT MAN can accommodate two aux tanks in the bomb bay and their is sufficient weight capacity, at 72000lb TO weight for another ~5000lb of fuel or ~700IG, if custom (rather than Wellington) aux tanks are used, however even if we max out the fuel load at 3000IG we get at range of 2820 miles at .94AMPG (tropical). This is easily sufficient for a Tinian->target-> Okinawa mission.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Tirpitz raid Lancasters were carrying 2560IG of fuel (using a 400IG Wellington Aux tank) and a 12000lb Tallboy and a 68500lb TO weight, Actual range of the aircraft exceeded 2400 miles (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. A Lancaster loaded with a FAT MAN can accommodate two aux tanks in the bomb bay and their is sufficient weight capacity, at 72000lb TO weight for another ~5000lb of fuel or ~700IG, if custom (rather than Wellington) aux tanks are used, however even if we max out the fuel load at 3000IG we get at range of 2820 miles at .94AMPG (tropical). This is easily sufficient for a Tinian->target-> Okinawa mission.

Ta dah! There it is! Evidence! Oops, no, still hasn't done the calculations... Is it because you don't know how to calculate specific air range from figures provided? Wikipedia isn't going to help you, you're gonna have to research it yourself. Look, the figures are all there in the paperwork, even under tropical conditions.