FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Taxi time? And you're running up each engine individually so multiply that by 4 and consider the other 3 engines sitting there at idle
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
Taxi time? And you're running up each engine individually so multiply that by 4 and consider the other 3 engines sitting there at idle
Again, how long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% fuel? This is a straightforward question.
Yeah, but you are burning fuel before then. Make yourself more clear, before you get snarky with people for no reason.
You're trying to argue that WW2 combat mission were impossible because they had to burn 20% of their fuel before TO.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And how long do YOU think it takes to start up, warm up, taxi, complete ground runs, complete pre take off checks and then taxi into take off position? Forget about the fuel consumption!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Go back in my posts - I NEVER said you'd burn 20% of your fuel!!!! I said it had to calculated!!!
And this is a straightforward answer. I'm not saying fuel burn is 20%. Care to show me where I did? Thats a straightforward question. Knock it off with the snarkiness.
Fine. Now please answer the question: How long do you have to run the engines at full throttle to burn 20% of the fuel?
Hello, where did I say 20%????
OK, if fuel burn isn't 20% then why not take issue with that statement? The fact is that no matter how you cut it, fuel burn up to TO will be ~2%.
- Thread starter
- #531
Some data I dredged out of the books on the Grand Slam carrying Lancaster, which might help understanding the issue regarding operating in an overloaded situation - and let's face it, the Lancaster's MTOW did increase carrying the Grand Slam, but not all Lancasters could carry the Grand Slam, only specially modified ones.
Take off figures for the B.I Special with an MTOW at 72,000lbs - note, this is for information only and not designed to prove a point - I've been adding these snippets about the Special Lancs because they are very different to normal service aircraft owing to the modifications made to them.
Take off at 72,000lbs, 1,080 yards, with +18psi boost, 3,000 rpm and 20 deg flap. Landing at 60,000lbs, 1,070 yards, with full flap. Estimated tropical summer conditions increase these distances by 25%.
With a weight of 70,000lbs, max rate climb is 590 fpm at MS gear and 370 fpm at FS gear. Full throttle height MS, 10,300 ft, FS, 16,200 ft. Tropical summer conditions show a marked reduction in these figures: 370 fpm at MS gear, 170 at FS gear. Full throttle height 8,800 ft MS, 14,700 ft FS. These figures are based on ICAN standards.
Take off figures for the B.I Special with an MTOW at 72,000lbs - note, this is for information only and not designed to prove a point - I've been adding these snippets about the Special Lancs because they are very different to normal service aircraft owing to the modifications made to them.
Take off at 72,000lbs, 1,080 yards, with +18psi boost, 3,000 rpm and 20 deg flap. Landing at 60,000lbs, 1,070 yards, with full flap. Estimated tropical summer conditions increase these distances by 25%.
With a weight of 70,000lbs, max rate climb is 590 fpm at MS gear and 370 fpm at FS gear. Full throttle height MS, 10,300 ft, FS, 16,200 ft. Tropical summer conditions show a marked reduction in these figures: 370 fpm at MS gear, 170 at FS gear. Full throttle height 8,800 ft MS, 14,700 ft FS. These figures are based on ICAN standards.
I explained that in post 511. You would know that if you would read first, think, then respond. My issue was not with the fuel burn. I don't know if it is between 2% and 20%, which I stated in post 511. I took issue with your 1 minute to take off post, and that is what I was commenting on.
Your stuck on this high all mighty attitude, and don't realize that maybe you need to communicate your thoughts better instead of getting an attitude with everyone that comments to you.
- Thread starter
- #533
It was me who said 20%, not Adler. I have explained why I mentioned 20% and you've taken it in a completely different direction.
I'll repeat it so you get it this time:
Also remember for what its worth, takeoff power does not stop once the wheels leave the ground. You have to think of climb out too.
Note to a specific person: no mention of 20% fuel burned.
Note to a specific person: no mention of 20% fuel burned.
Where did I say you did? I am asking a straightforward q
Do you agree with this statement from post 533?
"With aircraft that are heavily laden, around 20 percent of their total fuel load is used just to get off the runway..."
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
I do not know if this will help?
In some of the Bomber Command operational records I have found, the usual time on the ground from engine start to the start of the TO run was considered to be a minimum of 20 minutes for bombers operating in formations. However, the planners were supposed to use a ground time running of 30 minutes as a minimum to take into account that not all WUTOs went according to plan.
In some of the Bomber Command operational records I have found, the usual time on the ground from engine start to the start of the TO run was considered to be a minimum of 20 minutes for bombers operating in formations. However, the planners were supposed to use a ground time running of 30 minutes as a minimum to take into account that not all WUTOs went according to plan.
- Thread starter
- #537
Interesting and although I threw the 20% figure in there, I'm backing away, but this, from a purely informative position is interesting and demonstrates the time required to get these big birds into action. It also explains that after WW2, Bomber Command got former Fighter Command guys in to train bomber crews into the quick reaction mindset of getting airborne within a few minutes, with GPUs and ground handlers at the ready at dispersal pans next to the runways.
I am really getting tired of this. I already stated I do not know in post 511. I never took issue with your fuel burn percent. Do you understand that??? I have no dog in that fight. Without doing fuel burn calculations I do not know. If I was a betting man, I would not bet at 20%, but I can see it being higher than 2% for a heavy 4 engined aircraft.
But yeah I agree with 533, in that I never said it was 20%. Kapeesh? Or do you wanna keep the snarkiness going?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'll answer your question - YES! If we're talking large turbine aircraft like a 747, B-1 or a B-52 considering taxi and run-up times
So now a straightforward question AGAIN!
How long do YOU think it takes to start up, warm up, taxi, complete ground runs, complete pre take off checks and then taxi into take off position? (a normal WW2 bomber)
Damn, I never thought I would see the day where I preferred P39 Expert's P39 round and round thread. 
- Status
