So are we past this 2% versus 20% crap from yesterday?
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
The fins will fit. They are less than 61in wide. Yes, they will protrude about 2ft from below the B-B, but they have almost no frontal area.
- Thread starter
- #583
In your fictional world, yes, quite possibly, in reality, a little bit less easy to establish.
The Lancaster VI was in service in 1945, but it was not in front line combat service because there was no need for it. There would have been no Silverplate B-29s either, if the B-29 hadn't been selected to carry the A-bomb.
The only thing the Lancaster VI lacked was the same kind of production and development priority given to the Silverplate B-29s.
There's nothing fictional about the Lancaster range according to the actual AMPG figures for the Lancaster, and it's consequent ability to fly a Tinian-Target-Okinawa A-bomb mission.
- Thread starter
- #585
The lanc VI was still withdrawn from service and it was troublesome, that much is true, also it was being superceded by the Lincoln on Avro's production lines, which meant that it was not about to be chosen to fly long range operations whichever way you look at it - those are facts. Your proposal is fiction, so yeah, in fiction it could have.
An unmodified lancaster with overload tanks in its bomb bay, yes, It would have to fly at a speed of around 170 to 180 mph and an altitude of 15,000 feet, but not at an MTOW of 72,000lbs carrying a nuclear bomb because that is a fiction. In your fictional world, yes, anything is possible.
The bomb-bay is 61in wide. The fins are 1.5m = 59in wide.
Ramsey proposed the Lancaster. That's a Fact.
Fact: The Lancaster VI had the altitude, payload capacity and range to carry out the mission. Lancasters carried out operational missions carrying a 12000lb bomb and 2560IG of fuel for an actual mission range of 2400 miles at 68000lb TO weight.
Fact: Lancasters carried out actual operational missions carrying a 22000lb bomb at a 72000lb TO weight. The Grandslam was carried externally, below the B-B and the AMPG figures were still high enough that applying them to a Lancaster VI, with a 10K LB bomb and 3000IG of fuel (70K lb TO weight) allows it to complete a Tinian-Nagasaki-Okinawa mission.
AFAIK, Lancasters never carried or dropped torpedoes either, that doesn't mean they couldn't, yet because they never did, according to you they never could have.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So why didn't they add a few drop tanks to the Lanc and bomb the secret Nazi base on the dark side of the moon?
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Some dimensions:
fuselage height ____98.0" maximum, not including canopy
fuselage width_____68.8" maximum, external at bomb bay ceiling
bomb bay width___ 60.4" minimum, internal at ceiling
Standard Lancaster fuselage sectional area____55 ft2
'Guppy' bulge fuselage mod sectional area____ 76 ft2 (this assumes a 68.8" maximum diameter section centered at ~31.5" below bomb bay ceiling)
fuselage height ____98.0" maximum, not including canopy
fuselage width_____68.8" maximum, external at bomb bay ceiling
bomb bay width___ 60.4" minimum, internal at ceiling
Standard Lancaster fuselage sectional area____55 ft2
'Guppy' bulge fuselage mod sectional area____ 76 ft2 (this assumes a 68.8" maximum diameter section centered at ~31.5" below bomb bay ceiling)
buffnut453
Captain
Sorry, but you explicitly stated "By even fitting a streamlined bulge to the underside covering the Fat Man would be like increasing the frontal area of the Lancaster by nearly twice its value." Based on the preceding statements about drag, you seemed to be implying that carrying Fat Man would almost double the amount of drag (form drag to be specific) because it almost doubled the Lancaster's frontal area. If that's not what you meant, then I clearly misunderstood...but I'm not sure what other conclusion I could draw from what you wrote.
The Lanc bomb bay was 5ft wide so the fins should fit. If deemed necessary, the fins probably could have been modified (and the mods would only have to be slight). In all likelihood, the bomb bay doors would have to be removed or, if there was a need to carry the bomb in an enclosed fashion, then a fairing that bulges (slightly) in width as well as (more substantially - circa 31-32in) in depth ought to be feasible.
Don't disagree but, equally, we can't presume that Chadwick just made stuff up.
Chadwick didn't need to know they were nuclear weapons. This is typical compartmentalization of sensitive information. Chadwick didn't need to know the internals of the weapon, the explosion mechanism, explosion altitude or where the item was being made. Look at how little information was given to 617 Sqn before they started training with practice bombs.
At the end of the day, the problem was to carry a weight of a given size and CofG and then drop said weight. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's some kind of weapon but Chadwick didn't need to know the specifics, he just needed to figure out whether the weight and dimensions could be carried and dropped.
It wasn't operational because it wasn't needed in the European theatre. If Uncle Sam had come begging for a few IFR-capable aircraft for a special mission against Japan, Churchill would have ensured they were delivered. The technology was well understood and was part of the plan for RAF heavy bombers in the Far East from September 1944. Again, if the B-29 is removed from the equation, the decision calculus changes and IFR of Lancasters would be examined as one of the options, along with saddle tanks and other means of obtaining the necessary range.
The whole thread is based on a fictional premise that the B-29 fails so I'm not sure why you're being so critical of fictionalists. Perhaps others have made claims that were excessive but nothing in my last few posts stretches credulity. The force of 40 squadrons promised by Churchill at the Quebec Conference included Halifax tankers (not Manchesters).
Yes, this is a "what if" scenario but, within the bounds of what was known and possible at the time, I think it's entirely feasible for the Lancaster to complete a nuclear mission with the 2 provisos that I mentioned earlier about altitude and getaway. Others may disagree with my thinking and perspective, and that's ok. If I'm a fictionalist, then so be it.
Last edited:
Yes, inflight refueling was certainly an option and quite feasible if the planning began in late 1943. However the possession of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, made in-air refuelling unnecessary.
When we look at the actual mission plans, they were designed for a Tinian-target-Tinian mission plan, but diversion to Okinawa or Iwo Jima and/or ditching was always a part of the plans as well. In actuality by July 1945 the mission planners had a myriad of options open to them.
A Lancaster VI, with standard (2160IG) max internal fuel could have flown from Tinian to Iwo JIma, refuelled, embarked the bomb and then flown an IJ-target-Okinawa mission plan. By using a single 400IG B-B aux tank, it could have flown Tinian-IJ (refuel and bomb up)-Target-IJ mission plan.
When we look at the state of B-29 and R-3350 engine development and operational use in Mid-late 1943 through to 1945, we realize that Boeing was facing some truly staggering developmental problems. The R-3350 was terribly unreliable and made the Merlin 85 installation on the Lancasters IV, V and IV and Lincolns fitted with it seem like a paragon of reliability.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #592
Damn quotes suffering from gremlins, so bear with me.
I know what I said regarding that, but unlike yourself, I don't believe that Fat Man would fit within the Lancaster's bomb bay with fins, so it would have to be suspended below the fuselage, not only that but it needs to be enclosed, it wouldn't be kept swinging in the open, the force on the mounts would be horrendous because of the bomb's size and shape. Bearing that in mind, with such a large bulge under the aircraft, you are effectively doubling the aircraft's surface area from the front.
A fictional scenario, so we are gonna have to disagree on our fictional scenarios, which is why I don't like discussing fictional scenarios, because arguing over whose fiction is better is one of the worst internet sh*tf*ckery in my opinion.
Regarding what Chadwick knew and didn't know, like I said, it's all just hearsay until we know exactly what was said, but as you say, we probably won't know, so I'm gonna still disagree with the presumption that he said that the Lancaster could carry the Fat Man bomb, that's what this is about, after all.
I don't agree with your statement that IFR wasn't operational because of a European focus at all, simply because the British had been investigating IFR well before then, and an example is that Avro investigated an IFR Manchester in 1940. Let's also not forget the Tiger Force was drawn up in 1944 and IFR was going to be a component of it.
I'm not being critical of fictionalists, I'm being critical of this particular fictional scenario, because there are lots of leaps of faith and pure conjecture being passed off as being plausible, when much of it is not. If the distinction between fiction and reality is made, then I can accept that. We are going to have to agree on the premise that the Lancaster could carry Little Boy and Thin Man, but it couldn't carry Fat Man, and it did not have the ability or performance to fly the operation as it was flown - on those I simply cannot agree. Another thing that you guys never really address is the aircraft's performance. Based on the data, the Lanc would be flying at speeds between 170 to 190 mph at 15,000 feet! Over Japan in 1945?! As I said in my article, Short Stirlings were being shot down over Germany three years earlier with that performance.
Even using the Lancaster VI modified to have a 72,000lb MTOW, there would be a considerable reduction in that type's better performance, not to mention the issues it suffered with unreliable engines and overheating, alongside the vagaries of the heavier MTOW Lancasters, yet somehow I'm being expected to believe that a Lancaster VI at an MTOW of 72,000lb could carry Fat Man internally and be able to fly the mission from Tinian via Japanese mainland to Okinawa without any degradation of performance at all? Sorry Mark, it's just BS and nowhere near what might be considered as plausible. And don't get me started on Silverplate Lincolns...
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29, despite engine issues were flying operationally throughout 44 and into 45 meeting MC rates and making a difference in the airwar in the Pacific so please don't diminish the B-29s development and performance to justify your argument. Eventually a custom made nuclear strike aircraft emerged that served for years after the war and while I think a Lancaster "could have" pulled off a nuclear strike, it "would have" been like using a jalopy pick-up as a limousine. No matter how you want to slice or dice your performance estimates, no Lancaster or Lincoln was going to carry either bomb internally at over 30,000 feet at 360 MPH, the performance of Bockscar and other Silverplate B-29s.
Now I bet you're going to say that if the same Silverplate effort "would have" been put into the Lancaster it "could have" had the same performance as the B-29. Well if that was a feasible answer, it "would have" been done (and let's not forget how many times you pointed out it was "recommended")
FBJ,
I agree with your sentiments above. The thing that I would like to add / contribute is risk level. Today, it's much better defined than in WW2, and is stated in the commanders intent (our tactics are built around it). What's not being talked about in this thread is risk. IIRC they only had the two bombs to use with a third in production. You only have two of these weapons, you are on a tight timeline (not sure what the Vietnam quality of daily death tolls / body counts was being passed back) but as the President of the US, and a strong member of the Allies, and you want it over. What would be the least risk method of delivering the bomb? Assuming RCAFson is correct on his assumptions, the Lancaster could have delivered the weapon. But given the choice of aircraft, their comparable strengths and the options those strengths gave, I can't see how the President would have picked other than the way he did. I get the Made in US delivered by Made in the US perspective. But pushing that aside, the risk with a Lancaster VI Silverplate would by much higher than with the B29. Much. Again, I'm not saying it could not have been accomplished by a Lanc, however what I am saying is the risk would have been much greater.
Cheers,
Biff
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey guys,
re the potential range problem of using a Lancaster for the A-bomb missions.
After doing some more research on the subject, I am thinking that the reason there was not more mention during the war in regards to IFR development on the part of the British is that it had already been worked out to a proven level. Tiger Force as immediately envisioned did not require IFR. Although none of the British missions in the war used IFR, the BOAC used IFR for 16 commercial trans-Atlantic flights in the immediate pre-war period, and intended to continue using it on a regular basis. They also conducted ~100(?) successful IFR flight tests before the first commercial flight, and although there were 2(?) pump failures, and 1(?) case of failure of the hose coupling, there were no collisions or fires.
You may already be familiar with the method used, but if not see:
""
in regards to the simplicity.
They were able to transfer 1000 Impgal in 10 minutes. While it may seem somewhat simplistic by modern standards, it worked.
re the potential range problem of using a Lancaster for the A-bomb missions.
After doing some more research on the subject, I am thinking that the reason there was not more mention during the war in regards to IFR development on the part of the British is that it had already been worked out to a proven level. Tiger Force as immediately envisioned did not require IFR. Although none of the British missions in the war used IFR, the BOAC used IFR for 16 commercial trans-Atlantic flights in the immediate pre-war period, and intended to continue using it on a regular basis. They also conducted ~100(?) successful IFR flight tests before the first commercial flight, and although there were 2(?) pump failures, and 1(?) case of failure of the hose coupling, there were no collisions or fires.You may already be familiar with the method used, but if not see:
""
in regards to the simplicity.
They were able to transfer 1000 Impgal in 10 minutes. While it may seem somewhat simplistic by modern standards, it worked.
The issue here is the claim that the Merlin 85 was unreliable, but when we look at it compared to the R3350, it wasn't. This is not to diminish the B-29; we all know that it made great strides in solving it's problems and that it had superior performance.
Again, the Lancaster doesn't need to match the B-29 in performance, rather it needs to have sufficient range and ceiling to have delivered the payload to the target, with a mission plan that allows for crew survival.
The point of the thread, AIUI, is to not claim that the Lancaster was somehow superior to the B-29, but rather to demonstrate that it was mission capable. I think I have demonstrated that it was mission capable.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Internal bomb bay, 360MPH over 30,000'???
Don't compare your Lancaster speculation to a stock B-29. it seem that's what you have been doing.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Ok - but it seems you're the one continually pushing the comparison by showing issues during the B-29's development and then show was the Lancaster was issue free!
I stated, pretty clearly, that the B-29 has superior performance.
- Status
