The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

Dash119 · Nov 7, 2020

FLYBOYJ said:
Agree about being a harder target at night for sure.

And keep in mind, at least with Enola Gay, this was the first detonation of the gun-type bomb, the first air drop of an atomic weapon, and the first air burst of an atomic weapon. The Trinity test was of the implosion-type bomb, was conducted on a tower, and for all practical purposes was a ground burst. While the blast itself and the resulting fires in Hiroshima would have provided light, daylight observation and measurement would be far more revealing and accurate. From a scientific standpoint this whole process was still highly experimental.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 7, 2020

Dash119 said:
From a scientific standpoint this whole process was still highly experimental.

And I think that's a major reason why the powers to be wanted this to be done during the daytime.

ThomasP · Nov 7, 2020

Hey special ed,

re:"I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory."

Have you tried asking your singleton socks?

swampyankee · Nov 7, 2020

As a parallel question:
The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?

FLYBOYJ · Nov 7, 2020

swampyankee said:
As a parallel question:
The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?

Perhaps - but roll back to Ramsey and Arnold's insistence to use a US delivery system. Now had the bomb been ready 1 1/2 years earlier and all the bugs not worked out of the B-29? "What if?"

Dash119 · Nov 7, 2020

swampyankee said:
As a parallel question:
The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?

The B-29 was not operational in the ETO, but they were not novel to that theater. There were B-29's in England as early as 1944.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 7, 2020

Peter Gunn · Nov 8, 2020

special ed said:
I have looked for some time for my book on Silverplate and it remains lost in the magic trash pile, so I will have to use my faulty memory. The work up with B-29s began at Wendover, Utah, and took constant flying for nearly a year to develop the delivery flight profile. The 509th was subject to absolute secrecy. Some men were dismissed from the program for loose lips. Once at Tinian, there were comments about the 509th being a gold brick outfit because they didn't fly mission with the others. The 509th always seemed to be flying 3or 5 plane missions with no losses or damage. Now imagine if the 509th showed up with Lancasters on a island of B-29s. The troops would say "What the hell is that?" The Japanese would say "What the hell is That?" And any imbeded reporters would wonder "What the hell is that?" It would have been like hiding a mule in a herd of horses.

All valid observations except my question would be "What the hell" are they using Lancasters for if the B-29 is already operational? Considering the modifications the Lancaster would need like Silverplate B-29s. Are you contending the B-29 would be operational but Silverplate was a failure and that's why Lancasters are in the 509th? That's not a snarky question, just a genuine one thanks.

GrauGeist · Nov 8, 2020

swampyankee said:
As a parallel question:
The B-29 was not used in Europe, likely because it was superfluous, but since neither the B-24 nor B-17 were capable of carrying Fat Man or Little Boy, how would one of the atomic bombs be delivered to Germany? Would it make more sense to use Lancasters or to move the B-29, an aircraft novel to the ETO, for the delivery?

The B-29 (and B-36) were originally designed for the ETO, incidently.
As far as the intention of Atomic weapon delivery to European targets, that was to be the Lancaster.

nuuumannn · Nov 8, 2020

RCAFson said:
The only major mods on the Grandslam Lancaster Specials were strengthened landing gear and removal of the mid upper turret, and of course removal of the B-B doors to sling the bomb externally ( yet cruise speed, and AMPG was similar to a standard Lancaster at the same weight). Otherwise they were pretty much as any other Lancaster I.

Hmmm, you need to read more about the Lancaster. The bomb bay was also strengthened and more powerful engines and different prop blades were fitted. All in all, this was quite a lot of modification to a standard Mk.I, so 'pretty much as any other Lancaster' isn't true.

As for performance, the following is taken from The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down by Tim Mason (Hikoki, 1998) extrapolated from Air Ministry files:

"Unlike the Tallboy, the Grand Slam of 22,000lbs required extensive aircraft modification, more power and a considerable increase in weight."

Tables of Performance record B.I (Special) PB592 as at a MTOW of 72,000lbs as having a max rate of climb of 500 ft per min to 10,000 feet, taking 50 minutes to achieve. Ceiling was 18,600 feet and its maximum speed was a true airspeed of 245 mph at an altitude of 16,200 feet. This data is whilst carrying a Grand Slam.

By comparison, from the same table, Mk.I W4963 with an MTOW of 63,000lbs has a max rate of climb 720 ft per min to 9,200 feet, taking 44 minutes. Its ceiling was 21,000 feet and with a maximum true airspeed of 282 mph at 13,000 feet.

So all round, performance of the Lancaster B.I (Special) was worse than standard Lanc Mk.I, which is precisely what I stated.

RCAFson said:
The data on Lancaster performance is available and it clearly shows that the Lancaster was mission capable. Why you continue to claim otherwise, when the data is online:

Lancaster Performance Trials, showing you to be incorrect, is a bit of a mystery.

No mystery about it. If you look at the page you provided, then compare with the page below, you'll see that I am right in stating that a Mk.I (Special) with an MTOW of 72,000lbs has lower performance, again, so once more, you've gone ahead and proven yourself wrong with your own information!

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

Wot you posted.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

nuuumannn · Nov 8, 2020

The reality is a modified Lancaster couldn't do the Tinian raid as it was. How it could have is with in-flight refuelling. It's the only way it could have. Performance wise, with IFR, speeds could be increased as could altitude, but not by as much as the B-29. Carrying out this raid with an MTOW of 72,000lbs gives speeds of between 170 to 190 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet to reach maximum range, which is suicide and performance would definitely need to be increased. A cruise speed of over 200mph at an altitude of 20,000 feet or more is preferable, but with a B.I (Special) modified to an MTOW of 72,000lbs is unobtainable (see figures above), so another option would have to be investigated. Perhaps the Lincoln, which the Lanc VI was a forerunner to at any rate - skip the troublesome Lanc VI and go straight for the big daddy.

With IFR, the range could be met if enough tankers were provided. Avro drew up proposals for tankers based on Manchester airframes in 1940; the modifications could fit within the Lanc fuselage and bomb bay as well, so that is feasible. Here is a plausible scenario.

In September 1943, Ramsey is given the go ahead by Arnold to investigate the Lancaster as a potential second fiddle, IFR mods would need to be undertaken based on Avro's drawings and put into service as quickly as possible, requiring crew training etc to bring about a mission capable op. A fleet of tankers is needed and the aircraft would have to fly from Tinian to Japan and back to Tinian. Let's not dick around with Okinawa. Do this properly. The only way it can be done is with IFR.

I am envisioning a similar scenario of tankers to receivers as the Black Buck raids against the Falklands as flown by Avro Vulcans and Handley Page Victors as the tankers. For each bombing raid, the one Vulcan required fifteen to sixteen Victors, to enable them to refuel each other to match the Vulcan. Diagram here:

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

From here: Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

GrauGeist · Nov 8, 2020

Keep in mind that both missions (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) involved three advance weather scouts and two data/observer aircraft, too.
And they were all interchangeable - meaning all were capable of carrying either the bombs or the instruments.

So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...

nuuumannn · Nov 8, 2020

GrauGeist said:
So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...

So, you mean to say that the Lancaster op is less plausible than we are assuming here???

GrauGeist · Nov 8, 2020

nuuumannn said:
So, you mean to say that the Lancaster op is less plausible than we are assuming here???

Well...

Maybe

RCAFson · Nov 9, 2020

nuuumannn said:
The reality is a modified Lancaster couldn't do the Tinian raid as it was. How it could have is with in-flight refuelling. It's the only way it could have. Performance wise, with IFR, speeds could be increased as could altitude, but not by as much as the B-29. Carrying out this raid with an MTOW of 72,000lbs gives speeds of between 170 to 190 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet to reach maximum range, which is suicide and performance would definitely need to be increased. A cruise speed of over 200mph at an altitude of 20,000 feet or more is preferable, but with a B.I (Special) modified to an MTOW of 72,000lbs is unobtainable (see figures above), so another option would have to be investigated. Perhaps the Lincoln, which the Lanc VI was a forerunner to at any rate - skip the troublesome Lanc VI and go straight for the big daddy.

With IFR, the range could be met if enough tankers were provided. Avro drew up proposals for tankers based on Manchester airframes in 1940; the modifications could fit within the Lanc fuselage and bomb bay as well, so that is feasible. Here is a plausible scenario.

In September 1943, Ramsey is given the go ahead by Arnold to investigate the Lancaster as a potential second fiddle, IFR mods would need to be undertaken based on Avro's drawings and put into service as quickly as possible, requiring crew training etc to bring about a mission capable op. A fleet of tankers is needed and the aircraft would have to fly from Tinian to Japan and back to Tinian. Let's not dick around with Okinawa. Do this properly. The only way it can be done is with IFR.

I am envisioning a similar scenario of tankers to receivers as the Black Buck raids against the Falklands as flown by Avro Vulcans and Handley Page Victors as the tankers. For each bombing raid, the one Vulcan required fifteen to sixteen Victors, to enable them to refuel each other to match the Vulcan. Diagram here:

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

From here: Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the aircraft will burn ~1500IG (~11000lb) of fuel prior to the climb to combat altitude during the 1400 mile cruise over the open ocean. So your comment about this being "suicide" is nonsensical - it's almost like you have trouble understanding these basic concepts. Also, MTOW will be ~70000lb, based upon a 10K lb bomb and ~3000IG fuel, and the aircraft will have both forward turrets removed. These numbers are based upon the Operation Catechism Lancasters that had ~2550IG of internal fuel. a 12000lb Tallboy, and were Lancaster Is refitted with Merlin 24 engines.

Merlin 24 TO HP = 1610 / 1510HP at 9.250K ft
Merlin 85 TO HP = 1635 / 1680HP at 16K ft
Merlin 86 TO HP = 1605 / 14400HP at 22.25K ft

RCAFson · Nov 9, 2020

GrauGeist said:
Keep in mind that both missions (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) involved three advance weather scouts and two data/observer aircraft, too.
And they were all interchangeable - meaning all were capable of carrying either the bombs or the instruments.

So you won't be sending a single Lanc on a mission, you'll be sending 6...

The weather aircraft and observer aircraft can be any aircraft with suitable range and performance. The only possible weapon exchange has to happen prior to TO. so this means having spare aircraft on Tinian.

GrauGeist · Nov 9, 2020

RCAFson said:
The weather aircraft and observer aircraft can be any aircraft with suitable range and performance. The only possible weapon exchange has to happen prior to TO. so this means having spare aircraft on Tinian.

Wrong.
They HAD to be interchangable and as it was, Enola Gay flew the data mission for Bockscar on the Kokura/Nagasaki run.

And what's amusing to me, is if everyone was so damned desperate to have one special bomber for this program, they could have used the B-19, but logic (and common sense) dictated that it would require well over a dozen to ensure the missions were able to succeed.

Also, you keep insisting that the Lanc could have ditched after the Nagasaki run - but what the Hiroshima run? What if it had to ditch after Hiroshima then what? Kokura (Nagasaki) still had to be done.

RCAFson · Nov 9, 2020

nuuumannn said:
Hmmm, you need to read more about the Lancaster. The bomb bay was also strengthened and more powerful engines and different prop blades were fitted. All in all, this was quite a lot of modification to a standard Mk.I, so 'pretty much as any other Lancaster' isn't true.

As for performance, the following is taken from The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down by Tim Mason (Hikoki, 1998) extrapolated from Air Ministry files:

(1) "Unlike the Tallboy, the Grand Slam of 22,000lbs required extensive aircraft modification, more power and a considerable increase in weight."

(2) Tables of Performance record B.I (Special) PB592 as at a MTOW of 72,000lbs as having a max rate of climb of 500 ft per min to 10,000 feet, taking 50 minutes to achieve. Ceiling was 18,600 feet and its maximum speed was a true airspeed of 245 mph at an altitude of 16,200 feet. This data is whilst carrying a Grand Slam.

By comparison, from the same table, Mk.I W4963 with an MTOW of 63,000lbs has a max rate of climb 720 ft per min to 9,200 feet, taking 44 minutes. Its ceiling was 21,000 feet and with a maximum true airspeed of 282 mph at 13,000 feet.

So all round, performance of the Lancaster B.I (Special) was worse than standard Lanc Mk.I, which is precisely what I stated.

No mystery about it. If you look at the page you provided, then compare with the page below, you'll see that I am right in stating that a Mk.I (Special) with an MTOW of 72,000lbs has lower performance, again, so once more, you've gone ahead and proven yourself wrong with your own information!

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

Wot you posted.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_VI_JB675_Performance.pdf

(1) Yes, I bet the Grandslam bomb attachment points had to strengthened, but neither A bomb will have require that.

(2) Sigh... that's the maximum cruise speed!!!! See:

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

I've already shown that econ cruise for a Grandslam Lancaster was 212mph TAS at 15K ft at 4.5lb boost at 2650RPM.

RCAFson · Nov 9, 2020

GrauGeist said:
Wrong.
They HAD to be interchangable and as it was, Enola Gay flew the data mission for Bockscar on the Kokura/Nagasaki run.

And what's amusing to me, is if everyone was so damned desperate to have one special bomber for this program, they could have used the B-19, but logic (and common sense) dictated that it would require well over a dozen to ensure the missions were able to succeed.

Also, you keep insisting that the Lanc could have ditched after the Nagasaki run - but what the Hiroshima run? What if it had to ditch after Hiroshima then what? Kokura (Nagasaki) still had to be done.

Why did they have to be interchangeable? Were they able to transfer the bomb inflight? The aircraft were used for weather/recon because it was convenient to do so, and not for any other compelling reason.

Your last sentence suggests that only one aircraft would be available for both missions? Really? Anyways both missions required roughly the same range because Hiroshima is north of Nagasaki.

GrauGeist · Nov 9, 2020

Ok, let's be realistic - Your attempts to justify the Lancaster for the atomic missions is almost admirable if it weren't for the intrusion into the realm of the fantastic.
Kokura is just a bit south of Hiroshima, Nagasaki is south-west of Kokura.

We've been for the most part, discussing the magic Lancaster's journey retracing Bockscar's mission but yes, Hiroshima was further north - which would have also required a considerable amount of fuel to make the run from Tinian to Tinian.

And nice try, but my last sentence did not, in fact imply that. If one happened to read the rest of my post (reading comprehension helps a great deal, by the way) I stated that it would require quite a few of the Unicorn Lancasters to match the requirements if the 509th, which used interchangeable aircraft that could either carry the bomb or carry the nessecary instruments (weather or data).

Maybe I'll start a thread about the Stirling as a candidate for an Atomic bomber, should be fun.

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads