Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
For those of us who are a little dim, could someone please explain (preferably using small words) why all the planes on the missions had to be interchangeable?
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
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So there would be no down-time in the event the primary bomber was unable to go on the mission.
Bockscar should not have flown primary on the second mission, but a monsoon was overtaking the islands and it was decided to go anyway.
However, if they weren't pressed for time, Bockscar could have been unloaded and the bomb transferred to any other 509th bomber, like Laggin' Dragon, Great Artiste and so on.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Is that so much to ask for?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Horton Ho.XVIII was better
- Thread starter
- #665
Keep yer hair on. Looks like it is, in translating the data into the book must have missed that. Doesn't really change the premise of what I posted though and my original position still stands, the B.I (Special)s had lower performance than the unmodified B.Is as a result of extra weight despite more powerful engines and more effective propeller blades.
Yup, but at 15,000 ft, which is just ridiculous over Japan in 1945. You're gonna want AT LEAST 20,000 feet with a cruise of around 200 mph plus. So, the B.I (Special) still can't do that.
Nothing has changed despite your correction. You are still not going to get the range figures WITHOUT in-flight refuelling, not at the performance and altitude that is necessary.
- Thread starter
- #666
Agree in the confines of this sentence only, but in reality, there's no way Arnold would have let the B-29 fail. He would have requested more finances and resources for it. It was at that time the most expensive aircraft project the US had embarked on. This wasn't just about a suitable nuclear bomber, the B-29 promised and delivered performance and capability that exceeded everything else in service and Arnold was determined to get it into the USAAF because of what it promised. That it could carry the nuclear weapons across the mission profile that we are familiar with was remarkable for the time - it certainly showed just how advanced the B-29 was and haggling over the crap we are doing so when considering the Lancaster just proves that.
Again, (how often do I have to repeat this?) the aircraft will burn off ~11000lb of fuel during the low altitude, overwater, cruise before beginning the climb to combat altitude, which will burn another ~4000lb of fuel so that at the beginning of the bomb run, aircraft weight will be ~55000lb. Even a Catechism modded Lancaster would have ~3500lb of fuel remaining after weapon release and a full B-B fuel tank mod, as much as ~7000lb remaining) The time spent at combat altitude, prior to weapon release will typically be less than 2 hours and as little as one hour. As I showed in my posts 609/635, the Merlin 85/86 have the needed TO power to get the Lancaster VI airborne at ~70Klb TO weight and have far superior power at high altitude, in comparison to the Merlin24. A FATMAN bomb in a modded bomb-bay, with both forward turrets removed is likely to be little different from an unmodded Lancaster VI, in terms of drag and thus speed:
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #668
Which bear no reality to the operation being planned here. Firstly, as it has been pointed out to you, altitudes below 20,000 feet over Japan in 1945? REALLY? As soon as you go higher your performance decreases and if you want to increase it, that chews into your fuel reducing your range. Next, the conditions in Northern Europe are very different to the Pacific theatre, which, it has already been pointed out to you would affect the aircraft's performance, so again, these figures as flown during Catechism wouldn't apply.
As for the Lancaster VI, again we run into problems regarding the modifications you intend to make to this aircraft, which would reduce its performance further, so the standard figures as stated on that sheet you continuously promote as evidence the Lancaster could do the raid WOULD NOT APPLY (How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?).
Sigh, the ONLY way this raid could be carried out by a Lancaster, regardless of what mark it is, is with in-flight refuelling. If not, you might as well get a Whitley to do it. It would be less of a waste of a good aeroplane.
- Thread starter
- #669
Where have I ever stated that they would be cruising over Japan at less than 20K ft? Why do you keep repeating this? Can you not read the performance charts for the Lancaster VI?
B-29 ranges all assume a low altitude cruise and then a climb to combat altitude ~30min prior to the bomb run:
"FORMULA: RADIUS MISSION I & II
Warm-up, take-off, climb on course to 10,000 ft at normal power,
cruise at long range speeds to point where climb is made to arrive at
25,000 ft 30 minutes prior to bomb drop, cruise at long range speeds
for 15 minutes, followed by 15 minutes normal power run into target,
drop bombs and conduct 5 minutes normal power evasive action (no
distance credit) and 10 minutes run out from target area at normal
power, cruise back to base at long range speeds at 25,000 ft. Range
free allowances include 10 minutes normal power at sea level for warm-
up and take-off, 5 minutes normal power evasive action plus 5% of initial
fuel for reserve.
FORMULA: RADIUS MISSION III
Same as I and II except initial climb is to 25,000 ft and bombs are
dropped at 30, 000 ft.
FORMULA: RANGE MISSION I & HI
Warm-up, take-off, climb on course to 10, 000 ft at normal power,
cruise at long range speeds to point where climb is made to arrive at
25,000 ft 30 minutes prior to bomb drop, cruise at long range speeds
for 30 minutes to point where 90% of initial fuel has been used, drop
bombs. Rangefreeallowances include 10 minutes normal power at sea
level for warm-up and take-off plus 10% of initial fuel for evasive action
and landing reserve."
(B-29B SAC data)
Just as per the historical missions, the aircraft will burn much fuel and lose weight during the cruise over open water; cruise over Japan will be at 28 - 30k ft. We know what the performance of the Lancaster VI is at 65000lb, and it will be considerably better at 55000lb.
A Lancaster VI is essentially just a Lancaster I/III with Merlin 85 engines. There's no problem with modding it to carry the A-bombs (or modding a Lancaster Special with Merlin 85/86 engines).
Members take the time to work on complex problems to derive meaningful results and this is your reply...
- Thread starter
- #672
Yup, especially when you are ignoring the facts and just fantasising. Over and over and over again...
- Thread starter
- #673
Aaand here is a classic example. Standard figures for the Lancaster VI wouldn't apply. You have indicated that your Lancaster VI needs modifying with fuel tanks in the bomb bay and the weight of the bomb itself, to increase its range. In order to do this you'll need to strengthen the bomb bay, the undercarriage and remove turrets to reduce drag, but performance is going to be considerably reduced and since you keep insisting without evidence that it can carry a Fat Man, the drag penalty would be severe, to say nothing for the impact on the handling. Add to that the Pacific conditions and your Lancaster is not going to achieve the figures you keep promoting... FANTASY ISLAND my friend. The only way you can do it is with in-flight refuelling.
The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW what the Lancaster VI's figures would be with all these mods you talk about, so the only thing we can go on is by applying what we know about B.I (Specials) and how the modifications applied affected those, because, as you have said yourself, both the B.I (Specials) and Lanc VIs are just B.Is, which we know COULD'NT do the raid WITHOUT substantial modification.
Last edited:
Are you ESL? We've already established that the Grandslam Lancasters (modded Lancaster 1) were nearly identical in performance to a standard Lancaster and they were all strengthened for 72K lb TO. Remember when you thought that the Grandslam Lancaster's maximum cruise speed was it's Vmax? Yet you carry on as though you still consider that to be true. Koopernic has already worked out the drag penalty:
None of this is rocket science and you should be able to follow it, and if you can't...
The Catechism Lancasters carried a 12000lb Tallboy and 2150IG of internal fuel and a 400IG aux (wellington) B-B tank at 68K Lb TO weight. Carrying a Fatman saves 2000lb. Using custom conformal B-B tanks will save weight and space as I showed in post 482. 70K LB TO weight with FATMAN and ~3000IG of internal fuel is a very realistic figure.
Japan is not a tropical climate. Both the B-29 and Lancaster have their performance figures stated in ICAN standard numbers. I based my fuel consumption figures on ICAN tropical summer numbers with a ~5% allowance for extra drag and I based the high altitude cruise consumption on the Merlin 85's maximum fuel consumption as per the Avro Lincoln/Merlin 85 Pilot's notes.
(1) Your inability to comprehend that the Lancaster VI was just a Lancaster I/III with Merlin 85 engines ( A Mk.VI Lancaster, which differs from the Mk.I and III by the fitting of Universal power plants (Merlin 85 engines Lancaster Performance Trials )
, doesn't alter the facts. We know from the online test data available to us what the probable performance of a Lancaster VI/Merlin 85 will be at ~55000lb weight, at the start of it's bomb run. The Merlin 86 engines can always be used if higher altitudes are desired. Both the Merlin 85 and 86 have the needed TO power to get airborne and to cruise to the edge of IJ airspace and then to climb to combat altitude. They have considerably more power at higher altitude than the single stage Merlin 24 and consequently have a considerably higher altitude, higher cruise speed and higher maximum speed.
Last edited:
I'm getting sick of this tit for tat snarky bickering. Everyone chill out, and tone it down.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And what happens when there's a monsoon that causes the first leg of the mission to be flown at 17,000 instead of 9,000 feet?
The fleet of Mk.VI Lancasters totaled a number of 9.
Nine ships in that version says volumes. You're casting your lot on a type that saw limited service, did not distinguish itself like the other marks, had a history of maintenance issues all for the sake of insisting it could somehow match the performance of the B-29 on two missions that were, for it's time, incredibly sophisticated.
Please, give it a rest. It wasn't going to happen, no matter how you spin the numbers...
i don't have the log for Bockscar's Nagasaki Mission, but AFAIK they didn't climb to 17k ft until several hours into the mission and there's no problem with a Lancaster VI cruising at that Altitude. All the long range AMPG figures are based upon a 15K ft cruise altitude anyways.
It wasn't as if there were no issues with the B-29...in comparison the Lancaster VI and Lincoln development was a very smooth process, as it should have been because it was so low tech and based upon proven components.
There was 9 (or 10) Lancaster VIs, all built in mid 1943 to mid 1944, plus there was over 30 Lincolns built up Aug 1945, and these numbers were low because there was no requirement for an RAF/RCAF long range, high altitude, heavy bomber:
"The Lincoln prototype PW925 first flew on
9th June 1944 but the urgency to get the type
into service was diluted by events. In 1944 the
well-established Lancaster seemed quite
adequate for 1945 and it left no spare manu-
facturing capacity. As the situation in both
Europe and the Pacific improved, the need
for the new bomber receded and the priority
for its production was reduced." (p.131, Buttler, British Secret Projects, Bomber and Fighters...)
However, this would have changed dramatically if the USA had formally requested a high altitude Lancaster for Project Alberta. The key point being that a Lancaster VI was simply a I/III with Merlin 85 engines, and Canada, for example was building the Lancaster X which was just a Canadianized variant of the Lancaster III. These could have been fitted with the required engines (by Packard) and shipped directly to the USAAF to be modded, as required, for either A-bomb. Supplying 10 Lancaster VIs by Mid 1944 and 30-50 by Jan 1945 would have been trivial and supplying an equivalent number of Lincolns by, say May 1945 hardly any more difficult.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I have to say, your retro-vision is remarkable.
If only the leaders and commanders had a fraction of your knowledge, the war would have turned out quite differently.
If only the leaders and commanders had a fraction of your knowledge, the war would have turned out quite differently.
Ramsey had a lot more knowledge than me which is why he recommended the Lancaster.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"Recommended" Arnold chose the B-29. Maybe he had a lot more knowledge and foresight than all of us!
- Status
