The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if a Lancaster (or Lincoln) were to drop a 1945 atomic bomb on a Japanese target, given its slow speed and low altitude (vs the B-29) its prospects of escaping the weapon effects would be problematic.
 
wuzak said:
The performance quote was the XB-19A with the V-3420 engines.
Click to expand...
And that's why I made sure to specify B-19A

wuzak said:
The XB-19, shown in that last picture, had lower performance.
Click to expand...
Yep...but it's size remained the same and the photo is a good example of it's scale.

In regards to the B-19's bomb bay - it was capable of carrying 18,000 pounds of bombs internally and had facilities to carry considerable external ordnance.

Fat Man (or a Pumpkin bomb) had an exterior dimension of 10.6 feet long by 5 feet wide, weighing 10,300 pounds.
Little Boy had an exterior dimension of 10 feet long by 2.3 feet wide, weighing 9,700 pounds.

The B-19 could have easily carried either one.
 
Thanks guys. Any pics of the bomb bay? It'd be interesting to see what they had in mind in terms of load for the beastie.

In regards to the B-19's bomb bay - it was capable of carrying 18,000 pounds of bombs internally and had facilities to carry considerable external ordnance.
Click to expand...

That's a big load to carry internally for that vintage of aircraft.
 

But not Thin Man, which was one of the two initial bombs specified (along with Fat Man).

The other issue with the B-19/B-19A was that only one was built.
 
nuuumannn said:
Thanks guys. Any pics of the bomb bay? It'd be interesting to see what they had in mind in terms of load for the beastie.

That's a big load to carry internally for that vintage of aircraft.
Click to expand...
The max. ordnance loadout was 37,100 pounds - 18,000 being internal - the remainder being external stores. The B-17 was also designed to carry additional stores on external racks, though it wasn't an option used often.

In regards to photos of the bomb bay, there doesn't seem to be any, however there are photos of the B-19 in flight that show it's underside (and thus the bomb bay doors) and it appears rather large, especially when using the 8 foot tire as a guide to scale.

That being the case: in the photo shown, we can calculate that the bomb bay was close to 10 feet wide and close to 17 feet long. The depth of the bay must have been considerable, judging by not only the internal capacity, but by the fuselage's size, too.

 
Kevin J said:
Lets be frank here.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing "protracted development" applied to the Windsor. I could be wrong - but they eventually dispensed with the pressurisation requirement from the specification? It was still covered with fabric? Mason in his British Bomber tome talks about Vickers being "somewhat over-optimistic" with their performance forecasts to the point of being "disturbing".

And did the wings really flap? The Flapping Atomic Bomber...

 
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree, Graeme; the Windsor was an enlarged Warwick, geodetic structure and fabric covering included. It was a noble effort, and despite impressive performance for a heavy, reaching 302 mph at 25,000 ft at a take off weight of 46,000 lbs (It's MTOW was higher, but at a lower speed), it did suffer a few ignominies. One of these was fabric fluttering on the wings at high speeds and without pressurisation in the examples trialled, it was going to be a strain for crews at altitude. Ultimately though, its performance wasn't that much better than the Lincoln, as it was, although it had impressive range. It certainly couldn't match the B-29. It's future development offered better performance fitted with RR Clyde turboprops; 409 mph @ 28,000 ft, but it was cancelled a few months after the end of the war.

And did the wings really flap? The Flapping Atomic Bomber.
Click to expand...

They flexed, as did the fuselage, because of the geodetic structure. The Wellington and Warwick were the same. There were trials carried out to determine the amount of flex, which was a concern because of the remotely operated turrets at the aft end of the outboard engine nacelles. These were operated from a position in the extreme tail, and the flexing would have interfered with aiming the guns, it was determined.
 
Last edited:
Not wanting to insinuate that the B-19 was included in the list of aircraft that might possibly be nuclear bombers prepared by Ramsay, but the one thing, other than its performance and load carrying capability, that the B-19 has over the Lancaster is that was American.
 
Hey you could have had the Canadians build some Lincolns for you. Oops, wait a minute, they might decide to steal the bombs and atomise the White House. A sort of War Plan Red in reverse, like a preemptive strike.
 
Thos9 said:
Even if a Lancaster (or Lincoln) were to drop a 1945 atomic bomb on a Japanese target, given its slow speed and low altitude (vs the B-29) its prospects of escaping the weapon effects would be problematic.
Click to expand...

Not if they were equipped with drogue chutes, which became standard later with the multi-megaton bombs.
 
wuzak said:
With backup aircraft available should there be a problem.
Click to expand...
However, the discussion came about with a question of "what if the B-29 wasn't ready?"
Then the question came up "why couldn't the Lancaster be used?"
The B-29 project was plagued with problems, particularly with it's R-3350 engines. So if the B-29 weren't ready because of engine issues, than most likely the B-32 would be out of the running because it also used R-3350 engines.
The USAAF did have a proposed backup for the B-29 with the XB-38, which was a B-29 re-engined with the V-1710-97, but it's performance was lower than that of the R-3350 engined B-29.

So the B-29/B-32 is out of the running and the Lancaster/Lincoln out of the running, what do they do?
Time is running short and they need a delivery platform and lo-and-behold, they have a monster just sitting idle out in the desert sun that is more than capable of doing the job.

And I think that in the end, being American or British wasn't so much the issue as it was finding the right ship to get the job done. The US liked big aircraft and they happened to be larger than their British counterparts and if the war had continued for another year, then we may have seen the B-36 become available - and it was larger than the B-19 (not by much, though).
 
The XB-19 (no A) had the R-3350 engines, after it was re-engined with the V-3420 engines (which greatly improved it's performance) in 1943, it was redesignated XB-19A - which is the type I am referring to.
Particularly since the Atomic program was looking to deliver atom bombs from 43/44 onward...
 
GrauGeist said:
The USAAF did have a proposed backup for the B-29 with the XB-38, which was a B-29 re-engined with the V-1710-97, but it's performance was lower than that of the R-3350 engined B-29.
Click to expand...

The XB-38 was a V-1710 powered B-17. It's performance was superior to a regular B-17, but not enough to warrant production.

The XB-39 was a V-3420 powered B-29. Its performance was superior to the B-29, but not enough to warrant a change in production. The XB-39 was a victim of the XP-75 program, as GM's Fisher Body Division were doing the fighter and the engine QECs.

By the time the XB-39 flew most of the R-3350 issues had been resolved.
 

The Lincoln used a near identical power plant to the Mk VI. IMHO the Lancaster VI was withdrawn because there was no longer a need need for them in late 1944.

Operating from Okinawa or Iwo Jima a Lancaster Mk VI could have carried either bomb design and dropped it at the same altitude as historically and performed a similar high speed turn away.

The B29 service ceiling wasn't much different from a Mk VI when both were loaded to max TO weight. Both aircraft would have to burn some fuel to operate above 30k ft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Muto Kaneyoshi 12 April 1945
Replies
3
Views
583
CHen10
C
C
Tanimizu Takeo 10 June 1945
Replies
4
Views
643
SaparotRob
C
Any Japanese claims on 10 July 1945?
Replies
0
Views
464
CHen10
C
Allied crash locations over the Netherlands 1939 - 1945
Replies
0
Views
605
syscom3
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
C
Menu
Log in
Register