The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945 (1 Viewer)

[FLYBOYJ]

The aircraft has a 2nd pilot when needed and an autopilot. Not requiring a co-pilot significantly reduced Lancaster operational costs.

Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, I too, would doubt the gunner was included at that weight. the 2000 rounds of ammo is around 120lbs.

I doubt you are going to see quite the same increase in speed from fairing over the forward turret.

 

[RCAFson]

Good in the bombing of Germany when manpower and costs were an operational consideration as the UK was fighting for her life but in the larger scale there is an increased operational risk. Its obvious by your response you know little about flying a large multi engine aircraft, especially under IMC conditions or during an instrument approach (let alone carrying a nuke). There is no argument you can present to validate this risk when attempting to compare a nuke carrying Lancaster to a B-29

The RAF and RCAF had lots of experience flying large multi engine aircraft under combat conditions and they deemed the Lancaster pilot -autopilot-flight engineer with flight controls, as suitable for a variety of attack profiles, many of which had very high inherent risk.

EDIT: USAAF pilot's opinion of Lancaster flight controls:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_Eng-47-1658-F.pdf

 

[RCAFson]

Thank you, I too, would doubt the gunner was included at that weight. the 2000 rounds of ammo is around 120lbs.

I doubt you are going to see quite the same increase in speed from fairing over the forward turret.

The Lancaster under test probably had single stage engines. A Lancaster with two stage engines would show a greater increase at altitude.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The RAF and RCAF had lots of experience flying large multi engine aircraft under combat conditions and they deemed the Lancaster pilot -autopilot-flight engineer with flight controls, as suitable for a variety of attack profiles, many of which had very high inherent risk.

And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?

Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)

An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.

Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe, the air is thinner meaning less drag in general.
right now I can't figure out if that is good or bad for a speed increase. If you are at 22,000ft and the air is 1/2 as dense as sea level you have 1/2 the drag at the same speed. Does that mean you half the speed change from a drag reduction measure? the same speed change or double the speed change?
And since drag goes up with the square of the speed getting really big increases gets a lot harder.

I need a nap

I would note that on the Lincoln the change in weight (if we throw out the extremes) as about 4mph between 63,500lbs and 69,500lbs at full throttle and 7-8mph at max weak mixture.

Everything seems to need to be optimistic side for the Lancaster to work, it might be possible but the B-29 worked (barely at times) despite hot temperatures and problems with the engines. It had more performance in hand to cover performance sapping conditions. It was also designed to carry a large payload (weight wise) and a large amount of fuel at high altitudes ,after it burned off fuel, but both planes could take around an hour to get to operational heights so gross weights should be take with a grain of salt for both aircraft.

 

[RCAFson]

And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?

Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)

An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.

Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!

I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.

I would suggest you read the USAAF pilots comments that I added as an edit. Their comments suggest that a Lancaster pilot had a significantly lighter work load than on equivalent US aircraft.

I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)

 

[buffnut453]

And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?

Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)

An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.

Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!

Joe,

You'll get no disagreement from me that, in an ideal world, 2 pilots are better than one under high-stress situations. However, a couple of points need to be made.

Firstly, the post-war Canberra only had one pilot. All official heavy bombers after the Lanc did have pilot and co...but the Canberra didn't. I know, it's the exception that proves the rule. Nowadays we wouldn't consider such an aircraft without 2 pilots...but we'd also not have the rear-seat crew. You're right about all other postwar heavy bombers though.

Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls. It was far from ideal and probably would have made things interesting for the bomb aimer accessing his position. However, such an installation could have been used (indeed was used operationally on occasion) if the need arose.

Thirdly, your comment about the flight engineer being ballast is a little unworthy. In reality, the flight engineer would come forward to occupy the dickie seat (essentially where a co-pilot would sit on most bombers) for take-off and landing to assist the pilot. While certainly not as capable as a fully-qualified pilot, I think it's a bit harsh to say he was "one step above ballast".

Bottom line for me is that the B-29 was clearly the better aircraft for the nuke missions. However, it's interesting to consider what options might have been on the table if the B-29 didn't become operational at the right time. I think the Lancaster, while not as well-suited, could have completed the mission, although it may have been a one-way trip for the crew. Then again, the Dambusters Raid didn't hold out much odds of survival. It was a different time and people volunteered for all sorts of crazy one-way missions. It's also worth considering that, apart from the Lanc, the Allies didn't have many other/better options for nuke delivery in 1945.

I think some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, are being stretched just a little too far. This is my attempt to rein things back just a wee bit 'cos I've found the discussion fascinating.

ATB,
Mark

 

[RCAFson]

I have - and that's just a "suggestion" based on aircraft configuration (as well as some opinions). Bottom line you're going to reduce the workload with a second pilot (and not a minimally trained FE)

So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...

 

[nuuumannn]

I need a nap

 

[nuuumannn]

Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls.

The weird thing about the Lancaster was its change in cockpit responsibilities from the Manchester, which did have the second set of controls and a dedicated co-pilot, although he had a folding seat to enable the front gunner to access his compartment, not the edifice that the pilot sat on.

Joe has a point regarding crew responsibility falling on the guy in the left hand seat. He was the captain in charge; he had a big workload. Having a permanent Number 2 to his right would have eased his load. The Manchester did, so why did they remove it in the Lancaster?

 

[BiffF15]

So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...

Actually I would require that both guys be FE / pilot qualified.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So our ' silverplate' Lancaster is required to have an FE who is a qualified multiengine pilot...

Sure - as long as he sits to the right of the pilot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe,

You'll get no disagreement from me that, in an ideal world, 2 pilots are better than one under high-stress situations. However, a couple of points need to be made.

Firstly, the post-war Canberra only had one pilot. All official heavy bombers after the Lanc did have pilot and co...but the Canberra didn't. I know, it's the exception that proves the rule. Nowadays we wouldn't consider such an aircraft without 2 pilots...but we'd also not have the rear-seat crew. You're right about all other postwar heavy bombers though.

Secondly, the Lanc could be fitted with a second set of controls. It was far from ideal and probably would have made things interesting for the bomb aimer accessing his position. However, such an installation could have been used (indeed was used operationally on occasion) if the need arose.

Thirdly, your comment about the flight engineer being ballast is a little unworthy. In reality, the flight engineer would come forward to occupy the dickie seat (essentially where a co-pilot would sit on most bombers) for take-off and landing to assist the pilot. While certainly not as capable as a fully-qualified pilot, I think it's a bit harsh to say he was "one step above ballast".

Bottom line for me is that the B-29 was clearly the better aircraft for the nuke missions. However, it's interesting to consider what options might have been on the table if the B-29 didn't become operational at the right time. I think the Lancaster, while not as well-suited, could have completed the mission, although it may have been a one-way trip for the crew. Then again, the Dambusters Raid didn't hold out much odds of survival. It was a different time and people volunteered for all sorts of crazy one-way missions. It's also worth considering that, apart from the Lanc, the Allies didn't have many other/better options for nuke delivery in 1945.

I think some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, are being stretched just a little too far. This is my attempt to rein things back just a wee bit 'cos I've found the discussion fascinating.

ATB,
Mark

Just about agree on all counts Mark - maybe my words about the FE were a bit harsh except in the situation of flying IMC or assisting on approaches, there isn't much an FE could do, not to take anything away from the FE function - as we know a few of them actually landed aircraft while the pilot was incapacitated.

I worked with many an FE who would grab the power levers, slap the pilots on the back of the head and say "SHUT UP AND STEER"!

The Canberra - IMO a whole different ball game

 

[RCAFson]

The weird thing about the Lancaster was its change in cockpit responsibilities from the Manchester, which did have the second set of controls and a dedicated co-pilot, although he had a folding seat to enable the front gunner to access his compartment, not the edifice that the pilot sat on.

Joe has a point regarding crew responsibility falling on the guy in the left hand seat. He was the captain in charge; he had a big workload. Having a permanent Number 2 to his right would have eased his load. The Manchester did, so why did they remove it in the Lancaster?

Perhaps the Manchester required a higher pilot workload? As the USAAF pilot's noted in their report the pilot's workload was greatly reduced by having much of the engine management systems automated and hence their comments and recommendations:

...Many automatic features add to the simplicity
of operations of the Lancaster. The engine radiator shutters are
automatically positioned and the mixture controls have been eliminated
completely by using automatic carburettor settings selected from boost
pressure...


D. - Recommendations.
1. The vision qualities, automatic features, bomb-bay arrangement,
and other excellent items of this airplane should be closely studied by
our engineers for possible improvement of our own equipment.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Perhaps the Manchester required a higher pilot workload? As the USAAF pilot's noted in their report the pilot's workload was greatly reduced by having much of the engine management systems automated and hence their comments and recommendations:

The RAF had to deal with the fact they they just didn't have enough pilots, especially for meeting bomber command requirements. AVRO did a magnificent job in designing a 4 engine bomber that could be flown by a single pilot to meet the operational requirements of the day and that was to drop as much TNT on Germany as possible and IMO they knocked it out of the park. Despite this brilliant design and it's accomplishments, I think it was well recognized that the single pilot configuration was accepted out of need rather than "operational costs." As stated - in the post war years this crew configuration just about became extinct with the exception as the Canberra, but when you examine that aircraft's design spec and mission, we're talking apples and oranges.

Repeating previous points and bringing up new ones - sending off a single piloted nuclear armed Lancaster "could have" been accomplished but would have been exercised in desperation if not grossly ignoring potential for disaster.

Now - how about that tail wheel...

 

[Milosh]

Would the Canberra be considered a jet powered Mosquito?

 

[buffnut453]

As stated - in the post war years this crew configuration just about became extinct with the exception as the Canberra, but when you examine that aircraft's design spec and mission, we're talking apples and oranges.

Not sure it's quite so "apples-and-oranges", particularly the B(I)Mk8 variant that was supposed to do low-level ops over Europe.

Incidentally, I think the Canberra really SHOULD have had a second pilot given its rather dangerous asymmetric handling qualities. I arrived at RAF Wyton not long after they lost the Station Commander, Reg McKendrick, in a crash while practicing an engine failure after take-off. A QFI and Staff Nav also perished on that short but deadly flight...and that was a T4 which had dual controls.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

And if the configuration was so viable, why did it go away with father time?? Why was a co-pilot position reinstated in post war BRITISH designs? Every post war RAF bomber featured a pilot and co-pilot. Coincidence?

Many a young Sargent Pilot was lost (along with the entire crew) because he was over worked during combat and emergency operations. (and that's not taking anything away from Bomber Command aircrews)

An autopilot can't land an aircraft in IMC conditions and a flight engineer with flight controls is just one step above ballast.

Yes, the single pilot 4 engine bomber configuration worked (it had to for the sake of the UK) but it would be totally ignorant to conclude that there was less risk with one pilot. Throw that into a nuke carrying 4 engined unpressurized tail dragger and multiply the risk tenfold!

The B-29 was depressurized during combat