Versatile Heavy Bombers

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by the lancaster kicks ass, Jan 1, 2006.

  1. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    right, let's start of with the lanc Vs. B-24, right sys, what've you got? what makes you so dillusional you think the B-24 was more versatile than the lanc?
     
  2. Magister

    Magister Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    Cupertino, CA
    I have a better idea. Let's start out with the B-29 vs. the Lancaster. The best Brit vs. the best Yank.
     
  3. Nonskimmer

    Nonskimmer Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,848
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Naval Electronics Technician
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Not a very realistic comparison, is it? Let's keep it in the same class. We know full well that the British had nothing that rated at the B-29's level at the time.
     
  4. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I wouldnt say the Lanc was less versatile than the B24, and I hope I wasnt misunderstood as saying such that.

    I said that both planes were versatile and it would be an even tie for the two in that catagory. And that would be for WW2 versions only, as post war they were both obsolete.
     
  5. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.
     
  6. Camarogenius

    Camarogenius Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Occupation:
    Truck Driver
    As A Proud Ameican, I Still have to give it to the Lanc. Normal Bomb loads, the dam buster, the grand slam that got the Turpitz, the Lanc was pretty flexible.
     
  7. Nonskimmer

    Nonskimmer Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,848
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Naval Electronics Technician
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    As bombers certainly, but both found uses in other areas. Maritime surveillance and search and rescue for example. The Lanc was even used for Arctic surveillance for a time. They were both readily adaptable designs, and while not the newest aircraft in existence by the end of the war, their lives weren't completely over yet either.
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,204
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    That's unfair - the B-32 was at least a technology decade ahead of the Lanc, it would be like comparing it to the B-29
     
  9. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Aside from the more powerfull engines, they were similar. Although the B32 was designed for an operating altitude of 20,000 ft, if used against Japan, they would both be operating from far lower.
     
  10. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Why lower?
     
  11. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Timescales seem to be slipping with planes getting later. In a couple of days I will be putting the Canberra in for Tiger Force, design started in in 1945 :lol:
     
  12. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    :lol:

    the whole idea of us debating about the B-24 Vs. lancaster was to settle a point sys is undecided about in the best bomber thread, i think that lanc's more versatile than the B-24, which can be proved with her huge bomb bay, the wide range of missions she undertook, the wide range of payloads carried, the fact she was very succesfully fitted with a completely different type of engine, the electronic warfare instruments carried, not to mention all the work she did as an engine test bed not only for piston engines but also for up to two jet engines at the same time! oh yeah and she was converted into a civilian airliner and Britain's best transport of the second world war...........
     
  13. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Alright lets make up a list of what they could do (I am sure that this list is incomplete for both aircraft and that more will be thrown in):

    Lancaster

    Heavy Bomber
    Anti Shipping
    Maritime Patrole
    ASW
    Search And Rescue
    Electronic Warfare
    Transport
    Air Refuel Tanker
    Photo Recon

    B-24 Liberator

    Heavy Bomber
    Transport
    B-29 Trainer (RB-24L)
    Flying Bomb Drone
    Photo Recon
    Maritime Patrol

    Like I said though, I am sure that lists for both of these aircraft are incomplete. They both were very versatile.

    Syscom I have read posts by you saying that the B-24 was versatile but you have also used that as an arguement that it was better than a Lanc. I dont think there was any role that the B-24 could do that the Lancaster could not do, and vise versa except for the Lanc carrying Tallboy bombs.
     
  14. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    i think there are many the lanc could do that the B-24 couldn't! and i've done a bit of research on the B-24 varients and i haven't really been blown away ;) i mean how many different combinations of bombs could the B-24 take internally? could she carry large parachute mines? could she carry an upkeep? not a chance, could she carry a tallboy or grandslam, that's even less likely, what about all the electronic aids the lanc carried, how often was the B-24 used as an engine test bed? the lanc was used to test many piston engines mounted in the nose and even how two outboard engines taken out and replaced with jet engines!not to mention jet engines mounted in the tail and bomb bay, the B-24's bomb bay was barely big enough for bombs let alone engines ;)
     
  15. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Lanc we have been over this before, those are not roles. I really doubt there was any ROLE that the Lancaster could do that the B-24 could not do.

    Lanc you add a turret to an aircraft and you call it a role and call it versatile. ;)
     
  16. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    so to you versatile just means the number of roles it could perform? this's where we differ because to me the ammount you can change an aircraft also counts as versatility............
     
  17. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    The B-24 could have been changed just as much.

    Lanc I am with you on the fact that the Lancaster was better than the B-24 however versatility is a very futile argument because they were both very very very versatile.
     
  18. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    i see where you're coming from but i hope you can see where i'm coming from, the number of modifications that could be made to an aircraft is surely a good marker of versatility? and there're more modifications made to the lanc that the B-24 couldn't support than vice versa.........
     
  19. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    And how is that. The only really big modification I can think of would be the Tall Boy, big deal.
     
  20. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    actually the lanc could carry a tallboy without modification, the B-24 couldn't even carry one, let alone the grandslams, could the B-24 even carry a cookie? i doubt her bomb bay would let her, which discounts anything larger, what about lifeboats, the lanc could carry them whilst the B-24 couldn't, what about the engine test beds, could the B-24 do that?
     
Loading...

Share This Page