Which aircraft would you cancel?

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


Are you sure you're not talking about armoured fuel tanks, because according to the Lancaster Pilot's Notes, the tanks were self-sealing?
 

Attachments

  • Lancfuel001-003.jpg
    179.1 KB · Views: 86
  • santa 2015.jpg
    23.4 KB · Views: 89
Does the self sealing material weigh more than the petrol it displaces. I thought the penalty was loss of range?
 
I probably didn't express that very well above, apologies for the confusion. The discussion was about fitting 'Bransom fuel tanks' which were presumably an improvement on the tanks fitted at that time which were self-sealing. I have not been able to find out what a Bransom fuel tank was, but it must have been heavy, maybe it was armoured? Is this a typo? a company called Branson (presumably not the beardy one) makes fuel cells today.

The suggestion for sub-dividing the large inner tank was to minimise fuel loss if one part was damaged. It was thought of as a means of enabling more damaged aircraft to make it home.

The oil tanks were not self sealing at the time as the other subject of discussion was 'the need for self sealing material in oil tanks'
(Minutes of a meeting between Operational Research Section Bomber Command (ORSBC) and Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) on 8th October 1943.)

On 29th December self sealing fuel hoses were discussed. There were constant efforts to reduce the vulnerability of all Bomber Commands aircraft, but almost all involved some kind of weight penalty and it was this, rather than cost, that Bomber Command often found unacceptable.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
stona said:
The oil tanks were not self sealing at the time ... 8th October 1943 ...
Click to expand...

Do you have any more information on this? Everything I have indicates the oil tanks were always self-sealing.

Earliest being AFDU trials on the Lancaster I (April 1942).

Well, earliest being the Manchester in some respects ...
 
pbehn said:
Does the self sealing material weigh more than the petrol it displaces. I thought the penalty was loss of range?
Click to expand...

Self-sealing tanks means both a weight penalty and a tank volume penalty. Both have a negative impact on range.
 
Greyman said:
Do you have any more information on this? Everything I have indicates the oil tanks were always self-sealing.

Earliest being AFDU trials on the Lancaster I (April 1942).

Well, earliest being the Manchester in some respects ...
Click to expand...

Just the minutes from that meeting. It seems odd to be discussing, quote, "the need for self sealing material in oil tanks" in 1943 if the tanks were already self sealing. It's possible they were discussing something other than the Lancaster.
I may know more later as the minutes are in a larger file 'Damage to Aircraft by Enemy Action' (AIR 14/1746) in our national archives, a copy of which I am hoping to get sometime after Xmas. It depends on TNA's estimate of the cost of a copy, otherwise I'll be waiting until I can make a visit

Cheers

Steve
 

Doesn't ring a bell with me either. Experimental type? I just have;

CIMA 50T
CIMA 397H
Semape
Sorbo
Sorbo 1​/4​"
ICI
Linatex
 
Obviously more investigation is required!

BTW the copy of the pilot's notes I have for the Lancaster, whilst specifically mentioning that the fuel tanks are self sealing, does not mention the same for oil tanks stating simply 'Each engine has its own tank capacity 37½ gallons of oil with 4½ gallons air space.' Hardly conclusive either way, but an odd omission if they were self sealing.

Cheers

Steve
 

Check the Flight Engineer's insert. It specifies self-sealing there. In my copies anyway.
 
Greyman said:
Check the Flight Engineer's insert. It specifies self-sealing there. In my copies anyway.
Click to expand...

Same here, but dated May 1944, which would be quick work if the Lancaster was being discussed in October 1943. 7 months and no mention of a modification? I think the discussion must have pertained to other types, not the Lancaster.

Cheers

Steve
 

The Mosquito figures show 0.68 ton per sortie. If that was a short tone it equates to 1,360lb/sortie, and a long ton 1,523lb/sortie. I would suggest that was with the 2,000lb maximum bomb load.

But the interesting figure is the man/months per tone dropped being the same for Mosquitoes and Lancasters.


fastmongrel said:
How often did the Mossie carry 4,000 pounds in 43.
Click to expand...

Never.
 
wuzak said:
The Mosquito figures show 0.68 ton per sortie. If that was a short tone it equates to 1,360lb/sortie, and a long ton 1,523lb/sortie. I would suggest that was with the 2,000lb maximum bomb load.
Click to expand...

I agree. Probably a typo in or mis-reading of, the original.

It would be the long ton (which it would always have written as simply 'ton') used as the unit by the ORSBC and just about everyone else in the UK (and Empire/Commonwealth/Dominions) up until metrication.

It was only our American friends who knocked 12lbs of the hundredweight and ended up with a short ton

Before the days of the Health and Safety Executive, 1 cwt (112lbs or 8 stone) was considered the weight that one man could reasonably carry! I distinctly remember coal being delivered in 1 cwt sacks which a single coal man would lift off a lorry (I remember a smallish flat bed), carry through the front gate and tip into the coal cellar.

Cheers

Steve

I understand that the 'short' ton was also used in Canada. You learn something everyday!!
 
Last edited:

The about same weight (50 kg) was also here the 'good measure' - the portland cement came in such wiehgt bags, as well as the wheat flour. Nowadays it is mostly up to 25 kg.
 
wuzak said:
It is a wonderful system where a hundred weight is not a hundred of anything, but 112....
Click to expand...

Then you have the Long hundredweight of 120 pounds which was used in German speaking areas.

But which pound do we mean. At one time in England you had the Avourdupis, Ell, Troy, Merchant, Tower, London, Yorkshire pounds. Then there was Irish pond, Scottish Trone, French Livre, German Pfund, Russian Funt, Scandinavian Skalpund. I am not surprised the cwt is 112 pounds I am surprised it isnt 6,001 Toads or 143 Eagles.
 
Ah, memories of the CWT (Hundredweight) !
Completely off topic, but as a student, working weekends and summer holidays in the gardening department of an old-fashioned department store (yes, very like 'Grace Brother's', for our UK members!), I used to cart around 1 CWT sacks of peat and fertilzers, and literally throw 1/2 CWT (56 lb) sacks to a friend, who'd catch them and stack them.
Later, I'd jump from an Argosy, Hercules or Andover, wirth my personal equipment weighing more than a CWT !
Nowadays, it takes me all my time to lift a pint glass - but I persevere !!
 
More bad news for the Halifax!
I was flicking through my copy of 'The Strategic Air War Against Germany 1939-1945' (as you do) looking for information on the real overall cost to the British economy of Bomber Command's effort, which incidentally is usually hugely exaggerated, and came across some more statistics comparing our bombers.
This time it is man power costs which are calculated for every 1,000 lb of bombs dropped. The calculations take into account not just aircraft production, but maintenance and air crew training.

Lancaster: 9.25 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped

Halifax: 27 man months/ 1000 lb bombs dropped

The Mosquito doesn't look so clever on this scale either: 16 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped.

Worse is the venerable Stirling: 38 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped.

Cheers

Steve
 
Some of that difference could be Lancasters were only built as bombers and towards the end the RAF got very efficient at dropping big loads. Halifax, Stirling and Mossies were used for all sorts of missions. This might skew the figures
 
fastmongrel said:
Some of that difference could be Lancasters were only built as bombers and towards the end the RAF got very efficient at dropping big loads. Halifax, Stirling and Mossies were used for all sorts of missions. This might skew the figures
Click to expand...

A footnote to the table from which I lifted those figures states:

'it should be noted that this method of calculation automatically excludes that part of the effort of Bomber Command expended on sea mining, supply dropping etc but included the contribution to the offensive by all Dominion, Colonial and non-British personnel'.

For the Mosquito:

'A bomb load of 2,000lb is assumed. Some types could carry a 4,000lb bomb'


Cheers

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
772
Dimlee
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
6
Views
604
pb43
P
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Zmauky
Z
Aircraft comparison for operational-level wargames and alt history forums
Replies
8
Views
336
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register