Lancaster verses Boeing

[antarmike]

The Lincoln (originally called the Lancaster B Mk IV or V ) had a range of 4450 miles carrying 3000 Lbs bomb load, 2798 Miles with 14,000 Lbs bomb Load or 1353 Miles with A 22,500 Lbs Grand Slam.

 

the normal stated Max range of the B29 is 4098 miles.

 

The Lancaster carried Tallboy within it's bomb bay, Although with modified bulged doors.

 

The lancaster not only dropped 4000 lbs cookies, but double and treble versions of the soft skin High Capacity bomb. (8000 and 12000 lbs)

 

The point of the mixed load wad the cookie blew of the roofs of buildings so that more of the incendaries could end up inside buidings and start fires. On there own, most of the incendaries would had bounced of the typical steeply sloping german roofs and ended up harmlessly in the streets.

 

When working in raids of 500 to 1000 aircraft, the different ballistic charecteristics of cookies and incendaries is irrelevant, because if a cookie from one bomber rips of a roof, incendaries from a different bomber can get inside the building, even if this happens two nights later on a seperate raid.

 

The logic for suggesting an all Mossie bomber fleet, is not to send them all to the same target at the same time. (and getting congested) They could simultaneously attack targets over the whole of Occupied territory, further stretching opposing night fighters and reducing their effectiveness.

 

 

[antarmike]

The first version of Americas Atom bomb was "thin Man", a gun type plutonium bomb (with a 17 foot long barrel), and this was developed alongside an implosion type "fat man"

 

Test drops of both bomb type dummy casings (known as shapes) commenced at Mirror lake in March 1944. The test aircraft was seriously damaged on the last drop and became unavailable until June.

 

During this delay the Boffins had decided that the Plutonium Barrel type bomb would not work, so a third design , another gun type device but using Uranium 235 was progressed. This was christened "Little Boy"

 

 

The Lancaster was suggested as a suitable candidate for dropping the 17 foot barreled "thin man" and it was the death of this project that relegated the Lanc to the sidelines.

Little boy could fit in an unmodified B29 Bomb bay.

 

Fat man tests were undertaken by 509th Composite group, the dummy bomb being called Pumpkin. Pumkin was a Fat man, with a conventional explosive filling.

 

However the B29 Had to be modified to carry this casing, Test drops were made over Inyokern rocket range, but there were serious problems with the way the B29 had been modified and a second batch of modified specials was ordered to a new standard.

 

The First special B29 landed at North Field Tinian on 11th June 1945. From 20th July onwards the 509th began dropping High explosive filled Pumkins on Japanese targets. Twelve Pumkin raids were flown in total, on 20th, 24th, 26th and 29th of July.

 

These drops were successful and the stage was set. we all know what happened next.

 

 

 

[Jessie The Jeep]

....and the Pumkin raids were used to get the Japanese air defences used to seeing a single B-29 dropping a single large bomb.

[antarmike]

With regard to the B29 carrying TWO Grand slams, The B29 had two bomb bays and when dropping even the bundled M-27 incendary bombs, these were released alternately from each bomb bays to preserve the centre of gravity of the aircraft on it's bomb run.

 

 

 

Sreeing as one grand slam exceeds the normal total bomb load of a B29 (20,000 Lbs), if it were possible to fly with two, these must be an equal distance from the centre of gravity, to ensure level flight, but what happens to the C of G when you drop one, or is it suggested that both were dropped simultaneously?

 

If dropping Grand Slam from a lanc meant it lept 600 feet vertically, what would happen to a B29 if it dropped just one? its would go so nose or tail heavy as to be unflyable! or if two where dropped two? The change in weight would cause such an upward jump as to leave the wings behind!

 

I just can't see it as being feasable!

[Jessie The Jeep]

The bombs were carried on pylons between the inner engine and fuselage ( one each side, not end to end ), and as such, were on the C of G, so there would be no real pitch change. They were very close to the aircraft centre line, and with such a long span, I would guess that the ailerons would have been able to counteract any lateral balance.

 

The standard range of the B-29 was 3,250 miles with a 10,000 bomb load, and it had a Ferry range: 5,830 miles. No data has been published that I can find with a range when carrying such a heavy load as the Grandslams.

 

I did read an interesting story regarding the RAF's Tirpitz raid. I think the mission was cancelled at least once due to weather, and all the Lancs had the bombs lowered to the ground until the next day to prevent the bombs bending the wingspars. In flight, the weight of the bomb would be distributed across the wingspan, gradually decreasing towards the tip. On the ground, the weight was suspended between the wheels putting great stress on the spars. Wouldn't fancy being underneath loading that one!

 

Steve

[antarmike]

I saw the British Aerospace Mosquito flown many times before it was lost. I have seen it flown tamely at airshows but I will allways remeber it beating up Woburn Safari park at the Tiger moth fly in a few weeks before it's fatal crash.

 

To my mind it must have been flown outside its recommended flight envelope because the pilot was simply hurling bit about and turning it at the end of each run standing it on it's wingtips. I have never seen the like since.

 

The Mossie was lost when the nose broke up in flight, and I wonder if the pasting it got ( official or otherwise) at the Moth fly in wasn't the start of the end of an old Airframe.

 

But seing A Mossie flown with such guts is totally awe inspiring and She was my favorite Aircraft from that day onwrds.

 

but living in Lincolnshire and often working at RAF Coningsby I get to see an awful lot of the Lanc, (even climbing around inside and sitting in the Pilot's seat, I love that too.

[Jessie The Jeep]

Mosquito Crash - Accident was due to a very unsusual carburettor failure which caused an engine failure and loss of control during a maneouvre, with the result that there wasn't height to pull out.

 

Official accident report here - http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

 

Steve

 

Mosquito display at North Weald in 1996 - HMVF VIDEO HERE

[antarmike]

My mistake. It doesn't pay to take the word of others does it. My info came from a Tiger Moth Owner, who I used to work with, and he relaed to me that the nose had broken up. I don't know why he thought that>

[da bomb]

So how many myths are out there regarding WW2.......???

 

I am going to start and happy to be corrected :coffee2:

 

3. Spitfires were not the hero's of the Battle of Britain - it was in fact the Hurricane with a 60% kill ratio?

 

4. Britain never won the Battle of Britain - the Germans lost it?

 

There was indeed more Hurricanes, which accounted for more kills against the Germans, and it was a Sergeant that had the highest kill score (17) during the Battle of Britain flying a Hurricane, and he wasnt even British, he was a Czech flying with a Polish Squadron, he was called Sgt Frantisek, unfortunately he did not survive the war.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark]

I split this topic as suggested as it is turning into an interesting one.

[Tony B]

Mosquito Crash - Accident was due to a very unsusual carburettor failure which caused an engine failure and loss of control during a maneouvre, with the result that there wasn't height to pull out.

 

Official accident report here - http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

 

Steve

 

Mosquito display at North Weald in 1996 - HMVF VIDEO HERE

 

The 'Channel Island Organisation' mentioned is the same 'Organisation' we assosiate with AFV's. The 'Organisation' apparently lost their approval after this incident.

[ferrettkitt]

Wonderful aeroplane the the Mosquito can't remember where I read it suspect Flypast Magazine a pilot said to a trainee whatever the Spitfire can do the mossie can do as well as fast and come back if it loses an engine (words to that effect anyway).

 

Unfortunately for me and the missus (plus the pilot / navigator) we saw the Mosquito crash at Barton damn shame! It wasn't even an airshow just an aero jumble day.

 

It was always the plane we looked for on the way to Blackpool in the summer as the railway passed close to the airfield boundary.

 

Andy

[Jessie The Jeep]

The bombs were carried on pylons between the inner engine and fuselage.........

 

AntarMike, if you want to see the picture of the B-29 with the two Grandslams, send me a PM with your email address. I can't post it on the forum, but I can email it to you.

 

Steve

[antarmike]

I saw the guy who told me that the Mossie had suffered structural failure, and he said that was his beleif this was so , but he is obviously wrong!

[N.O.S.]

Mosquito Crash - Accident was due to a very unsusual carburettor failure......

 

 

My dad bless him used to get really worked up and upset whenever a twin-engined plane crashed at a display.

 

His reasoning was that (and he flew twin engines most of the war) the most dangerous manoeuvre you could do with a twin engine was to coast along at low altitude and then lay the power on hard, as you would often see at displays.

 

He reckoned that no two engines would ever pick up revs at the same rate, and often one would splutter and falter, result other engine powers plane into the dirt :shake:

 

I've never known a crash to be attributed to this cause, which is interesting. Was he really wrong? :dunno:

[Jessie The Jeep]

He reckoned that no two engines would ever pick up revs at the same rate, and often one would splutter and falter, result other engine powers plane into the dirt :shake:

 

I've never known a crash to be attributed to this cause, which is interesting. Was he really wrong? :dunno:

 

 

What usually happens is that the pilot opens the throttles too fast and you get a 'rich mixture cut' on one engine with a resultant loss of power. This is what happened to the first Blenheim restoration, about 1 month after the first flight if memory serves me correctly. The pilot made a 'touch and go' or low pass and low power, and then opened up the power too quickly for the go around. One engine didn't immediately open, and the plane cartwheeled off the airfield ending up on a golf course. Thankfully the crew all survived.

 

Here it is.

 

So, Yes, low power and opening the throttles too quick can cause a crash. Power on any aircraft should be applied gradually and progressively.

 

The second Blenheim also crashed ( I think the pilot ran out of fuel ) on final approach to Duxford. This aircraft is being restored once again, but this time the the Mk1 version.

 

 

Steve

Edited September 11, 2009 by Jessie The Jeep

[N.O.S.]

Thanks, Steve.

 

Re. the Lanc vs. B17, my view is based greatly on the look of the aircraft (totally irrational I know).

 

But given that this is how a lot of people come to have a favourite, I wonder if their (our) view would be altered if they saw a Lanc in polished aluminium or green top/silver underside, alongside a B17 in the RAF night raid colouring :dunno:

[ArtistsRifles]

I've seen pic's of the Lincoln with a polished fuselage and of B17's/B29's with painted surfaces - still prefer the Lanc to the Boeing products. :-)

[Jessie The Jeep]

The RAF flew B-17's in combat first with 90 Squadron operating B-17C's, essentially not a combat ready version. The aircraft were green/brown/blue. They found several weaknesses which had already been addressed by Boeing in the 'D' version the USAAF were flying and the 'E' model under development. Later they operated B-17E's in Coastal Command where they sank 12 U-Boats. Those aircraft were finished in green/grey/white.

 

In November 1943, 100 Group was formed at Bylaugh Hall, Norfolk and operated Green/Brown/Black B-17's in electronic counter measures roles.

 

Steve

[Tony B]

B17 was the aircraft that closed the 'Atlantic Gap' allowing air patrols right through the convoy routes.

[Jessie The Jeep]

B17 was the aircraft that closed the 'Atlantic Gap' allowing air patrols right through the convoy routes.

 

 

Oddly enough, this was what it was designed for back in 1934, and it was the RAF who ended up using it for this purpose!

 

Steve

[Tony B]

Didn't B29 sire the big Skymasters BOAC used?

[ArtistsRifles]

B17 was the aircraft that closed the 'Atlantic Gap' allowing air patrols right through the convoy routes.

 

 

It's iinteresting that Wickipeadia gives the range of the B17 as 1,738 miles whilst the Sunderland had a range of 1,780 miles............ :evil: :evil:

[Tony B]

The trouble with the Sunderland was A never enough of them, B Being flying boats they were prone to weather and sea state affecting availability. The Land based option was essential. as a by thought, when the Empire flying boats were the only ones that had the range to fly transcontinetal there was a plan to use the Queen Elizabeth and King George resovoirs outside Staines as bases. Then along came long range ground aircraft and they took over an old bomber station at a place called Heathrow, it was a royal race course at one time and is the start point of Ordnance Survey's grid.

[N.O.S.]

The trouble with the Sunderland was A never enough of them, B Being flying boats they were prone to weather and sea state affecting availability.

 

 

I meet up occasionally with an ex wartime navigator of a Sunderland, spent time in Hong Kong.

 

The amazing thing was that they could not take off if the water was too smooth (hull suction), so they sometimes had to send the harbour launch out to chop the surface up a little before takeoff!

 

He had a great respect for the marque, said it was like being posted to a floating hotel, complete with even a workshop and lathe!