Have the Avro Manchester be more successful

[NOMISYRRUC]

The object of the exercise is to turn the Manchester into the Lancaster sooner. That way the 210 Manchesters built by Avro and Metropolitan-Vickers IOTL would be 210 Lancasters ITTL.

Furthermore, Armstrong-Whitworth, Austin, Vickers (Castle Bromwich), Vickers (Chester) and Victory Aircraft Limited begin building Lancasters 18 months earlier ITTL.

Finally, 150 Manchesters were ordered from Fairey, Stockport IOTL, but the problems with the aircraft's engines lead to the order being cancelled and the factory built Halifaxes instead. ITTL it would have built Manchester Mk IIIs (Lancasters) instead of the Halifax.

 

[HexWargamer]

The object of the exercise is to turn the Manchester into the Lancaster sooner. That way the 210 Manchesters built by Avro and Metropolitan-Vickers IOTL would be 210 Lancasters ITTL.

I think the trick is to have Avro discover the aircraft is about to be rejected during prototype evaluation. The designers can then slap 4 Merlins on it in a frantic effort to get it accepted after all.

Warning ==this is going to have knock on effects re: Merlin engine production numbers (start by canning the Fairey Battle == that saves you 2,201 Merins and let's you build 260 (EDIT 550 == guess who can't divide by 4 ) Lancasters ... IDK where the rest of the Merlins are going to come from .. maybe POD the production ramped up faster ??)
Of course you woukd have some 420 odd Rolls-Royce Vultures going spare == if the Vulture is not used elesewhere, you can cancell the engine and use the resources to make 420 Merlins instead ... that gives you anoter 104 Lancs ....

 

[DougM]

Basically have the government decide it wants a 4 engined aircraft MUCH MUCH sooner so you basically skip the the Lanc? And no one feels the need to change the name as the aircraft never went into production as a two engined aircraft?

 

[PMN1]

Basically have the government decide it wants a 4 engined aircraft MUCH MUCH sooner so you basically skip the the Lanc? And no one feels the need to change the name as the aircraft never went into production as a two engined aircraft?

Well it did decide it wanted a 4-engined bomber sooner with the Shorts and Supermarine designs......pity they were not very good or destroyed in a bombing raid.

It needs for the idea of a twin engined aircraft with that sized engines to be seen to be not the way to go.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Well it did decide it wanted a 4-engined bomber sooner with the Shorts and Supermarine designs......pity they were not very good or destroyed in a bombing raid.

It needs for the idea of a twin engined aircraft with that sized engines to be seen to be not the way to go.

If only Rolls Royce had put the resources wasted on the Vulture into the equally powerful Griffon...

 

[Dilvish]

The requirement that it be catapult launched resulted in the strong fuselage. Adding 2 more engines was not the guaranteed path to a great aircraft.

There was a requirement to be catapult launched, a plane that big? Damn.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There was a requirement to be catapult launched, a plane that big? Damn.

Yep, they were worried that such a large aircraft fully loaded with bombs wouldn't be able to take off from a wet and muddy grass runway. Fortunately someone regained their common sense and remembered this little thing called tarmac.

 

[Dorknought]

There was a requirement to be catapult launched, a plane that big? Damn.

Yes, as pointed out, it was thought that a heavy bomber would have difficulty on grass fields. There seemed to be a sweet spot upto 30,000lbs take off weight but a Lancaster was 65,000lbs. The cost of providing Bomber Command with airfields was about £194m or about 28 King George V class battleships!

 

[steamboy]

Question, why did they want the Manchester to have that huge bomb bay? I've read it was so it could carry a pair of air dropped torps but surely they were not thinking of using an aircraft that massive as a strike asset in an anti shipping role..were they?

 

[DougM]

So effectlivl the only way to pull this off is to get the changes that created the Lanc ASAP but yo fore get to change the name?

 

[Astrodragon]

Question, why did they want the Manchester to have that huge bomb bay? I've read it was so it could carry a pair of air dropped torps but surely they were not thinking of using an aircraft that massive as a strike asset in an anti shipping role..were they?

That was the original mission for the B-17

 

[Driftless]

Yes, as pointed out, it was thought that a heavy bomber would have difficulty on grass fields. There seemed to be a sweet spot upto 30,000lbs take off weight but a Lancaster was 65,000lbs. The cost of providing Bomber Command with airfields was about £194m or about 28 King George V class battleships!

View attachment 618755

Kinda like ground launching gliders, but on a very heavyweight scale?

 

[sonofpegasus]

I would suggest that id flying in squadron service as a night bomber in the winter of late 1940 the Manchester as described in the PAM TL would be a success.

 

[Dorknought]

Kinda like ground launching gliders, but on a very heavyweight scale?

Yes, sounds dumb but if it works you save £194m so it was worth investigating. Back to the OP, having 4 engine bombers is easy - having 4 engine bomber bases is not. IIRC the campaign the RAF had against the RN of about 1000 bombers to a battleship, when they both sat around the table and actually worked out the costs it was something like 30-50 medium bombers - but it was about this many medium bombers that sank HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse.

 

[phx1138]

The object of the exercise is to turn the Manchester into the Lancaster sooner.

That's not a more successful Manchester, that's an earlier Lanc. I cry foul!

If you really want a better Manchester, how about a genuine belly turret, & not some lash-up retractable dustbin with an MG?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

They did one for the Lancaster but it wasn't successful and they removed it to fit bombing radar.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Yep, they were worried that such a large aircraft fully loaded with bombs wouldn't be able to take off from a wet and muddy grass runway. Fortunately someone regained their common sense and remembered this little thing called tarmac.

I have read that no-one actually issued a requirement for the actual catapulting gear, so when the catapult-capable bombers started coming into service the RAF found their options were basically building hard runways or not using their bombers half the time
Another one for the oopsie list.

 

[PMN1]

They did one for the Lancaster but it wasn't successful and they removed it to fit bombing radar.

View attachment 625218

Interesting info on the turret here, plus diagrams

Lancaster FN-64 ventral/belly turret (For Mk1 & Mk2)

For full size, see image 3 The FN 64 turret was first fitted to the second Lancaster prototype, DG595 (Source 8 and image 2). It was subsequently fitted to the early Mk 1 production aircraft (source 1). It was, however, found the be quite useless due to the difficulty in aiming (unlikely to be mo...

forum.warthunder.com

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That's not a more successful Manchester, that's an earlier Lanc.

The people who decided to call the Avro Type 683 the Lancaster Mk I would have saved me a lot of bother had decided to stick to its original name, which was Manchester Mk III.

I called the thread "Have the Avro Manchester be more successful" instead of "Have the Avro Lancaster be more successful" because the earlier change of engines wouldn't precipitate the change of name. If it had done the Halifax would have been renamed when the Air Ministry allowed Handley Page to change the design from two Vultures to four Merlins.

I did think of naming the thread "Reverse the Manchester/Lancaster and Halifax". That is The Air Ministry allows Avro to redesign their Spec. P.13/36 aircraft around four Merlins and Handley Page has to stick to two Vultures.

I cry foul!

I can live with that. As BSM Williams would often say, "Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!"

If you really want a better Manchester...

I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want is for:

• Avro and Metrovick to build four-Merlin Manchester Mk IIIs (Lancasters) instead of the two-Vulture Manchester Mk Is that they built IOTL.
• Avro to build more Lancasters instead of some of the 1,000 Blenheims that it built IOTL. Avro had to build the Blenheim for longer than intended because the Manchester/Lancaster was delayed.
• Armstrong-Whitworth to build more Lancasters instead of many of the 1,814 Whitley's that it built IOTL. The Whitley had to be kept into production for longer than intended because the Manchester/Lancaster was delayed. The firm delivered 664 Whitleys to December 1940 including the two prototypes. Therefore, I want the extra Lancasters to be built instead of the last 1,150 Whitleys that were delivered between December 1940 and March 1943.
• IOTL A.W. Hawksley built 602 Armstrong Whitworth Albermarles (out of 1,280 ordered) that were delivered between October 1940 and May 1945. ITTL I want the firm to built Lancaster Mk IIs with Hercules engines in their place.
• Fairey's Stockport factory was to have built Manchesters IOTL and a contract for 150 was placed in 1939. However, the contract was cancelled and the firm built 662 Halifaxes (of 1,030 ordered) instead that were delivered from October 1942. I want Fairey to build 662 Lancasters from October 1942 ITTL.
• IOTL Austin built:
  • 1,029 Fairey Battles (of 1,263 ordered) that were delivered from July 1938 to October 1940.
  • 300 Hawker Hurricanes (of 400 ordered) that were delivered between February 1941 and October 1942.
  • 620 Short Stirling Mk III (of 620 ordered) that were delivered between December 1940 and June 1943.
  • 330 Avro Lancasters (of 770 ordered) that were delivered between March 1944 and December 1945. 290 of the 440 cancelled Lancasters were re-ordered as Lincolns, but they were cancelled too.
• ITTL I want Austin to build more Lancasters instead of the Hurricanes and Stirlings. The aircraft built instead of the Stirling would be Lancaster Mk IIs with Hercules engines.
• 235 Lancasters (of 1,620 ordered) were built by Vickers, Chester. They were delivered between June 1944 instead of September 1945. However, I want the factory to build more Lancasters instead of most of the 5,540 Wellingtons (of 6,172 ordered) that delivered between August 1939 and July 1945.
• Vickers, Blackpool didn't built any Lancasters IOTL and AFAIK their were no plans to do so. However, they did deliver 3,406 Wellingtons (of 5,191 ordered) between August 1940 and October 1945. I want it to build Lancasters instead of this aircraft ITTL.
• Short & Harland didn't built any Lancasters IOTL but they did receive a contract for 400 (including 200 re-ordered as Lincolns) that was cancelled at the end of the war. However, the firm did built 1,218 Short Stirlings (of 1,475 ordered) that were delivered between October 1940 and December 1945. ITTL I want S&H to built 1,218 Lancaster Mk II with Hercules engines in their place.
• There were plans to build Short Stirlings in Canada. These would have been Mk IIs with Wright Cyclone engines. According to Putnams Canadian Aircraft since 1909. "150 Stirlings were ordered in January 1940. The total was reduced to 140 in March and the contract was cancelled altogether in June to release material for Hurricanes. The order was reinstated in August 1940 and cancelled for the final time in January 1941." Air Britain's Royal Air Force Aircraft W1000 to Z9999 has serials for 140 aircraft in the range X5139 to X5319 (with gaps) and that these 140 aircraft were ordered from Canadian Associated Aircraft to Contract SB.103. 430 Lancasters, one York and one Lincoln were built in Canada by Victory Aircraft (from a contract for 750) and delivered between September 1943 and August 1945. ITTL I want 140 Lancasters with Cyclone engines to be built in Canada instead of the cancelled contract for 140 Stirling Mk IIs.

I know that a one-to-one substitution of Lancasters for some of these aircraft will be difficult if not impossible because of the extra raw material and labour required for the airframes and the extra engines. However, the improvement in quality would more than make up for the loss of quantity.

 

[phx1138]

The people who decided to call the Avro Type 683 the Lancaster Mk I would have saved me a lot of bother had decided to stick to its original name, which was Manchester Mk III.

I called the thread "Have the Avro Manchester be more successful" instead of "Have the Avro Lancaster be more successful" because the earlier change of engines wouldn't precipitate the change of name. If it had done the Halifax would have been renamed when the Air Ministry allowed Handley Page to change the design from two Vultures to four Merlins.

I did think of naming the thread "Reverse the Manchester/Lancaster and Halifax". That is The Air Ministry allows Avro to redesign their Spec. P.13/36 aircraft around four Merlins and Handley Page has to stick to two Vultures.

I can live with that. As BSM Williams would often say, "Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!"

I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want is for:

• Avro and Metrovick to build four-Merlin Manchester Mk IIIs (Lancasters) instead of the two-Vulture Manchester Mk Is that they built IOTL.
• Avro to build more Lancasters instead of some of the 1,000 Blenheims that it built IOTL. Avro had to build the Blenheim for longer than intended because the Manchester/Lancaster was delayed.
• Armstrong-Whitworth to build more Lancasters instead of many of the 1,814 Whitley's that it built IOTL. The Whitley had to be kept into production for longer than intended because the Manchester/Lancaster was delayed. The firm delivered 664 Whitleys to December 1940 including the two prototypes. Therefore, I want the extra Lancasters to be built instead of the last 1,150 Whitleys that were delivered between December 1940 and March 1943.
• IOTL A.W. Hawksley built 602 Armstrong Whitworth Albermarles (out of 1,280 ordered) that were delivered between October 1940 and May 1945. ITTL I want the firm to built Lancaster Mk IIs with Hercules engines in their place.
• Fairey's Stockport factory was to have built Manchesters IOTL and a contract for 150 was placed in 1939. However, the contract was cancelled and the firm built 662 Halifaxes (of 1,030 ordered) instead that were delivered from October 1942. I want Fairey to build 662 Lancasters from October 1942 ITTL.
• IOTL Austin built:
  • 1,029 Fairey Battles (of 1,263 ordered) that were delivered from July 1938 to October 1940.
  • 300 Hawker Hurricanes (of 400 ordered) that were delivered between February 1941 and October 1942.
  • 620 Short Stirling Mk III (of 620 ordered) that were delivered between December 1940 and June 1943.
  • 330 Avro Lancasters (of 770 ordered) that were delivered between March 1944 and December 1945. 290 of the 440 cancelled Lancasters were re-ordered as Lincolns, but they were cancelled too.
• ITTL I want Austin to build more Lancasters instead of the Hurricanes and Stirlings. The aircraft built instead of the Stirling would be Lancaster Mk IIs with Hercules engines.
• 235 Lancasters (of 1,620 ordered) were built by Vickers, Chester. They were delivered between June 1944 instead of September 1945. However, I want the factory to build more Lancasters instead of most of the 5,540 Wellingtons (of 6,172 ordered) that delivered between August 1939 and July 1945.
• Vickers, Blackpool didn't built any Lancasters IOTL and AFAIK their were no plans to do so. However, they did deliver 3,406 Wellingtons (of 5,191 ordered) between August 1940 and October 1945. I want it to build Lancasters instead of this aircraft ITTL.
• Short & Harland didn't built any Lancasters IOTL but they did receive a contract for 400 (including 200 re-ordered as Lincolns) that was cancelled at the end of the war. However, the firm did built 1,218 Short Stirlings (of 1,475 ordered) that were delivered between October 1940 and December 1945. ITTL I want S&H to built 1,218 Lancaster Mk II with Hercules engines in their place.
• There were plans to build Short Stirlings in Canada. These would have been Mk IIs with Wright Cyclone engines. According to Putnams Canadian Aircraft since 1909. "150 Stirlings were ordered in January 1940. The total was reduced to 140 in March and the contract was cancelled altogether in June to release material for Hurricanes. The order was reinstated in August 1940 and cancelled for the final time in January 1941." Air Britain's Royal Air Force Aircraft W1000 to Z9999 has serials for 140 aircraft in the range X5139 to X5319 (with gaps) and that these 140 aircraft were ordered from Canadian Associated Aircraft to Contract SB.103. 430 Lancasters, one York and one Lincoln were built in Canada by Victory Aircraft (from a contract for 750) and delivered between September 1943 and August 1945. ITTL I want 140 Lancasters with Cyclone engines to be built in Canada instead of the cancelled contract for 140 Stirling Mk IIs.

I know that a one-to-one substitution of Lancasters for some of these aircraft will be difficult if not impossible because of the extra raw material and labour required for the airframes and the extra engines. However, the improvement in quality would more than make up for the loss of quantity.

I wouldn't disagree with most of that--except in a thread about the Manchester. Maybe Avro (or the Air Ministry) shouldn't have renamed the 4-engine Mk3, but they did, & that makes the Lanc not a Manchester, which brings me back to my original objection.

I don't want to belabor it, however. I am interested in what might have been done to make the OTL Manchester better, allowing a 4-engine longer-wing Mark III (as OTL) is prohibited (by whatever name ).

I would disagree with cancelling the Canadian Stirlings. If I could get them handed over to RCAF for A/S patrol out of Newfoundland, that 140 aircraft would be an enormous help to reducing convoy losses--providing they're delivered soon enough. If you're prepared to hand over an equal number of ex-RAF Stirlings for Canadian-built Lanchesters, I'll withdraw that.