An Earlier Avro Lancaster?

The Lancaster is one of the iconic British planes, and one that I have a certain fondness for, disappointingly only came into service in 1942 and forcing the RAF to use lesser aircraft. So I was wondering, is there any way to get it into service any earlier? It's forerunner the Avro Manchester was by most accounts fairly disappointing as it used the problematic and underpowered Rolls-Royce Vulture engine which installed in the Manchester was also highly unreliable. When Rolls-Royce ran into trouble during the development phase of the Vulture in 1938 and had to delay production to make changes so that the first Manchester flew later in 1939, Avro's chief designer Roy Chadwick wasn't that impressed since he apparently drew up modified designs that used Napier engines instead. There's also some mentions of his also considering another alternate using four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines but I'm having some trouble pinning that one down. The Ministry doesn't seem to of been very happy either since after the contracted 200 aircraft had been produced they seriously considered shutting down the Newton Heath factory.

So for our point of departure both Avro and the Ministry are vexed enough with the problems of the Vulture that they decide to shift to alternate engines, Rolls-Royce is told to carry on developing the Vulture but in the meantime four Merlin engines will be used instead. Looking at the Lancaster it seems to of had a pretty short development period but that shouldn't be surprising since it shared roughly 75% of the Manchester's parts and assemblies. From the order given in September 1940 for a pair of prototypes they had the technical drawing complete in a month, the first one flying three months after that in January, the second prototype - that was apparently a sort of Manchester-Lancaster hybrid - flew in May and the first production Lancaster flew in October 1941 for a total development time of just over a year. If the Ministry were to order the changeover to what would effectively be the Lancaster in mid-1938, using our timeline's development period as a guide and perhaps even saying they need to use four or five extra months development time for miscellaneous reasons, would there be any massive barriers to having the Lancaster coming off the production line at the start of 1940? The most glaring one I can think of is the production levels of Merlin engines, everyone and their brother seems to of wanted them. After that the general idea would be to perhaps see the Avro Lincoln be developed and in service for 1943 and possibly the Avro 684, the proposed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a pressurised cabin able to fly at 40,000 ft., also seriously looked into. But that of course all falls down if you don't see the Lancaster in service earlier than it did.
 

Sior

Banned
The Lancaster is one of the iconic British planes, and one that I have a certain fondness for, disappointingly only came into service in 1942 and forcing the RAF to use lesser aircraft. So I was wondering, is there any way to get it into service any earlier? It's forerunner the Avro Manchester was by most accounts fairly disappointing as it used the problematic and underpowered Rolls-Royce Vulture engine which installed in the Manchester was also highly unreliable. When Rolls-Royce ran into trouble during the development phase of the Vulture in 1938 and had to delay production to make changes so that the first Manchester flew later in 1939, Avro's chief designer Roy Chadwick wasn't that impressed since he apparently drew up modified designs that used Napier engines instead. There's also some mentions of his also considering another alternate using four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines but I'm having some trouble pinning that one down. The Ministry doesn't seem to of been very happy either since after the contracted 200 aircraft had been produced they seriously considered shutting down the Newton Heath factory.

So for our point of departure both Avro and the Ministry are vexed enough with the problems of the Vulture that they decide to shift to alternate engines, Rolls-Royce is told to carry on developing the Vulture but in the meantime four Merlin engines will be used instead. Looking at the Lancaster it seems to of had a pretty short development period but that shouldn't be surprising since it shared roughly 75% of the Manchester's parts and assemblies. From the order given in September 1940 for a pair of prototypes they had the technical drawing complete in a month, the first one flying three months after that in January, the second prototype - that was apparently a sort of Manchester-Lancaster hybrid - flew in May and the first production Lancaster flew in October 1941 for a total development time of just over a year. If the Ministry were to order the changeover to what would effectively be the Lancaster in mid-1938, using our timeline's development period as a guide and perhaps even saying they need to use four or five extra months development time for miscellaneous reasons, would there be any massive barriers to having the Lancaster coming off the production line at the start of 1940? The most glaring one I can think of is the production levels of Merlin engines, everyone and their brother seems to of wanted them. After that the general idea would be to perhaps see the Avro Lincoln be developed and in service for 1943 and possibly the Avro 684, the proposed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a pressurised cabin able to fly at 40,000 ft., also seriously looked into. But that of course all falls down if you don't see the Lancaster in service earlier than it did.

B II with Bristol Hercules radial engines
 

Deleted member 1487

The Lancaster is one of the iconic British planes, and one that I have a certain fondness for, disappointingly only came into service in 1942 and forcing the RAF to use lesser aircraft. So I was wondering, is there any way to get it into service any earlier? It's forerunner the Avro Manchester was by most accounts fairly disappointing as it used the problematic and underpowered Rolls-Royce Vulture engine which installed in the Manchester was also highly unreliable. When Rolls-Royce ran into trouble during the development phase of the Vulture in 1938 and had to delay production to make changes so that the first Manchester flew later in 1939, Avro's chief designer Roy Chadwick wasn't that impressed since he apparently drew up modified designs that used Napier engines instead. There's also some mentions of his also considering another alternate using four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines but I'm having some trouble pinning that one down. The Ministry doesn't seem to of been very happy either since after the contracted 200 aircraft had been produced they seriously considered shutting down the Newton Heath factory.

So for our point of departure both Avro and the Ministry are vexed enough with the problems of the Vulture that they decide to shift to alternate engines, Rolls-Royce is told to carry on developing the Vulture but in the meantime four Merlin engines will be used instead. Looking at the Lancaster it seems to of had a pretty short development period but that shouldn't be surprising since it shared roughly 75% of the Manchester's parts and assemblies. From the order given in September 1940 for a pair of prototypes they had the technical drawing complete in a month, the first one flying three months after that in January, the second prototype - that was apparently a sort of Manchester-Lancaster hybrid - flew in May and the first production Lancaster flew in October 1941 for a total development time of just over a year. If the Ministry were to order the changeover to what would effectively be the Lancaster in mid-1938, using our timeline's development period as a guide and perhaps even saying they need to use four or five extra months development time for miscellaneous reasons, would there be any massive barriers to having the Lancaster coming off the production line at the start of 1940? The most glaring one I can think of is the production levels of Merlin engines, everyone and their brother seems to of wanted them. After that the general idea would be to perhaps see the Avro Lincoln be developed and in service for 1943 and possibly the Avro 684, the proposed high altitude version of the Lancaster with a pressurised cabin able to fly at 40,000 ft., also seriously looked into. But that of course all falls down if you don't see the Lancaster in service earlier than it did.

The Lancaster's story is just about the same as the He177, except properly managed. Frankly the fix is about the same: have it designed as a four engine bomber from the beginning and I think it should appear in 1941. Its first flight as the Manchester was in 1939, so it would mean that testing takes about two years, so that would mean a 1941 operational date. Though looking over the Lancaster and Manchester it seems both were in service within a year of their first flights, which is strange for WW2-era aircraft. Apparently it was 'right' from the start, which meant that it didn't have much development necessary, so could enter service quicker.

So with a 1939 start date I suppose a late 1940 introduction, with several more months to become operational with crews. So that would mean a summer 1941 introduction.
 
The Lancaster's story is just about the same as the He177, except properly managed. Frankly the fix is about the same: have it designed as a four engine bomber from the beginning and I think it should appear in 1941. Its first flight as the Manchester was in 1939, so it would mean that testing takes about two years, so that would mean a 1941 operational date. Though looking over the Lancaster and Manchester it seems both were in service within a year of their first flights, which is strange for WW2-era aircraft. Apparently it was 'right' from the start, which meant that it didn't have much development necessary, so could enter service quicker.

So with a 1939 start date I suppose a late 1940 introduction, with several more months to become operational with crews. So that would mean a summer 1941 introduction.
I don't think you can figure Lancaster development time just from the most Manchester phase. The Manchester worked out a lot of airframe and systems issues ( The tail structure for example) which shortened the Lancaster development time. The need shortened the development time to the bare minimum and they were probably declared operational sooner than they normally would have been.

How much the development could have been sped up can be estimated by looking at the Halifax which was designed to the specification but modified to use 4 Merlins almost immediately (Interestingly the definitive Halifax used Hercules engines) and entered squadron service in November 1940 (Almost the same as the Manchester)
 
I actually agree with Wiking, more or less!!!

Had there been no reasons not to, there could have been Lancasters in 1941, spring. There were, however, plenty of reasons. The original specification, calling for a twin, with little wings, catapult launched from bomber bases, the priority for fighter production requiring Merlins (BoB), the vastly changing specification as time goes by calling for more weight, larger wings, dropping the catapult-launch idea as silly, the fact that Avro never built anything metal, or big. The Anson was their big product in 1936, and they had to pump out some Blenheims just to get a feel for aluminium. Packard Merlin production wasn't an option before September 1940, to begin with, and the Lanc would have to prove its worth before Armstrong-Whitworth, Metropolitan-Vickers and Rootes got tied into production volumes. The tailplane had to be greatly enlarged to solve the Manchester's stability problems, adding 11 feet to the span. Two of the Lancaster's future problems occurred in the tail group, in addition to the fuel system and the wing tips of the newest longer wing. The "power egg" system proved its worth in the Lanc, with easing the installation.
All the problems could be solved if they knew their end goal when they started, but they didn't.
While some Lancs received two-stage Merlins, and greatly improved altitude performance, 40,000 feet is well beyond the capability, and it is doubtful that a pressurized version could be built. The Lanc was very "airy". In construction, it was simple but labour intensive in the build, with plenty of rivets holding everything together. While it was a pleasure to fix or fly, the interior ambience was arctic. The Lincoln and the Shackleton shared this trait.

The Spitfire, the Mossie and the Lanc were the three notable successes produced by Britain's aircraft industry during WWII, notable for their deeds and the deeds of the men who flew them. Presuming to do better seems a little presumptuous. You can pretend that 200 Manchesters become Lancasters, but the Manchester was still flawed beyond engines, and the two Roys still pulled off a miracle immortalized in history.
 
Even if the Lancaster itself was around and production-ready by Avro earlier, it's still going to take ages to get production up to speed at Avro and it's subsidiaries in the numbers required by Bomber Command, just like with the Spitfire in 1939/1940.

As a result you're probably still going to see the less capable strategic bombers in production at the same time as the Lancaster unless Bomber Command gets fewer resources. So BC with less resources equals relatively more capable BC. :p

Also much of the glory went to the Lancaster in BC, just like with the Spifire in Fighter Command, which wasn't always very correct. The Halifax might have carried a lower bombload f.ex then the Lancaster, but was a more survivable bomber for it's crew.
 
Even if the Lancaster itself was around and production-ready by Avro earlier, it's still going to take ages to get production up to speed at Avro and it's subsidiaries in the numbers required by Bomber Command, just like with the Spitfire in 1939/1940.

As a result you're probably still going to see the less capable strategic bombers in production at the same time as the Lancaster unless Bomber Command gets fewer resources. So BC with less resources equals relatively more capable BC. :p

Also much of the glory went to the Lancaster in BC, just like with the Spifire in Fighter Command, which wasn't always very correct. The Halifax might have carried a lower bombload f.ex then the Lancaster, but was a more survivable bomber for it's crew.

The difference to history, with the Lancaster being built from the beginning will be minor, since the a/c will still require the whole development process. Both the Lanc and the Halifax had lower loss rates per sortie than the Stirling, the Wimpy, Whitley, Hampden etc. Neither came close to the Mossie.

Statistics are generally inaccurate, but tend to agree that in surviving destruction, the Halifax beat out the Lanc by 28% to 11%.. The Lanc beat the Halifax in sortie per loss rate by 40.76 to 37.08, and bomb tonnage 4.1 to 3.06.. Both beat comparable Stirling and others figures by a good margin, excepting the Mossie, which achieved 100.5 sorties per loss with .94 tons per sortie. (Osprey figures)

I don't think the term "glory" has that much application to the Lancaster, except, perhaps in a video-game sense. Gory is much more appropriate. The Lanc commonly had its fuel and bomb load explode under fire from Schrage musik fire, which wouldn't leave anyone alive to bail out of the a/c. What would have had a greater impact would have been the installation of an effective ventral ball turret, which wasn't ever considered, or the deletion of defensive armament with improved performance and reduced crew fatalities, which became RAF policy post-war. A Mossie force couldn't deliver the tonnage required, but a Mossie-like Lanc could. That was what Vulcan was.
 
Before the thread goes necro, the High-Speed Lanc version, powered by Packard/ Merlin 224's, before fitting the retractable radome, the first proof of concept model. Crew of three.

Avrolanchispeed2.png
 
Top