Admiral Beez
Banned
With a top speed significantly after than the Lancaster (310 mph vs. 280'ish) and needing (and risking) fewer crew, would the RAF be alright with using unarmed heavy bombers like the Lancastrian for their night attacks?
Lancastrian I/O Lancaster as RAF's night heavy bomber?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
A Lancaster's DNE dive speed is less than the Mosquito's max level speed, whereas its bomb load is much greater. No derivative Lancaster could be a four-engine Mosquito, and no Mosquito could carry Tallboy. We need something like a 4 Merlin DH Albatross. Of course I have drawings.
The Lancaster carried 4-5 times as much of bomb load as Mosquito, and maximum size of bomb was 4000 lb cookie. As Just Leo pointed out, Lanc can carry a much bigger bomb when needed. Or combine a 4000 b cookie with plenty of incendiaries.
Cruise speed of the Lanc - 216 to 227 mph, on rather low-is boost and power. On +7 lbs boost - 245-255 mph. On +9 lbs boost (1 hour setting), it was doing 260-270 mph.
The streamlining adds maybe 15 mph (a long shot indeed)? So we have the hypotetical Lancastrian B.I cruising at 260-270 mph until it runs out of fuel? Can the Nachtjagd keep up?
Cruise speed of the Lanc - 216 to 227 mph, on rather low-is boost and power. On +7 lbs boost - 245-255 mph. On +9 lbs boost (1 hour setting), it was doing 260-270 mph.
The streamlining adds maybe 15 mph (a long shot indeed)? So we have the hypotetical Lancastrian B.I cruising at 260-270 mph until it runs out of fuel? Can the Nachtjagd keep up?
Archibald
Banned
What you need is a four-engine Bloch MB-174 / 175
The MB-140 reached the prototype stage by June 1940 but everything was destroyed not to fall in German hands. The MB-174 / 175 was already a French Mosquito, the MB-140 was to be even better.
The MB-140 reached the prototype stage by June 1940 but everything was destroyed not to fall in German hands. The MB-174 / 175 was already a French Mosquito, the MB-140 was to be even better.
Last edited:
Two two-engined Mosquitoes need two navigators, two pilots, and two bomb-aimers.
One streamlined Lancaster, as well as carrying more bombs further than a Mosquito, needs one navigator, one pilot, and one bomb-aimer. The W/T operator and any gunners don't need nearly as much training as those three trades.
Using the Lancastrian could reduce losses through less time over enemy territory, higher altitudes and increasing the difficulty of enemy fighters engaging a faster target and freeing up technical resources to increase production. A virtuous circle which allows more squadrons because of lower losses so less replacements and the increased numbers diluting the enemy fighter/flak threat. BTW dropping the cockpit into the main fuselage as in the Shackleton would be a further increase in cruising speed.As trivia painting them dark grey instead of matt black would also reduce losses to a minor extent. Reduced aircrew training demands might allow superior navigator training so enhancing the accuracy of bombing and more bomb aimer training to the same end.
However. Hindsight tells us that Bomber Command would simply use the reduced weight etc. to increase the bomb loads pulling performance back to where it was. Bereft of warnings and defence they would become easier targets thus increasing losses until Bomber Command can deliver no more tonnage than they did before and stressing production by needing more replacements.
However. Hindsight tells us that Bomber Command would simply use the reduced weight etc. to increase the bomb loads pulling performance back to where it was. Bereft of warnings and defence they would become easier targets thus increasing losses until Bomber Command can deliver no more tonnage than they did before and stressing production by needing more replacements.
Admiral Beez
Banned
How about jet engines for dashing through high intercept zones, then use the two Merlins (or upgrade to four blade Griffons) for cruise (and safety in those early jet days).
Use RATO for takeoff assist if needed.
The faster cruising, at a bit higher altitude (beacause of lower weight) allows for greater safety vs. Flak. The gunners not just have a more elusive target, they can fir less shells vs that target. Luftwffe was already using 4000 of heavy shells (88 mm and above) for a kill in 1942, when they were at the top of their game.
Riain
Banned
I read years ago that the Halifax was capable of high enough speeds that stripping it down a bit and running it at these higher speeds could have been beneficial. In the middle of the war the main German night fighter was the Me110 which lacked the excess performance advantage over a bomber doing ¬300mph, making stern chases very difficult and placing a premium on setting up high quality interception geometry which is difficult. To cite a more recent example the Argentine B707 shadowing the RN in 1982 was 'intercepted' by 800sqn but they got it wrong and underwent a stern chase of an hour to get into missile range. This is the nature of the problem, not that a fighter can't catch a bomber but rather that if not set up perfectly the interception job is not profitable.
Agree 100%.
On paper, the Mosquito was slower a bit than Luftwaffe's best, yet neither Fw 190 nor Bf 109 were killing many Mossies. The similar situation was with DB-7 vs . Bf 109E (the Bf 110 is hopeless), Sb-2 vs. Fiats in Spanish CW, early B-26 vs. Zero.
The changes that bought extra speed (15 mph? going on a limb here; the book I've read says 10% improvement) Halifaxes were numerous, including deletion of nose turret and installing the streamlined nose, either shallower top turret or no turret, change/deletion of earial masts, fuel jettison pipes, and astrodome.
On paper, the Mosquito was slower a bit than Luftwaffe's best, yet neither Fw 190 nor Bf 109 were killing many Mossies. The similar situation was with DB-7 vs . Bf 109E (the Bf 110 is hopeless), Sb-2 vs. Fiats in Spanish CW, early B-26 vs. Zero.
The changes that bought extra speed (15 mph? going on a limb here; the book I've read says 10% improvement) Halifaxes were numerous, including deletion of nose turret and installing the streamlined nose, either shallower top turret or no turret, change/deletion of earial masts, fuel jettison pipes, and astrodome.
Freeman Dyson gave a standard Lancaster with its turrets removed and some additional streamlining +50 mph over one that wasn't.
This is still capable of being caught by German interceptors but IMO less likely to be intercepted and while Air Gunners are easier to come by losses are still 3 less men per aircraft shot down.
Of course unless the same can be done for the other bombers in BC then their loss rate is going to climb as the German Interceptors are going to be intercepting more of them instead!
I do wonder what could have been done with the Village Inn turret if it had arrived a little sooner. With automatic gun-laying the gunner is there as a lookout and for shoot/no shoot decision so doesn't have to be directly behind the guns.
That means you can change the shape substantially and so make it rather better streamlined. Add in the fact that with radar gun-laying your chances of spotting a night fighter are probably substantially increased and there's a decent argument that one Village Inn turret is worth as much as all three conventional turrets at substantially reduced weight and drag.
Could that be a double-edged sword? I.e. the Luftwaffe could use the radar signals to track and intercept the bombers as they did with the signals from the Monica and H2S radars.
50 mph!
Or, 320-330 mph, that is even faster than Lancastrian.The removal of top and front turret should be easy thing to do, with new produced Lancasters (and Halifaxes) being produced without the turrets.
The 'single turret' bomber would've also greatly benefit from early introduction of 2-stage supercharged Merlins, basically cruise at 300 mph on modest power.
Problem is that you can't tell the difference between a bomber and a night fighter on radar - you need eyes for that, at which point you may as well fit guns.
Yep. It's rather more valuable though - Monica only provided an audible beep to indicate that there was another aircraft nearby, which isn't terribly helpful in the bomber stream. Village Inn superimposed a caret on the gunsight so that the gunner knew exactly where to look and figure out whether it was a nightfighter or just another bomber - vastly more useful.
Agreed
Lancaster's crude greenhouse canopy probably slowed it by 20 knots.
A long-flying local pilot grumbled that cockpits were an after-thought on British airplanes: DeHavilland Heron, Vickers Viscount, V-bombers, early Hawker-Siddley business jets, etc.
On a similar note: I wonder how much better-streamlined engine nacelles would have improved Lancaster speed. Try to picture a P-51D or H-model engine kit-bashed onto a Lancaster wing, with a parabolic spinner, blade root cuffs, a tiny carb pitot intake under the spinner and gracefull curves extending all the way back to a Meridith (sp?) radiator buried behind the firewall.
Easy to do on Lancasters' outboard nacelles.
Could these up-dated Merlin power-eggs be easily retrofitted to Beaufighters?
Next challenge is figuring out how to route radiator cooling air past the (retracted) main wheels retracted into the inboard engine nacelles.
As for deleting turrets ... rumour has it the tail turrets were the most valuable turrets on Lancasters, primarily because they added an extra set of eyeballs to warn of interceptors tail-chasing. As soon as the tail-gunner screamed, Lancaster pilots threw their airplanes into evasive "corkscrews."
Adding or deleting turrets only adds a few months advantage because interceptors constantly update tactics, forcing invaders to modify their equipment and a viscous cycle repeats.
For example, compare the smooth noses of early B-17, designed when they only expected intercepts from behind. As soon as Luftwaffe pilots learned that was as much fun as biting a porcupine in the behind, they switched to diving nose attacks A: because there were fewer guns on the nose and B: because faster closing speeds reduced time of exposure to defensive guns.
The USAAF responded by adding chin turrets to B-17Ds and more and more MGs defending the nose. By late war biting a B-17 in the nose became as painful as biting it in the behind.
Returning to the subject of Lancaster turrets. Only a few were fitted with belly turrets because the RAF expected few intercepts from that quadrant. After the Luftwaffe learned that Lancs were un-defended from below, they introduced Schrage Musik .... and the viscious cycle repeats.
While researching Halifax gun turrets, I ran across that almost-flush belly turret (installed in a few Halifaxes and Lancasters). Apparently the turret was reasonable reliable, but sighting was difficult. Gunners found it difficult to adjust from scan mode to kill more. I suspect that the problem was with the telescopic sight.
How do you build a telescope that is hemi-spherical while scanning, but rapidly narrows its field of vision when you suddenly need a gunsight?
Lancaster's crude greenhouse canopy probably slowed it by 20 knots.
A long-flying local pilot grumbled that cockpits were an after-thought on British airplanes: DeHavilland Heron, Vickers Viscount, V-bombers, early Hawker-Siddley business jets, etc.
On a similar note: I wonder how much better-streamlined engine nacelles would have improved Lancaster speed. Try to picture a P-51D or H-model engine kit-bashed onto a Lancaster wing, with a parabolic spinner, blade root cuffs, a tiny carb pitot intake under the spinner and gracefull curves extending all the way back to a Meridith (sp?) radiator buried behind the firewall.
Easy to do on Lancasters' outboard nacelles.
Could these up-dated Merlin power-eggs be easily retrofitted to Beaufighters?
Next challenge is figuring out how to route radiator cooling air past the (retracted) main wheels retracted into the inboard engine nacelles.
As for deleting turrets ... rumour has it the tail turrets were the most valuable turrets on Lancasters, primarily because they added an extra set of eyeballs to warn of interceptors tail-chasing. As soon as the tail-gunner screamed, Lancaster pilots threw their airplanes into evasive "corkscrews."
Adding or deleting turrets only adds a few months advantage because interceptors constantly update tactics, forcing invaders to modify their equipment and a viscous cycle repeats.
For example, compare the smooth noses of early B-17, designed when they only expected intercepts from behind. As soon as Luftwaffe pilots learned that was as much fun as biting a porcupine in the behind, they switched to diving nose attacks A: because there were fewer guns on the nose and B: because faster closing speeds reduced time of exposure to defensive guns.
The USAAF responded by adding chin turrets to B-17Ds and more and more MGs defending the nose. By late war biting a B-17 in the nose became as painful as biting it in the behind.
Returning to the subject of Lancaster turrets. Only a few were fitted with belly turrets because the RAF expected few intercepts from that quadrant. After the Luftwaffe learned that Lancs were un-defended from below, they introduced Schrage Musik .... and the viscious cycle repeats.
While researching Halifax gun turrets, I ran across that almost-flush belly turret (installed in a few Halifaxes and Lancasters). Apparently the turret was reasonable reliable, but sighting was difficult. Gunners found it difficult to adjust from scan mode to kill more. I suspect that the problem was with the telescopic sight.
How do you build a telescope that is hemi-spherical while scanning, but rapidly narrows its field of vision when you suddenly need a gunsight?
The Lanc (whether Lancaster or Lancastrian ) should've benefitted with, say, leading edge radiators, those were widely practicised on British aircraft (Whirly, Mossie, Typhoon I, Welkin, Firefly of 1945). Burried radiators were tried onn the Airacuda, the ugly mofo, and B-17 (for oil and intercooling), so it is not like pushing the state of the art. Plus for the B-17 version with V-1710s.
Power egg instalations have their benefits, though - easier installation & servicing, easier upgrade with better versions of the engines once available.
The carb air intake and pitot tube are two different things, the 1st should be rather sizable in the area than modest (less restriction to the airflow is good; one intake per engine), the 2nd (one tube per aircraft) does not allow much of leeway anyway.
Additional performance cannot be easily, or at all countered with different tactics, if the interceptors are not faster than the prey. Head-on attack during the night should be out of question, unlike what B-17s were enduring.
The belly position for the observer should be a good thing, even if he does not have the gun or turret to control. If he has weaponry, perhaps a double telescope might help him, say one with 4-5x and other with 1.5x magnification.
) should've benefitted with, say, leading edge radiators, those were widely practicised on British aircraft (Whirly, Mossie, Typhoon I, Welkin, Firefly of 1945). Burried radiators were tried onn the Airacuda, the ugly mofo, and B-17 (for oil and intercooling), so it is not like pushing the state of the art. Plus for the B-17 version with V-1710s.Power egg instalations have their benefits, though - easier installation & servicing, easier upgrade with better versions of the engines once available.
The carb air intake and pitot tube are two different things, the 1st should be rather sizable in the area than modest (less restriction to the airflow is good; one intake per engine), the 2nd (one tube per aircraft) does not allow much of leeway anyway.
Additional performance cannot be easily, or at all countered with different tactics, if the interceptors are not faster than the prey. Head-on attack during the night should be out of question, unlike what B-17s were enduring.
The belly position for the observer should be a good thing, even if he does not have the gun or turret to control. If he has weaponry, perhaps a double telescope might help him, say one with 4-5x and other with 1.5x magnification.