Lancasters, pt 2 - Lancaster 02.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

[Chris D]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I guess
they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to get the
finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins didn't grow on
tree's.

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"Chris D" > wrote in
u:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins
> didn't grow on tree's.


Yep. Merlins were needed for fighters, and everytime
a Lanc went down it took 4 scarce Merlins with it. There
are more radial engined Lancs in the series, stay tuned.

[Robert Sveinson]

"Chris D" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins didn't
> grow on tree's.

Yes. They used Bristol Hercules VI or XVI radials and called them
Lancaster Mk II. This mark was a poor performer and
only 301 built.

Oddly the Halifax started life with the Merlin engines and
for the MkIII they switched to radials and increased the wing
area and it showed improved performance.

[PVK]

Thats the Lancaster B Mk II, fitted with Bristol Hercules radial engines.
Only 300 were built, and none survive today.

Regards
Paul


"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris D" > wrote in
> u:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
>> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
>> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins
>> didn't grow on tree's.
>
>
> Yep. Merlins were needed for fighters, and everytime
> a Lanc went down it took 4 scarce Merlins with it. There
> are more radial engined Lancs in the series, stay tuned.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Chris D]

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris D" > wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
>> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
>> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins
>> didn't grow on tree's.
>
> Yes. They used Bristol Hercules VI or XVI radials and called them
> Lancaster Mk II. This mark was a poor performer and
> only 301 built.
>
> Oddly the Halifax started life with the Merlin engines and
> for the MkIII they switched to radials and increased the wing
> area and it showed improved performance.

Robert and the others, thanks for the update.

Chris

[Chris D]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris D" > wrote in
> u:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
>> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
>> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins
>> didn't grow on tree's.
>
> Yep. Merlins were needed for fighters, and everytime
> a Lanc went down it took 4 scarce Merlins with it. There
> are more radial engined Lancs in the series, stay tuned.
>

Thanks Mitchell, Looking forward to seeing more of your posts

Chris

[Claus Gustafsen]

Funny you say a poor performer - I have read the opposite, that it flew both
higer faster and longer than either Mk I or III.

--


Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at
See my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

"Robert Sveinson" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Chris D" > wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> A Lancaster with radial engines??? I didn't know they had one. Well I
>> guess they'll try lots of different experiments and variants in order to
>> get the finished production design right. Presumable the RR Merlins
>> didn't grow on tree's.
>
> Yes. They used Bristol Hercules VI or XVI radials and called them
> Lancaster Mk II. This mark was a poor performer and
> only 301 built.
>
> Oddly the Halifax started life with the Merlin engines and
> for the MkIII they switched to radials and increased the wing
> area and it showed improved performance.
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Robert Sveinson]

"Claus Gustafsen" > wrote in message
.. .
> Funny you say a poor performer - I have read the opposite, that it flew
> both higer faster and longer than either Mk I or III.

The Lancaster Mk II equipped with the Hercules XVI
had a similar speed to the Merlin powered ones, but
were restricted to a servce ceiling, just above 15,000 ft.
at maximum weight, with a higher fuel consumption.

Ref: Avro Lancaster The Definitive Record by Harry Holmes

[Claus Gustafsen]

I'll se if I can find the other information I had. It seemed to be solid
info when I read it. Right of I would have believed it to be right also as
the aircooled engines were lighter with more or less same power.

--


Claus Gustafsen
Strandby Denmark
mail me at
See my modeling at www.gustafsen.nu

"Robert Sveinson" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Claus Gustafsen" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Funny you say a poor performer - I have read the opposite, that it flew
>> both higer faster and longer than either Mk I or III.
>
> The Lancaster Mk II equipped with the Hercules XVI
> had a similar speed to the Merlin powered ones, but
> were restricted to a servce ceiling, just above 15,000 ft.
> at maximum weight, with a higher fuel consumption.
>
> Ref: Avro Lancaster The Definitive Record by Harry Holmes
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com