Lancasters, pt5 - Lancaster 21.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

[Indrek Aavisto]

The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
dispensed with on most models?

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

[®i©ardo]

Indrek Aavisto wrote:
> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
> dispensed with on most models?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Indrek Aavisto
>
>
The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of about
75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
turrets.

The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
discarded the central fin.

Regards

®i©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Indrek Aavisto]

i> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it
>> was dispensed with on most models?

>> Cheers,

>> Indrek Aavisto


i> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of
i> about
i> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
i> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably
i> that
i> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and
i> ventral
i> turrets.

i> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
i> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
i> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
i> discarded the central fin.

i> Regards

i> ®i©ardo

i> --
i> Moving things in still pictures!
i>
Thanks, Ricardo.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto

--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

®i©ardo > wrote in news:3m0oj.15304$3m6.4485
@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
>> dispensed with on most models?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Indrek Aavisto
>>
>>
> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of about
> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
> turrets.
>
> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
> discarded the central fin.



Since there was only one "upper" turret why was
it referred to as the MID upper turret?

[®i©ardo]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:3m0oj.15304$3m6.4485
> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
>>> dispensed with on most models?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Indrek Aavisto
>>>
>>>
>> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of about
>> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
>> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
>> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
>> turrets.
>>
>> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
>> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
>> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
>> discarded the central fin.
>
>
>
> Since there was only one "upper" turret why was
> it referred to as the MID upper turret?
>
>
>
>
>
I don't know, but perhaps because, if just described as the "upper
turret", it could have been confused with those on the nose and tail,
both of which were "upper", hence "mid".

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Robert Sveinson]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:3m0oj.15304$3m6.4485
> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
>>> dispensed with on most models?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Indrek Aavisto
>>>
>>>
>> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of about
>> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
>> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
>> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
>> turrets.
>>
>> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
>> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
>> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
>> discarded the central fin.
>
>
>
> Since there was only one "upper" turret why was
> it referred to as the MID upper turret?

There were some Lancasters that came with a mid under/ventral gun/guns.
Some squadrons removed them because of the
weight penalty relative to their use. Lancasters equipped with H2S
could not accomodate the lower guns/turret.

In the book LANCASTER by M. Garbett and B. Goulding
there is a photo of the second Lancaster prototype (as above) which
has the ventral turret in place. The comment is that it was
not persevered with being of no use on night raids.

Same book there is a cutaway drawing that shows the mid-lower turret
(two Browning guns). There is also on the same drawing the "mid-gunner".
Looks like he was expected to operate both, but that would be extremeley
difficult considering thr cramped mid-upper turret.

There is also a drawing by J. H. Clark of Aeroplane magazine showing
the "under turret" in the book Avro Lancaster The Definitive Record (2nd
Edition)
by Harry Holmes.

This still does not answer the question about the "mid-upper"
name but what the
heck.............................................. ...........

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7ptoj.9887$HL1.4593
@newsfe21.lga:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:3m0oj.15304$3m6.4485
>> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>>> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>>>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it
was
>>>> dispensed with on most models?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Indrek Aavisto
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of
about
>>> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
>>> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
>>> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
>>> turrets.
>>>
>>> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
>>> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
>>> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
>>> discarded the central fin.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since there was only one "upper" turret why was
>> it referred to as the MID upper turret?
>
> There were some Lancasters that came with a mid under/ventral gun/guns.
> Some squadrons removed them because of the
> weight penalty relative to their use. Lancasters equipped with H2S
> could not accomodate the lower guns/turret.
>
> In the book LANCASTER by M. Garbett and B. Goulding
> there is a photo of the second Lancaster prototype (as above) which
> has the ventral turret in place. The comment is that it was
> not persevered with being of no use on night raids.
>
> Same book there is a cutaway drawing that shows the mid-lower turret
> (two Browning guns). There is also on the same drawing the "mid-gunner".
> Looks like he was expected to operate both, but that would be extremeley
> difficult considering thr cramped mid-upper turret.
>
> There is also a drawing by J. H. Clark of Aeroplane magazine showing
> the "under turret" in the book Avro Lancaster The Definitive Record (2nd
> Edition)
> by Harry Holmes.
>
> This still does not answer the question about the "mid-upper"
> name but what the
> heck.............................................. ...........
>
>


Makes as much sense as US bombers being referred
to as having a mid-ball turrent or an aft tail gun...

[®i©ardo]

Robert Sveinson wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:3m0oj.15304$3m6.4485
>> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>>> Indrek Aavisto wrote:
>>>> The third tail fin is unusual. Any ideas what it was for, and why it was
>>>> dispensed with on most models?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Indrek Aavisto
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The first conversion from Avro Manchester to Lancaster made use of about
>>> 75 per cent of the Manchester's parts and assemblies - and the
>>> Manchester had the additional central fin - hence this is probably that
>>> aircraft, serial number BT308. Note that it lacks mid-upper and ventral
>>> turrets.
>>>
>>> The second prototype Lancaster, serial number DG595, flew in May 1941
>>> and incorporated mid-upper and ventral (feature of the B Mk1) turrets
>>> plus a newly designed and enlarged twin tail configuration which
>>> discarded the central fin.
>>
>>
>> Since there was only one "upper" turret why was
>> it referred to as the MID upper turret?
>
> There were some Lancasters that came with a mid under/ventral gun/guns.
> Some squadrons removed them because of the
> weight penalty relative to their use. Lancasters equipped with H2S
> could not accomodate the lower guns/turret.
>
> In the book LANCASTER by M. Garbett and B. Goulding
> there is a photo of the second Lancaster prototype (as above) which
> has the ventral turret in place. The comment is that it was
> not persevered with being of no use on night raids.
>
> Same book there is a cutaway drawing that shows the mid-lower turret
> (two Browning guns). There is also on the same drawing the "mid-gunner".
> Looks like he was expected to operate both, but that would be extremeley
> difficult considering thr cramped mid-upper turret.
>
> There is also a drawing by J. H. Clark of Aeroplane magazine showing
> the "under turret" in the book Avro Lancaster The Definitive Record (2nd
> Edition)
> by Harry Holmes.
>
> This still does not answer the question about the "mid-upper"
> name but what the
> heck.............................................. ...........
>
>
>

We all know what we mean, don't we!

;-)

Thanks for the additional information, Robert.

®i©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures!