#1 Jet of World War II

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
In short, design and equip them
to do the same job and they'll do it with payloads within a couple of hundred
pounds (either way) of each other. The whole Lanc vs. B-17 argument is just
ludicrous.

The crucial point though, is that you're assuming the Lanc would have to
follow US practises and fly in the big box formations.

No, I'm saying that _if_ you followed US practises etc., the Lanc's performance
would be within a few % either way of the B-17's. Nowhere did I say that you had
to do so, but that is the variable that is always left out of the Lanc vs. B-17
threads, so that they wind up comparing apples and oranges.

Whilst this may
have suited the B-17 with machine guns sprouting everywhere (although I
don't think it was appropriate before P-51D escorts were available), it
may not have suited the Lanc. You simply can't enforce US practises on
UK types in an attempt to 'equate' them with one another.


I've just come across my notes from the Day Bomber Lanc thread, and
here's some stuff that didn't make it into the thread that may be
germane to this discussion. With reference to armor weight.
Wartime Lancasters didn't have a whole lot of armor. The only armor,
in fact, was the Pilot's seatback, and a bulkhead over the main wing
spar, where it crosses the fuselage. Figure about 150# of armor.
It did have self-sealing tanks. (I don't know if it was for all
tanks, though. If not, you lose about 7% fuel capacity, and 3/4# for
every gallon protected.
U.S.A.A.F. day bombers carried armor at all crew positions, except
Bombardier 9Can't se through armor, after all) and the rule of thumb
was 100# per position, doubled in the case of the cockpit, which was
armored both to the rear, and to the front. Each oil cooler or
radiator that was armored cost 80#, Turret weights, less guns, are
about the same. A .50 cal gun weights as much as 2 .30s, so the tail
turret doesn't change, but the nose and top turrets gain 65#. A ball
turret, with guns, or its equivalent in a remotely sighted turret,
plus the extra crewman to operate it, is 1200#.

So - added weight for a day-bomber Lanc. (This will have to come out
of fuel or bombs), we'll assume similar ammunition wieghts

Armor for nose, tail, and top turrets: 300#
Armor for cockpit, pilot only 200#
Addition of lower turret 1200#
upgrade guns to .50 cal 130#
Armored Oil Coolers 320#
Armored Radiators 320#
That's a total of 2470#

Note that a co-pilot is a good thing
if adding a copilot, add 370#
(170# crewman, more armor)
Total oe 2840#

Note that that isn't adding stuff like waist guns.
THere's another area of vulnerability. Liquid-cooled engines are much
less tolerant of damage, even if teh cooling system is protected. A
single substantial hit (.50 cal & up) on the blcok of a liquid cooled
engine _will_ crack the block, causing coolant and oil leaks. The
air-cooled radials are much more tolerant of this kind of damage. You
can remove entire cylinders, and the engine may run well enough to get
home. There's a substantial extra safety margin, there.

One Halifax squadron removed the nose and mid-upper turrets, armour,
flame dampers and various other bits, the lighter weight and less
restricted engines flew higher, faster and their losses were reduced
significantly.

There's an old story we tell up here in the North Woods. Two friends
are out hiling, and they spot a very angry Black Bear. (Black Bears,
btw, while smaller than Grizzlies, are much better tree climbers.)
One hiker immediately drops his pack, and pulls out a pair of sneakers.
(Trainers, for you U.K. blokes) His companion inquires "What are you
doing? You can't outrun that bear!" The reply was "Don't have to
outrun the bear. I just have to outrun _you_!"
The point is, you want to be faster and higher than somebody else,
making _them_ the easier target.

And so did B-17 and B-24 groups operating by day at various times and places, and
that's my point - it's ludicrous to compare two aircraft designed and equipped for
totally different missions and claim that one is "superior" to the other, by
looking _only_ at the mission for which one of them is optimised. In the B-17 vs.
Lanc argument, this method is routinely used to 'prove' that the Lanc had a better
payload/radius than the B-17, by comparing the Lanc's performance operating singly
at night, with the B-17's performance operating in formation by day at higher
altitudes. Basing a conclusion on such an 'analysis' is a prime example of GIGO.

Concur.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
John Halliwell writes:
In article , The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised writes
They evolved that way, from roughly similar airframes as a starting
point. Lancasters flying by day would soon develop heavier armour,
especially around the engines, less bombload in exchange for more fuel
to burn for higher height on the ingress route, and heavier armament
like .50 calibres in the rear turret - all of which they were adopting
by 1945, which cut into their bombload margin over the B-17.

Interesting point, any sources for this. I haven't heard about
increasing armour for daylight ops, or trading bomb load for fuel. The
B1 Specials had virtually everything not nailed down stripped out, lost
their armour and most of their guns. The Lanc achieved its greatest
bombload in 1944-5 by daylight.

The BI(Specials) had 1500# stripped out to them, _and_ a special
clearance for a maximum weight of 72,000# vs. 65,000#, and Merlin 24
engines vs. the normal Merlin 22s to allow them to get off the ground
with a 22,000# Grand Slam on board. The Grand Slam missions were all
fairly short-ranged, and very heavily escorted. The missions, and the
aircraft that flew them, should not be confused with normal daylight
operations.


The 50s in the rear turrets were IIRC fitted only as a pair instead of
the quad 303s.

And were much more effective, being both harder hitting and
longer-ranged. Late model Lancasters, notably the Tiger FOrce
aircraft intended for the invasion of Japan, and the Canadian Mk X,
also had 2 .50 cals in a Martin top turret, as well.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised) writes:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:52:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

The other cause may be that 3 Group had a couple of Lanc
Mk. II squadrons in
roughly that period, 115 and 514. Come to think of it,
61 Squadron had a single
Lanc Mk. II flight early in the a/c's career, but I
don't know if the crew you
were studying was flying Merlin or Hercules-engined a/c.


Merlins, the Herc-engines ones in 61 Sqn went to 3 Group
fairly
swiftly and before 1944. The aircraft involved were a
mixture of B.1s
and IIIs (W4950, ED314, EE176, EE186, ME310 and LM310,
although I
suspect the odd transposition in the serials) .

The latter seem to have
had a service ceiling a two or three thousand feet lower
than the Merlin-engined
a/c, so possibly that explains it.

That would indeed explain it, but I believed this was a
bit later on
when they were getting Merlin-engined variants (15 and
622 Sqn) even
though the IIs were still operational at the time.

Then again, given the legitibility of my own notes, they
might have
been allocated 26 - 28,0000 feet for all I know....

As a somewhat side note. I have some doubts about the
reputation of
the Lancaster II wrt having a lower ceiling than the Lanc
I/III.
The power available at height isn't really all that much
different,
and you don't see a similar disparity, (or, for that
matter, an
absolute difference) between the Merlin-powered Halifaxes
(Which used
the same engine as the Lanc I), and the Herculese engined
aircraft. (Which used the same engine as the Lanc II).

What I'd like to know is if the Mk. IIs _really_ had a lower
MTOW (63 vs. 65,000) than the Merlin jobs, as virtually
every reference states. I've never understood the reason
for this. I've wondered if the longer bomb bay might have
been a factor in decreasing the structural strength, but
some Merlin-engined models also had that, so that's out.
The other thought I had was that the Hercules engines were
significantly heavier and may have somehow put more stress
on the wings, but neither theory seems all that likely.

Re the Merlin vs. Hercules Halifaxes, don't forget that the
latter had another 6 feet (IIRR) added to the wingspan (and
a commensurate increase in area), as well as having the nose
considerably cleaned up

I've nearly rebuilt my analysis tools that were lost when
that hard
drive failed (And don't lecture me on backups - the lack
of restorable
backups was part of the trigger for the upgrade in the
first place.
Sometimes cascading failures can fork you over real good),
adn I'll
make the Lancs II and Lanc III my test cases. We'll see
how
Historical References stack up against the Fundamentals of

Werodynamics.

Please do.

It wouldn't be the first time that the accepted references
are
repeating bogus data. For example, I see the incorrect
numbers for
the Merlin XX-23 series that were published in the '45-'46

_Jane's_All_the_World's_Aircraft repeated all over the
place.

That's why I wonder about the Lanc II's MTOW. It seems more
likely to me that the lower weight refers to an earlier
version, and was probably increased later, but someone
(Green, for a bet) had the specs for an earlier version of
the Mk. II, but those for later versions of the
Merlin-engined varieties.

Guy

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

I've just come across my notes from the Day Bomber Lanc thread, and
here's some stuff that didn't make it into the thread that may be
germane to this discussion. With reference to armor weight.
Wartime Lancasters didn't have a whole lot of armor. The only armor,
in fact, was the Pilot's seatback, and a bulkhead over the main wing
spar, where it crosses the fuselage. Figure about 150# of armor.
It did have self-sealing tanks. (I don't know if it was for all
tanks, though. If not, you lose about 7% fuel capacity, and 3/4# for
every gallon protected.


U.S.A.A.F. day bombers carried armor at all crew positions, except
Bombardier 9Can't se through armor, after all) and the rule of thumb
was 100# per position, doubled in the case of the cockpit, which was
armored both to the rear, and to the front.

Later, they removed much of the crew armor and replaced it with flak curtains, as the
latter was considerably lighter and only slightly less effective.

Each oil cooler or
radiator that was armored cost 80#, Turret weights, less guns, are
about the same. A .50 cal gun weights as much as 2 .30s, so the tail
turret doesn't change, but the nose and top turrets gain 65#.

Mo 65 vs 24lb (some sources give 22, but that may be the fixed variety).

A ball
turret, with guns, or its equivalent in a remotely sighted turret,
plus the extra crewman to operate it, is 1200#.

So - added weight for a day-bomber Lanc. (This will have to come out
of fuel or bombs), we'll assume similar ammunition wieghts

Armor for nose, tail, and top turrets: 300#
Armor for cockpit, pilot only 200#
Addition of lower turret 1200#
upgrade guns to .50 cal 130#
Armored Oil Coolers 320#
Armored Radiators 320#
That's a total of 2470#

Note that a co-pilot is a good thing
if adding a copilot, add 370#
(170# crewman, more armor)
Total oe 2840#

And then you can add all the extra fuel for formating, close formation, climbing higher,
and hauling all of it there and back.

I've read it somewhere that the single-pilot B-25s and B-26s saved about 300 lb., but
ISTR that the inference was that this was due to the emoval of dual controls/instruments
plus the armored seat, i.e. not counting the co-pilot's weight or any other armor.
There's also some minor additional weight for the extra oxygen tanks/regulators/lines
and the intercom lines for each additional crewman. And then there's the ammo weight.
I've seen 'typical' loads quoted as 13,000 rounds for a Lanc, 6,500 rounds for a B-17.
Belted .50 cal. weighs roughly three times as much as .30 cal. For long, deep daytime
missions beyond fighter range in 1943, that 6,500 rounds might grow to 10 or even 12,000
depending on the crew's inclinations and what the pilot would allow (some crewmen were
wont to build 'cocoons' for themselves out of extra flak vests; tail gunners who did
this could cause serious Cg problems). BTW, I don't recall seeing a photo or reading
that the Brit bomber crews wore flak vests and helmets, at least by night. I imagine
they might have adopted them if they went over to day bombing, but does anyone know for
a fact?

Guy

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:11:48 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

On the low-level daytime Lanc raid on Augsburg in 1942, admittedly an unusual
case, the a/c apparently only carried 4 x 1,000 lb. bombs each.

I think they were still playing around with the maximum all-up weight.
Mason in his book on the Lanc quoted a 44 Sqn pilot who lost the
wing-tips and had to perform a crash landing when carrying six 1,500
lb mines in that period after the all-up weight had been raised to
allow that load, which prompted Chadwick himself to turn up and
question the crew before beginning correctional airframe
strengthening.

The other likely reason for the light load on that particular mission is that they were probably
cruising at much higher power settings and IAS than would be typical at night (I sure as hell would
be, down on the deck in daylight with no escort), requiring more fuel.

One thing Middlebrook or maybe it was Max Hastings noted was that at some point during the
Battle of Berlin, the bomb loads were increased.

They seem to be for some groups. 1 Group certainly took advantage of
a further increase in all-up wieght (to 65,000 lbs IIRC) to hang yet
more bombs on their Lancs, to the detriment of the handling,
performance and inevitably the attrition rate as a consquence.

1 GP also seems to have gone light on ammo, again to boost the bombload.

Guy

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
John Halliwell writes:
In article , Guy Alcala
writes
No, I'm saying that _if_ you followed US practises etc., the Lanc's performance
would be within a few % either way of the B-17's.

But why drag the performance of an aircraft down by using it in a way
that is clearly inefficient? All this discussion has confirmed to me is
how inefficient the big box formations actually were. Dragging the
performance of a heavy bomber down to the point where it is carrying a
similar load to a Mossie, whilst remaining considerably vulnerable (and
with a crew of ten), doesn't make much sense to me.

That depends on your definition of inefficiency, I suppose. Tight
formations tend to use more fuel, especially for the trailing
aircraft, and can be fatigueing to fly. And, yes, it takes time to
form up & get moving. And you're limited to the speed of the slowest
individual airplane. But... If it is going to get you more airplanes
over teh target, and more coming home, after, than the benefits
outweight the costs. A tight formation attacks, and defends itself,
as a single unit. A loose formation, or stragglers, is a series of
individual battles with the advantage all on the side of the
interceptors. A loose formation, or a set of loose formations, is
easier to intercept, like unconvoyed ships. Not only are they spread
out all over the map, but the individ=ual elemants can be attacked by
smaller units.

A couple of Mossies with a light load, perhaps 2,000lbs each start to
sound more and more promising. Small, fast formations may have been very
effective.

During daylight? If you're intent is to irritate teh Home Defense
fighters, yes. If you're planning to take a whack at the
Messerschmitt Factory at Regensburg, no. (And, in fact, you might
want to leave the escort fighters at home - adding them increases the
size and movement within the formation, which are the prime ways to
get spotted. Pairs of Mosquitos down low, flying at Max Continuous
power (About 275 mph TAS, on the deck) are going to be damned hard to
catch. They'll do fine if you're trying to hit Gestapo Headquarters,
but they'll be lousy for pasting somethig of any size.

Well here, I think I might say 'not necessarily.' Bombs on target is the crucial
point, not how many you haul to the general vicinity. Bomber Mossies, lacking
defensive guns (personally, I'd give them a pair of fixed, forward-firing .50s for
deterrence), have no reason to fly inclose formation except possibly on the bomb run
-- a much looser formation that allows more room for evasive action will do fine, and
their speed won't decrease as much either. The Mossies would be immune to
rocket-firing twins, while head-on attacks would be considerably more difficult to
achieve and less accurate owing to the higher closure (and gutsy bomber pilots could
go head-to-head with the fighters with their fixed guns, decreasing the fighter's
accuracy even more (likely increasing the chance of collisions, though). Second
passes wouldn't be an option, either. I'd also note that the Mossie's speed will
extend the range of the escorts, as they have little or no need to weave.

The biggest question is what tactics to use on the bomb run. Hogg has stated that
both sides lack of medium caliber (ca 50-60mm) AA left a gap for fast a/c at
altitudes between roughly 6-10,000 feet. The effectiveness of the light AA (= 40mm)
at these heights was very low, while the heavy AA (= 88mm) was unable to
elevate/traverse (or set fuses) rapidly enough, meaning that only barrage fire was
possible. I'd think that a high altitude high speed cruise enroute, with a high
speed dive from the IP to get into this altitude range for bombing, might work.

So, should the Mossies bomb in level flight while in tight formation (ala U.S.
bombers), but much lower (better target acquisition) and faster, or should they glide
bomb in trail or something similar (even more improvement in accuracy)? Either way,
a far higher percentage of the bombs should fall in the target area rather than being
wasted outside it, as would be the case when dropping from 20,000 feet plus, and each
Mossie lost is only two guys instead of nine or ten. Another advantage I can see is
that there's also less time for target smoke screens to take effect, again improving
accuracy.

Of course, this all assumes that Mossie production could be vastly increased, and
that would almost certainly require redesign in metal. Changing to radials would
also be a thought, but that might have to be traded off against range and speed
loss. Essentially, we're talking about an A-20 with the Mossie's speed, altitude
capability, range and bomb load, but minus the flexible defensive guns. The original
turbocharged variant (once the bugs were worked out) would do the trick for speed and
altitude, so it's a question of getting the range and bombload. Wing tanks, and the
belly tank added to later variants will handle the range, so getting 4 x 500 lb.
bombs to fit in the bay would be the issue.

It doesn't seem to have ever been tried, probably because there were never enough of
Mossies to go around. But, if FB Mossies could go in on the deck to hit point
targets, then surely bomber Mossies could attack area targets from low-medium
altitudes with considerably lower (and acceptable) loss rates, at some loss in
accuracy, but still far above what the heavies could achieve from high altitude.

Guy

The airplane that begins to look rather unreal would be a bomber
version of the F-12 Rainbow. (About th emost beutiful airplane ever
built).

For those without a handy photo, think of a B-29, crossed with Flash Gordon's
ship. About the sexiest WWII-era aircraft I've seen.

v/r
Gordon
PS, Pete, I have three very cool photos of it, if you'd like to see scans?

From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at
1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off
on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe
that
last part.Do you?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I have a more pertinent question - why did you attribute the posting to me? I
didn't write it.

Gordon

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

[snip]

I'd be delighted. On my next trip to the University library, one of
my missions is to re-copy the engineering analysis of the F-12 written
for them by Alexander Kartveli. I'll trade, if you'd like, and also
throuw in the in-depth article on the Mosquito done by _Aviation_ (The
precursor to AvLeak) in '44.

Trouble is, I see it and I think... French....
Seriously, it looks like some of the early post war French efforts.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

I have three very cool photos of it, if you'd like to see scans?

I'd be delighted.

Consider it half-completed

I'll pull and scan them in the next couple days - a bit hectic with the move
and all.

v/r
Gordon