First off, do yourself a favour and ditch Wikipedia, as pretty much anybody can edit it. Next get yourself a copy of the Lancaster drawings (internet or ask the people at Avro Heritage nicely), and get a few decent books on the aircraft. I can recommend those by Francis K Mason, Bruce Robertson, and Harry Holmes as excellent reading.
I agree and have been there in person half a dozen times. Never wanted to spend the money on the factory drawings when so many planes were modified in the field.
Referring again to your previous post -
1. You missed the point entirely regarding bombloads. Your statement "All other bombs were carried by specially modified planes WO bomb bay doors." is incorrect,
No it is not and I did not make the original statement! and the link I posted to shows this.
No it does not and in fact the bottom or next to bottom picture prooves my point with a clearly modified plane! I'm not debating where the individual shackles are in the Lancaster or the B17, just the variance of load each can carry.
I agree completely!
2. The availablility difference is my point, which again you missed.. The fact that the B17 was available in higher numbers at any one time means of course the type is going to drop more tonnage.
No, it is you that missed the point! The B-17 was never available in greater numbers in England than the Lancaster! Ever! The larger numbers of B-17s were spread in to four theaters of opps! Match numbers of aircraft over a matched period of time.
There were more Lancs available at any given time in England! They were available and in service in larger numbers and sooner than the B-17. Those are facts that you can not honestly dispute.
3. Please provide the figures you have from the pilots notes, or from the manufacturer maybe, that show operating the Lancaster at its service ceiling would cut the payload by more than half. The statement you make on this is your opinion, and nothing more.
No, it is a fact. The more any aircraft weighs, the lower it must fly with any given thrust, wing area and L/D.
What isn't opinion is that a standard Lancaster could and did carry a substantial payload over an excessively long range
Yes, I agree! - the 9 Sqn and 617 Sqn aircraft that attacked the Tirpitz weren't the 'Special' aircraft.
Wrong again! This is not opinion, and regardless of number of aircraft used it was done operationally; so we can take this as a measure of what a a fairly standard aircraft is capable of.
Wrong again! They were "Special" aircraft. See the quote from the link you posted below! Exactly how many Lancs had the special bulged bomb bay doors and higher rated engines?
Area Bombing Raids (Blast and Demolition)
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "TALLBOY"
Target Type: Submarine Pens, Battleship Tirpitz.
1 x 12,000 lb deep penetration, spin-stabilised bomb containing approx. 5,760 lb of Torpex D. Usually with trip-fused 0.01 sec delay. Carried by Lancaster's with bulged bomb doors. Raids On Exceptionally Strong Structures.
The ineffectiveness of the vast majority of the strikes launched by the Fleet Air Arm in mid-1944 led to the task of Tirpitz's destruction being transferred to the RAF's No. 5 Group. The RAF used Lancaster bombers to carry 6-short-ton (5.4 t) Tallboy bombs to penetrate the ship's heavy armour.[59] The first attack, Operation Paravane, took place on 15 September 1944; operating from a forward base at Yagodnik in Russia, 23 Lancasters (17 each carrying one Tallboy and six each carrying twelve JW mines), scored a single hit on the ship's bow.[50]
The RAF made a second attempt on 29 October, after the ship was moored off Håkøy Island outside Tromsø. Thirty-two Lancasters attacked the ship with Tallboys during Operation Obviate.[50] As on Operation Paravane, No. 9 Squadron and No. 617 Squadron carried out the attack together, which resulted in only one near miss,[60]
Operation Catechism, the final British attack on Tirpitz, took place on 12 November 1944.[50] The ship again used her 38 cm guns against the bombers, which approached the battleship at 09:35; Tirpitz's main guns forced the bombers to temporarily disperse, but could not break up the attack.[63] A force of 32 Lancasters from Nos. 9 and 617 Squadrons dropped 29 Tallboys on the ship, with two direct hits and one near miss.[50]
4. Engines - Lancaster BVI Merlin 85 1635hp
Exactly how many Lancs were fitted with these engines? Exactly how many had standard Mark XX Merlins?
B VI Nine aircraft converted from B IIIs. Fitted with Merlin 85/87 which had two-stage superchargers, giving much improved high altitude performance. The B VI could achieve a maximum speed of 313 mph (505 km/h) at 18200 ft (5547 m) at 65,000 lb (29,484 kg) take off weight and a service ceiling of 28500 ft (8687 m) at the same weight; climb to 28000 ft (8534 m) at 65,000 lb (29,484 kg) take off weight was accomplished in 44.8 minutes with a maximum climb rate of 1080 fpm (5.5 m/s)at 1000 ft (305 m).[30] A Lancaster B VI was dived to a maximum indicated speed of 350 mph (565 km/h), or Mach 0.72 at 25000 ft (7620 m) in June 1944.[31] The Merlin 85/87 series engines were fitted with annular cowlings similar to the post war Avro Lincoln and three bladed paddle-type propellers were fitted. These aircraft were only used by Pathfinder units; by No. 7 Squadron RAF, No. 83 Squadron RAF, No. 405 Squadron RCAF and by No. 635 Squadron RAF. Often used as a "Master Bomber" the B VI's allocated to RAF Bomber Command (2 being retained by Rolls Royce for installation and flight testing)[32] had their dorsal and nose turrets removed and faired-over. The more powerful engines proved troublesome in service and were disliked by ground maintenance staff for their rough running and propensity to 'surge and hunt', making synchronisation impossible. This 'hunting' is caused by variations in the fuel/air mixture and could over time eventually damage the engine.[33] The B VI was withdrawn from service in November 1944.
Two speed, two stage.
Exactly how many Lancs were fitted with these engines during the war? Exactly how many had standard Mark XX Merlins during the war? Later used in the Lancaster IV, also known as the Lincoln.
These planes are not Lancasters, they are Lincolns! Do I really have to do all your homework for you just because wikipedia is lacking?
Do you really have to use limited production and modified aircraft to prove your point? Please list production numbers of each type by engine!
5. There are more than 15 points, depending on which carriers are fitted. Please show me the 12 point version of a Lanc bomb bay, as I can only find the Manchester version which shows 8 points, for 1,000lb bombs, later with the provision for the 4,000lb bomb. You could be refering to the first batch of Lancasters which used Manchester fuselages maybe?
Does it matter? which version of the planes we are talking about, if they made less than say 100 of them? How about limiting the discussion to versions which were made in numbers exceeding 100 each! B Mk-I, B Mk-II, B Mk-III and B Mk-X. About 1/3 of B Mk-Is had bulged bomb bay doors. Many of these planes had top and sometimes nose turrets removed. A few of the late B Mk-Is had the two stage/two speed blowers. Whether they actually made more than 100 of them with these engines during the war is debated. Post war refits do not count. Late War planes that did not see service because of fitting out delays do not count.
It is generally accepted that at the beginning of the war, accuracy was poor. By the end of the war the concept had been refined so well that the destruction of certain cities is still hotly debated today.
7. Glad we agree on something...
"The Lanc's engines were single stage, two speed blowered, WO Turbo-charger! While it was simple, there is no way to compaire it to the Supercharged with turbo-blower used in the American planes."
Explain please? The Merlin engine, and its Griffon engine counterpart lasted in frontline service with several air forces far longer than the B17's efforts. What does this have to do with anything? We replaced them with jets, just as soon as we could. They were also pretty much self contained, Not in dispute. Lancasters didn't have a habit of blowing their wings apart when the turbosuperchargers got annoyed either. Neither did B-17s, which did not blow up or burn nearly as often as Lancs. Quote;
SuperchargerCentral to the success of the Merlin was the supercharger. A.C. Lovesey, an engineer who was a key figure in the design of the Merlin, delivered a lecture on the development of the Merlin in 1946; in this extract he explained the importance of the supercharger:"Coming now to specific development items we can ... divide them into three general classes:- Improvement of the supercharger.
- Improved fuels.
- Development of mechanical features to take care of the improvements afforded by (1) and (2).
Dealing with (1) it can be said that the supercharger determines the capacity, or ... the output, of the engine. The impression still prevails that the static capacity known as the swept volume is the basis of comparison of the possible power output for different types of engine, but this is not the case because the output of the engine depends solely on the mass of air it can be made to consume efficiently, and in this respect the supercharger plays the most important role ... the engine has to be capable of dealing with the greater mass flows with respect to cooling, freedom from detonation and capable of withstanding high gas and inertia loads ... During the course of research and development on superchargers it became apparent to us that any further increase in the altitude performance of the Merlin engine necessitated the employment of a two-stage supercharger."[26] As the Merlin evolved so too did the supercharger; the latter fitting into three broad categories:[27]- Single-stage, single-speed gearbox: Merlin I to III, XII, 30, 40, and 50 series (1937–1942).[nb 3]
- Single-stage, two-speed gearbox: experimental Merlin X (1938), production Merlin XX (1940–1945).
- Two-stage, two-speed gearbox with intercooler: mainly Merlin 60, 70, and 80 series (1942–1946).
What is not dispute is that the thousands of Lancasters manufactured with Merlin-XXs or the American Packard equivilents had engines that limited their cielings to well under 26,000'! Those engines had single stage blowers. IF the less powerful at altitude and less fuel efficiant Merlin powered Lancasters were required to bomb from 30,000' or higher, both fuel for the return trip and bombs would have to be off loaded before that could happen!I note from your own post that the specially engined Lancs above, had cielings WELL UNDER 29,000'! They were also used in limited ways. I would counter with the fact that the Lancaster with 4X1,635 HP Engines were few and far between1 can you list numbers that actually saw service?