45 Shooter;
Shouting the same thing over and over in the face of facts given to you (rather than your own subtle wiki edits) doesn't make it true.
The B17 as a whole is most definitely not 'better'.
1. The statement regarding bomb doors was yours, written in post no. 25. on this thread.
Field modification... a lot more flexibility was afforded B17 crews with various guns being sported in new and crazy configurations. Look through the numerous photo's in the excellent "Lancaster at War" series and you'll see there weren't that many field modifications. Basically, you're making stuff up. I expect to see your edit on wikipedia proving me wrong within an hour or so.
2. I didn't realise we were limited to a particular theatre of operations, I thought we were debating about the aircraft... Look at numbers of Lancasters on any one single mission. The most mustered was 796 on one mission. That is the most aircraft available to use at one single point in history. If we take into account unserviceable and training aircraft it still falls way short of most B17's available at any one time.
3. True, but you don't state how you arrive at less than half the payload for the altitude. You're guessing, and its a bad guess. Especially when known achievements for the Lancaster stand at 22,000lbs to 16,000 feet, several times.
Go look at the NFxxx serial batch of aircraft, used by 617Sqn on the Tirpitz raid. Built by Armstrong Whitworth at Baginton, none are 'Special' aircraft. BI 'Special' aircraft were those fitted for 'Upkeep', or 'Grand Slam' weapons.
The link I posted is correct. If a 'Special' aircraft was needed to carry a weapon, it says so. Look at the section for the 'Grand Slam'.
'Tallboy' could be carried by any normal Lancaster with bulged bomb doors and there were several production batches built that way, including a good number of the Hercules engined aircraft. I'll provide you with production figures later when I have the reference material to hand.
4. Seeing as you seem to be hung up on the Merlin XX which the Lancaster started with, then got rid of after the first BI's - lets look at your chosen in the same way.
How many B17's still had the original variant of the Wright Cyclone that the B17C had way back when it started being part of the war (funnily enough in RAF hands).
Or given that we keep talking modified aircraft how many aircraft got to the end of the war without the redesign of everything aft of the trailing edge of the wing? When a similar thing was done to the Lancaster (extended wing tips, 8 foot fuselage plug aft of the wing) they redesignated it from Lancaster IV to Lincoln.
I'm happy to use limited production aircraft as examples of what the aircraft was capable of. Don't ask me for answers as to what aircraft used things if you don't want an answer you won't like. I realise you don't like this much as it makes the B17 look a little inferior, so I'll limit it to those that saw combat. To help you defend the B17, try digging up some obscure version of B17, like the 'Aphrodite' drones. They had a bit more payload but were disposable...
If you want production numbers by model of Merlin, be prepared to do the same with verified sources for the B17.
5. Seeing as the Lancasters were ordered and built in batches of 300 or so, your point about limiting numbers wouldn't really make a difference. A reasonable number of BII, BIII, and BX aircraft had bulged bomb bay doors too, it wasn't just the BI. However, the limits you want to impose aren't satisfactory... you can't ignore something that actually was built and used in anger, even if in minor numbers. Its all 7,377 Lancasters compared against all 12,731 B17's or not at all.
7. This is what it has to do with things - An indication of how versatile something is is how long it lasts in service, in the job it was designed to do. For instance, the B52 would not be as long lasting at its job if it were of no use.
The fact is, by the time the B17 was throwing retardant on conifers and hauling rancid meat around parts of South America, the Lancaster was still patrolling Canada and a good portion of the Pacific in military service.
Regarding the fires I mentioned, even in preservation the problems continue - one B17 lost during the filming of 'Memphis Belle' and more recently the Liberty Belle burning to a cinder. Further back into wartime, look at why the wingtip vents were fitted to the B17. According to the 4th Bomb Wing, USAF - it was to cut down on unexplained wing explosions believed to be fuel vapour build up.
We all know that the B17 could get up to 35,000 feet or so - but the service ceiling isn't its bombing altitude, its a measure of how high it can fly before the climb rate suffers. I can't find record of a B17 bombing anything from it service ceiling, but research suggests typically the B17 did its job at 20,000 feet.
For higher altitudes we can bring in the B17 replacement - the B29; an altogether more worthy contestant against the Lancaster.
You points about accuracy in your latest post bring up interesting areas for discussion, in that accuracy improved during the course of the war. By the end with the use of Pathfinders, it was a very accurate process resulting in destruction of cities. The process was copied by the USAF and put into practice against Japan.
The 'frailty' in daylight missions is known right from the Lancaster's birth. But when you consider sheer firepower in defensive armaments (and the B17 was designed to be defensive) the Fortress was superior. 13 x .50 guns, against the Lancaster's 8 x .303 spells it out in no uncertain terms.
Regards,
Rich
(self confessed Avro fanatic)