<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>
it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay?
<< In reality the B17 was never considered for atomic bombs, where the Lancaster was. It was the logistics that prevented it.Absolutely right!
The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load.>>
the little boy was smaller diameter than the 4000lbs blockbusters and the Lanc carried them internally!
.
<<Whoops, wrong again! The carrier, or shackle as we say, has nothing to do with wether the bomb will fit into the plane.
GS was 46" OD and barely fit, by the skin of their teeth. The FM was 68"! 60" for the bomb and 4" for the four radar proximity fuzes.>>
yet the posters referes to the little boy not the fatman again you use misdirection
<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>
as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the load
<<But you forget that altitude is also fungible! If the B-17 were flown down low,
it would carry more weight to longer ranges than the Lancaster. The more streamlined plane and better,
more efficient engines do not get less stream lined and less efficient down low. ( Technically the turbos do get slightly less efficient,
but not enough to make any difference in this example!)
The USAF manuals give figures for the B17 consistently less than that... 17,600lbs for 1000miles or so at 16,000ft.>>
are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? no matter what you do you cannot get round this little fact, and that is only when the internal tankage was not used, if 1 internal tank was used then the Maximum Bomb load internally was 4000lbs.
the Maximum load carried on any 8th AAF raid during ww2 was 8000lbs, there is no record of external racks being used in actual raids and the majority of B17s were either never fitted with them or they were removed when they reached the UK
the B17 couldnt even drop the 4000lbs US bombs as they would not fit internally and caused handling problems externally, in fact i cannot find any reference of any us plane dropping these 4000lbs bomb
<<Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight.>>
unless you want more than 8000lbs then the external load made a real mess of its aerodyamics
<<They are not facts. They're your opinion. The facts are what you find in manuals, books, and real life, not in your posts - and you've been proved wrong repeatedly.
I know! I have all the realivant books. I have searched more on line and they all say the same thing. The B-17 was the more efficient plane. (At any altitude and weight!)
You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission? >>
you have been been shown that the reason was a combination of mine laying, food drops, leaflets and the fact that incendaries were not included in the total
<<Maybe the multitude There is no multitude of other missions! Mines count as bombs on the total listed. So do "Special Payloads". All of those other missions after the war do not count either. Out of the 608K Missions, exactly how many do you claim were counted in the total, but dropped no bombs?
The explanation is simple. The aircraft's capability is what it can truly carry, not what it is ordered to carry!
You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>
well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door