Originally Posted by
WHBM
BOAC (and BSAA) eventually had plenty of Yorks as well, although they came about a year after the Lancastrians, but the Lancastrian must have had some advantage. Was the York rather slow/shorter range ? It certainly looked a bit lumbering rather than sleek in comparison.
Roy Chadwick must have been absolutely downcast that, after the Lancaster huge success, and the workmanlike Lancastrian and York, the Tudor (still essentially a Lanc-plus) was such a fiasco. By the time one of the prototypes with him on board crashed in 1947, taking his life in the process, it must have been apparent what a poor bit of design it was.
Yes, the York was inferior to the Lancastrian III in terms of speed, range, and climb rate.
As for the Tudor, it could never be called a successful aircraft but don't forget A. V. Roe wasted a tremendous amount of time and effort on minor design changes due to government and airline indecision and I'm not convinced the end product was such a poor design as people claim. I think it was a bit more than just a "Lanc-plus" though. It had slightly modified Lincoln wings, but an all new fuselage and many new systems, allowing it to become Britain's first pressurised airliner.