BBMF Lanc Engine Fire

[ditchvisitor]

Have just seen that the Lanc had a no4 engine fire but landed safely, hope it's not too bad.

[ditchvisitor]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b295/westfieldgolf/78943830-A6C8-4E1A-838C-03A9978BB405_1.jpg (http://s21.photobucket.com/user/westfieldgolf/media/78943830-A6C8-4E1A-838C-03A9978BB405_1.jpg.html)
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b295/westfieldgolf/E556942A-4D15-4EE3-8489-D952F6BB0E1A.jpg (http://s21.photobucket.com/user/westfieldgolf/media/E556942A-4D15-4EE3-8489-D952F6BB0E1A.jpg.html)

[Old-Duffer]

Perhaps the Canadians would lend them one!!!!!!

O-D

[VX275]

Isn't turning towards the dead engine a piloting no no?

[bill2b]

VX
You never know he might be aiming for the runway. :ooh:

[NutLoose]

There was a picture on the Flypast forum

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134864-Lancaster-Emergency-Landing

Glad everyone appears ok and well done all in what could have been a nasty accident.

[The Oberon]

Looked great displaying over Scampton earlier, hope everything is OK.

[NutLoose]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ve-day-raf-bombers-engine-5654830 - Google Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fve-day-raf-bombers-engine-5654830&newwindow=1)

Picture

[VinRouge]

VX275, no hard and fast rules, it depends on how she is handling.

Usually, it's not an issue once well above Vmca2 where you have plenty of bernoullis over the ailerons;just make sure you don't bank too far!

[Above The Clouds]

VX275
Isn't turning towards the dead engine a piloting no no?


Just bring No1 to idle to match No4 then there are no issues :ok:

[PapaDolmio]

Glad all ok.

I have to say though....awesome picture, I suspect it's a good few years since a Lanc has flown over Lincs with one donk smoking and prop feathered?

[Tashengurt]

I hope it's easily fixable but yes. Something strangely evocative in the pictures.

(To a ground based layman with zero perception of what was going on in the cockpit. )

[Nige321]

A lot of suggestions she won't fly again this season...:{

[Nige321]

From UKAR

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEaulCbWoAEoYUG.jpg:orig

[Wander00]

Well done the crew. Surely it will buff out..........hat, coat

[Kitbag]

Does anybody else know if PA474 has ever had a similar incident whilst flying with BBMF?
No doubt the team will be working hard to ensure the beautiful old girl returns to the skies in good order.

[rolling20]

Isn't turning towards the dead engine a piloting no no?

IIRC Jack Currie did a 2 engined over shoot (port both dead, I think), with a load of incendaries onboard in a rain storm, @ West Malling. I believe he then landed off a port turn , having lost faith in the 'turning away' from the dead engine principle. I haven't read Lancaster Target for a while, so apologies if I am not correct.

[mmitch]

She was to have a busy few days too. At least she is at her home base this time. I believe she spent a couple of weeks in Jersey when a Merlin failed several years ago.
mmitch.

[etimegev]

http://youtu.be/PEDQX5_moLE

Taken when all four donks were working perfectly!

[NutLoose]

Judging by this sequence she had just took off so was probably in the circuit, images show the result.

BBMF incident this afternoon. (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=66787&sid=765e14b2aa4202867419d6c611620e30)


http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/breaking-bbmf-lancaster-bomber-catches-fire-at-raf-coningsby-this-afternoon-1-6732212

[Hempy]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t31.0-8/10985059_772527996201422_1693228139387364457_o.jpg?efg=eyJpI joidCJ9

[BEagle]

I hope that whatever the firem....firefighters were using wasn't corrosive...:uhoh:

[Onceapilot]

Well done to all and best wishes to the BBMF!:ok:
I am not aware if the BBMF Lanc has any engine fire protection? Bearing in mind the overall value of this aircraft, it should be fitted. It would appear that this was a fuel fed fire and that the fire was still burning after landing.:oh:

OAP

[camelspyyder]

AFAIK PA474 had an engine fire previously and diverted into Finningley whilst I was stationed there.

[VIProds]

Yesterday, I went over to RAF Scampton with a Spitfire PRU pilot & other Veterans to be wined, dined & generally spoilt by the boys & girls in blue.


We were treated to a formation flying display by the "Reds" & some low, banking passes by the BBMF Lancaster. It then touched down halfway down the runway then opened up power to head back down the A15 towards RAF Coningsby. It sounded & looked fine during the display, although the display had been delayed on four separate occasions.

[NutLoose]

Beagle,

Yes the content of fire extinguishers are corrosive, however if you look at the picture on the Boston link, see

BBMF Lancaster Bomber catches fire at RAF Coningsby - Boston Standard (http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/bbmf-lancaster-bomber-catches-fire-at-raf-coningsby-1-6732212)

I would say that is them steam cleaning / jet washing the engine and airframe down to remove it.

The huge picture above shows paint gone from the rear of the cowls which tends to indicate the possible area of the fire. I can imagine it being out for a while, as the engine bearers are tubular steel and any heat on them could see those done for, and that does not touch On what else has been damaged.

[glad rag]

OH SHI# I knew about the engine etc but that undercarriage looks screwed. :{

Looks like it was an effect of the angle of the screen the picture was taken from after all.

Hopefully repairs can be effected in good order and she can fly again.

[NutLoose]

Where?........

[glad rag]

From the on screen images from the camera shots previous page..

[Valiantone]

Looked fine in these.




BBMF incident this afternoon. (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=66787)


V1

[Old-Duffer]

As long as the heat has not affected the mainspar's integrity........

I suspect there will be a great deal of gum sucking amongst the 'duty holder's' staff and anybody else with responsibility for airworthiness.

We could see the old girl out of action for sometime.

Here's an off the cuff proposition. The RAF works with The Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage to bring forward 'Just Jane' to flying status!

Thoughts on a postcard, please.

Old Duffer

[Garysted]

Gents,


I'm the photographer who took the images that are on UKAR and are linked here. I thought I would just clarify exactly at what point the fire occurred. The BBMF had already completed one practise display (I believe their PDA was due today) and this happened late in the second when they had swapped Hurricanes. The smoke was first seen as it carried out a run across from the 07 end (where I was standing) towards 25 and was immediately spotted by the tower, the crew then confirmed they had a engine fire. I think from memory one tight 360 circuit was completed before they then landed on 25 and stopped as soon as possible at that end. Fire wagons were there in seconds. After about 30-40 minutes the aircraft was towed back down to the BBMF end, past the hangar to the wash pan for cleaning. The image that appears in the press was taken after I left but looks like the foam residue being cleaned off whilst on the wash pan. I suppose they think it's the fire itself. I only overheard one comment from the BBMF engineers at the fence and that was just ' it doesn't look good'.


Gary

[Valiantone]

Well hopefully the damage isn't very bad


V1

[Courtney Mil]

Does anyone here really think this isn't months of work? Maybe in 1942 this would have been an engine change and back up for tomorrow night's raid. Not today, I'm afraid. The damage assessment alone is going to be a long job.

There are so many parts at risk there, parts that no longer sit on shelves. I pray they can be sourced/manufactured in reasonably short order, but what I'm saying here is don't hold your breath.

She'll be back.

[albatross]

Well done that crew!

[Lima Juliet]

Courtney

You're right that there will be much to remanufacture - engine bearers, wire looms, control rods, mounts, etc... However, from what I could see the fire did not appear to go into the wing and damage the all important wing spar. I recall that LF363 was almost completely burned at RAF Wittering in 1991 and she was lovingly rebuilt, so I am very confident that PA474 will fly again.

By the way, I saw the old girl in the flesh shortly after the fire and she is definitely still standing proud on both legs - as others have said, well done to the crew and the fire crew for saving her. :D

LJ

[NutLoose]

Wrong Lanc, that was the Canadian one, this is the RAF one.

[NutLoose]

Judging by this on the Flypast forum, the bearers had a lot of heat on it so is probably shot, the wiring and pipe work hasn't faired well either, I'd say it's season is done.
The firewall appears to have stopped most of it travelling back.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=237348&d=1431126793

[GeeRam]

Wasn't it due for an extended down time period at the end of this season for some major work on the tail plane ..... ??

[mmitch]

Their Facebook page. From the CO.
https://www.facebook.com/BBMF.Official?fref=nf


It was supposed to go to ARCO at Duxford at the end of the 2016 session.
mmitch.

[Dysonsphere]

Shows how much the BBC check their stories this morning (Sunday) there still claiming the lanc will be in the flypast. :ugh:

[Chugalug2]

Every cloud though, Ds....It still allowed them to slip in the de rigueur comment about the Bombing Offensive.

"Unfortunately no Lancaster in the RAF Flypast"
'No, but at least the Fighters will still be here'
"Bomber Command of course very controversial still".
'Yes, especially given the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in February'

Something has to be done about the BBC and its predictable prejudice. Having grudgingly concluded that the British war effort as a whole was vital to the defeat of Fascist tyranny, it satisfies itself with making an enormous part of that effort an exception, ie that of Bomber Command, whilst always regretting the 55573 deaths that it cost of course.

[Molemot]

That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.

[Wander00]

Chug, IMHO you are absolutely right-BBC twisting the history again

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

A National Broadcaster not proud of its Lancasters?

Ridiculous!

The Lancaster Bomber- D-Day's Workhorse - The National - CBC Player (http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2462775125/)

15 mins HD - Some good in-flight shots, and interviews

[langleybaston]

Notwithstanding rewriting history [NAZIS ....... never Germans] the BBC trendies had a rough Election night, I bet!

Tough.

****e Ory.

[Wander00]

It seems the comment about Fighter Command stayed in, but comment about Bomber Command edited out of the repeat just now

[EGTE]

The comment about Dresden was made by the co-commentator - a representative of the Imperial War Museum and not a BBC employee.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.

[Chugalug2]

Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble. Don't be. The line before was very BBC, and invited a response confirming the suggestion. I'm under no illusions that the Bombing Campaign is seen as a blight on our otherwise supposedly honourable conduct of the war. You can find it expressed by historians, educationalists, polititicians, clergy, and of course broadcasters. They are all wrong in my opinion. You must fight a war to win, and to win it as quickly as possible lest you might lose it.

I'm also under no illusions that my views are not held by all who post here. No problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that a national broadcasting organisation, funded by taxation, takes a detached view of "the British", as the BBC does. Does it ever contemplate its own name, and what it should mean?

[JagRigger]

Is the damage really going to be that bad ? Surely that bit of metal called a firewall will have served its purpose to a large extent ? Certainly the cabling etc aft the firewall looks in good condition, so maybe ( fingers crossed ) its an engine / bearer change and some rewiring.

[NutLoose]

These days they tend to follow civil standards so yes, plus it depends on parts too.

[Fantome]

there'll always be at least two schools of thought chugalug

Geoff Taylor (The Hollow Square and Piece of Cake) had a kind
of day of reckoning much later. He had bombed Dresden.
Interviewed twenty years ago on the ABC he said he believed
the fire bombing of innocent civilians was akin to the committing
of atrocities.

This short film is a good reminder of the deaths, the wholesale
destruction and the mental torture. Rollo Kingsford Smith was a
nephew of Charles Kingsford Smith. Rollo became head
of the Hawker de Havilland company in Sydney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6aPUMv6tk

[Fantome]

That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.

There were quietly ropeable, disgusted responses from RAAF aircrew based in PNG during the war, after they had watched an ABC doco on the campaigns centred on Milne Bay. The script and the delivery of the commentary pissed them right off due to the gross assumptions made by latter day 'experts' who obviously did not think it obligatory to research the subject thoroughly before talking with those who were there, right in the midst of the Japanese onslaught. So callow were some of the questions asked, the tendency was likewise, to switch the idiot box off.

[Chugalug2]

fantome, as I said previously, I have no problem with differing views on the RAF's Bombing campaign, or for that matter any other contentious matters. If the BBC simply stuck to reporting such differences, then again no problem.


The problem is that the BBC has corporate views and sees no problem in expressing them, whether it be politics, military, industrial, economic, or half a hundred other topics. That may be acceptable for commercially owned channels and newspapers, but it is unacceptable for a corporation that is funded out of our taxes. The only views that we should hear from it are reported ones. As it is the daily grilling of those being interviewed by its aggressive presenters tell us far more about the views of the latter than the former.


Interesting that the reported exchange that I and others object to has been edited out of the repeat. Wasn't something we said I hope?

[Roadster280]

Controversial? Absolute horse****.

The UK has been able and willing to inflict nuclear retribution on its enemies for the last 60 years or so. The U.S. actually did!

I fail to see the difference between firebombing an enemy city and nuking it, in terms of civilian casualties.

If you don't want that to happen, then play nicely at the outset, or the big boys will come and kick your arse right out of the playground.

[Chugalug2]

I can but agree with your succinctly expressed views R280. What really gets my goat is when the blame for the Offensive is placed on Bomber Harris, with the quickly added view that the crews had no option, as though they were mere enslaved automatons. They were all volunteers and many who were not selected for Bomber Command wished to be part of it.

Of course Harris made blood curdling speeches about reaping whirlwinds. That was his job, to put fire in the bellies of his crews. It's called leadership. Similarly he tried to inflict as much damage on the enemy with as little damage as possible to his own side. That was his job. Hence BC flew at night, hence area targets, hence cities.

It is ironic that because it flew by night BC was unescorted, whereas the USAAF was eventually, by day. Hence the latter could target the more predictable and therefore well defended "panacea" sites such as fuel plants. Fighters started to move the goal posts, whether Mustangs by day or Bf 110s by night. When the fuel ran out so did the latter.

As it was the war was carried to the enemy by day and by night for most of the war. Speer said it was another front, certainly it made D-Day possible which in turn liberated Western Europe. I'd say that was something to be proud of. If the BBC doesn't agree so be it, but might I suggest that it is time it keeps its harping on to itself from now on? Then I will, I promise. :)

[Courtney Mil]

Why don't you guys say whom you are quoting when you quote? If it's too technically difficult for you, do feel free to ask.

Apart from whatever outrage the BBC has caused, it's funny to note that both ends of the political spectrum appear to be equally outraged. That either means they just piss everyone off just for fun or they're pretty even.

It is their role to report and, sometimes, that means expressing views (not necessarily those of the newscasters) that you don't like.

If you think there's a corporate conspiracy going on there, you have no idea how any journalism works. British television and radio enjoys the services some of the world's best journalists. The suits in the office upstairs don't send them little notes telling them to ignore all the research they did (in some war-torn arse end of the word, for example) and instead substitute some fictitious party line. The professional journos would have left years ago if that were the case.

[Fantome]

To talk of a nuclear offensive or defensive as an effective response
is to open again that huge can of worms where the pragmatists
have to repeat ad nauseam that once those warheads are fired off
to their targets , you know what?

THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROW

[NutLoose]

Sorry I cannot get upset over all of these so called "experts"
I tend to look at them and wonder how would they feel standing inline for a shower at Belsen, or being beaten to death in Burma.
I often wonder if put in that situation with the means to defend themselves would they roll over and die, or fight to survive.

As for Dresden, well Dresden would still be standing if they hadn't started a war against us in the first place, and their memories seem to forget the likes of Coventry.

[Self Loading Freight]

Firstly, I'm delighted that what could have been a much more significant incident was handled so well. I hope and trust that such an important part of our history is back up in the air, where it should be, as soon as possible. Aviation is never entirely safe, but the risks in flinging a Lanc the best part of a century old about the sky are quite something - as are the reasons it's done

As for the debate over the morality of the bombing campaign - I don't think this will ever be settled, not in our lifetimes nor for some time after that. I can see the arguments from all sides, and I know enough not to know the answer. History is like that. That people are still engaged and discussing this is a good thing: I would hate to live in a culture where strong views and conflict in good faith were taboo or outlawed, and that I don't is absolutely a result of sacrifices made before I was born.

But I must defend the BBC.It has faults. It can be rancid. It also has special responsibilities. I work for it from time to time and know many people in it, and some of them have themselves been in great personal danger while doing their jobs. Most, in fact the vast majority I know and work with, are passionate about fairness - while knowing it's impossible to hit the mark every time; there's no Spock-like path to making perfect editorial decisions - and unlike many other areas of the media it's actually part of the BBC's official remit to be fair. I've seen complaints, some of a frankly farcical and trivial nature, go all the way up to the very top, with a lot of work and distress attached, because the complainant refused to accept any findings until all options were completely exhausted. If you do think Aunty's being unfair and want to prove it, then while I can't guarantee that your complaint will be dealt with to your satisfaction, you can at least expect it to be taken seriously if you're prepared to make it seriously.

Which is a long-winded and pompous way of saying that despite knowing quite how wretched it can be at its worst, I'm proud of being a very small part of what it does. We'd be a lot poorer without it. By all means damn the organisation, but please remember - a lot of good people try hard to make it better, every day. Perhaps those who've worked for other places with a public duty and that attract criticism will recognise that state of affairs...

[etimegev]

Fair comment SLF

[Fantome]

Thinking of the wide variation in attitudes to warfare it behoves to
spare more than a passing thought for those who fought with
the pity of war, the suffering, deeply impressed in their minds.
If responses are without compassion then nothing of lasting value
has been learned.

Take Wilfred Owen as a case in point. He was the greatest of the poets of the First World War. His death in battle a few days before the armistice
was an incalculable loss to the section of society that is concerned with the causes and the effects of war.

Owen found his voice in the trenches. His poems combine bleak realism with
indignation and compassion. For many he shaped their response and attitude to war.

[AGS Man]

My sources tell me that the whole wiring loom for the wing will have to be replaced. Sounds like a long downtime but a huge well done to the crew for getting her and themselves down safely.

[NutLoose]

That wouldn't surprise me, dependant on where it has disconnect plugs. I did wonder about the engine control runs too.

[Dysonsphere]

I did wonder about the engine control runs too.

I would guess theres more joints in them, as for wiring as it a wartime design I would think the only joints would be at the wing roots.

[NutLoose]

Looking at pictures of the engine bearers showing the heat they have had on them, I would say they are probably scrap, I don't know if the BBMF hold such as spares but I believe Just Jane after NDT'ing some they aquired from Canada were looking at having to produce new items, that in itself I imagine will bring up its own problems with Material specs etc....
And that is just one component in a long list of possible damaged parts.

If I was a betting man and allowing for the possible downtime, I would say the sensible option would be to bring the planned 2016 rebuild forward, break it into sections, (they were probably going to have to do that for the inspection anyway) and truck it down to Duxford, you will then be able to kill two birds with one stone, you can progress the repair / overhaul of the aircraft, whille you source / sort the parts needed.. the fly in the ointment for that though is probably hangarage, as I believe they were going to build one to do the overhaul in.

Judging by these pics off twitter it had breached the lower firewall and one image online I have seen shows two trails of white smoke from both engines, so one wonders if it was drawn into the leading edge by the airflow from the inner engine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEgkRhEWYAEnoCr.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEgkRhIWoAAvu_y.jpg

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bbmf

[Madbob]

I am greatly relieved that this engine problem and emergency landing happened so near to base and that a suitable runway with fire crews were available. (And appears to have been well handled by the crew.......)


It could have been so much worse had an emergency landing not been possible very quickly and I shudder to think what would have been the outcome had V-RA (the Canadian Lanc) had a similar experience in transit to the UK last year.


The crew's only option then would have been to ditch or bail out.


I hope the damage is not going to be either too costly or too long to repair and hope to see her flying in 2016.


MB

[Pontius Navigator]

IIRC, we carried parachutes but didn't fly high enough for them to be effective.

[NutLoose]

I wonder if they now have the use of the quick opening ones, I know there was a rush of operators to buy them after the successful bailing out of Big Beautiful Doll at Duxford, that was 500 foot with opening about 250!!!.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/12/i-crashed-vintage-plane

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Looking at pictures of the engine bearers showing the heat they have had on them, I would say they are probably scrap

The Bearers are steel and may need a bit of heat treatment. The cowling frames are L72, if I remember rightly, and might need a bit more work.

[Cyberhacker]

In my late teens and early twenties I had the privilege of serving Jack Currie (and friends) his regular pints of IPA, and the occasional Guinness, in The George Hotel (Easingwold)...

His tales, regaled first hand were even more inspiring even than when read from the books - several of which I have, signed of course!

[Stitchbitch]

Nutloose I would imagine Strong Squadron Parachute were uppermost on the agenda after BBDs crash. Possible Integration issues and an OEM change in the published lowest safe operating height of the current chute probably meant no changes for the fighters, as realistically they could zoom climb in most instance's. As for the Lanc, at the time,I believe the chutes were dummy packs, although this may well have changed with MAA involvement. Probably.

[NutLoose]

The Bearers are steel and may need a bit of heat treatment.

I would be amazed if they can do that.

[acmech1954]

Hopefully, as the Vulcan is grounded after this season, it would be nice if the supporters that have spent millions of there hard earned money on 558 will transfer their support to another worthy Avro renovation - Just Jane !
Perhaps we would be seeing 2 Lancasters flying together again, for longer than only 8 years.

[smujsmith]

Around 1980 ish, I was the gang boss on a Field Repair Squadron (successor to 71 MU) team who undertook the refurbishment of the wings on PA474. It was a major task and gave me 50 or more technicians and the full support of Abingdons Station workshops. I believe that Abingdon workshops in those days were one of very few allowed to manufacture replacement primary structure for aircraft repair. It took 6 months, and, the wings were stripped to the bare spars, with a complete replacement of each removed part manufactured, on site at Abingdon by station workshops. It was decreed during the repair that all removed items, once duplicated, would be placed in a "cage", and would be sliced up, mounted and sold as souvineers at future B of B displays. I know for fact that certain Canberra bits ended up in the mix. The point is, PA474 has wings, circa 1980, not 1944. Engines and wiring looms are replaceable, the airframe is obviously replaceable. What matters is what that aircraft represents, and that's our respect for a very brave generation of people who, nightly, put their lives on the line to maintain our freedoms and rights when threatened by the Nazi omnipresence. It's a shame that most of what they fought for is being given away by modern politicians that have no conception of service to the country. Whatever the cost, PA474 should be repaired and restored to airworthiness, if only to reconfirm our gratitude to those that gave so much for us. Sorry about the rant, I truly believe the aircraft represents an enormous effort by men for our common good.

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

So it's your fault.......


Totally agree 100%, the only thing it's going to take is time and sadly money.

[smujsmith]

Agree with you again Nutty, I wonder if there's the will to pay for the recovery cost? I truly hope so. Certainly, as with the wings, Britain still has the capability to replace damaged structure with "new build" even if the RAF don't. One other interesting fact about PA474. Whilst doing the job on the wings I was informed by my BBMF contact, one Pete Rushen, that the undercarriage was not the original Lancaster one, but a Lincoln undercart. So, with a blend of Merlins across the wing, a mainplane built in the the 1980s and an undercarriage from a later, version. Replacing damaged components should not bother anyone. I'm sure British engineering industry could swing behind any appeal for help, and PA474 can be restored to flying fettle in short order.

Smudge:ok:

[Valiantone]

The warbird industry did rebuilt LF363 after its fire at Wittering so I'm sure its not beyond all hope.


Just so long as they don't ************ to pay for it


V1

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Smuj,

It's not just the wings which are relatively recent. Some time ago, I was involved with a task at DSDA Ashchurch to identify and value shed loads of equipment ( most of it ancient ) which had been consolidated from various storage depots, one of which was RAF Stafford. Among the items were two virtually brand new jigs which had been manufactured in the early 80's for the fabrication of Lancaster tail assemblies.
Due to the effect of RAB, to avoid them being scrapped, arrangements were made to have them moved to RAF Coningsby.
Must try to find the pics taken at the time.

[smujsmith]

Cpt Pugwash,

Sir, fully agree with your post and thank goodness that the transfer was made to the correct unit. A slight divergence if I may. I was posted to RAF Waddington, to head up the change from Vulcan to Nimrod AEW. No, I wasn't the station Ccommander, just a lowly Sgt rigger, given the Hydraulic Bay as his prize. We received the ubiquitous Mk1 hydraulic rig, suitably primed with OF4 oil, not OM15. On opening the rear stowages on the rig I found trays of adapters, wrapped in grease and waxed paper, labelled Halifax, Mosquito, Stirling and Lancaster. God knows how old that hydraulic rig was, but it's link to aircraft that had historical significance was certainly clear. The Nimrod AEW story is not for this thread, but our Mk1 Static Hydraulic test rig certainly deserves a mention.

Smudge:ok:

[NutLoose]

BBMF update

Lancaster update

Good evening here is a a brief post about the progress on the repairs after the problem with the number four engine. As you can appreciate I cannot give you all the details but it is not simply an engine change. There is fire damage to the nacelle panels, engine bearer and associated systems. All this will take time to assess, repair or replace. We hope to have her flying again this year but at this moment we can not say when. Paul B

[Roadster280]

Not a dig, just curious - why can't the poster give the details?

Is it likely to compromise OPSEC? A solitary 1940s patchwork Lancaster is hardly likely to be classified.

Or is he already sticking his neck out because he is not authorized to release anything?

I think the PR machine could get a bit of a leg up with the public if they handled this in the right way. Something like:

"Damage assessed so far is X, Y and Z. While we can fix X and Y from existing spares, Z will require some new widgets to be manufactured, and we have contracted A N Other of Nojobsville to manufacture these for us. The cost of this contract is cost neutral, given that we will not be operating the Lancaster for X months. We expect to receive the widgets in late Augovember, with flight tests the following month, and return to service thereafter."

[Pontius Navigator]

Roadsters, the answer to Z is money and contract.

As for cost neutral, in the big scheme, maybe but as budgets are split up it would take time to borrow from Peter . . .

[Wander00]

Sounds like a case for a tranche from the bank fines...................aah, but the election is past.....

[Old-Duffer]

Wander00,

I'd say you were a cynic but then a cynic is a realist when seen by an idealist!

Old Duffer

[Gsxr600]

Hopefully, as the Vulcan is grounded after this season, it would be nice if the supporters that have spent millions of there hard earned money on 558 will transfer their support to another worthy Avro renovation - Just Jane !
Perhaps we would be seeing 2 Lancasters flying together again, for longer than only 8 years.

As a vulcan supporter I'm personally only interested in jets. The Lanc is impressive but doesn't do much for me. I'll be keeping my efforts focused on the surviving ground running vulcans, victors, lightnings etc.

What is the potential fatigue life for PA474 and Just Jane? Presumably older simpler technology and plenty of spare Merlins in the world means many more decades of flying - assuming there is funding?

[Gsxr600]

I would guess theres more joints in them, as for wiring as it a wartime design I would think the only joints would be at the wing roots.

I remember reading that during the re spar work many years ago the wiring was modified to have various connectors and joints to make disassembly in the future more easy. Might make that work more localised at least

[mikip]

Roadster it could be that A N Other have not yet agreed to manufacture the widgets let alone by Augovember or even Septanuary and they are just giving us as much info as they can to keep us informed

[Cpt_Pugwash]

@Smuj,

Found the pics of the fin jigs, the two black framed items below.
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/General/LancJig1sml_zpsltquda3q.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/General/LancJig2sml_zps0um0r0w6.jpg

With luck, they might find the wiring loom templates among these, assuming they were not scrapped.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/General/Loom1sml_zpscckl6zwp.jpg

[Wander00]

OD - "cynic", moi? jamais!

[smujsmith]

Capt. Pugwash,

Great photographs, and good to know that items created during previous restorations haven't been discarded. I know that after our 6 month mainplane restoration, there was a follow up which did a similar job on the rear fuselage and tailplane. As someone whose father in law served, as groundcrew on 617 Squadron, I was delighted to give him a wander around PA474 one weekend during our overhaul. Our "Lanc" means a lot to many people, and it's return to flight is a matter of importance. Lets hope that the extended damage reported by Nutty can be quickly overcome, and the aircraft returned to display flying,my Seotember hopefully.

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

Smudge, did they fit the Lincoln rudders on it when it was with you?

[BEagle]

Gsxr600 wrote: As a Vulcan supporter I'm personally only interested in jets.

When XH558 is finally grounded, I certainly won't be contributing any financial support for a single aeroplane museum in Doncaster, of all places.

I was thinking of contributing to the fund to keep Sea Vixen FAW2 XP924 flying. But after the uninspiring way FNHT supporters were treated by the Sea Vixen group last weekend, I'm not so sure. Of course we had a very enthusiastic presentation by the RNHF, who'd laid on an excellent day. But the 'Vixen briefing wasn't very good - the speaker mumbled into his microphone and didn't come across as someone who would inspire others to keep the 'Vixen aloft. He even said that he didn't know what his role was! When we were taken to the hangar to see the aircraft, it was roped off and no-one bothered to look after the visitors. At least there was an F-4 in the same hangar, but the RNHF's Sea Hawk was parked in the far corner of the hangar and no-one even mentioned it.....

If people expect public donations, they need to inspire and to be enthusiastic. Neither of which attributes were exhibited by the 'Vixen briefer. What a pity - and a great disappointment to all those who'd driven to Yeovilton especially to see the 'Vixen....:(

[Gsxr600]

Perhaps Mr Pleming should get involved! He said in this month's Flypast that his team would be suited to taking on a new airframe project.

[acmech1954]

I fully agree that Dr Pleming and his crew could make admirable advisors to many projects, after all the have great experience of the pitfalls and potholes that they have suffered over the last 10 years or so. Has anyone worked out what these last eight years of flying has cost per hour. Jet aircraft tend to come under a 'complicated' (?? I think its called) heading by the CAA which makes them far more expensive to operate and highly regulated.
I have also been a supporter of the Vulcan over the years (pity it wasn't a Victor), but I would now prefer my money to assist in returning another icon to the sky and to be added to the available aircraft for shows around the country. Are there any other complete airframes that could potentially returned to flying condition other than 'Just Jane'?
To my mind 558 will now become a museum piece, along with many others, but with its own posh shed. Perhaps they should sell it in America and maybe they could keep it flying out there.

[GeeRam]

Smudge, did they fit the Lincoln rudders on it when it was with you?

IIRC, the Lanc MkIV/Lincoln rudders were to fitted to '474 at Cranfield in the late 1950's when she was being used as a trial a/c.

[Gsxr600]

I'm going to be putting my money behind XL426 post 558, it's my local Vulcan and should be able to make that glorious noise for many decades to come for a modest amount of funding. As previously said jets are my thing but I don't think getting anything post 1960 flying is going to be cost effective or even possible. Tornado to the Sky anyone, I can't see it happening.

So put your money behind Just Jane or a Shackleton if you want to see something interesting in the sky. Or like me support a taxi able Vulcan or Victor. Your money will go a long way and you'll get up close and personal far more than at an airshow.

[smujsmith]

Nutty,

Sorry for the delay in responding. The repairs that we carried out at Abingdnon when I was the gang boss entailed work on the mainplanes only. I became aware of the fact that 474 had the Lincoln undercarriage as we had to remove it to carry out the planned work. Not sure if I made it clear before but that repair basically replaced everything of the mainplanes, less the Main and rear spars, which were suitably blended and cleared for many more years of flight. I also recall that there was discussion, when we had the mighty beast down to bare spars, whether to replace the outer spars with some "in store" Shackleton spars, which would have significantly increased the aircrafts in service fatigue life. This was not done on "my" repair. It might be of interest that as we stripped the original material from the wings we found two, very interesting items. A pristine 2BA/4BA spanner left on the rear spar and a Threepenny bit, also in good nick inside the Right wingtip. I'm not sure where they disappeared to, but they would have been left in the original wings as the areas that we found them in were full closure sections. I believe that the refurbishment of the aft fuselage and tailplane was done after my time, and may well have been done at somewhere like Marshalls of Cambridge, I'm not sure. And I was not aware that the rudders were Lincoln as well as the Undercarriage. I wonder if it really matters ? I have an ex C130 GE mate who has two steel hips, and various other plastic bits, he is still my mate (if you see what I mean).

Smudge:ok:

[Richard Woods]

The Lincoln style undercarriage and rudder were on her from day one; look at any photos of her during the period she spent on mapping duties. The same undercarriage and rudders were also fitted on Lancaster B.VII - such as NX611 - and Lancastrians.

Potential fatigue life could be infinite; the structure is relatively simple so you can effectively zero the clock. The Shackleton fleet had a fatigue remediation programme and some aircraft were redone twice - as mentioned earlier it was the spare booms from this that allowed PA474 to be re-boomed in the mid 1990's.

Even so with about 4000 hours flown before the rebuild and now being on a second set of spar booms she's still a way behind the highest houred Lanc, which is Canada's FM212. That aircraft has done around 8069 hours on its original wing!

[NutLoose]

For those that are wondering what we are talking about rudder wise, this picture shows the two styles, I suppose the Lincoln style ones are more responsive being larger and having the "squared" off lower trailing edge.

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/waddington/Canadians3_zps12c10274.jpg

[Mike51]

I believe PA474 was fitted with the larger, Lincoln-style rudders from new

[Shackman]

We've seen a lot of information here about the damage to the engine bearers and wing repairs etc, but any news on what actually caused the fire in the first place?

I can certainly commend the crew for getting her back on the ground in double quick time, and know just how heart stopping such an occurrence can be. Two Shackletons were lost due to engine fires which didn't go out immediately - both due to the engine mounting burning through and the engine falling off or wing failing. The scuttlebut was that it would take about 90 secs for the magnesium alloy mainspars to burn through in the event of a major engine fire, and I assume that Thumper's mainspar is the same. I was lucky - one engine fire that went out with the extinguisher and two false indications (but only realised once on the ground).

My thoughts also go to the groundcrew, who have looked after this (and the other BBMF) aircraft so well, when they saw the damage, and realised the task ahead of them.

[Shack37]

I was lucky - one engine fire that went out with the extinguisher and two
false indications (but only realised once on the ground).


Shackman
I had a similar experience as ground crew on a 37 Sqn. Mk2 returning to K´sar from Majunga in 1966. The fire was extinguished successfully but the damage caused prevented the prop from being feathered. We eventually landed safely at Embakasi, Nairobi.

My grateful thanks to the captain, Flt. Lt. Nick Nicholls and his crew for that.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yep ground the beast forever. If you want to see one flying watch a video. Sorry but yet again another vintage plane ride ends in disaster (or near disaster). When will the authorities grow balls, say no, dig in and stop this nonsense?
Lancaster's were and are dangerous death traps, built solely for war, in a time of war.
In a time long ago.
Please cease flying and put it in a museum-nothing lasts forever, especially luck.

[Stitchbitch]

HS It's not going to be much of an airborne memorial if it's in a museum now is it? Once FAA and now Daily Mail? Lancasters are not dangerous deathtraps and I would happily fly in one again.

PA.474 has an enviable safety record.

Please fix her up and get her flying again soon. :ok:

[Richard Woods]

We've seen a lot of information here about the damage to the engine bearers and wing repairs etc, but any news on what actually caused the fire in the first place?

I can certainly commend the crew for getting her back on the ground in double quick time, and know just how heart stopping such an occurrence can be. Two Shackletons were lost due to engine fires which didn't go out immediately - both due to the engine mounting burning through and the engine falling off or wing failing. The scuttlebut was that it would take about 90 secs for the magnesium alloy mainspars to burn through in the event of a major engine fire, and I assume that Thumper's mainspar is the same.

The spar booms fitted to PA474 are left over Shackleton material, and I had the drawings that were supplied to BBMF in my hand last weekend while working in our archive. It stands to reason they're exactly as susceptible to fire damage as they would be on a Shack.

We're anxiously waiting for the results of what caused the fire as with the similarities between our aircraft and BBMF's we don't want to fall victim to a fire that could be avoided.

[Union Jack]

Please cease flying and put it in a museum-nothing lasts forever, especially luck. - HS

Oh dear, HS....you'll upset our friends in light blue with comments like that.:= There's probably a greater likelihood of you, with your jaundiced views on so many aspects of Service life, ending up in the FAA Museum before PA474 ends up in the RAF Museum!:D

Jack

PS Just to cheer you up, I do agree with you about luck:ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Regarding Lancaster Main Spars, I attach an extract from AP 2062B, Vol 1, Sect 7, Ch 2:

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/Lancaster%20Spars_zpsep8vcd0y.jpg

I'm now curious about when the almost identical Lincoln spars were changed to Mag Alloy ones in Shackletons.

[Dysonsphere]

just had an unbelivable reply from the RIAT orginzers about the Lancs attendence this year.
Thank you for your email.

As we have not had official confirmation that the Lancaster will not be in attendance at the Air Tattoo it will remain on our attendance list.

Kind Regards

Sarah Turner
Marketing Executive

ROYAL AIR FORCE Charitable Trust Enterprises
Home of the Royal International Air Tattoo
www.airtattoo.com (http://www.airtattoo.com/)


Either they work miracles or are unable to pick up a phone to check. alot of ppl dont follow these pages etc

[mmitch]

According to the BBMF's Facebook page they are hoping to get it flying
by the end of August.
mmitch.

[Dysonsphere]

Thx mmich still dosnt excuse the muppets at RIAT

[Courtney Mil]

In fairness to the organisers you wouldn't want them to guess whether or not participants are going to attend. it's up to BBMF to say if they're not going to be there.

[O-P]

CM,


I agree. If the BBMF haven't formally cancelled their slot, then they are still on the ORBAT. Surely the onus is on the BBMF to declare early and avoid disappointment?

[glad rag]

Well yes it's up to BBMF to point out to those organising doo's if they can attend or not.

However one can hear the sound of umbrellas going up in anticipation of a no show...:\

[SARF]

Won't be the first time someone landed one of those bad boys on fire. With less engines than that. Shouldn't be the last

[Kitbag]

Anyone have an update on the old dear?

[Lima Juliet]

Late June 2015 press release:

Lancaster bomber

Warrant Officer Kevin Ball, from the BBMF, said: "The problems for us are really in the support structure - a lot of the cowlings were damaged - so it's getting those repaired."
He said: "It's not so much the engine itself - it's the surrounding structure, electrical looms and so on."
Last year, the only other flying Lancaster, which is based in Canada, visited the UK. It also suffered technical problems and had to be loaned a spare engine by the BBMF.
This engine will now be fitted to the Lancaster once other parts have been replaced. WO Ball added: "We are looking to possibly air test during the last week of August, first week of September. "If it all comes together maybe we will see her flying before the end of the season."

[mmitch]

In the recent 'Memorial Flight' magazine Kevin Ball expresses relief that the fire occurred over Lincolnshire and not the previous weekend over the North Sea....
mmitch.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Hangarshuffle
Lancaster's were and are dangerous death traps, built solely for war, ....


Surely all military aircraft are built for war?

[rolling20]

According to research done during the war, although Halifax losses were greater than the Lancaster, per sorties flown for a given period. The Lancaster had a greater tendency to break up in mid air than the better built Halifax. In 68% of cases of Lancasters being shot down, there were no survivors! Survival rates for the Halifax were 29.4% and only 10.9% for the Lancaster. This was also attributed to the Lancaster being a more confined aircraft and having somewhat smaller escape hatches.

[Fluffy Bunny]

So applying those maths, why isn't there an airworthy example of a Halifax?

[Richard Woods]

The Lancaster had a greater tendency to break up in mid air than the better built Halifax.


What's your source for that? By most accounts the Lancaster was the better built; partly due to the Manchester being designed to cope with a catapult assisted take off.

The end result of the overbuilt nature was the ability to carry the 22,000lb Grand Slam.

There's a few well known losses due to issues with wingtips and the tailplane, but they were ironed out fairly quickly and not half as destructive as the whole series of Halifax that had uncontrollable rudder issues.

[pulse1]

Somewhere in that wonderful thread

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/329990-gaining-r-f-pilots-brevet-ww11.html

the late Reg Lewis (regle) compares the Lancaster and Halifax from a pilot's viewpoint. I seem to remember that, having spent most of his heavy bomber time in the Halifax, he felt much safer in it than in the Lanc. Although the Lanc was a much nicer aircraft to fly he was better protected.

I have tried to find the actual post but there are too many posts to wade through.

[rolling20]

What's your source for that? By most accounts the Lancaster was the better built; partly due to the Manchester being designed to cope with a catapult assisted take off.
THE SCIENCE OF BOMBING: OPERATIONAL RESEARCH IN BOMBER COMMAND. What basis are you using to describe ....and not half as destructive as the whole series of Halifax that had uncontrollable rudder issues
It only affected the early MK I and II and was cured from the MK II IA onward.

[Richard Woods]

A little known PhD thesis published by the University of Toronto Press, and I'd suggest if he'd gone through something like Bruce Robertsons excellent book which details the fate of each and every Manchester and Lancaster by serial number, or contacted Avro Heritage the author would have a better idea of how many were lost due to structural failure and break up in mid air - which is not that many.

I'd also suggest that his statistics are skewed, as by the time bombers were getting hit hard by the introduction of things such as "Schräge
Musik" and blowing up (not breaking up); there were a greater number of Lancasters on night bombing against Halifaxes.

He takes great and lengthy effort to highlight reports on Lancaster losses, yet quickly passes over similar data on the Halifax stability and performance issues - which were a concern for crews in combat. The early mark Halifax (as per my earlier comment) had rudder over balance issues and crews didn't like the idea of carrying out a corkscrew as it was known to often lead to a loss of control with the rudder jammed at its limit to port or starboard. He also conveniently skims over the point that certain Halifax units had consistently greater losses than any other Bomber Command unit - with no single known cause. The losses in numbers of Lancaster crew were accepted at the time against the job it could do, which was why it was concentrated on and the Halifax and Stirling slowly phased out to other roles.

In terms of the aircraft rather than the operations;

Show me a Halifax that was stressed for catapult launch. Show me a Halifax that could carry the same weight of payload. Show me a Halifax that could carry as varied a payload - including specialist weapons. Show me a Halifax that didn't present itself as an easy target for night fighters by way of its glowing exhausts (in Merlin and Hercules) or its performance issues (cured by armament stripping). Show me a Halifax that could go as deep into the Reich territory and back again as a Lancaster. Show me one that could get back after losing as many engines to enemy action.

You won't.

Despite playing with statistics to match whatever agenda the author of that thesis wished to suit, the Lancaster was the better all round aircraft. This is why the Lancaster has Augsburg, the Dams, The Tirpitz and other notable raids to its credit.

Its why Handley Page only narrowly avoided having to turn over production to it, and why Victory aircraft produced it overseas. Its why as the Halifax was finally phased out in 1953, the replacement was a Lancaster derivative. Even with other air forces, the Lancaster soldiered on well into the mid 1960's, by which time barely a single Halifax survived.


Revisionist historians are never going to change that, and the Lanc will continue to fly into legend no matter what they come up with or publish. It was and still is Bomber Command's "Shining Sword".

:ok:

Regards,
Rich



(Long live Avro.)

[Archimedes]

Are we talking about Randall Wakelam's book?

[Brian W May]

Bloody hell, what's goin' on 'ere then?

Don't read a thread for a week or two and all hell breaks loose!

Go boys! :D

[rolling20]

Are we talking about Randall Wakelam's book? We are!

Unfortunately prune logged me out after my extensive reply, so this is an abridged version.
I am sure cork screwing at height was better than being a sitting duck. As far as I am aware an engine out was the cause of the fatal rudder lock. It was manageable from height with all engines running.
Schrage Musik, did not 'blow up' the bomber, it set fire to the fuel tanks, allowing the night fighter and crew a chance to escape.
That the Lancaster took less time to build ( That's why the Halifax was better built?) , carried more bombs per lost aircraft and could carry a greater load is not in dispute. There was the MKIII that returned to England, minus its nose and bomb aimer and Navigator in Jan 45 and landed safely, a testament to its strength.
Bomber Commands own Operational Research Scientists concluded that: 68% of Lancaster losses had no survivors, Halifax survival rates were 25% and Lancaster 15%!

[Richard Woods]

The Halifax issue was the stalling of the fin and rudder, caused if it rudder was applied excessively. Test found that with any trim applied the rudder overbalanced at speeds below 150mph, and became completely unrecoverable if one or more engines was lost. Losing an engine wasn't the cause, but it didn't help.

My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.

As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..

Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.

[Archimedes]

The Halifax issue was the stalling of the fin and rudder, caused if it rudder was applied excessively. Test found that with any trim applied the rudder overbalanced at speeds below 150mph, and became completely unrecoverable if one or more engines was lost. Losing an engine wasn't the cause, but it didn't help.

My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.

As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..

Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.


But Wakelam isn't 'making statistics do as [he] please[s]'. He's quoting and analysing the ORS stats and the way in which Harris and Bomber Command dealt with/handled them. And - most critically, and I can only assume you missed this when reading the book - it talks on a number of occasions about the superiority of the Lancaster, and goes so far as to say that the stats produced by the ORS 'could not but have helped to convince the leaders of the futility of maintaining the Halifax as a front line bomber'.


With respect, you appear to be taking snippets of Wakelam's quoting from the ORS about issues with the Lancaster and viewing them as some sort of agenda against the Lancaster by the author, when that's simply not the case.


The problems with the Halifax are mentioned more than once; the loss rate, particularly in 6 Group and 434 Sqn in particular are covered - his commentary is on the ORS's difficulty in working out whether there were statistical trends or statistical anomalies at play. He 'skims over' this (although I would dispute that loaded description) simply because the ORS didn't come up with a satisfactory answer to the question and uses it to highlight the difficulties the ORS could have in reaching conclusions which they were certain were supported by the evidence and the analysis thereof.


The ORS - not Wakelam - said that the crew survival rates in the Lancaster were lower than those in the Halifax, and they did so using a credible methodology.




Since Wakelam served nearly 35 years in the CAF/RCAF as a pilot and expresses his view that when flying he thought OR was of little real use (p.4) and gives a clear statement of what he was trying to do in the thesis (and then the book) in his introduction, I'm not sure that he can be said to have some sort of revisionist agenda. Indeed, unless 'revisionism' is explaining how Bomber Command made good use of OR , or refuting the idea that Harris was a bloodthirsty war criminal (p7) or deprecating the idea that the offensive was a failure (p.6) then he's not a revisionist.


What's more, I can't help thinking that much of Wakelam's book and thesis in fact agree with the points you're making about the Lancaster...


I can't help worrying that you may be shooting the messenger (Wakelam) here; he is reporting what the ORS thought and advised through their stats, not coming up with his own calculations in some bid to make some sort of revisionist statement.

[Richard Woods]

Hi Archimedes,

I suppose to some extent I am, but it was to assist my view that the post by rolling20 was incorrect in that the Lancaster was more prone to mid air break up. His source was Mr Wakelam's book, and with access to the book now I'm not at work; the full quote makes mention of mid air break ups in the same sentance as shot down aircraft;-

"The report also pointed out that the Lancaster, compared to the more strongly constructed Halifax, had a greater tendancy to break up in flight, and this in turn contributed to the fact that in 68 percent of the cases of Lancasters being shot down there were no survivors."

So my argument that we're not talking random structural failures (as implied by rolling20) as the cause of the loss stands. Note it also does not say "better built".

I still have slight issue with the statistics from the ORS as used by Mr Wakelam in that I feel that they are skewed, by the number of type of aircraft used on bombing operations. In most raids after 1943 there was often twice as many Lancasters operating as Halifax, despite total production numbers of the aircraft being similar. Later on there were raids that were exclusively comprised of Lancasters - so how can you generate a Halifax loss/survival percentage from that?

On reflection and reading back through the book I think I was a bit harsh, but I still think relying on what was believed at the time rather than what has been confirmed since, is not necessarily a good way to go about things.. as even now official statistics are heavily manipulated.

As with all things though, this is just me stating my opinion... so people are welcome to agree or disagree as they choose. I'll always back the Avro machine though over the Handley Page. :ok:

Kind regards,

Rich

[Mach Two]

Anyone heard any news about the Lanc's status or return to flying?

[MightyGem]

Anyone heard any news about the Lanc's status or return to flying?

From Post #118:
Warrant Officer Kevin Ball, from the BBMF, said: "The problems for us are really in the support structure - a lot of the cowlings were damaged - so it's getting those repaired."
He said: "It's not so much the engine itself - it's the surrounding structure, electrical looms and so on."
Last year, the only other flying Lancaster, which is based in Canada, visited the UK. It also suffered technical problems and had to be loaned a spare engine by the BBMF.
This engine will now be fitted to the Lancaster once other parts have been replaced. WO Ball added: "We are looking to possibly air test during the last week of August, first week of September. "If it all comes together maybe we will see her flying before the end of the season."

:ok:

[Nige321]

From the official BBMF Facebook page:

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/p960x960/11731646_855907137797634_8765127151247112783_o.jpg

[Kitbag]

I assume that's all new structure, in which case things are progressing really well.

[Nige321]

Apparently the firewall is new, the truss is the original...

[rolling20]

Archimedes, thank you!
Richard Woods you are ignoring facts. My post re break up may have been in Wakelam's book, but it is quoted from ORS.
As for aircraft blowing up, the wing usually burnt off or control was lost and the aircraft broke up, they did not blow up.
As for Lancaster crew losses, they are based on % numbers.
The Lancaster had hatches some 2 inches narrower than the Halifax , but I guess you will disagree with that fact as well!

[Richard Woods]

Which bit are you missing here?

You said "Better built" and linked it to mid air break ups. You misquoted the book by Mr Wakelam, to make it appear that way. I disagreed. Not only is it wrong its an insult to all the people that built them to suggest they did a substandard job against the Halifax.

We got bogged down in things during which I point out I don't necessarily agree with him, or ORS reports of the time based on information we have now that they didn't have in January 1944.

Regardless, the Halifax wasn't better built, and no doubt they might have had to change their opinion on which was the stronger too - as just over a year later the Lancaster had already lifted the 12,000lb bomb, and in March 1945 the 22,000lb Grand Slam. Not bad for a weaker airframe.

As for not blowing up when hit, it might be worth you researching the 'Scarecrow' myth. I mentioned earlier I have friends from two crews both that got hit by upward firing cannon and both aircraft blew up. It might be coincidence but there seems to be quite a few others that did as opposed to flying along shedding parts bit by bit. Yet according to you - they "did not blow up".

With the hatches, be specific - which ones? The ditching hatches on top of the fuselage of the Lancaster are ridiculously small, but the three for bailing out of are quite large (rear turret doors, under the bomb aimer and rear crew door.)


Regards,

Rich

[rolling20]

I suggest you do some proper research. Scarecrow flares were thought to be the Germans simulating an aircraft blowing up ,with shells fired to height. It was actually aircraft blowing up in mid flight, as a result of a direct hit by flak. It was not Schrage Musik. If the bombload went up, there was nothing left.

Again from ORS:' There was just a sudden burst of cannon fire, and the aircraft fell apart around them. Again, we missed an essential clue that might have led us to Schräge Musik.' The aircraft fell apart it did not blow up!

ORS estimated that 10,000 crewman lost their lives as the result of the rear Lancaster escape hatch being some 2 inches smaller than the Halifax and that the Halifax was more spacious than the Lancaster. But I guess that doesn't matter so long as the airframe was stressed for catapult launch, could fly higher, faster, carry a bigger payload etc....

[Richard Woods]

No, I don't think I do.

You're hinging your whole argument on a couple of lines from one report by the ORS done when there are plenty other reports out there to the contrary. Reliance on a single document at the expense of all others, and first hand accounts... you'd make a great Civil Servant.

The ORS didn't just miss Schrage Musik; they ignored it; which is why I referred to scarecrow. There's a reasonable account in Leo McKinstry's book on the Lancaster of Schrage Musik attacks, and how the 'scarecrow' urban legend came about to explain a bomber exploding mid air with no apparent attack.

There were reports of bombers being attacked from underneath as early as 1943 but it was ignored. Reports of crews seeing up to 15 bombers blowing up in one raid, with seemingly no attacks, ignored; they were told what they had seen were scarecrow shells. A special version of flak. All to try and keep the morale up.


The two guys I know that were in Lancasters that got hit by Schrage Musik tell (told in one case - RIP) stories that differ to the ORS report too. One kept the aircraft flying while it blazed away, long enough for the crew to get out. It eventually blew up - the bombs went off - as he was going out the nose escape hatch. It didn't just fall apart after getting hit by cannon fire.

The other had his aircraft and crew in a similar situation, and the fighter backed off to watch the Lancaster burn. It didn't back off far enough, as the rear gunner shot it down before leaving the aircraft.

You might want to also have a look through the excellent Lancaster at War books - there's an interesting series of photos showing a Lancaster with steel rods inserted into the wing showing cannon shell trajectories; originating from below. Again, the aircraft didn't fall apart around the crew.

Neither did all the aircraft that got hit by the same kind of cannon in conventional attacks - there are plenty of records of them getting back badly damaged. Are you going to tell me that Schrage Musik was specially designed somehow to make the aircraft fall apart as per the report whereas regular cannon wasn't?


In regards to escaping from the aircraft, you're still not telling me which hatch. The 'rear' one. On a Lanc you have the rear turret doors, the crew door (which is rather large) the two ditching hatches on the fuselage. Which one? and which one on the Halifax are we comparing it to?

The space afforded to crew in a Halifax has always been in its favour. But thats why it couldn't carry as big a payload isn't it? Which funnily, is what you want in a bomber. I'd argue getting to the hatch to get out is the biggest issue in abandoning a Lancaster against a Halifax, and probably why so many were lost. Spend a little money getting inside surviving examples of both, and you'll see why. It becomes even more apparent if you're wearing bulky clothing.


But if you want to bang away about Lancaster coming apart when hit, feel free. You have your opinion and I have mine; it won't change any, so there's little point arguing further.

Regards,

Rich

[rolling20]

What evidence do you have that ORS ignored Schrage Musik?
If the bomb load had gone off, the individual concerned would not have been around to tell the tale. Fuel tanks probably, bomb load highly unlikely.

Lancaster at War books? Have they just recently been published or been around for 40 years like the ones on my shelves?

Spend money to get inside one? I have never needed too. I have been given it for free!

[Pontius Navigator]

I have been in a Halifax cockpit and IIRC it was indeed more spacious than the Lanc. In the latter we didn't even consider the upper escape hatch but might have done had we been inverted.

Didn't consider a main door escape as the obstacle course was quite something. What I did consider was either diving under the instrument panel or simply using the nose hatch.

My main concern with the nose hatch was that of inadvertent opening.

[November4]

ORS estimated that 10,000 crewman lost their lives as the result of the rear Lancaster escape hatch being some 2 inches smaller than the Halifax and that the Halifax was more spacious than the Lancaster.

10,000 seems an incredibly high number out of the 55,000

[rolling20]

Pontius, I have often wondered if the higher Halifax survival rates were due to the fact that the W/op and Nav, were in the forward compartment in the nose?

November4, yes it does seem high, but it is only an estimate by ORS. One would think the fact that 68% of Lancasters crashed/ shot down with no survivors backs up their research, on my calculations that would equate to nearly 16,000 crewman. Almost half of all Lancasters delivered during the war (3,345 out of 7,373) were lost on operations with the loss of over 21,000 crew members. ORS were so concerned re the Lancaster hatches, that they campaigned for 2 years to change them. By the time they succeeded, the war was virtually over.

[27mm]

Well, my late uncle vouched for the Lanc's survivability, having crash-landed twice at night with no injuries to the crew, on rtb from raids over Germany. OK, an exception and lucky, but that's the way it was for some crews.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rolling, could well be. IIRC the Lanc wireless station was behind one spar and near the upper escape hatch, that was in front of the turret wasn't it?

I seem to think there was more space under the instrument panel on the Halifax.

[rolling20]

Pontius, Its a long time since I crawled down a Lanc fuselage, so I can't comment on that hatch. Was it not the astrodome there? From discussion with crew members, it seems the front (Bomb Aimer) hatch and rear door, were the favoured routes. That main spar not helping the W/op or Nav. The pilot had a hatch I believe, but I don't think it was that practical.
Plenty of stories of Lancasters breaking up and the pilot surviving as he wore a seat type chute.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rolling, the cockpit glazing is like a conservatory sitting on top on the fuselage. The Astrodome is the back part and I don't think big enough. It certainly wasn't when I bounced through it but not out of it :).

Yes, I think there was a hatch above the pilot but probably inaccessible unless bailed out after.

IIRC, my mother in law's boyfriend, was who a FE on Halifax didn't get out. I think some of them did.

[rolling20]

Pontius, I guess it was a bit of a lottery to who got out and who didn't, bit like 27mm late Uncle surviving 2 crash landings. Luck and fate could be around in equal measure.
As you say the Lancaster cockpit was a conservatory, great for viz, but not very useful in helping any escape.

[Richard Woods]

What evidence do you have that ORS ignored Schrage Musik?

Same as you have. Words in a book. You seem to like research, go find it.

If the bomb load had gone off, the individual concerned would not have been around to tell the tale. Fuel tanks probably, bomb load highly unlikely.

It did, and he is. I'm not inclined to call men of his standing liars, more so when he was there to experience it and you weren't. I'm also pretty sure that given what he and his generation went through they'd know the difference.

Lancaster at War books? Have they just recently been published or been around for 40 years like the ones on my shelves?

Stop being an idiot. If you have the books then, go look at what I suggested. Its not difficult. Page 108 in the first book, Lancaster ND356, unless you feel like ignoring alternative evidence again.

Spend money to get inside one? I have never needed too. I have been given it for free!

Fair enough, its a privilege a few of us have had. But I don't know you so didn't know whether you had, or hadn't, and don't really care much if you you had to pay for it or not.

To refresh your memory the upper hatches on the Lancaster fuselage are ditching/escape hatches and not parachute exits! On most versions there's one between main and trailing spar in the centre section and one just in front of the mid upper turret, and the one over the pilot.

Here's an extract from the Pilots Notes.

Parachute exit Hatch in floor of nose should be used by all members of crew if time is available; originally it was released by a handle in the centre, lifted inwards and jettisoned, but when Mod. 1336 is incorporated the hatch is enlarged and is opened by a handle at the port side. It opens inwards and is secured by a clip which holds the hatch up on the starboard side. It can also be opened from outside the aircraft.


Crash exits
(i) On Lancaster I. III and X three push-out panels are fitted in the roof (one above the pilot, one just forward of the rear spar, and one forward of the mid-upper turret) except when Mod. 977 (which moves the mid-upper turret forward) is incorporated, in which case the Ihird panel is deleted,
(ii) On Lancaster VII there are two push-out panels in the roof, one above the pilot and one just forward of the rear spar.


Regards,

Rich

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If it helps 474's engine fire debate; http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/Lancaster%202%20Emergency%20Exits_zpsre1odrok.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

RW, thanks, I had always been worried that the nose hatch would fall out and me with it.

Yes, good point about the upper hatches for crash,ditch, exits.

Getting to the forward hatch from aft was not easy and more so in the dark with a gyrating aircraft.

[rolling20]

Richard woods, did you call me an idiot?????!!!!!!!!

stop being an idiot.

In all my 15 years on pprune you are the most odious, bigoted, narrow minded individual i have ever encountered!

You seem to think that coffee table books seem to give you some kind of knowledge to pontificate on a subject, well it doesn't!

Research does not come from reading a book you can buy at wh smith. You choose to ignore facts that were come by the hard way, comparing the not too pleasant facts of daily death and casualties among bomber command crews. They were compiled by men and women that were chosen for their expertise and rose post war to become eminent in their field. You dismiss that research and shame on you for it. Further, you show your total lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Like you dismiss the research presented to you, i can now dismiss you.

Mods please take note of his OFFENSIVE previous post!

[Stitchbitch]

PN that was always my concern too, can rest easy now!

Upper hatches were normally left open for display flying and transits, believe it has something to do with carbon monoxide and she get quite hot inside despite the sometimes poor UK summer weather. :E

[Pontius Navigator]

SB, not when I was on it.

Bring a to mind a RNlN P2V on a display at Den Helder diving at 300kts when the right hand upper escape hatch unleashed. The cdr in the seat grabbed the handle. I was told the tail cone popped off.

[Nige321]

Richard woods, did you call me an idiot?????!!!!!!!!

I wish you two would take this ridiculous argument elsewhere while the rest of us talk about PA474...:yuk::ugh:

[Prangster]

Answers anyone?

[izod tester]

Has the cause of the fire been identified yet? Shackman asked in May, but I haven't seen any response. I would like to think that the cause of the fire has at least been considered in designing the repairs.

[Kitbag]

Prangser, posts 133 through 137 answer that question, it's only a page ago, but the willy waving argument probably distracted you from seeing that.

[Wander00]

As I read those posts, they tell the effect, and the issues about restoring to flight, but not the cause in the first place. I think people are interested, if the info is available. Surely it cannot be a state secret.

[Fluffy Bunny]

From BBMF Facebook page 14 Aug.

Lanc progress;
Tonight on another BBMF facebook page it has been stated that the Lanc will be ready to fly in two weeks time. I am sorry to say that this is not possible. Although the engine is in place all of the systems to the engine need refitting and testing.All the cowls require a trial fit and trimming if required this is happening next week but this work will stop any progress on the engine systems. We would like her to fly again before the end of the season and we are working towards this but again at this time we cannot say when.
Paul B Eng Controller BBMF

[aw ditor]

As per 160', any news on the "Root Cause" of the fire?

[The Oberon]

Just heard on local radio, air test today.

[camelspyyder]

Sure is.

It climbed out to the North over my running route - What a view to see it airborne again! - and now I'm cooling off I can hear it growling outside my window.

[Pontius Navigator]

Just flown passed.

[AGS Man]

What's the betting it does a photo shoot with the Vulcan before it's finally grounded?

[CoffmanStarter]

Well done the Engineers :D:D:D:D

[Lima Juliet]

Hurrah for PA474...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrWSf7lKLr8

:ok:

[the_flying_cop]

AGS Man, I think you could be right.

[Stitchbitch]

Great to see her airborne, and greased on at the end :)