Lancasters and Lincolns

[Dr Jekyll]

What was the reasoning behind the different nose glazing on the Lincoln? Something to do with giving the bomb aimer flat rather than curved Perspex to look through?

[kenparry]

The curved nose of the Lanc incorporates a flat panel for the bomb sight to look through.

[jimjim1]

I have no specific information however -

I notice that the glazed area of the Lincoln is much larger than that of the Lancaster. The glazed area is presumably larger since the bomb aimer/gunner seems to have to use the area for sighting the nose guns.

As mentioned already the Lancaster does have a flat panel for use with a bombsight.

So perhaps -

An unsupported bubble may not have been structurally possible or may have been too heavy if made thick enough to be self supporting.

Optical distortions due to the curved panels that were acceptable in the Lancaster for the purposes of general observation may not have been acceptable for use with a gunsight.

Flat panels may have been cheaper.

[ian16th]

As someone that worked on Lincolns, I must admit that I never asked.

The Lincoln remember was specified and designed for use in the Far East, so could it be anything to do with ventilation?

[DANbudgieman]

With the Lancaster it was found that where the front turret had to be manned on a bomb run, the feet of the gunner obstructed the bomb aimer.

The remodelled nose on the Lincoln was designed so that the bomb aimer could be seated rather than prone. It also allowed him to control the forward turret from his seated position. An altogether more satisfactory arrangement.

[Centaurus]

One thing for sure and that was the angled glass front turret of the Lincoln Mk 31 once caused this writer a few seconds of angst when we were trying to illuminate a suspected surfaced submarine during a midnight exercise in the Timor Sea.

We had him on radar at 10 miles (a miracle on the ASV Mk 7 radar) and bored in to drop sonobuoys. Lincolns did not have searchlights so we couldn't illuminate the sub. We tried the landing light which was situated under the left wing but we were going like the clappers and that failed in a shower of sparks.

That left the Aldis light. At 500 ft on the radio altimeter the Tactical navigator tried shining the Aldis light through the glass panels of the nose aiming at the sea in the blackness ahead. It only succeeded in reflecting a bright light back into the cockpit wrecking any night vision and temporarily blinding the pilot (me). With that, the radar contact disappeared no doubt scared by what he thought was a bloody great gun firing at him. We pulled out at 200 feet and climbed back to safety. The contact was reported to base via HF radio. Our Navy denied having any of their subs in the area and put it down to whales copulating on the surface. :ok:

[l.garey]

I was a lucky ATC cadet in the mid-1950s and used to get trips in Lincolns of 7 Squadron from Upwood. I remembrer one flight down to Farnborough in January 1955 when it was snowing outside. I was in the front turret and it was snowing inside too. The rivet holes were not quite air tight.

Laurence

[evansb]

If required, it would be easier to retrofit the forward facing flat panes to armored glass, as opposed to a bubble perspex.

[oxenos]

The rivet holes were not quite air tight.

Of course, it was built by Avro.

As I explained on another thread:-

It is not generally known that Avro built a prototype flying boat to compete for the Specification R.2/33 (which gave rise to the Sunderland). It was built in great secrecy at Woodford, taken in bits to a secret hangar next to the Manchester Ship Canal, and assembled.
Came launch day. It slid down the slipway into the water, and just went on going down, leaving nothing but a few bubbles. The whole thing was hushed up,and Avro never built another flying boat.

[Union Jack]

Our Navy denied having any of their subs in the area and put it down to whales copulating on the surface. - Centaurus

Sperm whales peradventure?

Jack

[Blacksheep]

...the feet of the gunner obstructed the bomb aimer.I think you'll find that the feet of the gunner were on the end of the Bomb-Aimer's legs.

Except on a 617 Special Lancaster where the displaced mid-upper gunner was sent up front - but they fitted stirrups for that operation.

Lancaster crew - Pilot, Navigator, Engineer, Bomb Aimer, Wireless Operator (generally dual trade WOP/AG just in case), Mid-upper Gunner, Rear Gunner. Seven men altogether and no Front Gunner.

[enfranglais]

Found this in Fathers effects:

[ian16th]

I think you'll find that the feet of the gunner were on the end of the Bomb-Aimer's legs.

Except on a 617 Special Lancaster where the displaced mid-upper gunner was sent up front - but they fitted stirrups for that operation.

Lancaster crew - Pilot, Navigator, Engineer, Bomb Aimer, Wireless Operator (generally dual trade WOP/AG just in case), Mid-upper Gunner, Rear Gunner. Seven men altogether and no Front Gunner.
I understood the Lancaster crew to be; Pilot, Flight Engineer, Navigator, Wireless Operator, Rear Gunner, Mid Upper Gunner, Nose Gunner; with the Navigator moving to the Bomb Aimers position for visual bombing.

If he was Radar Bombing, that is H2S or Gee-H, he stayed in the Navigators seat.

[l.garey]

enfranglais: That's a Halifax. Nice drawing though.

Laurence

[enfranglais]

So it is, wonder why the other side states Lancaster Pilots Notes? Doh - Mod Cock up?

[Innominate]

Ian16th

The aircrew trades of Navigator and Bomb Aimer (officially, Air Bomber) were introduced IIRC in 1941. Prior to that, Observers had the dual roles of navigation and bomb aiming. Most of the non-pilot aircrew trades had secondary roles - the BA would fly the aircraft if the pilot became incapacitated, and most of the others were trained as gunners "just in case".

My understanding is that the front turret was rarely used - which is why some Lancasters had them removed and faired over.

[DANbudgieman]

I think you'll find that the feet of the gunner were on the end of the Bomb-Aimer's legs.

Lancaster crew - Pilot, Navigator, Engineer, Bomb Aimer, Wireless Operator (generally dual trade WOP/AG just in case), Mid-upper Gunner, Rear Gunner. Seven men altogether and no Front Gunner.

Even a cursory look at the nose of Lancaster fitted with a forward turret will confirm that the feet of the person manning the turret would at least, be in pole position to interfere with the upper torso of the bomb aimer.

The feet of the person manning the gun would not be anywhere near the lower legs of the bomb aimer unless the bomb aimer was a dwarf!

It was precisely for that reason that the "Chastise"aircraft had stirrups installed as the forward turret would be required to be manned on the bomb run.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, however I did not imply that a dedicated crew member was carried to man the forward turret.

[DANbudgieman]

Ian16th

My understanding is that the front turret was rarely used - which is why some Lancasters had them removed and faired over.

The forward turret was indeed rarely used, however removal of the forward (and mid upper) was primarily driven by weight considerations.

The main aim was to reduce airframe weight in order to allow the carriage of outsize weapons such as the 22,000lbs "Grand Slam."

These specialised weapons were expected to be delivered in daylight when flak was the primary threat. The ability to deliver theses weapons from a higher altitude in order to avoid the worst of the flak may also have been a consideration.

By the latter days of the war a strong escort force would be deployed in order to provide an effective screen against a much depleted Luftwaffe, hence the turrets were largely superfluous.

[DANbudgieman]

For anyone seeking some a good readable book detailing the career of the Avro Lincoln may I recommend "Lincoln at War", by Mike Garbett and Brian Goulding. Published by Ian Allan 1979 and reprinted 1999. ISBN 0 7110 0847 7. 176 pages. Well illustrated with plenty of B&W photos of both British and Australian and a few of Argentinian and demobbed aircraft.

As this volume is long out print it is likely that you may be hard pressed to locate an unused edition. You may however be able to locate a used copy on the secondary / used market. Happy hunting!

[Dr Jekyll]

Even a cursory look at the nose of Lancaster fitted with a forward turret will confirm that the feet of the person manning the turret would at least, be in pole position to interfere with the upper torso of the bomb aimer.

The feet of the person manning the gun would not be anywhere near the lower legs of the bomb aimer unless the bomb aimer was a dwarf!

It was precisely for that reason that the "Chastise"aircraft had stirrups installed as the forward turret would be required to be manned on the bomb run.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, however I did not imply that a dedicated crew member was carried to man the forward turret.

I think Blacksheep was referring to circumstances where the front gunner WAS the bomb aimer.

[PDR1]

The ability to deliver theses weapons from a higher altitude in order to avoid the worst of the flak may also have been a consideration.

Tallboy and Grand Slam weren't delivered from high altitudes to avoid flack - they were deep penetration weapons which needed a high (supesonic) impact velocity to work as intended. The high altitude release was to ensure the velocity was achieved.

PDR

[Centaurus]

For anyone seeking some a good readable book detailing the career of the Avro Lincoln may I recommend "Lincoln at War", by Mike Garbett and Brian Goulding. Published by Ian Allan 1979 and reprinted 1999. ISBN 0 7110 0847 7. 176 pages. Well illustrated with plenty of B&W photos of both British and Australian and a few of Argentinian and demobbed aircraft.
]

if you happen to find a copy of the book see photo page 106 of Centaurus as a young man and page 107 same bloke doing a flapless in the Long Nose Lincoln Mk 31. Exits hurriedly stage left:E

[Herod]

The book is available on the river website. Just ordered.

[Herod]

The book arrived yesterday. One of the first things I found was a photo of the RAAF Lincolns doing their nationwide tour of Oz on their return from Malaya. I can remember them flying over the school near RAAF Pearce. I was an aviation nut even then. July '58. I was only eleven!

[rolling20]

Aside of Chastise, I have never come across the front turret being manner by anyone other than the Bomb Aimer, it just wasn't practical.

[Centaurus]

On the subject of Lincolns, occasionally we had to do test flights on the Long Nose Lincoln Mk 31 which were based at Townsville in North Queensland, Australia.

Among other items, the test sheet required us to dive the aircraft to 313 knots IAS (if I recall correctly) with the purpose of checking the wing top surfaces for "oil canning." It was quite a task to get the Lincoln up to that speed since the usual cruise speed was about 160 knots IAS and much altitude was lost trying to reach 313 knots. While I can only guess what "oil canning" meant, I never knew its significance.

Although we had a few WW2 former Lancaster pilots among our crews (we are talking about 1951 to 1959 here when I flew the Lincoln) they did not know either.
Can any reader hazard a guess and explain why oil canning at any time, as well at high speed, was deemed undesirable? Maybe because it could lead to the metal surface of the wing peeling away?

[WB627]

Although this is from the construction industry, my knowledge of aviation, suggests this may give some insight into what they were looking for

https://www.stortz.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-oil-canning-in-sheet-metal/ (https://www.stortz.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-oil-canning-in-sheet-metal/)

[Cornish Jack]

'Oil Canning', I suspect, is another term for 'panting' the flexing and distortion of metal panels due to pressure changes. Experienced the effects in a Puma doing a test schedule at Boscombe with both cabin doors open at high - ish speed. The accompanying pressure fluctuations were VERY uncomfortable on the breathing process!
I appear to have written too short a comment - must be a first for everything - here's hoping this is now sufficient!

[rolling20]

The forward turret was indeed rarely used, however removal of the forward (and mid upper) was primarily driven by weight considerations.

The main aim was to reduce airframe weight in order to allow the carriage of outsize weapons such as the 22,000lbs "Grand Slam."

These specialised weapons were expected to be delivered in daylight when flak was the primary threat. The ability to deliver theses weapons from a higher altitude in order to avoid the worst of the flak may also have been a consideration.

By the latter days of the war a strong escort force would be deployed in order to provide an effective screen against a much depleted Luftwaffe, hence the turrets were largely superfluous.
You forget that Bomber Command still operated by night until near the end of the war and suffered worse percentage losses at night than by day. Whilst the Luftwaffe at night was deprived of many of it's advantages, early warning for one, it still posed a threat. The turrets were largely superfluous anyway throughout the war, but the main reason they were not removed ( unless done so for the dropping of certain weapons) was morale. The dropping of Grand Slams in particular was done way below the operating height of a normal Lancaster ( and below the height calculated by Wallis for maximum effect).They just couldn't get to height with the weight carried, removing the turrets were a weight saving measure but they were still very vulnerable to flak, as they operated well within the 88s range. Only Mosquitoes could outfly the 88s.

[Centaurus]

Although this is from the construction industry, my knowledge of aviation, suggests this may give some insight into what they were looking for

Thanks for the info WB627.
Cent.

[Krystal n chips]

'Oil Canning', I suspect, is another term for 'panting' the flexing and distortion of metal panels due to pressure changes. Experienced the effects in a Puma doing a test schedule at Boscombe with both cabin doors open at high - ish speed. The accompanying pressure fluctuations were VERY uncomfortable on the breathing process!
I appear to have written too short a comment - must be a first for everything - here's hoping this is now sufficient!

If you ever get the chance, have a look at the rear end of some of the Dominies which used to trundle around at low level. Your suspicions will be confirmed.

[Self loading bear]

If you ever get the chance, have a look at the rear end of some of the Dominies which used to trundle around at low level. Your suspicions will be confirmed.

Or the right side of a Sea King tail (or a S61)
It was said that if you sat in the mid aft seat you could see the interior panels twist.

[DaveReidUK]

Slightly OT, but I'm old enough to remember when a standard apprentice exercise was to make an old-fashioned thumb press oil can. I think I still have mine somewhere ...

After that, my only other experience of oil-canning was when I started to fly on Shorts 330s. :O

[Cornish Jack]

SLB - No experience of the 61, but several Seaking trial flights (with just one door open) didn't have the Puma 'panting' effect. More problematic with the Puma was the effect on breathing - the pressure waves made chest and diaphragm control quite difficult!

[Hipper]

I thought the point of Air Gunners, at least in practice (as opposed to theory) was not just using the guns but also - perhaps mostly - to look out for friendly aircraft (collisions), their bombs, and of course enemy aircraft, as well as providing observations to help the navigator.