Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

B17 v Lanc bomb load

Old 27th Apr 2012, 22:02
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really interesting thread. But...

Originally Posted by 45-Shooter
You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission?
Well, erm...

Originally Posted by 45-Shooter
But none of that is applicable because it was Mission Planning that made both planes carry much less, so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 03:14
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"And down here in the basement folks is where we keep............ "

( under a single dim light bulb, a solitary figure hunched over a computer, typing furiously, surrounded by screeds of paper and old books, various aircraft models etc etc. )

"....we think he may have gone mad!"
Weheka is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 19:55
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 572
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Had the equivalent industrial effort been put into Mossies, as it was into the four-engined heavies, then the German defences would have been overwhelmed, and many aircrew lives saved.
Interesting though -

Would it have been possible to produce Mosquitoes in the number required - eg enough materials,machinery etc etc

Would its use as the main bomber have accelerated the development of the Me262 to counter it?
Brewster Buffalo is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 21:44
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think you are right about the Mosquito being a better option than the Lancs, Hallies etc, although I wonder with the much more complex construction and the skills required wether they would have been able to produce the required number to do the job.

However when the Mosquito could do two return trips to Berlin and back in one night ( probably during winters long nights ) you get some idea of their potential. Also if the loss rate was able to be kept low because of the Mosquitoes capabilities then they would not be required to be produced in the same numbers as the heavies were.
Weheka is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 03:49
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,446
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
If there was only the Mossies to counter - the Nazi's would have been able to concentrate on defending against only one threat....?
Load Toad is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 08:22
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
much more complex construction
Was it? I'd have thought laminatng wood over concrete moulds was potentially much simpler than at that faffing around with metal and rivets, plus the ability to fit it out inside "in the half" before sticking the bits together. Skills? Most of the aircraft factory floor workers were HO and minimally trained, was that a problem? I can see that this method doesn't lend itself to mass production in the same way - perhaps that was the limiting factor? I'm not up on Mossie industrial production problems!

As for two trips to Berlin in a night - that's a long day in modern jet with 30 minute turnarounds - granted you miss those at the destination in this case but even so it sounds a bit over ambitious to say the least.
Wageslave is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 10:13
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,446
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Nope - apparently it was possible & I've read it in several books.
Load Toad is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 14:36
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 572
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
The Mosquito was also in demand in other commands. Out the first 250 produced 10 went for photo-recce, 180 to fighter command with 60 left for Bomber Command.

On the positive side you saved on crew and engines..
Brewster Buffalo is offline  
Old 1st May 2012, 16:40
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 72
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
The Mosquito took sub-contracting to extremes, down to groups in garden sheds. A lot of the main structure was built by furniture manufacturers who presumably hadn't got much else to do.
It always surprises me that they were able to source the timber throughout the war. I don't know if there ever was a shortage but that could be a limiting factor for increasing production.
DHfan is offline  
Old 1st May 2012, 18:44
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bradford
Age: 62
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>


it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay?

<< In reality the B17 was never considered for atomic bombs, where the Lancaster was. It was the logistics that prevented it.Absolutely right!
The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load.>>


the little boy was smaller diameter than the 4000lbs blockbusters and the Lanc carried them internally!
.
<<Whoops, wrong again! The carrier, or shackle as we say, has nothing to do with wether the bomb will fit into the plane.
GS was 46" OD and barely fit, by the skin of their teeth. The FM was 68"! 60" for the bomb and 4" for the four radar proximity fuzes.>>


yet the posters referes to the little boy not the fatman again you use misdirection


<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>


as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the load


<<But you forget that altitude is also fungible! If the B-17 were flown down low,
it would carry more weight to longer ranges than the Lancaster. The more streamlined plane and better,
more efficient engines do not get less stream lined and less efficient down low. ( Technically the turbos do get slightly less efficient,
but not enough to make any difference in this example!)
The USAF manuals give figures for the B17 consistently less than that... 17,600lbs for 1000miles or so at 16,000ft.>>


are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? no matter what you do you cannot get round this little fact, and that is only when the internal tankage was not used, if 1 internal tank was used then the Maximum Bomb load internally was 4000lbs.
the Maximum load carried on any 8th AAF raid during ww2 was 8000lbs, there is no record of external racks being used in actual raids and the majority of B17s were either never fitted with them or they were removed when they reached the UK

the B17 couldnt even drop the 4000lbs US bombs as they would not fit internally and caused handling problems externally, in fact i cannot find any reference of any us plane dropping these 4000lbs bomb

<<Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight.>>
unless you want more than 8000lbs then the external load made a real mess of its aerodyamics

<<They are not facts. They're your opinion. The facts are what you find in manuals, books, and real life, not in your posts - and you've been proved wrong repeatedly.
I know! I have all the realivant books. I have searched more on line and they all say the same thing. The B-17 was the more efficient plane. (At any altitude and weight!)
You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission? >>

you have been been shown that the reason was a combination of mine laying, food drops, leaflets and the fact that incendaries were not included in the total

<<Maybe the multitude There is no multitude of other missions! Mines count as bombs on the total listed. So do "Special Payloads". All of those other missions after the war do not count either. Out of the 608K Missions, exactly how many do you claim were counted in the total, but dropped no bombs?
The explanation is simple. The aircraft's capability is what it can truly carry, not what it is ordered to carry!
You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>


well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door
Oldbutnotwise is offline  
Old 2nd May 2012, 01:56
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>

it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay? Because of weight and balance factors, it is not possible to carry two ~9000 pound bombs end to end in the Lancaster or any other plane but the B-29 at the time. Bombs heavier than 4000 pounds could only be carried at one location in the very long, but narrow bay. The bomb's center of mass must be at that location, regardless of their weight. If you wanted to load 2000 pounders, then you were restricted to the part of the bay centered near the 25% MAC. This is because if the maximum bomb load that might fit was loaded and one at the back hung up, failed to release as you proper english say, the plane would crash because the CoG limits were exceeded in a big, 2000 pound way!
<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>


as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the loadNot true! Incendaries were counted!

are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? That was a choice made at command level to meet mission requirements. The two bays had room for two ~4,000 pounders, one over the other, ~16,000 pounds total. It could also carry four 2,000 pound GP bombs on each side, also ~16,000 pounds internal. It was also possible to carry 34 X 440 pound incendaries bombs internally, not that they ever did. But that was a choice they made to ensure that the mission was flown at higher altitude to avoid flack and limit Nazi fighter access.

You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>


well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door
The bomb bay had 42 shackle positions. If the bomb was small enough in diameter, all of them could be used. I have pictures someplace of a bunch of B-17s dropping 34 X 440 pound incendiaries each. You can count each individual bomb! Bomb loads less than these weights were a consideration of mission planning to meet altitude and range goals.
45-Shooter is offline  
Old 2nd May 2012, 06:54
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bradford
Age: 62
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>

it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay? Because of weight and balance factors, it is not possible to carry two ~9000 pound bombs end to end in the Lancaster or any other plane but the B-29 at the time. Bombs heavier than 4000 pounds could only be carried at one location in the very long, but narrow bay. The bomb's center of mass must be at that location, regardless of their weight. If you wanted to load 2000 pounders, then you were restricted to the part of the bay centered near the 25% MAC. This is because if the maximum bomb load that might fit was loaded and one at the back hung up, failed to release as you proper english say, the plane would crash because the CoG limits were exceeded in a big, 2000 pound way!

As the lanc often carried 2000lbs at each end of the bays I will ask for evidence of this, whilst it is a pointless argument anyway as exactly how many liitle men were actually made? I will agree however that such a bomb load would make it extreamly dangerous to fly It is certainly possible to load it, and as a B17 could not take a single little man I dont think it a relavent argument anyway.
<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>

as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the loadNot true! Incendaries were counted!
No they wern't and just saying they were does not change that fact
are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? That was a choice made at command level to meet mission requirements. The two bays had room for two ~4,000 pounders, one over the other, ~16,000 pounds total. It could also carry four 2,000 pound GP bombs on each side, also ~16,000 pounds internal. It was also possible to carry 34 X 440 pound incendaries bombs internally, not that they ever did. But that was a choice they made to ensure that the mission was flown at higher altitude to avoid flack and limit Nazi fighter access.

According to official US figures the MAXIMUM bomb load carried by a combat mission in europe was 8000lbs, figures for the B17 state that MAXIMUM internal load was 8000lbs, the Bomb bay only had room for 4x 2000lbs so how do you think they fitted 4x4000lbs? (oh and the shackels were only rated to 2000lbs and they only had 4 of these ) so this is pure bunkham

[edit]
it would seem that this is incorrect, the B17 was only capable of carrying 2x2000lbs (although it could squeeze in a a pair of 1000lbs as well)

the 4000lbs were external only and limited to 2

B-17 bomb bay
[/edit]

In addition the 4000lbs would not physically fit in the bay, it was not rated as a bomb that was availible for internal use on the B17 and thier is no record of it ever having beeing used (either internally or externally) despite intelligence that the US bombs were ineffective against factories

You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>

well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door
The bomb bay had 42 shackle positions. If the bomb was small enough in diameter, all of them could be used. I have pictures someplace of a bunch of B-17s dropping 34 X 440 pound incendiaries each. You can count each individual bomb! Bomb loads less than these weights were a consideration of mission planning to meet altitude and range goals.

Rubbish the shackles were different for different bombs and only a few could be used at any time as the bomb bay was SMALL, show me the picture of 34x440 because I call moopoo as USAAF own figures show that this was over 6000lbs more then they claim was the maximum load carried, although going by your previous record I bet that the picture in question (if it ever existed) is of a B29 or even, knowing you a B52.

I remember your claim that a B17 could and did carry two tallboys, so your credibility is non existant
Oldbutnotwise is offline  
Old 2nd May 2012, 08:06
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
" Simpler than faffing around with metal and rivets "

I am certainly no expert on how difficult, or easy the two construction methods were. Someone who would have a fair idea is Glynn Powell, who is having a fair bit to do with two flyable mosquito examples currently under construction here in NZ. He has made the moulds himself, and apparently that was no easy task to complete!

Last edited by Weheka; 2nd May 2012 at 08:21.
Weheka is offline  
Old 2nd May 2012, 19:45
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,837
Received 51 Likes on 39 Posts
I remember your claim that a B17 could and did carry two tallboys, so your credibility is non existant
He could not even get the number of gun turrets correct.... so not liable to get any other details correct

The amount of coloured text on this thread is staggering any reason why posters are not using the 'Wrap Quote' facility in the toolbar above the reply box ?? the multi coloured posts are a little confusing !
longer ron is offline  
Old 2nd May 2012, 20:48
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bradford
Age: 62
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

He could not even get the number of gun turrets correct.... so not liable to
get any other details correct


The amount of coloured text on this thread is staggering
any reason why posters are not using the 'Wrap Quote' facility in the toolbar
above the reply box ?? the multi coloured posts are a little confusing
!
sorry was unware and at work so time limited.

as for the Lancaster turrets a couple of things I can comment on,

All canadian Lancs were flown across the atlantic without turrets, these were fitted in the UK and some photos show these ferry planes, in addition due to production problems at Nash & Thomson there were times when turrets supply failed to meet demand, production was prioritied for nose and tail, this meant that some Lancs went into service without a upper turret, some of these bombers were retro fitted with turrets some were not, so while he was right in some respect but for completely the wrong reason (probably a fluke) it is of note that all three mks suffered this shortage yet stirling and halifax's (as far as I can tell) did not
Oldbutnotwise is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 09:10
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 64
Posts: 9,807
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I'm sure the Mossie could have done it.

Noyade is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 09:20
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 72
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
...if it wasn't a very big dam...

File:Highball prototypes in Mosquito.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DHfan is offline  
Old 3rd May 2012, 23:07
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 64
Posts: 9,807
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
the B17 was only capable of carrying 2x2000lbs (although it could squeeze in a a pair of 1000lbs as well)
That's the conclusion I've come to. I know the bomb-rails are slightly tapered with more distance between them at the lower end. Pictures show a 2000 lb bomb fitting snugly at the bottom (fin width 23 inches) but the 4000 lb Light Case has a thumping big fin width of 47.62 inches. It's also 9 ft 9 inches long.



Noyade is offline  
Old 5th May 2012, 06:10
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,837
Received 51 Likes on 39 Posts
Re Gun Turrets

All canadian Lancs were flown across the atlantic without turrets, these were fitted in the UK and some photos show these ferry planes, in addition due to production problems at Nash & Thomson there were times when turrets supply failed to meet demand, production was prioritied for nose and tail, this meant that some Lancs went into service without a upper turret, some of these bombers were retro fitted with turrets some were not, so while he was right in some respect but for completely the wrong reason (probably a fluke) it is of note that all three mks suffered this shortage yet stirling and halifax's (as far as I can tell) did not
Yes I agree that some Lancs did not have a top turret but I would say that almost all of the Main Force Lancs did have a Top turret,I have read many autobiographies/reference books etc...the Mid upper turret was the norm,I have never seen a normal Main Force a/c without one - During WW2.
The top turrets tended to be removed postwar and this is where confusion reigns and it is where Bullshooter45 was being disingenuous by posting a photo of PA474 obviously taken over Lincoln in the 1970's.
The BBMF went to great trouble to fit a mid upper turret to PA474 so that it represented the great majority of wartime Lancaster a/c !He was also being disingenuous about the Lancs being 'field modified' because of performance shortfalls

Here is an extract from the raf mod website regarding mid upper/ventral turrets,the last 2 sentences questioning the inexplicable failure to brief the crews about schrage musik and refit a ventral gun,as I previously posted - some crews did fit a scare gun but schrage musik did not seem to be known about by the majority of regular squadron crews...


RAF MOD...The majority of night fighter attacks were made stealthily from astern and below, indeed, with the advent of Schräge Musik, the inclined cannon armament system fitted to German night fighters, the majority of the attacks occurred from almost directly below, completely out of sight of the mid upper gunner. There were some aircraft fitted with belly or ventral gun positions such as the Lancaster Mk II and several versions of the Halifax, but these were not brought into widespread service although many aircraft on the production line were perfectly capable of having them installed. Since it was a simple matter to extrapolate the direction of attack from the damage done to the aircraft which managed to return after being attacked, and several engineers in Bomber Command remarked upon the attack patterns in official reports, it is a matter of conjecture how many lives would have been saved by the deletion of the traditional mid upper turret and the acceptance of ventral positions as the norm in reply to the tactics employed by the German night fighter force. In many late production aircraft the ventral position designed into the Lancaster and Halifax was taken up with the H2S ground mapping radar head.
longer ron is offline  
Old 5th May 2012, 08:55
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,446
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
In books I've read about the Bomber force comments are often made that crews were told the German's had scarecrow shells - to mimic falling bombers to scare crews...
I've asked before on PP about Schräge Musik & why crews were not warned nor ventral guns not fitted. On that thread some soul posted images of ventral turrets that were fitted (IIRC mostly Canadian squadrons??).
There have been comments to that Harris wanted to be sure each bomber could carry the maximum amount of bombs on any given operation & thus he wanted the save as much weight as possible.
In hindsight simply having a force half with upper turrets & half with ventral turrets - would mean approaching night fighters would have something to think about.

IF it was officially known Schräge Musik was really bringing down most bombers..?

Edited to add:http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...age-musik.html
Load Toad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.