Avro Lancastrian Tales
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The extra fuel tanks including those in the bomb bay were the main reason for the improved range. What I'd like to read about is why the Lancastrian was imposed on BOAC instead of the more capacious York and any Air Ministry/diplomatic/industry correspondence on why the Transport Command Skymasters were returned to the USA in 1946 instead of being used to give BOAC a decent start post-war.
BOAC (and BSAA) eventually had plenty of Yorks as well, although they came about a year after the Lancastrians, but the Lancastrian must have had some advantage. Was the York rather slow/shorter range ? It certainly looked a bit lumbering rather than sleek in comparison.
I understand that the RAF Transport Command Skymasters were not based in Britain, but in India (did many ever make it to the UK ?), and may well have been on loan rather than owned, so would have to be purchased, and with hard currency. Of course, everyone also thought the immediate postwar types like the Tudor were going to be an instant hit. It was hard enough to get foreign exchange for the handful of Lockheed Constellations, and those only because they were much more sophisticated, with pressurisation etc, and thus competitive with what the US carriers were going to use. This didn't apply to the Skymasters.
BOAC did however get a very large quantity of DC3s, a number later passed on to BEA but they retained a significant number themselves, which were used for a few years on routes like London to Cairo, and also based at points like Cairo itself, operating regional routes around the Middle East and down into Africa. These were generally ex-RAF as well, and I presume had already been purchased, as the RAF also kept a lot on, and a good number were just scrapped where they stood after WW2, so presumably of little value.
Roy Chadwick must have been absolutely downcast that, after the Lancaster huge success, and the workmanlike Lancastrian and York, the Tudor (still essentially a Lanc-plus) was such a fiasco. By the time one of the prototypes with him on board crashed in 1947, taking his life in the process, it must have been apparent what a poor bit of design it was.
I understand that the RAF Transport Command Skymasters were not based in Britain, but in India (did many ever make it to the UK ?), and may well have been on loan rather than owned, so would have to be purchased, and with hard currency. Of course, everyone also thought the immediate postwar types like the Tudor were going to be an instant hit. It was hard enough to get foreign exchange for the handful of Lockheed Constellations, and those only because they were much more sophisticated, with pressurisation etc, and thus competitive with what the US carriers were going to use. This didn't apply to the Skymasters.
BOAC did however get a very large quantity of DC3s, a number later passed on to BEA but they retained a significant number themselves, which were used for a few years on routes like London to Cairo, and also based at points like Cairo itself, operating regional routes around the Middle East and down into Africa. These were generally ex-RAF as well, and I presume had already been purchased, as the RAF also kept a lot on, and a good number were just scrapped where they stood after WW2, so presumably of little value.
Roy Chadwick must have been absolutely downcast that, after the Lancaster huge success, and the workmanlike Lancastrian and York, the Tudor (still essentially a Lanc-plus) was such a fiasco. By the time one of the prototypes with him on board crashed in 1947, taking his life in the process, it must have been apparent what a poor bit of design it was.
Last edited by WHBM; 25th Oct 2016 at 21:38.
BOAC (and BSAA) eventually had plenty of Yorks as well, although they came about a year after the Lancastrians, but the Lancastrian must have had some advantage. Was the York rather slow/shorter range ? It certainly looked a bit lumbering rather than sleek in comparison.
Roy Chadwick must have been absolutely downcast that, after the Lancaster huge success, and the workmanlike Lancastrian and York, the Tudor (still essentially a Lanc-plus) was such a fiasco. By the time one of the prototypes with him on board crashed in 1947, taking his life in the process, it must have been apparent what a poor bit of design it was.
Roy Chadwick must have been absolutely downcast that, after the Lancaster huge success, and the workmanlike Lancastrian and York, the Tudor (still essentially a Lanc-plus) was such a fiasco. By the time one of the prototypes with him on board crashed in 1947, taking his life in the process, it must have been apparent what a poor bit of design it was.
As for the Tudor, it could never be called a successful aircraft but don't forget A. V. Roe wasted a tremendous amount of time and effort on minor design changes due to government and airline indecision and I'm not convinced the end product was such a poor design as people claim. I think it was a bit more than just a "Lanc-plus" though. It had slightly modified Lincoln wings, but an all new fuselage and many new systems, allowing it to become Britain's first pressurised airliner.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After today's tumultuous announcement, plus the aircraft shown in the still title frame, now looks like a good opportunity to post this run-through of LHR s history...
Not ones that worked very well, acc to Star Dust Falling. The pressurisation and heating regularly failed, necessitating dropping to a few thousand feet to avoid freezing and suffocating the occupants and there is suspicion that at least one of the disappearances of the Tudors was due to the heater. Want me to OCR and post the relevant pages from Star Dust Falling?
Just found this on the relevant Wikipedia page, from BSAA's chief pilot and manager of operations, Gordon Store: "The Tudor was built like a battleship. It was noisy, I had no confidence in its engines and its systems were hopeless. The Americans were fifty years ahead of us in systems engineering. All the hydraulics, the air conditioning equipment and the recircling [sic] fans were crammed together underneath the floor without any thought. There were fuel-burning heaters that would never work; we had the floorboards up in flight again and again"
(the Tudor) had many new systems
Just found this on the relevant Wikipedia page, from BSAA's chief pilot and manager of operations, Gordon Store: "The Tudor was built like a battleship. It was noisy, I had no confidence in its engines and its systems were hopeless. The Americans were fifty years ahead of us in systems engineering. All the hydraulics, the air conditioning equipment and the recircling [sic] fans were crammed together underneath the floor without any thought. There were fuel-burning heaters that would never work; we had the floorboards up in flight again and again"
Last edited by Phoenix1969; 26th Oct 2016 at 14:39.
I have found a couple more Lancastrian photos - still poor quality I am afraid.
Taken in sequence over South America April 1946.
Flight deck (or was it cockpit then?)
Radio Officer and Stewardess
Mike
Taken in sequence over South America April 1946.
Flight deck (or was it cockpit then?)
Radio Officer and Stewardess
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re The Radio Man: .. "If it werrren't for me head-phones, I'd be deef!" A known Shackleton aircrew refrain as well..
A fair lassie in the background by the way..
(yes, the latter comment would date me to be 60-ish year-old Scottish white male.) Scottish and white? That's redundant.
A fair lassie in the background by the way..
(yes, the latter comment would date me to be 60-ish year-old Scottish white male.) Scottish and white? That's redundant.
Last edited by evansb; 27th Oct 2016 at 03:42.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(yes, the latter comment would date me to be 60-ish year-old Scottish white male.) Scottish and white? That's redundant.
Want me to OCR and post the relevant pages from Star Dust Falling?
Just found this on the relevant Wikipedia page, from BSAA's chief pilot and manager of operations, Gordon Store: "The Tudor was built like a battleship. It was noisy, I had no confidence in its engines and its systems were hopeless. The Americans were fifty years ahead of us in systems engineering. All the hydraulics, the air conditioning equipment and the recircling [sic] fans were crammed together underneath the floor without any thought. There were fuel-burning heaters that would never work; we had the floorboards up in flight again and again"
Just found this on the relevant Wikipedia page, from BSAA's chief pilot and manager of operations, Gordon Store: "The Tudor was built like a battleship. It was noisy, I had no confidence in its engines and its systems were hopeless. The Americans were fifty years ahead of us in systems engineering. All the hydraulics, the air conditioning equipment and the recircling [sic] fans were crammed together underneath the floor without any thought. There were fuel-burning heaters that would never work; we had the floorboards up in flight again and again"
The Tudor is often said to have polarised opinion among its pilots. Yet the odd thing is that these well-used quotes from Gordon Store are totally at odds with the opinions of ALL the former Tudor pilots I spoke to. Without exception all the people I contacted who had first hand experience of flying the Tudor said it was fine. Nothing exceptional, but absolutely fine. In fact a couple described the Tudor 5 as being very pleasant to fly. I even asked Eric Brown some years ago for his opinion of the Tudor and he told me that once the small modifications to the engine nacelles and wing roots had been made (at the prototype stage) it was a very nice aircraft.
Incidentally, the heater design and layout were not unique to the Tudor by any means, but nobody ever seems to talk about the cabin heater in these other aircraft (DC-6 for instance).
The Tudor losses are also frequently used to support the claim that the aircraft was poor, and even dangerous. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of the Tudor accidents were ever categorically attributed to mechanical faults with the aircraft. Yet the accidents are cited as proof that the aircraft was a failure. Curious isn't it?!
Why was the Tudor designed as a taildragger, against current trends in large transport aircraft design? Surely a tricycle version would not have been too complicated or expensive to engineer?
I'm not suggesting either of these were particularly valid reasons for not designing the Tudor with a nosewheel from the start, but merely putting them forward as the possible answer to the question.
The Nene powered Tudor 9 was of course designed from the outset with a tricycle undercarriage, and later became the Ashton.
Anent the tricycle undercarriage for some reason we in Britain came later to its use than the US designers. Our wartime aeroplanes used tailwheel undercarriages and logically so did their transport developments. However all the completely new types designed in response to the Brabazon Committee had the tricycle.
At de Havilland there was clearly some nervousness about the steering and a test rig was built with a Comet nose gear on a lorry chassis to investigate its behaviour. It must have been satisfactory as the Comet, Dove and Heron used it.
At de Havilland there was clearly some nervousness about the steering and a test rig was built with a Comet nose gear on a lorry chassis to investigate its behaviour. It must have been satisfactory as the Comet, Dove and Heron used it.
Plenty of large taildraggers (including Lancastrians) on the Berlin Air Lift.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anent the tricycle undercarriage
I shall use this at work the next time I want to use the words 'about' or 'concerning' and then have the pleasure of using lmgtfy.com on people when they ask "what does 'anent' mean?"
Not much aircraft on view here but the caption says Captain Thiele en-route to Hong Kong in a Qantas Lancastrian.
Here it is
VH-EAS Avro 691 Lancastrian
My hunch would be that it was bought principally to maintain pilot currency and training, as well as making pioneering route trials. The BOAC Lancastrian fast service in 1947 to Australia required four aircraft (minimum) to hold down the thrice-weekly service, and the BOAC timetable states that it is "operated by Qantas" east of Karachi. This was just a continuation of the pre-war practice on the Empire Flying Boat service on the same route, which had also used Qantas crews on the British aircraft beyond Karachi. Qantas had its own fleet of Empire Boats, but to keep the crews up to currency on Lancasters must have been difficult without one. Notably the attached link states the aircraft was written off in 1949 while on a training detail.
VH-EAS Avro 691 Lancastrian
My hunch would be that it was bought principally to maintain pilot currency and training, as well as making pioneering route trials. The BOAC Lancastrian fast service in 1947 to Australia required four aircraft (minimum) to hold down the thrice-weekly service, and the BOAC timetable states that it is "operated by Qantas" east of Karachi. This was just a continuation of the pre-war practice on the Empire Flying Boat service on the same route, which had also used Qantas crews on the British aircraft beyond Karachi. Qantas had its own fleet of Empire Boats, but to keep the crews up to currency on Lancasters must have been difficult without one. Notably the attached link states the aircraft was written off in 1949 while on a training detail.
VH-EAS Lancastrian I ex BOAC G-AGMD (1184) - Written off at Dubbo on 7th April 1949
VH-EAT Lancastrian I ex BOAC G-AGML (1191) - Broken up at Sydney in 1952
VH-EAU Lancastrian I ex BOAC G-AGLZ (1180) - No details known
VH-EAV Lancastrian III ex Silver City Airways G-AHBW (1291) - No details known