Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Lancasters and Lincolns

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

Lancasters and Lincolns

Old 10th Feb 2018, 13:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 488
Lancasters and Lincolns

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?
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 14:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 729
The curved nose of the Lanc incorporates a flat panel for the bomb sight to look through.
kenparry is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 16:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 656
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.
jimjim1 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 21:02
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 82
Posts: 1,325
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?
ian16th is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 02:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
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.
DANbudgieman is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 13:58
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,891
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.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 15:15
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 537
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
l.garey is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 07:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 7
If required, it would be easier to retrofit the forward facing flat panes to armored glass, as opposed to a bubble perspex.
evansb is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 12:52
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 593
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.
oxenos is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 13:00
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 1,871
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
Union Jack is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 13:39
  #11 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 72
Posts: 3,107
...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.
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 14:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10
Found this in Fathers effects:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
LANCASTER PILOTS NOTES 2.jpg (500.4 KB, 128 views)
enfranglais is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 15:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 82
Posts: 1,325
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
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.
ian16th is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 15:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 537
enfranglais: That's a Halifax. Nice drawing though.

Laurence
l.garey is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 16:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10
So it is, wonder why the other side states Lancaster Pilots Notes? Doh - Mod Cock up?
enfranglais is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 16:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 63
Posts: 211
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.
Innominate is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 05:18
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
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 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 05:44
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Innominate View Post
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 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 06:15
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
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!
DANbudgieman is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 07:11
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by DANbudgieman View Post
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.
Dr Jekyll is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.