Lancastrian Pressurised?
 

Referring to the early 90s BBC documentary about the vanished BSSA Lancastrian (1947) which climbed to 24k feet to negotiate bad weather over the Andes peaks. Was this civilian development from the bomber pressurised?
The issue of course is O2 for the Pax.
Could cabin O2 have been boosted even if unpressurized?.

As far as I know, Lancastrians were not pressurised in any way. The passengers must have used oxygen masks as there is no other way to boost the oxygen level without increasing the pressure, or wasting loads of oxygen.

The Lancastrian was definitely not pressurised, the pilot notes make no mention of an oxygen system, although the cockpit illustration shows oxygen connection and regulator for the pilot, so would assume the same was available to the pax by way of face masks. Link confirms oxygen for passengers.

https://www.skytamer.com/Avro_691_Lancastrian_Mk.I.html

Churchill's Egg
 

...
Looking at the question from the other direction - according to Wiki -

The York was not pressurised either, but a lot of work was put into 'Churchill's Egg' - a pressurised pod to go into his personal transport - Ascalon' the fourth prototype.

It was decided not to proceed, but the pod was then considered for fitting into an RAF C-54B - presumably for Churchill's use again. Again, not proceeded with - which suggests even the C-54 was not pressurised.

It's probably a matter of how do you seal all those gaps etc, to keep the air in.

Now - if you'd asked about the pressurised Wellington bomber, or how they shared out the oxygen supplies over the Hump ....

LFH
...

The C-54/DC-4 was not pressurized, but prepared for it by design. The version that did get pressirized was called the DC 6. It had square windows, which differed from the DC 4.

The Canadair C-4 which was derived from the DC4 was pressurised....

It must have been quite cold at 24,000feet for the passengers and the crew.

I believe there was some speculation re the cabin heater possibly being at fault in an Avro Tudor accident G-AHNP.
This was mentioned in a post on here a few years back.
I believe they both aircraft used a Janitrol system.
I am not 100% sure, but the system used was basically akin to a blow torch running on fuel direct from the tanks, to heat
air directly into the cabin.
A U.S. DC-6 was lost around this time due to the faulty cabin heater causing an inflight fire and another was involved in an emergency landing.

The Lancaster used to use hot air from an engine to heat the aircraft , though it was inefficient, just 'roasting' the Wireless Operator.
One would have thought that system modified would have been a better idea in practice.

A lot of light twins still use a similar heater, although the demands will not be as severe due to smaller cabin size and (usually) lower altitudes.

Passengers in those times may have looked like this:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7ca9fa0c53.jpg
(passenger in Mosquito bomb bay, from https://www.a-e-g.org.uk/surreptitiously-to-sweden.html original source unknown)

And let's remember the ill-fated Windsor, with its pressurised crew compartment.

You're right of course, Planemike, the C-4 was a mix of DC-6, DC-4 and various Canadair systems. With square windows.Not a DC-4. not a DC-6, but almost a design on its own.

Not, of course, forgetting the four Rolls Royce Merlin 622s..... That made it a design on its own......!!

rolling20 indicated the DC-6 fire was caused by a faulty cabin heater.


A series of in-flight fires (including the fatal crash of United Airlines flight 608) grounded the DC-6 fleet in 1947. The cause was found to be a fuel vent next to the cabin cooling turbine intake; all DC-6's were modified and the fleet was flying again after four months on the ground.

Also, note the 24 Canadair Northstars allocated to the RCAF were unpressurised and had round passenger windows.

That was one ugly-looking dog's dinner. Check the Wiki entry for its construction details. The stainless steel, fine-wire ribbon skin had to be checked for the correct tension with a tuning fork. :eek:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9eabfe3bca.jpg

Depends on the viewpoint. Not all that bad looking in this photo if you ask me...

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c0a839114b.jpg