Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Avro Lancaster weigh in
167 views
Skip to first unread message
Geoffrey Sinclair
Mar 26, 2020, 6:46:03 AM3/26/20
to
Firstly an interlude.
Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist
motion, whirrrrrr ..... plop.
Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
around here.
Secondly here are the usually quoted official weights and performance
figures for the Avro Lancaster, from the book by Harry Holmes.
Production Lancaster I. Range 2,530 miles with 7,000 pound bomb
load, 1,730 miles with 12,000 pounds, 1,550 miles with 22,000 pounds
Tankage 2,154 gallons.
Maximum speeds 287 mph at 11,500 feet, 275 mph at 15,000 feet,
260 mph at 19,400 feet. Cruising speeds 234 mph at 21,000 feet,
200 mph at 15,000 feet
Service ceiling 23,000 feet, absolute ceiling 24,500 feet
Weights in pounds. The / are of course column markers.
Jan-42 / Sep-42 / Nov-42 / May-44 / Early 1945 / Month
I / II / I / I & III / I & III Overload / Mark
17,064 / 17,064 / 17,776 / 18,033 / 17,633 / Structure
10,720 / 12,335 / 11,304 / 11,610 / 11,610 / Power plants
1,796 / 1,796 / 1,990 / 1,999 / 1,999 / Fuel and oil tanks
29,580 / 31,195 / 31,070 / 31,642 / 31,242 / Empty weight
4,120 / 4,120 / 4,334 / 5,169 / 4,589 / Fixed military load
33,700 / 35,315 / 35,404 / 36,811 / 35,831 / Tare weight
26,300 / 24,685 / 27,596 / 28,189 / 36,169 / load
60,000 / 60,000 / 63,000 / 65,000 / 72,000 / Gross Weight
5,120 / 6,200 / 5,120 / 6,440 / 6,440 / take off power bhp
46.26 / 46.26 / 48.57 / 50.12 / 55.51 / Wing load lb/sq ft
5.77 / 5.77 / 6.06 / 6.25 / 6.92 / Span load lb/sq ft
11.72 / 9.68 / 12.30 / 10.09 / 11.18 / Power load lb/bhp
Thirdly to the document from the Australian Archives, unfortunately
undated, it reads as a form of wartime sales brochure, and is
connected to the local desire to have a Lancaster production line
in Australia, which became the post war Lincoln production line.
Hence the twin wasp engine option, given Australia was
manufacturing the engine. The photograph in the file is of Lincoln
RE228.
The weights quoted are clearly from the earlier Lancaster production
and/or the prototypes. To give some sort of idea of a possible date
of writing consider,
Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
Lancaster I production began in October 1941
Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
Anyway from now on comes the document. Most of the numbers are at
the end. Including a very detailed break down of fixed and removable
military load. Weights in pounds.
Avro Lancaster
General Description
The Avro Lancaster is a four-engined mid-wing monoplane of all metal
construction, designed to operate as a heavy bomber. The aircraft may also
be used as a long range general reconnaissance type.
The overall dimensions area: Span 102 feet, length 70 feet, height 19 feet 6
inches, wing area 1,300 square feet. The maximum loaded weight is 60,000
pounds. A crew of six is usually carried.
Fuel tankage for a still air range of 3,000 miles, at an economical cruising
speed of 200/215 m.p.h. is provided. All the fuel tanks are in the wing and
they are of the self sealing type. Jettison valves are fitted to jettison
1,000 gallons.
For reinforcing flights where very long distances have to be covered,
additional fuel tanks can be mounted inside the bomb compartment.
The official test figures for the prototype Lancaster gave a cruising speed
of 285 m.p.h. at the continuous cruising power of the Merlin XX engines
using weak mixture, but at this cruising speed the range with standard
tankage is reduced, as shown in the accompanying charts.
Bomb loads of up to 12,750 pounds can be carried.
All the bomb load is carried in one large compartment which forms the lower
portion of the fuselage and which is closed by means of two long doors which
conform to the streamline shape of the fuselage and are hydraulically
operated. This arrangement of bomb compartment enables all the standard
sizes of bomb to be accommodated, including the latest very large bombs.
The bomb carriers and bomb housings are of the Avro type, which has been
standardised for use in the R.A.F.
An effective bomb sighting position is provided in the extreme nose of the
fuselage.
An important feature of the design is that a large variety of different
types of power plant can be installed. This is made possible by the use of
easily detachable sub-mounting frames.
The Lancaster can be supplied either as a twin engined aeroplane or a four
engined aeroplane, using engines of 2,000 h.p. or 1,000 h.p. For example
power unit installations are already designed, or are in the process of
design to accommodate the following engines:- Four engined, Rolls Royce
Merlin XX or Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp or Bristol Hercules. Twin engined,
Rolls Royce Vulture, Bristol Centaurus, Napier Sabre.
The Lancaster is at present in production using the Rolls Royce Merlin XX
engines.
The airscrews are of the fully feathering, constant speed type.
Design developments are in hand to adapt the aircraft for ultra high
altitude operation.
The Lancaster is provided with a very effective defence, consisting of three
power operated gun turrets. These comprise, a twin gun nose turret, a four
gun tail turret and a twin gun mid-upper turret. All the guns can be
brought to bear on the beam converging at a distance of about 100 yards from
the aircraft, and the mid upper turret provides effective reinforcing fire
for both the rear and forward turrets.
This strong defensive armament, coupled with the very high speed of the
aircraft, makes the Lancaster a very difficult machine to attack by
fighters.
The Lancaster is remarkably controllable for its size, which enables it to
take effective evasive action when attacked and also during bombing
operations.
Excellent armouring is provided. This consists of an armour plate bulkhead
in the form of two large doors, which completely bulkhead off the forward
crew compartment. The pilot's seat is provided with separate armour and the
fire control station alongside the pilot is fitted with a bullet proof glass
shield to protect the fire control officer's head and shoulders.
The construction of the Lancaster airframe is simple. A great deal of care
was taken during the design stage to simplify both the main components and
the details; this simplicity of construction has been well proved in actual
manufacture.
The materials mainly used throughout the airframe are aluminium alloy and
steel, aluminium alloy forming the major portion of the constructional
material.
Hydraulic power is provided for the operation of undercarriage, landing
flaps, bomb doors, gun turrets, airscrews, etc.
Electrical power is provided for engine starting, radio, intercommunication
telephones, lighting, instrument operation, bomb fusing and firing, etc.
Cabin heating is provided and this has been tested to high altitudes and low
temperatures with very satisfactory results. The cabin heating is
controllable and can be varied to suit the temperature at which the aircraft
is operating.
The pilot and fire control officer are accommodated in a roomy cabin which
has a completely transparent top raised above the general top of the
fuselage and carefully streamlined. This raised canopy gives them an
exceptionally good all round field of view, which is considered to be a
valuable military asset, particularly when the aircraft is subjected to air
attack.
The pilot's windscreen is provided with a clear vision panel which can be
opened without any draught entering, and in addition the main windscreen is
fitted with windscreen wipers.
The pilot's seat and rudder pedals are bit adjustable for height and
distance, so that pilots of different heights can be comfortably seated.
Single control is provided for the pilot, but dual controls can be installed
for instructional purposes.
An automatic pilot is fitted to relieve the pilot of flying strain during
the long flights, or under conditions of blind flying. Blind landing
apparatus is installed.
The large dimensions of the fuselage enable all the standard military
equipment to be accommodated and the Lancaster is particularly well equipped
in this respect.
For reinforcing flights, additional seats can be fitted in the fuselage to
seat twelve squadron personnel.
Side light and roof lights are fitted along the fuselage so that the
interior is sufficiently light to enable work to be carried on during the
day time without artificial lighting. Curtains are fitted for night
operations.
Emergency parachute exits are fitted in the bottom of the fuselage and
emergency exits on the top of the fuselage for use in the case of a forced
landing with the undercarriage up and where the main door maybe jammed.
Construction.
Fuselage
The fuselage is a straight forward light alloy monocoque, built up on a
framework of hoops and stringers with flush rivetted skin.
To facilitate manufacture and transport, the fuselage is divided into five
sections which are fastened together by rings of bolts at the transport
joints. This sub division of the fuselage has proved of great value, as it
enables a large number of work people to operate at the same time without
interfering with one another. Where strong points are necessary, use is made
of high grade aluminium alloy forgings and castings.
The hoops or formers are developed from sheet in presses. The stringers may
be either of extruded aluminium alloy sections or drawn sections made from
strip. Alternatives are provided in the drawings.
Wing
The wing is of the two spar type with pressed ribs and flush riveted
covering. Like the fuselage, the wing is constructed in a number of
sections which are bolted together. This is done to facilitate construction
and transport.
Compartments are fitted in the wing to contain the fuel tanks, the
undercarriage and the emergency dinghy. The leading edge of the wing is
fitted with B.B.P. gear.
Frise type ailerons are employed and these are mounted on self aligning ball
bearings. The trailing edge flaps are of the conventional split trailing
edge type.
The centre section leading edge is arranged to fold upwards easily to give
access to the engine controls, electrical cables, hydraulic piping, etc.
Inspection doors are fitted wherever necessary to give easy access to
interior piping, wiring, etc.
Tailplane
The construction of the tailplane is on the same lines as that of the main
plane. The elevator is a welded tubular structure with fabric covering and
is both mass balanced and aerodynamically balanced. Trimming tabs are
fitted for operation by the pilot.
Fins and Rudders.
The twin fins and rudders are both metal covered structures and the rudders
are fitted with trimming tabs to relieve the load on the pilot's foot when
flying with one or two engines stopped on one side. The trimmers are
sufficiently powerful to enable this to be done without any load on the
pilot's foot.
Undercarriage.
The undercarriage is of a very simple design for so large an aeroplane. Two
independent units are used, one under each of the inboard engine supporting
points. The undercarriages are hydraulically operated and retract backwards
onto a fairing which is a continuation of the inboard engine nacelles. When
retracted, the undercarriages are completely enclosed by means of doors
which are coupled to the undercarriage themselves and thus automatically
open and shut when the undercarriages are lowered and raised. A long travel
is provided on the shock absorber struts, which are of the air-cum-oil type,
the air acting as the taxying spring and the oil providing the hydraulic
energy absorption. Efficient wheel brakes are incorporated, which are
operated by compressed air from a control on the pilot's wheel.
Tail wheel.
The tail wheel is not retractable. The shock absorber is of the air-cum-oil
type. The tail wheel can rotate through 360 degrees for manoeuvering on the
ground and the whole unit can be removed from the aircraft by the removal of
one large bolt.
Flying controls.
The flying controls are of the column and wheel and foot pedal type; either
single control or dual control can be fitted. The dual control consists of
attachments to the single control. The rudder pedals are quickly adjustable
to suit pilots of different heights. The forces from the control column and
foot pedals are transmitted through the aircraft by means of push-pull
control rods. All control services are mounted on ball bearing hinges of
the self aligning type. A folding seat alongside the first pilot's seat
provides a side by side pilots' station.
Engine controls.
Particular care has been taken in the design of the engine controls to
provide easy and exact operation of the carburettor, mixture, airscrews,
etc. The system is mechanical and consists of levers connected by means of
chains and sprockets and tie rods. The engine control system is given a
small degree of pretension which eliminates all backlash. The engine
controls are mounted throughout on ball bearings. This system of engine
controls, whilst somewhat elaborate, is remarkably free of friction and
enables the rather heavy loads which have to be dealt with in large sized
engines to be easily overcome by the pilot. Freedom from backlash gives the
accuracy of the control necessary for Constant Speed airscrews. These
engine controls are very free from maintenance troubles.
Bomb Installation.
The bomb installation is very simple, consisting of one long compartment
forming the bottom portion of the fuselage. Fifteen bomb housings are
provided in five rows of three. The bomb gear is in two parts, consisting of
a carrier which is attached to the bomb and a housing for the carrier which
is built into the aircraft structure. The housing contains a supporting
hook and an adjustable crutch.
The method of loading the bomb into the aircraft is as follows:-
The bomb carrier is placed on the bomb and the electro magnetic release slip
engaged with the lug on the top of the bomb.
The crutching jaws on the carrier are then screwed down by means of the two
integral handles and the bomb is then ready to be hoisted into position.
Whilst this is being done, another man inside the aircraft removes the cover
from the housing and lowers down the hoisting cable. The cable has a ball
at its end which engages with a socket on the bomb carrier.
The man inside the aircraft then winds up the bomb and the bomb carrier
automatically engages in the bomb housing.
The loader then screws down the crutching jaws and the bomb is thus secured
in position.
He next engages the hoisting cable, plugs in the electric lead to the
carrier and re-fits the cover over the housing.
Two men can load a 500 pound bomb into the aircraft in two and a half
minutes. As it is possible for several teams of men to work at one time,
the aircraft can be re-bombed in a very short space of time.
This system of bomb carrying and loading was produced by A.V. Roe & Co., and
has been adopted as the standard system for the R.A.F. new type aircraft.
The bomb compartment has been designed to take all the different types of
bomb, including small bomb containers and the new very large size bombs.
Bomb Aimer's Station
The bomb aimer's station is in the extreme nose of the fuselage and the bomb
aimer is provided with a cushioned kneeling position, which is considered to
be more comfortable that either a prone position or a seated position. A
large hemispherical transparent dome gives him a very good field of view.
The actual bomb sighting is done through a large diameter circular glass
panel of special design which can be electrically heated to avoid frosting
and misting. Brackets are provided to carry a variety of bomb sights.
The official flight trials of the Lancaster have proved this aircraft to be
both stable and controllable. The Lancaster is particularly manoeuverable
for such a large machine and its controls are light and effective so that it
is not tiring to fly for long periods. The machine responds exceptionally
well to the automatic control, which can be used to relieve the pilot of
flying strain. The take off and landing is straight forward and easy. The
Lancaster can be described as an easy aircraft to fly, which makes it
particularly suitable for night operations. The pilots have a particularly
good view in all directions, including a backward view which is provided by
the raised canopy over the cockpit. Very efficient cabin heating is
installed so that the crew can perform their duties in comfort when flying
under conditions of very low temperature.
Structural Strength
The Lancaster aircraft structure is designed for a normal loaded weight if
50,000 pounds with an increase of 20% to 60,000 pounds as an overload weight
occurring at the commencement of the flight. The maximum weight at which
the normal landing requirements are met is 50,000 pounds. The strength of
the structure is up to the following standards:
At 50,000 lb / At 60,000 lb / Flight Cases
5.7 / 4.75 / 1. Normal horizontal flight C.P Forward
4.0 / 3.5 / 2. Normal horizontal flight C.P back
2.0 / 2.0 / 3. Steady diving flaps up at 400 m.p.h.
2.0 / 2.0 / 4. Steady diving flaps down at 200 m.p.h.
5. The requirements of A.P.970 and all current A.D.M's applicable to this
type of aircraft, and met at the normal weight of 50,000 pounds.
Landing cases
1. The aircraft at the weight of 50,000 pounds is able to withstand impact
with the ground at a vertical velocity of 12 feet per second. At this
velocity the impact does not exceed three times the weight of the aircraft.
The ultimate factor for the undercarriage when subjected to this impact load
is 1.33 and for the remainder of the structure is 1.5
2. The landing requirements of A.P.970, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4, are met at
the weight of 50,000 pounds. The main governing requirement is the
"combined loading" case of 4W upwards, 1 W backwards with 0.4W sideways on
one wheel inwards and 0.35W sideways on the other wheel outwards.
3. At the overload weight of 60,000 pounds the ultimate factor when the
aeroplane is at rest is 4.0.
Dimensions in Feet / Inches
102 / 0 / Wing span
69 / 4 / Overall length - tail up
68 / 10 / Overall length - tail down
19 / 3 / Overall height - tail up
19 / 6 / Overall height - tail down
Wing aspect ratio 8.02
102 / 0 / Wing span
16 / 0 / Root chord
12 / 8.6 / Mean chord (Geometric)
Wing incidence, 4 degrees
Wing dihedral - outer wing, 7 degrees
45 / 7 / Span of wing fitted with flaps
18 / 0 / Span of Ailerons (one)
23 / 9 / Undercarriage track
33 / 0 / Tail plane span
8 / 6.5 / Tail root chord
12 / 2 / Height of end pin and rudder
Areas in Square Feet
1297 / Gross wing area including ailerons
1205 / Nett wing area including ailerons
90.3 / Aileron Area (total)
146.3 / Flap Area (total)
237.2 / Tail plane and elevator area (gross)
87.5 / Elevator area including balance and trimmers
Percentage balance area, 29.53%
4.22 / Area of elevator servo trimmers
2.85 / Area of elevator adjustable trimmers
111.6 / Area of end fins and rudders
72.4 / Area of end fins
39.2 / Area of rudders including balance and trimmers
Percentage balance area, 18.2%
2.21 / Area of rudder trimmers
Weights.
1,300 / Wing Ribs including engine and fuel tank mounting ribs
1,380 / Wing front spar
955 / Wing rear spar
101 / Spar joints
170 / Wing stringers
1,025 / Wing skin covering
149 / Flaps, centre section
125 / Flaps, outer wing
125 / Flap operating tubes and links
200 / Wing tips
190 / Ailerons
130 / Wing centre section leading edges
770 / Wing sundry fittings, bolts, joints to fuselage, paint, trailing
edges, dummy spars, shrouds etc.
150 / Access doors for fuel tanks.
6,770 / Total Wing structure weight
497 / Fuselage formers
343 / Fuselage stringers
721 / Fuselage skin covering
980 / Fuselage main floors
74 / Fuselage walkways
180 / Canopy
63 / Windows
110 / Seats
51 / Fuselage former extensions below main floor
58 / Flying control guards
170 / Cabin heating
490 / Bomb doors
233 / Fuselage sundry fittings, doors, bolts etc.
3,970 / Total fuselage weight
464 / Tailplane
206 / Elevators, including mass balance
164 / Fins
117 / Rudders, including mass balance
951 / Total tail unit weight
640 / Undercarriage shock absorber struts and bracing
100 / Wheel axles
252 / Undercarriage radius rods and locks
230 / Undercarriage retracting jacks and bracing
1,180 / Undercarriage main wheels and tyres
110 / Undercarriage brakes
280 / Tailwheel and shock absorber strut
2,792 / Total undercarriage and tail wheel weight
463 / Engine sub mounting frames, undercarriage beams and bracing on front
spar
130 / Inboard engine sub mounting frames
6 / Inboard sub mounting bolts
285 / Outboard sub frames
40 / Outboard front spar attachment channels
12 / Outboard rear spar attachment channels
5 / Outboard sub mounting bolts
941 / Total weight, sub mounting frames on wings
702 / Fuel tanks including protective covering and fuel jettisoning (Centre
section)
550 / Fuel tanks including protective covering and fuel jettisoning
(Inboard - Outer wing)
200 / Fuel tanks including protective covering (Outboard - Outer wing)
244 / Oil tanks including protective covering
100 / Tank mounting straps
1,796 / Total fuel and oil tanks weight
580 / Nacelle fairings aft of fireproof bulkheads
600 / Hydraulics - general services
300 / Flying controls, including dual
18,700 / Total Structure weight: wings, fuselage, tail, undercarriage, fuel
tanks, engine sub mountings, nacelle fairings, general hydraulics, flying
controls.
1,200 / 6 Crew and including parachutes
15,336 / 2130 gallons of fuel
1,026 / 114 gallons of oil
7,000 / Bomb load
208 / Bomb carriers
23,570 / Load for maximum range
9,796 / 1361 gallons of fuel
639 / 71 gallons of oil
12,750 / Bomb load
385 / Bomb carriers
23,570 / Load for maximum bombs
Military load weights
Fixed / Removable
261 / 179 / Front turret (FN.5A) Guns and ammunition (2,000 rounds)
320 / 179 / Mid Upper turret (FN.7) Guns and ammunition (2,000 rounds)
370 / 490 / Rear turret (FN.20) Guns and ammunition (6,000 rounds)
240 / / Turret hydraulic systems
105 / / Ammunition boxes, tracks and mountings for rear turret
385 / 6 / Fixed bomb gear and fusing gear
20 / 38 / Bomb sighting and mounting
49 / 245 / Pyrotechnics, pistol, distress signals, training and
reconnaissance flares and mountings etc.
740 / 5 / Electrics, including generators and accumulators
203 / 90 / Instruments, engine, flying and navigational, including 6 sea
markers and dead reckoning compass
8 / 39 / F.24 Camera
109 / 233 / Oxygen equipment (16 bottles)
97 / / Automatic controls
35 / 54 / Dinghy
145 / 94 / Miscellaneous, including fire extinguishers, safety belts,
rations, water bottles and mountings.
91 / 142 / Wireless Telegraphy, Direction Finding and power supply
25 / 5 / Intercommunication
7 / 28 / Pilots TR9F radio
35 / 40 / Lorenz blind approach
15 / 33 / R.3003
230 / / De icing equipment, tail and airscrews
120 / / Anti barrage equipment
300 / / Armour plating
3,910 / 1,900 / Total weight, fixed and removable military loads
Engine weights (4 engines and propellers) for three powerplant options
Merlin XX / Hercules VI / Twin Wasp S3C4-G /
5,200 / 5,900 / 4,800 / Take off power, BHP
5,720 / 7,460 / 5,940 / Engines - dry
9 / 10 / 10 / Air compressors
66 / 172 / 172 / Electric starters
10 / / / Hand turning gear
31 / 29 / 29 / Constant speed governor unit
16 / 16 / 16 / Vacuum pumps
168 / 120 / 113 / Air intakes, hot and cold
70 Auxiliary gear boxes
328 / 440 / 400 / Engine mountings
228 / 588 / 500 / Exhausts
1,282 / / / Cooling system and coolant
182 / 260 / 220 / Oil coolers and mounting
130 / 130 / 130 / Oil system, pipes, filters etc.
210 / 210 / 210 / Fuel system, pipes, filters etc.
200 / 200 / 200 / Engine controls
1,480 / 1,480 / 1,440 / Airscrews (Rotol)
140 / 160 / 140 / Fireproof bulkheads
520 / 360 / 340 / Engine cowling
/ 160 / 140 / Additional cowling behind engines
/ 220 / 200 / Cooling gills and mechanism
10,720 / 12,085 / 10,200 / Total engine and airscrew weight
4 engine performance
300 / 315 / 265 / Maximum level speed mph
21,000 / 17,500 / 13,100 / At altitude, feet
260 / 270 / 217 / Cruising speed, maximum economic power - weak mixture
21,000 / 21,500 / 17,000 / At altitude, feet
16 / 16 / 24 / Time to climb to 15,000 feet, minutes
25,800 / 23,800 / 17,100 / Service ceiling, feet
3 engine performance
250 / 270 / 230 / Maximum level speed mph
12,250 / 17,500 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
205 / 218 / / Cruising speed, maximum economic power - weak mixture
13,800 / 14,000 / / At altitude, feet
20,300 / 18,100 / 12,000 / Service ceiling, feet
2 engine performance
180 / 216 / 170 / Maximum level speed mph
12,250 / 7,500 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
54,500 / 57,500 / 51,500 / Maximum gross weight at which level flight can be
maintained, continuous cruising power on rich mixture.
5,000 / 5,000 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
Merlin XX / Hercules VI / Twin Wasp S3C4-G / Weights
18,700 / 18,700 / 18,700 / Structure weight: wings, fuselage, tail,
undercarriage, fuel tanks, engine sub mountings, nacelle fairings, general
hydraulics, flying controls.
10,720 / 12,085 / 10,200 / Power plant weight
29,420 / 30,785 / 28,900 / Empty weight sub total
3,910 / 3,910 / 3,910 / Fixed military load and armour
1,900 / 1,900 / 1,900 / Removable military load
1,200 / 1,200 / 1,200 / 6 Crew and parachutes
36,430 / 37,795 / 35,910 / Weight less fuel, oil and bombs sub total
23,570 / 23,570 / 23,570 / Fuel, oil, bombs
60,000 / 61,365 / 59,480 / Gross weight
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist
motion, whirrrrrr ..... plop.
Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
around here.
Secondly here are the usually quoted official weights and performance
figures for the Avro Lancaster, from the book by Harry Holmes.
Production Lancaster I. Range 2,530 miles with 7,000 pound bomb
load, 1,730 miles with 12,000 pounds, 1,550 miles with 22,000 pounds
Tankage 2,154 gallons.
Maximum speeds 287 mph at 11,500 feet, 275 mph at 15,000 feet,
260 mph at 19,400 feet. Cruising speeds 234 mph at 21,000 feet,
200 mph at 15,000 feet
Service ceiling 23,000 feet, absolute ceiling 24,500 feet
Weights in pounds. The / are of course column markers.
Jan-42 / Sep-42 / Nov-42 / May-44 / Early 1945 / Month
I / II / I / I & III / I & III Overload / Mark
17,064 / 17,064 / 17,776 / 18,033 / 17,633 / Structure
10,720 / 12,335 / 11,304 / 11,610 / 11,610 / Power plants
1,796 / 1,796 / 1,990 / 1,999 / 1,999 / Fuel and oil tanks
29,580 / 31,195 / 31,070 / 31,642 / 31,242 / Empty weight
4,120 / 4,120 / 4,334 / 5,169 / 4,589 / Fixed military load
33,700 / 35,315 / 35,404 / 36,811 / 35,831 / Tare weight
26,300 / 24,685 / 27,596 / 28,189 / 36,169 / load
60,000 / 60,000 / 63,000 / 65,000 / 72,000 / Gross Weight
5,120 / 6,200 / 5,120 / 6,440 / 6,440 / take off power bhp
46.26 / 46.26 / 48.57 / 50.12 / 55.51 / Wing load lb/sq ft
5.77 / 5.77 / 6.06 / 6.25 / 6.92 / Span load lb/sq ft
11.72 / 9.68 / 12.30 / 10.09 / 11.18 / Power load lb/bhp
Thirdly to the document from the Australian Archives, unfortunately
undated, it reads as a form of wartime sales brochure, and is
connected to the local desire to have a Lancaster production line
in Australia, which became the post war Lincoln production line.
Hence the twin wasp engine option, given Australia was
manufacturing the engine. The photograph in the file is of Lincoln
RE228.
The weights quoted are clearly from the earlier Lancaster production
and/or the prototypes. To give some sort of idea of a possible date
of writing consider,
Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
Lancaster I production began in October 1941
Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
Anyway from now on comes the document. Most of the numbers are at
the end. Including a very detailed break down of fixed and removable
military load. Weights in pounds.
Avro Lancaster
General Description
The Avro Lancaster is a four-engined mid-wing monoplane of all metal
construction, designed to operate as a heavy bomber. The aircraft may also
be used as a long range general reconnaissance type.
The overall dimensions area: Span 102 feet, length 70 feet, height 19 feet 6
inches, wing area 1,300 square feet. The maximum loaded weight is 60,000
pounds. A crew of six is usually carried.
Fuel tankage for a still air range of 3,000 miles, at an economical cruising
speed of 200/215 m.p.h. is provided. All the fuel tanks are in the wing and
they are of the self sealing type. Jettison valves are fitted to jettison
1,000 gallons.
For reinforcing flights where very long distances have to be covered,
additional fuel tanks can be mounted inside the bomb compartment.
The official test figures for the prototype Lancaster gave a cruising speed
of 285 m.p.h. at the continuous cruising power of the Merlin XX engines
using weak mixture, but at this cruising speed the range with standard
tankage is reduced, as shown in the accompanying charts.
Bomb loads of up to 12,750 pounds can be carried.
All the bomb load is carried in one large compartment which forms the lower
portion of the fuselage and which is closed by means of two long doors which
conform to the streamline shape of the fuselage and are hydraulically
operated. This arrangement of bomb compartment enables all the standard
sizes of bomb to be accommodated, including the latest very large bombs.
The bomb carriers and bomb housings are of the Avro type, which has been
standardised for use in the R.A.F.
An effective bomb sighting position is provided in the extreme nose of the
fuselage.
An important feature of the design is that a large variety of different
types of power plant can be installed. This is made possible by the use of
easily detachable sub-mounting frames.
The Lancaster can be supplied either as a twin engined aeroplane or a four
engined aeroplane, using engines of 2,000 h.p. or 1,000 h.p. For example
power unit installations are already designed, or are in the process of
design to accommodate the following engines:- Four engined, Rolls Royce
Merlin XX or Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp or Bristol Hercules. Twin engined,
Rolls Royce Vulture, Bristol Centaurus, Napier Sabre.
The Lancaster is at present in production using the Rolls Royce Merlin XX
engines.
The airscrews are of the fully feathering, constant speed type.
Design developments are in hand to adapt the aircraft for ultra high
altitude operation.
The Lancaster is provided with a very effective defence, consisting of three
power operated gun turrets. These comprise, a twin gun nose turret, a four
gun tail turret and a twin gun mid-upper turret. All the guns can be
brought to bear on the beam converging at a distance of about 100 yards from
the aircraft, and the mid upper turret provides effective reinforcing fire
for both the rear and forward turrets.
This strong defensive armament, coupled with the very high speed of the
aircraft, makes the Lancaster a very difficult machine to attack by
fighters.
The Lancaster is remarkably controllable for its size, which enables it to
take effective evasive action when attacked and also during bombing
operations.
Excellent armouring is provided. This consists of an armour plate bulkhead
in the form of two large doors, which completely bulkhead off the forward
crew compartment. The pilot's seat is provided with separate armour and the
fire control station alongside the pilot is fitted with a bullet proof glass
shield to protect the fire control officer's head and shoulders.
The construction of the Lancaster airframe is simple. A great deal of care
was taken during the design stage to simplify both the main components and
the details; this simplicity of construction has been well proved in actual
manufacture.
The materials mainly used throughout the airframe are aluminium alloy and
steel, aluminium alloy forming the major portion of the constructional
material.
Hydraulic power is provided for the operation of undercarriage, landing
flaps, bomb doors, gun turrets, airscrews, etc.
Electrical power is provided for engine starting, radio, intercommunication
telephones, lighting, instrument operation, bomb fusing and firing, etc.
Cabin heating is provided and this has been tested to high altitudes and low
temperatures with very satisfactory results. The cabin heating is
controllable and can be varied to suit the temperature at which the aircraft
is operating.
The pilot and fire control officer are accommodated in a roomy cabin which
has a completely transparent top raised above the general top of the
fuselage and carefully streamlined. This raised canopy gives them an
exceptionally good all round field of view, which is considered to be a
valuable military asset, particularly when the aircraft is subjected to air
attack.
The pilot's windscreen is provided with a clear vision panel which can be
opened without any draught entering, and in addition the main windscreen is
fitted with windscreen wipers.
The pilot's seat and rudder pedals are bit adjustable for height and
distance, so that pilots of different heights can be comfortably seated.
Single control is provided for the pilot, but dual controls can be installed
for instructional purposes.
An automatic pilot is fitted to relieve the pilot of flying strain during
the long flights, or under conditions of blind flying. Blind landing
apparatus is installed.
The large dimensions of the fuselage enable all the standard military
equipment to be accommodated and the Lancaster is particularly well equipped
in this respect.
For reinforcing flights, additional seats can be fitted in the fuselage to
seat twelve squadron personnel.
Side light and roof lights are fitted along the fuselage so that the
interior is sufficiently light to enable work to be carried on during the
day time without artificial lighting. Curtains are fitted for night
operations.
Emergency parachute exits are fitted in the bottom of the fuselage and
emergency exits on the top of the fuselage for use in the case of a forced
landing with the undercarriage up and where the main door maybe jammed.
Construction.
Fuselage
The fuselage is a straight forward light alloy monocoque, built up on a
framework of hoops and stringers with flush rivetted skin.
To facilitate manufacture and transport, the fuselage is divided into five
sections which are fastened together by rings of bolts at the transport
joints. This sub division of the fuselage has proved of great value, as it
enables a large number of work people to operate at the same time without
interfering with one another. Where strong points are necessary, use is made
of high grade aluminium alloy forgings and castings.
The hoops or formers are developed from sheet in presses. The stringers may
be either of extruded aluminium alloy sections or drawn sections made from
strip. Alternatives are provided in the drawings.
Wing
The wing is of the two spar type with pressed ribs and flush riveted
covering. Like the fuselage, the wing is constructed in a number of
sections which are bolted together. This is done to facilitate construction
and transport.
Compartments are fitted in the wing to contain the fuel tanks, the
undercarriage and the emergency dinghy. The leading edge of the wing is
fitted with B.B.P. gear.
Frise type ailerons are employed and these are mounted on self aligning ball
bearings. The trailing edge flaps are of the conventional split trailing
edge type.
The centre section leading edge is arranged to fold upwards easily to give
access to the engine controls, electrical cables, hydraulic piping, etc.
Inspection doors are fitted wherever necessary to give easy access to
interior piping, wiring, etc.
Tailplane
The construction of the tailplane is on the same lines as that of the main
plane. The elevator is a welded tubular structure with fabric covering and
is both mass balanced and aerodynamically balanced. Trimming tabs are
fitted for operation by the pilot.
Fins and Rudders.
The twin fins and rudders are both metal covered structures and the rudders
are fitted with trimming tabs to relieve the load on the pilot's foot when
flying with one or two engines stopped on one side. The trimmers are
sufficiently powerful to enable this to be done without any load on the
pilot's foot.
Undercarriage.
The undercarriage is of a very simple design for so large an aeroplane. Two
independent units are used, one under each of the inboard engine supporting
points. The undercarriages are hydraulically operated and retract backwards
onto a fairing which is a continuation of the inboard engine nacelles. When
retracted, the undercarriages are completely enclosed by means of doors
which are coupled to the undercarriage themselves and thus automatically
open and shut when the undercarriages are lowered and raised. A long travel
is provided on the shock absorber struts, which are of the air-cum-oil type,
the air acting as the taxying spring and the oil providing the hydraulic
energy absorption. Efficient wheel brakes are incorporated, which are
operated by compressed air from a control on the pilot's wheel.
Tail wheel.
The tail wheel is not retractable. The shock absorber is of the air-cum-oil
type. The tail wheel can rotate through 360 degrees for manoeuvering on the
ground and the whole unit can be removed from the aircraft by the removal of
one large bolt.
Flying controls.
The flying controls are of the column and wheel and foot pedal type; either
single control or dual control can be fitted. The dual control consists of
attachments to the single control. The rudder pedals are quickly adjustable
to suit pilots of different heights. The forces from the control column and
foot pedals are transmitted through the aircraft by means of push-pull
control rods. All control services are mounted on ball bearing hinges of
the self aligning type. A folding seat alongside the first pilot's seat
provides a side by side pilots' station.
Engine controls.
Particular care has been taken in the design of the engine controls to
provide easy and exact operation of the carburettor, mixture, airscrews,
etc. The system is mechanical and consists of levers connected by means of
chains and sprockets and tie rods. The engine control system is given a
small degree of pretension which eliminates all backlash. The engine
controls are mounted throughout on ball bearings. This system of engine
controls, whilst somewhat elaborate, is remarkably free of friction and
enables the rather heavy loads which have to be dealt with in large sized
engines to be easily overcome by the pilot. Freedom from backlash gives the
accuracy of the control necessary for Constant Speed airscrews. These
engine controls are very free from maintenance troubles.
Bomb Installation.
The bomb installation is very simple, consisting of one long compartment
forming the bottom portion of the fuselage. Fifteen bomb housings are
provided in five rows of three. The bomb gear is in two parts, consisting of
a carrier which is attached to the bomb and a housing for the carrier which
is built into the aircraft structure. The housing contains a supporting
hook and an adjustable crutch.
The method of loading the bomb into the aircraft is as follows:-
The bomb carrier is placed on the bomb and the electro magnetic release slip
engaged with the lug on the top of the bomb.
The crutching jaws on the carrier are then screwed down by means of the two
integral handles and the bomb is then ready to be hoisted into position.
Whilst this is being done, another man inside the aircraft removes the cover
from the housing and lowers down the hoisting cable. The cable has a ball
at its end which engages with a socket on the bomb carrier.
The man inside the aircraft then winds up the bomb and the bomb carrier
automatically engages in the bomb housing.
The loader then screws down the crutching jaws and the bomb is thus secured
in position.
He next engages the hoisting cable, plugs in the electric lead to the
carrier and re-fits the cover over the housing.
Two men can load a 500 pound bomb into the aircraft in two and a half
minutes. As it is possible for several teams of men to work at one time,
the aircraft can be re-bombed in a very short space of time.
This system of bomb carrying and loading was produced by A.V. Roe & Co., and
has been adopted as the standard system for the R.A.F. new type aircraft.
The bomb compartment has been designed to take all the different types of
bomb, including small bomb containers and the new very large size bombs.
Bomb Aimer's Station
The bomb aimer's station is in the extreme nose of the fuselage and the bomb
aimer is provided with a cushioned kneeling position, which is considered to
be more comfortable that either a prone position or a seated position. A
large hemispherical transparent dome gives him a very good field of view.
The actual bomb sighting is done through a large diameter circular glass
panel of special design which can be electrically heated to avoid frosting
and misting. Brackets are provided to carry a variety of bomb sights.
The official flight trials of the Lancaster have proved this aircraft to be
both stable and controllable. The Lancaster is particularly manoeuverable
for such a large machine and its controls are light and effective so that it
is not tiring to fly for long periods. The machine responds exceptionally
well to the automatic control, which can be used to relieve the pilot of
flying strain. The take off and landing is straight forward and easy. The
Lancaster can be described as an easy aircraft to fly, which makes it
particularly suitable for night operations. The pilots have a particularly
good view in all directions, including a backward view which is provided by
the raised canopy over the cockpit. Very efficient cabin heating is
installed so that the crew can perform their duties in comfort when flying
under conditions of very low temperature.
Structural Strength
The Lancaster aircraft structure is designed for a normal loaded weight if
50,000 pounds with an increase of 20% to 60,000 pounds as an overload weight
occurring at the commencement of the flight. The maximum weight at which
the normal landing requirements are met is 50,000 pounds. The strength of
the structure is up to the following standards:
At 50,000 lb / At 60,000 lb / Flight Cases
5.7 / 4.75 / 1. Normal horizontal flight C.P Forward
4.0 / 3.5 / 2. Normal horizontal flight C.P back
2.0 / 2.0 / 3. Steady diving flaps up at 400 m.p.h.
2.0 / 2.0 / 4. Steady diving flaps down at 200 m.p.h.
5. The requirements of A.P.970 and all current A.D.M's applicable to this
type of aircraft, and met at the normal weight of 50,000 pounds.
Landing cases
1. The aircraft at the weight of 50,000 pounds is able to withstand impact
with the ground at a vertical velocity of 12 feet per second. At this
velocity the impact does not exceed three times the weight of the aircraft.
The ultimate factor for the undercarriage when subjected to this impact load
is 1.33 and for the remainder of the structure is 1.5
2. The landing requirements of A.P.970, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4, are met at
the weight of 50,000 pounds. The main governing requirement is the
"combined loading" case of 4W upwards, 1 W backwards with 0.4W sideways on
one wheel inwards and 0.35W sideways on the other wheel outwards.
3. At the overload weight of 60,000 pounds the ultimate factor when the
aeroplane is at rest is 4.0.
Dimensions in Feet / Inches
102 / 0 / Wing span
69 / 4 / Overall length - tail up
68 / 10 / Overall length - tail down
19 / 3 / Overall height - tail up
19 / 6 / Overall height - tail down
Wing aspect ratio 8.02
102 / 0 / Wing span
16 / 0 / Root chord
12 / 8.6 / Mean chord (Geometric)
Wing incidence, 4 degrees
Wing dihedral - outer wing, 7 degrees
45 / 7 / Span of wing fitted with flaps
18 / 0 / Span of Ailerons (one)
23 / 9 / Undercarriage track
33 / 0 / Tail plane span
8 / 6.5 / Tail root chord
12 / 2 / Height of end pin and rudder
Areas in Square Feet
1297 / Gross wing area including ailerons
1205 / Nett wing area including ailerons
90.3 / Aileron Area (total)
146.3 / Flap Area (total)
237.2 / Tail plane and elevator area (gross)
87.5 / Elevator area including balance and trimmers
Percentage balance area, 29.53%
4.22 / Area of elevator servo trimmers
2.85 / Area of elevator adjustable trimmers
111.6 / Area of end fins and rudders
72.4 / Area of end fins
39.2 / Area of rudders including balance and trimmers
Percentage balance area, 18.2%
2.21 / Area of rudder trimmers
Weights.
1,300 / Wing Ribs including engine and fuel tank mounting ribs
1,380 / Wing front spar
955 / Wing rear spar
101 / Spar joints
170 / Wing stringers
1,025 / Wing skin covering
149 / Flaps, centre section
125 / Flaps, outer wing
125 / Flap operating tubes and links
200 / Wing tips
190 / Ailerons
130 / Wing centre section leading edges
770 / Wing sundry fittings, bolts, joints to fuselage, paint, trailing
edges, dummy spars, shrouds etc.
150 / Access doors for fuel tanks.
6,770 / Total Wing structure weight
497 / Fuselage formers
343 / Fuselage stringers
721 / Fuselage skin covering
980 / Fuselage main floors
74 / Fuselage walkways
180 / Canopy
63 / Windows
110 / Seats
51 / Fuselage former extensions below main floor
58 / Flying control guards
170 / Cabin heating
490 / Bomb doors
233 / Fuselage sundry fittings, doors, bolts etc.
3,970 / Total fuselage weight
464 / Tailplane
206 / Elevators, including mass balance
164 / Fins
117 / Rudders, including mass balance
951 / Total tail unit weight
640 / Undercarriage shock absorber struts and bracing
100 / Wheel axles
252 / Undercarriage radius rods and locks
230 / Undercarriage retracting jacks and bracing
1,180 / Undercarriage main wheels and tyres
110 / Undercarriage brakes
280 / Tailwheel and shock absorber strut
2,792 / Total undercarriage and tail wheel weight
463 / Engine sub mounting frames, undercarriage beams and bracing on front
spar
130 / Inboard engine sub mounting frames
6 / Inboard sub mounting bolts
285 / Outboard sub frames
40 / Outboard front spar attachment channels
12 / Outboard rear spar attachment channels
5 / Outboard sub mounting bolts
941 / Total weight, sub mounting frames on wings
702 / Fuel tanks including protective covering and fuel jettisoning (Centre
section)
550 / Fuel tanks including protective covering and fuel jettisoning
(Inboard - Outer wing)
200 / Fuel tanks including protective covering (Outboard - Outer wing)
244 / Oil tanks including protective covering
100 / Tank mounting straps
1,796 / Total fuel and oil tanks weight
580 / Nacelle fairings aft of fireproof bulkheads
600 / Hydraulics - general services
300 / Flying controls, including dual
18,700 / Total Structure weight: wings, fuselage, tail, undercarriage, fuel
tanks, engine sub mountings, nacelle fairings, general hydraulics, flying
controls.
1,200 / 6 Crew and including parachutes
15,336 / 2130 gallons of fuel
1,026 / 114 gallons of oil
7,000 / Bomb load
208 / Bomb carriers
23,570 / Load for maximum range
9,796 / 1361 gallons of fuel
639 / 71 gallons of oil
12,750 / Bomb load
385 / Bomb carriers
23,570 / Load for maximum bombs
Military load weights
Fixed / Removable
261 / 179 / Front turret (FN.5A) Guns and ammunition (2,000 rounds)
320 / 179 / Mid Upper turret (FN.7) Guns and ammunition (2,000 rounds)
370 / 490 / Rear turret (FN.20) Guns and ammunition (6,000 rounds)
240 / / Turret hydraulic systems
105 / / Ammunition boxes, tracks and mountings for rear turret
385 / 6 / Fixed bomb gear and fusing gear
20 / 38 / Bomb sighting and mounting
49 / 245 / Pyrotechnics, pistol, distress signals, training and
reconnaissance flares and mountings etc.
740 / 5 / Electrics, including generators and accumulators
203 / 90 / Instruments, engine, flying and navigational, including 6 sea
markers and dead reckoning compass
8 / 39 / F.24 Camera
109 / 233 / Oxygen equipment (16 bottles)
97 / / Automatic controls
35 / 54 / Dinghy
145 / 94 / Miscellaneous, including fire extinguishers, safety belts,
rations, water bottles and mountings.
91 / 142 / Wireless Telegraphy, Direction Finding and power supply
25 / 5 / Intercommunication
7 / 28 / Pilots TR9F radio
35 / 40 / Lorenz blind approach
15 / 33 / R.3003
230 / / De icing equipment, tail and airscrews
120 / / Anti barrage equipment
300 / / Armour plating
3,910 / 1,900 / Total weight, fixed and removable military loads
Engine weights (4 engines and propellers) for three powerplant options
Merlin XX / Hercules VI / Twin Wasp S3C4-G /
5,200 / 5,900 / 4,800 / Take off power, BHP
5,720 / 7,460 / 5,940 / Engines - dry
9 / 10 / 10 / Air compressors
66 / 172 / 172 / Electric starters
10 / / / Hand turning gear
31 / 29 / 29 / Constant speed governor unit
16 / 16 / 16 / Vacuum pumps
168 / 120 / 113 / Air intakes, hot and cold
70 Auxiliary gear boxes
328 / 440 / 400 / Engine mountings
228 / 588 / 500 / Exhausts
1,282 / / / Cooling system and coolant
182 / 260 / 220 / Oil coolers and mounting
130 / 130 / 130 / Oil system, pipes, filters etc.
210 / 210 / 210 / Fuel system, pipes, filters etc.
200 / 200 / 200 / Engine controls
1,480 / 1,480 / 1,440 / Airscrews (Rotol)
140 / 160 / 140 / Fireproof bulkheads
520 / 360 / 340 / Engine cowling
/ 160 / 140 / Additional cowling behind engines
/ 220 / 200 / Cooling gills and mechanism
10,720 / 12,085 / 10,200 / Total engine and airscrew weight
4 engine performance
300 / 315 / 265 / Maximum level speed mph
21,000 / 17,500 / 13,100 / At altitude, feet
260 / 270 / 217 / Cruising speed, maximum economic power - weak mixture
21,000 / 21,500 / 17,000 / At altitude, feet
16 / 16 / 24 / Time to climb to 15,000 feet, minutes
25,800 / 23,800 / 17,100 / Service ceiling, feet
3 engine performance
250 / 270 / 230 / Maximum level speed mph
12,250 / 17,500 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
205 / 218 / / Cruising speed, maximum economic power - weak mixture
13,800 / 14,000 / / At altitude, feet
20,300 / 18,100 / 12,000 / Service ceiling, feet
2 engine performance
180 / 216 / 170 / Maximum level speed mph
12,250 / 7,500 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
54,500 / 57,500 / 51,500 / Maximum gross weight at which level flight can be
maintained, continuous cruising power on rich mixture.
5,000 / 5,000 / 5,000 / At altitude, feet
Merlin XX / Hercules VI / Twin Wasp S3C4-G / Weights
18,700 / 18,700 / 18,700 / Structure weight: wings, fuselage, tail,
undercarriage, fuel tanks, engine sub mountings, nacelle fairings, general
hydraulics, flying controls.
10,720 / 12,085 / 10,200 / Power plant weight
29,420 / 30,785 / 28,900 / Empty weight sub total
3,910 / 3,910 / 3,910 / Fixed military load and armour
1,900 / 1,900 / 1,900 / Removable military load
1,200 / 1,200 / 1,200 / 6 Crew and parachutes
36,430 / 37,795 / 35,910 / Weight less fuel, oil and bombs sub total
23,570 / 23,570 / 23,570 / Fuel, oil, bombs
60,000 / 61,365 / 59,480 / Gross weight
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2020, 10:17:47 AM3/26/20
to
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:Qo6dnTtUiKN9GuHD...@westnet.com.au...
Did the RAF ever admit that deleting the ventral turret was a welcomed
gift to enemy night fighters?
news:Qo6dnTtUiKN9GuHD...@westnet.com.au...
Did the RAF ever admit that deleting the ventral turret was a welcomed
gift to enemy night fighters?
Keith Willshaw
Mar 26, 2020, 10:20:56 AM3/26/20
to
On 26/03/2020 10:45, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>
> Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
> Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
> Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
> Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
> Lancaster I production began in October 1941
> Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
>
> The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
> until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
>
Well the Vulture was the engine selected for its predecessor, the Avro
>
> Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
> Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
> Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
> Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
> Lancaster I production began in October 1941
> Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
>
> The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
> until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
>
Manchester but proved to be very unreliable and if an engine failed on
takeoff with a full bomb load the aircraft usually crashed killing al on
board and on at least one occasion a number of people on the ground.
The Air Ministry wanted to use the Vulture as there was a shortage of
Merlins at the time. very unreliable but it was dropped after 177
Manchesters had been built. One of the foibles of the original
specification ( P.13/36.) was that the aircraft be capable of dive bombing.
Roy Chadwick had always been unhappy with the Vulture and had a design
for a 4 engined version under the name Manchester III to get it past the
Air Ministry. The Manchester was so unpopular in RAF service that the
Manchester III became the Lancaster
The Sabre was dropped as an option because of production difficulties,
basically Napier just couldnt get the quality right. The few that were
available before 1944 were earmarked for the Hawker Typhoon.
Because of the problems with Merlin supply a number, 300 I think, were
produced with the Bristol Hercules radial engine.
The Canadian built aircraft used Packard Merlins of course
The Vickers Warwick was was built as a 2 engined heavy bomber and it was
powered by either Double Wasp or Bristol Centaurus engines but those
were in such short supply that only 86 had been built by the end of 1941
which rose to around 176 by mid 1943 and the type ended up being used by
Coastal Command and for transport duties as by then the RAF was sold on
the 4 engined heavy bomber.
Last November I had the privilege to be at the East Kirkby Aviation
Heritage centre when they were doing taxi runs down the runwway with the
Lancaster that has been lovingly restored. Their aim is to get it flying
again.
The current restoration project is a de Havilland Mosquito, not bad for
an organisation found by 2 local farmers when they heard the plan was to
scrap it, bulldoze the hangers and return the place to farming.
https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/
Geoffrey Sinclair
Mar 26, 2020, 12:42:55 PM3/26/20
to
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5ido7$68l$1...@dont-email.me...
being pushed to, as designed the Vulture power output was reasonable
for the planned Manchester, but then came significant weight gains.
Check out the book The Avro Manchester by Robert Kirby, second edition.
> The Air Ministry wanted to use the Vulture as there was a shortage of
> Merlins at the time. very unreliable but it was dropped after 177
> Manchesters had been built. One of the foibles of the original
> specification ( P.13/36.) was that the aircraft be capable of dive
> bombing.
The dive bombing and catapult launching requirements, the first was
dropped in April 1940 as the requirement for a 60 degree dive was
finally considered unobtainable, the second dropped in July 1938.
The weight of the Stirling and so its overall performance is attributed
by some at least to the catapult requirement.
Apart from the 2 prototypes there were 200 Manchesters built, 43 by
Metropolitan Vickers and 157 from Avro, but the Avro total contains
L7517 which was burnt out in the works and deleted from the contract,
probably before it flew.
Rolls Royce say they built 506 Vulture II and 6 Vulture V. If you assume
in 1941 every production Vulture ever built was available to be fitted to
Manchesters there was a deficiency of 19 engines in August 1941,
growing to 35 in October. The final 175 Vulture II were built November
1941 to March 1942, versus 19 Manchesters.
The Bomber Command Losses books list 94 Manchester lost by the
operational units, 9 definitely to engine failure. On the other hand
55 out of 539 Mosquito losses are also definitely due to engine failure,
as are 92 out of 1,893 Wellington losses.
> Roy Chadwick had always been unhappy with the Vulture and had a design for
> a 4 engined version under the name Manchester III to get it past the Air
> Ministry. The Manchester was so unpopular in RAF service that the
> Manchester III became the Lancaster
>
> The Sabre was dropped as an option because of production difficulties,
> basically Napier just couldnt get the quality right. The few that were
> available before 1944 were earmarked for the Hawker Typhoon.
Correct about Napier and production, they were taken over by English
Electric and that made a real improvement in build quality. In any case
like with the Vulture just keeping up with its first customer, the Typhoon,
airframe production was a problem. So by end May 1943 1,200
production Typhoons had been built, versus 1,392 Sabre. Airframes
were being "slaved to purgatory storage", slave components, like
engine and propeller, fitted to do trials, ferry the airframe to storage,
then be removed and returned to the factory. This would happen to
Tempests as well in 1944/45.
Sabre engine production in 1943 struggled to stay over 100 a month,
it managed around 150 a month from early 1944 which was just
keeping pace with the combined Typhoon and Tempest production.
Production of the Merlin XX to 25 was well over 1,000 a month in 1944,
until the production wind down began in late 1944.
> Because of the problems with Merlin supply a number, 300 I think, were
> produced with the Bristol Hercules radial engine.
300 is correct, not an actual problem but an insurance policy if one
did happen. To end August 1942, the month the first Lancaster II was
built, Derby had produced 2,205 Merlin XX, Crewe 3,355, Glasgow
5,235 and Ford 2,264. Crewe had also built 664 Merlin 21. And yes
the Merlin XX was in other aircraft.
> The Canadian built aircraft used Packard Merlins of course
As did the mark III, first production also August 1942.
> The Vickers Warwick was was built as a 2 engined heavy bomber and it was
> powered by either Double Wasp or Bristol Centaurus engines but those were
> in such short supply that only 86 had been built by the end of 1941 which
> rose to around 176 by mid 1943 and the type ended up being used by Coastal
> Command and for transport duties as by then the RAF was sold on the 4
> engined heavy bomber.
The figures I have is Centaurus IV production started in October 1942, with
8 built by the end of the year and 173 by end July 1943 and 474 by end
December, plus 16 Centaurus VII.
The Warwick offered nothing superior to what was in production, it required
Twin Wasp, Sabre or Centaurus engines, or at least that sort of power
level and maximum bomb load was 8,000 pounds.
Production started in July 1942, I think the engine split is
Twin Wasp mark I, III and VI
Centaurus mark II and V
16 B.I, 40 B(ASR).I, 14 C.I (BOAC), 235 ASR.I, 118 GR.II, 14 (MET).II,
100 C.III, 211 GR.V, 94 ASR.VI, plus 2 mark I and 1 mark II prototype.
Production finished in May 1946, total 845 of which 564 had been
built to the end of 1944.
> Last November I had the privilege to be at the East Kirkby Aviation
> Heritage centre when they were doing taxi runs down the runwway with the
> Lancaster that has been lovingly restored. Their aim is to get it flying
> again.
I sort of have mixed feelings about them trying.
> The current restoration project is a de Havilland Mosquito, not bad for an
> organisation found by 2 local farmers when they heard the plan was to
> scrap it, bulldoze the hangers and return the place to farming.
Agreed.
> https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/
news:r5ido7$68l$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 26/03/2020 10:45, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
>> Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
>> Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
>> Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
>> Lancaster I production began in October 1941
>> Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
>>
>> The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
>> until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
>
> Well the Vulture was the engine selected for its predecessor, the Avro
> Manchester but proved to be very unreliable and if an engine failed on
> takeoff with a full bomb load the aircraft usually crashed killing al on
> board and on at least one occasion a number of people on the ground.
That was a fundamental problem of twins at the weights they were
>
>> Centaurus engine production started in October 1942, Sabre in Q4/1940
>> Lancaster 1st prototype BT308 first flight 9 January 1941
>> Lancaster 2nd prototype DG595 first flight 13 May 1941.
>> Lancaster II prototype DT810 first flight 26 November 1941
>> Lancaster I production began in October 1941
>> Lancaster II production began in August 1942.
>>
>> The idea the Sabre could be fitted to a number of aircraft was current
>> until mid war, probably 1942. The Vulture maybe 1941.
>
> Well the Vulture was the engine selected for its predecessor, the Avro
> Manchester but proved to be very unreliable and if an engine failed on
> takeoff with a full bomb load the aircraft usually crashed killing al on
> board and on at least one occasion a number of people on the ground.
being pushed to, as designed the Vulture power output was reasonable
for the planned Manchester, but then came significant weight gains.
Check out the book The Avro Manchester by Robert Kirby, second edition.
> The Air Ministry wanted to use the Vulture as there was a shortage of
> Merlins at the time. very unreliable but it was dropped after 177
> Manchesters had been built. One of the foibles of the original
> specification ( P.13/36.) was that the aircraft be capable of dive
> bombing.
dropped in April 1940 as the requirement for a 60 degree dive was
finally considered unobtainable, the second dropped in July 1938.
The weight of the Stirling and so its overall performance is attributed
by some at least to the catapult requirement.
Apart from the 2 prototypes there were 200 Manchesters built, 43 by
Metropolitan Vickers and 157 from Avro, but the Avro total contains
L7517 which was burnt out in the works and deleted from the contract,
probably before it flew.
Rolls Royce say they built 506 Vulture II and 6 Vulture V. If you assume
in 1941 every production Vulture ever built was available to be fitted to
Manchesters there was a deficiency of 19 engines in August 1941,
growing to 35 in October. The final 175 Vulture II were built November
1941 to March 1942, versus 19 Manchesters.
The Bomber Command Losses books list 94 Manchester lost by the
operational units, 9 definitely to engine failure. On the other hand
55 out of 539 Mosquito losses are also definitely due to engine failure,
as are 92 out of 1,893 Wellington losses.
> Roy Chadwick had always been unhappy with the Vulture and had a design for
> a 4 engined version under the name Manchester III to get it past the Air
> Ministry. The Manchester was so unpopular in RAF service that the
> Manchester III became the Lancaster
>
> The Sabre was dropped as an option because of production difficulties,
> basically Napier just couldnt get the quality right. The few that were
> available before 1944 were earmarked for the Hawker Typhoon.
Electric and that made a real improvement in build quality. In any case
like with the Vulture just keeping up with its first customer, the Typhoon,
airframe production was a problem. So by end May 1943 1,200
production Typhoons had been built, versus 1,392 Sabre. Airframes
were being "slaved to purgatory storage", slave components, like
engine and propeller, fitted to do trials, ferry the airframe to storage,
then be removed and returned to the factory. This would happen to
Tempests as well in 1944/45.
Sabre engine production in 1943 struggled to stay over 100 a month,
it managed around 150 a month from early 1944 which was just
keeping pace with the combined Typhoon and Tempest production.
Production of the Merlin XX to 25 was well over 1,000 a month in 1944,
until the production wind down began in late 1944.
> Because of the problems with Merlin supply a number, 300 I think, were
> produced with the Bristol Hercules radial engine.
did happen. To end August 1942, the month the first Lancaster II was
built, Derby had produced 2,205 Merlin XX, Crewe 3,355, Glasgow
5,235 and Ford 2,264. Crewe had also built 664 Merlin 21. And yes
the Merlin XX was in other aircraft.
> The Canadian built aircraft used Packard Merlins of course
> The Vickers Warwick was was built as a 2 engined heavy bomber and it was
> powered by either Double Wasp or Bristol Centaurus engines but those were
> in such short supply that only 86 had been built by the end of 1941 which
> rose to around 176 by mid 1943 and the type ended up being used by Coastal
> Command and for transport duties as by then the RAF was sold on the 4
> engined heavy bomber.
8 built by the end of the year and 173 by end July 1943 and 474 by end
December, plus 16 Centaurus VII.
The Warwick offered nothing superior to what was in production, it required
Twin Wasp, Sabre or Centaurus engines, or at least that sort of power
level and maximum bomb load was 8,000 pounds.
Production started in July 1942, I think the engine split is
Twin Wasp mark I, III and VI
Centaurus mark II and V
16 B.I, 40 B(ASR).I, 14 C.I (BOAC), 235 ASR.I, 118 GR.II, 14 (MET).II,
100 C.III, 211 GR.V, 94 ASR.VI, plus 2 mark I and 1 mark II prototype.
Production finished in May 1946, total 845 of which 564 had been
built to the end of 1944.
> Last November I had the privilege to be at the East Kirkby Aviation
> Heritage centre when they were doing taxi runs down the runwway with the
> Lancaster that has been lovingly restored. Their aim is to get it flying
> again.
> The current restoration project is a de Havilland Mosquito, not bad for an
> organisation found by 2 local farmers when they heard the plan was to
> scrap it, bulldoze the hangers and return the place to farming.
> https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/
Geoffrey Sinclair
Mar 26, 2020, 12:43:01 PM3/26/20
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5idi9$50m$1...@dont-email.me...
> Did the RAF ever admit that deleting the ventral turret was a welcomed
> gift to enemy night fighters?
No, mainly because it was not a working solution.
The turret "clear view was at least restricted", "downward search
angles were limited to between 30 and 80 degrees", it required
another crew member looking out a fuselage window to direct fire.
Plus a whole host of other problems from the 1940 trials in the
Manchester, including being unable to retract at normal cruising
speed, three men in the fuselage pulling were needed to do that.
The initial speed loss was 16 mph at 220 mph, that was reduced
by later modifications. Oil leaks from further forward, mainly the
bomb bay doors, tended to smear the turret, further obscuring vision..
As a first attempt it had its good points, as a loss cutter in night
missions it would probably cost more than it saved.
news:r5idi9$50m$1...@dont-email.me...
> Did the RAF ever admit that deleting the ventral turret was a welcomed
> gift to enemy night fighters?
The turret "clear view was at least restricted", "downward search
angles were limited to between 30 and 80 degrees", it required
another crew member looking out a fuselage window to direct fire.
Plus a whole host of other problems from the 1940 trials in the
Manchester, including being unable to retract at normal cruising
speed, three men in the fuselage pulling were needed to do that.
The initial speed loss was 16 mph at 220 mph, that was reduced
by later modifications. Oil leaks from further forward, mainly the
bomb bay doors, tended to smear the turret, further obscuring vision..
As a first attempt it had its good points, as a loss cutter in night
missions it would probably cost more than it saved.
Peter Stickney
Apr 15, 2020, 5:43:04 PM4/15/20
to
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:45:48 +1100, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Firstly an interlude.
>
> Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
>
> Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist motion,
> whirrrrrr ..... plop.
>
> Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
> around here.
From the Stygian Depths of a brackish Florida Estuary a large dark shape
> Firstly an interlude.
>
> Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
>
> Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist motion,
> whirrrrrr ..... plop.
>
> Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
> around here.
rises - No, not a Huge Manatee, but a transplanted North Country
Sasquatch, who greedily takes the bait.
Sorry to have been off the air - I had a system upgrade go decidedly
sideways off the rails, and my cleverly thought out backup plan was
skewered by unexpected behavior of Microsoft's New Giant Economy Size
File System on my external backup device.
Then the Plague set in, and I and my team have been busy keeping our
chunk of the economic infrastructure intact while people are learning to
operate from home or waiting to get back to work. We'll be ready for you.
I lost about a year's worth of data in the upgrade, so I've been
concentrating on recovering as much of that as I can.
How are things in the Antipodes?
<Snip - much good stuff that shows that not all Lancasters are all alike>
I've managed to find actual flight test data on the stability and control
of the P-51 with the 86 US Gallon fuselage tank. I'll be posting in in
the next day or so.
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
Jim Wilkins
Apr 15, 2020, 6:10:49 PM4/15/20
to
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message news:r77v56$9a2$1...@dont-email.me...
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
==========================
But he did know about Diesels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
But he did know about Diesels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Stephen Harding
Apr 16, 2020, 9:30:05 AM4/16/20
to
dominating the air war over Europe.
SMH
Geoffrey Sinclair
Apr 22, 2020, 2:26:26 AM4/22/20
to
"Peter Stickney" <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:r77v56$9a2$1...@dont-email.me...
> No, not a Huge Manatee, but a transplanted North Country
> Sasquatch, who greedily takes the bait.
> Sorry to have been off the air - I had a system upgrade go decidedly
> sideways off the rails, and my cleverly thought out backup plan was
> skewered by unexpected behavior of Microsoft's New Giant Economy Size
> File System on my external backup device.
Ouch.
> Then the Plague set in, and I and my team have been busy keeping our
> chunk of the economic infrastructure intact while people are learning to
> operate from home or waiting to get back to work. We'll be ready for you.
Unfortunately easier said than done. An announcer on a radio current
affairs program opened with a line that went something like this, "this is
not the economic Armageddon, but it will do until the real one turns up."
They went to a story about the long queues for government support.
> I lost about a year's worth of data in the upgrade, so I've been
> concentrating on recovering as much of that as I can.
Let people know what has been lost and maybe other copies exist.
> How are things in the Antipodes?
Locked down. Including some state borders. No leaving home without
one of the few valid reasons, big fines if the police disagree with your
idea of essential. Some restrictions beginning to be wound back,
"elective" surgeries will resume, there is enough protective equipment
in the system. Other restrictions to be relaxed depending on situation.
Singapore style tracking app being pushed as way of fast contact
tracing, not available yet. Lots of testing, current positive rate at 2%,
which means a good chance most cases are being found.
Australia 6,647 confirmed cases, 74 deaths, daily new cases dropped
to 36 on the 12th, and have stayed below 50 since, 13 on the 20th, 22
on the 21st. New Zealand doing as well or better.
Most cases categorised as acquired overseas.
At these levels the power of one is readily apparent, the one person
who did not know or did not believe they had it spreading it. Tasmania
"We've got a moat and are not afraid to use it." was heading to zero
cases, then one slip was made.
Lots of non random acts of kindness to offset the usual acts of
stupidity, ignorance and not my problem attitudes.
"National" Cabinet made up of the Federal, State and Territory
government leadership is meeting daily and taking the decisions,
removing most of the politics from the response, along with the
usual fringe believers. Has not stopped the buck passing over a
big early mistake, where passengers were allowed off a cruise
ship before testing results came back, they now account for a
major slice of cases and deaths.
Government is subsidising wages and temporarily doubling
unemployment benefits amongst a whole lot of what would be
normally called economic stimulus. Unemployment expected
to pass 10% at least.
> <Snip - much good stuff that shows that not all Lancasters are all alike>
Just sorting through the odd files, the ones I have on a list when
visiting archives to look at if I have the time.
The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
would cost/benefit.
> I've managed to find actual flight test data on the stability and control
> of the P-51 with the 86 US Gallon fuselage tank. I'll be posting in in
> the next day or so.
Interesting given the divergence of opinion of the RAF and USAAF
about acceptable limits. So far nothing about what the RAAF thought
of it.
My ISP thinks a distraction free lockdown is a good idea, otherwise known
as no internet service and no idea when it will be fixed. I need to be
creative
to find a working connection in a time of lockdown. So do not expect timely
replies.
Finally, from WWII, the USN was doing a practice shoot, but made a position
error, result was fourteen 6 inch shells landing in the camp of an RAAF
radar station. No casualties.
news:r77v56$9a2$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:45:48 +1100, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Firstly an interlude.
>>
>> Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
>>
>> Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist motion,
>> whirrrrrr ..... plop.
>>
>> Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
>> around here.
>
> From the Stygian Depths of a brackish Florida Estuary a large dark shape
> rises -
Aaarrrgghh, not the darkish creature from the brackish blackish lagoon?
>
>> Firstly an interlude.
>>
>> Cue sounds of birdsong, insects, wind in trees and moving water.
>>
>> Bait hook, check rod, check reel, cast with smooth arm and wrist motion,
>> whirrrrrr ..... plop.
>>
>> Just dropping a line to see if there are still any wild Peter Stickney
>> around here.
>
> From the Stygian Depths of a brackish Florida Estuary a large dark shape
> rises -
> No, not a Huge Manatee, but a transplanted North Country
> Sasquatch, who greedily takes the bait.
> Sorry to have been off the air - I had a system upgrade go decidedly
> sideways off the rails, and my cleverly thought out backup plan was
> skewered by unexpected behavior of Microsoft's New Giant Economy Size
> File System on my external backup device.
> Then the Plague set in, and I and my team have been busy keeping our
> chunk of the economic infrastructure intact while people are learning to
> operate from home or waiting to get back to work. We'll be ready for you.
affairs program opened with a line that went something like this, "this is
not the economic Armageddon, but it will do until the real one turns up."
They went to a story about the long queues for government support.
> I lost about a year's worth of data in the upgrade, so I've been
> concentrating on recovering as much of that as I can.
> How are things in the Antipodes?
one of the few valid reasons, big fines if the police disagree with your
idea of essential. Some restrictions beginning to be wound back,
"elective" surgeries will resume, there is enough protective equipment
in the system. Other restrictions to be relaxed depending on situation.
Singapore style tracking app being pushed as way of fast contact
tracing, not available yet. Lots of testing, current positive rate at 2%,
which means a good chance most cases are being found.
Australia 6,647 confirmed cases, 74 deaths, daily new cases dropped
to 36 on the 12th, and have stayed below 50 since, 13 on the 20th, 22
on the 21st. New Zealand doing as well or better.
Most cases categorised as acquired overseas.
At these levels the power of one is readily apparent, the one person
who did not know or did not believe they had it spreading it. Tasmania
"We've got a moat and are not afraid to use it." was heading to zero
cases, then one slip was made.
Lots of non random acts of kindness to offset the usual acts of
stupidity, ignorance and not my problem attitudes.
"National" Cabinet made up of the Federal, State and Territory
government leadership is meeting daily and taking the decisions,
removing most of the politics from the response, along with the
usual fringe believers. Has not stopped the buck passing over a
big early mistake, where passengers were allowed off a cruise
ship before testing results came back, they now account for a
major slice of cases and deaths.
Government is subsidising wages and temporarily doubling
unemployment benefits amongst a whole lot of what would be
normally called economic stimulus. Unemployment expected
to pass 10% at least.
> <Snip - much good stuff that shows that not all Lancasters are all alike>
visiting archives to look at if I have the time.
The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
would cost/benefit.
> I've managed to find actual flight test data on the stability and control
> of the P-51 with the 86 US Gallon fuselage tank. I'll be posting in in
> the next day or so.
about acceptable limits. So far nothing about what the RAAF thought
of it.
My ISP thinks a distraction free lockdown is a good idea, otherwise known
as no internet service and no idea when it will be fixed. I need to be
creative
to find a working connection in a time of lockdown. So do not expect timely
replies.
Finally, from WWII, the USN was doing a practice shoot, but made a position
error, result was fourteen 6 inch shells landing in the camp of an RAAF
radar station. No casualties.
Keith Willshaw
Apr 22, 2020, 9:12:40 AM4/22/20
to
On 22/04/2020 07:26, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>
> The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
> asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
> maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
> capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
> like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
> reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
> would cost/benefit.
>
>
> The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
> asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
> maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
> capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
> like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
> reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
> would cost/benefit.
>
> Remove the nb for email.
>
The RCAF operated the Lancaster MP/MR in the maritime recon mode post
>
war. Its covered in the book
Avro Lancaster 1945-1965: In British, Canadian and French Military
Service from Casemate Publishers
On the web this is a good source
http://jproc.ca/rrp/index.html
The Lancaster 10 MR/MP is covered here
http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc.html
Not much help with no internet of course fortunately the ISP's in the UK
are coping well but my regular contacts in Germany are really
struggling, their infrastructure cant cope with the load.
I also found some information about its electromics fit
http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_equipment_details.html
Jim Wilkins
Apr 22, 2020, 2:32:26 PM4/22/20
to
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:r7pfs6$c4j$1...@dont-email.me...
Not much help with no internet of course fortunately the ISP's in the UK
are coping well but my regular contacts in Germany are really
struggling, their infrastructure cant cope with the load.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/678803790/berlin-is-a-tech-hub-so-why-are-germanys-internet-speeds-so-slow
"Deutsche Telekom's reasons for investing in the old copper wires makes
complete financial sense," Rudl says. "It's much less expensive to rig the
older tech than it is to dig deep into the ground and install fiber-optic
cables."
When I was there in the early 70's, maintaining a copper pair computer
network, we could tell where it was raining by the degradation in line
quality. Some West German connections were still being routed through
Berlin.
My dialup and 3G ISPs recently shut down. The 4G LTE one changed hands,
luckily to a company that offers a good plan.
Most here get Internet bundled with their cable TV and phone, over either
coax or fiber. I'd consider it but the introductory cost soon creeps over
$150 / month, and I'm quite capable of building and maintaining a $0/month
home antenna and distribution system.
I've worked for the very short-tempered inventor of cable TV. I think Trump
learned "you're fired" from him.
https://multimediaman.blog/2016/10/31/robert-howard-1923-2014-dot-matrix-printer-direct-imaging-press/
That offset printing plate project sprang from a 4-color molten plastic
inkjet printer that could 3D-print the separated cyan (Teal), magenta,
yellow and black raised images directly on thin aluminum offset printing
plates. One of the engineers later developed general purpose 3D printing
from it, using plastic more suited to structures (but not to printing) than
the brittle ink.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Apr 23, 2020, 11:45:03 AM4/23/20
to
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r7pfs6$c4j$1...@dont-email.me...
> Not much help with no internet of course fortunately the ISP's in the UK
> are coping well but my regular contacts in Germany are really struggling,
> their infrastructure cant cope with the load.
ISPs here are noting the increase in traffic, plus the shift in
when the peaks occur, capacity has been boosted, so far
working bandwidth does not seem to be generally any worse
than normal.
Skip to the next > to avoid the modern experience.
Link back, only 17 point something days from failure, only 16 point
something days from initial contact with Hindrance Desk, (header
of all my email messages, no Internet, must call me on this phone
number, basically resulted in emails giving extracts from their help
page, all about customer equipment failures), problems finding a
live connection meant I could only check emails every week or so.
Long waits for phone support of course, zero out of three call back
promises kept (though the final one sent an email instead saying
it really is a network issue and to find this out they needed to start
work early, in order to talk to the network people), initial trouble
ticket unilaterally closed, it seems as I did not respond to their SMS
from a number you cannot reply to within a day or so, no email
from me seemed to trigger "problem solved". The SMS was as
usual the customer equipment is always wrong. Only 11 point
something days after bypassing the Hindrance Desk and only 1
point something days after the confirmation it was a network issue,
but in the cloud, outside of their network.
Resolving the problem would have been fun, given the various
physical network providers tend to an even more extreme version
of my equipment good, I do not need to check, it must be your
equipment.
It is clear the first level technical support are trained to assume it
is customer equipment that is the problem and are given several
fractions of a second to evaluate a help me email, and are not
necessarily told when in fact the ISP has a problem. You call in
business hours you wait for an hour or more given current staffing
levels, you call out of business hours they cannot access the network
support problem tracking system, so no matter how much the person
taking the call wants to help the system says no.
> I also found some information about its electromics fit
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_equipment_details.html
Yes, thanks for that. The RAF used some GR/ASR Lancasters
post war as did the French. As far as I can tell all were standard
Lancasters that carried fuel tanks in the bomb bay if extra range
was required, and largely removed the mid upper turret, for no
doubt weight and room benefits.
Interestingly it seems at least one post war RCAF Lancaster
reconnaissance version conversion had an extended nose.
The Lancastrian indicates you could fit maybe 750 gallons in
non self sealing tanks in the bomb bay plus 4,000 pounds of
bombs/depth charges. Also how little volume there was in the
Lancaster fuselage. One of the reasons the Sunderland was
so large was to give the crew creature comforts, like a galley,
a place to lay down etc. given the length of the missions. The
B-24 also had more internal volume than the Lancaster. Not
so the Catalina.
So removing the mid upper turret and extending the nose (at
around 57 pounds per foot) would appear to be necessary to
give the crew working room. (The RAAF added 6 and a half
feet to the Lincoln nose for the mark 31 GR version.) 800
gallons of saddle tanks leaves the bomb bay free, a new nose
with B-24/Halifax III front glazing gives a good forward and
part side view plus cuts out the front turret weight. Say 4
machine guns in the nose as flak suppressants and so on.
Would need a 65,000 pound take off weight to carry the fuel,
extra crew, radar etc. Nominal range 3,400 to 3,500 miles
with 4,000 pounds of depth charges, maybe 3,600 miles given
the reduction in drag thanks to a more contoured nose and no
mid upper turret. But reduce these ranges when operating at
low level. And remember B-24 operating out of Iceland had to
regularly divert to Newfoundland or Scotland thanks to the
weather when calculating the required fuel reserves.
And so on. At least all the data is there, the design brief was
standard Lancaster airframe except for the nose, so minimal
changes to enable ease of production.
Then comes how early things happen and what changes are
made, Britain built 542 heavy bombers to the end of 1941,
say 10 squadrons of 18 given losses, training needs and
reserves, given lower losses as fewer go to Bomber Command
for a while. As of 1 December 1941 Coastal Command had
41 Catalina, 9 Liberator and 25 Sunderlands as its longer
range force. The training and supply advantages of replacing
these three types with a single home built design are obvious.
On 1 December 1943 Coastal Command had 36 Catalina,
32 B-17, 31 Halifax, 102 Liberator and 82 Sunderlands, by
that stage there were plenty of USAAF B-24 in Britain with
a steady flow of spares but Coastal Command was the only
RAF user of the B-17 and (at home) the Catalina. Some
2,378 production Lancasters had been built, Bomber
Command held 601 of them in operational squadrons, 465
were serviceable, there were 573 crews available, giving 451
aircraft with crew. Stirling figures were 166, 126, 120 and 106.
In any case as much as it is interesting to see what sort of
paper possibilities there are the reality is the allies needed
few long range ASW aircraft from about mid 1941 through
the first half of 1942 given U-boat operations and other
allied ASW measures.
Much better to move 4 Group Whitleys to Coastal Command
before the war started, and add the extra fuel tanks of the
historical mark VII. Just like higher performance day fighters
would make the Battle of Britain easier for the RAF but what
Britain really needed was a sizeable working night fighter force
in mid/late 1940, given most of the damage to Britain was
inflicted by the night raids. And that means a control system,
aircraft plus ground and airborne radars. Meantime teach the
day fighter pilots deflection shooting and the pairs tactics,
plus do the simple upgrades to pilot protection etc.
There are usually plenty of outside constraints that as much
as hindsight can give the people better equipment earlier,
they are often unable to fully use it. Say you get plenty of
allied jets in time for Overlord. They do not have the range
to fight over Germany, would probably make terrible fighter
bombers at the time and the allied supply situation in France
would not allow large numbers of jets meant to escort raids
into Germany to be based there until around January 1945,
once Antwerp is working post Ardennes offensive and the
various rail links have been improved.
There is the capability and the idea. As far as I can tell there
was no obstacle to the second generation of aircraft carriers,
the ones built from the mid/late 1930's onwards, to have mirror
landing systems (there were Fresnel lens lighthouses), angled
flight decks, and deck edge lifts (so can be much bigger, have
more of them and do not sacrifice hangar space or limit flight
deck operations).
All enabling much more efficient aircraft handling, if the ideas
had been thought of. The final piece to the 1950's aircraft
carriers, the steam catapult, required plenty of engineering
work plus a real need, much heavier aircraft with poor initial
acceleration. While the biplanes around in the mid 1930's
had such slow landing speeds misjudgements on landing
tended to be less hazardous compared with the higher speeds
that came with the monoplanes, so the need for more accurate
landing aids was less, the biplanes were also smaller and
lighter, easier to get on and off the flight deck and be pushed
around it. And until people actually used aircraft with higher
landing speeds etc. they could only make assumptions on
what sort of aids were required.
Lockdown with no internet tends to lead to the above
considerations being worked through.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:r7pfs6$c4j$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 22/04/2020 07:26, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>
>> The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
>> asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
>> maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
>> capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
>> like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
>> reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
>> would cost/benefit.
>
>
>> The weights, and Lancastrian data, are part of a what if question I was
>> asked, if the RAF had understood earlier the need for a long range
>> maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and cancelled the Stirling to free
>> capacity, what would a long range Lancaster look like, given things
>> like the RAAF extended the nose of the Lincoln to create its maritime
>> reconnaissance version. Things like what an extra 800 gallons of fuel
>> would cost/benefit.
>
> The RCAF operated the Lancaster MP/MR in the maritime recon mode post war.
> Its covered in the book
>
> Avro Lancaster 1945-1965: In British, Canadian and French Military Service
> from Casemate Publishers
>
> On the web this is a good source
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/index.html
>
> The Lancaster 10 MR/MP is covered here
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc.html
Thanks for the information.
> Its covered in the book
>
> Avro Lancaster 1945-1965: In British, Canadian and French Military Service
> from Casemate Publishers
>
> On the web this is a good source
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/index.html
>
> The Lancaster 10 MR/MP is covered here
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc.html
> Not much help with no internet of course fortunately the ISP's in the UK
> are coping well but my regular contacts in Germany are really struggling,
> their infrastructure cant cope with the load.
when the peaks occur, capacity has been boosted, so far
working bandwidth does not seem to be generally any worse
than normal.
Skip to the next > to avoid the modern experience.
Link back, only 17 point something days from failure, only 16 point
something days from initial contact with Hindrance Desk, (header
of all my email messages, no Internet, must call me on this phone
number, basically resulted in emails giving extracts from their help
page, all about customer equipment failures), problems finding a
live connection meant I could only check emails every week or so.
Long waits for phone support of course, zero out of three call back
promises kept (though the final one sent an email instead saying
it really is a network issue and to find this out they needed to start
work early, in order to talk to the network people), initial trouble
ticket unilaterally closed, it seems as I did not respond to their SMS
from a number you cannot reply to within a day or so, no email
from me seemed to trigger "problem solved". The SMS was as
usual the customer equipment is always wrong. Only 11 point
something days after bypassing the Hindrance Desk and only 1
point something days after the confirmation it was a network issue,
but in the cloud, outside of their network.
Resolving the problem would have been fun, given the various
physical network providers tend to an even more extreme version
of my equipment good, I do not need to check, it must be your
equipment.
It is clear the first level technical support are trained to assume it
is customer equipment that is the problem and are given several
fractions of a second to evaluate a help me email, and are not
necessarily told when in fact the ISP has a problem. You call in
business hours you wait for an hour or more given current staffing
levels, you call out of business hours they cannot access the network
support problem tracking system, so no matter how much the person
taking the call wants to help the system says no.
> I also found some information about its electromics fit
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_equipment_details.html
post war as did the French. As far as I can tell all were standard
Lancasters that carried fuel tanks in the bomb bay if extra range
was required, and largely removed the mid upper turret, for no
doubt weight and room benefits.
Interestingly it seems at least one post war RCAF Lancaster
reconnaissance version conversion had an extended nose.
The Lancastrian indicates you could fit maybe 750 gallons in
non self sealing tanks in the bomb bay plus 4,000 pounds of
bombs/depth charges. Also how little volume there was in the
Lancaster fuselage. One of the reasons the Sunderland was
so large was to give the crew creature comforts, like a galley,
a place to lay down etc. given the length of the missions. The
B-24 also had more internal volume than the Lancaster. Not
so the Catalina.
So removing the mid upper turret and extending the nose (at
around 57 pounds per foot) would appear to be necessary to
give the crew working room. (The RAAF added 6 and a half
feet to the Lincoln nose for the mark 31 GR version.) 800
gallons of saddle tanks leaves the bomb bay free, a new nose
with B-24/Halifax III front glazing gives a good forward and
part side view plus cuts out the front turret weight. Say 4
machine guns in the nose as flak suppressants and so on.
Would need a 65,000 pound take off weight to carry the fuel,
extra crew, radar etc. Nominal range 3,400 to 3,500 miles
with 4,000 pounds of depth charges, maybe 3,600 miles given
the reduction in drag thanks to a more contoured nose and no
mid upper turret. But reduce these ranges when operating at
low level. And remember B-24 operating out of Iceland had to
regularly divert to Newfoundland or Scotland thanks to the
weather when calculating the required fuel reserves.
And so on. At least all the data is there, the design brief was
standard Lancaster airframe except for the nose, so minimal
changes to enable ease of production.
Then comes how early things happen and what changes are
made, Britain built 542 heavy bombers to the end of 1941,
say 10 squadrons of 18 given losses, training needs and
reserves, given lower losses as fewer go to Bomber Command
for a while. As of 1 December 1941 Coastal Command had
41 Catalina, 9 Liberator and 25 Sunderlands as its longer
range force. The training and supply advantages of replacing
these three types with a single home built design are obvious.
On 1 December 1943 Coastal Command had 36 Catalina,
32 B-17, 31 Halifax, 102 Liberator and 82 Sunderlands, by
that stage there were plenty of USAAF B-24 in Britain with
a steady flow of spares but Coastal Command was the only
RAF user of the B-17 and (at home) the Catalina. Some
2,378 production Lancasters had been built, Bomber
Command held 601 of them in operational squadrons, 465
were serviceable, there were 573 crews available, giving 451
aircraft with crew. Stirling figures were 166, 126, 120 and 106.
In any case as much as it is interesting to see what sort of
paper possibilities there are the reality is the allies needed
few long range ASW aircraft from about mid 1941 through
the first half of 1942 given U-boat operations and other
allied ASW measures.
Much better to move 4 Group Whitleys to Coastal Command
before the war started, and add the extra fuel tanks of the
historical mark VII. Just like higher performance day fighters
would make the Battle of Britain easier for the RAF but what
Britain really needed was a sizeable working night fighter force
in mid/late 1940, given most of the damage to Britain was
inflicted by the night raids. And that means a control system,
aircraft plus ground and airborne radars. Meantime teach the
day fighter pilots deflection shooting and the pairs tactics,
plus do the simple upgrades to pilot protection etc.
There are usually plenty of outside constraints that as much
as hindsight can give the people better equipment earlier,
they are often unable to fully use it. Say you get plenty of
allied jets in time for Overlord. They do not have the range
to fight over Germany, would probably make terrible fighter
bombers at the time and the allied supply situation in France
would not allow large numbers of jets meant to escort raids
into Germany to be based there until around January 1945,
once Antwerp is working post Ardennes offensive and the
various rail links have been improved.
There is the capability and the idea. As far as I can tell there
was no obstacle to the second generation of aircraft carriers,
the ones built from the mid/late 1930's onwards, to have mirror
landing systems (there were Fresnel lens lighthouses), angled
flight decks, and deck edge lifts (so can be much bigger, have
more of them and do not sacrifice hangar space or limit flight
deck operations).
All enabling much more efficient aircraft handling, if the ideas
had been thought of. The final piece to the 1950's aircraft
carriers, the steam catapult, required plenty of engineering
work plus a real need, much heavier aircraft with poor initial
acceleration. While the biplanes around in the mid 1930's
had such slow landing speeds misjudgements on landing
tended to be less hazardous compared with the higher speeds
that came with the monoplanes, so the need for more accurate
landing aids was less, the biplanes were also smaller and
lighter, easier to get on and off the flight deck and be pushed
around it. And until people actually used aircraft with higher
landing speeds etc. they could only make assumptions on
what sort of aids were required.
Lockdown with no internet tends to lead to the above
considerations being worked through.
Geoffrey Sinclair
0 new messages