Canadian Lancaster to visit the UK
Discussion
A quick question for the guru's on this thread I hope it's not been covered already.
Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
951TSE said:
A quick question for the guru's on this thread I hope it's not been covered already.
Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
I noticed that, and it's already been answered on here somewhere: One turret is heavier (the Canadian one IIRC), so is mounted further forward to maintain balance point.Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
dr_gn said:
951TSE said:
A quick question for the guru's on this thread I hope it's not been covered already.
Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
I noticed that, and it's already been answered on here somewhere: One turret is heavier (the Canadian one IIRC), so is mounted further forward to maintain balance point.Can anyone tell me why the mid-upper turrets are in a different position on each aircraft? I know when both were first restored they didn't have a mid-upper at all but I would've thought that the difference in positioning would affect the balance or CofG of the aircraft. I acknowledge that the turrets themselves are different. Thumper's is much higher and has a larger cowling, whereas the Canadian one sits a lot lower in the fuselage. Are the aircraft themselves different marks?
If you look at Ledaig's pictures from the Shuttleworth visit (sixth one down, where they are both in profile) the difference is particularly noticeable.
If you get a chance to speak to the team, they will happily chat for ages
In answer to the turret question, here's some replies from earlier in the week.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Eric Mc said:
The Canadian Mk X used an American Martin turret - which is of a lower profile to the Frazer Nash mid upper turret of the MkI and III.
Indeed. Also, being heavier it was mounted further forward to offset the change on CoG.
Sold out online but some local village shops still had tickets yesterday. Gretchen said:
HenryJM said:
bluey1905 said:
Gretchen said:
All flying by BBMF/Lancasters now cancelled today.
Courtesy of CWHM "Although we were hoping we could make the Sywell Air Show today, high winds are going to keep us on the ground. Like you, we are very disappointed as well. Looking forward to next Thursday - both Lancasters together with the Vulcan in a formation never to be repeated!"
And
Would this be at the Clacton airshow?Courtesy of CWHM "Although we were hoping we could make the Sywell Air Show today, high winds are going to keep us on the ground. Like you, we are very disappointed as well. Looking forward to next Thursday - both Lancasters together with the Vulcan in a formation never to be repeated!"
And
RAF Waddington. Vulcan arrives Wednesday. Lancs arrive Thursday morning. They'll be able to be viewed together for a while then will taxy at 1320, take off together at 1340. All in this link here
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafwaddington/newsweather/in...
spitfire-ian said:
bluey1905 said:
Ok, thanks, I was thinking of going down to Clacton on Friday, would have been nice to see that formation.
The Vulcan is only at Clacton on Thursday.
d. And not taking about Thursday! 
Do you think they saw you? I'll let you know if any photographs materialise 
I didn't think this through! Might see you and the guys at Little Gransden.Stuck In A Lift said:
On the subject of turrets, why didn't the Lancaster have a turret underneath, like the B-17?
I suspect the answer is in the name of the B-17 - Flying Fortress. They seemed more concerned with carrying defensive systems than the RAF, possibly to do with the B-17's flying by day, and the Lancasters at night. The Lancaster's bomb bay occupies a higher percentage length of the airframe than the B-17, thus (I assume) leaving less space/opportunity for a lower turret.The B-17's also had waist gunner positions and side mounted guns at the nose - all of which are absent on the Lancs.
aeropilot said:
Stuck In A Lift said:
On the subject of turrets, why didn't the Lancaster have a turret underneath, like the B-17?
Because the Avro designers were designing a heavy bomber with a proper bomb bay, rather than a 4-engined medium bomber 
Edit- thanks to Boatbuoy as well.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff