Inside a Lancaster bomber
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Burrow01 said:
Panamax said:
williamp said:
They found they couldn't really catch the mosquito, which only had a crew of 2 and could carry almost as much payload. The RAF losses would have been less if they had used them more.
Mosquito bomb load - 4,000 lbLancaster bomb load - 14,000 lb
You'd need to build four times as many aircraft and twice as many engines to drop the same amount of bombs.
dr_gn said:
Out of interest, how?
In the early ‘80’s (I’d be about 12), we went to a Coningsby airshow. We hung around after it had finished, and my Dad noticed a queue of people around the Lancaster. Turned out it was some family members of the display crew, and a few other interested random people. We joined the queue, and, like you, spent the best part of an hour climbing inside it, from one end to the other, trying out all the seats, gun turrets, the lot. What I remember most was getting vertigo while lying down in the nose, looking down through the flat bomb aimers window.
The more I think about that experience, the more I wonder what the chances of it happening today would be (zero). Every time I see the BBMF Lancaster, I think “I’ve been in that!”.
At Coningsby in the hanger they were very nervous about anyone dropping anything inside her.In the early ‘80’s (I’d be about 12), we went to a Coningsby airshow. We hung around after it had finished, and my Dad noticed a queue of people around the Lancaster. Turned out it was some family members of the display crew, and a few other interested random people. We joined the queue, and, like you, spent the best part of an hour climbing inside it, from one end to the other, trying out all the seats, gun turrets, the lot. What I remember most was getting vertigo while lying down in the nose, looking down through the flat bomb aimers window.
The more I think about that experience, the more I wonder what the chances of it happening today would be (zero). Every time I see the BBMF Lancaster, I think “I’ve been in that!”.
We were invited by the then Sheffield Aircrew Association ( if memory serves me right ).
Mainly bomber crew but some Spit and Hurricane guys. Cliff who asked us along was a rear gunner in a Lanc.
What an amazing bunch and they had some stories to tell !
Also had a sit in a Spit and Hurricane and had a bollicking for taking pictures of an F4’s radar lol !
Edited by Narcisus on Wednesday 15th November 22:44
dr_gn said:
What I remember most was getting vertigo while lying down in the nose, looking down through the flat bomb aimers window
That's where one of my distant cousins spent some of his war and gained a DFC. I'm not sure how many sorties he flew but his Lancaster did 40: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C252652I flew around in one a number of years ago. The overwhelming impression was how thin the skin was, uninsulated, and the brilliant view in the glass cockpit where you could look back and see all four engines. The noise was earsplitting though I had brought some industrial ear protectors. I did it one November 11.
dr_gn said:
But the bombing accuracy of the Mosquito compared with the Lancaster was apparently much better (it was used as a pathfinder to drop markers on targets)
All things being equal the higher speed of the Mosquito would make it less accurate. If its bombing accuracy was better I suspect it was because they generally went in lower and, in the case of Pathfinders, had elite crew.dr_gn said:
But the bombing accuracy of the Mosquito compared with the Lancaster was apparently much better (it was used as a pathfinder to drop markers on targets), and its speed and agility meant the loss rate to enemy action would probably be lower. So not as many bombs/missions would be needed to cause the same amount of damage to the target.
And that leads us to the nature of the target, tools for the job etc. Accurate bombing had been abandoned, for reasons we know, and Harris was opposed to anything that detracted from his area bombing doctrine. If you just want blow a lot of roofs off and rain fire upon your enemy, the Mosquito is probably not the best aircraft for the job.Interesting debate though. Did the USAAF use any kind of Pathfinder force when they were bombing Japan I wonder? It's not a campaign I know much about.
Panamax said:
Mosquito bomb load - 4,000 lb
Lancaster bomb load - 14,000 lb
You'd need to build four times as many aircraft and twice as many engines to drop the same amount of bombs.
I think there is a mixup on aircraft here ,it was the bomb load of a B17 being equal or slightly less than a Mossie on Berlin raids. Lancaster bomb load - 14,000 lb
You'd need to build four times as many aircraft and twice as many engines to drop the same amount of bombs.
RDMcG said:
I flew around in one a number of years ago. The overwhelming impression was how thin the skin was, uninsulated, and the brilliant view in the glass cockpit where you could look back and see all four engines. The noise was earsplitting though I had brought some industrial ear protectors. I did it one November 11.
Jammy git!
I had a tour of the Strathallen Wellington way back, brave men who flew in these, you had to be fairly nimble to climb around inside. I felt a bit exposed sitting in pilots seat surrounded by Perspex cannot remember if rear of seat was protected.
Sat in Lysander too, what a beast of an aeroplane. I have a photograph of the engine being fired up by using Sir Williams G wagen to jump start it, there is a socket in one of the wheel spats. The indignity of starting it with a German car
Also sat in front of the comet, small, cramped and very military up front with a morse code sender on a bench.
Sat in Lysander too, what a beast of an aeroplane. I have a photograph of the engine being fired up by using Sir Williams G wagen to jump start it, there is a socket in one of the wheel spats. The indignity of starting it with a German car
Also sat in front of the comet, small, cramped and very military up front with a morse code sender on a bench.
Dog Star said:
Mrs DSs dad was tail gunner in a Lancaster during the war (she was quite a late child); I believe it was the riskiest place to be in the plane. Must have been a crazy place to be, and that’s before you even think about shooting/being shot at.
I’ve got all his books about “turrets”.
Are there a lot of swear words in it?I’ve got all his books about “turrets”.
Mercdriver said:
you had to be fairly nimble to climb around inside.
The average age of Lancaster crews was just 22 years old, so they were pretty agile.Unfortunately their average life expectancy was just a few weeks.
Duxford Museum and Maddingley Cemetery are well worth a visit. Brings home the harsh realities.
Narcisus said:
RicksAlfas said:
Jammy git!
Indeed ! Did you take any pics ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu_MC7EyZ2o
RDMcG said:
Just some crappy old video...the second plane at the end is a B-25 I flew in the same day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu_MC7EyZ2o
Fantastic thanks for posting looked great on my small phone screen !https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu_MC7EyZ2o
JRHartless said:
Dog Star said:
Mrs DSs dad was tail gunner in a Lancaster during the war (she was quite a late child); I believe it was the riskiest place to be in the plane. Must have been a crazy place to be, and that’s before you even think about shooting/being shot at.
I’ve got all his books about “turrets”.
I believe the tail and mid-upper gunners acted more as observers than anything else. If they did spot an approaching nightfigher they'd hold off firing at it and instead instruct the pilot to take evasive action, mainly by corkscrewing. Firing their guns would just give away their position.I’ve got all his books about “turrets”.
Eric Mc said:
Even the airliner version (the Lancastrian) was rather cramped. Imagine flying from London to Buenos Aires in this -
Plenty of legroom and a nice view! I guess the fuselage was too narrow to get two seats abreast plus aisle.By the standards of the day that must have been quite decent, considering the flying boats had gone. Looks like you get lie-down beds too!
Simpo Two said:
Plenty of legroom and a nice view! I guess the fuselage was too narrow to get two seats abreast plus aisle.
By the standards of the day that must have been quite decent, considering the flying boats had gone. Looks like you get lie-down beds too!
The flying boats were still being used between 1945 to about 1950 - although gradually being withdrawn.By the standards of the day that must have been quite decent, considering the flying boats had gone. Looks like you get lie-down beds too!
The problem with the Lancastrian was that, for most adults, it was impossible to stand up straight. It really was a stop-gap design. The York was more sensible and even the Tudor made use of Lancaster/Lincoln components - even if it was a bit of a disaster for other reasons.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff