Random facts about planes..

[Yertis]

dr_gn said:

Carry them how far?

Also, who was the B17 bombload so small, as compared to say the Lancaster? Surely not just a function of bomb-bay capacity.

[SpamCan]

Yertis said:

Also, who was the B17 bombload so small, as compared to say the Lancaster? Surely not just a function of bomb-bay capacity.

Different mission profile; the B-17 was a strategic bomber, the Lancaster, save for a few specially adapted variants, an area bomber.

[eldar]

SpamCan said:

Different mission profile; the B-17 was a strategic bomber, the Lancaster, save for a few specially adapted variants, an area bomber.

What is the difference between strategic an area?

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

I think you'll find that Area Bombing is Strategic bombing.

The reason the Lancaster had such a long bom bay was that its forerunner (the Manchester) was specified as having to be able to carry torpedoes in the anti shipping role.

[RizzoTheRat]

Didn't the B17 also have a lot more armour plate and guns weighing it down compared to the Lancaster?


The first flight of the Vulcan was just 11 years after the first flight of the Lancaster. Amazing progress.

[Yertis]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

I think you'll find that Area Bombing is Strategic bombing.

The reason the Lancaster had such a long bom bay was that its forerunner (the Manchester) was specified as having to be able to carry torpedoes in the anti shipping role.

Now that I did not know. Thanks!

[SpamCan]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

I think you'll find that Area Bombing is Strategic bombing.

The reason the Lancaster had such a long bom bay was that its forerunner (the Manchester) was specified as having to be able to carry torpedoes in the anti shipping role.

Indeed it is, you are quite right. I got my terms mixed up, precision bomber would be a better description.

Interesting about the anti shipping role of the Manchester.

Edited by SpamCan on Tuesday 25th April 22:23

[thebraketester]

A 777 engine cowling is the same size as a 737 fuselage.

[Djr1]

Yertis said:

Also, who was the B17 bombload so small, as compared to say the Lancaster? Surely not just a function of bomb-bay capacity.

From memory this was mainly due to the original specification - the USAAC at the time wanted a bomber to reinforce some more far flung places, Alaska, Hawaii etc. In the '30s the driver was to defend the US mainland from an attacking enemy fleet, not to carry out strategic bombing as it became. Because of this endurance took precedence over outright payload.

[Eric Mc]

Yertis said:

dr_gn said:

Carry them how far?

Also, who was the B17 bombload so small, as compared to say the Lancaster? Surely not just a function of bomb-bay capacity.

The B-17 flew much higher and was faster than the Lancaster - so it sacrificed bomb load for performance. The B-17 was also more heavilly defended and had a crew of 11 (the Lancaster has 7), so that extra weight meant bomb load was compromised there too.

Finally, the original specification was a few years older than what became the Lancaster. The B-17 first flew in 1935. The Lancaster flew at teh end of 1940 - evolving out of the abysmal Manchester.

They were designed to differing philosophies.

The Manchester had also been built to be capable of catapult launches. This stood the basic Lancaster in good stead when it came to airframe strength.

[eldar]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

I think you'll find that Area Bombing is Strategic bombing.

The reason the Lancaster had such a long bom bay was that its forerunner (the Manchester) was specified as having to be able to carry torpedoes in the anti shipping role.

Thanks. Clearer answer than google

[CanAm]

There were more B-24 Liberators built than B-17 Fortresses, but you hardly ever see them in WW2 documentary films.

[greghm]

CanAm said:

There were more B-24 Liberators built than B-17 Fortresses, but you hardly ever see them in WW2 documentary films.

Just like the Spitfires and the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain... The latter did the heavy lifting.

dr_gn
Very good point. I should edit and add the distance. We often forget how it is important. Last week end I flew a Piper Pa-32 Saratoga (a 6-seater) with 4 adults and 2 children... I found out that, you can have only 40% of the fuel or the plane is overweight.

Edited by greghm on Wednesday 26th April 10:06

[Eric Mc]

CanAm said:

There were more B-24 Liberators built than B-17 Fortresses, but you hardly ever see them in WW2 documentary films.

There's plenty of footage on youtube.

In many ways the B-24 was a much better bomber than the B-17. It had better range and endurance and as a result it was used over a much bigger spread of activities - such as oceanic patrol as well as straightforward bombing.

It's main drawback was that it wasn't structurally as strong as the B-17, which was really over engineered.It was that factor that endeared the B-17 to its crews.

[BrettMRC]

IIRC the B17 prototypes suffered from a lot of engine fires, but were ordered anyway...

[nonsequitur]

thebraketester said:

A 777 engine cowling is the same size as a 737 fuselage.

A B747 is longer than the first ever flight, by the Wright Brothers.

[HoHoHo]

nonsequitur said:

A B747 is longer than the first ever flight, by the Wright Brothers.

Sorry edant mode:

According to Boeing, the entire distance of the Wright brothers' first flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, was shorter than the length of a 747's economy cabin alone (I suppose that depends on the airline but certainly shorter than the entire length of the aircraft)

And

The 747 has six million parts, 171 miles of tubing, and a tail-height as tall as a six-story building.

[carreauchompeur]

thebraketester said:

A 777 engine cowling is the same size as a 737 fuselage.

Wow, that's a good fact. They do look big on the wings but never seen that perspective before!

[WinstonWolf]

If you hit clear air turbulence going over the Rockies in a 747 two things will happen. The food trollies will start to float and the cabin crew all drop to the floor and brace sideways in the aisle between the seats

Wear your seatbelts...

[Yertis]

SpamCan said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

I think you'll find that Area Bombing is Strategic bombing.

The reason the Lancaster had such a long bom bay was that its forerunner (the Manchester) was specified as having to be able to carry torpedoes in the anti shipping role.

Indeed it is, you are quite right. I got my terms mixed up, precision bomber would be a better description.

Just to come back to this definition of "strategic bombing" for a moment, one of the bits of history I have read up on a bit is the different philosophies of Bomber Command and the USAAC. Simplifying to an almost absurd extent, with huge generalisations, Bomber Command quickly realised that precision bombing was technically and militarily impossible and so developed a strategy around area bombing, which it could do and became very good at. The US on the other hand persisted with 'precision bombing', often in name if not in nature because the practicalities of bombing heavily defended targets meant they were often 'area-bombing' in everything except name. Nevertheless, the US did focus upon attacking what ACM Harris referred to as "panacea targets", ie things like oil refineries, and it was the destruction of these facilities which hastened the collapse of Germany in 1945. In my opinion the greatest – and vital – contribution Bomber Command made was to tie up huge amounts of military and industrial resource in defending German airspace, and opening what was in effect a second front far earlier that would otherwise have been possible. I also think it's interesting that in the Pacific theatre the US adopted tactics very similar to those of Bomber Command – ie creating firestorms to destroy cities, rather than the more surgical approach they attempted to pursue in Europe. Happy to have my understanding corrected or refined BTW.