Americans didn't drop the bomb...
Discussion
It did.
It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Machester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Machester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
Eric Mc said:
When used against Japan, it was eventually found that conventional bombing was more effective at lower altitude so the extreme high altitude missions were ceased in favour of medium to low altitude missions.
I always understood the change to medium-low altitude was the 'discovery' of the Jetstream over Japan which saw them with groundspeeds of less than 90knts and sometimes forced them to turn back altogether.Doolittle (I think) ordered them to strip out all unnecessary armour, arnament, and even pressurisation gear and told them to fly low (relatively) and fast?
I love the Lancaster Bomber
who wouldnt
but the facts are plain enough
to carry the Grand Slam bomb they had to hack the fuselage and the doors about to recess it so the bomb was just (about) inside the aircraft, likewise the Upkeep Store (Dams Raid)
To carry Fat Boy a further hacking about would have been needed too and that would certainly have been noted somewhere. So sadly not...
but the story is fun, I have enjoyed reading it
but wait
how about a Valiant being sent back in time with the Roswell secret stuff so the war could end and we could get on with post war living
Big
White
Unknown airplane
nah
no way...
who wouldnt
but the facts are plain enough
to carry the Grand Slam bomb they had to hack the fuselage and the doors about to recess it so the bomb was just (about) inside the aircraft, likewise the Upkeep Store (Dams Raid)
To carry Fat Boy a further hacking about would have been needed too and that would certainly have been noted somewhere. So sadly not...
but the story is fun, I have enjoyed reading it
but wait
how about a Valiant being sent back in time with the Roswell secret stuff so the war could end and we could get on with post war living
Big
White
Unknown airplane
nah
no way...
I didn't think they flew all the way to Japan at low level. They cruised at a resonable altitude (20,000 feet plus) and then dropped down to almost rooftop height for the raids.
By this stage in the war, Japanese air defences had almost completely disappeared and the B-29s could fly with relative impunity over Japan.
By this stage in the war, Japanese air defences had almost completely disappeared and the B-29s could fly with relative impunity over Japan.
Eric Mc said:
It did.
It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Manchester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
Ironically it was the one really strange requirement in Air Ministry specifications that gave the Manchester and subsequently the Lancaster it's great strength. The requirement? The aircraft had to be capable of being launched from a hydro pneumatic catapult. This was trialled successfully at Farnborough in 1942.It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Manchester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
The wording as it appears in Air Ministry specification P.13/36 is as follows:
"Must be stressed for frictionless take-off."
There are a couple of bits furthwer up this thread that are interesting; the first was the bit about the jetstream and the B-29. David A Anderton's "Superfortress at War" has a wonderful tale in it of an experienced crew who used to use this new phenomena they came across to beat the new crews back; despite their aicraft being older and a bit tired.
The other was the mention of cutting the Lancaster about for the Grand Slam. There were no real structural changes to the Lancaster other than the fitment of more powerful Merlins, reinforced tyres, and deleting the front and mid-upper turrets. Various bits of internal equipment were also got rid of. The Grand Slam was carried externally, with a small fairing added to the front and rear of the bomb bay.
I'm rather glad with how this thread turned out. The original post was sent to me by a friend in the USA who knew i'd love it... and it never fails to bring up debate with aircraft enthusiasts; the whole would it/could it have done it starts to come out.
My favourite theory is the one that was posted earlier in this thread:
[i]The prototype Portaloo was lifted from the truck and lowered to the ground...
What's that, guys? asked Bruce Banks
It's an atom bomb, Bruce...[/i]
In reality the nearest the Lancaster got was probably in French (Aeronavale)service in the 1950's in the South Pacific. Operationally it did get as far as Vietnam, which not a lot of people know about.
Edited by richw_82 on Monday 6th July 19:17
dudleybloke said:
the electrical systems and various other systems would have needed a pressurised aircraft. these early weapons had a quite tight temperature tolerance. they couldn't afford for anything to freeze up. remember they where essentialy working prototypes.
The Hiroshima bomb also had to be armed in mid air to lessen the chance of it going off in a take off crash, so the crew needed access to the bomb in flight. richw_82 said:
There was talk of 617 sqn "The Dambusters" doing the job, they were the world leaders in precision bombing during the war and for a good few years after. It kind of makes it a bit too convenient in several other areas which have been confirmed.
Spotted this gem on page 1. If there's one thing you don't need to worry about with a bucket of sunshine, it's precision.
JW911 said:
richw_82 said:
There was talk of 617 sqn "The Dambusters" doing the job, they were the world leaders in precision bombing during the war and for a good few years after. It kind of makes it a bit too convenient in several other areas which have been confirmed.
Spotted this gem on page 1. If there's one thing you don't need to worry about with a bucket of sunshine, it's precision."Just put it somewhere in the middle."
every one has seen the pictures of the enola gay, heres the other two that where involved in the hiroshima bomb
the great artist also flew on the nagasaki mission, the only plane to be involved in both missions.
i always thought they both had better names (and nose art) than the enola gay - which looked as if it had been painted with a 3" brush.........
the great artist also flew on the nagasaki mission, the only plane to be involved in both missions.
i always thought they both had better names (and nose art) than the enola gay - which looked as if it had been painted with a 3" brush.........
Seight_Returns said:
perdu said:
I love the Lancaster Bomber
who wouldnt
I suspect that anyone living in the Ruhr Valley in May 1943 wouldn't be too keen.who wouldnt
and I still love the sound of four Merlins
There is an article in this month's "Aeroplane" magazine all about the Lancaster's suitability for carrying these first generation nuclear weapons. The answer is yes it could, if they had continued with the project called "Thin Man". This was because the B-29 bomb bay would have needed to be extensively modified to carry Thin Man - but the Lancaster's bomb bay could carry Thin Man with minimal mods.
However, Thin Man was cancelled because Little Boy and Fat Man were more compact and effective - and could fit in the B-29 bomb bay with minimal modification.
So, interest in using Lancasters faded.
It's interesting that new information on these operations are still coming to light years later.
However, Thin Man was cancelled because Little Boy and Fat Man were more compact and effective - and could fit in the B-29 bomb bay with minimal modification.
So, interest in using Lancasters faded.
It's interesting that new information on these operations are still coming to light years later.
what a great thread.
I suspect that the real clincher that the RAF were not involved with either of the 2 atomic bombs is simply this: given how pro-USSR parts of the Labour party seem to have been could you ever imagine them keeping this quiet?
I suspect that the real clincher that the RAF were not involved with either of the 2 atomic bombs is simply this: given how pro-USSR parts of the Labour party seem to have been could you ever imagine them keeping this quiet?
richw_82 said:
In reality the nearest the Lancaster got was probably in French (Aeronavale)service in the 1950's in the South Pacific. Operationally it did get as far as Vietnam, which not a lot of people know about.
well of course we know Lancasters got as far as Burma since Rambo found a Tall Boy in the jungle during R4 Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff