Versatile Heavy Bombers

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

actually the lanc could carry a tallboy without modification, the B-24 couldn't even carry one, let alone the grandslams, could the B-24 even carry a cookie? i doubt her bomb bay would let her, which discounts anything larger, what about lifeboats, the lanc could carry them whilst the B-24 couldn't, what about the engine test beds, could the B-24 do that?

I've seen a photo of a 24 carrying a life boat and I've seen the B-24 described as performing all the rolls Adler had the Lanc doing above. Some of the atributes you have given the Lancaster after the war including engine testing and such were performed by By B-17s which were retained after the war. The transport version of the B-24 was far better than the Lancasters but as that really wasn't a very important use of the aircraft it doesn't reall matter.

The Lanc has the edge because of her bombay and equaly because the British were willing to dedicate the time and resources to persue the "Special Missions", so in a way the AAF has a part of that in the fact that enough pressure was relieved from the situation in Britian to allow such extravagances to occur.

wmaxt

[mosquitoman]

What about the remote control B-24s that were crashed into V1 and V2 sites?

[Wildcat]

Lanc do you have any pics of the two RAAF Lancasters G-George or Q-Queenie that where used for fund raising tours in Australia.
Queenie (ED390) was actually the pattern aircraft for local manufacture which did not occur, and made history in 1943 by being the largest aircraft to fly under the Sydney Harbour bridge - what a sight that would have been!!
G-George W7483/A66-2 is the famous 460 squadron RAAF Lanc that flew 90 missions, including 16 to Berlin. Still proudly on display today at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

These are the only pics I have.

[CurzonDax]

I agree, Queenie VI looks good in Silver.

:{)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so in a way the AAF has a part of that in the fact that enough pressure was relieved from the situation in Britian to allow such extravagances to occur

that's a bit of a stupid comment, you make it sound like you were doing all the work whilst we were faffing around wasting time...........

and no sorry i don't have any extra pics, lancs in foreign service are hard to get photos of..........

[syscom3]

and no sorry i don't have any extra pics, lancs in foreign service are hard to get photos of..........

Theyre hard to find because all the countries asked for and received B24's

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it's waaayyyy too late to be getting into this one again

[Gnomey]

It is but they got B-24's because they were avaliable Lancs were in short supply and priority went to Bomber Command.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Theyre hard to find because all the countries asked for and received B24's

LOL It never ends!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Only because he can not admit he is wrong.

[syscom3]

Why admit to be wrong when you know youre right?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

LOL

Keep telling yourself what helps you sleep at night!

[CurzonDax]

Still it would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks was the most modifiable bomber ofthe war. And I am not just talking about cutting out the bomb bay to make space for a bigger bomb either. Out of all these heavies or mediums or lights, which one was the most modifiable. If go with the 24. But I'll post my reasons later, gotta go have a pow wow with the boss.

:{)

[Twitch]

Since we can have a fantasy flight 60+ years later knowing what we know now and play "let's pretend," we may choose which plane we'd rather fly on a mission.

B-24 crew members have told me and have stated elsewahere, I'm sure, that "when you lose an engine on the Lib you start sweating 'cause unlike the B-17 she doesn't fly on 2!!"

I don't care how many were built or how much they carried, THAT is the deciding factor for me choosing to sortie in a Lancaster.

[syscom3]

Id rather have a dozen .50's and four radial engines.