Lancaster Vs. B-24

[syscom3]

I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today.

I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011

And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.

Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I have no clue on how you can take this discussion about building bombers 65 years ago and infer that Im talking about aircraft being produced today.

I never said anything about modern aircraft production, it was solely about WW2 production. It was YOU who made a monumental leap in logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to Lanc vs B24 vs L1011

and the B-24 was still easier to build?!?

Originally Posted by syscom3

And about the B17, B24 and SBD going into combat without self sealing tanks. You just proved my point. Either it wasnt in the design, or the powers that be said to not hold up production and send them out anyway.

Same thing can be said about the armour. Build the plane and install the armour in the field. And since most of the armour is located in the seat, well any mechanic can install it.

And that was the ORIGINAL intent of mod centers!!!! All that stuff plus the guns and radios were "GFE." Installing that stuff after production was probably one of the only situation of an aircraft "legally" leaving the factory "incomplete."

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Syscom it is really easy for you to tell people how aircraft are built and made when you have never built or worked on a plane. I have never built one but I work on them and repair them every day. I see the complex things that go into them, the structure, the sparring, the ribs, the electrical wiring and components, the flight controls (you try taking them apart and putting them back together let alone build them in 1 hour! ). Listen to people like FBJ and myself who have some understanding of this. Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Hell FBJ has built planes listen to him if you wont listen to me.

About 100 P-3s, 4 F-117s, 20 L-1011s and 3 B-2s...


Thanks Adler....

It was a fact that more B-24s were built. To say it was easier to build or designed for mass producibility is false. As already stated, factories were built around the bomber and an a huge manufacturing infrastructure was thrown at the program. Any American aircraft could of been subjected to the same numbers if they were given the chance under Charles Sorrenson. The B-24 was hastily designed as reflected in some of its featrures (ie. no MLG doors). Ruben Fleet pushed the design team to meet the original contract requirements. Had the B-24 been given more time during its design phase, it probably would of looked more like the XB-32.

"The "Liberator", as it became known, was conceived in haste and it showed it. That statement, however, in no way detracts from the remarkable job that Laddono and his crew of engineers did, given the deadline they labored under. Nevertheless, when Davis bitterly remarked later that with wing such as his, "leaving the main landing gear half exposed when retracted was almost sacrilegious," he had a point. Furthermore, the bomb bay doors which rolled up the sides of the fuselage, while easily facilitating bomb loading on the ground, were far from air tight when closed, and when aloft, the draft in the rear end of the aircraft was fierce. The various systems in the airplane also left a lot of room for improvement. Fuel gages looked like something from a basement furnace boiler; the fuel transfer system seemed to have been designed by Rube Goldberg. If you can imagine an engineer abroad the B-24 crawling down that narrow catwalk between the bomb bays to affix a "U" hose to an electrical pump to transfer fuel, you begin to get an idea.


The three best features of the B-24 were its wing, the reliable Pratt & Whitney engines (R-1830s of 1200 hp) and its tricycle landing gear. The latter made the B-24 easy to land and since the wing was through flying once the aircraft touched down there was no tendency to bounce once the aircraft touched down. The rival B-17, on the other hand, with its so-called conventional gear and thick wing, would float if the airspeed on landing was the slightest bit too high, and most pilots "wheeled it in" - that is landed on the main gear and then lowered the tail wheel, in order not to bounce back into the air. Properly handled, though, the B-17 could make a very nice three point landing, and it was a forgiving aircraft."

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/requiem.htm

[book1182]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Agreed FBJ.

I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.

One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.

Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24. Two bombers with different missions. What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by book1182

Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24.

I disagree. The small amount of the weight of the defensive armament compareed to the weight of the bombs it could carry would not have effected the performance as much as you think.

Originally Posted by book1182

What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.

That is false. The Liberator was used in exactly the same ammount of roles and even maybe a few more than the Liberator.

[wmaxt]

I belive the weight difference would make a large difference. As an example the B-17G could carry 6,000lbs bombs 2,000mi. Eliminate the Waist gunners and chin turret which equal ~2,500/3,000lbs and you can easily add 500+mi range and 1,000+lbs of bombs which would match/exceed the Lancasters 2,400mi with 7,000lbs bombs. The B-17 could lose another 1,500+ if the ball turret were removed.

Rember these aircraft have esentialy the same min weight, gross weight and load capacity. The major restrictions to their load capacity are
1. Mission configuration
a. Day armor/defense
b. Night config for max bomb load
c. Marritime patrol

2. Fuel tankage
a. B-24 best
b. B-17 next, internal tankage 2,000+mi
c. Lancaster requires bombay tankage for 2,000+mi

3. Bombay configuration
a. Lancaster Best
b. B-24 next
c. B-17 in most restrictive

The mission configuration was critical to the weight capability of the various aircraft, the Lanc took this to an extream using a reduced crew, .30 caliber guns and virtualy no armor to allow a few more lbs of bombs. I personaly give the nod to the Lanc because of its huge bombay, not because of some percieved advantage anywhere else.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

I think the biggest limitation for the B17 was that the bomb bay volume was smaller than the others.

Even if it had all new engines, no guns or armour, it still was limited by the those dimensions.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and exactily how much did the guns and armour on the B-17 and -24 weigh? remember .303 ammo's lighter than .50cal, you're only looking at fitting a few hundred lbs of armour and possibly a 1,000lb ventral turret, let's call it 1,500lbs all together? that's not much of a problem for a plane like the lanc........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It may have lowered the ammount of payload a bit, but I dont think it would have made the performance suffer.

[Glider]

I would leave off the waist gunners, I don't think that they were worth the weight.

[syscom3]

Agree'd. Although in the PTO, the waist gunners were frequently used to watch for things in the air and ocean. If theyre going to be on board, might as well as give them some guns.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.

The Ball turret was about 1,200lbs + 200/250 for the gunner and his personal equiptment then 750 rds x 2 + oxygen + aircraft structure to support it. Similarly the waist gunners 250lbs ea. + personal eqpt (parachute, heated suite, etc) + mg +750rnds (typ)+ oxygen etc. call it 800/1,000lbs ea plus any armor for blind spots or fairings. Rough count 1,800/2,000lbs for a ball turret and 800/1,000 for each waist gun or about 3,600/4,000lbs total. that adds up to approximately 1 ton of bombs for an additional 200/400mi radius. That is signifigant to me.

SYS if you look at my post just above yours you'll see that I rated the B-17s bombay as the most restrictive and the huge bombay on the Lanc as its greatest feature.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay in that sense youa re correct, I did not realize that it all weighed that much.