A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

#1 Jet of World War II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old July 23rd 03, 09:35 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:49:11 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote:

They evolved that way, from roughly similar airframes as a starting
point. Lancasters flying by day would soon develop heavier armour,
especially around the engines, less bombload in exchange for more fuel
to burn for higher height on the ingress route, and heavier armament
like .50 calibres in the rear turret - all of which they were adopting
by 1945, which cut into their bombload margin over the B-17.


Interesting point, any sources for this. I haven't heard about
increasing armour for daylight ops, or trading bomb load for fuel.


Look at the trend evident in the Rose turreted B.1/B.IIIs, and the
engine installation in the Lanc IV which directly influenced the
Lincoln (two-stage Merlins with armoured, annular radiators), let
alone the massively increased armament in the Lincoln (e.g. twin 20mm
Hispanos in the mid-upper turret). The only way to get more fuel in
the Lanc for Tiger Force operations was in the bomb-bay, which had
obvious implications for the bombload carried. This just represents a
gradual and evolutionary change in operational emphasis.


snip

The 50s in the rear turrets were IIRC fitted only as a pair instead of
the quad 303s.


Sure, but this still represented an increase in effectiveness at
daylight engagement ranges.


And let's remember that each .50 weighed 65 lb., while each .303 weighed 24
lb. As a perfect example of the apples to oranges comparison I'm talking
about, the 8 .303s carried by the typical Lanc weigh a total of 192 lb.
while the 13 .50s carried by the typical (in late '43) B-17G weigh 845 lb.
Oops, there goes 653 lb. of bombs/fuel right there, and then we've got to
carry extra fuel to haul that extra weight back from the target. And we're
ignoring the extra weight and drag of a ball turret and waist guns plus the
gunners and their equipment, which means carrying extra fuel to haul all
this extra weight both ways, which the night bombers didn't have).

Guy


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 July 16th 04 05:27 AM
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 July 14th 04 07:34 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 January 26th 04 05:33 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 December 4th 03 05:40 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book Jim Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 September 11th 03 06:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.