#1 Jet of World War II

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
In short, design and equip them
to do the same job and they'll do it with payloads within a couple of hundred
pounds (either way) of each other. The whole Lanc vs. B-17 argument is just
ludicrous.

The crucial point though, is that you're assuming the Lanc would have to
follow US practises and fly in the big box formations.

No, I'm saying that _if_ you followed US practises etc., the Lanc's performance
would be within a few % either way of the B-17's. Nowhere did I say that you had
to do so, but that is the variable that is always left out of the Lanc vs. B-17
threads, so that they wind up comparing apples and oranges.

Whilst this may
have suited the B-17 with machine guns sprouting everywhere (although I
don't think it was appropriate before P-51D escorts were available), it
may not have suited the Lanc. You simply can't enforce US practises on
UK types in an attempt to 'equate' them with one another.


I've just come across my notes from the Day Bomber Lanc thread, and
here's some stuff that didn't make it into the thread that may be
germane to this discussion. With reference to armor weight.
Wartime Lancasters didn't have a whole lot of armor. The only armor,
in fact, was the Pilot's seatback, and a bulkhead over the main wing
spar, where it crosses the fuselage. Figure about 150# of armor.
It did have self-sealing tanks. (I don't know if it was for all
tanks, though. If not, you lose about 7% fuel capacity, and 3/4# for
every gallon protected.
U.S.A.A.F. day bombers carried armor at all crew positions, except
Bombardier 9Can't se through armor, after all) and the rule of thumb
was 100# per position, doubled in the case of the cockpit, which was
armored both to the rear, and to the front. Each oil cooler or
radiator that was armored cost 80#, Turret weights, less guns, are
about the same. A .50 cal gun weights as much as 2 .30s, so the tail
turret doesn't change, but the nose and top turrets gain 65#. A ball
turret, with guns, or its equivalent in a remotely sighted turret,
plus the extra crewman to operate it, is 1200#.

So - added weight for a day-bomber Lanc. (This will have to come out
of fuel or bombs), we'll assume similar ammunition wieghts

Armor for nose, tail, and top turrets: 300#
Armor for cockpit, pilot only 200#
Addition of lower turret 1200#
upgrade guns to .50 cal 130#
Armored Oil Coolers 320#
Armored Radiators 320#
That's a total of 2470#

Note that a co-pilot is a good thing
if adding a copilot, add 370#
(170# crewman, more armor)
Total oe 2840#

Note that that isn't adding stuff like waist guns.
THere's another area of vulnerability. Liquid-cooled engines are much
less tolerant of damage, even if teh cooling system is protected. A
single substantial hit (.50 cal & up) on the blcok of a liquid cooled
engine _will_ crack the block, causing coolant and oil leaks. The
air-cooled radials are much more tolerant of this kind of damage. You
can remove entire cylinders, and the engine may run well enough to get
home. There's a substantial extra safety margin, there.

One Halifax squadron removed the nose and mid-upper turrets, armour,
flame dampers and various other bits, the lighter weight and less
restricted engines flew higher, faster and their losses were reduced
significantly.

There's an old story we tell up here in the North Woods. Two friends
are out hiling, and they spot a very angry Black Bear. (Black Bears,
btw, while smaller than Grizzlies, are much better tree climbers.)
One hiker immediately drops his pack, and pulls out a pair of sneakers.
(Trainers, for you U.K. blokes) His companion inquires "What are you
doing? You can't outrun that bear!" The reply was "Don't have to
outrun the bear. I just have to outrun _you_!"
The point is, you want to be faster and higher than somebody else,
making _them_ the easier target.

And so did B-17 and B-24 groups operating by day at various times and places, and
that's my point - it's ludicrous to compare two aircraft designed and equipped for
totally different missions and claim that one is "superior" to the other, by
looking _only_ at the mission for which one of them is optimised. In the B-17 vs.
Lanc argument, this method is routinely used to 'prove' that the Lanc had a better
payload/radius than the B-17, by comparing the Lanc's performance operating singly
at night, with the B-17's performance operating in formation by day at higher
altitudes. Basing a conclusion on such an 'analysis' is a prime example of GIGO.

Concur.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster