#1 Jet of World War II

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:18:05 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

[Hercules engine weights]

FWIW, Tubbs says that each of the Lanc Merlins had between 11 and 12.5 gallons, presumably
Imperial, of 70/30 water/glycol coolant. I have no idea what glycol weighs, so assuming
straight water you're talking ca. 100-125 pounds per engine of coolant.

Holmes, using a starting point of a 60,000 lb auw at the beginning of
service (Jan 42 for the B.I, Sep 42 for the B.II), gives them the
following figures:

Structu 17064 lbs for both.
Powerplant: 10,720 lbs for the B.I; 12,335 lbs for the B.II
Fuel & Oil tanks: 1,796 lbs for both.
Empty weight: 29,580 lbs for the B.I; 31,195 lbs for the B.II
Fixed Military load: 4,120 lbs for both.
Tare weight: 33,700 lbs vs 35,315 lbs.
Crew, bombload, fuel, etc: 26,300 lbs vs 24,685 lbs.

It's notable that the increase to 63,000 lbs for the B.I auw in Nov
'42 comes with the following increments:

Structu 17,776 lbs.
Power plant: 11,304 lbs.
Fuel & oil tanks : 1,990 lbs.
Empty weight: 31,070 lbs.
Fixed military load: 4,334 lbs.

Tare weight: 35,404 lbs.
Crew, bombs, etc: 27,596 lbs.

Whatever this increment consisted of, I don't think it would include
the H2S and radome at that point in time.

May '44 and the next increase to 65,000 lbs auw:

Structu 18,033 lbs.
Power plant: 11,610 lbs.
Fuel & oil tanks : 1,999 lbs.
Empty weight: 31,642 lbs.
Fixed military load: 5,169 lbs.

Tare weight: 36,811 lbs.
Crew, bombs, etc: 28,189 lbs.

Normal disclaimers apply,

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:57 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


Yes. That's about as realistic a prospect as my own Lancaster
fantasy: Sabre-engined Lancasters [with four and not the originally
mooted two Sabre-Manchester profile]. Stop laughing for a minute

:-), Well if you are going down that route :-). how about a centaurus engine'd Lanc.

Did anyone any thoughts to using P&Ws finest radials @ potential
replacements for the hercules ?

A lanc with 4 x 2800s and paddle blade props.... now theres a thought. :-).



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

In article ,
Greg Hennessy nntp wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:57 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

Yes. That's about as realistic a prospect as my own Lancaster
fantasy: Sabre-engined Lancasters [with four and not the originally
mooted two Sabre-Manchester profile]. Stop laughing for a minute

:-), Well if you are going down that route :-). how about a centaurus engine'd Lanc.

Did anyone any thoughts to using P&Ws finest radials @ potential
replacements for the hercules ?

A lanc with 4 x 2800s and paddle blade props.... now theres a thought. :-).

Why be modest? Given that the basic Lancaster (and certainly the Lincoln)
wing had the strength, there's scope for adding rather a lot more power.
ISTR the Nene was test flown in early 1944 (someone will know for sure),
so how about four Nenes in pairs on the inboard stations (a la Avro
Ashton) and either Sabres, Griffons or Centaurii on the outboard stations.
The Nenes would take care of getting the whole affair off the ground in
the first place, for increasing altitude and for higher speeds over
hostile territory, while cruise under relatively safe circumstances could
be on the props only.

It's alright. I'll go back to the nice padded room..

More seriously, wht wasn't a 4xGriffon fit considered - higher-priority
calls for the engines, I guess, same reason as the griffon-mosquito
didn't happen.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
More seriously, wht wasn't a 4xGriffon fit considered - higher-priority
calls for the engines, I guess, same reason as the griffon-mosquito
didn't happen.

I always thought it a pity Barnes Wallis didn't get the go ahead for his
Victory bomber. Not sure which engines he'd have used though.

--
John

In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:
In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
More seriously, wht wasn't a 4xGriffon fit considered - higher-priority
calls for the engines, I guess, same reason as the griffon-mosquito
didn't happen.

I always thought it a pity Barnes Wallis didn't get the go ahead for his
Victory bomber. Not sure which engines he'd have used though.

Then there's the Bristol 100 - the eight-Centaurii, pusher brute, that
later led to the Brabazon airliner design, and which would have been
a beast to try to intercept at altitude. There's also the earlier
Supermarine design for a Lancaster/Halibag alternative, though I'm
doubtful whether it'd have matched the claimed performance in the metal..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In message , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes

snip

Why be modest? Given that the basic Lancaster (and certainly the Lincoln)
wing had the strength, there's scope for adding rather a lot more power.
ISTR the Nene was test flown in early 1944 (someone will know for sure),
so how about four Nenes in pairs on the inboard stations (a la Avro
Ashton)

Ooh! An Ashton! I flew in one once at Farnborough. I didn't appreciate
the rarity of the aircraft at the time though.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

In article ,
Greg Hennessy writes:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:57 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


Yes. That's about as realistic a prospect as my own Lancaster
fantasy: Sabre-engined Lancasters [with four and not the originally
mooted two Sabre-Manchester profile]. Stop laughing for a minute

:-), Well if you are going down that route :-). how about a centaurus engine'd Lanc.

Did anyone any thoughts to using P&Ws finest radials @ potential
replacements for the hercules ?

A lanc with 4 x 2800s and paddle blade props.... now theres a thought. :-).

Well, in out thought experiment, we did briefly consider something
like that. The problem is, you don't get the sort of altitude
performance that we were looking for without 2-stage supercharging.
In the R2800 case, the only viable alternative for a 25,000' cruise
would have been using a turbosupercharger as the Aux Stage, with a
severe penalty in terms of wight and bulk, (Nostly bulk). In order to
make a minumum change version, the only likely alternatives were
2-stage Merlins, Bristol Hercules 100s, which weren't quite ready yet,
and Wright R2600s, of which there had been, on the original A-20s,
turbosupercharged.
What we ended up with was a Lancaster with 2-stage Merlins, .50 cal
guns, Crew armor, and extended tips to give a boost in cruise
ceiling. Basically, what we did was re-invent the Lincoln.

As Guy said elsewhere, probably the best solution would have been to
switch to B-24s. That resolves nearly all the problems, and had quite
good performance. (Climb? Not a problem. There you are, tootling
along at 25,000', and you dial in the turbos and climb like a bird!" -
unknown 100 Sqn B-24 pilot describing his airplane's performance to a
Sterling pilot.


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

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:00:49 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

(Climb? Not a problem. There you are, tootling
along at 25,000', and you dial in the turbos and climb like a bird!" -
unknown 100 Sqn B-24 pilot describing his airplane's performance to a
Sterling pilot.

The face of the stirling pilot must have been a picture.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .

snip

"All-up weight has been increased to 65,000 pounds for the first time";
Middlebrook comments that 'this would allow each Lancaster to carry up to half a
ton more bombs. But the move was not as effective as might appear. It was soon
apparent that more crews were jettisoning part of their bomb loads in the North
Sea to retain some maneuverability if attacked by a night fighter before
reaching the target.'

The diary quote is more ambiguous than I thought. To me it's at least implied
that this was an administrative rather than structural increase, but from the
quote I can't say that's definitely the case.

From Avro Lancaster by Harry Holmes.

B I, maximum take off weight, 63,000 pounds November 1942, 65,000
pounds May 1944, 72,000 pounds February 1945. Top speeds 287
mph at 11,500 feet, 275 mph at 15,000 feet, 260 mph at 19,400 feet.
Service ceiling 23,000 feet, absolute ceiling 24,500 feet. No weights
given.

B I empty weight January 1942 29,580 pounds, fixed military load
4,120 pounds, so tare weight 33,700 pounds. Gross weight 60,000
pounds, 5,120 HP take off power.

snip much good stuff

He doesn't happen to list just what is included in the fixed military load, does he?
Guns, radios, bombsights, O2, armor?

Snip details of Lanc VI and Master Bomber discussion. Thanks.

Unfortunately, books on the Halifax are almost non-existent in this country (not
that Lanc books are very thick on the ground), so I'm having to work through
peripheral sources like Middlebrook. I'll have to re-read it, but I'm pretty
sure Middlebrook shows the IIIs had a worse loss rate in "The Berlin Raids"
period than the Lancs, when both were on the same mission. Many of the raids to
Berlin only used Lancs, so that skews the Lanc losses. After the invasion it
probably made little difference what you were flying, as the loss rate had
dropped so low (and many of the missions were flown by day). And you did have a
better chance of bailing out of a Halifax in an emergency.

Bomber Command War Diaries usually give the strength and losses
of the attacking force by aircraft type, which gives overall percentages.

Bomber Command War Losses gives you the details by individual
aircraft.

What level of detail is wanted?

Loss rates of Merlin-engined Lancs, Hercules-engined same and Halifax IIIs on the
same mission would be helpful.

TIA,

Guy

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:10:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

[Warning: several hobby-horses are not just ridden in this post, but
actively flogged to death. Continue at your own peril.]

Saddle up and ride ;-)

snip the minutes of the Anglo-American Martin Middlebrook fan club, A.B.C. info

Holmes doesn't list any A&AEE testing for the higher weight of
65,000lbs, unlike things like further increases associated with the
overloaded Gland Slam specials at 72,000 lbs auw or 12,000lb HC bombs,
so I suspect it was an administrative initiative. Holmes gives the
65,000 lbs weight for production aircraft by May 1944, and a 63,000
lbs auw for Is in November 1942, but the only II auw he gives dates
from September 1942 at 60,000lbs, which is identical with the January
1942 Lanc I auw. I suspect that the I and III benefitted from a
continual increment in auw over time which is not reflected in the
commonly-understood figures for the II, although I have no reason to
suspect it might not have benefitted from the same process which just
hasn't been popularised in the same way. On the other hand, the Lanc
II was being phased out by May 1944, so if the 65,000 lbs auw was
promulgated beyond 1 Group and across the whole command at that point
(as the differential bombloads Middlebrook gives for 5 Group, who seem
to have stuck to a lower auw during the Battle of Berlin, would
suggest], then they might have missed it.

Seems reasonable.

The altitude issue [Herc engined bombers] is difficult to assess, and
I've just read an account from a 6 Group pilot in Garbett & Goulding
which indicates that the Halifax III had a much higher (@ 24,000 ft)
usable operational bombing height than generally given. How this
squares with the lower heights associated with the Lanc II is beyond
me.

Probably due to all-incendiary (lighter) loads for the Halifaxes, of whatever mark.

[Daylight Lancs]

That was part of our reasoning, along with engine mount and airframe
compatibility design issues and modifying the a/c production lines.

Well, there are some things beyond reasonable modification, and
whatever daylight bombing BC fantasies we entertain, they were going
to have to be entertained on what was realistically possible with the
production resources available at the time.

That was how we limited our alternate 1943.

So, regardless of
anything else, I don't think two-stage Merlins would be on the cards,
so even if the "daylight Lancs" surrendered bombload in exchange for
better defensive resources (armour, guns, ammo, etc), they would be
flying lower than the B-17s and B-24s and would be at a commensurately
higher risk from flak. The same applies to the Hercules XVI-engined
"daylight Halifax" or [God forbid] a "daylight Stirling".

The plan was to transition BC over gradually, with the realisation that the early
missions would have to be to less well-defended targets in France or the low
countries owing to lack of ceiling and defensive guns etc. Ideally, we'd transition
either Packard or R-R over to two-stage production entirely.

Failing B-24s, I leaned towards Halifax IIIs, for whatever slight advantage their
four gun top turrets would give them, and the relative ease of mounting a flexible
..50cal in the nose given some local strengthening (as was done with B-17s), giving
them at least _some_ useful head-on armament. We could probably have begged or
borrowed enough .50s from 8th AF or elsewhere for that, even if we couldn't get an
adequate supply for the rest of the positions (not to mention the time needed to
redesign the turrets) before late '44 or so. We'd already had a hell of a time
convincing Butch that using 20mm was really not on in any reasonable time, given the
weight, strength, and Cg issues.


Having said
that, the Stirling had a beefy enough reserve of structural weight to
compete with the Fort for robustness, but it would sure as hell need
it if it was going to fly across the Ruhr in daylight straining to get
over 15,000 feet.

The Stirling has always been my personal favorite among the three for looks (other
than the original top turret), and if I had my druthers they'd have stuck the
proposed 110-foot wing on them and maybe shortened the gear. But there was no way
that they could have been produced in adequate numbers.


Actually,
ACM Kramer really wanted us to use radials, but we pointed out that the only way
to get a significant high altitude daylight force into service within a year
using _British-designed_ heavies was to use two-stage Merlins, because there was
no high-altitude version of the Hercules in production.

Even then, the numbers would not have been available; he would be
stuck with Lanc I and Halifax IIIs as the basic starting point.

Exactly what we figured, although we were hoping to try out the Lanc II as well.

I
think there might be a case for a subsidiary daylight force working in
tandem with the 8th AF, hitting the easier and shallower-penetration
targets[with better Fighter Command escort coverage via adapted

Spitfire VIIIs with the rear-fuselage tanks that eventually turned up
in the Spit XVI], but as a strategic alternative to the whole striking
force of Bomber Command I just think it's too implausible. The whole
RAF bomber force was not viable as a major daylight force until the
Luftwaffe daylight fighter force had been decimated and the available
escort coverage was sufficient. The best that could be done with
armament and armour adaptions would have been a poor man's B-17:
maybe with a slightly higher bombload, but with a lower ceiling and
still far more vulnerable to damage.

You've arrived at pretty much the same conclusions we did, although we said either
the Spit Mk. VIII or else the IX with the VIII's leading edge tanks as a start. We
told Supermarine to put more development effort into the rear tank, even if it held
up the Mk. XIV. We realised that Fighter Command was likely to scream over any
slowdown in production of the Mk. IX in the run up to the Invasion, so figured this
would need to be decided at Air Ministry/MAP or higher level. As it was, since
Arnold was already twisting Portal's arm to get him to give up the RAF's allocation
of 300 Merlin-Mustangs for the immediate future so that they could be used by the 8th
and 9th AF, we might have been able to swap for P-47s which would at least allow us
to escort to 375 miles or so by spring, even if we couldn't get the Spits we needed.

snip Sabre and turbo-Hercules musings

Personally, I've since
come to the conclusion that the simplest approach would have been for the
proposed (in Art's alternate universe) day RAF heavy bomber force to use B-24s.
This would require some re-scheduling of U.S. Bomb Group training and
deployment, but would eliminate the need to cut down the training times (first
one month, then another) for U.S. replacement crews that took place in the late
fall of '43 owing to the high loss rates. We'd figured 3 Gp. was the best Group
to convert first. 3 Gp. would have been the best to start with because of their
location in the same general area as 8th BC, and because the Stirling was the
least useful night bomber. Taking them off ops to retrain and convert, whether
replaced with B-24s, Lancs or Halifax IIIs, would cause the least negative
effect to the night force.

Actually, bizarrely enough, I believe it was originally planned to use
3 Group to fly B-24's [albeit at night] in the halcyon pipe-dream days
of the RAF bomber fantasists 1941 when the British were harassing the
Americans for bigger Lend-lease allocations of increased heavy-bomber
production. IIRC this fell through due to USAAF requirements after
Pearl Harbour, but to be frank I don't think the production would have
been there to consider this as a realistic into 1944, which leaves the
Allies with the problem of making the best with what was actually
available. And a single-BC-group daylight bombing effort cannot
compare to the scale and depth of resources the 8th AF deployed and
were fully required to sustain the heavy and ongoing attritional
losses required for a meaningful, long-term, deep-penetration daylight
strategic bombing effort.

3 Gp. was only the initial contingent; most of the force would transition over
eventually. If we could have gotten B-24s then 6 Gp. would probably be next, even
though we'd probably have had to do an airfield swap with 1 Gp. That way the
Canadians could train in the U.S. or Canada, and then fly their own a/c over.

As an alternative, given these constraints, I suggest expanding 2
Group as a daylight bomber force.

An option, although I'm not familiar with where they were based at the time, and
whether their base infrastructure would support heavies.

snip a fair amount of agreement.


Unfortunately, books on the Halifax are almost non-existent in this country (not
that Lanc books are very thick on the ground), so I'm having to work through
peripheral sources like Middlebrook.

Bignham is a reasonable start, but nowhere near as good as Francis
Mason's work on the Lancaster [which I can never find second-hand], or
Bowyer's on the Stirling.

I'd really like to see a good source on the Stirling, given my affection for it.

snip some Lanc vs. Halifax III stuff

Many of the raids to
Berlin only used Lancs, so that skews the Lanc losses.

But I believe the Halifaxes to be dropped from deep penetration raids
in early 1944 were only the Merlin-engined variants, so the 1944
picture isn't as skewed as that would suggest.

True, but the Halifaxes going to Berlin and elsewhere at the time, even the IIIs,
were carrying incendiary only loads.

After the invasion it
probably made little difference what you were flying, as the loss rate had
dropped so low (and many of the missions were flown by day). And you did have a
better chance of bailing out of a Halifax in an emergency.

Yes, but following the same Dysonesque approach to counter-factual
speculation, how much better would the loss rates have been if the top
and front turrets were deleted and cruising speeds increased to the
maximum*? Even better, exchange the 4 Merlins for 4 Sabres.... OK,
OK, the men in white coats have now arrived and I shall go quietly.

[* full effect: the rear-gunner was still vital as a look-out and for
covering the most dangerous approach path for night-fighters - even
Schrage Muzak** attacks, which still often relied on a low stern-chase
approach before manoevring below the target, so I say keep him, but
give him four .50 calibres, with less ammo. If he does need to use
the armament, it's now more than twice as effective, and if it's not
over in 20 seconds no amount of further ammo will help the situation.
Meanwhile there should still be a net gain from losing the weight of
the top and front turrets, not to mention lower drag. Couple that
with higher cruise speed engine settings and the Me 110 becomes a much
more marginal night-fighter, and stern chase intercepts into the
bomber-stream become even more difficult.]

The higher cruise speed at night was actually suggested by a British OR type in WW2 ,
but not taken up. For night use, I agree completely about losing the mid-upper (and
the nose turret if fitted), changing it for a streamlined nose ala' Halifax II/III.

Guy