#1 Jet of World War II

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:
As a somewhat side note. I have some doubts about the
reputation of
the Lancaster II wrt having a lower ceiling than the Lanc
I/III.
The power available at height isn't really all that much
different,
and you don't see a similar disparity, (or, for that
matter, an
absolute difference) between the Merlin-powered Halifaxes
(Which used
the same engine as the Lanc I), and the Herculese engined
aircraft. (Which used the same engine as the Lanc II).

What I'd like to know is if the Mk. IIs _really_ had a lower
MTOW (63 vs. 65,000) than the Merlin jobs, as virtually
every reference states. I've never understood the reason
for this. I've wondered if the longer bomb bay might have
been a factor in decreasing the structural strength, but
some Merlin-engined models also had that, so that's out.
The other thought I had was that the Hercules engines were
significantly heavier and may have somehow put more stress
on the wings, but neither theory seems all that likely.

From what I've been able to dig up, the Max Weight of teh Merlin
engined lancasters was determined by 1-engine out Rate of Climb on
takeoff. Merlin XX airplanes had a Max Weight of 61,500, Merlin 22
airplanes had this raised to 63,000#, and Merlin 24 airplanes were
limited to 68,000#, fir regular aircraft, and 72,000# on the Grand
Slam carriers. I doubt that it was a strength issue. The Lancaster
center section was virtually unchanged in the Lincoln, which tipped
the scales at 82,000#, and the Shackleton, which was somewher on the
order of 100,000#.

Re the Merlin vs. Hercules Halifaxes, don't forget that the
latter had another 6 feet (IIRR) added to the wingspan (and
a commensurate increase in area), as well as having the nose
considerably cleaned up

I've nearly rebuilt my analysis tools that were lost when
that hard
drive failed (And don't lecture me on backups - the lack
of restorable
backups was part of the trigger for the upgrade in the
first place.
Sometimes cascading failures can fork you over real good),
adn I'll
make the Lancs II and Lanc III my test cases. We'll see
how
Historical References stack up against the Fundamentals of

Werodynamics.

Please do.

In process, results as soon as I have them.

It wouldn't be the first time that the accepted references
are
repeating bogus data. For example, I see the incorrect
numbers for
the Merlin XX-23 series that were published in the '45-'46

_Jane's_All_the_World's_Aircraft repeated all over the
place.

That's why I wonder about the Lanc II's MTOW. It seems more
likely to me that the lower weight refers to an earlier
version, and was probably increased later, but someone
(Green, for a bet) had the specs for an earlier version of
the Mk. II, but those for later versions of the
Merlin-engined varieties.

SOmebody must have a Pilot's Handbook for the thing.

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

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:21:00 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

As a somewhat side note. I have some doubts about the reputation of
the Lancaster II wrt having a lower ceiling than the Lanc I/III.
The power available at height isn't really all that much different,

Even with the difference between the Hercules VI and XVI versions?

No dofference in ratings between the Hercules VI and XVI. The
difference between the engine models was that the XVI used a Pressure
Carburetor, like the U.S. Bendix-Stromberg. (Although I think the
Hercules used a Skinner Union pressure carb.)

Aircrew flying the II certainly gave the Merlin engined-variants a
higher bombing altitude, although the difference doesn't seem to be
massive (@ 21,000 ft vs @20,000 ft). The II certainly climbed faster,
but I suspect the supercharging (at least on the Hercules VI-engined
variants) led to the superior takeoff power falling away with height
much more quickly. They also consumed more fuel, although I don't
know how much of that was down to airframe drag (via the Hercules
engine installations) and how much to the engine consumption at
similar cruising settings. I also vaguely recall a dramatic increase
in consumption with the Hercules being referred to after cooling vanes
were opened by a Lanc II crewman in Middlebrook somewhere, although
this might be a fault of memory on my part.

The difference in horsepower performance at height between a XX series
Merlin and a VI/XVI series Hercules wasn't all that great. I'll have
hard nimbers for you tomorrow.

and you don't see a similar disparity, (or, for that matter, an
absolute difference) between the Merlin-powered Halifaxes (Which used
the same engine as the Lanc I), and the Herculese engined
aircraft. (Which used the same engine as the Lanc II).

The Halifax IIIs definately had a higher ceiling than the Lanc II. In
my ignorance I thought this was down to a larger wing area (greater
span) and initially a lower all-up weight. The Merlin-engined
Halifaxes were certainly poorer at altitude than the Lancs of both
varieties, but then I can't remember offhand if the Halifaxes had
Merlin 20-series engines or just Merlin X's.

Again, I'm not too certain about the published numbers for the Lanc
II. I've seen figures bandies about that just don't add up, such as
below the critical altitude of the high speed blower. Something's
fishy. WHen I get the chance to run the numbers, we'll be able to
throw some stuff right out (Such as ficure requiring 120% Ram
Recovery, as an example) adn make soem more educated guesses about
what's what.

The first series of Halifax Is had Merlin Xs, later Mk Is, and all the
other Merlin-engined Halibags had Merlin XX series engines. (XX and
22, I don't _think_ any of them got Merlin 24s, but there wasn't any
technical reason why they couldn't have them.

[snip The Backup Blues]

I can't laugh about that, given my own various episodes of
catastrophic incompetance* in the world of IT. [* aka "creative
innovation" or "clearing away the extraneous detail to focus on the
priority tasks" at management project meetings]

The ironic part is that I'm the Backup Police. One of my professional
functions is writing Disaster/Catastrophe Mitigation and Recovery
Plans. My high-volume backup media crapped out, and it was time for
an upgrade. It was a bog-simple replacement, and the old data drive
was being transferred and cleaned at my leisure. Since the Data Gods
don't like things to go that smooth, they threw a new one on me. The
drive motor (The spinup one, integral with the platter spindle)seized.
Solid. Not even a scraping sound. Of course, the internal wiring
didn't like this, and melted down. It was most impressive, in a way.
Just when you think you've sen averything...

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

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 00:27:40 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

Even with the difference between the Hercules VI and XVI versions?

No dofference in ratings between the Hercules VI and XVI.

Which ones had the improved supercharger [centrifugal
eyelet-whatsit-mumble-mumble? Or was that the 100 series Hercules?

The difference in horsepower performance at height between a XX series
Merlin and a VI/XVI series Hercules wasn't all that great. I'll have
hard nimbers for you tomorrow.

Please do not lower the tone of usenet discourse by injecting facts
into the debate.

Again, I'm not too certain about the published numbers for the Lanc
II. I've seen figures bandies about that just don't add up, such as
below the critical altitude of the high speed blower. Something's
fishy.

I haven't seen any auw figures for the III over time, just what was
given in early 1943. I suspect they would have gone up over time,
just like the B.I/III weights did. I thought a direct comparison with
the Halifax III might have been useful, bearing in mind airframe
differences.

Of course, the internal wiring
didn't like this, and melted down.

My favourite is the discreet power-supply blow-up. The kind where you
reset the server and then realise that things have suddenly become
very quiet as a faint tinge of burning insulation comes to your
nostrils. Ah, happy memories.

It was most impressive, in a way.
Just when you think you've sen averything...

Just to drift off-topic a little, one of my favourite memories of
system administration was working for an IT manager who spent the
whole disaster-recovery budget on a fire-proof (and everything up to
nuclear detonation-proof) safe but failed to renew the fire insurance
on the servers as a consequence..... The data on the tapes was at
least secure, even if there was only going to be a pile of smouldering
ash to restore it to.

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

In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes
Take off and straight flying...........................63,000 lbs
(For Lancaster ASR MkIII...............................64,000 lbs
(For aircraft with Mod 503 or 518
Mod 588 or 598
Mod 811 or SI/RDA 600 and Mod 1004..65,000 lbs
(For aircraft fitted with Merlin 24 or 224,
paddle-type blades, Lincoln-type undercarriage,
and Mod 1195 tyres, and only to be used on runways....72,000 lbs

Anybody know what the MTO was on the aircraft used for the Tirpitz
missions from Lossiemouth? I believe they swapped the engines out for
Merlin 24s 'borrowed from other units a better description'. The extra
fuel they added left them 2 tons over MTO according to Brickhill in the
Dam Busters, although there's no mention of the actual weight or MTO
referred to (although I suspect one of the earlier lighter weights).

--
John

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 00:27:40 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

snip

The difference in horsepower performance at height between a XX series
Merlin and a VI/XVI series Hercules wasn't all that great. I'll have
hard nimbers for you tomorrow.

Please do not lower the tone of usenet discourse by injecting facts
into the debate.

The last week has given me time to order and read Middlebrook's "The Battle
of Hamburg" and "The Berlin Raids," both full of good info re loads.
Here's some typical bomb and fuel loads he gives for the first raid on
Hamburg, from the former book:

Lanc I and III: 9,840 - 13,280 lb., 1,600 (presumably Imperial) gallons.

Lanc II: 7,600 - 9,200 lb., 1,700 gallons.

Halifax II and V: 5,960 - 7,960 lb., 1,775 gallons.

Stirling I and III: 4,788 - 5,136 lb., 1,875 gallons.

Wellington X: 2,640 - 4,000 lb., 900 gallons.

This first raid had a track distance of 980 (1 Gp.) to 1,020 (6 Gp.) miles
depending on the Group, fairly direct routing. The Lanc IIs were in 3 and
6 Groups. The extra fuel weight carried by the Lanc IIs (poorer mpg)
amounts to 720 lbs., which is considerably less than the difference in
bombload weights, implying that the remainder of the difference was due to
a need to improve the ceiling to equal the Merlin Lancs, and/or a
difference in MTOW. "The Berlin Raids" contains a statement by a pilot
mentioning that the (Merlin, IIRR) Lancs had their MTOWs increased from 63
to 65,000 lb. during that period (i.e. post-Hamburg). I'll need to find it
again.

What is also interesting are the stats Middlebrook provides for the Battle
of berlin, wherein the loss rates of different heavy bomber types are
inversely proportional to their operating ceilings:

Lancaster, 5.2%.

Halifax, 7.7%.

Stirling, 13.2%.

Oh, with reference to Pete's and my attempt to redesign the Lanc (and
Bomber Command) for day use a few years back at the order of Air Chief
Marshal "Butch" Kramer, and how long the process was likely to take
starting from the fall of 1943 ("Butch" was loathe to accept our estimate
of 6 months minimum to convert enough a/c to high-altitude engines to
supply a single squadron, with a year more likely for an entire group with
all the other mods needed), serendipitously Middlebrook includes the
following (pg. 96):

"But the [PRO] contains an interesting correspondence concerning a request
made by Bomber Command for six special Lancasters, one for each of the
Pathfinder heavy squadrons, to be used by future Master Bombers. The date
of the first letter is 24 September 1943. The request was for a Lancaster
with uprated Merlin engines which could fly higher than existing types,
presumably to allow the Master Bomber to circle the target safely above the
bomber force. Initially, Lancaster Mark IVs were expected, but the best
that could be managed were Mk. Is fitted with Merlin 85 engines [Guy note:
Packard-built, equivalent to the R-R Merlin 68, i.e the V-1650-3]. an
initial delivery date of the first aircraft to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall for
final modification before handing over to the Pathfinders was given as 15
November -- again just in time for the late November non-moon bombing
period -- with the other five aircraft arriving at regular intervals up to
the end of February. In fact, the first aircraft did not arrive at
Hucknall until 5 December, and then required a further six weeks of work
before it was delivered to the Pathfinders, eventually arriving in time for
the last raid of the Battle of Berlin [Guy Note: 24/25 March 1944]."


Again, I'm not too certain about the published numbers for the Lanc
II. I've seen figures bandies about that just don't add up, such as
below the critical altitude of the high speed blower. Something's
fishy.

I haven't seen any auw figures for the III over time, just what was
given in early 1943. I suspect they would have gone up over time,
just like the B.I/III weights did. I thought a direct comparison with
the Halifax III might have been useful, bearing in mind airframe
differences.

snip

Interestingly enough, "The Berlin Raids" states that the Halifax IIIs
(after the II/Vs had all been removed from Berlin missions) still had a
higher loss rate than the Lancs. I'm looking for the exact quote, but I
think this was true regardless of Lanc type.

Guy

In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:
In article , Peter Stickney
writes
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:

It wouldn't be the first time that the accepted references
are
repeating bogus data. For example, I see the incorrect
numbers for
the Merlin XX-23 series that were published in the '45-'46

_Jane's_All_the_World's_Aircraft repeated all over the
place.

That's why I wonder about the Lanc II's MTOW. It seems more
likely to me that the lower weight refers to an earlier
version, and was probably increased later, but someone
(Green, for a bet) had the specs for an earlier version of
the Mk. II, but those for later versions of the
Merlin-engined varieties.

SOmebody must have a Pilot's Handbook for the thing.


I have not been following this part of the thread with any concentration
to date, but hope the following might help:

From Pilot's Notes dated May 1944 but reprinted April 1945.


Maximum weights

Take off and straight flying...........................63,000 lbs
(For Lancaster ASR MkIII...............................64,000 lbs
(For aircraft with Mod 503 or 518
Mod 588 or 598
Mod 811 or SI/RDA 600 and Mod 1004..65,000 lbs
(For aircraft fitted with Merlin 24 or 224,
paddle-type blades, Lincoln-type undercarriage,
and Mod 1195 tyres, and only to be used on runways....72,000 lbs

Thanks, Dave. But I should have been more explicit. The Merlin
engined Lancs are fiarly consistantly documented. The one that seems
off is the Hercules powered Lancaster II. There's been a lot of stuff
published about it that doesn't make sense, and an accurate context
for the numbers that do exist is hard to come by.

Interesting bit about the "Lincoln-Type" landing gear, though.
The numbers that you've posted also explain why some sources are off.
They seem to be quoting the number for the modified aircraft.

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:
In article , Peter Stickney
writes
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:

It wouldn't be the first time that the accepted references
are
repeating bogus data. For example, I see the incorrect
numbers for
the Merlin XX-23 series that were published in the '45-'46

_Jane's_All_the_World's_Aircraft repeated all over the
place.

That's why I wonder about the Lanc II's MTOW. It seems more
likely to me that the lower weight refers to an earlier
version, and was probably increased later, but someone
(Green, for a bet) had the specs for an earlier version of
the Mk. II, but those for later versions of the
Merlin-engined varieties.

SOmebody must have a Pilot's Handbook for the thing.


I have not been following this part of the thread with any concentration
to date, but hope the following might help:

From Pilot's Notes dated May 1944 but reprinted April 1945.


Maximum weights

Take off and straight flying...........................63,000 lbs
(For Lancaster ASR MkIII...............................64,000 lbs
(For aircraft with Mod 503 or 518
Mod 588 or 598
Mod 811 or SI/RDA 600 and Mod 1004..65,000 lbs
(For aircraft fitted with Merlin 24 or 224,
paddle-type blades, Lincoln-type undercarriage,
and Mod 1195 tyres, and only to be used on runways....72,000 lbs

Thanks, Dave. But I should have been more explicit. The Merlin
engined Lancs are fiarly consistantly documented. The one that seems
off is the Hercules powered Lancaster II. There's been a lot of stuff
published about it that doesn't make sense, and an accurate context
for the numbers that do exist is hard to come by.

Interesting bit about the "Lincoln-Type" landing gear, though.

I believe that applied to the "Specials" for Grand Slam (and probably Tallboy
as well), and no others. The weight's right.


The numbers that you've posted also explain why some sources are off.
They seem to be quoting the number for the modified aircraft.

I'm still trying to find the quote in Middlebrook, but IIRR one senior pilot
mentioned that the MTOW was boosted from 63,000 to 65,000 during the Battle of
Berlin, and the implication I took away (possibly wrong) was that the boost
was purely a paperwork okay, rather than one involving airframe
strengthening. The latter mods probably came along afterwards. Once I find
the quote I'll be able to confirm or deny.

Guy

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:24:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

The last week has given me time to order and read Middlebrook's "The Battle
of Hamburg" and "The Berlin Raids," both full of good info re loads.
Here's some typical bomb and fuel loads he gives for the first raid on
Hamburg, from the former book:

Good books, and it's worth getting the other two in the series
(Peenemunde and Nuremburg Raids), but there is the odd good-faith
discrepancy, due I suspect to Squadron ORBs and aircrew logs varying
for some reason from Group returns to BC HQ and the subsequent BC raid
reports.

difference in MTOW. "The Berlin Raids" contains a statement by a pilot
mentioning that the (Merlin, IIRR) Lancs had their MTOWs increased from 63
to 65,000 lb. during that period (i.e. post-Hamburg). I'll need to find it
again.

I remember that: I think this was 1 Group again.

Oh, with reference to Pete's and my attempt to redesign the Lanc (and
Bomber Command) for day use a few years back at the order of Air Chief
Marshal "Butch" Kramer, and how long the process was likely to take
starting from the fall of 1943 ("Butch" was loathe to accept our estimate
of 6 months minimum to convert enough a/c to high-altitude engines to
supply a single squadron, with a year more likely for an entire group with
all the other mods needed), serendipitously Middlebrook includes the
following (pg. 96):

I don't think two-stage merlin production was sufficient until well
intop 1944 for seriously considering two-stage engines for production
Lancasters en mass. They were too badly needed for Mustangs,
Spitfires and Mosquitos first.

"But the [PRO] contains an interesting correspondence concerning a request
made by Bomber Command for six special Lancasters, one for each of the
Pathfinder heavy squadrons, to be used by future Master Bombers.

Yes, and I believe these became Lanc VIs subsequently. They weren't
used particularly heavily, so far as I can see, and there was no
effort to replace them over time, although they would seem like a good
idea. I suspect PFF abandoning the Master Bomber technique on big
area raids (see Middlebrook's comments on the early Berlin raids which
had allocated Master Bombers) immediately after they appeared had
something to do with this.

an
initial delivery date of the first aircraft to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall for
final modification before handing over to the Pathfinders was given as 15
November -- again just in time for the late November non-moon bombing
period -- with the other five aircraft arriving at regular intervals up to
the end of February. In fact, the first aircraft did not arrive at
Hucknall until 5 December, and then required a further six weeks of work
before it was delivered to the Pathfinders, eventually arriving in time for
the last raid of the Battle of Berlin [Guy Note: 24/25 March 1944]."

This would tie in with Saward's hi-jacking of six H2S Mk III sets from
Coastal Command, although I think the Lanc VIs arrived too late to be
considered for fitting the radar too, and they ended up in Lanc IIIs
instead.

Interestingly enough, "The Berlin Raids" states that the Halifax IIIs
(after the II/Vs had all been removed from Berlin missions) still had a
higher loss rate than the Lancs. I'm looking for the exact quote, but I
think this was true regardless of Lanc type.

It may well be true, but overall loss rates for the war for the B.III
were significantly less than the B.II and V versions and even better
than the Lancs according to Bingham's book on the Halifax. Of course,
the level of resistance would affect this, but the IIIs were active in
the end of 43 and throughout 44 when casualties were high enough to
give them a valid comparison to the Lancs on the same raids.

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

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:24:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

The last week has given me time to order and read Middlebrook's "The Battle
of Hamburg" and "The Berlin Raids," both full of good info re loads.
Here's some typical bomb and fuel loads he gives for the first raid on
Hamburg, from the former book:

Good books, and it's worth getting the other two in the series
(Peenemunde and Nuremburg Raids), but there is the odd good-faith
discrepancy, due I suspect to Squadron ORBs and aircrew logs varying
for some reason from Group returns to BC HQ and the subsequent BC raid
reports.

I've read the Nuremberg and maybe the Peenemunde ones, and have the
Schweinfurt-Regensburg one on order just for comparison. I've been a
Middlebrook fan ever since I first read "First Day on the Somme" umpteen years
ago.

difference in MTOW. "The Berlin Raids" contains a statement by a pilot
mentioning that the (Merlin, IIRR) Lancs had their MTOWs increased from 63
to 65,000 lb. during that period (i.e. post-Hamburg). I'll need to find it
again.

I remember that: I think this was 1 Group again.

Found it and you're right, it was a 1 Gp. CO. specifically, Wg. Cdr. G.A.
Carey-Foster, 101 Sq. at Ludford Magna (don't remember if A.B.C. was in service
yet). Middlebrook quotes from Carey-Foster's diary, apparently on or around
18/19 November 1943:

"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.

Oh, with reference to Pete's and my attempt to redesign the Lanc (and
Bomber Command) for day use a few years back at the order of Air Chief
Marshal "Butch" Kramer, and how long the process was likely to take
starting from the fall of 1943 ("Butch" was loathe to accept our estimate
of 6 months minimum to convert enough a/c to high-altitude engines to
supply a single squadron, with a year more likely for an entire group with
all the other mods needed), serendipitously Middlebrook includes the
following (pg. 96):

I don't think two-stage merlin production was sufficient until well
intop 1944 for seriously considering two-stage engines for production
Lancasters en mass. They were too badly needed for Mustangs,
Spitfires and Mosquitos first.

That was part of our reasoning, along with engine mount and airframe
compatibility design issues and modifying the a/c production lines. 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. We were trying to find
out more info on the turbocharged Hercules models that had been used for the
pressurized Wellingtons, but lacking any detailed info on that engine we assumed
that considerably more engine development as well as production tooling would be
required to get those into mass production and service. 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.

"But the [PRO] contains an interesting correspondence concerning a request
made by Bomber Command for six special Lancasters, one for each of the
Pathfinder heavy squadrons, to be used by future Master Bombers.

Yes, and I believe these became Lanc VIs subsequently. They weren't
used particularly heavily, so far as I can see, and there was no
effort to replace them over time, although they would seem like a good
idea.

Right, it appears there were only 10 or so.

I suspect PFF abandoning the Master Bomber technique on big
area raids (see Middlebrook's comments on the early Berlin raids which
had allocated Master Bombers) immediately after they appeared had
something to do with this.

Slightly before they appeared, actually, only bringing it back later. Then 5
Gp. started to use Mossies at low level for this role, exactly opposite to 8
Group's ideas.

an
initial delivery date of the first aircraft to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall for
final modification before handing over to the Pathfinders was given as 15
November -- again just in time for the late November non-moon bombing
period -- with the other five aircraft arriving at regular intervals up to
the end of February. In fact, the first aircraft did not arrive at
Hucknall until 5 December, and then required a further six weeks of work
before it was delivered to the Pathfinders, eventually arriving in time for
the last raid of the Battle of Berlin [Guy Note: 24/25 March 1944]."

This would tie in with Saward's hi-jacking of six H2S Mk III sets from
Coastal Command, although I think the Lanc VIs arrived too late to be
considered for fitting the radar too, and they ended up in Lanc IIIs
instead.

Right, the H2S Mk. IIIs went into regular PFF a/c.

Interestingly enough, "The Berlin Raids" states that the Halifax IIIs
(after the II/Vs had all been removed from Berlin missions) still had a
higher loss rate than the Lancs. I'm looking for the exact quote, but I
think this was true regardless of Lanc type.

It may well be true, but overall loss rates for the war for the B.III
were significantly less than the B.II and V versions and even better
than the Lancs according to Bingham's book on the Halifax.

They'd certainly be better than the Halifax II/Vs.

Of course,
the level of resistance would affect this, but the IIIs were active in
the end of 43 and throughout 44 when casualties were high enough to
give them a valid comparison to the Lancs on the same raids.

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.

Guy

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:28:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

snip

As you can see, at cruise, they're about even. While I wouldn't be
surprised it the Lanc II was a bit more draggy, and possibly heavier,
(Each Hercules weighed 500# more dry than the 20 series Merlin, but
that doesn't include the Merlin's radiators and coolant.)

I've seen comparisons that give about 250lbs extra per engine to the
Hercules version in early 1943, presumably when compared to the
fully-equipped Merlin versions, but this comes from a secondary source
(Holmes) and without context, and so it doesn't address the comparison
over time properly as the I/III auw was raised.

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.

Guy