Planes you'd never heard of

jeremyp said:
This is not true. Both aircraft are long range strategic bombers. They were both designed for the same role.


Nope. The B17 was certainly designed for high altitude attacks but it was thought that the Norden bombsight would allow them to carry out such attacks with a certain amount of precision. As with many military plans, contact with reality put paid to that idea.


It wasn't designed for those raids you mentioned, it was modified for them, and then only the best crews were ever used in those raids.

The Lancaster was always designed as a strategic bomber i.e. an aircraft capable of delivering a large bomb load to targets inside enemy territory. When used in daylight, it proved to be too vulnerable as did the early B17s. The USAAC tried to solve the problem by putting loads of guns on the bomber and the RAF tried to solve the problem by flying at night. The former strategy was a failure because you could never put enough guns on a bomber and keep a reasonable bomb load. The latter strategy was a failure because the crews could not find the target. However, in both cases, technology eventually turned things around, to the detriment of the German people.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for.

The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY)

Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes.

Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster.

The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17.

You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs).

Sources:

"The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements"
by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229

Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber
by Leo McKinstry

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/03/06/raf-1936-bomber-specifications/
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for.

The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY)

Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes.

Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster.

The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17.

You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs).

Sources:

"The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements"
by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229

Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber
by Leo McKinstry

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/03/06/raf-1936-bomber-specifications/
Click to expand...
Nicely researched and written up! Thanks.
 
I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one...

201906160120.jpg


There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right.

Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyfqdswymemk2rq/201906160120.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right.

Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is?
Click to expand...
Is that a Handley Page symbol on the chock?
 
HP 115


640px-Handley_Page_HP.115_62.jpg



Dammit, if I'd not searched for a photo to attach, I wouldn't have been scooped by the Captain.
 
Last edited:
Captain Swoop gets the prize.

One of the aspects (and disadvantages) of the delta wing shape is a high nose-up attitude on approach to landing, making it difficult for the pilot to see the runway. This experimental aircraft was designed to to try to mitigate this with use of a large cockpit bubble, and low sloping nose cone and a low set cockpit.
 
Last edited:
Until recently, I had never heard of Aircraft One.
 
It totally blew me away when I was stood in the Smithsonian in front of what I thought was a replica and found out it was original!
 
Sort of original, I think. The Wrights didn't exactly preserve it in original condition, tinkerers that they were. They were also (quite rightly) on the outs with the Smithsonian for a long time. I believe the Flyer spent some years in Europe.
 
Came across this the other day. I'm sure you airplane people must have heard of the Starr Bumble Bee II.
It just looks impossible.



[imgw=500]https://i.imgur.com/488EKsh.jpg[/imgw]


30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom