What if the Americans had built the Avro Lancaster under licence?

[tigercat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_lifeboat

There was enough clearance for a lifeboat...

[PR19_Kit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_lifeboat

There was enough clearance for a lifeboat...

Sure, but the Upkeep bomb was 50" diameter and had to be held clear of the fuselage in order to spin, and the V brackets were a lot longer than the bombs were in diameter.

[tigercat]

Great photo

How about  a B17 Highball ?

[zenrat]

Upkeep installation in the Lanc was presumably designed when it had the spherical fairing over the internal metal drum.

It is therefore probably higher up than it actually needed to be.  It is also probably not what Wallis would have come up with if he had more time - such as if he was designing fittings to carry a proven weapon instead of rushing to knock out a lash-up to prove a concept.

I have a 1/72 B-17.  I obviously need to buy an Airfix Upkeep Lanc and have a play with parts.

[The Wooksta!]

Get the older one based on the 1979 tooling.  Should be cheaper and when/if you build the actual Lancaster it will be a damn sight easier to build than the new tool.

[jcf]

The B-17 and B-24 both had "keels" joing the fwd and aft bulkheads of the bomb-bay(s)
bifurcating the compartment, on the B-17 the bomb-racks were also structural.

Realistically there's no quick-'n-dirty way to modify either aircraft to carry something
like the Upkeep mine.

The B-24 would possibly be the simpler candidate in terms of the engineering work
that would be required, because of the way it's constructed. New heavy longerons
about a third of the way up the sides tying in to reinforced bulkheads at the fwd and
aft ends, in place of the single beam keel.
This description of the structure in this design analysis from the July 1945 issue of
Aviation is a good starting point, it's about 23 pages long:
https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1945-07-01/page/n60/mode/1up



The Lancaster's ability to be easily modified to carry the Wallis specials was purely a
matter of serendipity, a case of good luck rather than good management. The centre
fuselage section and wing centre section made for a very simple and strong structure
allowing the cabin floor to also serve as the bomb-bay roof, enabling a large open
space that didn't compromise airframe integrity. Thus taking the doors off and sticking
various gubbins about the place was a bit of a toddle.

[jcf]

Back to license building, the problem is who, where and when?

By the time the first Lancaster prototype flew in January 1941, the US factories were
already tooling up and the B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26 and A-20 were all in production.

The first production Lanc flew October of 1941 and the type went into service in Feb
of 1942.

[zenrat]

Get the older one based on the 1979 tooling.  Should be cheaper and when/if you build the actual Lancaster it will be a damn sight easier to build than the new tool.

Thanks mate.

[PR19_Kit]

Imagine the amount of structural work they've needed to fit an Upkeep bomb to a Stirling! 

They may have just about finished it by 1945.........

[tigercat]

It would have been easier to resurrect project Aphrodite with a Sterling 

[jcf]

Imagine the amount of structural work they've needed to fit an Upkeep bomb to a Stirling! 

They may have just about finished it by 1945.........

Can you imagine if Bomber Command had ended up with both the Stirling and
the Supermarine Type 317 in the four-engine heavy role? Halifax still comes on
strength but with two heavies there's no pressure, at the time, to turn the failed
Manchester into a four-engine aircraft resulting in the Lancaster.


Attempting to adapt the 317 to any role aside from that for which it was designed
would possibly have been worse than trying to modify the B-17. The multiple bomb
cell concept was self-limiting out of the gate.