Avro Lancaster: Bailing Out

[Jay-Jay]

thanks for for these corrections.
my english is not good as that and when I wrote the post it was past midnight here so my fingers and brain were a bit slow
"lock on" was used to refer to the final run of the fighter once target is located but your text is perfect, thanks for the lesson (both technical and in correct woding) 
JJ

[kitnut617]

The Lanc and B-24 had roughly the same normal max load right?

Oh yeah, how do you figure that:

B-24 Armament:
Ten 0.50-inch Browning machine guns in nose, upper ventral, and tail turrets and in waist positions. Maximum internal bomb load was 8000 pounds. Two 4000 pound bombs could be carried on external racks, one underneath each inner wing. Maximum short range bomb load was 12,800 pounds (by using underwing racks), but normal offensive load was 5000 pounds.
Taken from here:
http://www.liberatorcrew.com/06_B-24_Specs.htm


Now read this:

The Lancaster first flew in January 1941 and entered production in early 1942; it entered combat in April of that year. A midwing design with a twin tail, the Lancaster was powered by four 1,460-horsepower Merlins, had a wingspan of 102 feet (31 metres), and was 69 feet long. It was operated by a basic crew of seven, including the pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, radioman, and gunners. It could reach a maximum speed of 280 miles (450 kilometres) per hour and a ceiling of 24,500 feet, and it could carry a 14,000-pound (6,350-kilogram) bomb load to a range of 1,660 miles at 200 miles per hour.

Taken from here:

http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/lanc.html

[jcf]

Actually the standard versions of the B-24 and the Lancaster did have similar 'max loads', roughly 1.75
times empty weight, which is not the same thing as disposable load. 

Anyhow back to the original question, get a copy of Graphic War by Donald Nijboer, Boston Mills Press 2005,
on page 127 it has an 'Emergency Equipment & Exits - Lancaster I' diagram and on page 241 the 'Emergency Equipment and Exits Diagram' for the B-17G which also shows the order of crew exit by position.

The Lancaster diagram shows two exits, the stbd. aft crew door, and a drop-off hatch in the underside of the
nose compartment. The B-17 diagram shows four exits: bombardier and navigator go out the port forward hatch
that is in the tunnel to the nose compartment; upper turret gunner, co-pilot, pilot and radio operator exit via
the bomb-bay; ball and waist gunners go out the aft stbd. crew door; and the tail-gunner goes out his emergency
hatch which is just forward of his position on the stbd. underside beneath the horizontal stabilizer.

So, the Lanc two exits at opposite ends for seven crew, the B-17 four exits the length of the aircraft for ten
crew. Do the math.

[Logan Hartke]

jcf,

That's basically what I said on the first page about B-17 crewmen always having a hatch handy.  That's what I gathered from talking to veterans and that's what it sounds like from the diagrams you looked at.

Cheers,

Logan

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

"Lock-on" should not be used to describe a WWII radar system.  There was no "lock-on", it was all managed by the combination of the radar operator directing the pilot who flew the aircraft until he could see his target.

So, the kill was carried out visually...


kitnut617

Oh yeah, how do you figure that

I thought the B-24 had a maximum load of 14,000... I stand corrected


joncarrfarrelly

The Lancaster diagram shows two exits, the stbd. aft crew door, and a drop-off hatch in the underside of the
nose compartment. The B-17 diagram shows four exits: bombardier and navigator go out the port forward hatch
that is in the tunnel to the nose compartment; upper turret gunner, co-pilot, pilot and radio operator exit via
the bomb-bay; ball and waist gunners go out the aft stbd. crew door; and the tail-gunner goes out his emergency
hatch which is just forward of his position on the stbd. underside beneath the horizontal stabilizer.

So, the Lanc two exits at opposite ends for seven crew, the B-17 four exits the length of the aircraft for ten
crew. Do the math.

Okay, so more exits were the reason -- that makes a lot of sense.

[The Wooksta!]

The Lancaster had two standard entry/exit hatches plus another two escape hatches.  One of which is in the top of the canopy.

[jcf]

Three hatches on top of the fuselage, including the one in the canopy, however on the
diagram they are not colour coded as 'parachute exits'. They'd work for escaping on the
ground, but they'd be problematic, at best, for 'bailing out'.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

"Lock-on" should not be used to describe a WWII radar system.  There was no "lock-on", it was all managed by the combination of the radar operator directing the pilot who flew the aircraft until he could see his target.

So, the kill was carried out visually...

That has already been said several times, Kendra.

Okay, so more exits were the reason -- that makes a lot of sense.

Not completely, as has been said, again several times.  It doesn't matter how many emergency exits there are, if the aircraft can't survive long enough to allow the crew to use the exits.   As has been pointed, this is simply one of several factors which must be considered, Kendra.  It's an important one but the others which have been mentioned - time of day/night the aircraft was flying, what opposition it faced, how it was designed WRT to armour and armament and how manoeuvrable it was, what armament its opponents were using and how they conducted their attacks.  Access to an emergency exit certainly helped without a doubt but if your aircraft explodes, it won't save your life.

[pyro-manic]

if your aircraft explodes

Quite likely when you're getting hit with an accurate burst of 30mm at point-blank range.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Not completely, as has been said, again several times.

So to clarify, the factors that affect survival are

• Type of attack
  
• Agility
  
• Armor
  
• Defensive armament
  
• Time of day
  
• Number of hatches and relative position to crew members
  

Am I correct?

[rickshaw]

if your aircraft explodes

Quite likely when you're getting hit with an accurate burst of 30mm at point-blank range.

Even a burst of 20mm would be sufficient if directed at close range into the unprotected belly of an aircraft from close range would suffice.   30mm merely makes sure with fewer rounds.  Shrage Musik was deadly effective.   If I'd been the RAF I'd have sacrificed the nose turret for a good belly turret like on the USAAF bombers.   I doubt the nose turret was terribly effective, except in low-level runs a'la dambusters when it could be used for flak suppression and how often did that occur?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

Not completely, as has been said, again several times.

So to clarify, the factors that affect survival are

• Type of attack
  
• Agility
  
• Armor
  
• Defensive armament
  
• Time of day
  
• Number of hatches and relative position to crew members
  

Am I correct?

Yes.

[pyro-manic]

if your aircraft explodes

Quite likely when you're getting hit with an accurate burst of 30mm at point-blank range.

Even a burst of 20mm would be sufficient if directed at close range into the unprotected belly of an aircraft from close range would suffice.   30mm merely makes sure with fewer rounds.  Shrage Musik was deadly effective.   If I'd been the RAF I'd have sacrificed the nose turret for a good belly turret like on the USAAF bombers.   I doubt the nose turret was terribly effective, except in low-level runs a'la dambusters when it could be used for flak suppression and how often did that occur?

I'd agree with all of that. Though I'm not sure a belly turret would have been terribly effective in the dark. Better than just the tailgunner for spotting, but still not ideal.

Been doing a bit of reading on Schrage-Musik, and found that Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (top-scoring nightfighter ace) downed seven Lancasters in nineteen minutes on Feb. 21st 1945. Fish in a barrel comes to mind...

[rickshaw]

I'd agree with all of that. Though I'm not sure a belly turret would have been terribly effective in the dark. Better than just the tailgunner for spotting, but still not ideal.

While the RAF at a late stage added tail-warning radar, the problem with of course using radar is that it is an emitter and therefore can lead a hunter to it's prey much more effectively.  The Germans actually equipped their early night-fighters with IR detectors.  While they weren't much use, having much too shorter a range, the RAF was aware of them (RV Jones talks about IIRC in one of his books on the scientific war).  However, I wonder if they'd have made an efficient detector for air gunners?  They'd have detected the exhausts/engines of the night-fighters at longer range most probably than the naked eye.  It would have been a passive system so undetectable by the hunters.   The ball-turret would have covered that highly vulnerable blindspot and more effectively than the type that actually equipped the early heavy bombers.   Sacrificing the nose turret, replacing it with a simple dome and swivel gun, would have meant the payload wouldn't have been overly affected.  Giving all the gunners IR detectors would have made them more effective as lookouts.

Been doing a bit of reading on Schrage-Musik, and found that Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (top-scoring nightfighter ace) downed seven Lancasters in nineteen minutes on Feb. 21st 1945. Fish in a barrel comes to mind...

Yep, pretty much so.  Even the Japanese employed the idea to some effect but that was primarily make up for their height challenged fighters. They didn't copy the Germans but the RAF who experimented between the wars with angled guns as a means of maintaining a constant trajectory when engaging bombers flying over the fighters.

[Rheged]

As I recall (but am open to correction)  the anti-zeppelin home defence fighters of the First World War used a couple of upwards angled Lewis or Vickers guns on the  centre section above the pilot.


I understand that  in most cases, the home defence fighters couldn't climb quickly enough to intercept.

However, in 1915, Reggie Warneford of the RNAS   brought down L37 over Ghent by using six 20 pound incendiary bombs which he dropped on top of the Zeppelin.