Avro Lancaster: Bailing Out

[KJ_Lesnick]

1: What factors made the Avro Lancaster so difficult for aircrews to bail out of?  From what I remember the figures were really poor (15%) compared to other RAF designs (25%) and the USAAF (50%).

2: What factors made it so much easier for the USAAF crews to get out of the B-17 than the Lancaster and Halifax?

[Go4fun]

1: I have no idea on the Lancaster problem. I'll leave that to the more well versed.

2: I think it had to do with hatch size, number and maybe training. Fron what I have seen of British war aircraft the design philosophy a hatch big enough to wiggle into the aircraft through was "Good enough". On older American bombers and such I found the hatches easier to get in and out of that the few English aircraft I saw here at air shows. Also there seemed to be fewer hatches on the English craft that I saw altho I don't know if that was a good standard to work from.
Also I can see the British airmen forming ques at the hatches while the Americans used any opening that was handy including bomb bays, windows and battle damage holes. 

[pyro-manic]

The fact that it would be done in the dark most of the time probably played a role...

[Logan Hartke]

I think there's something to what pyro says about it being in the dark.  Also, from talking to the men at the Mighty 8th AF Museum in Savannah, GA who served in WWII, there did usually seem to be a hatch relatively handy for all but the cockpit crew and tail gunner.

Cheers,

Logan

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic
That makes a lot of sense actually -- I'm surprised I didn't factor that variable.

Logan Hartke
Regarding what was said at the Mighty 8th AF Museum: Did they mention why the cockpit crew had more trouble getting out of the plane than than the other crew (other than the tail-gunner)?  I already know why the tail-gunner had trouble getting out...

BTW: I'm wondering if the B-17 and B-24 were less cramped than the Lancaster -- externally it doesn't appear as if they would be (since they're not much bigger than modern fighters), but who knows?

[Logan Hartke]

No, I was just thinking about the location of the hatches.  I was talking to a bombardier who (along with the navigator) actually survived because he had trouble getting out of the plane.  It was the winter of 1944-45 and the plane was hit during the mission, so the pilot turned the plane back towards the front lines.  When he thought they were over American lines, the crew started bailing out.  Well, the plane was going down and they didn't realize the bombardier and navigator were still in the plane.  Why?  Well, he said the navigator never could hold his bladder on long flights, so he brought along an empty coffee can that he would use as necessary.  When the plane was hit by the flak that ended up dooming it, the can spilled out and at that altitude in the winter, it froze over the hatch.  He had to kick the frozen urine-covered hatch until it broke loose and the two of them got out just in time.  It turns out that the pilot had misjudged where they were and gave the order to bail out too soon.  The bombardier and navigator were the only ones to land behind US lines, the others being captured by the Germans.  Some of them died in captivity and the rest weren't liberated until war's end.

Cheers,

Logan

[rickshaw]

You may have to consider the nature of the enemy and the amount of armour each aircraft carried.   Day fighters tend to be small, nimble affairs and would spray their targets as they flew past.  Night fighters OTOH tended to be larger, stealthy affairs, with Shrage-musik mounts, which allowed them to fire into the most vulnerable part of the bomber from closer range.  As the Lancaster had little armour, compared to the B-17/24, it was less able to absorb direct hits without suffering some form of catastrophic damage.   It was more manoeuvrable though and if the night fighter was detected, it could avoid them. 

[NARSES2]

The Lancaster in particular has the spar running through the crew compartment so you need to climb over that to get to the escape hatch, whilst freezing cold, in the dark and in an aircraft probably already plunging on fire to it's death - brave men indeed 

RAF rear gunners of course could "simply" revolve the turret and fall out - providing it wasn't jammed or they were already dead

[pyro-manic]

You may have to consider the nature of the enemy and the amount of armour each aircraft carried.   Day fighters tend to be small, nimble affairs and would spray their targets as they flew past.  Night fighters OTOH tended to be larger, stealthy affairs, with Shrage-musik mounts, which allowed them to fire into the most vulnerable part of the bomber from closer range.  As the Lancaster had little armour, compared to the B-17/24, it was less able to absorb direct hits without suffering some form of catastrophic damage.   It was more manoeuvrable though and if the night fighter was detected, it could avoid them. 

Good points. A plane that was armoured against Schrage Musik would never take off.

[kitnut617]

The Lancaster in particular has the spar running through the crew compartment so you need to climb over that to get to the escape hatch, whilst freezing cold, in the dark and in an aircraft probably already plunging on fire to it's death - brave men indeed  

RAF rear gunners of course could "simply" revolve the turret and fall out - providing it wasn't jammed or they were already dead

My Dad was an Instrument Fitter in 617 Sqn (1944-1946). and back in 1997 he came over to Canada for a visit.  I took him to see the Lancaster that is at the Calgary Aerospace Museum and also the one down in Nanton (about 40 minutes drive south of Calgary).  We were able to do a walk-through of the Nanton one back then, entering through the side door and exiting out of the escape hatch which was directly below the bomb-aimer's position (actually he sat on it).

What I'm getting at is that after nearly 51 years of not being in a Lancaster, it was interesting to see my Dad do things while inside the fuselage almost naturally, showed me how to ""roll-over"" the main spar and he would make comments like "that wasn't positioned there" or "we didn't have those" while pointing at some equipment.  I think the aircrew would've known the insides of the aircraft very well, where all the exits are, what the escape route was etc.  As has been pointed out, they probably just didn't have time ---

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

You may have to consider the nature of the enemy and the amount of armour each aircraft carried.

I didn't think about the day and night-fighter issue.

As the Lancaster had little armour, compared to the B-17/24, it was less able to absorb direct hits without suffering some form of catastrophic damage.

How much less armor did the Lancaster have compared to the B-17

It was more manoeuvrable though and if the night fighter was detected, it could avoid them.

How agile was the Lancaster compared to a B-17 and a fighter?


NARSES2

The Lancaster in particular has the spar running through the crew compartment so you need to climb over that to get to the escape hatch, whilst freezing cold, in the dark and in an aircraft probably already plunging on fire to it's death

So the plane was more cramped...

Why the hell did they have a spar running through the crew-compartment?  You'd figure they could run it below or over?

[kitnut617]

Why the hell did they have a spar running through the crew-compartment?  You'd figure they could run it below or over?

Because the bloody bomb bay was under it, that's why ----  How else do you think they could carry bombs that were 25 feet in length.

[kitnut617]

But lets look at the real picture here, out of these two pics, which do you think would be the easiest to get through on, with all your cold temperature sheepskin clobber on ---

The B-17's (B-24 is similar), see that tiny little 'Vee' shape, that's your walkway through the bomb bay, see the 'step-over' you have to do, that's one of the wing spars, there's one at the other end too.



or the Lancasters which is over the bomb bay

[rickshaw]

The Lanc looks positively uncluttered compared with the (I assume) B-17 in the first first picture.

As to how much armour the Lanc carried, I believe the words which describe it are "bugger all".  IIRC there was some armour around the engines and the pilot's seat was armoured as well.  It had self-sealing tanks as well.

[NARSES2]

Very interesting pictures there Kitnut, not seen the inside of a B.17 so didn't realise how small the walkway was  Makes the Lanc look quite easy in comparison.

What I'm getting at is that after nearly 51 years of not being in a Lancaster, it was interesting to see my Dad do things while inside the fuselage almost naturally, showed me how to ""roll-over"" the main spar and he would make comments like "that wasn't positioned there" or "we didn't have those" while pointing at some equipment.  I think the aircrew would've known the insides of the aircraft very well, where all the exits are, what the escape route was etc.  As has been pointed out, they probably just didn't have time ---

Yup, visited HMS Cavalier at Chatham with my dad before he died and it was as though he'd been transported back 50 years or so. The gleam in his eye was something to behold and there were loads of comments along the lines of "our CPO would never have allowed us to stow that there"