Avro Lancaster: Bailing Out

[Gondor]

You should post a picture of a Lancaster with a mid upper turret as well to show how much that blocked the route from front to back or from back to front as a comparison.

Gondor

[kitnut617]

You should post a picture of a Lancaster with a mid upper turret as well to show how much that blocked the route from front to back or from back to front as a comparison.

Gondor

Funny enough after looking through hundreds of photos, I couldn't find one.  The Nanton Lanc' has the perspex turret top fitted but not al the equipment under it.

But if the crew were baling out, then they would go to the nearest escape hatch I would think, which in the dorsal turret gunner's case would be the side door I think. And all at the front would bale out of the hatches that are up in the front end.

[kitnut617]

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.

I had a walk-through a B-17 some years ago when one came to Calgary, it was easier to get out of the rear end and walk along the ground and go up the ladder into the front than to try squeezing through the bomb bay.  But if you want to see a real tight squeeze in a fuselage, try moving around in an He-111 (actually a Casa 2.111), one of these came at the same time as the B-17 did and I got a ""walk-through"" on that too.

[philp]

I had a flight in a B-17 a year and a half ago.  We walked through the plane to get a chance at the different positions.

I got caught in the bomb bay walk way by a strap on my windbreaker.  I kept trying to figure how these guys could move around in this plane in their gear, with oxygen, etc. while the enemy is shooting holes though the thin aluminum.  A very humbling experience for me and gave me that much more appreciation for the young men who flew these things to war.

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

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.

I said either above or below the crew compartment.  Regardless, I see your point in being able to carry a bomb that large.  Regardless, didn't the B-24 have two bomb-bays?


rickshaw

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

The Lancaster shown -- was there anything removed from the plane?

As to how much armour the Lanc carried, I believe the words which describe it are "bugger all".

So it was fairly meager compared to the B-17

IIRC there was some armour around the engines and the pilot's seat was armoured as well.

I thought the reason the seat was armored was because the plane had a canopy and a pilot could visibly see and shoot the pilot.

BTW: How agile was the Lancaster -- like how many G's could it pull and stuff like that?

[kitnut617]

 Regardless, didn't the B-24 have two bomb-bays?

It had one bomb bay but two sets of doors,  you're thinking of the B-29 and B-36. But even those had the wing spar running right between them, which handicapped the B-29 from carrying the big bombs internally even though they were more than capable of carrying the load.  The B-36 on the other hand had two bomb bays so big they could carry internally two Grand Slams in each bay.

[rickshaw]

As to how much armour the Lanc carried, I believe the words which describe it are "bugger all".

So it was fairly meager compared to the B-17

I believe I just answered that question, Kendra.

IIRC there was some armour around the engines and the pilot's seat was armoured as well.

I thought the reason the seat was armored was because the plane had a canopy and a pilot could visibly see and shoot the pilot.

BTW: How agile was the Lancaster -- like how many G's could it pull and stuff like that?

It was manoeuvrable enough that it could out-manoeuvre the night-fighters which were chasing it.  A tight corkscrew manoeuvre was something most night-fighters couldn't follow.   It would have been stressed to about 2-3 Gs but often pulled more than that and survived, even if a little "bent" in the process.

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

It had one bomb bay but two sets of doors

How big was the bomb-bay from front to back compared to the B-17 and Avro Lancaster


rickshaw

I believe I just answered that question, Kendra.

I just wanted to clarify...

It was manoeuvrable enough that it could out-manoeuvre the night-fighters which were chasing it.

I thought a night-fighter would have been just slightly less agile than a day fighter...

It would have been stressed to about 2-3 Gs but often pulled more than that and survived, even if a little "bent" in the process.

I wouldn't have thought that would have been a problem for a night-fighter -- 2-3g isn't that much.  I'd have figured even the B-17 could do that: Most commercial aircraft can pull at least 3.75g (2.5G x 1.5 safety margin) without coming apart -- admittedly, I wouldn't want to be on one doing it.

[pyro-manic]

Night fighters were usually twin-engined and quite large - the main German ones were based on bombers (Ju88 and Bf110). Absolutely no comparison to a fighter, no dogfighting would be done. It's not really fair to call them "night fighters", IMO - "bomber interceptor" would be a better term. It wouldn't be a case of comparing agility like-for-like - you just have to get the NF off your tail so it can't take a shot, and it would have a job trying to find you again in the dark.

I wouldn't like to try to pull 3g in a bomber with a full load, especially not a Lancaster with 14,000lb (or more) in the bay.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

I believe I just answered that question, Kendra.

I just wanted to clarify...

It was manoeuvrable enough that it could out-manoeuvre the night-fighters which were chasing it.

I thought a night-fighter would have been just slightly less agile than a day fighter...

Why?

As the Germans were scrambling for night-fighters throughout the war, they invariably put into service either heavy day-fighters (Me110/210/410) or medium bombers (Ju88/Do17/217) and a few specialised night-fighters (He219/Do335/Me262)  Only the He219 could really be described as being as good as a day-fighter as far as manoeuvrability went.  All suffered significant performance losses from the massive radar arrays they carried.

It would have been stressed to about 2-3 Gs but often pulled more than that and survived, even if a little "bent" in the process.

I wouldn't have thought that would have been a problem for a night-fighter -- 2-3g isn't that much.  I'd have figured even the B-17 could do that: Most commercial aircraft can pull at least 3.75g (2.5G x 1.5 safety margin) without coming apart -- admittedly, I wouldn't want to be on one doing it.

The problem was a combination of visibility and the radar systems in use.  Final attacks were made visually because the minimum range of the radar was longer than the actual attack range.  If the bomber detected the night-fighter, it could often perform a tight corkscrew, this would break visual contact and because of the range limitations of the radar systems, the night-fighter would need to then undertake a new search from a distance and then visually re-acquire the target and repeat the procedure.   If the bomber could break visual contact, change altitude and bearing, they invariably escaped from that particular night-fighter.

[kitnut617]

kitnut617

It had one bomb bay but two sets of doors

How big was the bomb-bay from front to back compared to the B-17 and Avro Lancaster

You could do this yourself you know-----

Here's a pic of a Lancaster compared to a B-24 (i don't have a B-17 to hand). The Lancaster's bomb bay was 33 feet long, the B-24's is 16'-6" and from memory, the B-17's is about 10 feet long. The B-17's and B-24's bomb bay were deeper, being able to carry two or three stacked levels of bombs (500 lb'ers) whereas the Lancaster carried just one level but 33 feet of them.



In my previous photo of the B-17 interior, the 'Vee' shape that is either side of the walkway is where the bombs were hung from

[kerick]

I had a chance at a walk through of a B17 a few years ago. I can't imagine moving around very much with all your gear on even in level flight. I can see why crew members would bail out any place they could. Moving from the front of the plane to the back through the bomb bay would be impossible with a parachute on. Was it the B-17 a person could bail out through the nose gear well?

[Jay-Jay]

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?

From my books regarding WWII nightfighters,  it is said that a lancaster may fly in a corkscrew pattern when tail gunner succeed to alert the pilot from an incoming german nightfighter from the rear.
The idea was to escape from the narrow cone of of the detection of the radar (lock-on and firing range) and some german radar devices were known to have a minimun range of detection and a narrow cone of "lock-on".
Nevertheless this procedure was quite demanding and required a good pilot, a good crew coordinationation and a little piece of luck and no adverse weather conditions for the bomber (i.e. no clear night with full moon)

But as mentioned by other members, schräge musick armement and nightfighters/ Air Defense ground stations coordination were a deadly opposition for Lancaster bombers.

I did not remember or read anything about B17 manoeuvrability except an unbelievable strength and resilience to punishment (associated with pictures)
Nothing found on B24 except that it was said "less" robust than B17 but it must be mentionned that B24 were totally different design compared to B17 and usually operated at the maximum limits of their flight enveloppe.

the "darkness" factor I think is a very acceptable point as it impacts heavily on the "human factor" and degrading exponentionnally the situation in a crippled plane.
about the crew procedures, I could not find anything about RAF bomber but got plenty of operational memo on USAAF bombers where it seems that US bombers have many different escape ways and crew were instructed and drilled in that way.

That said any correction addition from members will be welcomed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

You could do this yourself you know-----

I don't have a B-24 model in my house.

The Lancaster's bomb bay was 33 feet long, the B-24's is 16'-6" and from memory, the B-17's is about 10 feet long. The B-17's and B-24's bomb bay were deeper, being able to carry two or three stacked levels of bombs (500 lb'ers) whereas the Lancaster carried just one level but 33 feet of them.

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


Jay-Jay

From my books regarding WWII nightfighters,  it is said that a lancaster may fly in a corkscrew pattern when tail gunner succeed to alert the pilot from an incoming german nightfighter from the rear.

Well, any of the crew could call the maneuver IIRC

The idea was to escape from the narrow cone of of the detection of the radar (lock-on and firing range) and some german radar devices were known to have a minimun range of detection and a narrow cone of "lock-on".

Did they go into visual before carrying out the kill -- or all on radar in those days?

I did not remember or read anything about B17 manoeuvrability except an unbelievable strength and resilience to punishment (associated with pictures)

Yeah, they were tough...

the "darkness" factor I think is a very acceptable point as it impacts heavily on the "human factor" and degrading exponentionnally the situation in a crippled plane.
about the crew procedures, I could not find anything about RAF bomber but got plenty of operational memo on USAAF bombers where it seems that US bombers have many different escape ways and crew were instructed and drilled in that way.

So our guys were better trained?

[rickshaw]

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?

From my books regarding WWII nightfighters,  it is said that a lancaster may fly in a corkscrew pattern when tail gunner succeed to alert the pilot from an incoming german nightfighter from the rear.
The idea was to escape from the narrow cone of of the detection of the radar (lock-on and firing range) and some german radar devices were known to have a minimun range of detection and a narrow cone of "lock-on".
Nevertheless this procedure was quite demanding and required a good pilot, a good crew coordinationation and a little piece of luck and no adverse weather conditions for the bomber (i.e. no clear night with full moon)

But as mentioned by other members, schräge musick armement and nightfighters/ Air Defense ground stations coordination were a deadly opposition for Lancaster bombers.

I did not remember or read anything about B17 manoeuvrability except an unbelievable strength and resilience to punishment (associated with pictures)
Nothing found on B24 except that it was said "less" robust than B17 but it must be mentionned that B24 were totally different design compared to B17 and usually operated at the maximum limits of their flight enveloppe.

the "darkness" factor I think is a very acceptable point as it impacts heavily on the "human factor" and degrading exponentionnally the situation in a crippled plane.
about the crew procedures, I could not find anything about RAF bomber but got plenty of operational memo on USAAF bombers where it seems that US bombers have many different escape ways and crew were instructed and drilled in that way.

That said any correction addition from members will be welcomed.

"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.  There was no automatic engagement, nor could the radar scanner be locked to one bearing (of the highest signal strength).   The minimum range for German radars such as the Lichtenstein SN/2 was 500 metres.  Lichtenstein B/C had a minimum range of 150 metres but it required a different set of aerials, which mean the array had to be even larger.  The Matratze (mattress) aerials badly affected the aircraft's speed and manoeuvrability, even if only one radar was carried.  Below the minimum range, Mk.1 Eyeball was required and at night, in cloud, even 150 metres can be a long way.