[Milsurplus] Fwd: Re: "Lancaster" - no copilot

Joe Connor joeconnor53 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 4 08:16:13 EDT 2017 

How much of the Lancaster design was based on the notion it would be used for night-time bombing? Remember that the plan was for the U.S. to launch daytime raids with B-17s and B-24s, while the British used the Lancasters for night-time attacks. That way, the Germans would be hit day and night.
With daytime attacks, fighters presented more danger than anti-aircraft fire, but with night attacks, it was the opposite. Therefore, the Lancasters probably didn't need as many guns or as large a crew as the B-17s and B-24s. 
Am I on to something?
                       Joe Connor 

    On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:16 AM, James Whartenby <antqradio at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

 BruceI am certainly no expert, if I find a topic interesting, I do a little research and report the results back to the group.  WW2 aircraft and avionics is outside of my current interests but I do have a few radio receivers and other items in the collection from WW2.  Personally I am interested in the B-47, the first operational jet bomber and the various systems it carried.  This said, I do admire the Lancaster for it's capability.  The Brits had some outstanding aircraft like the Lancaster and the Mosquito that continue to go unnoticed on this side of the pond.
I haven't seen anything that directly addresses your question on the Lancaster but I suspect that there was no "Plan B" other then evasion of flack and fighters.  Don't know if there was any cross training, intentional or otherwise but people do pick skills up by observation.  The film mentions that moving around in the dark when the aircraft was in stable flight was a challenge.  One assumes moving around inside the airframe was impossible when the aircraft was in dire straits.  So it seems that bailing out was hard to do.
In some variations of the Lancaster, it was suggested that the crew number be reduced below seven members so that the loss of life is also reduced per aircraft lost.  Removing some crew and gun turrets reduced weight, allowed for larger bomb loads and increased airspeed. The argument was that this modification would also reduce aircraft losses.  Sounds like what was done to late war B-29's.
So I assume that the air crews were fully aware of the odds and possible outcomes of going into battle in a Lancaster or any other aircraft, regardless of service or side.Regards,Jim

      From: Bruce Gentry <ka2ivy at verizon.net>
 To: Milsurplus <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 10:13 PM
 Subject: [Milsurplus] Fwd: Re: "Lancaster" - no copilot
  
 
   If the pilot was killed or incapitated, was the crew to bail out or did the engineer have some flight training, official or otherwise? A surprising amount of impromptu helicopter flight training took place in Vietnam so the crew had a chance to get to a safe place and hopefully make a successful landing. Did the RAF accept pilot trainees who had private pilot experience but lacked other educational qualifications?   The USAAF and US Air Force require pilots to be commissioned officers, and a collage degree was normally required to be an officer. There were  field commissions and other ways around this for exceptional needs.  In Vietnam, helicopter pilots were often warrant officers, and at that time a collage degree was not required.  I think this was also true in the US Navy during the Korean War, where helicopters were flown by "operators".
 
       Bruce Gentry,  KA2IVY
 
      
 
 On 10/2/17 5:25 PM, James Whartenby wrote:
  
  Yea, the Avro Lancaster gets no respect. 
  Single pilot since Great Briton didn't have the manpower.  Great Briton had a population of about 50 million in 1941 while the US had about 133 million.  The Flight engineer assisted the pilot as part of his duties so the pilot wasn't totally on his own.  Most Lancaster pilots started flying missions with less then 200 hours total flying time.  Average life of a Lancaster was about 40 hours which seems to be typical of WW2 aircraft.  Reliability wasn't a big concern since the chance of the Lancaster wearing out was remote; again the same for most WW2 aircraft. 
  The Lancaster had a crew of 7 vs a crew of 10 for the B-17 and a crew of 11 for the B-24 and B-29.  Bomb load of the Lancaster wasn't equaled by USA aircraft until the B-29 came along.  The Lancaster carried a normal load of 14,000 pounds in a 33 foot long unobstructed bomb bay while the B-17 carried 4,500 pounds and the B-24 carried 5,000 pound bomb load for an 800 mile mission.  The B-29 carried 12,000 pounds at medium altitude and had a 1400 mile range.  The Lancaster could be and was modified to carry it's own weight in bombs! 
  If you have Amazon Prime Internet TV, there is a movie titled "Bombers over Germany - WW2" which is in two parts.  First is a color training film for Lancaster crews which has good views of the inside of the Lancaster including radios and radar.  The second part of the film is the "Memphis Bell." Jim 
 
        From: Kenneth G. Gordon <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
 To: Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com> 
 Cc: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
 Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 12:03 PM
 Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] "Lancaster" - no copilot
  
 On 1 Oct 2017 at 21:28, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
 
 > Easier to build planes than train pilots?
 
 Maybe. Even "probably". Still seems downright dumb to me. What about the other crew? 
 
 Ken W7EKB
 
 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
______________________________________________________________
 Milsurplus mailing list
 Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
 Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
 Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
 
 This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
 Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
   
 
      
  
 ______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 
 
 
 
 ______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

   ______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20171004/7068abd7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Milsurplus mailing list