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

Wed Oct 4 12:27:52 EDT 2017

You missed my point;   it wasn't about the merits of daylight bombing or
the ability to defend itself without fighter escort.  My point was that I
don't think the Lancaster was developed as a night bomber;  it transitioned
to that role as a result of the loss rate for daylight bombing.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Joe Connor <joeconnor53 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, Mark, until the U.S. had long-range fighter escort, the Brits were
> probably right. The losses were horrendous. It seems that one of the great
> U.S. misconceptions at the beginning of the war was that the B-17s could
> defend themselves and didn't need fighter escort.
>
> In the Philippines, the pre-war planning was for MacArthur's 35 B-17s to
> attack Formosa without fighter escort. That would probably not have ended
> well.
>
> Joe Connor
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:04 AM, Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Bomber Command initially did daylight bombing.   It was only after the
> associated high loss rates that they transitioned to night time bombing.
>
> The Brits thought the US was nuts when they spoke of precision daylight
> bombing.
>
>  73 Mark K3MSB
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2017 8:16 AM, "Joe Connor via Milsurplus" <
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
>
> Bruce
> I 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>
> <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> *To:* Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com> <kb2vtl at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> ______________________________ ______________________________ __
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/ mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq. htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth. net <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>
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ ______________________________ __
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/ mailman/listinfo/milsurplus <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq. htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth. net <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
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq. htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth. net <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
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq. htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth. net <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
> <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq. htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth. net <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/df8d490d/attachment-0001.html>