Username: WarshipAdmin
Nickname: Greg
Posts: 1359
Date: 3/5/04 23:50
Mosquito vs lancaster
There's a mildly interesting thread on warships1 Air Force board about the effectiveness of Mosquitoes and Lancasters for bombing Germany.
There's more heat than light there, but the interesting bit is the claim that in 1944 the RAF concluded that Mosquitoes would have been a better bet.
Does anybody have some heavyweight references either way?
Does this vindicate the Luftwaffe's concentration on medium bombers? Should they have stripped all the armament out and flown high and fast?
Cheers
Greg
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2266
Date: 3/6/04 4:29
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Should they have stripped all the armament out and flown high and fast?
Essentially that is what the US did with the B-36 featherweight conversions. However, the catch is that the stripping has to (a) get the aircraft high enough and fast enough and (b) do so by a wide enough margin that extemporized high-altitude conversions of fighters won't close the gap. So, the question is, strip a Lancaster of its guns and armor and just how much higher and faster does it fly? The answer to that question is the key, without a solid answer, the whole issue is moot.
The basic performance of a Lancaster was that it had a maximun speed of 287 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft and a cruising speed of 210 m.p.h. Service ceiling was 24,500 ft. That puts it a long, long way short of the sort of levels that would start to play into immunity - we would be looking at operational altitudes of over 35,000 feet and speeds at least 100 mph faster. I don't think stripping two twin and one quadruple .303 machine gun turrets will even get close to achieving that.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: NewGolconda
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 487
Date: 3/6/04 6:27
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Was it wing design that left the Lancaster at such moderate altitudes? The Merlin engines I would have assumed would be slightly superior at higher levels than the US radials on the B-24 and B-17. B-17 supposedly had the ability to fly in formation a few thousand feet above the B-24 suposedly because of a better wing.
On the other hand the Lancaster was a better load carrier by what? 50% higher load at 15-17000ft than the B-24 or the B-17 at 24,000ft? Making allowances for more fuel, armerment and armour in the daylight bombers.
Was the wing optimised for load carrying at moderate altitude on the Lancaster? What could an alternate design achieve on the same power? Say 4000lb payload at 29,000ft, cruise at 260mph, no armerment? Sounds vulnerable.
Anyway - I bet the crew of Tirpitz would have gladly swapped 2 Mosquitos for every Lancaster. Probably the U Boat pens too.
=================================================
Username: WarshipAdmin
Nickname: Greg
Posts: 1360
Date: 3/6/04 9:11
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Ah, I'm not saying that they are saying that a stripped Lancaster would be a good idea, they are saying that Mosquitoes would have been a better choice, per se.
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 77
Date: 3/6/04 14:52
As I understand it....
...the night fighter escort versions of the Mosquito had the bomb bay partially used as space for an auxiliary fuel tank in order that the Mosquito could have the range necessary for escort/pathfinder duties to the most distant targets like Berlin. Using it as a bomber over such long ranges would be rather problematic given that most of its bomb bay volume may have been required for the fuel to reach them. It simply would not have been cost effective to use Mosquitos in this way and I'd doubt that stripping them down would have improved that range/payload equation by enough to make replacing the heavies a very feasible proposition.
As has already been mentioned the Lancaster could carry very heavy bombloads over long ranges without any such compromises having to be made.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2267
Date: 3/6/04 16:55
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Was it wing design that left the Lancaster at such moderate altitudes?
I don't think the Lancaster altitude was necessarily "moderate", it was about typical for bombers of its era. The B-29 was considered to be a high-altitude aircraft for its time and it flew at 30,000 - 32,000. I think part of the problem is my fault, I've got people used to thinking in terms of the B-36 that could fly at 45,000 - 50,000 without appreciating what a stupendous achievement that was for its day. By way of comparison, the He-177 had a service ceiling of 22,900 feet, the Ju-88A-4 of 26,900 and the FW-200 could make it up to 19,000.
The Merlin engines I would have assumed would be slightly superior at higher levels than the US radials on the B-24 and B-17.
Remember those radials were turbocharged. That makes a big difference.
In a more general sense, the people who propose a general shift to the Mosquito rather than the Lancaster forget that warfare is an interative process. Defenses adapt to an attack. If the primary mode of attack changes, then the defense changes to counter it. If i may refer you to "The Big One" the logic there behind smashing Germany with a single blow rather than a demonstration followed by limited attacks was to take advantage of the one-time surprise of an extreme high-altitude attack and not give the German defenses a chance to adapt.
If the emphasis of the British attack had been Mosquitos, the Germans would have adapted their defenses to match. Once the advantage of speed and altitude have been overcome (and they would have been), the Mosquito is just another Fairey Battle.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 78
Date: 3/6/04 18:16
Well said Stuart
I think we would have seen far greater emphasis put on machines like the He-219 Uhu which were Mosquito killers even in the few numbers in which they were produced.
Like I had previously outlined though, using the Mosquito like this to replace the heavies was not really a starter anyway.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2268
Date: 3/6/04 19:34
Iterative Warfare
I think we would have seen far greater emphasis put on machines like the He-219 Uhu which were Mosquito killers even in the few numbers in which they were produced.
I'll give you an even nastier possibility. Manually-aimed anti-aircraft fire is virtually ineffective above 20,000 feet. Given the crude radar gunlaying available in WW2 and that goes up to about 24,000 feet. Even with really modern radar fire control guns, are useless against targets over 36,000 feet. Be that as it may, lets use WW2 24,000 foot figure.
We have Mosquitos being used as long-range bombers coming in high. That is, above 24,000 feet and being faced by fast, high-altitude nightfighters. The anti-aircraft guns around the cities are useless and a danger only to the defending nightfighters. The Germans were evil, not stupid. They look at the situation and suddenly 20,000 anti-aircraft guns(and their crews) vanish from around German cities and 20,000 anti-tank guns (and their somewhat appalled crews) appear on the Eastern front.
Ooops.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: p620346
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 57
Date: 3/6/04 20:04
Mosquito vs lancaster
If it took 3 x Mosquitos to equal the bomb weight of 1 Lancaster, that would mean 6 x pilots/copilots instead of 2. This might cause something of a pilot shortage.
=================================================
Username: StewartG
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 26
Date: 3/6/04 23:43
Arthur C Clarke / Operational Research
I seem to recall reading somewhere in a Clarke book (non-fiction: he was involved with RAF radar and other research) that OR work during the war showed that it would indeed have been marginally better to strip the armament (and corresponding crew) from Lancasters so that they could go a wee bit higher and faster - and retrain the ex-gunners for other roles.
As I recall, however, Bomber Command rejected this for morale reasons.
==============================================
Username: NewGolconda
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 490
Date: 3/7/04 2:26
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Moderate - I was thinking 15,000-17,000 feet, a figure I seem to see a lot of for Lancaster operations and in the performance figures quoted in many books for payload/range.
I assumed the twin stage super charger in the Merlin would be more suited to higher altitude power than the Twin Wasp or the Cyclone.
I did read somenthing about some attempts and problems encountered in trying to supercharge the Twin Wasp.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 1859
Date: 3/7/04 5:31
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Stuart-
FWIW, some years ago I had the chance to ask BGen Paul Tibbets about a brief line in The History Of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, which suggests that at one point the Lancaster was suggested as the carrier for the a-bomb instead of the B-29, primarily because of the B-29's development problems. BGen Tibbets' answer was that the Lancaster was never actually tested as such, and the idea was there primarily to put a burr under Boeing's saddle, but paper studies indicated it would have had 'suitable performance' for their mission. I have never known if that meant that was with or without serious modifications.
Mike
=================================================
Username: MarkGlobal
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 124
Date: 3/7/04 12:48
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Did they provide any source for that, Greg? Personally I wouldnt put any faith in that assertion. They were two completely different aircraft and excelled in completely different roles. As a bomber the Mosquito surpassed all as a precision attack aircraft and a pathfinder, the Lancaster as a bomb truck. Ive never read anything that suggests Bomber Command were unhappy with the performance of either aircraft or regretted any part of their attack strategy.
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 26
Date: 3/7/04 13:19
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
I think the idea is that had you gone back to say 1941, Bomber Command would have been better off concentrating on the Mosquito rather than the Lancaster. However, as Stuart said, the Germans would have come up with countermeasures to it.
The other thing I think some people are overlooking is the influence of Mosquito intruders by the end of the war. When you've got a large number of nightfighters of both sides in among the bomber stream hunting each other, the Lancaster suddenly becomes more survivable because the nightfighter threat is so much reduced. When nightfighters are got under control, the Payload/Range advantages of a Lancaster start to become more important than the increased crewing requirements.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2269
Date: 3/7/04 18:36
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
. BGen Tibbets' answer was that the Lancaster was never actually tested as such, and the idea was there primarily to put a burr under Boeing's saddle, but paper studies indicated it would have had 'suitable performance' for their mission. I have never known if that meant that was with or without serious modifications.
Yike, it would have to be really SERIOUS modifications. The B-29 was a marginally survivable nuclear delivery platform as it was - and then when it was stripped of armor and all but its tail guns. Enola Gay and Bocks Car both had to make some radical post-release manoeuvers in order to get clear of the blast and then they were shaken around quite badly. That was with the relatively low-yield Mark One and Model 1561 devices. There are serious doubts as to whether either could have survived a Mark Four laydown. Making a B-29 that could be relied on to survive its own weapon was what caused the B-50 to enter the world.
In contrast, the Lancaster was dramatically improved as the Lincoln, which (IIRC) was just entering production in 1945. However, the Lincoln was considered incapable of acting as a nuclear bomber which was why the RAF acquired the B-29 as the Washington B.1. This gives us a sort of chain of capability (in the nuclear sense)
Lancaster >>>>> Lincoln >>>>> B-29 >>>>> B-50
That strongly suggests that the Lancaster would only be usable as a nuclear delivery aircraft if the crew were Japanese. I suspect the suggestion that it may have been stemme dfroma time when the full power of a nuclear device hadn't been comprehended (or had been but was being religiously suppressed) and it was assumed the device was just a big bomb, witha yield, perhaps in low hundreds of tons rather than tens of thousands.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: MarkGlobal
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 129
Date: 3/7/04 23:19
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
The Mosquito was what the Blenhim and Battle were designed to be, fast, high speed, manoeuvrable medium bombers designed to make precision strikes and not just carpet bomb cities as the Lancaster, B-17 etc did. If the Mosquito was available pre-war it would have formed the backbone of Bomber Command, especially the Army Co-operation Squadrons. However post Dunkirk the need for such aircraft in is more doubtful. The RAF was the only service that could take the war to the heartland of the enemy, and it was soon realised that it was safer to bomb at night and to hell with any notion of precision bombing en masse as it was a lot more costly, did less destruction and was no more accurate to bomb by day, as the USAAF found out. The Lancaster was the aircraft of choice for the role that was required; the destruction of German cities. It was a job it did well and it was a role the Mosquito could not have fulfilled. Although that is not to say the Mossie was not one of the most remarkable aircraft of all time, it fulfilled many roles and excelled in them all.
=================================================
Username: StewartG
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 27
Date: 3/8/04 11:43
Lanc v. Linc. v Windsor
We did debate this previously and concluded that both the Lancaster and Lincoln were too slow (sub-300 mph) to escape the blast.
The only British a/c which might have been marginally effective was the Vickers Windsor, a big 4-Merlin job built using the geodetic structure (as in the Wellington).
It could hit 320 mph (still a lot slower than the B29's 360 mph) and the structure made it very strong, so it might have been a possibility (just).
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 79
Date: 3/8/04 13:53
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
What was the weight and dimensions of the original 'Little Boy' weapon as it certainly looks smaller than a Tallboy or Grand Slam and could possibly have fitted a Lanc bomb bay.
Even in 1945 could some kind of experiments not have been conducted whereby parachute retardation could have been used ? I'm surprised no such trials were done even as regards to the B-29s survivability. Was anything done postwar on this ?
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 1864
Date: 3/8/04 15:13
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Stuart-
According to what Rhodes has written (and I'm scanning this kind of quickly) it does indeed appear that the heavy duty flight training - including the corkscrew maneuver - didn't start until after the Trinity test. Trinity was on 16 July, but Tibbets didn't pick his airplane off the line at Boeing until June 14th - and as near as I can tell, they were still dropping test shapes into the first couple days of August, so I'd say that by the time the 509th started moving to Tinian they probably did not know the full power of the weapon.
As I said, the discussion of the Lancaster seems to have been solely intended as a spur to Boeing, which was still having serious problems with the Superfortress at the point where they were deciding on the carrier aircraft. Interestingly enough, however, there doesn't appear to have been any mention of the Consolidated B-32A , the 'insurance policy' in the event the Superfortress didn't work. This was probably because the B-32 was already on its way to cancellation, although the 114 aircraft assigned should have provided enough aircraft to equip the 509th. Performancewise, it should have been sufficient:
B-32
Max speed 357 mph at 30K ft; 281 mph at 5K ft
Climb Rate 1050 f/m
Max range 3800 miles
B-29
Max speed 357 mph at 30K ft; 306 mph at s/l
Climb Rate 900 f/m
Max range 3250 miles
Mike
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2271
Date: 3/8/04 15:13
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
What was the weight and dimensions of the original 'Little Boy' weapon as it certainly looks smaller than a Tallboy or Grand Slam and could possibly have fitted a Lanc bomb bay.
The Mark One was a gun-configuration device, 120 inches long and 28 inches in diameter. It weighed 8,900 pounds
The Model 1561 was an implosion-configuration device, 128 inches long and 60.25 inches in diameter. It weighed 10,300 pounds
There is a key question; can the bomb-bay on a Lancaster be accessed in flight? If not, the question ends right there because the devices both had to be armed after take-off. Mark One would initiate if dropped in water after it had been armed.
Even in 1945 could some kind of experiments not have been conducted whereby parachute retardation could have been used ? I'm surprised no such trials were done even as regards to the B-29s survivability.
They were; the devices were both retarded. The parachute is actually designed into the tail assembly (technically the tail design is called a "California Parachute"). However, there is a balance that had to be struck between descent time (and thus the time between drop and initiation) and vulnerability. Both devices are fragile pieces of equipment and it would take hardly any damage to neutralize them (one fragment would do it). If the devices spend too long in the air, they would be easy targets for anti-aircraft fire (or so the logic went). Later on, that particular concept became disregarded.
Was anything done postwar on this ?
Yes
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2272
Date: 3/8/04 15:19
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
The B-32 was an interesting bird, one that never quite got the credit it deserved (especially since one scored the last air-to-air kill of WW2). I understand it had stability and directional problems that may explain why it wasn't well-regarded but I guess they could have been fixed. One day I'll have to look into the minutae of its performance since its usually there that the reasons for the eclipse in a design can be found.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 27
Date: 3/8/04 15:27
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
There is a key question; can the bomb-bay on a Lancaster be accessed in flight? If not, the question ends right there because the devices both had to be armed after take-off. Mark One would initiate if dropped in water after it had been armed.
It wasn't designed to be, but the Lancaster wasn't pressurised and I've found at least one source that suggests it could be if needs be.
Source:In June 1943 this crew was posted to No 207 Squadron at RAF Langar near Nottingham. Here they took part in their first operation over Germany on 12 June 1943 to Bochum in Lancaster EM-D (ED498). Over the next weeks in June they completed 3 further operations over Germany to Oberhausen, Mulheim and Wuppertal using Lancasters EM-T (W4952), EM-D (ED498) and EM-Z (LM326)
On the operation to Wuppertal, they were involved in an incident that made the front page of the Daily Express. Their aircraft was showered with incendiaries from another aircraft flying above them. Five came through the fuselage and one went into the port petrol tank. Two fell under the mid-upper turret and two fell near the rear turret, one exploding and blowing in the doors to the turret, but luckily no one was injured. Sgt Sydney Mitchell and Sgt Harry Toomey hurried to deal with the fires. Sgt Toomey hacked away with an axe at part of the floor, chopping holes into the bomb-bay allowing the incendiaries to drop through and out of the aircraft when the bomb doors were opened.
http://www.lancaster-ed627.freeservers.com/
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 1865
Date: 3/8/04 15:37
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
Stuart-
The stuff I've got says that she was a pretty stable bombing platform, but she suffered from nacelle fires due to overheating, mechanically she was very tough to maintain, and the aircraft all suffered from quality problems during assembly. She was definitely overweight, and the u/c was understrength as well, making heavy landings an adventure. The defensive system was also a challenge - it was designed with retractable unmanned turrets, but the rig wasn't up to what the USAAF felt was needed for a heavy bomber, and the retractables were a mechanical nightmare. The ships that finally did see action had manned turrets.
All of it could have been corrected in full-rate production, but IIRC by the time the first production ships came off the line in San Diego, the Superfort had already been in combat for about 6 or 7 months, and although it was having its share of teething problems (most notably the engine fires), it was clearly the way to go.
Mike
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2274
Date: 3/8/04 15:40
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
Actually, that sounds more as if there was no access to the bomb bay.
Sgt Toomey hacked away with an axe at part of the floor, chopping holes into the bomb-bay allowing the incendiaries to drop through and out of the aircraft when the bomb doors were opened.
If the bomb bay was accessible in flight, no need to chop holes. Context is important here, the requirement is for a crew member to get into the bomb bay with a set of tools and some device components and work there to arm the device in question. If they have to chop a hole in the aircraft to do that, its not a plausible option (remember, it has to be a routine activity for training reasons). Air Forces tend to view with disfavor designs that require axe work on the airframe to enable routine training activities.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 28
Date: 3/8/04 17:35
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
Context is important here, the requirement is for a crew member to get into the bomb bay with a set of tools and some device components and work there to arm the device in question. If they have to chop a hole in the aircraft to do that, its not a plausible option (remember, it has to be a routine activity for training reasons). Air Forces tend to view with disfavor designs that require axe work on the airframe to enable routine training activities.
Yes, but the point that I was trying to get over (and should have made more clear) is that if you can cut a hole through and keep flying, it should be possible to make a mimimum-chance modification of a hatch through there to get at the bomb bay in flight. The requirement is presumably that it is reasonably possible to access the bomb bay in flight, not that standard aircraft can already do so.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2276
Date: 3/8/04 18:59
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
if you can cut a hole through and keep flying, it should be possible to make a mimimum-chance modification of a hatch through there to get at the bomb bay in flight.
Not necessarily, what we don't know is how much use the aircraft was after it had the hole axed in it. It may well be that creating a hole ina bulkhead would have serious effects on the aircraft that wouldn't be noted on a single flight back to base but would be on a sustained basis
The requirement is presumably that it is reasonably possible to access the bomb bay in flight, not that standard aircraft can already do so.
Certainly, but if creating a hatch causes serious structural problems thne bomb-bay access is a nono. The trouble with putting large holes in stress-bearing bulkheads is that the results can catch up with the user without warning - and Lancasters had a nasty habit of crumpling up in mid-air anyway. At best the incident quoted tells us that cutting holes in bulkheads isn't instantly fatal.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 29
Date: 3/8/04 19:15
Re: Mosquito vs Lancaster
At best the incident quoted tells us that cutting holes in bulkheads isn't instantly fatal.
This is true. Unfortunately this is about the best evidence we're likely to find, as there simply wasn't a requirement to access the Lancaster bomb-bay in flight.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 1060
Date: 3/9/04 3:43
Re: Mosquito vs lancaster
I think the B-32 got left behind because of the tremendous amount of money (more than the Manhattan Project) poured into the B-29 program. B-32 was never more than a back-up after Consolidated gave up on the pressurized high-altitude remote control armament part of the project.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: StewartG
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 28
Date: 3/9/04 22:00
Comparative stats - we need a "Griffon Lincoln"
I looked up some stats for max speed @ height for the principal late-war Allied heavy bombers:
Lancaster 287@11500
Lincoln 295@15000
Windsor 317@23000
Halifax VI 309@19500
B17G 302@25000
B29 358@20000
B24J 278@25000
B32 357@25000
(the B17 numbers surprised me, but note that is a "war emergency" speed - normal max was more like a Lanc or B24.)
It appears that only the Windsor could possibly have been a survivable British A-bomber - but the thing was only ever a prototype, and there was never a production line.
Note, however, that the Lincoln here was still using 1750hp Merlin engines - it should have been fairly quick and straightforward to swap these out for 2000hp Griffons (the Griffon was specifically designed for easy exchange with Merlins, and this version was flying in the Spitfire XIV by mid-1944).
(The Shackleton was a post-war Griffon-powered development of the Lincoln, but optimised for low-level ASW ops rather than strategic bombing)
So, from the production logistics front, the only realistic way to get a British A-bomber on a reasonable timeframe would be to push up the development of a Griffon-engined "Lincoln-Plus" - which should have been able to get performane levels equivalent to the Windsor, if some way off the B29 or B32.
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 30
Date: 3/9/04 23:56
Re: Comparative stats - we need a "Griffon Lincoln"
I've been reading up on the V-bombers for some coursework I've got on at the moment, and one of the books I've got out (V-Bombers, Tim Laming, p49) states that the Lincoln "...was to be modified to carry operational atomic bombs if the V-Bomber programme failed."
The interesting bit is that this is referring to the post war timeframe when the V-Bombers were under development, and so the power of atomic weaponry should have been understood by the British. This presumably also means that they thought that the Lincoln could have been developed into a viable atomic bomber.
Incidentally, if anyone knows about any handling problems suffered by either the Victor or Vulcan, can they let me know. I know about the buzz/buffet the initial Vulcans suffered on the outboard wing section, but I'm trying to find out if there was anything else.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2279
Date: 3/10/04 0:31
Re: Comparative stats - we need a "Griffon Lincoln"
Rather amusingly, V-bombers by Robert Jackson says exactly the opposite, that investigations had shown the Lincoln was not suitable for nuclear delivery. Bearing in mind the RAF procured the B-29 that was only marginally nuclear-capable, I think Tim Laming must be wrong. Perhaps he heard that delivering nuclear devices by Lincoln had been investigated and assumed that meant it was considered possible.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 32
Date: 3/10/04 2:09
Re: Comparative stats - we need a "Griffon Lincoln"
Could be - I was reading that one yesterday as it happens...
It's probably a bit of a red herring in any case as by that time the Lincoln just wouldn't have got through to it's target, even at night.
=================================================
Username: Allen Hazen
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 275
Date: 3/10/04 4:29
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
Clarification?
Maybe it's just because I am an American and U.S. WW II aircraft intended for high altitudes tended to have turbocharged engines (and maybe it's for even sillier reasons), but I had assumed that, although mechanical superchargers (as on Merlin, Griffon, and SOME versions of the Allison V-1710) were fine for intermediate altitudes, it was really better to use turbochargers (as on the American radials used on the Boeing and Consolidated heavies, and the V-1710 on the P-38) for SERIOUSLY high altitudes.
Is this right?
And if so, what sort of altitudes are we talking about? Would an engine with a good mechanical turbocharger be as good for, say, 35,000 feet as a turbocharged one?
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 33
Date: 3/10/04 11:45
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
it was really better to use turbochargers (as on the American radials used on the Boeing and Consolidated heavies, and the V-1710 on the P-3 for SERIOUSLY high altitudes.
Not sure about that one. A supercharger (shaft driven) has more control over the air pressure supplied to the engine at all altitudes than a turbocharger (exhaust gas turbine driven) does, simply because it isn't limited by the exit gas pressure difference.
Supercharger engines will benefit from the jet-type thrust of the exhaust more than a turbocharger engine (due to the greater pressure difference). This is worth more than it sounds - IIRC this added around 50mph to the top speed of late war fighters.
Turbocharger engines benefit from the fact that they don't take away shaft work to drive the air compressor, so will have more shaft power for a given engine size. This is why cars almost universally use turbochargers rather than superchargers.
I really can't see any major altitude difference between the two - it will be more of a matter of the altitude the engines were designed to be flown and fought at than anything else. Apart from that, superchargers appear to be more suited to high speed/low response time (fighters) while turbochargers seem to be more suited to low speed/cruise conditions (bombers).
=================================================
Username: StewartG
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 29
Date: 3/10/04 13:35
OT for pdf
Which college, and what course are you doing that lets you study up on V-bombers? (I missed out on that one)
I was at Churchill 1987-90
SG
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 80
Date: 3/10/04 14:09
Some V bomber info for pdf27
On the Victor pdf there were initially severe problems with the high set crescent tail which led to the loss of early prototypes in high speed low level runs due to buzz/flutter (as did the Javelin interceptor too at this time) and later strengthening was never fully trusted and was part of the reason the Vulcan was favoured over the Victor when the switch was made from high to low level attack methods was due to lingering doubts about structural integrity of this machine at such altitudes. The Valiant was unable to cope at all with this switch in altitudes and severe wingspar cracking led to its retirement long before the other V bombers in 1967. Ground handling of the Valiant was always a problem due to the geometry of its landing gear which limited its turning circle. Some gears collapsed when the machines were turned too tightly.
The Vulcans wing planform was changed to assist in eliminating the buzz caused by greater than expected tip vortice forces caused by spanwise flow along its leading edge. The rounding of the span tip leading edge nulled out this problem and incidentally improved turning circle at all altitudes plus it had the added benefit of reducing the nose high attitude on landing which deltas are all plagued by. The early Vulcans also had some acoustic resonance problems in the slot inlets to the Olympus engines which was solved by increasing the length of the inlet divider (noticeable on some photos) I understand the Victor had these problems too but they were less serious. I have no links for this information as it was word of mouth stuff I heard from flightcrews and tech maintenance crews at RAF Waddington and Marham in the 70s. If you want any more info pdf I'll try to help further.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2280
Date: 3/10/04 15:37
Re: Some V bomber info for pdf27
That's fascinating information, thank you. Acoustic fatigue is an often-neglected area; the USAF nearly destroyed their entire B-66 fleet because of that.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 34
Date: 3/10/04 17:35
Re: OT for pdf
Which college, and what course are you doing that lets you study up on V-bombers? (I missed out on that one)
I'm at Peterhouse, doing aero engineering (4th year). The course is "Aerodynamics", taught by Bill Dawes and Jerome Jarrett. It's about transonic flows over aircraft.
The coursework is to evaluate the design submissions for the Victor and Vulcan as if I'm writing this in 1947, and comparing them to the B-47. The idea behind reading up on them is if I know what real life problems they had, I'm less likely to miss spotting one when I analyse the paper designs.
If you want any more info pdf I'll try to help further.
Thanks, that's pretty much what I'm looking for. As I mentioned above, the idea is to make sure that I spot most/all of the potential problems by finding out what they actually were.
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 81
Date: 3/10/04 17:49
I'm surprised pdf...
...that you are not being asked to evaluate the B-47 against the Tu-16 Badger or Valiant as these machines were more directly comparable both in timescale and performance. Both the other V- bombers are superior and later/larger designs.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 1869
Date: 3/10/04 17:50
Re: OT for pdf
PdF-
Remebering something I read YEARS ago - wasn't that beautiful wing on the Victor done completely by slide rule and mechanical calculator?
Mike
=================================================
Username: JWC2
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 82
Date: 3/10/04 18:06
Thats right Mike
One of the most qunitissentially beautiful flying machines with barely a straight line to be seen on it anywhere was designed using techniques not all that different to those that designed the Blenhiem.
Amazing indeed in hindsight
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 35
Date: 3/10/04 18:08
Re: I'm surprised pdf...
...that you are not being asked to evaluate the B-47 against the Tu-16 Badger or Valiant as these machines were more directly comparable both in timescale and performance. Both the other V- bombers are superior and later/larger designs.
The idea really is to evaluate one against the other for the original OR.229 requirement, with the B-47 thrown in as a contemporary "state of the art" aeroplane to the evaluation. The main point is to pick one or the other.
Having said that, having to design one from scratch would have been more interesting, but I'm not sure how they would have marked it!
=================================================
Username: Allen Hazen
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 278
Date: 3/11/04 3:40
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
Thanks, pdf27!
Turbocharging has an OBVIOUS, thinking about it from first principles, rationale: you are capturing some of the energy that would otherwise be wasted (energy in exhaust gasses) for some useful purpose (compressing combustion air). If you can recapture it some other way-- like carefully designing the exhaust stacks to get jet thrust-- then there is no (obvious from first principles) advantage from turbo! Jet propulsion is seriously inefficient at the speeds relevant to GROUND transportation, so that option isn't available there.
---
(I think the "even sillier" reason I had for thinking turbos **HAD TO BE** better was that I was used to thinking in terms of railroad diesel applications: one of GE's efforts in the immediate post-WWII period was to adapt the technological expertise it had acquired in producing turbochargers for B17/B29/P38 engines to produce a good turbocharged diesel for locomotives: initially with its then-consortium-partner in the locomotive business, the American Locomotive Company, and starting in the 1950s for its own locomotive line. The problems of adapting the technology were non-trivial, but trying to use the exhaust for jet propulsion wasn't possible. And even the altitudes relevant to railroad operation-- think Colorado-- are enough to make turbocharging attractive despite its complexity and maintenance issues. But obviously I just wasn't thinking if I thought that proved something about aircraft engines! Thanks again.)
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 37
Date: 3/11/04 10:48
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
There's another reason as well. The Diesel cycle burns fuel at constant pressure, while an Otto cycle (petrol engine) burns fuel at a constant volume. This means that for a diesel engine there is always quite a bit of excess pressure at exit - something not true for a petrol engine. This means that turbocharging a diesel engine increases both power and efficiency, while doing so to a petrol engine really only changes the power output with little change to efficiency.
=================================================
Username: NewGolconda
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 494
Date: 3/11/04 13:30
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
Are you sure its "free" energy in the turbo? I would have thought the resulting mildly increased pressure in the exhaust would reduce power to some extent .
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 39
Date: 3/11/04 14:35
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
Are you sure its "free" energy in the turbo? I would have thought the resulting mildly increased pressure in the exhaust would reduce power to some extent .
You lose work on the expansion part of the cycle due to the slightly increased back pressure, but gain on the pumping/compression part of the cycle due to the increased pressure of air being inlet. It basically works out that for Diesel engines you will get a net gain in efficiency, while for Petrol engines there will be little or any gain in efficiency.
I can get my turbocharger/IC engines notes out from last year if you want a more detailed explanation...
=================================================
Username: Allen Hazen
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 281
Date: 3/13/04 4:54
Re:Free lunch?
New Golconda asked:
Are you sure its "free" energy in the turbo? I would have thought the resulting mildly increased pressure in the exhaust would reduce power to some extent.
pdf27 has given an answer.
Amplifying that answer... In principle, New Golconda should be right: increased back-pressure in the exhaust is a bad thing. In application, the losses from increased back pressure are less than the gains.
Example from (thanks everybody who pointed out the differences that make this a bad comparison for aero engines, but it's the area where I have some references) railroad locomotive diesels:
At the end of the 1950s, General Motors offered two otherwise similar models of diesel freight locomotives, the GP-18 rated at 1800 hp, and the GP-20 rated at 2000. Apparently the actual engines were very similar: the difference was that the GP-20 had a turbocharger, and so didn't lose the energy the GP-18's engine had to spend powering its mechanically driven supercharger. (Source: "D-Day on the Western Pacific" by Vergil Staff -- "D-Day" in THIS context meaning "dieselization".)
=================================================
Username: The Argus
Nickname: I Like to Watch
Posts: 237
Date: 3/16/04 11:57
Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
Some where around here I've got a book but the fellow who ran the Pathfinders AVM Bennet(?).
His view was that a Mozzie had two engines, 2 crewmen and could fly two missions a night (to Berlin IIRC). And that even if with what ever bomb load/fuel load mix a mission required it took 2 Mozzies, 2 trips to drop the same weight as a single Lanc on a given target. IIRC he said that for most targets a single mozzie could equal a Lanc in two trips.
Either way you were still only risking 4 men and 4 engines as opposed to 4 engines and seven men, and further more the individual mozzie spent less time in hostile airspace in the process so lessening the statistical chance of being shot down.
I don't believe he addressed the issue of pilots, but but both the Lanc and mozzie usually only flew with one pilot on board and all the freed up airgunners, flight engineers and radio ops (say 4 or 5 per Lanc) would cover the manpower aspect of finding the extra pilot, if not the training issue. But then IIRC, late war the RAF had a surplus of aircrew including pilots. If the losses were reduced by useing more Mozzies in the mix, then I can't see it being a negitive equation.
Again from memory his biggest issue with the Mozzie was it couldn't carry the HC bombs (2, 4 and 8,000lb cookies) which were so effective for area bombing. But that the Mozzie being less effected by heavy and medium flak (smaller faster target ect.) could bomb with more precision at night than the 4 engined aircraft. Whihc in his view ballanced things out. Of course he was a Pathfinder so could be expected to push the cult of accuracy.
On night fighters, the late Henchel and Junkers could shoot down a Mosquito, or a Lanc. But the Me-110 was hard pressed to deal with the Mozzie. Given the same number of nightfighters being produced or possiably fewer if priority shifted away from the more established Me-110. Larger numbers of more difficult targets would seem to offer the chance of lower casualties.
I agree war is an itritive process, but it is a process with in the bounds of ecconomic and industrial bounds too. While the 4 engined bombers were in the majority, lower performance airframes like the 110 and the single engined fighters had major contribution to make. Shift the performance of the bomber up the scale, and the pressure on the the night fighters moves as well, possiably beyond Germanys ability to counter in production terms.
Oh and wider use of the Mosquito would require greater production, and a larger pool of airframes might just put more NF mozzies over Europe as intruders or free up Beaufighters for the same mission.
shane
Rule .303
Shoot straight, you bastards.
=================================================
Username: pdf27
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 59
Date: 3/17/04 12:02
Re: Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
Again from memory his biggest issue with the Mozzie was it couldn't carry the HC bombs (2, 4 and 8,000lb cookies) which were so effective for area bombing.
IIRC the Mosquito (once given the bulged belly) could carry a 4,000lb "cookie".
Edit: Just found this:
Source:The B.IV didn't really have the horsepower to carry the Cookie well, but the B.IX and the B.XVI, with two-stage engines, were fairly comfortable with the load. The B.XVI, built standard to carry the Cookie, entered service in early 1944, at about the same time that the LNSF started dropping Cookies on the Germans in earnest.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss2.html#m4
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 993
Date: 3/17/04 23:32
Re: Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
The Mosquito was modified so that it could carry a single 4000-pound bomb. However it couldn't carry anything else on such a trip, while a Lancaster could drop down a 4000 or 8000 pound bomb and a bunch of incendiaries to take advantage of the damage it caused.Again from memory his biggest issue with the Mozzie was it couldn't carry the HC bombs (2, 4 and 8,000lb cookies) which were so effective for area bombing.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2315
Date: 3/18/04 14:52
Re: Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
His view was that a Mozzie had two engines, 2 crewmen and could fly two missions a night (to Berlin IIRC). And that even if with what ever bomb load/fuel load mix a mission required it took 2 Mozzies, 2 trips to drop the same weight as a single Lanc on a given target. IIRC he said that for most targets a single mozzie could equal a Lanc in two trips.
The basic flaw in this argument is the "two missions per night". There is no way a single aircraft with a single crew is going to make two missions to Berlin in a single night. It is just plain, flat impossible. The round trip is 1300 miles. With a cruising speed of around 270 miles per hour, the mission elapsed time is around five hours. The only way two missions per night could be achieved is if the aircraft landed, turned right around and flew straight back. In reality it has to be re-armed, refuelled, battle damage repaired, maintained and all the other good things a ground crew does. The times just do not fit. We also have the crew problem; any crew having done a five-hour night operation is not going to be physically capable of doing a second. With the two-missions-per-night concept eliminated, the whole of the rest of the argument falls apart. If we crank reality into his
two-Mosquitos-flying-twice-a-night = one Lancaster
equation we get
Four mosquitos = one Lancaster.
In other words
eight engines plus eight crew = four engines and seven crew.
The balance actually favors the Lancaster. Even if we assume two crews per Mosquito and the aircraft flies twoce each night we end up with
Four engines plus eight crew = four engines plus 7 crew
And the balance still favors the Lancaster. And that assumes the rest of his argument is correct. Which it isn't. Lets move to.
but both the Lanc and mozzie usually only flew with one pilot on board and all the freed up airgunners, flight engineers and radio ops (say 4 or 5 per Lanc) would cover the manpower aspect of finding the extra pilot, if not the training issue. But then IIRC, late war the RAF had a surplus of aircrew including pilots. If the losses were reduced by useing more Mozzies in the mix, then I can't see it being a negative equation.
Unfortunately, navigators, flight engineers, gunners etc were drawn from the ranks of those who either couldn't fly at all or who had washed out of flying school. Navigators, for example, were drawn almost entirely from failed pilots. Now we crank this into our basic equations.
First case (Four Mosquitos = one Lancaster) derives to.
Four pilots in four Mosquitos - One pilot in One Lancaster.
We can ignore the rest, as you pointed out,they're in surplus anyway so it doens't make any difference. The Second Case (Two Mosquitos with 4 crews vs One Crew in One Lancaster) give us the same answer, we've quadrupled our demand for pilots - and pilots are the critical crew commodity.
So crew considerations alone mean the proposed switch from Lancaster to Mosquito is highly disadvantageous. So lets move to operational considerations.
But that the Mozzie being less effected by heavy and medium flak (smaller faster target ect.) could bomb with more precision at night than the 4 engined aircraft. Which in his view balanced things out.
This also doesn't hold true. The problem in night bombing wasn't inaccuracy caused by flak or other defenses, it was the simple inability of the crews to find their way to the target. Navigational inaccuracy was the key problem and everything Bomber Command did was intended to solve that problem (note that in the 1940/41 period when German defenses were at their weakest, Bomber Command had a hard job hitting Germany let alone a specific target in Germany). The whole pathfinder concept was based around using a few specially-trained crews to find the right target (never less than a whole city) and start fires, then everybody else steered for the fire. Note, even the Pathfinders were incapable of doing more than finding a city. Anybody who claimed that "precision bombing" at night was possible with 1940s technology with anything more than a small number of highly-specialized units, was suffering from major delusions.
On night fighters, the late Henchel (I think you mean Heinkel - probably the He-219) and Junkers could shoot down a Mosquito, or a Lanc. But the Me-110 was hard pressed to deal with the Mozzie. Given the same number of nightfighters being produced or possiably fewer if priority shifted away from the more established Me-110. Larger numbers of more difficult targets would seem to offer the chance of lower casualties. I agree war is an iterative process, but it is a process with in the bounds of ecconomic and industrial bounds too. While the 4 engined bombers were in the majority, lower performance airframes like the 110 and the single engined fighters had major contribution to make. Shift the performance of the bomber up the scale, and the pressure on the the night fighters moves as well, possiably beyond Germanys ability to counter in production terms.
The catch is that the lower-performance aircraftw ere kept in production precisely because they were adequate. If they demonstrably were not, then they would have been replaced by something that was. You can see this happening with the B-29. When it appeared to be a threat to Germany, high-altitude capable versions of the Me-109 and FW-190 were designed and prototypes flown. But, the B-29 never appeared over Europe and the standard Me-109 and FW-190 were quite adequate to counter the B-17s and B-24s so the high-altitude versions were never built.
The Germans never spent much time on counters to the Mosquito bombers because they weren't a serious threat. If they had become a serious threat, they would have done something about it - probably seriously ramped up production of the He-219 (which was a multi-role aircarft also - and that has nasty implications). Then, with more He-219s hunting large numbers of unarmed, defenseless Mosquitos, the night bomber offensive becomes a massacre.
Oh and wider use of the Mosquito would require greater production, and a larger pool of airframes might just put more NF mozzies over Europe as intruders or free up Beaufighters for the same mission.
Depends what the critical components are and their availability. Its just as likely that increasing production of Mosquito bombers will reduce the availability of night fighters, intruders and fighter-bombers. Which is another interesting point in its own right; Merlin engines were in VERY short supply - so much so that several designs (including the Lancaster)) shifted to Hercules radials for a while.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: The Argus
Nickname: I Like to Watch
Posts: 243
Date: 3/19/04 3:22
Re: Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
What can I say but YEP.
That was the argument as I remember him making it, so there's at least two levels of potential corruption in the message. If I only I could find the book :/
On the one Lanc = Two Mozzies I have no argument at all with the points you've made Stuart. The bomb / time just can't work over the distance and at the speeds refered to. Nav's were drawn from unsuitable pilot candidates and pilots would certainly be a major factor.
I've got to point out that many aircrew (Wop/Air gunners and Flt Eng's) were never even screened for pilot training, rather comming directly from the enlisted ranks of the ground trades, and in the late war period there was an aircrew surplus. Both points that would mitigate the pilot situation to some degree, that is IF the personel had been screened and trained in time to make a differance.
On the navigational aspects, I think we agree that night accuracy had to wait for the electronic aids to evolve. Oboe, Gee, H2S ect did (as I understand things) improve accuracy to the square mile level for target marking, even if the bomber stream scattered their loads far and wide. And Pathfinders certainly improved the CEP to some extent.
It was in bombing accuracy (when flak searchlights ect were a factor) that I believe Bennet thought a Mozzie force superior to a Lanc one, not in finding the target. Infact with out a tail gunner for drift sights and a radio op for fixes, I'd think the Mozzie would have a harder time finding Berlin than a Lanc would with out electroincs.
Once effictive marking was in use the case splits into two stages, getting to target then hitting it. Again I agree that Lanc or Mozzie made no difference to finding the target, infact I would think a Mozzie should probably be worse off, as the Lanc had gunners to take drift sights and a full time radio op of fixes.
Any way thank you for the Henschel/Heinkel correction, a slip of the keyboard on my part. I understand your point about adaquate airframes staying in production because they could offer sufficent overmatch against the majority of targets, and that if the target type changed so would the production priorities.
However my point was the Germans also derived certain production/ecconomic advantages from keeping the 110 and single engined types in use as night fighters. They were acting as fillers and bulking out the force, while useing established production lines and perhaps in the case of single engined fighters reduced fuel useage (I'm not sure on this, I imagine it would depened on Ac/Patrol box density between the types).
Either way both these factors would vanish in the face of higher performance bombers. Any change in production comes at a price, and in this case they'd need not only to step up production of new types but could no longer make effective use of second rate aircraft types that they were making in quantity.
Anyhow all in all I agree exchanging Mozzie's for Lanc's wouldn't seem to add up for Bomber Command. But it is an interesting idea. :)
shane
Rule .303
Shoot straight, you bastards.
=================================================
Username: Jugman
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 15
Date: 3/21/04 1:06
Re: Supercharger vs Turbocharger
I Don't really have internet access right now. So I'll make this quick. Get "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel D. Whitney.
It's about the Allison engine, so there's a lot about turbos vs. supercharge. He dispels many of the myths about the Allison engine as well.
Bye "sobs"
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. -Adam Smith
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 2335
Date: 3/21/04 2:18
Re: Well some in BC favoured the Mozzie at the time.
However my point was the Germans also derived certain production/ecconomic advantages from keeping the 110 and single engined types in use as night fighters. They were acting as fillers and bulking out the force, while useing established production lines and perhaps in the case of single engined fighters reduced fuel useage (I'm not sure on this, I imagine it would depend on Ac/Patrol box density between the types). Either way both these factors would vanish in the face of higher performance bombers. Any change in production comes at a price, and in this case they'd need not only to step up production of new types but could no longer make effective use of second rate aircraft types that they were making in quantity.
The problem here is unintended consequences. If the aircraft aren't of use as anti-Bomber Command nightfighters any more, they'll be freed up for other purposes. For example, they may be sent to the Russian Front where Russian night intruders were making life very unpleasant for the German Army. Or they might be used as intruders to attack the Mosquito bases in the UK as the formations were taking off and landing. There are probably other roles they could fill as well.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: StewartG
Nickname: Unknown
Posts: 30
Date: 3/23/04 14:20
Bill Dawes was my tutor! (nt)
=================================================