whats up with the 4 engines.

[RTHolmes]

is there any evidence of B17s or B24s doing barrel rolls or using violent evasive maneuvering as SOP?

[Krusty]

It wasn't their doctrine to do so, so the answer is probably "no" -- remember most of the lancasters doing that kind of manuver were flying alone at night in the dark, so any erratic manuver to get them out from the guns of a bad guy usually saved them. In massed box formations in daylight, US bombers had an entirely different doctrine and stayed in formation and on target even when attacked.

EDIT: By this I mean you can't really tell what they could do because they don't normally do that stuff. Lancs probably were more responsive due to aileron balance, rudder, elevators, etc... The general design dictates performance. I wasn't saying B-17 is more responsive, just stronger.

[Puma44]

Barrel rolls don't put all that much stress on a plane. One pilot even demonstrated that he could pour water from a pitcher into a glass while executing a barrel roll upside down. This was in some King Air or something with passengers behind him. He said the only tricky thing was holding the pitcher backwards because he had to keep the other hand on the controls.

So that alone doesn't say much about how it handled, per se.

That was the world famous Bob Hoover in an Aero Commander.

[Krusty]

Thanks, with that info I found a quick and diry youtube link (lip sync off a bit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZEgKXJMCE

For those that don't believe


P.S. Tea, not water. My bad.

[Karnak]

Krusty,

The Lancaster wing structure shots do not, in any way, look less robust than the B-17 wing structure shots.


You are essentially basing your entire claim on "I've seen more photos of shot up B-17s than I have of shot up Lancasters and the only reason that could be is because the B-17 is tougher."

Does anybody know what the rated strengths of their wings were?


Both the B-17 and Lancaster have thick wings compared, proportionately, to the B-24 and B-29.  I know the B-17's wing was very conservative as Boeing had to sell a very large aircraft to the USAAF, one that might have made them nervous if it had handling difficulties.  That conservativeness allows a B-17 to lose significant portions of a wing and still fly.

The Lancaster was originally the twin engined Manchester and its wing was enlarged from the Manchester's when it was converted to be the four engined Lancaster.

[Krusty]

You are essentially basing your entire claim on "I've seen more photos of shot up B-17s than I have of shot up Lancasters and the only reason that could be is because the B-17 is tougher."

No, I am not, and I have already stated as much. That's an oversimplification.

I'm basing it off a lot of stuff picked up and observed. I'm no expert but I'm saying this: I see denser framework, thicker frames, more ribs outboard of the fuel cells on the B-17, and the main spars look a HELL of a lot better than the lancaster's.

The 2 wings share a main box design out from the wing root. A front spar and a rear spar, with the framework connecting them, like rungs on a ladder. Add a rounded leading edge and a pointed trailing edge and you have the wing shape.

For the ribs between the spars, it looks to me like the B-17s are slightly thicker (depth to and from the camera, not left to right from the camera). this could be perception but even if they are the same thickness you have 7 vertical bars (with diagonals attached to them) on the B-17 between the front and aft main spars, but only 5 verticals (with accompanying diagonals) on the Lancaster.

B-17 (clickable thumbnail):


Lanc:



You can see it has more space between the framework.

You can also see part of the spar in that diagram. On the lancaster it's a couple of boxes separated by a thin sheet of metal to give it rigidity, kind of like an I-beam but with less "I" shape. It makes sense, but the support between top and bottom of the beam can be called flimsy compared to the setup on the B-17 wing.



In the previous B-17 ribs picture you saw part of this as well... This is how the main spar was set up on the B-17:



If you can't pick it out amongst the rest of the frame, here's a close-up:




So no, I am not basing this only on photo evidence. I'm basing it on logic and visual estimating and war stories and lack of war stories and photographic evidence of damage (separate from the war stories, but related) and general knowledge of the 2 aircraft in question. I said as much before but you've forced me to spell it out here. I hope all those images work.

[RTHolmes]

resistance to bullet/cannon damage and structural strength dont really have much to do with each other.

you might want to try looking at what makes a good fighter - wing loading, excess power, aero design, control authority and all the other (mostly intangible) stuff.

[save]

Everytime I see a formation of 4-engines  flying at FULL miltary, it teaches me to wait for a proper formation FM.

The scenario we flew last sunday  (The emc) the 110g2's could barely keep up with the formations flying at full speed.

What speed/throttle setting  did they fly in formation IRL ?

[RTHolmes]

IRL? max cruise at best ...

[Puma44]

Everytime I see a formation of 4-engines  flying at FULL miltary, it teaches me to wait for a proper formation FM.

The scenario we flew last sunday  (The emc) the 110g2's could barely keep up with the formations flying at full speed.

What speed/throttle setting  did they fly in formation IRL ?

It's called "wingman consideration".  The flight lead of a two or four ship, or larger formation, should always leave enough power available for those following to maintain formation, i.e., a power advantage over lead.  In other words, lead should never have the throttle to the firewall when climbing or en route.  By having his/her power slightly below mil, the wingman have that extra for use in maintaining formation position.  Likewise, in a descent, lead should never pull power all the way to the idle stop but, leave it set short of the stop for the same reason.

Lack of wingman consideration will result in a strung out stream of planes "going same way, same day" vs a well formed and organized formation.

As far as power settings at cruise, it depends on a lot of factors; fuel economy for distance to be covered, time over target requirements, tactical engagement considerations, etc and will vary with the mission requirements.
As RTHolmes stated below, max cruise is a good starting point.

Hope this helps explain it.    

[BaldEagl]

See Rule #6

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[BaldEagl]

See Rule #4

[Ack-Ack]

Lancaster corkscrew defense:

Damn.  Image wouldn't post because they named it c@ckscrew so the BBS keeps changing it to bowling ballscrew.

Anyway, Google image Lancaster Corkscrew.

How to:

1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is on the port � reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph. After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still turning to port.

3. He reverse the turn, halfway through the climb which has caused his speed to fall sharply, possibly forcing the attacking night fighter to overshoot.

4. Regaining his original altitude, with speed down to 185 mph and still in the starboard turn, the pilot pushes the aircraft down into another dive.

5. Picking up speed in the dive, he descends through 500 ft before reversing the direction of the turn.

6. If the fighter is still on his tail, he stand by to repeat the maneuver. The physical effort required by the pilot has been compared with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a boat race.

ack-ack

[Furball]

Not just photos of damage. The general structure under the wings. The framework is denser, thicker, heavier. The B-17 actually has a corugated layer of metal just under the skin. the skin itself was rather fragile and a slip of a screwdriver could puncture it. It was the underlying corugated sheets and the frame that gave it the resilience which its reputation denotes.

Like I said, those examples and more. I'm not dissing the Lancaster. I just think the B-17s wing is clearly "stronger" -- that doesn't mean faster, more manuverable, etc. Just structurally stronger.

You ever been in a Lancaster?  The climb over the main wing spar to the cockpit from the wireless op position is really something.  I have no idea what is stronger between a Lanc and B-17.  I do know that Alex Henshaw barrel rolled a Lancaster no problems though.

Damage photos can be misleading.  I could quite incorrectly deduce that the B-17 had a weak wing from photos like this: -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2866596245_2e7f6c0470.jpg