whats up with the 4 engines.

[SDGhalo]

hey guys

i was just wondering something. i decided to do some offline flying with the 4 engines and for some reason the B-17 the 24 and the 29, when you try to roll at high speed there wings snap off. but wheni took up the lancaster. the thing practically actis like a fighter and she can handle the stress.

can anyone car to explain if this is what she can do or did HTC do something to do that.

[tf15pin]

It would not be much of a stukalanc if the wings went and ripped off.

[Tyrannis]

It has to do with the design of the Lancaster.

RL pilot accounts have stated that the lancaster(when empty) does respond in a way to a fighter.  plus its got a thicker-wider wing than the b17s,b24s. meaning it can handle the extra stress.(the B24's wings are the weakest of the 3)

[Krusty]

Lanc flies like a fighter because of the wing? Uhhh... no. I think the B-17 wing is a lot stronger than the lanc wing in real life.

I think it has to do with the Lancaster having an old damage model and an old graphics model. Once the graphics are updated they'll no doubt go back through it and bring it up to standards.

In real life the Lanc could perform some acrobatics... It could do a nice spiral dive. However I wouldn't classify it as anything like a fighter.

[SDGhalo]

well is was reading up in a few books from the RCAF no 6 group. that the lanc and even the Halifax could do stuff that some pilots from the BCATP could only imaging 

[Krusty]

I understand that for a 4-engined heavy bomber they were quite responsive, but let's not go so far as to call them fighter-like, shall we?

[Karnak]

Krusty,

I have never read anything that suggested the B-17's wing was stronger than the Lancaster's, let alone "a lot stronger".

Do you have a source?

SDGhalo,

Lancasters were maneuvered hard in evasives from German nightfighters and from searchlights.  The "corkscrew" maneuver that was commonly used involved a dive, turning tightly, followed by a sharp climb, also turning tight.

The only four engined bomber in AH that might have comparable durability to the Lancaster would be the B-17.  The B-29's wing spars are certainly stronger, but the B-29 masses so much more that the spar can't take as much of a load.

[M0nkey_Man]

I remember watching something that talked about how the lanc was very maneuverable compared to other bombers

[EskimoJoe]

See Rules #4, #6

[Krusty]

Krusty,

I have never read anything that suggested the B-17's wing was stronger than the Lancaster's, let alone "a lot stronger".

Do you have a source?

Photos, diagrams, descriptions of how the B-17 wing was built, constructed, the visible amount of damage it could withstand and still make it home. Photos showing regularly that the wing was one of the most robust designs of a heavy bomber in WW2. These compared with Lancaster wings show the Lanc wing to be .... shall we say less redundantly reinforced?

B-17 damage:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/570869-2/flak+damage
Note how far into the wing the actual wing is missing. That's 1/3 the width from front to back (1/3 the chord? Is that the term?):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/STtdEaskbCI/AAAAAAAAB4k/bycRd7-jI7s/s320/B-17+wing+damage+1.jpg
Most of the outer wing looks missing or damaged here:
http://hellsbelle.com/db5/00403/hellsbelle.com/_uimages/Buccaneer.jpg
Half the wing root is blow away here:
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/Miss_Irish-1.jpg
Several large bombs ripped through the wing here:
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/wings/wingedge.jpg

Pics of B-17 wing framework:
http://popartmachine.com/artwork/LOC+1273468/0/Production.-B-17F-heavy-bombers.-Women-install-nacelles-and-wing...-painting-artwork-print.jpg
Cross section:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/resources/aircraft/b17/b17-wing-cross-sections.jpg
Example of some of the framework:
http://users.skynet.be/veteranshaaltert/images/archief7.JPG
Diagram:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/where-cutaway-8909.html#post264957

Some pics of a lanc wing and structure:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23441300@N03/2725181447/in/photostream/
There's a few photos in there of interest.
One without the gas tank in the way:
http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/CanadianAirSpaceMuseum/AvroLancaster/images/40LancasterWing.jpg

Some very detailed schematics can be seen here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/avro-lancaster-fuel-systems-4903.html#post186210

Granted the lanc COULD take some damage and still get home, as seen here:
http://www.arc-design-it.co.uk/images/lancaster_r5679.jpg
(flak hit after attacking a tanker)

But instances of this are relatively uncommon compared to the countless photographic accounts of B-17s with even worse damage making it back.

B-17 seems to have a larger wing, a thicker wing, and a denser number of formers/ribs of thicker materials.

So, in short, based on all of the above observations and more.

[Karnak]

Basing your claim on "photos of shot up aircraft available on the internet" is a pretty iffy methodology.

In general I don't find as many photos of British aircraft as American, so the same size is smaller.  I can't recall the exact percentage, but I recall the Lancaster had approximately a 33% lower loss rate than did the Halifax.  The Lancaster was known to be a robust aircraft.

[RTHolmes]

I remember seeing the BBMF lanc recreating the dambusters practice runs over some lakes a few years back, I was amazed how they were chucking it around, and thats a 60yr old airframe!

[Tyrannis]

See Rules #4, #6

[B-17]

It's the media...just saying...

[Ack-Ack]

One shouldn't use a show on the Military Channel as their main point of reference, otherwise we'd have a P-51D with 50mm cannons, like a show on the Military Channel stated.

ack-ack