Author Topic: Question about the Lancaster flight model  (Read 1300 times)

Online caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6453
Question about the Lancaster flight model
« on: September 09, 2011, 08:30:54 PM »
According to the AH speed chart,  the Lanc hits its top speed of 277 at 14k.  Reaching the same peak again around 18k, before slowing down from there on up.  The chart only goes to 25k.  I was wondering if Lancs are equipped with turbochargers, nitrous or Liquid Schwartz as they seem to go super fast at high altitudes.  Including a film of an uber Lanc flying level at 34k, doing a steady 330mph.   :headscratch:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0i2q5e0vsh6ulk5
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2011, 08:51:10 PM »
Superchargers.  They use Merlins.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Online caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6453
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2011, 08:59:11 PM »
Apparently, they have a second stage that kicks in over 25k.   :rolleyes:


« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 09:29:58 PM by caldera »
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2011, 09:47:45 PM »
Apparently, they have a second stage that kicks in over 25k.   :rolleyes:


(Image removed from quote.)
That would be a bug, like the A6M3 had for a bit.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2011, 10:49:45 PM »
they probably attached jet engines...:lol

joking aside, probably a bug like the one with the A6M3 like karnak said.

Offline curry1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2011, 07:29:00 PM »
they probably attached jet engines...:lol

joking aside, probably a bug like the one with the A6M3 like karnak said.

Haha!  Oh Wait you just copy what people say to make mindless posts to increase your count.
Curry1-Since Tour 101

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2011, 11:48:19 PM »
Has anyone found the real speed chart for a Lancaster with no ords and %50 fuel (doing a weight comparison).  Find the weight comparisons and see how close they are.

Surely, everyone knows an 18 wheeler semi-tractor will go up and through the Rocky Mountains a lot easier and faster with no load in the trailer... right??? 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline ACE

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5569
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2011, 07:32:48 AM »
Haha!  Oh Wait you just copy what people say to make mindless posts to increase your count.
Obviously you do the same :) to point him out you made a stupid post.  Haha!
Sixth Tri-Annual Dueling Bracket Champion

The Few

-Spek

Online caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6453
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2011, 09:18:03 AM »
I relayed the info to Skuzzy and he replied that the climb rate would be much better when light, but didn't say about the top speed.  According to Wiki, the service ceiling on the Lanc is 23,500 feet (and max speed of 280mph at 15,000 feet).  If that's even close to correct, how the hell can it even fly at 34,000 feet?   Oh, and 50mph faster than its maximum speed.  :headscratch:

p.s. I chased a b-17 last night which climbed as high as 37.5k but could only maintain about 36.5k.  Wiki states the service ceiling on the B-17 as being 35.6k, so that is pretty close.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 09:25:11 AM by caldera »
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2011, 09:46:27 AM »
I relayed the info to Skuzzy and he replied that the climb rate would be much better when light, but didn't say about the top speed.  According to Wiki, the service ceiling on the Lanc is 23,500 feet (and max speed of 280mph at 15,000 feet).  If that's even close to correct, how the hell can it even fly at 34,000 feet?   Oh, and 50mph faster than its maximum speed.  :headscratch:
are you looking at tas or ias? there is a difference. true air speed (ground speed) could be 400mph while indicated air speed could show only 290mph. from what i've found the service ceiling (maximum altitude where 100ft/min climb can be maintained) is between 23,500 and 24,500 feet. maximum speed of 280-287mph is achieved at 15,000 feet.

this reference claims the absolute ceiling for the mk1 and mk3 is 24,671 feet.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Avro%20Lancaster.htm

not sure how it could get to 34,000 feet with anything but fuel on board, but hey it's ah, ya just never know.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Online caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6453
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2011, 10:08:25 AM »
are you looking at tas or ias? there is a difference. true air speed (ground speed) could be 400mph while indicated air speed could show only 290mph. from what i've found the service ceiling (maximum altitude where 100ft/min climb can be maintained) is between 23,500 and 24,500 feet. maximum speed of 280-287mph is achieved at 15,000 feet.

this reference claims the absolute ceiling for the mk1 and mk3 is 24,671 feet.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Avro%20Lancaster.htm

not sure how it could get to 34,000 feet with anything but fuel on board, but hey it's ah, ya just never know.

I was chasing the Lanc and got the speed from the film viewer.  Thanks for that info.  That tells me his plane was flying 10,000 feet over absolute ceiling.
Absolute ceiling means quite literally that you cannot fly any higher.  I also timed his climb.  He averaged 750ft/min from 19,000ft to 34,000ft, getting there in 20 minutes.

I still have the complete film if anyone wants to review it.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 10:14:19 AM by caldera »
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2011, 02:27:16 PM »
caldera,

What do you mean "absolute ceiling"?  That it was going too fast is obvious, but I think you don't understand what the RAF meant by an aircraft's ceiling.  All that meant was the altitude at which an aircraft's climb rate dropped below 500ft/min.  You could go higher, but operationally it wasn't really useful.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2011, 02:44:21 PM »
caldera,

What do you mean "absolute ceiling"?  That it was going too fast is obvious, but I think you don't understand what the RAF meant by an aircraft's ceiling.  All that meant was the altitude at which an aircraft's climb rate dropped below 500ft/min.  You could go higher, but operationally it wasn't really useful.
might want to correct that karnak...service ceiling = 100ft/min.

http://en.mimi.hu/aviation/service_ceiling.html

combat ceiling is sustained 500ft/min.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:47:59 PM by gyrene81 »
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2011, 03:04:38 PM »
thats how the RAF did fighters, not sure if they used the same for bombers (500fpm is pretty good for an EW buff) :headscratch:



edit: quick offline test from 30k base:

~51,000lb, 3x2k bombs (they look like 2ks in the film, might be 1ks), ~25%
@30k 542fpm

~71,000lb, 14x1k bombs, ~100%
@24k maintains level flight

mass makes a big difference ...
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 03:16:50 PM by RTHolmes »
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Online caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6453
Re: Question about the Lancaster flight model
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2011, 03:39:43 PM »
caldera,

What do you mean "absolute ceiling"?  That it was going too fast is obvious, but I think you don't understand what the RAF meant by an aircraft's ceiling.  All that meant was the altitude at which an aircraft's climb rate dropped below 500ft/min.  You could go higher, but operationally it wasn't really useful.

The page Gyrene81 quotes above has this passage:

Performance: (Early B.Mk I) Maximum speed 275 mph (443 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4572 m). (Late B.Mk I) Maximum speed 287 mph (462 km/h) at 11,500 ft (3505 m), 275 mph (443 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4572 m), 260 mph (419 km/h) at 19,400 ft (5913 m); cruising speed 234 mph (377 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6401 m), 200 mph (322 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4572 m); stalling speed (clean) 95 mph (153 km/h) at 60,000 lbs (27211 kg); normal service ceiling 23,000 ft, nominal service ceiling 24,500 ft (7468 m); absolute service ceiling 24,671 ft (7500 m); climb to 20,000 ft (6096 m) in 41 minutes and 40 seconds; initial rate of climb 250 ft (76 m) per minute with full bombload. In a hard dive the prototype aircraft achieved speeds reaching almost 400 mph (644 km/h) with production aircraft (operational loadout) being limited to 360 mph (578 km/h).

Another interesting note in this paragraph is that the plane could almost reach 400mph in a hard dive (with the prototype - production aircraft, only 360mph), whereas in AH, I have film of one doing 484mph up high.




Absolute ceiling:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute+ceiling

The highest altitude at which an aircraft can maintain level flight.




Engine power for the various Lanc variants (from same source):

Powerplant: (B.Mk I) Initially four Rolls-Royce Merlin XX or 22 Vee 12-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines each rated at 1,280 hp (955 kW) for take-off and 1,240 hp (925 kW) at 2,850 rpm at 10,000 ft (3050 m) with a maximum power rating of 1,480 hp (1104 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 6,000 ft (1830 m). Late production B.Mk I aircraft being equipped with four Rolls-Royce Merlin 24 Vee 12-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines rated at 1,620 hp (1209 kW) for take-off and 1,240 hp (925 kW) at 2,850 rpm at 10,000 ft (3050 m) with a maximum power rating of 1,640 hp (1223 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 2,000 ft (610 m). (B.Mk II) Four Bristol Hercules VI 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engines rated at 1,615 hp (1205 kW) for take-off and 1,675 hp (1250 kW) at 2,900 rpm at 4,500 ft (1370 m) with a maximum power rating of 1,675 hp (1250 kW) at 2,900 rpm at 4,500 ft (1450 m). The radial engined Lancasters had a higher top speed but also had a higher fuel consumption. (B.Mk III) Four American-built Packard Merlin 28 Vee 12-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines each rated at 1,300 hp (970 kW) for take-off, or four American-built Packard Merlin 38 (Merlin 22) Vee 12-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines each rated at 1,390 hp (1037 kW) for take-off. Some later B.Mk III aircraft had the American-built Packard Merlin 224 (Merlin 24) Vee 12-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines each rated at 1,620 hp (1209 kW) for take-off. All Merlin engines used a mechanically driven, two-speed, single stage, centrifugal supercharger. Note: Rolls-Royce engine marks up to XX (twenty) are distinguished by Roman numbers, while marks above that were distinguished by Arabic numericals.




thats how the RAF did fighters, not sure if they used the same for bombers (500fpm is pretty good for an EW buff) :headscratch:



edit: quick offline test from 30k base:

~51,000lb, 3x2k bombs (they look like 2ks in the film, might be 1ks), ~25%
@30k 542fpm

~71,000lb, 14x1k bombs, ~100%
@24k maintains level flight

mass makes a big difference ...

If the service ceiling(100ft/min climb) is more or less 23,000ft, it shouldn't be climbing five times that rate at 30,000ft with eggs aboard.  :headscratch:

« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 03:41:34 PM by caldera »
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."