Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SDGhalo on July 12, 2011, 10:59:21 AM
-
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.
-
It would not be much of a stukalanc if the wings went and ripped off.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
I remember watching something that talked about how the lanc was very maneuverable compared to other bombers :headscratch:
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
It's the media...just saying...
-
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
-
^
|
|
| What he said.
-
i was merely stating what i had heard. if i was right, great.
if i was wrong i knew someone would correct me. I only stated the military channel as my source because that the only place ive actually looked into the Lancaster.
Its a bomber that doesnt interest me enough to look further into. i see no reason in AH to fly it unless you like a big-unperked bomb load. or your British.
but my bad guys, guess im wrong
but it doesnt make me an unintelligent peasant for it. not everybody has spent their whole lives studying every aircraft on the AH roster :salute
-
This is true...some people have lives...
:bolt:
-
Doesnt matter bombers in general are awesome and we dont need to fight over it, the facts are there the b17 WAS TEH BEST
BOMBER EVER
-
Basing your claim on "photos of shot up aircraft available on the internet" is a pretty iffy methodology.
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.
-
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.
Does all of that information equate to a larger load ability to be placed on the aircraft? Or does it mean it can be shot at multiple times and blown off?
-
I don't know, but just from anecdotal experience (I openly admit it's anecdotes), the B-17 was known to have major chunks blown out of it and remain flying in the worst of damaged conditions. I've heard almost no similar examples of the Lancaster.
EDIT: Consider the B-17 had a much heavier max bombload than it carried. It was between 12000 lbs and 17000lbs if I recall. The choice for a lighter load was a decision made, not a restriction. So while I'd go with "damage" to answer your question, it doesn't rule out "loaded weight" either.
-
Yea its ability is certainly amazing.
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
Personally, I don't think any of the 4 engine bomber should be able to roll or pull more than 3g without losing wings.
-
Doesnt matter bombers in general are awesome and we dont need to fight over it, the facts are there the b17 WAS TEH BEST
BOMBER EVER
:aok You know what you're talking about, obviously :D
-
Personally, I don't think any of the 4 engine bomber should be able to roll or pull more than it was able to IRL.
fixed :)
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
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.
when Churchill came to look at the lancaster, Alex Henshaw (The Spitfire test pilot) Barrel rolled the Lanc to show off it's handling characteristics.
-
When they premeired the Boeing 707 the pilot did a barrel roll over the crowd.
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.
-
is there any evidence of B17s or B24s doing barrel rolls or using violent evasive maneuvering as SOP? :headscratch:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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):
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/mckinneywc/th_DonBrooksB-17p2.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/image/2522b-172522 wing/mckinneywc/DonBrooksB-17p2.jpg)
Lanc:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2725179231_a5e7bc45ca.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/other-mechanical-systems-tech/32887d1299767605t-avro-lancaster-fuel-systems-lanc-wing4a.jpg)
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.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/other-mechanical-systems-tech/32883d1299767593t-avro-lancaster-fuel-systems-lanc-wing1.jpg)
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:
(http://popartmachine.com/artwork/LOC+1273468/0/Production.-B-17F-heavy-bombers.-Women-install-nacelles-and-wing...-painting-artwork-print.jpg)
If you can't pick it out amongst the rest of the frame, here's a close-up:
(http://users.skynet.be/veteranshaaltert/images/archief7.JPG)
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
IRL? max cruise at best ...
-
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. :salute
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
(http://www.429sqn.ca/acmem01.jpg)
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
-
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
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2866596245_2e7f6c0470.jpg)
-
Oh... and slightly off topic but quite interesting anyway - it seems that most of the Bomber Command crews I have spoken to about it, preferred the Halifax and Wellington to the Lanc because they were much easier to get out of in the event of an emergency.
-
Oh... and slightly off topic but quite interesting anyway - it seems that most of the Bomber Command crews I have spoken to about it, preferred the Halifax and Wellington to the Lanc because they were much easier to get out of in the event of a bale out.
The Bomber Command numbers I have seen suggested that crew had about a 33% better chance to get out of a Halifax than they did out of a Lancaster, but that the Lancaster had about a 33% lower loss rate per sortie.
-
EDIT: Consider the B-17 had a much heavier max bombload than it carried. It was between 12000 lbs and 17000lbs if I recall. The choice for a lighter load was a decision made, not a restriction. So while I'd go with "damage" to answer your question, it doesn't rule out "loaded weight" either.
Internal ordnance on the B-17 F/G was normally 2-2000, 2-1600, 2-1000, 12-500, 16-300, 16-250, or 24-100 (from AN-01-1B-40 B-17 weight and balance, Army Manual 1943). But the lighter bombload was a 'restriction' because of the missions the B-17s were assigned. The maximum internal bombload was 9,600 pounds, and using the rarely-mounted under-wing bomb racks, each of which could carry a 4,000-lb bomb, it could carry up to 17,600 pounds of bombs; however, even with just the maximum internal bombload, maneuvers were restricted and fuel expenditure increased significantly, and the extra drag from the external ordnance limited the 17's range to the point where it had a range that would limit it to missions that the B-26 squadrons were already performing, so there was never any significant use of the B-17's full capacity.
-
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
photos like that put our AH war into perspective - give me goosebumps :uhoh
-
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
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2866596245_2e7f6c0470.jpg)
The photo posted is of "Wee Willie", 91st BG, 322nd BS, Coded LG*W, serialed 42-231333. This is the second photograph in a three shot group taken by the strike camera of another fortress, the last showing her exploding at around 6,000 ft. Eye witnesses in the surrounding aircraft say she took a direct hit from flak in the L/H wingroot over Stendahl on April 8, 1945. Reports that allude to an Me262 attacking her and tearing her wing off are false yet appear in more than one text I've examined. There were no 262's in the vicinity that day from what the 91st combat reports indicate. It doesn't matter how tough your wing is, a direct hit in that area by 88mm or 120mm flak and it's over.
-
Wee Willie is popping up EVERYWHERE to me right now...
-
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.
Superman might puncture the wing skin if his screwdriver slipped, but mortal human probably wouldn't do so. :D
B-17 wing is quite stout. The spars are a series of trusses. Each rib is a truss assembly. Then as Krusty pointed out there is a corrugated layer spanwise which really stiffens the wing. Stick your head up inside a B-17 wing and you'll think you're looking at the underside of a bridge!!
-
Superman might puncture the wing skin if his screwdriver slipped, but mortal human probably wouldn't do so. :D
B-17 wing is quite stout. The spars are a series of trusses. Each rib is a truss assembly. Then as Krusty pointed out there is a corrugated layer spanwise which really stiffens the wing. Stick your head up inside a B-17 wing and you'll think you're looking at the underside of a bridge!!
Are we comparing the Lancaster that flew at night vs a B-17 that flew during the day? Apples to Oranges. This entire argument is invalid from the beginning without the proof of both bombers taking the same damage and witnesses to the event. In reality, Bomber Command had a few raids cut to pieces and had missions flown at night - while so the American's were flying day light raids - so both situations are entirely different over all.
-
:rolleyes: :huh :headscratch: Want to try explaining the second line of that again, Butch?
-
It would not be much of a stukalanc if the wings went and ripped off.
:aok :x :lol
-
It would, though... just not a very survivable one.
-
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.
Old topic, but I've been reading SAM Publications' fascinatingly detailed book on the Lancaster, which has a short chapter on the Manchester. Quoting from page seven, "the design was also to be capable of dive bombing (at an angle of 60 deg to conceal the type and also to offer better accuracy of ordnance delivery), torpedo dropping (this led to the very long bomb bay as the torpedoes of the time were 18ft 3in long), troop carrying and supply dropping!". The fashion at the time in both Britain and France was for multi-role aircraft, the idea being that this would save money by consolidating the same roles into fewer aircraft types. The French went for smaller designs, such as the Potez 540 and the Bloch MB 130 and so forth, we had the Manchester and the Blenheim. I surmise that the requirement for a long bomb bay would have forced the designers to make the fuselage extra-specially rigid, in the same way that convertible cars need scuttle reinforcement. This in turn would have increased the weight, which is one of the factors that doomed the Manchester.
Quoting further, "the long range of heavy bomb load of the type was to be achieved by the use of a catapult take-off". What appears to have happened is that all of these requirements were included in the original design, but dropped as requirements just before production finally started (the dive bombing requirement persisted until August 1938), so presumably they were engineered in but never used. The book describes a catapult launch of one of the Manchester prototypes. The MkIII Manchester had lengthened wings, presumably built to the same standard as the Manchester's original set, although ultimately the MkIII became the Lancaster.
All of this probably explains why the Lancaster was such a piece of work. Interesting to compare it with the Ju 88, which had a similar range of roles but was much smaller; I wonder if the Germans ever thought of putting four engines onto the thing? Probably would have made no sense unless the bomb bay was enlarged, at which point it's becoming a completely new aeroplane, and if you're going to build a new aeroplane, why not start from scratch and make the best! With the war as good as won there's no rush.