whats up with the 4 engines.

[B-17]

^
|
|
| What he said.

[Tyrannis]

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 

[B-17]

This is true...some people have lives...

[cut67]

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

[Krusty]

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.

[DaddieDrax]

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?

[Krusty]

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.

[DaddieDrax]

Yea its ability is certainly amazing.

[olds442]

See Rules #4, #6

[icepac]

Personally, I don't think any of the 4 engine bomber should be able to roll or pull more than 3g without losing wings.

[B-17]

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

You know what you're talking about, obviously

[RTHolmes]

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

[5PointOh]

See Rules #4, #6

[Bruv119]

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.

[Krusty]

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.