Lancasters Turnfighting?

[Copprhed]

I experienced this twice in the MA tonite....a Lancaster turnfighting and OUTURNING a Spit 8 AND a Spit 16. I don't believe this to be possible under any situation...the wings would have ripped off, PLUS...there's NO WAY possible that a Lancaster is as agile as ANY fighter....outrageous! I'd like some specific reasoning from someone from HiTech how this could be modeled, please?

[Debrody]

if you were just a random newb i would say, go learn some ACM...
but since i know how you can turn...  definiately interesting...    do you have a film about it?

[Lusche]

Good news for you:

The Lancaster isn't agile as any fighter. Not in real life and not in AH as well.


Of course, when empty it has quite a tight turning radius due to a low wingload. But neither roll rate nor sustained turn rate hold a candle to any fighter, particularly Spitfires. Sorry to say, but if a Lancaster outfights two Spits, the fighter pilots really sucked.
Sounds blunt, but that's how it is. Been there, done that

And concerning the "wings should have ripped of" - why? Or more precisely - what was the exact situation and how many G did the Lancaster actually pull? Wings don't fall off because "it's a Lancaster", but because G load is getting too high, with the exact limit also depending on load status.
I suppose there is no film available of that incident in question?

[Bruv119]

i've dog fought in lancs and JU-88s,  they will out turn some poorer turning fighters  but SPITFIRES??     err no,   those guys must have been pretty poor or know no throttle control whatsoever.

film or it didn't happen.

[Reschke]

I doubt the turnfight statement but I have seen more Lancs performing low alt high speed turns more and more lately...OR I should say I have seen the same guys driving the same birds doing the same things lately.

[Karnak]

Given that fully laden Lancs were able to pull the 'corkscrew' evasion maneuver, I really doubt the Lanc in question here should have lost its wings.  Lancs were rolled and looped successfully.  Just because it is a four engined bomber doesn't mean it couldn't do anything but fly sedate and level.

[Mace2004]

The key (or problem) here is agility and flying qualities. As pointed out, pulling the wings off is a function of G load and there's no reason that you can't perform BFM at 3G.  The real question is whether or not the pilots would be able to perform these maneuvers or not given issues such as control forces, control power and stability. In particular, these airplanes really were designed primarily for stable straight and level flight, a requirement for all the big bombers in WWII in order to deliver their ordnance more precisely. This static stability must be overcome to maneuver any aircraft and that's why fighters tend to be less stable (I.e., more "hands on") than bombers.

Also, those great long wings with four heavy engines slung far out from the fuselage create their own issues including very negative aspects to maneuvering flight.  I've flown two much smaller and older aircraft that were designed for stability over maneuvering performance (DeHaviland Beaver and Otter) and they can be a real bear to maneuver with tons of adverse yaw and proverse roll along with very heavy control forces and even control reversal.

I cannot state this for a fact since I've never flown a Lanc and I'd be perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but their agility is somewhat suspect to me. Perhaps someone else has evidence of the really dynamic maneuvering that we see in the game?  By evidence, I mean something else besides a descending spiral (a "corkscrew" which is certainly not a very dynamic maneuver.  Even a loop isn't very dynamic unless you get too slow over the top.

[RTHolmes]

corkscrew is a bit of a misnomer for that maneuver, cant remember the details but its more like 4 or 5 break turns to keep the bird out of plane with the attacker, descending first and finishing with a zoom iirc. more of a 3D zigzag than a helix that the name would suggest.

when the BBMF did a dambusters reenactment over derwent water for the anniversary a couple of years back I just couldnt believe the way they were chucking that big, heavy and very old bomber around. with a fresh airframe, engines running at full WEP and people trying to kill you I can see the lanc being alot more capable than you might imagine.

[FLS]

A fully loaded Lanc @ 72,000 lbs has a wing loading of 55 lbs. For comparison a P-38 is 53 lbs/sqft. A lightly loaded Lanc @ 45,000 lbs has a wing loading of 34 lbs which is similar to an F6F. I've read the elevators and ailerons were easy to move from 100 - 290 MPH. Granted it won't handle like a fighter but it seems like it should be pretty maneuverable when it's not loaded with bombs.

[Mace2004]

corkscrew is a bit of a misnomer for that maneuver, cant remember the details but its more like 4 or 5 break turns to keep the bird out of plane with the attacker, descending first and finishing with a zoom iirc. more of a 3D zigzag than a helix that the name would suggest.

when the BBMF did a dambusters reenactment over derwent water for the anniversary a couple of years back I just couldnt believe the way they were chucking that big, heavy and very old bomber around. with a fresh airframe, engines running at full WEP and people trying to kill you I can see the lanc being alot more capable than you might imagine.

That would be great to see, sort of like Tex Johnson's barrel roll in the 707 prototype.

[morfiend]

That would be great to see, sort of like Tex Johnson's barrel roll in the 707 prototype.

  I saw that on film,incredible!




   

[Ack-Ack]

Figure 1. Corkscrew maneuver

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

[Copprhed]

Well, unfortunately, ack-ack, I didn't film, as I didn't see a reason to on a basic flight to "uncap" a base, and folks, I may not be able to keep up with some, but I can hold my own, and I'm not too bad at ACMs. This Lanc did maneuvers that HAD to be close to 3 G's, but I can't swear to it. All I know is that at the end, i was totally flabbergasted that this pilot performed some hi G turns and such. lesson learned, I guess. Thanks to all who responeded, and for not calling this a whine, it surely wasnt' =S= to all!

[Ack-Ack]

Well, unfortunately, ack-ack, I didn't film, as I didn't see a reason to on a basic flight to "uncap" a base, and folks, I may not be able to keep up with some, but I can hold my own, and I'm not too bad at ACMs. This Lanc did maneuvers that HAD to be close to 3 G's, but I can't swear to it. All I know is that at the end, i was totally flabbergasted that this pilot performed some hi G turns and such. lesson learned, I guess. Thanks to all who responeded, and for not calling this a whine, it surely wasnt' =S= to all!

I didn't ask to see any film or anything else, I posted in response to Mace.

ack-ack

[Copprhed]

Apologies, ack-ack...you're correct. It was Debrody who asked about film. Although I've fought you too, under the nick Copprhed. You whooped me like a red-headed step child. =S=