Thread: 2 Lancaster flying in the UK

Happy to....

Yes, from various sources, around 300 Bristol Hercules-powered Lancasters were built, but their overall performance wasn't better than the Merlin.
When the AMERICAN built Packard/Merlins arrived, that idea died a natural death.
I get the distinct impression that 'reliability' and 'consistancy' were the big winners with the imports....

AVRO Lancaster Heavy Bomber

And for some human perspective on the issue...

Lancaster DS690

Originally Posted by Ausfree

.....
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Canadians bring out a version of the Lancaster with Cylcone engines which are more powerful than the Merlins.

I can find no reference at all to a Cyclone engined Lancaster, built in Canada or anywhere else (Lancasters were built in Canada, and had differences, but had Merlin engines).

However, about three hundred were built by Armstrong Whitworth with Bristol Hercules radial engines, but these were about the same power as the Merlin and had greater frontal area. This version was a hedge against Merlin production being restricted by axis bombing.

John

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-3729647006001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=O2qYl0evc2Y

I would love to see these fly. I try to get to every Warbirds demo at Temora if I can.
The costs involved in keeping these old birds in the air is massive and I have to thank those who do so.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I can find no reference at all to a Cyclone engined Lancaster, built in Canada or anywhere else (Lancasters were built in Canada, and had differences, but had Merlin engines).

However, about three hundred were built by Armstrong Whitworth with Bristol Hercules radial engines, but these were about the same power as the Merlin and had greater frontal area. This version was a hedge against Merlin production being restricted by axis bombing.

John

Thanks for that JD, that's what I'm getting confused with. I knew there were some Lancasters built with radial engines!!!

Be nice if you could book a tour over Berlin on a full moon.

The Lancaster is one of the WW2 aircraft that I admire most. For a makeshift design, it was very successful (the Manchester was a twin engined heavy bomber using RR Vulture engines (24 cyl X), which were pretty much a complete flop. After the first two hundred, the two Vultures were replaced by four Merlins to create the Lancaster.

The airframe was designed from the start for ease and speed of manufacture, which was a large part of its success. The Merlins helped - power kept increasing throughout the war. The obvious comparison is the B17, but the Lancaster was a newer design, and had a smaller crew (7 vs 10), was marginally faster, carried a much larger bomb load further. The B24 had similar or better performance than the Lancaster, but carried a smaller bomb load and was much more susceptible to battle damage. It also had a reputation for being difficult to fly.

The Lancaster withstood damage and was easy to repair compared to some other aircraft. Unlike the American heavy bombers, the Lancaster flew with a single pilot plus engineer.

John

In my past life at the newspapers, one of the Photogs was an ex-Lanc pilot. Reckoned they handled very nicely once the load was dumped.
His funniest moment - Being chased through Switzerland by the local airforce due to some 'navigational error' on their way home from work...

Wasn't impressed with their gunnery......