Видео

When they were trying to figure out how to deliver the atomic weapon originally, the B-29 was barely off the drawing board and going through a whole host of teething troubles, particularly with its engines overheating. Lancaster was one of the few planes that could, before the B-29 got made reliably operational, realistically carry both the weight and size of the A-bomb to practical ranges. But, once the B-29 got made reliable, and they started project Silverplate in 1943 (modifying B-29s for A-bomb carrying), Lancaster was dropped as a theoretical delivery platform.

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft A bombs were armed after takeoff, not possible with Lanc because there was no access to the bomb bay from inside the aircraft. particularly difficult for Fat Man because it would have to be carried externally like the Grand Slam bomb.

@@nickdanger3802- nevertheless it was the backup. I’m sure the boffins would have found a way to modify the bomb bay

6,098 enemy shoot downs claimed by 8th AF gunners, 320 by Lanc gunners. EDIT DUE TO REPLY BEING DELETED "able to carry loads that would leave a B-17 sitting on the runway unable to move." 12,800 pounds max load for 17. 8th AF due to not having number for B17 only and does not include 15th AF in Italy, Caliban has a vid with numbers for all RAF claims by aircraft model if you want numbers for Short Stirling and Halifax to add to Lanc. Lanc losses were about 50% higher than B17 when RAF heavies flying at night for about 2 years and not going into Germany any further than the Ruhr Valley in the short nights of summer. "Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack." page 158 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Search of Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44, after the USAAF cleared the sky. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". (USA) appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger"

@@nickdanger3802 And your point is??? Nothing I said was incorrect yet you try to bring a something not relevant to my comment. For a Heavy!! Bomber the B-17's bomb load over long distance was pathetic compared to the Lancaster. Some Medium Bombers carried more. The B-17 carried more guns and armour than bomb load, which is he point of a BOMBER!!!! How many B17's were shot down compared to Lancaster's? Both aircraft were excellent designs for what they were intended to do yet you cannot seem to give credit where it is due without some snide inane yankee doodle comment.

​@@nickdanger3802the tiny a4 skyhawk could carry more than the standard B17 load. I love the Fort. But the lanc had it covered as far as bomb load.

⁠@@nickdanger3802I’m just going to point out that the number you’ve quoted is for all heavy bombers, not just the B-17….as per the Army Airforces strategic digest, World War 2.

@@johnfisher9692 "able to carry loads that would leave a B-17 sitting on the runway unable to move." 12,800 pounds max load for 17. 8th AF due to not having number for B17 only, Caliban has a vid with numbers for all RAF claims by aircraft model if you want numbers for Short Stirling and Halifax to add to Lanc. Lanc losses were about 50% higher than B17 when flying at night for about 2 years and not going into Germany any further than the Ruhr Valley in the short nights of summer. "Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack." page 158 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Search of Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44, after the USAAF cleared the sky. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". (USA) appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger" (instead of observer)

I tried, but I don't speak German :/ (tried to many years ago, didn't go well for me)

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft 😄

Actually yes if one looks at the B17 losses that happened before the Luftwaffe had no fuel or pilots left.

@@brealistic3542 Actually, no. From the American Air Museum: "October 1943 turned out to be the worst loss rate for 8th Air Force for the entire war. 2,145 B-17s and 303 B-24s had been dispatched on missions. 163 B-17s had been lost (loss rate 7.5991%) and 9 B-24s were lost (loss rate 2.9703%)." That was the _worst_ month.

Note that the Finns flew an early version nearly a ton lighter than the later models flown by the USN and USMC. The Finnish climate also made things easier for a powerplant with a reputation for overheating.

Unlike the US and other Allies, neither the Japanese nor Germans practiced rotating their more experienced pilots out of combat to training new pilots in the best tactics. They just fought until they died or were medically unfit to fight any more.

IIiii did not know that lol

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft Its not THAT important!!! LOL

Canopy visibility wasn't greatly understood as a design fact until little after mid-war point, with the mass adoption of bubble canopies to many deigns (P-51D, P-47M, later Spitfires, Typhoon and Tempest) Or redesigns of pre-existing canopies (such as the Malcolm Hood for the P-51Cs and Bs). The reason why they didn't adopt a bubble canopy out of the gate is, well. . .because they didn't exist yet when the Corsair was first designed, the technology to allow their creation wouldn't really exist till mid war. Visibility out of USN aircraft has always been a bit iffy, especially in the rear view. As for why, I don't know to be honest. Later Corsairs did adopt a blown style canopy that increased visibility drastically over the old "birdcage design". But if I had to guess as to the reason the canopies were designed as they were originally for the Corsair, it was for performance in having it streamlined into the fuselage to reduce drag, with pilot visibility a secondary concern. The reason the Cockpit is placed so far back however *is* something I can answer. It allowed pilots to see out the side and get into the plane while the wings were folded. Since they couldn't really place the cockpit forward, they pushed it back.

@@johnklatt3522 Huh, that I did not know, thanks for sharing!

That is somethin I've been workin on, yeah, newer videos Voice Over is slower paced

Yes you are correct. Somehow I got it right the first time, then thought I mixed it up during editing and added the correction, only to realize after posting some time later that the correction is wrong. Gotta love ADHD brain

Fairey Swordfish did face enemy fighters of the Luftwaffe during the Channel dash, it was actually that incident that caused the Swordfish to be replaced in the frontline torpedo bomber role for the FAA by the Albacore and later Barracuda

Except that the Allison had all kinds of trouble with broken cranks, thrown rods, bearing fires and especially detonation. Problems still existed when the P-38L was flight tested with the new 150 octane and couldn't handle 70" of MP (totally unrelated to the turbo system). Even the P-82 engines in Korea were a maintenance nightmare.

Bulldogs were withdrawn from service in 1937, replaced ironically by the predecessor to the Gladiator, the Gauntlet.