Lancaster, Fastest 4 Engine Bomber in Europe?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 апр 2022
- In this video we will compare the maximum speeds of the three primary heavy bombers in Europe. The Avro Lancaster, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, and the Consolidated B-24 Liberator.
The Lancaster was the newest design with by far the largest engines. Plus they were liquid cooled V-12s, much more streamlined than the U.S. air cooled radials. Then again, the US planes had turbochargers. Let's run the numbers from primary source material and compare.
Turbo and Supercharging Video: • Turbo vs Supercharging...
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Note: I mis-spoke on the engine sizes. The Lancaster's Merlins have the least displacement, but are liquid cooled and are the heaviest of the bunch. 
Авто/Мото
Grandpa was a pilot in the Bomber Barrons South Pacific B-24s. Said his greatest accomplishment was being able to bring the boys home safely for every mission.
That’s the most important bit
My Grandfather flew for the Fuhrer-- had many engine failures !
Grandmother flew for the Fuhrer--after his sex change
My Uncle was sitting on a bouncing bomb that was stuck-- he went over the top of the dam and landed on the roof of a beautiful maidenfuehrens house-- she kept him in her bedroom until he escaped in 1959-- a completely drained shell of a man-
Wish "I would have Asked more questions? even had a biological gramps a Seabee! others 24's and or 17's.
When flying through a Flak barrage I'm sure the crews of all 3 planes felt like they were crawling and wished they were going twice as fast
and three times as high...........
It was all a technology issue; navigation was so poor that "formations" were used to shepherd planes around. It they had had lazer perfect navigation, just imagine how hard it would have been to counter a swarm of bombers all at different altitudes and headings over a target at night?
In the 1990s, I spoke with a chap who'd been a bomb aimer on Lancasters. I showed him a picture in a book about the Halifax. The picture showed Halifaxes going through monstrous flak whilst bombing the warship Hipper. He said, "I was on the same raid. I was in my position looking forward, and saw the Halifaxes flying through that flak. I thought, bloody hell, we've got to fly through that in a moment".
The all black, Top Secret, Tinian based atomic Lancasters were definitely capable of just below supersonic speeds thanks to superior engines designed by Churchill himself during a sherry binge on a stormy night. God save the queen.
P51 powered by a British merlin engine 🇬🇧 🧂 🇬🇧
@@conorf8091 Merlin backwards is Nilrem. Joe Nilrem was a top ball player for the Chicago White Sox and also, in his spare time, designed the "Merlin" engine to help the poor British win the war. He did this out of his generosity and asked nothing in return. USA USA USA
@@MrArgus11111 LOL Diddnt he have the strike out record for the White Sox?
@@BradBrassman Absolutely and his famous catch phrase "Dinner time!" is still used by parents to this day.
Actually the the p51s were powered by Packard built merlins. In many ways a product improved RR Merlin as they had different bolts and clearances making for a more standardised(parts swappable) engine
I've always wondered why the Halifax is semi-forgotten, considering they made over 6000 of them, not a huge amount less than the Lancaster. For that matter, even the unfavoured Stirling had over 2000 built. And something like 18,000 Liberators! Just goes to show the sheer scale of WW2.
I have always thought the Stirling doesn't get a fair shake from historians.
Halifax late versions were comparable with Lanc in most performance areas, it was used in a lot more roles and was a lot easier since to get out of than a Lanc. I agree deserves more credit contributed a lot to Allied victory.
For the same reason the most common mention of the B-24 are the words, "And the B-24."
Halifax has a very small ego.
It's true the Wellington aka Wimpey had more positive post-war press because of Barnes-Wallis's geodesic construction which made it rugged, early bombers failed.
The Consolidated Liberator was relatively ignored, as a pressman said he felt safer in a plane called Fortress.
The Lanc & Mosquito are the Brit glamour boys, because they were used in highly publicised operations. Sinking the Tirpitz and Dam cracking out weigh any number of routine missions.
The other point is I have seen the Lanc fly, both at displays and when driving through the countryside. It's harder to be excited about a plane that is paper and photographs.
The Stirling was limited by its ceiling at c16,000 ft, the Lancaster and Halifax crews knew that if Stirling's were below them they might have more of a chance. If the Stirling had a greater span and a fuselage 20 feet shorter it might have got higher.
Another terrific piece of balanced, objective historical analysis. Great channel.
Except, the Pretense is utterly wrong, unless Amended to "piston engine bombers'. The Germans had two, Four-engine Bombers that Far Out-paced anything using piston-engines. The Ju-287 (only one built, but, still..) did just over 600 MPH in it's test flights. It was captured by the Soviets intact. The Arado 234-C (4 were built) was able to fly at 575 MPH, and flew perhaps a dozen missions before those were destroyed in Bavaria by Germans prior to being over-run by U.S. troops.
@@ericbrammer2245 There was no 600mph bomber. The Ju287 didnt even surpass 400.
@@ericbrammer2245 in that case throw in the mosquito DH.98 the fastest bomber of ww2 also sat at 8000m at about 680kmh with a 2 tonne bomb
@@ericbrammer2245 Did you utterly mean premise?
Greg's research and knowledge is second to none!
One thing that comes through loud and clear: Every aircraft design involves compromises and technical choices, both highly dependent on choices made in the design process. What do you want? Range? Speed? Armor for the crew? Speed at altitude or closer to the deck? The list goes on. It was true in WWII and remains true. No one gets to have it all.
Re-watching these bomber vids 2 years later. Great work Greg
Best history channel on the internet. As soon as I saw a new vídeo was about to be released I had to click an wait
Go watch TIK for a while. And then there's Drachinifel who is very good on naval matters. Must be others who have earned a high rating like Greg. (except for drag racing Fiats. What was he thinking?)
@@scottgiles7546 agreed. I love TIK and Drachinifel as well.
My FIL who flew a total of 67 missions combined over Europe and the far east out of Kunming said that when his crew transitioned from Short Stirlings to Halifax they were pleased. When they transitioned from Halifax's to the Lanc's they were ecstatic and when they transitioned to the Liberator's in the far east they thought they'd won the lottery!
The RAF made good use of the later Liberator marks in the anti-shipping role in the western Pacific with mission durations sometimes exceeding 24 hours.
Baloney no B24 was in the same ballpark as the Two Brit planes
@@dalecomer5951 RAF from where ?
This is TheTop Channel! Great information and charts as usual! Thank you, sir!
excellent commentary , enjoyed the entire program , thank you for the effort putting this together for us
I’m so excited for this channel to hit 100k subs. Well deserved, sir.
I love it when you post 2 aircraft videos within a few days of eachother! Always a treat.
Greg, great video.
This is the comprehensive information presentation which should be used for all data given on TV. You have become the gold standard !
Such a masterpiece of a video! With quite complex data made easy to understand by your fantastic narration 😎
The lines for the B24 were the closest to straight on the graph. The liberator is my personal favorite WWII bomber. Amongst other achievements It helped to win the battle of the atllantic (the longest, and perhaps most crucial of the battles). Thank you for including the hopped up Lancaster at the end. I will now see what I can find on the Liberator Express.
The Liberator express was a speedy transport, not really a bomber.
No need for turbos at low altitude over the ocean. I think those ones didn't have the turbo gear saving a lot of weight
Yeah , the Lib was a great plane .
My grandfather flew anti-sub patrols in the RAF. From his log books they flew at 500-1500 feet.
The aircraft he flew in were Liberator GRV (B24D) and GRVI (B24H/J) but they all retained their turbochargers even though it would have made sense to remove them for weight saving. They did remove the de-icing boots though, if you see pictures of Coastal Command Libs they usually have silver leading edges on the wings.
I think they probably left the turbos on as it would have been more trouble to remove them. The aircraft already had enough endurance, they were bumping on the limit of what the crew could deal with by then.
13+ hour patrols were common in these things, and excellent aircraft that it was, no-one is going to want to spend more time than that in one, particularly my grandfather, his navigators position was behind the front turret and got pretty cold and draughty!
The Liberator is my favorite too, mostly because it has a very small ego. It shows up, does the job, and goes home.
Greg. Thank you for another great video! All the best. Chuck
An excellent, objective video, Greg.
I agree with you that the B-24 Liberator has been denied the acclaim that it deserves. The same should be said for the Handley Page Halifax. Both aircraft also had the versatility to be used in a variety of roles apart from their sterling service as heavy bombers.
Incidentally, over the years, I met quite a few veteran Halifax crew members and not one of them would have preferred to have served in Lancasters instead. That tells its own story, I feel.
Always informative and fun to watch. Thanks
I hope you cross 100k soon so you get the plaque you deserve for your excellent content!
The Grand Slam Lancasters were especially lightened to carry their 22,000 lb bomb. They had a terrific power-to-weight ratio after the bomb had gone. They were known as "clapper kites" after the English expression "going like the clappers", meaning "very fast". Their great wing area meant they could also out-turn most fighters.
Thank you, I love "clapper kites" the RAF generated so much langauge! And interesting point, re the Lancasters turning ability. Avro kept to the big wing area with the Vulcan, and the pilots told me they could out turn anything at altitude. I worked in the met office at Scampton, and met the crews before every flight.
@@clive373 All true!
Baloney they were NOT fast and could not out turn a fighter
@@jacktattis The Grand Slam Lancs were specially lightened. The English phrase "Go like the clappers" means "go very quickly", hence "clapper kites". A bombless Grand Slam Lanc had impressive agility, climb and speed. NOBODY claims it could outrun a fighter, but it was phenomenally quick for a four-engined bomber.
The Lanc's vast wing area allowed it to turn in a small space at low speed. Fighters couldn't pursue and would fly past, because they couldn't luff-off their velocity in the same way.
Swordfish pilots developed a manoeuvre involving a short climb and a turn. There's an account of a Swordfish which was attacked by two Italian fighters over the Med. The Swordfish carried out its special manoeuvre. The Italian fighters tried to stay with it, stalled and crashed into the sea.
The DH Mosquito is claimed to be "fast". In truth, it was slower than a fighter. However, its fast CRUISING speed meant it was difficult to intercept. Unlike a Blenheim or a "heavy", it had sufficient speed to outpace a fighter until it entered cloud and disappeared from sight.
@@clive373 Hey Clive - you might want to return here and tell Jack why he's mistaken.
Evaluation of these planes is similar to evaluating different calibers of firearms. They each have a purpose for which they were designed for. Great video!
10mm is best mm
@@ivanthemadvandal8435 For what?
Very enjoyable video--as much as I've read about these planes there's plenty to learn which is fun
You say the B24 is undervalued in the European theatre. I think its contribution was war winning when, as a maritme bomber, it closed the Atlantic gap against the U-Boats. Thanks Consolidated.
That was already being closed by the Sunderland The B24 was to supplement the Sunderland. Short could not make enough Sunderlands
So, thanks to Mark Felton, I learned a lot about Lancaster. Maybe not DIRECTLY thanks to him, but still...
Same
Good point
Yeah, I used to respect Felton. But then he went hard into click-bait, poor-research category. I've watched at least ten videos of his with SERIOUS historical problems. He's become very British-jingoistic. It seems he's started just regurgitating British WW2 propaganda with little to no critical thinking or actual research.
@@carlpolen7437 ..and now you ♥ Greg and 'murica?
@@carlpolen7437 That's right, and all his subscribers just believe everything he says
One of your best features yet, Greg! It made me recall a comment in "Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" about FW 190 A's having difficulty catching up to a B-17 formation, to the effect that above 20 k feet "the 190 was hardly faster."
I imagine that as a fighter you want something on the lines of 40-50knt speed advantage to allow for easy positioning.
Mate I dont think so B17 cruising speed 215 Mph sERVICE CEILING 35000 ft Fw190A8 they do not give cruising Speed but 408 @20670 ft and 37500ft S/C
@@jacktattis When the 190 A was up-armored and fitted with under-wing cannon for the bomber-killer role it was a "lead sled" above 20 k ft.
@@Thermopylae1159 Not all were up armoured and the ones without the under wing cannon flew cover for the ones with them
@@jacktattis Righto, there were certainly many sub-variants with different armament packages.
Very interesting and Informative thank you Graham
Excellent- astonishing work.
Always insightful and well researched Greg! Well done and thanks!
..if 'murican?
Great video as always Greg, thank you.
The speed line for the B-24 on your graph reminds me of an anecdote from the autobiography of a RNZAF pilot who flew P-40s in the Solomons. One day his squadron was providing close cover to a force of B-24s bombing targets in southern Bougainville at approx 20k feet, and after the bombs were dropped the B-24s started climbing and accelerated away from the P-40s who had no chance of keeping up with them... that however started a row as the bombers later accused the fighters of abandoning them!
Did the RNZAF P-40s have the version of the Allison engine that started to run out of puff above 15000 feet? Seems a likely explanation.
@@rednaughtstudios yes all RNZAF P-40s were Allison powered (except for one Merlin powered L accidentally shipped to NZ), and indeed it's the cause of them being left behind by the B-24s, I thought it's a good anecdote to illustrate the B-24s speed as shown on Greg's graph.
Another great and informative video!
I love these videos they go into such depth
After watching this, the B24 has just been promoted to my preferred ride.
My family lost someone in the war that was a B24 navigator that was shot down by an 88 and killed by over Italy on their 21st mission during a run on the railroad bridge, Ferrara Italy.
Among other missions they'd survived 3 runs on the oil fields of Ploesti Romania one of which they got hit and had to make an emergency landing at an alternate airstrip.
They hit the bridge though on their fatal mission and took it out, for 7 of the 10 crewmembers it was the last thing they did in their lives.
Most spacious cabin as well I believe.
I prefer the Stirling. M.
@@rovercoupe7104 the Stirling was a death trap . Lancaster crews ,upon hearing that Stirlings would be accompanying the raid they were embarking on , would cheer . Cos they were going to die first.
Not if it was doing hard turns The Davis wing was weak
The Lanc bomb bay reminds me of the B36 at Dayton that I got a chance to walk under on the way back from Oshkosh. Just endless.
Great breakdown and an interesting watch.
Love to hear these type of videos meanwhile I'm sipping a cup of tea, next video maybe you can talk about the Halifax BIII?, Love that thing, my first scale four engine bomber
I had never seen a ventral turreted Lanc. Thanks Greg.
Once again you've explained things and laid them out so well as to force the "yeah, but" crowd to step up their research..........and ultimately, agree. Nicely done.
The "yeah but" crowd is closely related to the "if" crowd, my standard reply to them is;
"If" my aunt had ball's she'd be my uncle, but she doesn't so she's my aunt.
@@dukecraig2402 The old ones are the best, huh?
@@dukecraig2402 "Balls!" said the queen, "If I had them I'd be king!"
But why is Greg = Thé Truth?
@@dallesamllhals9161 it may well be the truth. However one must also pay attention to what is NOT said. For example the B29's engines suffered engine fires, no-one is in a position to challenge him either. He's an American too, and they like to be biggest and best at everything. It's human nature to be biased, everyone is to one extent or another. One doesn't see much material on the jet engine being shipped from Britain to the US, or how the 20mm cannon could not be made to work there during attempts at mass production.
Great video, as always.
Just barely comprehended all that. But it was still great!
Thanks "G" !
Super work Greg! I'm sure you already have it pencilled in for a future episode, but the cost and production time? effort? for each bomber would be very interesting to learn.
A metric of production time, as well as $cost of total production costs per tonne dropped and total of delivered tonnes of ordnance would be interesting as well as loss ratio in terms of planes and $ per tonne. War, especially total war is an economic war more than anything else. During WW2 the UK was essentially bankrupted so the economics of the Lancaster would be of interest against the USA which became the worlds leading economy
@@stevelynch9970 I would be more interested in the economics of the Mosquito vs the Lancaster. The economics of the Lancaster vs the B-17/B-24 are interesting but don't really matter.. None of the latter were actually cost effective in terms of design engineering employed, build cost and manpower consumed vs outright military outcomes in my opinion, although, the USA could certainly afford more "cost ineffectiveness" than Britain in their respective war efforts.
One of those good examples of where theoretical stats meet the real world so to speak is that for a lot of the war the Lancaster could not fly at its optimal speed because it had to stay with the other slower bomber types (Stirling, Wellington, Halifax) during night raids into Germany. Whatever the virtues of the Lancaster's speed at its operating altitude vis-à-vis the B17 and B24 at theirs, the Lanc was chained for much of the war to the slower bomber types it flew with. Not until late 1943 and 1944, when Harris had enough bombers to send out all-Lancaster or all Halifax forces to attack different targets, was the Lancaster actually able to take advantage of its good performance at its optimal altitude.
interesting point, and got me to check out your channel so thanks
Not entirely sure this is contextually correct- RAF didn't fly formation at night for obvious reasons, just in a stream, and everyone arrived on target when they got there. For example the 1000 bomber raids, which featured everything that had the range and could carry a bomb, the actual bombing went on for hours.
@@duncanhamilton5841 umm, wouldn't that scenario (no fixed formations, night, narrow stream of planes meant to go as concentrated as possible to overwhelm fighter defenses) be the exact one where you'd go "everyone fly at the same speed, absolutely no overtaking!" to avoid collisions?
@@decnet100 they were routed in fairly wide corridors outbound and homebound, so as to avoid flak and fighters (as much as intelligence allowed). But considering different types flying at a variety of heights and speeds, from different stations spread across a wide area, trying to coordinate more than corridor routing would have been almost impossible?
However, I admit I don't categorically know if they throttled the Lancs due to presence of slower types in the raid. More research needed on my part 👍
@@duncanhamilton5841 I think I found a good explanation at an (unfortunately inaccessible) RAF website: "The major innovation was the introduction of a bomber stream in which all aircraft would fly by a common route and at the same speed to and from the target, each aircraft being allotted a height band and a time slot in the stream to minimize the risk of collision. The recent introduction of Gee made it much easier for crews to navigate within the precise limits required for such flying, although there would always be wayward crews who would drift away from the stream"
Wow. Very informative. I always liked the Liberator. The graph shows the superiority. Did not know the Lancaster was so poor at altitude, or so vulnerable.
Outstanding presentation!
My dad flew in the Halifax mk3 - he said, as they were about 5mph faster than the lanc, they would be towards the front of the bomber stream. They were very happy with this arrangement.
Later Halifax mark 3's had rounded wing extensions from Feb 44 and improved superchargers on the Hercules 100, the performance was much improved from the earlier Merlin versions which was not the engine's fault but rather Handley Page's due to nacelle design.
Interesting ..... Interesting.
I guess now we need videos on the B-24 and the Halifax too, where they underrated workhorses or they have been sidelined (at least in popular culture) for justifiable reasons ?
Early model Halifax had problems with the vertical stabilisers. For a long time they were losing rews and not knowing why
The Halifax is definitely underrated. It made up 40% of the RAF's heavies.
Thanks for this video. I had to laugh when you first put up the Cruising Control Chart you said it was a bit confusing. That chart reminds me of the swampy area near one of the houses my parents lived in way back in the day. The mosquitos swarming all around us whenever we'd go there to do the things kids did when they went to places like that very closely resembles that chart. Swap out the chart's numbers for mosquitos and there'd be little difference.
Cool video :) always fun and interesting !
I believe Lancaster's were usually around 18000 to 20000 feet on missions, with the American bombers usually 25000 plus. With these numbers, I think it's safe to assume that operationally, the B-17 was the fastest flying on most missions.
Out of Britain maybe. See the Mediterranean based B-24s that flew north (instead of east) to reach their targets. B-24 also did a lot of long range work in the Pacific theater.
My father recalled a daylight raid in a Halifax with them being around 20,000, and seeing the American bombers at 25,000, the escort fighters at 30,000, and the Germans at 35,000. He said they just seemed to fly along like that for a while with not much happening.
American flying was about maintaining the formation, not about speed. American heavies flew together as a unit, whereas British heavies flew individually to the target in a stream. (Daytime Bomber Command missions, of which there were plenty after mid-1944, after some experimentation, flew in a loose formation called a 'gaggle'.
they all had a certain cruising speed so max speed is irrelevant, bit like the monty python sketch at the bridge of doom, laden or unladen. Fastest 4 engine in Europe would be the lancaster b1 specials after they've dropped their grand slams it ultimate speed is the criteria
Excellent as always. Any possibility we get any more P-38 action soon?
Although I wouldn't mind hearing your take of Doolittle's B-24 vs B-17 policies since you're on a bomber kick lately.
WAIT! There's something, worth knowing, Greg hasn't covered on the P-38?
Yeah the P-38 story has a lot of twists and turns. I don't think he touched on the J-model specific recurring engine failure rate (and the conflicting supposed causes) in early '44 that was the key catalyst in Doolittle kicking the type.
Another interesting story is the 9ths requests for more Lightnings over -47s and -51s as 44 and 45 dragged on since it was supposedly the most survivable as a tactical fighter.
I'm not nearly done with the P-38 series, or the 190. I have a video in the works talking about multi-engine flying stuff using the 38 and the Mossie.
Awesomeness. Thank you for posting
Thanks Greg, once again you deliver! Cheers Cobber from Down Under New Zealand! Being Daylight Bombers the B-17 and the B-24 had to have more defensive armament, like the B-17 G with its Chin turret as the 109's and 190's liked to hit them front on doing a possible closing speed of 700 mph.
The Lancaster probably needed a dorsal gun turret as the Germans were very good at hitting them from below and slightly behind.
Thatis why the RAF developed the corkscrew manoeuvre It put those night figthers at a disadvantage
The fastest heavy in Europe was probably the Heinkel he 177. Starting from the A5 variant they were also really impressive performers ( the dB 610 cured a lot of the problems the earlier 606s had)
I'd love to see a video about that aircraft by you!
I'd second this video request!
Did the master race make better mousetraps too? Have the wëhräböös missed any Nazi era adulations?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 So just because I´m a fan of german WWII tech I´m a wehraboo? Great argumentation.
@@robinsonsstudios argumentation is unknown to the "wEhRaBoO!!!" screechers, just ignore them.
@@emil-1609 reddit is fuckin full of em
Another awesome video, thanks
It's a really intresting analysis and I'm not hugley surprised, a lot of this comes down to doctrine and pre-war bombing theory. I think it's probably worth remembering how they were used; in the ETO typical B-17 and B-24 raids had to operate a lot slower - combat boxes were fuel hungry due to speed adjustments when formation flying, so most of the time they were going around 180mph and carrying a bomb load of around 5,000lbs. Lancs were operating in a bomber stream and so didn't have to speed and up and slow down the whole time, thus being more fuel efficent, and therefore could typically crusie at about 210mph with a 10,000lb bomb load. I suspect this is a lot of where the heat and light comes from - when you read about Forts doing a nine hour mision to Berlin vs. Lancs doing it in seven it looks like the Lanc is a lot faster, which, as you've so ably shown, is too bald a statement to make.
i found him
Fascinating that in 1944 a 55,000 pound war plane had a crew of 6 to 10 and dropped two or three tons of ordinance. In 2022 a 55,000 pound war plane would have a crew of one or two and could easily drop as much as 8 tons of ordinance.
At the same range?
All great aircraft. As a Zimbabwean of British descent, I would go with the Lancaster. Rhodesians in the RAF often used Lancasters on bombing missions so it's no wonder the aeroplane has developed a huge fan base here and in the aircraft world.
As a Jamaican, so would I. I met a Jamaican who was a Navigator on one and I knew of another who was a gunner. I know of others who were marking targets in Mosquitos, and in intelligence helping to select them.
Did not expect a follow-up so soon!
Greg can you do some shows on the accoutrement of missions? The planning, the strategy? The heights used? Forming a group of planes etc.
Would be interesting to compare the same planes when empty of bombs, but with enough fuel to go back to base : those are the usual conditions to try and escape enemy fighters (i.e. going back from some raid over the Ruhr region or even more over Berlin)...
Good point, they would be more likely to be spotted and intercepted on the way back once all surprise was lost.
What would be interesting would be what was each aircrafts maximum useable dive speed or maximum mach number. I'd lay money on the Lancaster. Though it might be close with the b24.
Interesting video as always. It would be nice to see what the 60,000 gross weight translates to in range/bomb load. This might help bring some context; such as what bombload would each be bringing to Berlin/Hamberg or Essen at this weight. Thanks!
That's a good question, but another video entirely.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please include everyone's favourite, the Wooden Wonder (probably two of them at 50,000 pounds and four engines total)
_It would be nice to see what the 60,000 gross weight translates to in range/bomb load. This might help bring some context; such as what bombload would each be bringing to Berlin/Hamberg or Essen at this weight._
The Lancaster could carry 10,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin; the Halifax III, 8,000 lbs. The B-24 carried 6,000 lbs; the B-17, 5,000 lbs.
Note that the B-17 and B-24 are not flying their fullest range as quite a bit of flying time, typically one to two hours, was used up assembling into formation. That's one to two hours not available for cruising to the target.
Note also that the B-17 could hold a maximum of 6 x 1,000-lb US GP bombs internally; the B-24, 8 x 1,000-lb US GP. The Halifax III could carry 9 x 1,000-lb MC or GP bombs internally; the Lancaster, 14 x 1,000-lb MC or GP bombs.
@@primmakinsofis614 The Lanc averaged 8739lbs , Halifax 6750 lbs B17, 4415 lbs B24 figures are not available and dont forget the RAF /Friends totals were in Long Tons The USAAF Short Tons i.e. long tons 2240lbs short tons 2000lbs
awesome as always.. thanks
Such a good channel.
I've been saying all along that the B-24 was (albeit slightly, on average) the best plane of the three. Thanks for the VINDICATION! That's no slight to the B-17, which, as you pointed out, was the oldest design of the three. The B-17 was best in one things though, and that is the Boeing the marketing team. Hell, Boeing even paid for SEVERAL propaganda documentaries on their own planes.
There was a reason so many B24s were built
Now read this Halifax First Combat Mission 11/12 Mar 42 Average Bomb load 6750lbs dropped 250167 long tons
Lancaster FCM 17April 42 ABL 8739lb dropped 608612 Long tons
B17 FCM 17Aug 42 dropped 358445 long tons average 4415 Long tons
B24 FCM Nov 41 dropped 403357 Long tons Average not in my books
Actually the B24s ONLY asset over the others was range It was decidedly inferior in all other aspects
Greg I notice you reference all the bombers with 100 octane fuel, and in past videos you’ve gone into great detail about allied fuel octane and I believe you’ve said 150 octane before for fighter aircraft. Are you using 100 octane for continuity, or did the bombers only use 100 octane fuel?
The bombers in this video normally used 100 octane fuel.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Any insight into why that was the case? I don't see much of a downside to running higher octane fuel if it's available. I would hazard a guess that engine wear increases if you push manifold pressures higher and it's more costly than 100 octane, plus the fighters benefit proportionally more from using 130-150 octane fuel. Are there reasons beyond that?
@@28lobster28 if your mission is from England, early in the war higher octane fuels were less available. High octane fuel did come across the Atlantic from Curaçao and the US, but this was also at a time when the U Boat war was at its height.
@@28lobster28 Maybe it is because a bomber is still not able to outrun a fighter even with high octane fuel, so high octane fuel is reserved for fighters.
I'm not an expert in this but is 100 octane fuel easier to make compared to 150 octane? In most American oil companies If not all have high filtering process, which takes time but gets cleaner oil. idk how the oil process was done back then but I can imagine it's easier have an octane that just good enough for all the bombers they have. With the amount of oil that is needed to fuel a fleet of bombers you may not want a more expensive or complex oil processing. On top of that the bombers aren't expected to be doing combat maneuvers like fighters. Having higher octane in your fighters may boost performance but in your bombers you don't need that type of boost
Nice! Thanks Greg
OMG babe wake up! New Greg video just dropped!
The Lancaster bomber stands out as a true legend of World War II one of the few that could carry the payload that was needed to demolish the Third Reich
Yay warcrimes!
@Ted Archer They thought they could bomb half a dozen other nations with impunity they showed the wind now they reap the whirlwind
@@dannyoates8969 who, children in Dresden? Warcrimes are warcrimes, no matter what someone else did.
@Ted Archer yes the children in Warsaw the children in Auschwitz children in Half a dozen more concentration camps war is a crime in itself
@@dannyoates8969 true, but burning children for not
particular reason other than terrorism is also a crime, and one crime doesn't cancel another
Great video Greg. I always wondered how badly that B17G must have handled dragging around the chin turret.
Yup! No turrets at all = faster! Go 1930s design!
Hi Greg! You do great stuff! A little off-topic, but you often mention aircraft armament and say you are less informed about specifics and history of the guns themselves. You may already be aware of the channel and Ian. It might be interesting if you could do a collaboration with Forgotten Weapons about the gun systems most commonly in use in WWI and WWII. Again, I look forward to your new videos every time they come out. Thanks.
Good video. Be interested to see one on 2 engine medium bombers such as the mosquito, b26, bf 410 etc... Have a nice day sir....
I had the opposite impression: I am always surprised how small a B-17 is compared to photos. I think this is because the pilot's side windows are so small. I would say the B-17 is the most loved and least capable of the big bombers but she was available in 1940 and that mattered.
It's funny how we all see things a little differently. Some people think the AMC Pacer was a good looking car.
Yeah I agree.
It was strategic bombing, not pin-point strikes to appease media, made sense to employ cheaper means by expediting development of a new long range land-based fighter, which was needed anyway, that could double in keeping the older bombers safe enough to the degree that they could fulfill their mission & stand a reasonable chance (given previous odds) to get out of it alive.
The RAF museum has all three, but the Lanc still looks huge to me compared to the other two. It may be the mainly black paint scheme.
Having been in a B-17, it's seemingly much smaller on the inside than the outside. I am hoping to get a chance to be in a Lancaster one day. It'll probably seem even more cramped :/
@@wm9346 Both of them are beauties compared to the Pontiac Aztec!
The B-24 gets pused aside by the B-17 just like the P-51D/C and D pushes the P-47s aside as doing the important work..
Lancaster is criminally under-discussed, glad to see this video.
Hi Enigma, thanks!
Well, since it had a criminally poor accuracy rate, then obviously it had a low effect on the war effort. What good is speed and bomb load if you do not hit a target?
Greg, think about a video on the Baltimore bomber. Love your channel.
I find it quite interesting how much UK aircraft performance was limited by their ability to roll out upgrades, rather than technical capability. You can see they're consistently having to make hard choices with the superchargers, like the Spit V getting a single speed 40 series whilst the dual speed XX was already in service on the Hurri II, or the Lancaster here not really going to combat with a dual stage, despite them being fairly widely available by the end of 42. Then you have the whole matter of the Spit IX and XVI remaining in production for a good 2 years after the Griffon XIV starts on the lines.
I picked up "the Secret Horsepower Race" last year and British development really is fascinating. At one point late in the war you even get a Rolls-Royce rep telling the government that Merlin iterations are the only reason Spitfires had improved at all. Explains why engines like Griffon took so long to come online too, while showing how badly the German regime squandered a massive advantage
The ordinary 109 and 190s were never superior to the Mk IX.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 l have come to the painful conclusion, after a very lengthy study of the subject,
that the 109 was the better aircraft.
Well by the end of 44 and start of 45 they are, the K is coming out in force and has a good 20-30mph on it, similar with the 190D. Even in mid/late 44, there's an argument that 109Gs on MW 50 (ie near all of them) beat it out, and they certainly do in speed at most heights. The IX is a solid overall match for the Anton and early 109G in practical combat IMO. You can try to discount the later stuff as not 'ordinary', but it's a very large portion of the Luftwaffe by 45 just due to attrition.
There's also the 150 octane card, but it's a pretty patchy subject as far as 2TAF operations go. I don't think it's a practical factor until late Jan/Feb, and even then doesn't fully close the gap.
The reason the Spit IX didn't end up suffering from that like the V did is the general lack of air combat they saw by 45, especially because they were mostly doing CAS whilst the ~12 continental squadrons of Tempests and XIVs handled more than their fair share of air combat.
Granted this means the failure to produce more Griffons had little consequence, but it was hardly optimal.
@@michellebrown4903 And bully for you, so what?
Fascinating analysis. Although you do mention _in Europe_ so this means the He 177 has a shot?
In the first 5 seconds of the video I make it clear we are comparing Allied bombers. The He177 would really need a video of its own.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Sorry, I was being facetious, I couldn't resist.
The He 177 certainly makes for a great candidate for a video. Lots of angles to analyze: the reliability issues, the unforgiving design requirements, their post war use...
Looking forward to it, whenever it is ready.
@@VRichardsn
Get real, there was only 1,169 of them built.
Rare and prototype planes are non existent as far as the effects they had in the war, if you wanna go that route then throw in designs that were still on the drawing board since they made as much of an impact on things.
Another German pipe dream that had no effect on the outcome of the war just like the rest of them.
@@dukecraig2402
Over one thousand built. "Rare".
@@VRichardsn
Yea, compared to 15,000 or 18,000.
And especially when you consider that most of them were probably destroyed on the ground meaning they flew virtually no missions, yea, rare.
Greg, thank you again for your excellent presentation of a/c performance.
I like to add some points: that maximum speed is a result of engine performance and aerodynamics. But high speed was never meant as a main goal in development of those heavy bombers. It was rather payload, range, ceiling and survivability. Because of the power required for take off, there is a certain maximum speed possible. But during combat missions, that did not count. A combat box or a whole group tried to maximize bomb load and safe fuel. Thus, flying at an economical power setting was the ordre of the day. B-17 formations attacked at around 200 mph TAS. After the bomb run, they flew a little bit faster. Thus, they spent a hell of the time over enemy flak concentrations. Remember, they could not speed up and turn away singularly, since that would have made them pray for the Messerschmitts. The best protection was staying in formation. The slow speed of the heavy bombers benefited them after the Germans fielded jet a/c, since the Me 262 did not have speed breaks. The speed difference was such that the German pilots could hardly hit anything with their guns. It`s why they came up with R4M unguided rockets. Maybe, it was Hitler who thought about that problem as early as he saw the first ME 262...
Ultimately, it were the designers of the F-86 and MiG-15 who addressed that very problem...
So Hitler designed the MIG 15--Certainly not Stalin--he was a Georgian Peasant
Well done!
I have read the novel "Bomber" by Len Deighton - and I remember how much better was a bomber's survivability at incrementally higher altitudes (while a loaded bomber has issues flying high, so did a night fighter with all the external radar antennas).
Could you expand on this "fast and high is safe" strategy? Are there primary sources? Was it a priority in design and operation on offense (British) and defense (US) side?
What about day bombing? Was there a better safety margin at higher altitude and speed? Were day fighters better flyers (speed/altitude) than night fighters? What about the night fighter platform without radars?
(I am following your videos, but I might have failed to watch or remember videos related to this subject - in this case, I apologize and ask for forgiveness and links :) )
Ironically, I discuss that exact issue (height vs survivability) in this video and provide primary source documentation to back it up. That topic wasn't the focus of this video but I sort of drifted into it.
i won't steal Greg's thunder, but height and survivability was still a thing even after WWII. Look up the U-2 after this video premieres.
Thats a fantastic novel!
The UK did work on some high altitude designs - the Lincoln had a ceiling of 30,000 feet, and the Vickers Windsor went through protracted work, but none achieved service in WW2. A high-altitude version of the Halifax was shelved, as was the version of the Lancaster with a slave engine and no defensive armament meant for circa 40,000 feet. The UK looked instead to get B-17s and B-24s off-the-shelf while working on high altitude versions of its own bombers. Rsults were in Northern Europe, partly due them being early versions of the B-17 with issues with oxygen systems, incorrect employment, and the British crew peeing in the bomb bays, apparently. The B-24 got used in other theatres, but not typically at high altitude.
@@wbertie2604 " British crews peeing in the bomb bays " ??? Please elaborate. At altitude, that would freeze pretty quickly.
But why ? As a pilot myself, as a young man , l could go many hours without ....
needing to go . Did they not take a receptacle or something?
Can we also get a rough comparison of the Lancaster with the He177? The Wikipedia page of the 1944 bombings says that the He177 could carry 5600 kg of bombs to London, which is quite impressive imo.
Also, thanks for the technical and unbiased analysis! Hard to find these days
Except that the dual engine design meant there was a fair chance they would spontaneously catch fire before they got there.
With the He-177 and speed over London it's more complex as they climbed to service ceiling over Europe then did a very long, shallow dive, gaining extra speed not achievable normally in level flight at the given engine settings.
He 177 faster than Lancaster !! You know now there is a reason why you should avoid travelling to the UK the next ten years
Just one question: from what starting point?
@@neiloflongbeck5705 what starting point god the dive? I'll need to look it up. Me410s did something similar, but a steeper angle IIRC. I'll need to look up the details again, and first remember which book it was in...
Insightful 💡
Greg, you do an amazing job.
You cover all sorts of factors and situations and that is excellent.
I think though for the sake of the cesspit called comment section the real question would be “what speed did they fly at to and from Berlin”
Or “what was the round trip time”
Or even more loosely “how many sorties per day to Berlin”
The max airspeed is not much of an operational matter but a great matter of pride.
Bruce, I'm getting to that. One thing at a time. Next video on these planes will cover range and payload.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Thanks.
You do so much research and so many angles to what you present.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
I know it’s a lot to ask,
But,
Could you please do a comparison based on a typical bombing run to Berlin for trip time and bomb load for that distance?
It’s a real world comparison based on what they did day after day.
I remember reading about a pilot, an RAF test pilot if I recall correctly, who engaged in a mock dogfight with a B-17. He spoke about how the extra power of the Merlins was decisive in permitting the Lanc to out perform the B-17.
Nope, both had engine's rated at around 1,200 HP depending on what octane gas they were tuned for, but the B17 would out perform the Lancaster at altitude, only a very few Lancaster's flew with 2 stage superchargers and even then they can't match the performance of the turbo system that the B17 had when it came to consistent power at all altitudes and especially at higher altitudes, when the Lancaster reaches an altitude where it's supercharger can no longer provide maximum boost, even the rare 2 stage variant, the turbo will give the B17's engine maximum boost for another 10,000 feet or so for the common single stage supercharger Lancaster and probably 5,000 ft for the 2 stage variant.
A B17 with a high altitude deep penetration bomb load out could fly 5,000 ft higher than an empty Lancaster could.
The myth that Merlin engine's were more powerful than other engine's in the same displacement range like the Allison is just that, a myth, the narrative is based entirely on the P51 Mustang story but what everyone fails to realize or mention is that when the P51 was developed the only engine available was the Allison, at that time there wasn't a 2 stage 2 speed high altitude supercharger that'd been developed for the Allison engine simply because no one ever paid Allison to design one, aircraft like the P38 Lightning used the supercharger/turbo configuration that all other US Army aircraft used like the P47, B17, B24, etc etc.
At lower altitudes the engine's built in single stage supercharger provides all the boost it needs, then at medium altitude the turbo starts to feed the engine's supercharger, with a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger like on the later variant Merlin engine that's the point where it'd shift into it's high range (high speed) to be able to continue providing maximum boost to the engine, the problem with that system is that it eventually reaches an altitude where it can no longer provide maximum boost to the engine but a turbo can continue to feed the engine maximum boost well above the altitude that a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger can, and unlike a supercharger that's driven off the engine that sucks up power being driven the turbo is a waste energy recovery system so you don't pay a 250 (or so) HP price like when you shift a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger into it's high range.
The downsides to the supercharger/turbo configuration that the US Army selected to run it's aircraft engine's are expense, it costs a lot more to build a system like that plus they're bulkier, the turbo for the P47 was so massive it was in the fuselage behind the pilot, also you have heat issues to overcome plus the bulky ductwork for the turbo.
Both systems have their pros and cons but when it comes to perform the turbo system is superior especially at the highest of altitudes.
An anecdotal story that you admit to not even being sure of. Pointless.
The merlin 224 was rated at 1650hp for takeoff
@@smithy2389
They all increased power throughout the war because of the higher state of tune due to higher octane levels, and the Merlin at one point started using an innercooler, I think that was when it adopted the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger that was in the MK IX Spitfire, previous to that I don't think the Merlin had an innercooler, I know the earlier single stage supercharger variants didn't have one.
Aircraft engine's of WW2 are like the planes themselves, there's so many variants and sub variants it'll make your head spin trying to keep track of all of them, gives you a lot of respect for the maintenance guys in the field that had to keep track of all of them for the sake of getting the right parts for the right plane, those guy's are some unsung hero's if any ever existed.
@@dukecraig2402 I was talking about the merlin 224
My money is on the B-24, if one were to take the most common version of each plane (B-17G, B-24J, Lancaster Mk.I/III) for a race. But I guess squadron tactics, altitude and fuel consumption considerations might play into operational speeds a lot more than the actual plane's all-out top speed...? Let's see :)
In terms of just speed, the -24 was faster than the -17, so that eliminates the Flying Fortress.
He 177 ;)
Bomb load out would affect the airspeed also.
The power of the Lancaster (from what I currently understand) was more about running the engines at their most efficient speeds while still being able to take the load - rather than needing all that power (outside of takeoff)
@@b212hp We would have to set the other planes on fire to get an apples to apples comparison. 🙂
loved this...i would liek to have seen teh B29 thrown on at the end to show how much of a beast she was
Very interesting. I read an article where the Army Airforce grafted the serviceable nose section of a bent B-17 onto a damaged B-24. They hoped to increase the speed and range of the later. The result was a heavier B-24 that could squeeze out a couple more knots at the expense of range or bomb load.
I've always read that too, but a recent article (can't remember which or where) was that this grafting was to test the nose armaments of the 17 on a B-24. Who knows?
I have seen photos of a B-17 nose grafted onto a B-24. From the article attached to the photo, I think it was more an exercise of taking 2 badly damaged written off airplanes and putting them back together to make one flyable one. It worked, but there was not any real improvement or loss in performance. I don’t know if more than one of these hybrids were ever pieced together.
13.13 " the b17 has the smallest engine of the group" 1820 ci b17, 1830 ci b24 and 1650 for the Lancaster. Surely that makes the Lancaster the smallest engine?
I address this in the video description.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes, I only just read that. regarding the comment that the inline Merlin has a lower drag coefficient than the radials, does that include the drag from the radiators and associated plumbing?
Wasn't the Lancaster originally developed from another, two engine bomber? Or two 'power plant' like the He 177?
Manchester. Twined Merline's for a two prop design like the HE-177. Failed for the same reasons so new wing with four separate engines.
yes The Avro Manchester. Two vultures (x type two Peregrines stuck together ) The engines had bearing problems and never developed much more than c1,400 hp when they should have been 1,780 hp
@@scottgiles7546 twinned Peregrines not Merlins.
Very good comparison Mr. Greg. Seems like you are the only guy that uses graphs other than bar graphs. What a risk you are taking
Nice photo of VRA (Vera). During the summer months she regularly flies over Niagara Falls.
And my house in Hamilton.
@@robertpearson8798 I’m from the Falls.
Also note that in the span of time between the early flights of the B-17 and the Lancaster, so was the span of time between the early flights of the B-36 and Lancaster. B-36 could pick up the equivalent weight of any of these three bombers and a grand slam bomb, and fly them from LA to Honolulu.
equal total weight isn't a great metric. What we care about is equal payload and equal range i.e. flying the same mission profile. Equal weight massively advantages planes with higher empty weight.
They tended to fly different mission profiles, though. It's hard to separate things from operational employment. And to some extent, operational employment is based on the qualities of the aircraft. Often Lancasters were flying with 8000 lb bomb loads, not the maximum of 14,000 lb, but B-17s were loaded with 4-6000lb, not the maximum overload of 12,800lb. So do you compare the two at 8000lb? But then Lancasters weren't flying during the day.
And then do you compare a Lancaster with or without H2S and it's associated weight and drag?
Hi Bill, Payload is another video entirely. I'll get to it and combine it with range. That should make everyone happy.
Thanks Greg.
Awesome work as always. Can’t wait for the episode where you definitively show which aircraft is The Best Bomber of the War (😉no not being sarcastic, it would give me an opportunity to show the best bomber of the war was an individual aircraft)
Stay well, kind regards from Oz🇦🇺
There is no best. Personally I'd take a Mosquito.
Lancaster, faster than the B-17? Or you could go to Wikipedia.
B-24: max 297 cruise 215. Lancaster: max 282 cruise 200. B-17 max 287 cruise 182.
Of course Greg will go into great detail about model variation, performance at different elevations and such making it all worthwhile.
Are those all at the same weights? Are they at the same altitudes? If not, then it isn't really a valid comparison. As you said, I'll go a bit deeper into this than Wikipedia.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hey! It's Wikipedia. Everyone knows they're not the final word. But they are within an order of magnitude of the correct numbers at least.
@@scottgiles7546 Never trust a wikipedia article you haven't written or fundamentally editted yourself :).
Wikipedia is pretty good.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I agree, but I imagine if one were to naively edit out a couple facts in an article such as Bf-109, P-51 or Lancaster that you could prove with boring test data, it might not always be received well by the "my literature knows best since it was written by a pilot 20 years after the fact" crowd. Generalizing, of course - I'm sure there are lots of decent, source-oriented folks looking after such articles as well. My personal experience was with ancient history topics, which might attract a specific kind of article watchdog...
I have read in more than one source that B17/B24 mixed formations were quickly ceased when it was found that the laden B24s were reaching target UNDER the B17s and being friendly bombed. This interesting video adds to my doubts as to the veracity of this stated issue. Greg please comment?
greg, I am very surprised (almost shocked) on how well the B-17 compares 1
You have the perfect narrative voice and along with your mostly factual knowledge, you have the ultimate channel. I'm an aviation fanatic, but that doesn't mean I'm an aviation expert. Love your channel and please keep it up.
Do you have plans to ever do a video about the b-26 Marauder? I feel like it’s a very overlooked medium bomber of ww2.
I can’t understand how a bomber that weighed less than a b-25 with 4,000 horsepower (compared to 3,400 hp in the b-25), laminar flow mid mounted wing, sleek design and flush rivets and an aft elevator could only have a max speed of 282mph? And an atrocious climb rate.
The Army kept increasing the loads accepting the reductions in safety, wartime meant expendable people. The severe angle between the high B-26 wing root and the fuselage without any root fairings must have been a big drag inducing venturi. Compare with the Lockheed C-130 and C-141 wing roots.
It seems like this data is for the G model of the Marauder with the multitude of packet guns that was used as a low level attacker bomber. I have read several accounts from crew of the pure bomber versions of the Marauder that state that, once low and going flat out, Japanese fighters had great difficulty doing their preferred attack curves and were mostly force to tail chase if they weren't able to dive from altitude. The Marauder also had the lowest loss/mission rate of any medium bomber in the war, hard to see that being true of they were so slow.
@@HarryP457 thanks for the info it’s always interesting to hear anything about the b-26. 👌🏻