What ejector seats? nice to have but not likely The Heinkel one with the mortar charge under it? What he can do, Avro can do. Heinkle was only one of three to address this problem, but they were all designed after the Lanc, so are irealivant!
2. 1943 They don't have time to waltz around. The Lancaster is the bomber that carries the air war on its back. It fortunately is not as bad a design as the B-17 for what we want, so we can work with it.
How is it nearly as bad as the B-17 and in what way?
... That's the problem with photographic bombing maps in general. Deal with it. Use the appropriate IR inks. Those exist and were known. US used them.
a lot of work to counter a issue that didn't exist.
But it did exist, hence the USAAF went to the trouble.
that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Ease of manufacture is the key, time and expense likewise. Tradeoffs are acceptable.
no canopy i agree was not practical, it was also a problem for your ejector seats and you need to ensure the exit route is clear
British RAF opinion, and as the USAAF proved in combat; a wrong one. The remotes worked very well. Easier to stabilize in 2-d, traverse, elevate; smaller, and weighed MUCH less, so more ammo aboard. Easier to bail out the gunner from an observer blister too.
problem was that at time positioning your gunner so far away from your turret meant that his view was virtually non existent, the manned tail turret was the most effective defense during the war period.
The gimbal quad mount can be stuck under the gunner bubble, as it was in the later B-47.
a. The Lancaster wasn't made until '41.
and the turret to take 0.5s didn't arrive to 43/44 they did try US B-24 liberator units but they were incompatible with British planes (electrical vs hydraulic iirc)
I prefer 100% electrical control and feed. Hydraulics may seem lighter but in reality not. Electrical allows fine control and slam stop with variable slew elevate track. Plus there is FIRE hazard with hydraulics.
Actually the cowling of an engine is aerodynamic critical, even stuck behind the prop the drag of a poor design (not that the Pod Merlin was poor just compromised) had significant effect of drag, had you designed the unit to work with the wing a gain in performance could have been achieved, look at the difference between that of the Halifax and the Lanc or for that matter the later Lanc with the annular radiators;
Not making myself clear, before so I explain. When you fiddle with the cowl geometry, you start modifying criticals such as plumbing, external air cooling flow around an ICE block and its radiators. As you apply lessons learned you can change the power-egg arrangement as installed in the factory, but that is COMPLEX and more uncertain as to result. Changing the propeller geometry is a LOT simpler, easier and yields immediate benefit with field retrofit without fouling things up on the factory floor.
Prop design was still a art rather than science not all developments worked on all airframes, it is often a tradeoff of speed and climb, the power egg was not even AVRO but was a joint development between RR and Bristol and was initially a temporary arrangement until AVRO could build its own Merlin installation but were good enough until the annular radiator installation arrived
Agreed that prop design is an art form. The US could do it by the numbers (NACA) but apparently not the British (at least not without help.) So get the HELP. Tizard has to be reciprocated someway.
Time is the driver. You want to keep those bombers rolling out as fast as you can with as little down time as possible, while improving them as much as you can. That is why the Dyson special is essentially a MB III modified with manual bailout through the canopy for the main crew and a better tailgun that fits in the existing B III balcony space. The bomb-aimer goes out the nose-belly trapdoor (How he enters) while the gunner climbs through the roof hatch on his turret to jump.
B wrote: that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Skin thicknes was less than ONE Milimeter thick! So how is it thick and heavy? If this is proof of your aerodynamic engineering knowledge???
� 1998 -