I did not have to! It was brought up buy other posters who linked to a basic class text online. But I am not adverse to argueing that is you are really silly enough to state the PIO and aft CoG excursions are NOT Problems?

Not at all. PIO is a condition caused by factors normally beyond the controll of the pilot, when the plane's CoG is so far behind the desired range!
beyond DESIRED range it may be but its not uncontrolable, if it were then it would not be a PIO situation but a stall, PIO requires the aircraft to be well within flight parameters such that pilot imput can cause the osalation, if the wieght caused the aircraft to become uncontrolable like you original statement then no pilot forward control motion would recover it, Note that I originally did state both conditions because I did not know which of the two conditions brought down the plane! This is a condition of continueing argument with more than one person at a time. IMHO!

Yes it is, a weight aft of CoG cause the plane to assume a nose up attitude, this can be controled by use of both engine power and control input, the most drastic change in the forces occur as the bombs aft of the CoG are being dropped yet it is only (according to you) the hung bomb that cause the loss!

Which of the two parts of this problem are you talking about? PIO, or aft excursion of the CoG? One is caused by the pilot, or more exactly a lack of pilot skills which depending on the severity, may be beyond any pilot's skills and the other is beyond all pilot imput!
 
 

and not even the sudden disintegration of the plane there were never any survivors, yet in less losses due to flak(according to you) there were many reports of survivors from aircraft explosively disintegrating   
Point to any post where I stated any of the above sentance! You are "Inferring" things I never said because of your lack of knowledge about how and why aircraft do the things they do!
You claim that the reason noone has this down as a cause of Lancaster losses is that they were no survivors, yet as pointed out even bombers that exploded in mid air can have survivors, it seems it is your lack of knowledge that is at fault

I never posted any of this! I only stated that what other's said might be the true cause! So how is this on me?
 

but his basic oppinion was that the whole idea was rubbish, whilst a CoG change of this order was not nice it certainly wouldnt have moved the plane out of control flight parameters.

OK, fine. That is his oppinion. Exactly how much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
 
As he hasnt the test data availible he cannot say, he can however say with full confidence that 4x this moment would not be sufficent to result in the aircraft exceeding its limits

Also

Lancaster bombload for 1500 mile range - 11500lbs

I have never disputed this! Ever. Just tried to inform you how those numbers were arrived at. Take off, climb/cruise, gaining altitude on the way to the target, WO formation, fly 750 miles, drop the bombs, RTB 750 miles, land with no reserves or gas in the tanks, all at night in the absence of true opposition.

actually that number excludes 30 minutes reserve Then I stand corrected! They had 2/3rds of the reserve required of American opps!

Realy as the USAAF own figures give 30 minutes reserve, so whats your source for 45 minutes?
Now, why don't you calculate the numbers, IF, it had to fly the same mission as the B-17s in broad day light? RIGHT!

ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are compairing to

A B17G (nned to be a G to have tokyo tanks so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs, no form up no opposition While this may have been the actual range, it is certainly not the longest and it does include the climb to altitude, formation form up and jogs in the flight line to target!

 

No it didnt, as that was the mission actually flown, no form up, a low level flight to save fuel before a lte climb to 20k over target and an almost straight run home, any of you above requirements would have reduced the B17 range accordingly

 

So the Lancaster has to use lots of gas climbing to altitude for zero range, then burn more gas to form up and leave behind some of those bombs above to be able to climb to the same altitude! So in reality, it is 90 minutes worth of fuel at greator than cruise throttle openings to get to altitude and formation,  (It always takes more gas to climb than cruise!) thus lossing more than 1-1/2 hours worth of cruise at 220 MPH = >330 miles at a minimum! Then there is the reduction of tonnage required to cruise at those altitudes. That is the ratio of air density at the first altitude to the air density at the higher altitude reduces the total weight of the plane. Say 5,000 pounds reduction in total mass. (Maybe 7,000 pounds?) That means that the Lancaster will cary less bombs to less distance!

But in the real world it didnt the Lancaster carried more bomber further, this is a fact of history and you cannot avoid it by trying to fiddle the numbers, the Lancaster even flew to the same targets late in the war in daylight and dropped larger loads at similar altitudes.

6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the  B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin  engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between  the two is the typical mission profile.
were is your source for that I canot find any source that states 90 minutes for form of a Bomber group
What is your evidence that it took much less than that? read more.  
I have read the history of the 8th what is your source, because your answer is a total non answer
 

D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of  all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended  targets.
I think you need to look at the USAAF figures for the same period and you will find that they were about 60%, and thats in daylight
But our aim points were a single factory or factory complex! All or at least the vast majority of those 40% that missed were direct hits under RAF criteria! IE; NEARLY 100% hits inside city limits under RAF rules!

And if you check the USAAF figures they were also missing the cities in germany 10/10th cloud cover was comon, in fact  lot of US figures are alternative targets so if you pick the orginal target as the aim point then the US figures are even worse

 .

but by mid 44 the RAF was consistantly more accurate than the USAAF
This is an obvious mistake! Even the RAF's SBSU Report tells of sloppy formations in RAF raids and the consequently much larger bomb scatter that neans, that acording to American standards, IE inside the factory fence instead of inside the city limits, something like 96% of the bombs missed the refinery, etc...

As you have been shown not to have ever read any of the RAF bomb survey then I will ignore this piece of fiction

So you like to argue inside the city linits accuracy, Vs inside the factory fence accuracy? What would happen if we reverse the criteria? Almost ALL American bombs fit the RAF rules as hits, IE, inside the city limits, but if the RAF states that 40.1% of their bombs during the entire war landed inside city limits, how can you claim that any significant number hit any specific factory?

Clearly by after action photo of the Krupp works and many others,

2, it would make the aircraft uncontrolable in pitch      
PIO= Pilot Induced Occilation resulting in ecessive loads beyond the aircraft's stress limits!

Stress limits? you mean load limits dont you?
See the yellow highlighted word above!

but this is adifferent claim and one that is beyond belief, you kust make it up as you go along dont you!

With the CoG range AFT exceeded by more than one foot, or almost two feet, depending on who's guess you favor.    
but you have never shown this to be an issue you just think it should be, what you think is not proof (unless its proof of the opposite, but that is just historical and not a proof of future ststements)

I did not have to! It was brought up buy other posters who linked to a basic class text online. But I am not adverse to argueing that is you are really silly enough to state the PIO and aft CoG excursions are NOT Problems?
Not a FATAL problem, it is ONLy you that claims it was sufficent to cause the loss and yet you have provided no evidence and cannot explane why this is no evidence of it occuring

Not at all. PIO is a condition caused by factors normally beyond the controll of the pilot, when the plane's CoG is so far behind the desired range!
beyond DESIRED range it may be but its not uncontrolable, if it were then it would not be a PIO situation but a stall, PIO requires the aircraft to be well within flight parameters such that pilot imput can cause the osalation, if the wieght caused the aircraft to become uncontrolable like you original statement then no pilot forward control motion would recover it, Note that I originally did state both conditions because I did not know which of the two conditions brought down the plane! This is a condition of continueing argument with more than one person at a time. IMHO!

No its you clutching at strwas on a disproved argument and thier is no evidence that either causes brought sown the plane

 

Which of the two parts of this problem are you talking about? PIO, or aft excursion of the CoG? One is caused by the pilot, or more exactly a lack of pilot skills which depending on the severity, may be beyond any pilot's skills and the other is beyond all pilot imput!

and the fact that neither is a likely cause is beyond your skill to understand
 

and PIO would need sustained porposing to cause failure Because by it's very nature, aft CoG excursion caused PIO is pretty much beyond any pilot's skill set!
However long it takes, how does that change the outcome?

It shows you have NO clue about what is happening
No, this statement shows that you have no clue about how any of this works, or how severe it can be!

I never posted any of this! I only stated that what other's said might be the true cause! So how is this on me?
 
No you havent or at least you havent provided any source for those other people, I can track the claim back to a paragraph in you of your posts and then reading forward it keeps getting added to but no source is ever provided (hinted at yes numeous times but never provided) and as this is being rubbished by professionals I will go with thier oppinion over yours
 much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
 
As he hasnt the test data availible he cannot say, he can however say with full confidence that 4x this moment would not be sufficent to result in the aircraft exceeding its limitsOK, if that is his oppinion, I'll trust you and stipulate that it becomes less likely that the far aft CoG excursion causes instantainious loss of control.

 

 

ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are compairing to

A B17G (nned to be a G to have tokyo tanks so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs, no form up no opposition

 

While this may have been the actual range, it is certainly not the longest and it does include the climb to altitude, formation form up and jogs in the flight line to target!

 

I did a bit of research on this mission and found the following, The aircraft didnt formup before hand, they actually formed up during the oversea portion of the flight, the altitude for bombing was actually 18k to save fuel, the aircraft themself had thier ammo reduced by 50% and only carried one waist gunner (the Radio compartment gun was also removed on those that still had them as were any cheak guns)

Even then all the aircraft were well into thier reserves on landing, post landing reports stated that unless extra fuel and or wieght saving could be made no further raids of this duration should be made as a meer 5mph increase in headwind would have result in the loss of a significant proprtion of the aircraft involved

 

 So the Lancaster has to use lots of gas climbing to altitude for zero range, then burn more gas to form up and leave behind some of those bombs above to be able to climb to the same altitude! So in reality, it is 90 minutes worth of fuel at greator than cruise throttle openings to get to altitude and formation,  (It always takes more gas to climb than cruise!) thus lossing more than 1-1/2 hours worth of cruise at 220 MPH = >330 miles at a minimum! Then there is the reduction of tonnage required to cruise at those altitudes. That is the ratio of air density at the first altitude to the air density at the higher altitude reduces the total weight of the plane. Say 5,000 pounds reduction in total mass. (Maybe 7,000 pounds?) That means that the Lancaster will cary less bombs to less distance!

so you make up figures to show that you are right? completely ignoring any factual evidence that may indicate otherwise?

 

Ok using this method of disscussion, the Lancaster could use its antigravity generator to reduce its weight and combined with the variable geometery wings and jet engines could take its 22000lbs load to a range of 40000 milesSilly isnt it, using such arguments

 

and as the late Lancaster were equiped for inflight refueling the Lancaster range could be actaully classed as being trans continental

Stewart
[Details]
How do I get a copy of the original Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report on WW-II and how much will it cost?
[User Agent]

RAF-MoD Records Division;

I must have been asleep when I read this. Above! Does he seriously think that a 4000 pound bomb hung at the last row of shackles would not instantly destabilize the plane more than enough to rip the wings off during instantaneous pitch up it would cause? Right, now I know for sure that he does not have a clue! And neither do you if you believe him!

ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are comparing to

A B17G (nned to be a G to have Tokyo tanks No, the "Tokyo tanks" started about half way through the F Model. so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) Wrong again. The raw lifting ability of all later variants with the big rudder was in excess of 12,000 pounds of bombs, plus full internal fuel, oil, crew, guns and ammo. actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs, Once again, you ignore the form up, climb to altitude over England and the true range, but instead insist on using the range from an actual mission that did include ALL of those things! no form up no opposition While this may have been the actual range, it is certainly not the longest and it does include the climb to altitude, formation form up and jogs in the flight line to target!

So the Lancaster has to use lots of gas climbing to altitude for zero range, then burn more gas to form up and leave behind some of those bombs above to be able to climb to the same altitude! So in reality, it is 90 minutes worth of fuel at greater than cruise throttle openings to get to altitude and formation,  (It always takes more gas to climb than cruise!) thus losing more than 1-1/2 hours worth of cruise at 220 MPH = >330 miles at a minimum! Then there is the reduction of tonnage required to cruise at those altitudes. That is the ratio of air density at the first altitude to the air density at the higher altitude reduces the total weight of the plane. Say 5,000 pounds reduction in total mass. (Maybe 7,000 pounds?) That means that the Lancaster will carry less bombs to less distance!

But in the real world it didnt the Lancaster carried more bomber further, this is a fact of history and you cannot avoid it by trying to fiddle the numbers, the Lancaster even flew to the same targets late in the war in daylight and dropped larger loads at similar altitudes.
 

s!

but this is adifferent claim and one that is beyond belief, you kust make it up as you go along dont you!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0

I did not have to! It was brought up buy other posters who linked to a basic class text online. But I am not adverse to arguing that is you are really silly enough to state the PIO and aft CoG excursions are NOT Problems?
Not a FATAL problem, it is ONLy you that claims it was sufficient to cause the loss and yet you have provided no evidence and cannot explain why this is no evidence of it occurring http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0

No its you clutching at strwas on a disproved argument and their is no evidence that either causes brought sown the plane

 

Which of the two parts of this problem are you talking about? PIO, or aft excursion of the CoG? One is caused by the pilot, or more exactly a lack of pilot skills which depending on the severity, may be beyond any pilot's skills and the other is beyond all pilot input!

and the fact that neither is a likely cause is beyond your skill to understand
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0
 

and PIO would need sustained porpoising to cause failure Because by it's very nature, aft CoG excursion caused PIO is pretty much beyond any pilot's skill set!
However long it takes, how does that change the outcome?

It shows you have NO clue about what is happening
No, this statement shows that you have no clue aboutt how any of this works, or how severe it can be!

I never posted any of this! I only stated that what other's said might be the true cause! So how is this on me?
 
No you haven't or at least you haven't provided any source for those other people, I can track the claim back to a paragraph in you of your posts and then reading forward it keeps getting added to but no source is ever provided (hinted at yes numerous times but never provided) and as this is being rubbished by professionals I will go with their opinion over yours
 much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
 
As he hasnt the test data available he cannot say, he can however say with full confidence that 4x this moment would not be sufficient to result in the aircraft exceeding its, if that is his opinion, I'll trust you and stipulate that it becomes less likely that the far aft CoG excursion causes instantaneous loss of control.

 

They eventually traced the problem to PIO/CoG to far aft! Just thought you would like an example of how this works.