http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm)
The link does not work.

link seem to work fine, I am supprided that it only fails to work for you especially as it disagrees with you

 

But the Lanc's fuselage is only 5' wide to the outside skin panels! See the plans in the link I posted, which does work!

 

the skin either side of a lanc bomb bay is less than 1" so we are arguing over 2" a measurement that is virtually unmeasurable on the scale of you plans

 

 Also note that the bomb bay is not 5' wide to the inside of the doors/hinges! While you would have saddled me with a 6" per side thickness of the doors, when they are hinged outside the bay on the lower wing surface about 5" from the edge of the bomb bay, I actually measured the width of the Lanc's bay! It is about 4'-2" wide between the hinges. Live with it, or post a link that works with dimensioned plans, not operational planning drawings that are not to scale!

 

look at the way the bomb bay of the two aircraft are built if you cannot see the difference there is no point in continuing

 
it also took a 4000lbs cookie which was 2'6" so allowing for shackles and clearance I would think my 3' bomb bay is more likely than your 2'5" (and don't even think about claiming that the cookie needed the bulged because it didn't)
So the 2.5' dimension that I posted was wrong because it could not take a 2.5' diameter bomb?

 

a bomb must fit with clearance and shackles so yes it does prove you wrong

 

 

 From Wiki; An important feature of the Lancaster was its unobstructed, 33 ft (10 m) long, bomb bay. At first, the heaviest bomb carried was the 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) high capacity HC "Cookie".^[19] Bulged doors were added to 30% of B Is to allow the aircraft to carry 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) and later 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) "Cookies". Note that the 8,000 pound "Cookie". Which is only 38" in diameter does not fit WO the bulged doors! So it is not possible that there was as much as 3' between the ceiling and the inside of the door and your idea is thus disproven!

 

so a 28" bomb can fit even if the bay is 28" deep yet a 38" bomb can fit into a 36" deep bay? where is your logic here because its beyond me

now your width, the Lancaster could take 3x 1000lbs across the bay, each one of these is 18 inches wide, that's 4'6"  that already exceeds your number before you allow for clearance
You should note that the British 1000 pound bomb is only about 15" OD buy 65"

 

er NO the British bomb is 18" wide not 15"

, not as fat as the American bomb because it was designed when external carriage was the norm. See this pic at Wiki links; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lancaster_bomb_bay_Jan_1944_IWM_CH_18554.jpg Note how the crewman standing at the aft bulkhead of the bomb bay is so wide comp'd with the total width of the bay. The average person is about 8.3" thick, but the man in the pic is standing about 30 degrees angle off and thus is maybe 10-11" wide at his shoulders? Also note that his hips which are much narrower and their relation to the total width of the bay! Also note the curvature of the outer bomb bay, both at the fuse and the sides of the doors in the foreground! This pic proves my points!

 

this proves nothing except that your skills at assessing measurements are saddly lacking

 

you just cannot accept that you are wrong even when provided with evidence I like how your evidence link does not work and mine does.

works fine for me

you come back with made up numbers without a single shred of proof Like the link to the Blueprints I posted?

no those are scale drawing NOT blueprint and it is your measurements based on those that is in question, especially as you have quoted volumn for the bomb bay that includes the space outside the aircraft

you just need the Lancaster to be inferior even when all evidence and even history shows that it wasn'tUse your brain to think about history.

I do I wish you would too, your own preconceptions are so wide and variied it does amaze me (and it would seem just about every other person on the interweb) that you are actually talking about the same history

i HAVE ASKED TIME AND TIME AGAIN - PLEASE PROVIDE A SINGLE PERSON THAT AGREES WITH ANYTHING YOU SAY

look at the way the bomb bay of the two aircraft are built if you cannot see the difference there is no point in continuing
It seems to be you who can not see the difference in the way they are built.

 
it also took a 4000lbs cookie which was 2'6" so allowing for shackles and clearance I would think my 3' bomb bay is more likely than your 2'5" (and don't even think about claiming that the cookie needed the bulged because it didn't)
So the 2.5' dimension that I posted was wrong because it could not take a 2.5' diameter bomb?

, not as fat as the American bomb because it was designed when external carriage was the norm. See this pic at Wiki links; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lancaster_bomb_bay_Jan_1944_IWM_CH_18554.jpg Note how the crewman standing at the aft bulkhead of the bomb bay is so wide comp'd with the total width of the bay. The average person is about 8.3" thick, but the man in the pic is standing about 30 degrees angle off and thus is maybe 10-11" wide at his shoulders? Also note that his hips which are much narrower and their relation to the total width of the bay! Also note the curvature of the outer bomb bay, both at the fuse and the sides of the doors in the foreground! This pic proves my points!

you just cannot accept that you are wrong even when provided with evidence I like how your evidence link does not work and mine does.

No, I do not care one way or the other, those are just the facts of life! The B-17 had more wing area to make lifting any given weight easier. It was faster on less power and thus more aerodynamically efficient. It had 10,000' more service ceiling! It carried more gas and thus had more potential. It was also more damage tolerant. Now your side of the argument; It carried more bombs farther on real live operational mission, therefore it must be better!

But you have never addressed the differences in the way those missions were planned and flown which completely negates those attributes! Do you admit that they would have to reduce the operating weight of the plane IF they had to fly higher, as in increase their "Service Ceiling"?

Nitpick and a false argument, Davies.

 

Also false quoting.

 

Here is where your incompetence shows.

 

Depending  on burden a B-17's wing loading was 23 to 35lbs/sq ft.

 

The plane was never burdened to its maximum if it could be avoided. That fatigued the wings. Nor was it flown to its maximum service ceiling. That burned out the crappy Wright engines.

 

On the Lancaster, the wing loading was at the limit of about 50 lb/sq ft max.

 

In BLUNT English, you could put about 60 percent more strain on those wings before they tore off. That translated into more bomb load being carried, As for the engines, since the British used the same exact flight bombing profiles as the Americans usually used (the sweet spot between 12-18,000 ft where light and heavy flak was most ineffective.) I don't see that argument either.

 

You don't know what you discuss,  

    

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure your LIES out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now your side of the argument; It carried more bombs farther on real live operational mission, therefore it must be better!

But you have never addressed the differences in the way those missions were planned and flown which completely negates those attributes! Do you admit that they would have to reduce the operating weight of the plane IF they had to fly higher, as in increase their "Service Ceiling"?

it also took a 4000lbs cookie which was 2'6" so allowing for shackles and clearance I would think my 3' bomb bay is more likely than your 2'5" (and don't even think about claiming that the cookie needed the bulged because it didn't)
So the 2.5' dimension that I posted was wrong because it could not take a 2.5' diameter bomb?

PS. the underside of the standard bomb bay is not flat!

 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lancaster+bomb+bay&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=YG_3UZC4CKTT0QWzqoC4Ag&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1849&bih=924

 

It is deeper in the center of the length under the wing, see those plans. The "Cookie" can only fit right under the wing where the bay is deeper than at both ends.

 

wrong wrong wrong

now your width, the Lancaster could take 3x 1000lbs across the bay, each one of these is 18 inches wide, that's 4'6"  that already exceeds your number before you allow for clearance
You should note that the British 1000 pound bomb is only about 15" OD buy 65"

er NO the British bomb is 18" wide not 15"
Post proof! The Pics I have show only 15" OD!

 

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bombs-Gone-Development-British-Air-dropped/dp/1852600608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375170608&sr=8-1&keywords=bombs+gone

 
this proves nothing except that your skills at assessing measurements are saddly lacking
No, it proves the bomb is 15" OD!

 

you just cannot accept that you are wrong even when provided with evidence I like how your evidence link does not work and mine does.

Just to be perfectly certain you have at least a chance to understand, I've tried at least a dozen times to open that link and it will not open, even using a browser!

 

Fix connection problems

works fine for me I wonder why I keep getting this page above?

And you are a liar. Just tested the link again. Here is an image from the portal page.

 

image.