Part 2 of the Wellington video is coming, I promise! (Please put down the torches and pitchforks xD) F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Ok I’ve got a huge request because it’s not a traditional video for you. PLEASE make a video on the French Leyat Helicar. Attempt #6 (also haven’t given up on asking for the SU-47 but the Leyat is even more interesting)
Given how the Manchester spawned several off-shoots, from the Lancaster bomber, the Shackleton MPA, all the way to the Ashton jet airliner. It is basically a "task failed successfully" in a plane's form and really show how a bad engine ruined a good plane design.
A fighter pilot’s experience of the Manchester. After serving in 501 Squadron through the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, the fighter ace Ginger Lacey had to serve six months as an instructor in an Operational Training Unit ~ this euphemistically being called a ‘rest’. Beginning in autumn of 1941, he found this to be not particularly enjoyable or inspiring apart from when the soon to be legendary ’Screwball’ Beurling joined the unit but it did give the opportunity to meet up with his old friend, the former Chief Flying Instructor at the Yorkshire Aeroplane Club, Captain Worral, who had been Sir Alan Cobham's navigator in the latter's flight round Africa in the Short 'Singapore' in 1927-8. In his late 50’s when the war broke out, he’d immediately joined Avro's as a test pilot. Lacey went to lunch with him one day and just as he arrived Worral was about to test a Manchester. 'Sorry I can't take you up in this one, Ginger, but I've got a lot of boffins and flight engineers aboard. However, I've got another one to test before lunch, so I'll take you up with me in that.' Half-way down the runway, when it was too late to stop, one engine caught fire. Worral took off, went round the aerodrome in flames, and landed. He strolled back and said, 'Come on, Ginger, we'll go and test the other one now.' Lacey implied that you couldn't have got him into that second one even with an armed escort. He watched Worral take off again. Half-way down the runway, one engine of this Manchester also caught fire. The pilot flew round the circuit, in flames, and landed. Lacey stated, 'This is a gentleman of fifty-nine or sixty; and not even batting an eyelid: we went straight off to lunch as though nothing had happened.' After this, Lacey reflected that his time at the OTU didn’t seem to have been quite so bad after all….
I always love this channel because they don't just post about the typical "war winning" aircraft (or famous axis aircraft) like the Spitfire, BF109, P51, etc. They bring up the failures, the planes that didn't work in the end and I think it's always good to know both sides of the coin, what worked well and what didn't, so we can study them and not make the same mistakes in the future
The P-51 Mustang kind of shared the same issue as the Manchester: the early models lacked high-altitude performance due to the limits of the Allison V-1710 engine. It was only when they put in the Merlin 61 (Packard Merline V-1650) engine that the P-51 came into its own as a world-beating fighter.
@@Sacto1654 The Allison was a great engine for the Mustang but lacked the two stage super charger for better high altitude performance. The same problem was to be found in the Curtis Tomahawk/Warhawk, which had been the aircraft the British Purchasing Commission was after and asked North American Aviation to build under licence. North American reaponded with the proposal to design and build a prototype aircraft in 120 days. This was the birth of the Mustang.
Fundamentally the underlying design was sound: Father to the Lancaster, Grandfather to the Lincoln, and Great-Grandfather to the Shackleton - which was in service until 1991. Not bad really
As we're all so accustomed to seeing the Lancaster with it's 4 engines, the twin engine Manchester just looks like it's missing something. Fantastic video as always.
@@no-legjohnny3691 it was apparently extremely manoeuvrable and the short wing was partly for strength during catapult take off. This also resulted in the massively strong bombay floor that eventually handled the grandslam. The Vickers counter part was the Warwick.
the MKI Manchester tried the merlin engines at 1st but 2 just didnt have enough power to take off. so they went with the vultures instead. Thats down to the war department saying they could only put 2 engines on it. But with the 2 vulture engines it could fly faster higher and further with a bigger bomb load than the 4 merlin engine lancs could. If they could of sorted out the engine problems the Mancherster would of been far suppior to the lancaster. Even with the probs with the Vultures it still had triple the power the merlin had. The vulture didnt use as much fuel as the Merlin so could go a lot further with the same fuel. Prob was as it was 2 engines bolted together in the same cowling the fuel and oil pipes had a nasty habbit of breaking under the vibrations and it caused the engines to catch fire. USA used Merlin engines in the short range mustangs. Alisons in the long range mustangs to work as bomber escorts. Germany got their hands on a spitfire after the pilot landed at a Luftwaffe base by mistake after he got lost. Germany tried it with the Merlin and found it lacked power. so they put the engine in from an ME109 and found it could fly longer faster. 50mph faster and 100 miles longer range.
Great work, as always. Here in the US, I have witnessed the frightening spectacle of a piston exiting the engine block, and shortly thereafter leaving the vehicle altogether ( this usually happens during drag racing...). The sound it makes really defies description.... We call that phenomenon " windowing the block", because you can often during the post mortem stick your head inside the engine to have a look around. I can't imagine climbing into an airplane that exhibited a propensity for that sort of thing. Some very brave lads.
In rockets there is the phenomenon of "engine-rich exhaust" which is what I thought of when the bit about the unfixable trail of sparks from the engines was mentioned.
One time at old Orange County Raceway , during the seventies, I had a clutch disc fly about a foot over my head, ejected from an old fuel Altered. Back then, you could get up-close and personal, the same at air shows.
From the 80s to the late 2000s, I followed NASCAR. One term I think they enjoyed using was "he grenaded the engine!" Meaning, of course, the engine was explosively reduced to its component parts all over the racing surface...
According to one reference book, 49 Squadron's Manchesters were grounded so often that the unit was nicknamed the 49th Foot. I suspect that the nickname would have been more widely applied.
Your sense of humor and delivery is what makes you one of my favorite channels. The amount of research you must do really shows, and I've learned so much about aviation development during WW 1 and 2. Thank you.
The complaints about the dorsal turret don't seem very British to me, surely there were indeed a few undernourished dwarfs that would leap at the chance to do their part for the war effort. An under-utilized resource, I'd say. Very short-sighted of them.
Dorsal turret is the one on top! Ventral turret is the one underneath the fuselage. Any attempt to used a periscope sight in such a turret resulted in failure due limited fields of vision and trying to aim the guns at a wildly moving target.
Another aircraft that also suffered the indignity of having a pair of RR Vultures bolted to it was the Vickers Warwick. In the Warwick’s case though not even changing the engines could save that design but it might make an interesting video comparison piece with the Wellington. Two extremely similar looking aircraft from the same designer with very different places in history.
It wasn't so much the manchester that failed, as it was the Rolls-Royce vulture. The modified manchester as Lancaster is foremost contender for best British heavy bomber of WW2 of course. Presumably if Rolls-Royce had had more opportunity to develop the Vulture, it might have been good, but the four Merlins turned out more than good enough and from a manufacturing perspective it was likely more efficient to produce a single engine design for the sake of economies of scale, and the development refinements with that engine could then benefit more aircraft.
I think "crew rest area" is one of the terms used on modern passenger airliners for similar spaces, which are sometimes in out-of-the-way cubbies above or below the main passenger deck.
"Howdy, ma'am, reckon you could point me in the direction of the nearest rest room?" "Oh, well, yes, just over there past the post box" "Many thanks." [Arrives in room with chairs and old newspapers] "God DAMN these Brits are weird"
while this bomber got its wingspan increased ......the stirling got its wings decreased yet soldiered on without the luxury of redevelopment . an unsung workhorse from start to finish
The wings on the Stirling stemmed from the ludicrous requirement that the aircraft had to fit in a standard size hanger! Common sense would have dictated that they design larger hangers when they started making significantly bigger aircraft🙃
The serviceability statistics from squadron records suggest that the Manchester bomber was becoming reliable enough to continue in service, while the Lancaster replaced it slowly on the production lines. So that was what happened. Eventually most remaining Manchesters were broken for parts and fed into the Civilian Repair Organisation's process, and used to rebuild Lancasters that had been damaged.
The Lancaster bomb bay, low but long, has always puzzled me, compared to the alternative B-17/B-24 full height with stacked bombs. Neither one seems to have any advantage during bombing itself. The long uninterrupted Lancaster bomb bay did accommodate the Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs, but that was pure chance; the bombs were designed after the bomb bay. But there is one crucial flaw in the Lancaster bomb bay: no access to the bombs during flight. It meant the bombs had to be armed before flight, making takeoff problems deadly, and the crew couldn't safe or get rid of hung bombs before returning to base. So why didn't the floor between bomb bay and crew compartment at least have some access holes? That floor must have been mostly sheets of aluminum with beams providing the strength, so why not get rid of the sheets and allow access? The cabin wasn't pressurized. Wind with the bomb bay doors open couldn't have been any worse than a B-17/B-24. Designers weren't stupid, so there must have been some reasons which I don't know. Does anyone else?
The American bombers took off with the bombs armed too. The shortcoming of the stacked bombs is a jammed bomb release at the bottom can potentially jam all the bombs above it. The requirement to carry torpedoes defined the length of the bomb bay on the Manchester. Germany went another way with all bombs supported by the nose and dropped tail first. The B-29 atomic bombers were fitted with bomb suspensions from Lancaster bombers (because the Lancaster had a history of dropping bombs as heavy and big as the first generation nuclear weapons).
@@allangibson2408 I have seen too many reports of arming bombs in flight to think that takeoff with armed bombs was common. The Lancaster bomb bay was long not to carry one torpedo, but to carry two in a row. B-25s and B-26s could carry torpedoes too, and I'd bet so could a B-17. I've never understood the German method. All that tumbling seems guaranteed to reduce accuracy. Nose first is aerodynamic and smoother. I still don't understand why there was no bomb bay access in flight. What did that accomplish?
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 It permitted flights without bomb bay doors. Both the “Grand Slam” and “Upkeep” bombs were delivered from bombers without bomb bay doors. Neither of those devices would fit in a US bomber of the time. (And even the smaller cousins “High Ball” & “Tallboy” were a tight fit and resulted in the loss of a number of aircrew in training (with inert bombs)).
In addition to the torpedo carrying and the “frictionless” take-off capability, the original design specification for the Manchester called for “shallow (up to 30 degrees) dive bombing capability”.
'dive bombing' capability was a requirement foisted upon Heinkel on the He177 Grief as well .....only adds extra weight and complication. The catapult takeoff was an interesting feature which could have allowed over-gross weight takeoffs and increase range or bomb load.
Interesting stuff... Firstly, I've never believed that there was much wrong with the Vulture engine; I suspect that it's lubrication and cooling systems, it's installation and close cowling may have been the problem; the Perigrine was excessively close cowelled in the Whirlwind installation. I wonder if the time spent manouvering and assembling bomber formations on the ground and lower airspeeds also contributed. Secondly, I was unaware that the Manchester had been stressed for catapult launch; the resultant strength of the airframe, as well as allowing high bomb loads would also have helped the Lancaster in it's low level capabilities and near fighter levels of manouverability.
Lubrication issues might well contribute to the tendency of the engine to spontaneously disassemble in-flight. We'll never know what the Vulture might have been capable of since development ended in 1941, allowing RR to concentrate resources on further development of the Merlin. A year of engineering effort might have produced a war-winning engine. After a good deal of work the Napier Sabre became a fine powerplant and RR certainly had the expertise to make the Vulture a success. I recall hearing anecdotal stories of early Spitfires tending to overheat on the ground if the weather was warm. The Spitfires wing-mounted radiator and oil cooler didn't get much airflow from the propeller whereas the Hurricanes centerline radiator and oil cooler got a good blast of air. I'm not aware if this was ever resolved on Spitfires.
Cobbling two V-12s into a X-24 was the fundamental flaw, each halves’ coolant pump intake competed meaning one intake had cavitation and the X big ends used a radial engine type master connecting rod with three 90 degree angle slave rods articulating off it. The big end bolts just snapped despite three different big end designs. The main bearings also failed! Rolls Royce were keen to drop it.
@@jayschafer1760 They did have a WC - the Elsan company made them, although their name is now well known in camping and caravanning circles for their chemical toilets. AFAIK, the Wellington and the Stirling also had WCs, and I would assume so did the Halifaxes.
The U.S., British and Germans all tried to make multibank engines with bad results all caused by too many pistons pushing on too little crankshaft. The only outstanding multibank was the Chrysler engine used in tanks but each bank had it's own crankshaft.
Well done video on a bravely conceived, but unsuccessful aircraft. At that point in aviation history, all of the airframers and engine companies were learning (the early B17s were no great shakes and neither was the Douglas B18 Bolo) but, as you said, the Lancaster sprang from the trail of exhaust sparks and broken con-rods left behind by the Manchester.
The main cause of the problems with the Vulture was that the inter-cylinder spacing was not changed from the Peregrine, probably for reasons of economy as it allowed the use of Pergrine components and kept the engines short. This did not release the lengthwise space necessary on the crankshaft to insert another con-rod serving the other two cylinders. Con-rods thus had to serve 4 cylinders in a very tight space leading to bearing overload (even if the diameter was increased) and lack of rigidity. Bolting the two halves of the con-rod big-end with sufficient strength was another issue, RR went as far as crosshatching the mating surfaces and machining the assembled con-rod. The cross-hatching supposedly would take part of the shearing forces over the whole mating area sparing the slender bolts. There's a booklet about this by a chap called Rubra, he was one of the RR men involved. Basically a designed tragedy. I'm surprised they did not think of using the Bristol Centaurus which was reaching maturity about the same time and would prove to be a superb engine. In fact, the way the Centaurus was "conveniently" left on the shelf, as was the Fairey Monarch are stories worth telling in themselves, the mafia of the big engine manufacturers was almost as self-destructive as the palatial intrigues at the top of the RAF.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 I'm not so sure, from what I recall of the Rubra publications (RR development of various different engines) there is no mention of increased spacing, hence the headache with the big-ends. Putting more than 2 cylinders on the same big-end normally calls for a master-and-slave arrangement as in radial engines or W engines (Napier Lion). In this latter situation the stroke of the lateral banks is different from the stroke of the central bank. Going up to 4 cylinders on the same big-end seems complicated. Engines were made with 5 banks distributed like a radial engine, and that seems to have worked.
It is kind of surprising that the British didn't re engine survivors with Hercules or American radials given that they did keep the Manchester in service as a HCU type. I thought when it was withdrawn they were all scrapped or the fuselage mated to Lancaster wings.
This. I would be intrigued to know why the Tornado suffered fewer issues with the Vulture. It must have something to do with the installation but I have found nothing on the subject so far.
I think it was in Michael Veitch's book Flak he described how the tail turret was hydraulically driven and had to rotate fully to one side to get into and out of it. There was no room for a parachute either but if you lost hydraulics you couldn't get out anyway. The very chilling thought is someone had to make a decision on the cost of modification Vs how many people it may save and how many young men were available.
I believe that there was a manual crank if hydraulic power was lost - that was for Lancs, if I can assume it was the same for the Manc and other British planes with hydraulic turrets? It was accessible in the straight astern position into the fuselage, but it was tight, hence parachutes were sometimes left in the fuselage. SOP of bailing out was to crank the turret full left or right, then go straight out into thin air through the back door of the turret.
@@glennpettersson9002 your impression isn't far wrong, I think it was often the rear gunner who was hit in the event of a night fighter attack. A lonley and cold job.
It was entered from inside the fuselage through two rear doors. Having retrieved and fitted the parachute the turret could rotate to one side for exiting the plane.
I have a vacuform conversion 1/72, not very detailed, but a good friend built it for me. If you search Manchester model 1/72 you will find one some day
Convergent evolution springs to mind: two heavy bombers, both sporting a double powerplant inside a single nacelle. On one side, the Avro Manchester. On the other, the Heinkel He-177 Greif. Same (or similar) problems on both: unreliable engines leading to thrown cylinders or engine fires. I don't know if the Manchester acquired any (printable) nicknames, but to the Luftwaffe aircrews unfortunate enough to have to fly it, the Greif became knowns as the "Flaming Coffin". A terrrible idea for a powerplant either way.
The Grief's problem stemmed from shoehorning two engines into one nacelle, leaving little room for the other things engines need to work properly and them being put wherever there was a bit of space. The oil tank was thus put at top front of the nacelle but often ruptured due to vibration, spilling its contents all over the hot engines with predictable fiery results.
@@Kevin-mx1vi The Greif could have been fixed exactly the same way with four engines from the current fighters of the time too. The DB605 was a perfectly good power plant (or even a Jumo 207).
@@allangibson2408 Indeed. The Grief's problems all stemmed from from having two engines and its landing gear squeezed into too small a space. The idea - reduced drag - is fine, but the execution was flawed. Aircraft design is a matter of balancing compromises, and in this case the compromise wasn't great enough. Was it a failed experiment or a fatal error ?
@@allangibson2408 That's basically the He 274 or the reportedly He 177 A-4, which is basically the Greif outfitted with four DB 605 engines instead of two DB 610. (Un)fortunately, the Luftwaffe insisted on trying to fix the DB 610 problems, which caused both variants to never enter services.
@@kringe700 The He 177 had DB606 engines (twined DB601’s). Most of the problems came from a lousy engine installation however with too tight a cowling. The DB610 came later. The He177B was fitted with four DB603’s but when they got the aerodynamic bugs out (exactly the same ones that plagued the Manchester in 1941) in 1944 it was just too late.
Thank goodness for the foresight of Roy Chadwick and Avro's, and Rolls Royce and the Merlin engine. A great example of where the strategy of "expect to fail" leads to a world class design.
If you read the history of Frank Whittle and the jet engine you will be less than impressed. He showed up with his design and basically showed that RR with all their output of piston engines their engine design was obsolete. RR and their government contacts were not impressed. A bit like telling Kodak in the 1980's that camera film would be replaced by digital cameras.
The photograph of the Manchester 1-A, serial no. L7486 at, I make it, 18.34 was a 207 Sqn. aircraft, flown by my father F/o (later, Sqn. Ldr) Geoffrey Hall, on the 12th of September 1941. His logbook states "Formation with Hampden for official photography of type". His crew were A/c Harris and A/c Curry. My father flew the Manchester quite a lot with 61 and 207 Sqn., but only completed two sorties successfully, due to engine failures, plus groundings for modifications. On one occasion, the starboard engine exploded shortly after take-off and on another, he had engine problems when twenty minutes over the North Sea, necessitating an early return from the sortie. He completed his first tour of ops with 61 Sqn. how he started, on Hampdens. He said that there were many problems with the Vulture engines, many of which were eventually rectified, but he said the Lancaster was in all respects a better aircraft. He flew Lancs for his second tour with 61 Sqn and was extremely lucky to return with all crew safe, despite extra ventilation from flak and nightfighters!
I appreciate your accuracy and humor. Some channels which are quite popular are much less accurate. One creator I used to watch threw completely unrelated video material together that had no relation to the subject. It's a "Dark" subject, nudge, nudge.
Those windmills on the Vulture are much larger than they first appear when you then jump straight to another shot of the Lanc with the Merlin props. I always thought the Lanc props were pretty large for a Merlin engine compared to the fighter Merlin engine propellers. The Vulture engine props must have been the ones to be used on the Typhoons with Sabre engines of similar to Vulture power.
Were there ever any conversations early on in design to use the Manchester as a basis for a four-engined bomber, or was the Lancaster just that fortuitous? If the latter, then perhaps the Vulture unknowingly made a huge contribution to Bomber Command. A shame about the Vulture, such an impressive concept, it must have been exciting to be assigned to that project. I hope it didn't curtail attempts at similar future projects-I know there were some radical approaches like the Sabre, combining Merlin blocks, etc, but I wonder if there would have been more, despite Britain being in the thick of it and having to prioritize Merlin production.
I don’t know about Avro but Handley-Page managed to get the Air Ministry to agree to their HP56 design using four Merlin engines instead of two Vulture’s, mind you Handley Page wanted to use Bristol Hercules engines but the Ministry insisted on Merlin’s because the Hercules was needed for other aircraft.
I would just like to say a huge thank you to the Rolls Royce Vulture and Roy Chadwick without them the Lancaster would probably never have been born, and without the Lancaster my claim to fame probably wouldn’t have happened, my grandfather was an A.V Roe apprentice before the war and was subsequently part of the team who modified the bomb bays for 617 (Dambusters) squadron. When I joined the RAF in 1979 my grandad gave me his original A.V Roe apprenticeship text books, they came in handy on more than one occasion, thanks grandad, RIP Lest We Forget. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
Just found your channel from my friend Logan and love how you go in depth on individual planes. I love listening to you at work or playing warthunder while flying said planes lol
Anyone else notice the Vulture (like the Griffon, and unlike pretty much all other engines from the time period) turned clockwise when viewed from the front? Unless the photo at 9:45 has been printed in reverse, of course... Which way did the Peregrine turn?
When some engineer comes up to you and says that he will stick two engines with 1X horsepower together and that will produce 2X horsepower (or even more), immediately blast him out of your office and his job. That is just an engineering reality that will never ever happen. Two 850 hp engines together will produce at absolute very best 1350 hp. That is just an engineering fact.
Rex, the vulture wasn’t completely an utter waste of time, one was used as the power source in the development of Whittles jet engine compressor. It had the power to drive, through a pair of Merlin prop reduction gears which were reversed and combined together to give a step up gearbox the compressor assembly at its design speed so aiding its development. It also donated its centrifugal compressor as the second stage of the two speed two stage compressors fitted to the 60 series Merlins.
That sounds like use of surplus (not-fit-for purpose) equipment findng an alternative application. Similarly, the Napier Lion was used in several historic speed records when it was way past its prime. (On the other side, there are of course cases today of tractor pulling teams trying to buy WWII engines and being told "we're not selling it if you're going to do THAT with it.")
Fundamentally, the Lancaster was a Manchester with all the teething problems fixed, and using engines that actually worked. I'd like to say that the Vulture X24 would have worked out with development but I can't. Later watercooled avgas engines with more than 12 cylinders were based on H designs (and some insane multiblock radials), but these were abandoned in favour of the jet engine. They got it right with the B52 by using an engine that was within the capabilities of the time. But jet engines have advanced a lot since then. So, when are they going to re-engine the B52? LOL
@@uingaeoc3905 yeah I heard a lot of stuff about the B52 rudder not being able to cope with the differential thrust one of the outer engines failing. You'd have to turn the other one right down.
@@tnk.2033 A multiblock radial is a watercooled radial with several inline blocks bolted around a common crankcase like this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_XR-7755 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Hyena . It's kind of missing the point of a radial because radial works best as an aircooled engine with staggered cylinders, with the large frontal area helping the cooling. In the late WW2 and post war period, more power was wanted which meant more cylinders, and this was one way to do it. I'm not aware of any successful large watercooled aero radial (I would love to hear about them.) The 28cyl Wasp Major (aircooled with staggered-ish cylinders) was reasonably sucessful but was made obosolete by the jet engine, like all the large aero radials. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major. Some B36s actually had 6 wasp majors plus 4 retrofitted jet engines. The only really successful multiblock radial I know is the 42 cylinder Zvedza M503 marine diesel, whose larger cousin the Zvedza M504 had 56 cylinders. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_M503
I have trouble getting my head around why the Air Ministry would specify what materials should make up an airplane. Wouldn't it be better to provide performance specifications and let the inventors/engineers/manufacturers decide how best to address these specs, based on the materials available? Case in point: The de Havilland youknowwhat.
The failure of the Vulture engine was truly a hudden blessing as it resulted in The evolution of the Manchester to Lancaster, I did read the name Manchester was dropped as it had too many bad marks against its name and a new name was needed. From memory the Wellington that the Manchester was supposed to replace carried on in service till the end of the war tho that was mainly as a a target or glider tug. If only someone had kept a Wellington, Halifax and Stirling flying with the Lancaster I would also love to see a flying Mosquito. My big miss at air shows is the Lancaster's replacement the Big Vulcan which for a huge plane was very fleet of foot with a deathning howl and roar contrasted nicely with the Lancaster's Merlins rithmacly humming away both have an uncanny grace in tha air.
The era memoire “ Gunners Moon” is worth finding as the writer was a gunner on This Airframe and later Lancaster .. he notes many happy tails of service life in the early/ mid war
Something that really ought to be said here... ALL the major air forces of the day, with the possible exception of the French and Japanese Army Air Force, thought bombers were the wave of the future. All the smart young officers and NCOs were streamed to the bomber forces of the USAAF, the RAF, and Luftwaffe instead of any other type. Prior to the outbreak of War Two, most of the air strategy and tactics theoreticians were infected with 'Billy Mitchell disease', believing that Air Power would sweep the enemy off the field and that bombers would render enemy nations incapable of prosecuting warfare. Therefore most of the very limited Depression-era funding available was funneled into bombers with fighters getting the leftovers. It is a tribute to the inventiveness and adaptability of aircraft designers all around the world that when the hammer fell so many extraordinary designs were ready or near-ready to manufacture or were already in squadron service. The list is a Hall of Fame of aircraft design.. Hurricane, Spitfire, Catalina, Thunderbolt, Lightning, Focke-Wulf 190, Mosquito, Zero, Kate, these and many more were either in squadron service at the start of the war or in the terminal stages of testing before fielding.
It is interesting to note that the Handley Page Halifax was originally designed to the same specification as the Manchester, but the Air Ministry instructed Handley Page to redesign their aircraft to use four Merlin engines (in 1937), due to doubts about the Vulture's reliability and performance. According to aviation author Phillip J. R. Moyes, this redesign to four Merlin engines had been done "much against the company's wishes".
On a humorous note to lighten the mood, Manchester would be titled "the failed bomber that *brutally savaged a cabbage patch* " on the account of a wheels-up landing
In the 1980;s working in a museum I had many opportunities to talk with air crews, and the fumiest thing I ever heard was the poop drops made by the crew over occupied Europe.
I don't think so. The Manchester was more of a medium bomber (regardless of what they say) with a range of 1200 miles, but the Lancaster was a true heavy with more than double the range. It's a pity the Manchester didn't work, but the Lancaster was always going to exist seeing as it was a natural progression of the design. I wonder how the Manchesters would have performed if they had swapped out the Vultures for Merlins?
The Manchester (and Lancaster) first suffered from Ministry demands, and later, a couple of these demands proved to have a use in another way. There was a brief idea latched onto by the Ministry that strengthening the Manchester to be launched with external rockets in an 'overloaded' condition would be useful, they were proved wrong by the first tests. This however, resulted in the Manchester being strong enough to have a longer wing and four engines. Accidental. A sudden Ministry demand that all new bombers should all be designed to be able to carry stores large enough to include a new, large (and never built) torpedo resulted in the Manchester's bomb-bay being of useful length for the resulting Lancaster to carry the largest bombs in use, and several larger ones later developed. Accidental. There was an even wilder proposal that airfields should be not built and towers be built so that bombers could take off by rotating around the towers on cables to the wing-tips: how 'real' this wheeze became I have no idea, but the Manchester was also expected to do that as well at one stage.
He flew Hampdens, then was on a night-fighter squadron, then Manchesters, on a squadron that slowly converted onto the Lancaster. At the end of his tour commanding that squadron, he was asked to stay on and build, then lead 617 squadron. Retired from that, he then became a master bomber, flying a Mosquito, and died doing that.
Hi, Rex, a while back you mentioned going to more coverage of jet powered aircraft and were considering using a jet engine start up in your intro's, I think the piston engine start up that you've been using all along is much more pleasing to me, please stick with that. Thank you and God Bless.
The choice of making it a four-engine Merlin-powered bomber was a good one. They could have tried the Sabre which would have been interesting but would have not started out being all that reliable. If desperate enough they might have tried the Wright R2600 or The Pratt and Whitney R2800 which would have been very interesting but probably politically a no-go.
