Warbird Information Exchange

Jack,

This is a very unique photo in many ways. To my knowledge, with the exception of their Seaplane force, the RAF in WWII mainly relied on "V" style engines versus a radial. Does anyone know how many of these round engined Lanc's were ever built and what use was made of them during WWII ? Were these types relegated to target tug status unlike their other heavy 4 engined bombers of WWII such as the Stirling ? And I am also not unaware of the radial engined Halifax either, but it went on to have a successful career as a mainstay bomber in the RAF Fleet, whereas the Stirling was under-designed and almost too large for it's intended mission(s), and ended up relagated to being a target tug for quite some time if memory serves me correctly.

Any Thoughts ?

Paul

Jack,

This is a very unique photo in many ways. To my knowledge, with the exception of their Seaplane force, the RAF in WWII mainly relied on "V" style engines versus a radial. Does anyone know how many of these round engined Lanc's were ever built and what use was made of them during WWII ? Were these types relegated to target tug status unlike their other heavy 4 engined bombers of WWII such as the Stirling ? And I am also not unaware of the radial engined Halifax either, but it went on to have a successful career as a mainstay bomber in the RAF Fleet, whereas the Stirling was under-designed and almost too large for it's intended mission(s), and ended up relagated to being a target tug for quite some time if memory serves me correctly.

Any Thoughts ?

Paul

PS - Sorry for the duplicate posting

Don't forget the Wellington, Stirling & Halifax (they did OK didn't they?), Mitchell, Boston & Hampton.
BTW wasn't the Stirling so big it has 2 tail wheels?
Glad you like it

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

The Stirling was handicapped by an air ministry specification stating the wingspan had to be under 100 feet to fit in existing hangers. It had excellent manouverability , but because of the short wingspan (99ft 1in) had a lower service ceiling than the Halifax and Lancaster. P.S Jack I think you mean Hampden

_________________
If the first casualty of war is innocence, the second is sobriety - Hawkeye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws - Plato.
Lies get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on - Churchill
If you are going through he11 - keep going - Churchill

Previous page - about 300. Use? Heavy bomber.

The Stirling wasn't underdesigned. The Air Ministry insisted on a wingspan of less than 100' so it would fit in existing hangars. The wing wasn't big enough so the service ceiling was unacceptable.

The Hercules engined Halifax was very successful. It was overshadowed by the Lancaster but it was still an excellent aircraft and loved by the crews.

Edit: must type faster...

Oh and p.s. Please don't forget the Blenheim and Lysander!!

_________________
If the first casualty of war is innocence, the second is sobriety - Hawkeye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws - Plato.
Lies get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on - Churchill
If you are going through he11 - keep going - Churchill

And the Beaufighter and Sunderland.

Not true, really. The excessive success and thus fame of the wide range of Merlin and later Griffon engined aircraft has skewed the perception of Britain's engine type mix. It'd be difficult to quantify, but there was something in the order of similar numbers of radial types, maybe numbers (proportionately) to USAAF.

British radials (mainly Bristol types) were based on very different engineering principles to US engines, however.

As has already been said, the radial powered Lancaster was a backup design pending Merlin problems which didn't occur. As to it being a radical redesign from the Manchester isn't really true - the central fin was an addition (fabric covered) to the later Manchesters and early Lancs. The early Lancs carried over the Manchester endplate fins which were enlarged and the centre fin removed. The fuselage was essentially the same, the wing structure likewise.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Then again, there's the odd engine H and X - Handley Page Hereford and Hawker Hector - Napier Dagger 'H' engine.

Fairey Seafox the earlier Napier Rapier.

Not to mention the better known 'H' Sabre.

The Manchester's Vulture (X) was also an unusual configuration... Stupid name for an engine ("Well, there's your problem.")

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Don't leave out the Lincoln or my personal favorite, the Albemarle, now there was an..............the words escape me, something about the packaging for a B-25 with about as much performance as a packing crate

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I just recently learned of the "Round-Motor" variant of the Lancaster with this neat example in one of my new books.

Avro Lancaster LL735: Used as a Jet engine Test platform

(sharp looking ship)




A lot of other neat Lancaster based test bed aircraft besides LL735


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

No round engines on a Lincoln. Round (-ish) nacelles yes, but Merlins.

OOPS! then what other WW2 British, four radial engined bomber was I thinking of besides the ones listed above?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I can't think of another.

All Stirlings were radial, Lancaster and Halifax were both. The Lincoln was just post war but was Merlins, admittedly with annular radiators so round-ish in appearance. The only other 4-engined bomber I can think of was the Vickers Windsor but they only built a couple (edit - I lie - three) - and that had Merlins anyway.