An AVRO Manchester what if?

Hi Cees,
What’s stopping you, go on, you know you want to….

It’s only taken me 4-5 years to get you to see the error of your ways, now repeat after me…

“Halifax OK, Lancaster better” 😀

Keep trying Tony, against better judgement :p

Cees

😀 @ HP57 and Tony C!

Hé Tony,

Steady on man, if this had been the case I would be working on a Lancaster cockpit project…

Hi Cees,
What’s stopping you, go on, you know you want to….

It’s only taken me 4-5 years to get you to see the error of your ways, now repeat after me…

“Halifax OK, Lancaster better” 😀

Hi,
Alternatively, if a Merlined Manchester AND Lancaster had been operated by the RAF, would there have been a need for any of the other ‘Heavies’?

Tony

Hé Tony,

Steady on man, if this had been the case I would be working on a Lancaster cockpit project, a friend of mine is doing that already. Who needs two Lanc cockpit sections? 😮

Besides, then we would have to call Mike “Manchman” or “Munchkin” instead of “Lancman”. :p

Cheers

Cees

The only sensible use of two Merlins for a bomber was to fit them to a Mosquito 😎

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

PNK – Would the Manchester be classed as a ‘Medium’, with or without Merlins?

Sorry, my use of the word ‘Heavies’ was to avoid the ‘Light/Medium’ bombers such as the Blenheim, Mosquito and Mitchell, although isn’t it the case, that when the Specification was first produced, the Manchester would have been classified as a Heavy?

Mark12 – …at that time window, without two speed two stage supercharging, would have been seriously underpowered.

Agreed, initially underpowered but with wartime improvements to the engines, would a Merlined Manchester have proved a better solution to the Whitley and Wellington airframes, as even with the Vulture engine, it was still capable of carrying a larger bomb load than these airframes?

For example, the Lancaster for raids deep into enemy territory and to carry loads larger than the Manchester could handle (such as the Dambuster, Tallboy and Grand Slam raids), while the Manchester itself could have handled all the others.

Would it not be better for the crews as well, who could have swapped between the two airframes with relative ease, due to the familarities between the two airframes?

PNK – Let’s hope it doesn’t get into an argument over the relative merits of the RAF’s bombing campaign.

Agreed, I have strong feelings on this matter but they should be left for another post.

A Manchester with two Merlins..

…at that time window, without two speed two stage supercharging, would have been seriously underpowered.

Mark

Tony,

Would the Manchester be classed as a ‘Medium’, with or without Merlins?
Questions about bomb loads and range and tonnage per gallon etcto spring to mind. The Germans seemed to be hadicapped in some stages of the war by not having heavies, although the HE-177 had four engines in coupled pairs? Was this a heavy?

Ignoring the merits of one ‘heavy’ over another I would think a least two types would be a good idea if only to prevent having all of your eggs in one basket (is there a pun ther?). All categories of aircraft seemed to have more than one type for whatever reason.

Sorry I seemed to have asked as more questions than you. Interesting thoght though and may spark off other what ifs.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get into an arguement over the relative merits of the RAF’s bombing campaign.

Peter

For a start there would have been no bombing of the Tirpitz with ‘Tallboy’ bombs.
I would have thought that operating with just the two Merlins, with overall loads and distance being non atainable, then someone would have said, “Hey! what about four Merlins?” then the Lancaster would have been born and life can return to normal for us Lancaster lovers! 😉