hercules engined lancs/merlin engined halifaxes

As far as the Lancaster was concerned, I believe the hard work had already been done by Bristol. Given that the Merlin installation used on the Lanc was taken from the Beaufighter II, the Lancaster II Hercules installation was presumably effectively a reversal of the mods made to the Beaufighter to install the Merlin.

The idea, I believe, was to give an option in the case of an engine supply shortage (which due to the addition of the Packard Merlin source never materialised).

So the premise of the opening question has been disputed here. New subj: why did MAP bother to distract and confuse Installation effort, with yet more applications for these war-winning engines? Didn’t Approval Authorities have enough to do?

Same, I suggest, as hanging Crewe-Merlin on maybe Meir-Beaufighter. To shift engines locally – say, Crewe-Merlin to Speke-Halifax, Accrington-Hercules to Hawarden-Lanc. Options, even if not taken up. Airframe delivered even if its prime engine plant was zapped.

Various references I’ve read suggest the Herc engined Lanc was liked by its crews. Fast as noted above.

But in part they bought the speed through fuel consumption; I would imagine this would in turn cause a trade-off vis-a-vis the BI and BIII when it came to the distance/fuel/bomb-load calculation. Put that another way, the Merlin engined Lancs would be more “efficient” at their job (dumping bombs more-or-less on the enemy).

Don’t agree,

The Merlin engined Halifaxes were used flying over the “Hump”
Halifaxes weren’t as sensitive to tropical climates as the Lancaster was. Halifaxes flew many missions in the desert even strafing ground targets.
Cees

only bomber to be seen in out east, such style and grace only in the halifax and cool to boot!!!!!!!!!!!!:cool: 😎 😎

why where these two variants so unsuccesful in their operational use
the hercules lanc couldnt reach a decent service ceiling, whilst the merlin engined halifaxes couldnt be “tropicalised “for the far east theatre, why the problems with these two variants?:cool: 😎 😎

Don’t agree,

The Merlin engined Halifaxes were used flying over the “Hump”
Halifaxes weren’t as sensitive to tropical climates as the Lancaster was. Halifaxes flew many missions in the desert even strafing ground targets.
Cees

Yup, thats the source. The book mentioned that initially, they didn’t have enough four-blade props to go round so some Halibags flew with a combination of three and four-bladers. Anyone have any photographic evidence of this?

Best wishes
Steve P

er, Yeah Steve, I DO have photographic evidence – various – (but can’t remember where they are offhand,

I.I.R.C. one of the most prominent & prolific shots, featured an ‘Invasion-Striped’ Glider-Tug – a Mk.V (with the Dowty undercarriage)

Yup, thats the source. The book mentioned that initially, they didn’t have enough four-blade props to go round so some Halibags flew with a combination of three and four-bladers. Anyone have any photographic evidence of this?

Best wishes
Steve P

It comes from “The Merlin in Perspective” published by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

The outer engines suffered reduction gear failures which was cured by fitting four-bladed props. The port outer was the worst. I can’t remember now if it explained why it helped, but if it did I’ve forgotten anyway. 🙂

I think that I read somewhere that the outboard Merlins on the Halifax were prone to play up until four bladed props were fitted. Can anyone elaborate?

Best wishes
Steve P

Shall I be the first to open this particular ‘pandoras box’;)
Apparently the radial Lancs were generally speaking very good,being a bit faster,shorter take off,less exhaust glow and no coolant problems.
They did concede a bit of bombing altitude to Merlin Lancs but were still way above the Hali 11 + V and Stirlings whose crews they ‘sympathised with’:rolleyes:
The Halifax was built like a ‘brick outhouse’ and I think was a wee bit heavy for Merlins shall we say!!