who can give size of bomber bay

Whilst being genetically an AVRO man I’ll gladly defend the Halifax. It had a large and unrestricted enough bomb bay to allow it to carry the large and bulky parchute load that was the Jeep (car 5 cwt 4×4) and six pounder anti tank gun. This at least was semi-recessed as when carried on the Hastings the same load was truely external.
Lets not forget that the specifications for British bombers insistined on the carrige of torpedos and 2000 lb bombs this lent itself to compartmented bomb bays and bomb cells in the wings. When the airborne forces were created (by Prime Ministerial decree) the only aircarft available were redundant bombers designed to these specifications. The holes conveinently provided in the structure for the ventral turret was used for parachute exits and the supply containers were sized to fit the bomb bays / bomb cells.
The Hengist and Horsa gliders were originally designed as paratroop dropping aircraft and as such both were fitted with bomb cells to allow the dropping of the supplies containers.

Why would you want to convert a Lancaster with 4 reliable engines into another aircraft with 2 unreliable engines with a propensity for catching fire??

Well, IF you could, it would be to commemorate all those poor guys who had to go to war in the Manchester. They also served…

This was a commemorative 2006 idea, not a trip back to ’42 suggestion.

It is all too easy to focus on Allied late-war technology that was adequate and overlook the less-than-good equipment brave men (and women) actually used to fight the tough earlier war.

Cheers,

Why would you want to convert a Lancaster with 4 reliable engines into another aircraft with 2 unreliable engines with a propensity for catching fire??
The Germans ignored the obvious solution for the same problem with the HE177 for too long(because it had to be capable of dive bombing!!)
The poor HE177 crews called the Aircraft ”The Luftwaffe Lighter” !!!

Don, please clear your e-mail. Replies are bouncing.

The Lancaster’s mainplane and fins used the same ribs (shape and number) as the Manchester! They were just spaced differently. The spars were also similar, just differrent lengths. The original Lancaster outer mainplane jig drawings were modified Manchester ones. (I know coz as I’ve said before it was my Grandfather what did it.)
So converting a Lancaster airframe back to Manchester is feasible, obtaining a pair of RR Vultures on the otherhand!!!

I have a B-29 book at home that may have some bomb bay/loading diagrams. I’ll dig it out tonight and see what info it has on volumn/load capacity etc of the bays.

Steve

Thanks for that Cees. I was vague about the Halifax’s possible role – IIRC, the Halifax had two fuselage side ‘beams’ to support the bomb-bay floor, but also two sets of doors. These could, I presume have been removed giving a full floor area for mounting bombs? As I said, though, the shape was a hangover for the torpedo requirement.

You get a Lanc, and the engines, and no problem… 😉 I think it’s actually ‘the same’ only as an early Mk.I Lanc fuselage, and thereafter there were a lot of detail differences that came in. How fundamental they’d be to, say, a Canandian built Mk.X being converted to a Manchester I don’t know.

The halifax has indeed two strong beams supporting the floor (and forming the roof of the bomb bay. The two strong beams are made of each of two further longerons, you know what they said about the strenght of a Hally 😉

The Manchester and Lancaster I/III are structurally identical as a Mk I was flown to Canada by Clyde Pangborn as a pattern aircraft for Lancaster production there. The engines, instruments and general fitting out is another matter.

Cheers

Cees

There are drawings showing provision for the Halifax to carry the Upkeep bomb as well as a tallboy with minimal adjustment. This was ignored by the Air Ministry. There are always alternatives depending on how hard you are looking for it 🙂

Thanks for that Cees. I was vague about the Halifax’s possible role – IIRC, the Halifax had two fuselage side ‘beams’ to support the bomb-bay floor, but also two sets of doors. These could, I presume have been removed giving a full floor area for mounting bombs? As I said, though, the shape was a hangover for the torpedo requirement.

Apart from that, a standard Manchester fuselage is identical to the Lancasters including the bomb doors. So how about reconverting a Lanc back to Manchester specifications?

You get a Lanc, and the engines, and no problem… 😉 I think it’s actually ‘the same’ only as an early Mk.I Lanc fuselage, and thereafter there were a lot of detail differences that came in. How fundamental they’d be to, say, a Canandian built Mk.X being converted to a Manchester I don’t know.

Pointed out to me by a good correspondent, – one of those typos – I meant ‘thick’ I wrote ‘thin’ :rolleyes: (Actually, IIRC, I wrote ‘thicin’, and the correcting made it worse…

And, more relevantly, it’s not the weight of the bomb that matters – it’s the effect. British bombs and depth-charges of the early war period had second rate explosives, third rate fuzes and thick cases, so when they did go off, they made a relatively small bang.

My correspondent adds, which was the point I was trying to make:

Among the problems besetting the GP series was the low
charge to weight ratio: that is, cases too thick for the charge
filling, not too thin. “Too much metal” as MacBean remarks. Pity –
they spent a long time working up the Mark IV series – one can only
wonder how poor the WWI models were.

See, e.g.
RAF Armament Volume I: Bombs and Bombing Equipment (Air Ministry 1954)
Bombing Colours: RAF bombers, their markings and operations 1937-1973
MJF Bowyer (PSL)
Bombs Gone: The Development and Use of British Air-dropped Weapons
From 1912 to the Present Day JA McBean & AS Hogben (Patrick Stephens
1990)

And my corrector, who I think wishes to remain anonymous also provided the following:

The outside diameter of the B29 fuselage is 9ft 8in. In the absence
of a direct measure, given the fuselage formers and stringers, the max
internal diameter of the bomb bays may have been approx 9 ft. The two
bomb-bays, one forward of the main spar and one aft of the rear spar,
were each approx 16 ft long, measured off a 3d view and accompanying
dimensioned plan views.

Summary: 2 cylindrical bays of approx dimension 16ft long by 9ft
diameter. Each bomb-bay included the fore-and-aft crawl tunnel of 34in
diameter in its upper quadrant.

See: Classic Aircraft of World War II.

I’d just add (having so far been too lazy to get it right, or do any research) like most things the measured dimensions are not all useable space even with square section bombs – there needs to be racks and or other forms of suspension, and in some cases machinery for getting the bombs in to the bay.

JDK
Well put! Thanks for trying to help people avoid nationalistic nonsense.

And in defense of the B-29…not just because I’m a Boeing fan….it’s good to recall whatever its length limitations, its bomb bay proved adequate for carring the atomic bombs…and thus ending the war earlier than originally planned.
The allies invasion, with the UK “Tiger Force”, weren’t needed and countless allied lives were saved.

Chillingly, if the Manchester had not evolved into the Lancaster (not an unlikely ‘what-if’ given the Manchester’s failure) the RAF would not have had a heavy bomber capable of carrying these super-large bombs.

There are drawings showing provision for the Halifax to carry the Upkeep bomb as well as a tallboy with minimal adjustment. This was ignored by the Air Ministry. There are always alternatives depending on how hard you are looking for it 🙂

Apart from that, a standard Manchester fuselage is identical to the Lancasters including the bomb doors. So how about reconverting a Lanc back to Manchester specifications? 😎

Blasphemy?

Cheers

Cees

Great thanks for all you guys, I have made sure that loading capability of B-29 is more than Lancaster, according to your posts, but I am still lacking acurrate size of their bomber bay with how long (for B-29) how wide and how tall it is.

Just before this degenerates into the same old argument…

As has been pointed out, British and American heavy bombers were different. That’s not because one concept was ‘wrong’ or ‘stupid’ but that they approached the concept with fundamentally different ideas.

US bombers were always expected to need long range, as they were expected to work from the mainland USA and cover the Pacific, while British designs were expected to be used in a European war. For instance, British designs assumed a single pilot, while US ones had two pilots – the reasons for the difference being many, but unarguably putting a greater strain and giving less support on the RAF Bomber’s solo pilot and ‘skipper’ of the aircraft. Tellingly, many taught other crew members how to fly the aircraft for ‘just in case’ scenarios, despite the difficulties inherent. Neither design concept was ‘right’ – in both cases the concepts were outdated by the war’s course, and were able to be utilised in ways never envisaged by the plans.

The US and Britain designed all their pre-war bombers to bomb designs and sizes that were relatively quickly realised to be inadequate for the task. Due to the preferred racking arrangements of the aircraft, the British designs all had long flat bomb-bays or cells, while the US designs had tall short-length bomb bays, usually taking the full height of the aircraft’s fuselage.

By accident of design, the Manchester’s bomb-bay was a clear, flat floor, but very shallow bay. When developed into the Lancaster, by bulging the bay, larger bombs could be carried, and later still even larger bombs were managed by taking the doors off – but this was never an original design concept, but a lucky design ‘stretch’ that was available. Barnes Wallis expected to have to design a bomber to carry the Grand Slam and Earthquake bombs as he believed there was nothing available.

For all the greatness of the Lancaster’s achievement, it is easily forgotten that both the British and US bomber forces expected to be able to fight their way to the target and back, in daylight, unescorted. The British quickly learned with the the then ‘fast-medium’ Hampden and then ‘heavy’ Wellington that this was not possible. and switched to night bombing. The Americans chose to persevere and beefed up their aircraft’s armament to try and make it possible.

Only the Manchester and later the Lancaster had long, flat open bomb-bays – why? Because like all the other British heavies, they were expected to be able to carry torpedoes – something that never was required in action and is generally forgotten. What is also forgotten is that the other British heavies were also unable to carry large ordinance, in the case of the Wellington and Stirling due to having beams that divide the bomb bay into long narrow boxes – quite inadequate for the carriage of long fat bombs. Both the Halifax and the Stirling were designed to carry part of their load in wing bomb cells; utterly useless, of course for later larger bombs. In most cases they had long, structural beams within the bomb-bays to support the airframe and bay, and thus not removable to increase the size of the bay.

Chillingly, if the Manchester had not evolved into the Lancaster (not an unlikely ‘what-if’ given the Manchester’s failure) the RAF would not have had a heavy bomber capable of carrying these super-large bombs.

The B-29 was a pressurised aircraft, but the section including the two bomb-bays was not pressurised – there was a pressure bulkhead for and aft and a pressurised tunnel connecting them. The B-29 was equipped with two large tall bays, and thus could not carry long bombs internally. As Vultee 35 has pointed out, the B-29 was made capable of carrying the large bombs externally (remember the Lancaster’s carriage would count at best as ‘semi-recessed’) and was essentially as good a solution as the Lancaster’s – external carriage when equipped with an internal bay not being desirable. Don’t forget, either that the Lancaster was overloaded and had most of the defensive armament removed when carrying the Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs.

The B29 was not really “a typical yank bomber with gunners everywhere, rather than just loading up more bombs” as Bomberboy says (much as I’d recognise his greater knowledge of typical Yank bombers from firsthand experience!) 😉 . It was the only W.W.II allied designed heavy (ultra heavy, originally) bomber to enter service, and was designed to be and was superior to everything in service throughout W.W.II – its required complexity made it slow to get to the front, but its load carrying ability, and stretch potential as well as co-ordinated defence system put it a league ahead of the British and US heavies that came before.

Were you to measure the B-29’s and Lancaster’s bomb-bays as the car adverts do in cubic feet or metres, you’ll find that the B-29 has a lot more cubic units than the Lancaster. It’s just how it’s arranged that gives the Lancaster the edge in single-bomb weight carried. However, let’s not forget that the B-29 carried, postwar, the Lancaster’s largest bombs. And, more relevantly, it’s not the weight of the bomb that matters – it’s the effect. British bombs and depth-charges of the early war period had second rate explosives, third rate fuzes and thin cases, so when they did go off, they made a relatively small bang. The ‘Cookie’ – basically a tin full of explosive – was a much better idea. And at the end of the war B-29s dropped just two bombs from those bomb bays and ended the war with a couple of very big and nasty bangs.

If you go back to the 1930s, there was a bomber with detachable ordinance units that, like the Hustler, much later was seen as the way of the future, but the Vickers Wellesley was a dead end at the time…

Hope that helps.

Wichita-built B-29-75-BW serial # 44-70060, was modified with two underwing racks, just inboard of the inner engines, that could each carry a 22,000lb ‘Grand Slam’ or a 12,000lb ‘Tall Boy’, or a pair of 4,000lb M56 light case demolition bombs.

There is a photo floating about ( also published ) with this B-29 carrying two sand filled ‘Grand Slam’ bombs for flying quality checks.

Steve

Thanks guys… After a strong coffee and a good long look at some lanc books I agree it was 33feet… Dont know where i got 16 from….

33 foot for sure!

B29s had two seperate bomb bays. The lancs 16 foot bombay could hold a complete spitfire fuselage !

Hi Peter.
I think the Lancs bomb bay is a lot longer than 16ft, I’m sure it’s about 33ft but i might be wrong.
Phil.

B29s had two seperate bomb bays. The lancs 16 foot bombay could hold a complete spitfire fuselage !

Well, I believe that lancaster could carry more bomb just because of a special refit for Grand Slam. But I still hope get size of bomberbay of them to make sure B-29 has bigger bomber bay than lancaster so generally could load more bombs.

I want to know the size of bomber of lancaster and superfortress? I’ve been suspecting why superfortress much bigger than lancaster but only carried bombers same as lancaster?

Although they are bombers, they are very different aircraft.

The Lanc could, as we all know carry the amazing 22,000lb Grand Slam Earthquake Bomb whereas the highest bomb load I have seen written about in the B-29 is 20,000lb.
The bombbay was a single bay with two pairs of bomb doors forward & aft

The B29 operated at a higher altitude than the Lanc and used a pressureised airframe.

With the exception of the tail gunner, the gun barbettes were controlled by an automatic system where a gunner would automatically ‘hail’ a barbette which depended where the position of his target was.
The B29 was a typical yank bomber with gunners everywhere, rather than just loading up more bombs.

Bomberboy