Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

I thought the Yank term ‘BUFF’ was used in relation to the B-52? Now, that IS an aircraft that lumbers about the place-whereas the Lanc flies like a bird. (Well okay the wings don’t flap, (much) but you know what I mean!!!)

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Tuna?

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Pah. BUFF’s as the yanks call them. Four bloody great fuel guzzling engines? Where’s the bloody glamour in that? Where’s the grace?

I’d rather have a sandwich.

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Lancman

Not really a “pop”, just an observation.
Been trawling through looking for halifax stuff hence the “old post”

Don’t be too harsh on the Halifax, I know you like Lanc’s & I like Hally’s. I won’t have a “pop” at Lancasters, and you know what… I actually like them too 🙂

Enjoy, life’s too short

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Eh? You drag up an ancient post and have a pop at me, when actually, if you read what I saiud, they BOTH deserve their place in the hall of fame!!!

Tut!

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 18-11-02 AT 11:35 PM (GMT)]Lancman,

Aircrew had little if any choice of posting, squadron or even type of aircraft flown in. Many died whilst carrying out their duties in both types.
Personally speaking, I think that both Lancaster & Halifax had their good and bad points, but as I have flown in neither, I dare not pass comment either way.
I simply like the Halifax because they flew from my home county and also because they have been overlooked for far too long, second only to the Stirling of course.

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Also, Lancaster’s handling character seems impressive. As you can see on the first scene of movie “Dam Busters” that a Lancaster makes low level final turn followed by a very short approach to touchdouwn, with three engines.

It is not even an very easy job in a small airplane like Piper Cubs.

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

We should probably remember too, that the first “version” of the Lancaster wasn’t much chop either. It was called the Manchester.

I think the fact that the Lancaster was a derivative of an earlier, unsuccessful bomber, probably helped in getting it right from the start. The Halifax didn’t enjoy this head start.

If the earlier versions of the Halifax and Lancaster were widely different in their effectiveness, how would members rate the later versions? Certainly, the Halifax was a much more potent weapon at the end of its development, and I don’t think the difference between it and the Lancaster was all that great.

I think the one thing the Lancaster had over other bombers was the enormous bomb bay, which was one continuous cavity. This made it far more easily adaptable to carry the 10,000 and 22,000 bombs as well as the Dambuster bomb. Have a look at the size of the Lanc, compare it to the B-17, for example, then compare the size of the bomb bays.

The easiest way to do this is to look at two 1-72 scale models. I thought this back in the 60’s when I was a mad modeller, and couldn’t help thinking how much more of a bomber the Lanc. was.

Regards

Wombat

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

Hi folks,
The problem for early Halifaxes was both in terms of engines and aerodynamics.The Merlins fitted to Mk.1 Halibags had only a single stage of supercharging,so thier cieling and altitude performance was rather limited.There were also problems with directional control associated with the small triangular tailfins.The machine would snake at altitude,and it had a propensity to spin viciuosly in a stall if not very carefully handled.This spin was also usually unrecoverable.
These problems were cured by the square fins of later models and the introduction of the Hercules radial,so the Halifax could finally show it’s full potential.

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

One was absolutely stunning at it’s job, one was just fairly adequate. My name will tell you which I think is which! BUT, both types, along with many others, all belong in the ‘Without Whom’ Hall Of Fame…

RE: Why it is so different? Lancaster and Halifax

aerodynamics