The spools or reels are part of the bombracks not sure how they were dropped safe maybe others will be able to advise.

I do remember reading how a Bomber Command pilot could see 4000lb ‘cookie’ bombs exploding in the channel on the way to the target, jettisoned by crews who were desperate to gain the safety of additional height. I can’t remember who it was (Don Bennett?) but his speculation was that other parts of the bomb-loads were being jettisoned ‘safe’ in similar manner but that the ‘cookie’ couldn’t be dropped safe as it would explode when it hit the sea…..whether it was ‘armed’ or not.

Makes you wonder why they had (three) fuses at all! :confused:

Anyway, the point being that Bomber Command aircraft could ‘arm’ bombs in the air without access to the bomb-bay.

Do high flyers have a different grade of engine oil to combat the rigors of extreme altitude?

I would say that was a distinct possibility.

Looking at the higher resolution I just can’t make it say ‘FINAL’ (no matter how hard I try) and the fact that this is a high-altitude version, and possibly a prototype, would now make me think that what is written on the blade is less than routine. I’ll be interested to hear what FINA come back with.

Yes, maximum take-off weight is listed as 63,000lb (unless certain modifications have been carried-out when it is 65,000lb) in the Pilot’s Notes reprinted in ‘The Lancaster Manual’.

So when dropped fused (armed) the cable reels out of the fusing unit (spool) but stops when fully extended, removing the pin from the bomb (arming it), and the cable then retracts. But when dropped safe the cable doesn’t stop when fully extended.

Thanks for the explanations everybody; it is nice to know the actual mechanics of the operation…

Here is spool that pulled the pin from the bomb once it was clear of the bomb bay and recoiled back.

…and thanks also for posting that photograph of the spool fusing unit…..are these things difficult to get hold of?

I’m new to this forum…

Excellent first post…..welcome to the forum!

Can we rule out engine failure?

To have the weights of most of the items shown would certainly solve my problem.

I’m surprised that the weights of these sections aren’t in ‘The Lancaster Manual’ (unless I’ve missed them).

I’m sure this information must be recorded somewhere…..does anybody know where? :confused:

Great work by the way!

…does anyone have a clue what it might belong to?

It is useful that the slave connecting-rods are still attached as I believe they were different lengths for the Bristol Pegasus and Mercury engine. Is it possible for somebody to measure them?

Also if it were possible for somebody to count the teeth on all the reduction gears it will be possible to say what the reduction ratio is and that may rule-out certain types (although both Pegasus and Mercury had an identical range of ratios).

Since the front and rear gears are of different sizes the 0.5:1 ratio can be ruled-out.

Pegasus reduction gear planet gear are at 90 degrees to the prop shaft, mercury planet gear are angled forwards towards the prop.

I’m sure the angle of the planet gear shafts is dependant on the reduction ratio; the smaller the fixed front gear the further forward the planet gear shafts are angled. Only the 0.5:1 ratio (Pegasus or Mercury) will be at 90° to the propeller shaft.