»
«

Lancaster over Hamburg

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
Posted in Images on March 3rd, 2010 by | Report This Post | FavoriteLoadingAdd to favorites

Lancaster over Hamburg 700x649 Lancaster over Hamburg

Could carry a bomb that weighed about 10000kg
B17 would carry 1/3 of that

Pause for a moment for a sponsor!

The Tiki Web Group



Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments are the sole possesion of the commenters and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a comment ?

7 Responses to Lancaster over Hamburg

  1. figosound (UID# 16176) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    March 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    dunno… b17 perhaps was more sturdy, and required less fuel… why has the allies chosen b17 if not so?

    Reply
  2. atkinson (UID# 2026) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    March 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Lancaster:
    Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
    B-17:
    Bombs:
    * Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
    * Long range missions (?800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
    * Overload : 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress
    Atk

    Reply
    • atkinson (UID# 2026) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      March 3, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      Ops: And four wonderful R&R Merlin! ;)

      Reply
    • figosound (UID# 16176) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      March 3, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      ok, lancaster has bigger payload, but i was wondering: b17 -> 12000+ built, lancaster -> 7000+ built

      That must have something to do with economy of scale, less metal used, maybe better maneuverability or easier repairs…

      Atk, please illuminate us!

      Or, at least, post some dickgirls :-)

      Reply
      • rebelyell2006 (UID# 3264) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
        March 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        The Lancaster was more suited for night-time bombing, requiring more bomb space but less crew space, to combine with the advantages of not being seen by the enemy fighters.

        The Flying Fortress was just that — a fortress going through the air. It had more armor, more crew members, and more machine guns, generally 13 .50-caliber M2′s compared to the 8 .303-caliber machine guns on the Lancaster.

        Reply
      • atkinson (UID# 2026) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
        March 4, 2010 at 5:38 am

        Lancaster: 7,377
        B-17: 12,731
        B-24: 18,482 “It was produced in greater numbers than any other American combat aircraft of World War II, and still holds the record as the most-produced American military or naval aircraft.”
        (Wiki)
        Is a matter of industrial capacity, not quality of the aircraft.
        But all they was good planes!
        Atk

        Reply
  3. suicydking (UID# 2291) Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    March 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Ha. I live in the town of Lancaster, which is North of Hamburg.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [img]URL[/img], [youtube]URL[/youtube].



Tags!

420 Advertisements Alcohol Animated Image Art Awesome Things Cars Comic Books Computers Cute As Hell Animals Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Fantasy - Science Fiction Food forum fodder Forum Fodder funny Gaming Humor interesting lolcats Military Motivational Posters Movie posters Movies Music Nature not exactly safe for work Politics Racist Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports star wars Technology Television Toys Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons women wtf