We have one here in New Zealand,Avro Lancaster 683 B Mk 7 mod to b Mk 3 completed as NX665 after VE Day of same year ,ened up with the French Navy as WU13 and served with the 24F,10F,10S,9S based around New Caladonia and then given to us and it flew to Auckland airport then was pulled to bits,moved across the city, then reassembled never to fly again sad .Its at Motat in motions Road ,Auckland New Zealand and painted in 44 Bomber Command colors with starboard numbers of ND752/AA-O of 75 Sqn and on the Port side is PB457/SP-V of 101 Sqn which both were lost over Germany on raids in WW2

@ukaircraftexplored6556

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing and for watching

I always liked the roll up doors for the bomb bay on the Lancaster

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching

Excellent graphics, great video :-)

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍

I got to tour one of these next to a b17, its interesting to see how England and the US designed their planes at around the same time to have the same goal.

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting

@patrickmurphy8845

10 ай бұрын

​@@ukaircraftexplored6556🎉

Fantastic work 😎

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much 😀

@xmanhoe

2 жыл бұрын

@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Hi Bryan, I'm an ex Short Brothers aircraft fitter and love these videos 😎 cheers for Belfast Northern Ireland 😎

Nice on Bryan, did not notice an Air eng in the video. Just remembered seeing the Elsen way down the back, In PA 474 they used to carry a Pee tube for the pilot, Silver topped with a flap cover and a rubber bladder, cannot remember where it was kept, or if it was ever used. must have carried and used one on bomber operations.

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Dave!

A Flight Engineer would not go amiss, his seat and panel are noted, why when all the other crew are in position do we miss out the most important??

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

This was how this Air Ministry Diagram was presented. Thanks for watching

Was the flight engineer eliminated on this model?

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

No the Flight Engineer was present, it just that the wartime diagram did not include him. Probably, as he would obscure detail. Thanks for watching

Why did the English bombers, unlike the American ones, not have a position for a co-pilot? -The lack of a co-pilot made the loss of the ship more vulnerable and feasible if the pilot was injured or killed in combat, or someone else in the crew knew how to pilot the ship and take his place if necessary?

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

The Flight Engineer often acted as back up, trained by his pilot to keep the aircraft straight and level (if possible) to give crews time to bale out. Thanks for watching

Great video. I must say though, that the Brits built a great bomber with some pretty outstanding flaws such as only 1 pilot, minimal belly protection, inability to access the Bombay from the crew compartments meaning that if you have a hung up bomb, your pretty well screwed and that you have to take off with armed bombs. Yes, you have safeties, but with other bombers, you didn't even have to have the fuses in place such as what they did with the Nuclear bombs in 1945. Still a beautiful aircraft and it was a war horse if there ever was one, just figure they could have had a little more forethought in the design.

@JohnyG29

2 жыл бұрын

To be sure, all aeroplanes had flaws as engineering requires compromise. However, I think you're rather misinformed regarding a couple of the "flaws" you mention above. The Flight Engineer was pretty much the co-pilot (he had a collapsible seat next to the pilot) and could take over if the pilot needed to step away or was out of action. Furthermore, the Lancaster has an autopilot and didn't need to fly in close formation, reducing the pilot workload. The bomb bay of the Lancaster was one of its best features, allowing it to carry much greater bomb loads than other strategic bombers (14,000lbs compared to 8,000lbs in a B-17 or B-24). The issue of hung up bombs was not a significant issue.

@ukaircraftexplored6556

2 жыл бұрын

Hope the Video was useful

@tourswag8616

2 жыл бұрын

My Father flew these, they were "amused" at the B17 which took more people and carried 1/3rd the bomb load. Putting in danger 30 people where the Lanc might use 7 crew to do the same damage to the enemy. Typically the F/E, Nav or Air Bomber had flight training should the pilot be injured. Dad related that the B-17 was affected by political decisions to keep adding armour which increased by 3 the number of aircraft needed, each slower with less range than if they'd been left alone, the lost abilities requiring more resources, more defenses, more people, more escorts...