WIX Archives
Amen brother!!!!! N/T
Posted by Cees Broere on Fri Apr 11, 2003 09:36:28 AM
In reply top Re: Lancaster v Halifax or if you prefer, Halifax v Lancaste posted by Paul Waites on Fri Apr 11, 2003 05:48:43 AM
:
: :
: : Strangely the engine position on the Merlin Halifax was
: ve
: : ry suitable for fitting the Hercules (don't know why) wi
: th
: : the resulting performance improvement. This could also
: be
: : the reason why the Hercules installation in the Lancste
: r
: : was inferior as compared to the Merlin installation.
:
: I was told that the HP design team wanted to install radia
: ls from the outset once the vulture engine was dismissed a
: s a powerplant. The company favoured the radials. (Don't k
: now which one). Perhaps that may have bearing on the desig
: n.
: :
: : The Merlin installation in both aircraft have a certain
: gr
: : ace while the Hercules has a raw and purposeful appearan
: ce
: : . Guess which installation is my favourite?
: :
: Go for the raw radial power.... I think the late Mk Hali l
: ooks the business.
: I've always had a few puzzles relating to the radial halis
: .
: 1). When they first installed the radial prototype in 42/4
: 3 it was clearly superior from the outset. Yet it was a go
: od nine months before they started to get them into produc
: tion!
: Perhaps the lanc would have not had it all its own way as
: the publicity machines favourite bomber.
:
: 2) Why just the hercules? Towards the end of the war there
: were some seriously powerful radials to choose from...
:
: 3) Why was the lanc chosen for the tiger force. The Hali h
: ad already proved itself as a a superior plane in tropical
: situations. In Merlin guise it had proved its worth in Af
: rica and the middle East. I read that lancs had to be park
: ed close to runways in hot climates because of overheating
: fears. The MkVI Hali had a presurised fuel system especia
: lly designed for such conditons.... Oh well we'll never kn
: ow.
:
: : By the way, FP magazine published a comparision of both
: ai
: : rcraft types which was useless if you ask me because the
: t
: : wo type cannot be compared but complemented each other.
:
:
: Totally agree it was badly written. I do conceede that the
: Lanc was a better bomb dropping machine but I don't conce
: ede that it was a better aircraft). I recently talked to a
: guy who has flown in both types, (Nav, )and he just shrug
: ged and said that it is forgotten that the Halifax was aro
: und for a good year before the Lancaster. In war that is a
: long time. A lot of lessons had been learned...
: I also feel for the folk who flew in the other types.. Wel
: lies, Stirlings Whitleys etc.... It all seems to be lancs,
: lancs, lancs. Folk don't look at the whole picture.
:
: Paul.