Lancaster II and the Grand Slam bomb

[Horatio Gruntfuttock]

All-knowing gentlemen - I have been pondering the possible use by Lancaster MkII bombers of the Grand Slam 12000 pounder.

Is there any evidence that this version carried the larger weapon, given it was already equipped with the bulged bomb bay doors?

Any clues would be useful, especially if Squadron/serial/code match-ups are available . My cruise of t'internet has not come up with much so far so I am turning to a much more knowledgeable source - yourselves!

Thanks in anticipation.

[Work In Progress]

I assume you mean the Tallboy, as the Grand Slam was 22,000 lb and required aircraft with no bomb doors at all.

The Lancaster II was not used for Tallboy ops. Tallboy and GS needed to be dropped from as high as possible in order to penetrate deeply into the earth and make large cavities, and the Lancaster II had poorer altitude performance than Merlin Lancasters despite its highler headline BHP figure.

Detailed thread about the carriage of Tallboys and other big ordnance here, which might be of interest.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Work In Progress

[Mancunian airman]

Only around 300 Mk.II Lancasters were produced as it became apparent that the Merlin engine would not become a production issue.

 

The MK. II only served with a small number of squadrons so were used in limited numbers.

I did read many years ago that the MK.II was considered as the 'Dambuster' aircraft because it was less prone to radiator damage flying at low-level and it performance at high level was not an issue.

 

Good look with your search . . . .

Ian

 

 

[Horatio Gruntfuttock]

13 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

I assume you mean the Tallboy, as the Grand Slam was 22,000 lb and required aircraft with no bomb doors at all.

The Lancaster II was not used for Tallboy ops. Tallboy and GS needed to be dropped from as high as possible in order to penetrate deeply into the earth and make large cavities, and the Lancaster II had poorer altitude performance than Merlin Lancasters despite its highler headline BHP figure.

Detailed thread about the carriage of Tallboys and other big ordnance here, which might be of interest.

 

Of course! Silly Moi! I do mean the Tallboy and thanks for the information. i had suspected as much but you never know if you don't ask.

[dogsbody]

Do you mean the 12,000lb. Tallboy or the 12,000lb. blast bomb?

 

 

The 12,000lb. HC bomb is available in 1/72 from Belcher Bits.

 

http://www.belcherbits.com/lines/172conv/bl2.htm

 

Not sure if there's a 1/72 Tallboy.

 

 

Chris

[cngaero]

1 minute ago, dogsbody said:

Do you mean the 12,000lb. Tallboy or the 12,000lb. blast bomb?

 

 

The 12,000lb. HC bomb is available in 1/72 from Belcher Bits.

 

http://www.belcherbits.com/lines/172conv/bl2.htm

 

Not sure if there's a 1/72 Tallboy.

 

 

Chris

I seem to recall that there was a Tallboy as an option in the old 1/72 Lancaster kit. Happy to be corrected though.

[Ed Russell]

Freightdog 1/72 Tallboy

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/204869-freightdog-models-fdr72004-lancaster-tallboy-conversion

Also worth a look

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44900-lancaster-kits-with-tallboy-bomb/

 

[dogsbody]

35 minutes ago, Ed Russell said:

Freightdog 1/72 Tallboy

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/204869-freightdog-models-fdr72004-lancaster-tallboy-conversion

Also worth a look

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44900-lancaster-kits-with-tallboy-bomb/

 

 

Right! I forgot about Freightdog. my mistake.

 

 

Chris

[Graham Boak]

So how many different kinds of bomb-bay doors did the Lancaster have?

1.  Early production, smooth lines, cannot fit the "cookies"

2.  Later (standard?) production, lines get deeper near the front.  Can carry cookies.  I don't know about the rear but think it was faired in to the fuselage lines.

3.  Mk.II standard, bulged/deepened at the rear to cope with ventral turret and its fairings.  Presumably deepened at the front.

4.  Further bulged to carry Tallboy, including bulges at the rear to cover fins.

Not counting Dam Busters nor Grand Slam bombs carried semi-externally

 

Is this right?  Is there a reference source where these differences are spelt out and shown in drawings with decent detail?

[dogsbody]

I thought the 4000lb. Cookie would fit inside the standard doors. The later bulged doors, as fitted to the B.II were for the carriage of the 8000lb. and 12000lb. blast bombs. These doors were also fitted B.I/III Lancs, too. The later bulged doors for Tallboy Lancs were a different shape from the earlier bulged doors.

 

 

Chris

[brewerjerry]

1 hour ago, dogsbody said:

I thought the 4000lb. Cookie would fit inside the standard doors. The later bulged doors, as fitted to the B.II were for the carriage of the 8000lb. and 12000lb. blast bombs. These doors were also fitted B.I/III Lancs, too. The later bulged doors for Tallboy Lancs were a different shape from the earlier bulged doors.

 

 

Chris

Hi

   i thought similar,

   4000lb cookie fitted in the standard bombay (doors) in the middle of it

  8000lb was two 4000lb bolted together thus the length forced the next set of doors which was deeper near the front 

 

i was told once the original lanc/manc bombay size etc, was designed around the ability to carry two torpedoes in it. 

 

   cheers

     jerry  

[dogsbody]

2 hours ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

   i thought similar,

   4000lb cookie fitted in the standard bombay (doors) in the middle of it

  8000lb was two 4000lb bolted together thus the length forced the next set of doors which was deeper near the front 

 

i was told once the original lanc/manc bombay size etc, was designed around the ability to carry two torpedoes in it. 

 

   cheers

     jerry  

Actually, the 8,000lb'er wasn't 2 cookies bolted together.

It's explained here in Belcher Bits instruction sheet:

http://www.belcherbits.com/images/172conv/bl2inst.pdf

 

 

Chris

Edited May 30, 2018 by dogsbody

[brewerjerry]

25 minutes ago, dogsbody said:

Actually, the 8,000lb'er wasn't 2 cookies bolted together.

It's explained here in Belcher Bits instruction sheet:

http://www.belcherbits.com/images/172conv/bl2inst.pdf

 

 

Chris

Hi

   Thanks for the info & correcting me  

      cheers

        jerry

[Horatio Gruntfuttock]

Thanks to you all - seems I opened a can of worms but I now have enough info to go ahead with my intended model. Some really interesting information has been posted here.

[dogsbody]

2 hours ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

   Thanks for the info & correcting me  

      cheers

        jerry

 

I didn't know that fact either, until I bought the Belcher set a number of years ago. Then I did an Internet search to confirm it. It's just one of those little things that should be easily found by those of us who have been into WW2 aircraft but seems to slip by unnoticed or unknown by most. Thank goodness for online places like this forum.

 

 

Chris