The Avro Manchester; Mighty Oaks from Little Acorns Grow

[@pauldulworth2768]

I have been voraciously studying military aircraft for 51 years. I’ve never run into such concise explanations of aircraft I either knew little or even nothing about as on this channel. Well done indeed.

[@jasonshull3106]

Here here!

[@Farweasel]

@@jasonshull3106 WHAT! Where? Joking, joking ~ I reckon Ed's material is excellent.

[@jasonshull3106]

@@Farweasel you're the funny guy

[@somethingelse4878]

Have you read the ebook merchants of death 1935 It turns what i thought i knew for 50 years upsidedown

[@theothertonydutch]

Check out Greg's airplanes and automobiles. That's kind of next level.

[@petehall889]

My father wrote an article on his experiences flying the Manchester with 207 Squadron (a week's training to learn to fly them) and 61 Squadron. Photographs of the Manchester (serial no. L7486) in the air was piloted by my father, with two aircraftmen aboard, on the 12th September 1941. His logbook shows that he was in formation with a Hampden to enable official photographs of the aircraft type to be taken. He flew more than 200 hours on the Manchester between March 1941 and April 1942, but only completed two successful bombing trips, the rest of his first tour being on Hampdens, due to problems with airframes and engines. On one occasion, there was a serious coolant leak before take-off and the flight was abandoned. On another, he had to shut down the starboard engine and return to base after the radiator temperature went off the clock when some 30 minutes over the North Sea. He said that the Vulture engine was very prone to coolant leaks and early examples tended towards experiencing big-end failures. He took off from Hemswell in L7307 on the 10th April '41 for air firing practice, with the Wing Commander and ten assorted crew, when the starboard engine blew up in a spectacular way just after take-off. He continued the flight with smoke and flames trailing behind, but couldn't 'feather' the prop to reduce drag, as the feathering control pipe had been severed. He completed the circuit and landed safely, then the fire crew proceeded to cover them in foam! My father had the good fortune to fly his Manchester (L7307) to Abingdon in May 1941, where he lined up with the latest heavy bombers, including a Wellington Mk 111, his Manchester, the prototype Lancaster and a B17 Flying Fortress, plus one or two others. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, plus the two princesses (Elizabeth and Margaret) came on board the aircraft and showed great interest, but he told the King that they wanted Lancasters as soon as possible. He later heard that the King had passed on his comments on to the Minister of Aircraft Production. Later he took off to fly past gently into the wind, then turned and passed low in front of the Royal party flat-out downwind. Luckily everything held together! My father flew Lancasters Marks 1, 11 and 111 on his second tour with 61 Sqn. and said she was a wonderful aircraft to fly. He survived the war, having never lost an aircraft or crew member, despite extra ventilation courtesy of flak and Luftwaffe night-fighters. Sadly, so many did not return....

[@saiajin82]

The line between a dud and a stud seems to almost always come down to engines doesn't it? Just amazing, I had no idea this was how the Lancaster was born.

[@tomjustis7237]

"The line between a dud and a stud..." Isn't that the truth. The American P-51 Mustang, although it had a fantastic airframe and aerodynamics, suffered from the lackluster performance of the original Allison engine which made it just a so-so fighter at best. It was only after they fitted it with the phenomenal British Rolls Royce Merlin engine that it became arguably the best fighter of WWII! A superior American airframe with a superior British engine. Now THAT is the definition of allied cooperation!

[@All2Meme]

It is amazing that all it took was a redesign of a good airplane with poor engines, and by doing so laid the groundwork for a whole family of aircraft. The Manchester became the Lancaster bomber and the York transport, then evolved into the Lincoln bomber and Tudor transport, and finally evolving into the Shackleton maritime patrol aircraft. The last Shackletons left military service in 1991, fifty years after the first Lancaster flew.

[@roscoewhite3793]

I've read that 56 Squadron RAF, which flew the Manchester, was dubbed the "56th Foot" because it was grounded so often. The failure of the Vulture engine brings to mind the problems the Germans had with the powerplant for the Heinkel He 177, which was also a design that coupled together two engines around one crankshaft.

[@bigblue6917]

The Manchester also brought down the Hawker Tornado which used the same Vulture engine. The irony here was that the Vulture engine was virtually trouble free on the Tornado. You have to wonder what would have happened if the Tornado kept flying and the Typhoon was dropped.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Another job for Military Matters!

[@allangibson8494]

The Bristol Centaurus radial engined Tempest was derived directly from the Tornado too. All the aircraft were being built by Avro so the results are questionable. A Centaurus engined Manchester could have been another option…

[@markfryer9880]

A lot of Halifax’s were stripped of their mid-upper turret and later the front turret was removed and the position faired over all as a part of the battle to save weight to improve performance.

[@davidpeters6536]

My Dad flew in the Halifax, but he knew this story well enough. Great video.

[@mattheweagles5123]

The 30's seemed to be a time of such rapid aircraft development that cutting edge to obsolete was months and there was a lot of design dead ends. Cracking video as ever.

[@papalegba6759]

good point.

[@shauny2285]

Given the current design times of modern military aircraft (in years), I doubt we will ever see this type of rapid development happen again.

[@allangibson2408]

And the 1940’s saw this continued - none of the aircraft in service in 1940 would have been considered even vaguely comparable to standard 1950 production models.

[@oxcart4172]

...and there's only ten years separation between the Lancaster and the B-52!

[@mattheweagles5123]

@@shauny2285 Martin Baker's designs took years as well, it does depend on priorities. There has been lots of consolidation in the aircraft industries as well, so you won't get lots of smaller companies trying out innovative ideas.

[@boomslangCA]

Good Vid Ed. I never realised the Manchester actually saw combat. Still things I can learn.

[@Bunker_Bird]

It was part of the "thousand-bomber raids" as well.

[@geordiedog1749]

It sounds like ‘combat’ saw the Avro Manchester.

[@DrivermanO]

@@Bunker_Bird Indeed. 35 Manchesters went to Cologne on the night of 30th May 1942 - so it was actually withdrawn in 1941.

[@malcolmbrown3532]

Indeed a friend had never heard of the Manchester. So the best way I found of describing it was to think of a twin engined Lancaster instead. Which gave him an idea, he also hadn't heard of the Handley Paige design either.

[@buggs9950]

No silly intro or outro, no pointless music or talking heads. Just straight up info and some relevant footage. Absolutely spot on, thanks Ed.

[@rangefinder3538]

Another winner Ed. Keep them coming!

[@garrythompson210]

Hullo Ed another excellent video, My great uncle was a crew member of the last Manchester lost on operations L7289 the aircraft was one of the original batch and was deemed unsuitable for operations, however it was issued to 83 squadron in April 1942 and flew one operation, it was then issued to 50 squadron on the 5th of June 1942 and flew on the last millennium raid the 25/26 June 1942 ,the target being the focke-wulf factory in Bremen they were shot down by anti aircraft fire approaching the target and crash in a village called Gramble north west of Bremen all of the crew died, I have a photo of the aircraft in 83 squadron service but cannot find one in 50 squadron service. cheers keep up the good work

[@kellybreen5526]

Respects to your families.

[@hugobloemers4425]

I just found this channel today, watched this and subscribed immediately.

[@kurgisempyrion6125]

You've got a lot of watching quality videos for many hours to come! Welcome aboard :)

[@AviViljoen]

FANTASTIC video! Short but very informative, no hype AT ALL, all done in very good taste, and every second of it is interesting. This is rapidly becoming one of my favourite channels. Well done Ed Nash!

[@markfryer9880]

Good video! I hadn’t seen a drawing of the twin engined Halifax but I was aware that Handly- Page quickly took a dislike to the Vulture engine and then redesigned the aircraft to take four engines. The early Halifax’s with the arrow head shaped tail fins had a disastrous problem of rudder over balance and locking resulting in fatal aircraft losses. Once the problem was identified and newer more rectangular tail fins were fitted the Halifax went on to provide stalwart service.

[@robshirewood5060]

Halifax had Bristol Hercules engines, some models of Lancaster's also had Bristol Hercules, and some Halifax had Merlins along with the Lancaster with Merlins. A very useful quartet of versatile aircraft.

[@melburns4378]

The Lancaster at the RAF museum in England started the production line in Manchester as a Manchester and completed 137 missions, so at least 1 kinda/sort of survives.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Another winner! And great comments from the community too - very educational, I learnt a lot. I will try one of these in 1:72 to fit in my Bomber Command project as and when I can get the conversion parts!

[@billnu]

This is an awesome obscure aircraft video. Given that I don’t know the history of British heavy bombers it had an awesome reveal at the end.

[@wideyxyz2271]

One very important attribute of the Manchester/Lancaster design was that it was modular. This speeded up production times and meant modular parts could be manufactured by other companies and brought together for final assembly. The first Lancaster's used the Manchester fuselage and this can easily be recognised by the horizontal windows in said fuselage. Once these were used up the Lancaster's thereafter had no horizontal windows in the fuselage.

[@davidpope3943]

When the fighter ace Ginger Lacey was on ‘rest’ at an OTU & not particularly enjoying it, he visited an old friend ~ a Captain Worral ~ who’d been the CFI at Yorkshire Aeroplane Club pre-war when Lacey had been an instructor there. Worral had joined Avro’s as a test pilot ~ aged in his late 50’s! ~ when the war broke out. On this day he’d promised Lacey a ride in one of the aircraft he was testing. It was a Manchester. Initially Lacey couldn’t board because the Manchester was ‘full of boffins & flight engineers’ (I wonder why…..) but he had another to test that morning so Lacey could join him in that one. Lacey watched the Manchester hurtle down the runway & half-way down, way past V1, one engine caught fire. Worral took off, flew round the circuit in flames & landed. As if nothing untoward had happened, Worral strolled back & said, ‘Come on Ginger, we’ll go & test the other one now.’ Lacey commented that ‘he couldn’t have got me into that plane with an armed escort.’ So he stayed & watched. In a carbon-copy exercise, the second Manchester also had an engine fire at take-off speed & again Worral flew round the circuit in flames & landed. Lacey later said that, ‘This was an old boy of 59 or 60 & he didn’t bat an eyelid. We went off to lunch as though nothing had happened.’ After watching his friend fly 2 Manchesters that both had engine fires, Lacey decided that life at an OTU wasn’t so bad after all. The Manchester may have indeed been a lemon thanks to the power plant, but too much was asked of the Vulture. When Leonard Cheshire was on a Manchester squadron, he had the dorsal turret removed along with a lot more of what he considered extraneous weight, after which engine incidents lowered somewhat. The strength built into the Manchester airframe thanks to the initial catapult launch requirements certainly helped when the Lancaster was later asked to carry Barnes Wallis’ 12,000lb Tallboy & later the 22,000lb Grand Slam deep-penetration ‘earthquake’ bombs.

[@tristacker]

I read somewhere in a book by the ledgendary Bill Gunston that the job of fitting Merlins to Manchester/Lancs was made possible because the Morris car company were producing so called power eggs. These were a fully connected, wired up and faired Merlin designed to be fitted to Bristol Beaufighters, in case Hercules engines became hard to come by. There were a few Merlin Beaus but the units could be fitted to Lancs as well and made the whole job much quicker.

[@andrewthomson]

Great video as usual Ed. Just finished your book btw loved the colour pics in the middle.. really helps put you on the ground.

[@markhuebner7580]

Thanks "Ed Nash's Military Matters"! Amazing history behind the Lancaster and WW2 engine development!

[@glhx2112]

Great Vid ! At the 8:26 mark.... those are Lancaster Mk.2's powered by Bristol Hercules radials ! Nice ! It's a crying shame we can't get a decently priced non-limited run or conversion kit based 1/72 Scale model of the Manchester.

[@rebeccaforrest2315]

Cheers for this Ed always enjoy your content

[@zig_ziggy]

Another excellent video, thank you so much. The Manchester is also a great story about clear headed thinking and adaptation to end up with an aircraft design it's designers and the ministry always aspired to.

[@kirkmooneyham]

I had heard of the Manchester, but didn't know its full story. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

[@markfryer9880]

Both the Lancaster and the Halifax were built with two different engine types fitted. The vast majority were fitted with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines but variants of both were fitted with the Bristol Hercules radial engines. The Halifax with the Hercules engines turned out to be the highest flying of the lot and was built in large numbers. Only 300 or so Lancasters were built fitted with the Hercules engines.

[@jollyrodgergaming3579]

The Halifax is my fav ww2 bomber, I saw the one at the Yorkshire Air museum and i just fell in love

[@DaisysButler]

Goes to show what a difference an engine makes. P-51. Shocking with the Alison engine, best fighter of WW2 with the Merlin.

[@ModelMinutes]

Such a fascinating plane!

[@juleswilko]

My Grandad worked on the Manchester at Woodford… The reason my family are in Stockport (As my Dad also then went on to work for BAC on things from the Shackleton to the Victor…)

[@John-nw8uj]

There exists a series of books by The Rolls Royce Historical Society. Written with/by former senior RR engineers. The Vulture had two problems, one the connecting rods, soon satisfied. The other was the cooling system. Original design has two cooling systems from the individual Kestrals which conflicted with each other. This led to overheating. It was eventually corrected to a single system but by then the Merlin had increased its power output so that 4 Merlins could do the job of 2 Vultures. Many years since I read the books by the men who designed and built them. John

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Manchester was just a test bed, leading to the excellent Lancaster. This happens so many times.

[@fredmyers120]

I have always wondered why have big fat slow, vulnerable twin engine bombers, when a Mosquito or P-38 or A-20 could do. (I suppose they were later designs)

[@russellfitzpatrick503]

It does of course always beg the question as to whether the Manchester could have been saved if they'd used Merlins, in place of the Vultures

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for the background on the Lanc's daddy.

[@Jester-Riddle]

Not seen a photo of A Whitley, or a Hampden for a long while ... Also, super to see the Wellington (a wooden-wonder, like the Mosquito (?)) ... Knew a lovely guy who flew Wellingtons during WWII ... made me reflect on his lovely calm demeanour and wisdom ... a fine old-school Teacher. RIP.

[@derekowens1817]

Wellington was not a wooden aircraft, but was a geodetic structure (in metal - a Barnes Wallis development) with a canvas covering. D

[@Jester-Riddle]

@Peter Pebbles Thanks ... Enjoyed that !

[@Jester-Riddle]

@@derekowens1817 ... Apologies ... I was uncertain whether it was a timber, or metal structure (hence the '?') ... However, it was a slightly unusual and distinctive construction ...

[@derekowens1817]

@@Jester-Riddle no need for apologies, was just trying to confirm that it was actually a metal aircraft, if you were in doubt. D👍

[@Jester-Riddle]

@@derekowens1817 Thanks. I appreciated the information, as I was uncertain whether it might have been timber due to the unusual structure and the resource issues during WWII ... Have a good day.

[@madzen112]

Had a brilliant Battler Britton-style comic on the Avro Manchester as a kid. They got a Lancaster in the end!

[@KevTheImpaler]

Once read a war memoir by a Lancaster gunner. He said of the Manchester that the rear turret was alright, but that the mid upper turret was so tight it would be difficult to bail out of, and if you did you would be hit by the middle tail fin.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

That would be the Manchester mk1 then.

[@captainpinky8307]

Yikes, Don't sign up for that job!

[@johndavey72]

Thanks Ed. Some terrific archive film . Yes l knew this very well but if Avro had kept the ventral turret they would have prevented the terrible losses inflicted by the night fighters with their upward firing cannon , "Shräge Musik" . Such was the progress of aviation it's hard to believe that the Vulcan first flew whilst the Lincoln was still in production !

[@nor0845]

Wouldn’t be the first time (or last) that a good design was doomed by a poor engine. Good vid, thanks for posting.

[@robertguttman1487]

The Manchester was not the only British aircraft ruined by the Rolls-Royce Vulture engine. It also spoiled the Hawker Tornado single-engine fighter. However, like the case of the Manchester, the Tornado was salvaged by being equipped with a different engine. The result was the Hawker Typhoon, which was essentially the same fighter fitted with a Napier Sabre engine.

[@ancientwrench5292]

The parallels between the Manchester/Lancaster and the He177 Griffen are striking. The Brits worked through their engine problem, but the Germans never did.

[@diegokevin3824]

I think the french, post war, turned some He177 that they had into 4 engined ones, and solved most problems that the original had

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Like the Heinkel He 274* and Heinkel He 277? *The ones the french used

[@ancientwrench5292]

@@dallesamllhals9161 Neither of which saw Luftwaffe service.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

@@ancientwrench5292 It was to #DiegoKevin. Not you! But correct you are ;-)

[@shannonwittman950]

I suppose on paper, a water-cooled 6x4 = 24 cylinder configuration seemed workable. Henry Ford envisioned his 8-cylinder engine that same way. Intake-thru-exhaust, heating-cooling and lubrication all evenly distributed. Compact and powerful. What could go wrong? Uhhh ... main bearings ...

[@papalegba6759]

it was a good design in search of a suitable powerplant. both the mosquito & the canberra proved the twin engine concept was the ideal.

[@jimdavis8391]

The Chrysler multi bank worked, albeit in a Sherman tank. That's the only successful example I can come up with.

[@Robutube1]

You nailed it with that final sentence Ed!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

You should have a look at the design Volkert came up with to meet this requirement. It was the first British bomber design, not the Mosquito, intended to use speed as its main defence.

[@robertgriffin662]

Did not know about the Manchester. I have always concidered the Lancaster a awesome bomber. Great story and vid.

[@jjsoko6393]

Not a new story for me but great to hear it in this format.

[@samrodian919]

Very interesting, thank you for posting this. I had never heard or read before of the Manchester's operational life. Very sobering statistics, but out of that came the legend of the Lanc. I wonder are there any examples of the RR Vulture engine anywhere in museums? I would like to see an example of it better still a cutaway one.

[@williamcody7427]

Like the Manchester, the German twin propeller Heinkel He 177 had problems with its Daimler-Benz 606 (later 610) coupled engines. They did come up with a version, the He 277, powered by four DB 603 engines that could have become the German's Lancaster had Herman Goering not expressly forbidding its develepement.

[@michaelleslie2913]

It's funny when you think about it as the Germans had a similar issue with the Heinkel 177 Greif heavy bomber , two engines driving one prop and many of the same problems as the vulture. When they finally fitted four separate motors (lucky for us ) it was too late to do them any good. ..

[@jackroutledge352]

Of course the British had enough engines to chuck four of them on every bomber. A luxury ze Germans never had!

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

The Heinkel also had the problem of having the oil tank for the engines shoehorned into a tight fitting nacelle, and being above and in front of the engines, so when the oil tank ruptured due to vibration it spilled hot oil all over them with predictable results.

[@scrubsrc4084]

I wonder how many crew were worried about converting from the Manchester to the Lancaster thinking it wouldn't be better

[@guaporeturns9472]

Love the assortment British medium bombers in the 30s and 40s

[@poruatokin]

A hypothetical question. If we assume for a moment that the Vulture engine had worked well and lived up to its planned specifications, would the Manchester have been successful in all other respects?

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Why wouldn't they?

[@BV-fr8bf]

Manchester the British He177. Identical problem, coupled engines.

[@elennapointer701]

Exactly what I was about to say. Prototype for the 'Luftwaffe's Lighter'.

[@anthonywilson4873]

Napier Sabre was a two crank engine. It got reliable and powerful. Used in Typhoon and Tempest. Only thing that killed it was jets.

[@DrivermanO]

Not really. Different problem. The Vulture was not a coupled engine - it was just one engine with an X block - 2 Peregrines (not Kestrels) - with the 24 resulting cylinders driving one crankshaft in one crankcase, with just one prop per engine. So the Manchester was essentially a 2 engined bomber. The He177 was actually 4 engined - each nacelle contained two coupled DB 601 mounted side by side (called a DB 606 power system) in each nacelle with counterrotating props and a complicated gearbox. It was this arrangement which caused overheating and engine fires because of the cramped installation causing overheating. The Vulture failures were mainly caused by failure of the bigend bearings due to poor lubrication (hardly a surprise I suspect) and too quick development, being rushed into service before it was really ready. Only 538 were built before the Merlin effectively overtook it and it ceased production. Similar problems, but not identical. And of course, the Manchester spawned the Lancaster. The He177 never fulfilled its undoubted potential.

[@papalegba6759]

twin engine designs have massive advantages over 4 engine designs in terms of manoeuvrability/structural strength/aerodynamics. so it's understandable the germans tried as hard as possible to make it work.

[@paulslevinsky580]

@@anthonywilson4873 I heard that engine was a mess. It had terrible serviceability and reliability. One begot the other.

[@raymondyee2008]

Ah the Avro Manchester. The plane that was mentioned to be "....an unmitigated disaster; loathed by those who were condemned to fly it".

[@PeteCourtier]

Proving beyond doubt, a turd can be polished👍

[@DraftySatyr]

Or ... you can roll it in glitter 😮

[@PeteCourtier]

@@DraftySatyr I think Lancaster is more appropriate than “Avro Glitter Shitter”🤪😂

[@Farweasel]

Though if you followed the narrative the turd wasn't polished - it was dumped The frog that was really a prince amongst aeroplanes appeared when Merlin kissed it four times.

[@atilllathehun1212]

Good documentary but you could have mentioned the fact that it was proposed to fit the Manchester with Centaurus radials which might have transformed the aircraft in to a very useful type.

[@poruatokin]

Pretty sure he did mention it.

[@doglover31418]

Compare this to the Heinkel 177 Greif. That had a terrible engine installation; four engines in two nacelles driving two props. Engine fires were frequent. If they had just done what Avro did, and had four DB 603 in separate nacelles, they'd have had a good plane.

[@markfryer9880]

Christmas Tree Lights. Both the Lancaster and the Halifax suffered from what was termed the Christmas Tree Light effect as more and more tinkering and equipment was added in the attempt to aid the aircrew. The problem was that it all added up to extra weight which hampered performance and safety on already heavily loaded (or overloaded) aircraft. So at least one or more campaigns were conducted to strip out unnecessary equipment and keep it off the aircraft.

[@wirksworthsrailway]

Excellent: well-informed and concise. 10/10

[@thehighlandphotogallery3168]

Interesting video. Especially the comment about a fine line between a great aircraft and a bad one. Makes me wonder how many other 'bad' aircraft were nearly great ones, but were given up on too quickly???

[@KevTheImpaler]

The Westland Whirlwind springs to mind.

[@maikbanner7552]

The Line between a Terrible Aircraft and Great Aircraft defined by its Engine.

[@georgebarnes8163]

Makes me wonder why the useless Manchester was developed into the Lancaster when the Short Stirling already existed but needed minor modifications but instead of improving the big Stirlings it wings were clipped (literally) making it a second rate aircraft, one step forward and two backwards.

[@lafeelabriel]

So many potentially great aircraft were scuppered by unreliable engines that you could just cry. Case in point, almost LITERALLY anything from the USSR during WW2 that didn't either use the AM38, the M105, or the M82..

[@craigs71]

How have I missed this channel? Subbed.

[@Ratelau]

I sometimes wonder if the Manchester could have worked out with Merlin or Bristol engines.

[@SAHBfan]

But a Manchester with two merlin engines wound surely have had a similar performance to a Whitley or a Hampden? The whole point of the Manchester - and designs from other companies using two vulture engines, was that the vulture had a LOT of horsepower… or was that intended as a tongue in cheek comment, since it had did work out with four engines….

[@tedthesailor172]

Very interesting and straightforward...

[@markcantemail8018]

Thank you for the Video . How was the Shackelton ?

[@craig4867]

Lancaster was a cool-looking bomber and never got the credit it deserved and inflicted heavy damage to the enemy!

[@z_actual]

great work Ed

[@jasonshull3106]

Great work as always thanks from JDS in AZ usa

[@RobSchofield]

Another great story - excellent.

[@robertdevito5001]

“When sticking 2 engines together around a common crankshaft is too complicated... just stick 5 engines together around a common crankshaft”-Chrysler probably

[@rosiehawtrey]

The Chrysler had a geared layshaft, that's why it worked, and the vulture probably would have worked if they used that trick.

[@Thx1138sober]

I was wondering why I had never heard of the Avro Manchester bomber when I saw the video title.

[@73honda350]

Interesting story. Thanks for telling it.

[@scootergeorge9576]

Had the Luftwaffe been paying attention to the Manchester/Lancaster, the He 177 could have been redesigned and produced with 4 separate engines, resulting a much better aircraft.

[@dragoontype00alphaz19]

They did make 4 engine version but never got see light of day believe French ended up with 1 or 2 of 4 engine 177 if remember right

[@mikepette4422]

78 Lost in action of 200 built... this is an enormous casualty rate. I think it reflects the dangers of bombing Germany at this point of the war. When you look at the kills logged by many of germany's top aces you see an awful lot of Manchester's in the notations about types. Doesn't surprise me that 78 were destroyed in action

[@oxcart4172]

Around 50% of Lancasters were shot down!

[@janwitts2688]

The problem was the air ministries constant demands to keep overall wingspan down to fits it current infrastructure. The obviousness of fitting 4 engines (like hmm I don't know condor duh) was right there and the wingspan limits should have been adjusted to allow this extra section per side...

[@roderickwho1983]

Nice job, Ed. An interesting comparison could be made with the Heinkel He 177. An equally wild initial specification, terrible motors and even an attempt to make a version with four 12 cylinder power units. ( The French used it for research after the end of WW2). But unlike the British aero industry, the nazis just couldn't think like normal human beings. Good luck ;-)

[@ultraviewz1]

Great history & watch thank you.

[@MarkkuKoljonenwTinja]

Thanks!

[@onkelmicke9670]

A bit like the He 177 Greif

[@StudeSteve62]

Heard of the Lancaster? Yes. 😁 I'm one of those lucky souls who sometimes looks up and says "there goes the Lanc"...half the world's flying Lancasters being based at my local airport...

[@craigpennington1251]

These would be better served with a turbo-compounded 3350 Radial. Has anyone tried it? Would be interesting. This is a big aircraft for a twin engine design but like the way it looks. Keep em coming. These are great videos.

[@jroch41]

Excellent, informative video. 👍👍

[@johnjephcote7636]

the Vultures overheated. With the cooling fins extended to cool down the engines, it could not maintain height.

[@simongee8928]

Never fails to amazement that the RAF stuck with rifle calibre machine guns in their bombers almost throughout the war, but the USAAF began and stuck with the fifty calibre with much better results. Some folk just don't learn - !

[@owenshebbeare2999]

Some folks just turn up late! See how poorly thought out comments work?

[@kellyshistory306]

The Rifle Caliber guns were decide on before the war, and once the war kicked off it proved to be difficult to change over. One big issue was there was no domestic production of the .50 cal in Britain, and once the US started gearing up for war all American production was prioritized for American aircraft. It wasn't until late war the Brits started getting adequate supplies of .50 cals for themselves, but then issues with designing a turret which mounted the gun proved problematic for various reasons.

[@mycroft1905]

Excellent! As usual.

[@AviViljoen]

Agreed!

[@hoodoo2001]

The Nazis did not have the flexibility of management that the Brits did so they kept right on spending time perfecting the He 177 with it's paired engines to the point it was a decent aircraft, only they didn't have any gas or for pilots for them because they had lost the war already. Sometimes you have to call an audible before the play starts and this was not in the Nazi bureaucracy's playbook. They were offered the four separate engine solution and rejected it.

[@ziggurat-builder8755]

Hurray! Ed’s done the Manchester!!

[@mantis1au]

Slight error in your description of the Vulture engine - it was two V-12 Peregrine engines joined to a common crankshaft, not Kestrels (although the Peregrine was derived from the Kestrel).

[@louiswilkins9624]

Very interesting stuff , so many oddballs.

[@lmyrski8385]

You'd think the Germans would have taken notes and clued in when they were working on the HE-177's twin engine "power system" arrangement where they too tried to power each prop with 2 engines.

[@garethonthetube]

If the Centaurus engine had been available sooner and chosen for the Manchester, then maybe the Lancaster wouldn't have happened.

[@rovercoupe7104]

The Stirling was a four engined aircraft from its initial design. M.