Talk:Avro Lincoln/Archive 1

Archive 1

10,000 kg DP bomb

The exceptional load of one 10,000 kg DP bomb should be explained in the article body. What is a DP bomb? When was this exceptional load flown, and why? How far reduced was the range with this load? Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 22,000 lb DP Bomb was the Grand Slam bomb (DP stands for deep penetration)- Mason doesn't go into further detail about it other than "exceptionally" - possibly for trials only or as a contingency. Neither Jackson's Avro Aircraft since 1908 or Thetford mention the Grand Slam.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang, they would have to refuel in flight to get anywhere useful with that load. :P

Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Weren't Grand Slams used on the sub pens? (Lorient?) To little effect, IIRC... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Lincoln was basically an upgraded Lancaster and as-such, it had the same carrying capacity as the Lancaster B.I (Special), i.e., the Grand Slam carrier, as-standard. Therefore the Lincoln's maximum bomb load was the 22,000lb of the Grand Slam Lancaster, and the Lincoln had the bomb release shackles (actually for a large chain) for the Grand Slam built-in to the bomb bay roof. If you have a look at the 1946 Flight article here: [1] you can see for yourself.

:::Weren't Grand Slams used on the sub pens? (Lorient?) To little effect, IIRC... :

I'd hardly call THAT (picture at right) "to little effect"

The Farge U-boat pen after being hit by a Grand Slam bomb - note the figure standing on the pile of rubble.

As noted, from memory. (Grt pic, BTW.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boeing Washington

The Washingtons had to be obtained due to a previous policy decision by the UK government that there would be no new piston-engined bomber bought for the RAF after the final order for Lincolns, and so it was not possible to order more Lincolns after that time. This was when the V bombers were due to be introduced. The Washingtons were procured as a stop-gap until the Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor entered service.

BTW, the Washingtons were lent to the RAF, so they got round the prohibition on buying additional piston-engined bombers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

IP 80 it would help if you please sign your posts. Do you have a reliable reference for all this, as far as I know the Washingtons were supplied under MDAP to bridge the gap until Canberra deliveries ramped up. Nothing I have seen mentions any prohibition, the Canberra spec had been issued in 1946 to develop an unarmed jet bomber so they had no need for a "prohibition", so nothing to do with not buying any more Lincolns, more about waiting for Canberras (and also note the V-bombers programme had also started in 1946). Also the last Lincoln wasnt delivered until 1951, after the Washingtons had started to be delivered. Did I mention please sign your posts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How was the alleged superior range of the B-29/Boeing Washington calculated? The Wikipedia performance stats for the two aircraft do not suggest any major range advantage for the B-29.

And, unable to hit targets' inside the Iron Curtain'? The Lincoln's range - even under the most challenging operating condition - puts East Germany, Poland, CZ and Hungary comfortably within distance. All those places were 'inside the Iron Curtain' and all contained important Cold War targets.

Is this just a bit of American exceptionalism that slipped through? Is the suggestion that the B-29 could reach Moscow being hinted at? Neither the Lincoln nor the B-29 could do that.31.49.28.120 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The Washington was never used as a bomber and it's main function seems to have been LR Elint and Recon missions. It was also plagued by engine fires.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

'was never used as a bomber' ? As we were not at war at the time, that statement is basically correct, but I don't suppose that is exactly what you meant. Their training was in "air/sea firing exercises, high-level blind and radar bombing, fighter affiliation sorties, practice for and participation in the Laurence Minot (Bombing) Trophy", so I'm going to argue they were bombers.

Out of 87 Washington B.1s loaned to the RAF, a grand total of THREE were used by 192 sqdn for ELINT purposes. Indeed, whilst the majority of RAF Washington B.1s were returned back to the USA in 1953/54, the three ELINT machines remained in service until 1958 (RAF serials WZ966, 967 & 968) WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

GR.31

"18 aircraft were rebuilt to this standard, and were reallocated new serial numbers accordingly." - I cant see any evidence that Lincolns were re-serialed and A73-59 to A73-73 were built as GRs on the production line rather then being rebuilt. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)