an elderly gentleman I know was in the Royal Australian Air Force and was seconded to Britain during WW2 and served on Lancasters as a radio operator. after many close calls and crash landings, he survived 30 bombing missions. He's an interesting fellow to talk to, still fit and healthy and about to celebrate his 100th birthday

I did not expect the B-17's, "Oh my god Becky tail" That was a fantastic line in a wonderfully educational video. Thanks for your content!

I NEVER thought I’d hear Sir Mixalot mentioned in a discussion of WWII aircraft. Well played.

Ok I am really blown away ! i never put the wing location together with single or twin tail configuration. I am suddenly going to be looking at every plane thru different eyes. Great stuff Greg easily the best researched channel I have come across and I follow hundreds of people many of those weapons related. So you are in impressive company in my books .

You are going to love this: Speaking of United States style bomb-bay bomb-racks; When I was in the Airforce [81 to 85] there was an Airforce publication "TAC ATTACK" and there was always a good story from the past and often from WW Twice. One such story goes like this. A B25 Mitchell bomber was on a mission to bomb the Mitsubishi Aircraft factory. A 250 pound bomb failed to release and hung up on the rack. It had fallen out of position and could not be secured. So, according to SOP of the day, they exited the area with bomb-bay doors open in the hope that the bomb would fall free at some point and not smash through the doors. Occasionally the plane was "shaken" by the pilot in the hopes of encouraging gravity to take the bomb away. (this causes drag and they fell behind their squadron mates) At some point the bomb fell free, they closed the bomb-bay doors, and got out of Dodge. Foward to after the war when the USAAF was researching how effective they were as according to enemy records. They came across an obscure little footnote of a factoid. On the particular date of that bomb raid on the Mitsubishi Factory, it was reported that a lone B25 Bomber dropped a single bomb on the Mitsubishi Headquarters' building that was located some distance from the factory. So it was that after that B-25 bombed the factory, they dropped one on the headquarters for good measure!

Big fan of your work. You don't go for flash, you go with facts. Fact based learning is preferred over flash. Thank you

Hey Greg. You made my day today. It is my grandfather's 102nd birthday today. He would have loved your channel. The Lancaster was his favorite plane by far. What a nice coincidence that you posted a video of the Lanc on his birthday. Thanks for all your hard work and thanks for bringing back some memories of my much missed grandpa.

I hope we get a video about the B-24 at some point, because I think it's the most understated of the heavy bombers.

Also I remember in Paul Brickhill's novel..... "On June 1, Avro experts fitted new automatic pilots in the Lancasters for the D-Day operation, and Nicky Knilans at last found out why his much-cursed "R-Roger" flew like a lump of lead. They found it needed longer elevator cables than the others, inspected to find out why and discovered that the elevators had been put on upside down at the factory.".

all what i know is Ive been privileged to see 2 Lancaster's flying together . This was when the Canadian one come across the pond ... What a sight

Here in Australia there is a beautiful Avro Lancaster ; “G for George” in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. My dad was an Australian WW2 veteran. Although he is in the AIF, army, heavy anti-aircraft unit, based mostly in New Guinea, he loved aeroplanes generally! As a child in the early 70’s he took me to Canberra to see “G for George”. So impressed was I, that I bought a scale model & still have it! Albeit, mines a little worse for wear after more than 50 years of flying unfriendly skies!🤣👍🏼😎🇦🇺

One of my uncles did two tours as a rear gunner on Lancs. While he would not talk much about it in general he did say that for the best view he had taken out the centre panels on his turret to improve visibility which also gave no reflections which might have caused confusion but it made things 'bloody cold'. He also said that being in an aircraft that corkscrewed to avoid a fighter was very frighting, apparently his crew had agreed that they would not open fire if they saw a fighter unless there was no other option as four or even 6 303's were not much cop against canons. He also mentioned that on more than one occasion he had seen what was left of rear gunners being washed out of the remains of their turrets with hosepipes after the aircraft had returned from a raid.

14:10. Thank you Greg for the shout-out for the Short Sterling.

A great story and I appreciate your unbiased views and opinions .. well done!

In 2014, I saw the British and Canadian Lancasters at an air show in Devon, England. They came very low over the headland where I was standing before turning to display along the coast. They came in with the huge bomb doors open displaying the bomb racks. They are truly intimidating machines and must have been horrible to get on the wrong side of.

Ah, every day is a day closer to a video on that beautiful A-26.

Absolutely love these technical descriptions over the tired "sentimental" narratives.

I was still hanging bombs in the same type of Bomb Bay in 1968! Shackletons of RAF Coastal Command were a modification of the Lancaster, and was the first operational aircraft I worked on after joining the RAF at the start of a 27 year career.

My father flew more than 60 missions over occupied Europe in a Lancaster Pathfinder from 1942 to 1944. Thankfully, he and his crew were rotated back to Canada after it was determined that they had done enough for the RCAF with the war obviously moving to its inevitable conclusion. On more than one occasion, their Lancaster brought them back after raids where the damage from flak or German fighters might have doomed a different plane to crashing before reaching England. We who came after them owe them so much. R.I.P. Wilfred G. Young D.F.C.

Great video. Looking forward to the next part. Back in 1993 I helped restore the BBMF Lancaster's top turret, molding replacement perspex and replacing the framing...

If you ever get around to it, I would love to see a series of videos on the B-24 as well! Lots of people compare and contrast the B-24 with the B-17, and I would love to hear your take on the matter as well!

Fantastic vid Greg....I must say an opening photo seemed ironic, the crew bicycles having their rear mudguards painted white for safety while they prepare for a ten-hour night mission over Germany. War is nuts. I was very fortunate to clamber all over a Lancaster I found in a barn in Canada (near Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump). That mainspar was indeed a problem to get over, and the rear turret was very claustrophobic. But what a superb, empirical machine.

I appreciate the attention Greg pays to detail. So, I'm an engineer. I don't design aircraft, I do electrical "stuff". However I do believe the key to almost everything in our society working vs not is attention to very small details as observed in the broad picture. Many other channels and many historians don't pay attention to these details but they are critical, and I appreciate the attention Greg pays to them.

I worked with a former RAF wireless operator who had also flown in Halifaxes and he said he preferred them to the Lancaster as he said the Halifax was easier to get out of in a hurry!

What a fantastic; insightful and unbiased analogy. I love it when people do their homework before commenting. Can't wait for part 2.

Thanks for the detailed info Greg. I live just 5 miles from the only flying example in North America. I see it flying regularly during the year, and shall be armed with knowledge on my next visit to the Canadian Warplane Heritage.

Hi Greg, I’ve reflected on the Lancaster Armament for years. The fact that it was at night made a difference IMO. They were hard to see and attacks were at close range in general vs daylight. My grandfather was shot down in their Lanc. We found his recollections of this actual event very recently. They were being attacked by 2 JU88s and shot down from underneath by an unseen plane. We now know it was a BF110 flown by Cpt Adolf Breves. The rear gunner describes them being caught, but from what I know this apparently took some time. I also watched an old interview by a Luftwaffe night-fighter pilot last week. He was shot down 9 times attacking Lancs at night. He said they attacked them after their dropped their bombs. He said once they had dropped their bombs, they were very fast and very difficult to catch, if they weren’t in the immediate area, it was pointless trying.He intimated the difference in speed at the time wasn’t significant. Night fighters were heavy due to the extra equipment required. They also often had to be very close to see them and often couldn’t until they were very close. Unless it was a clear and moonlit light. They relied on being guided to the target from the ground. So once close, the Lanc took evasive action to enable the mid upper and tail gunners to face the attacker. So 6 .303s were blazing away at once. Many night fighters were shot down as a result of trying to get into position underneath the Lans. During the attack on my grandfather, the tail gunner shot down one of the JU88s for example. Often tracers would also deter or inhibit an attack for long enough for the defender the disappear into the night using the corkscrew. A Lanc with 4 screaming merlins, with no bombs and reduced fuel load, was no slouch in a dive apparently. Hence damaged planes Lancs were targeted.

Thank you, Greg! Please consider including the Bristol Hercules powered Mark II in a future video.

In the land of the deluded...the man with facts is king. I can't describe how much enjoyment I get from your videos...regardless of the subject. Sure...anything aeronautic automatically gets my attention but that, too often with other channels, turns to disappointment when the details I crave are passed over for hackneyed fluff. There is something eminently satisfying by having my misconceptions destroyed by learning real information...by knowing instead of assuming. Every video of yours is a clinic. Thanks for doing what you do.

My Great Uncle was a Lancaster Rear Gunner during the war, served, and actually survived two full tours, which in itself is remarkable! To make a few clarifications about how the gunners, especially the rear gunner of Lancasters operated, at least at Night. Uncle Bill never flew a daylight mission to my knowledge, he certainly never mentioned one, and unfortunately he is no longer with us to ask. Primarily they acted as eyes, the crews were fully aware of the disadvantages of the .303's, indeed Uncle Bill recalled that in 60 missions he only actually fired his guns once outside of test bursts. The primary role of the rear gunner was to spot the night fighter, then inform the pilot of its approach so that the pilot had the best information available to evade. Evasion was usually through hard manoeuvres which included a rapid descent, the idea being to throw the night fighter off long enough for the Lancaster to escape. Obviously the radar turrets of the late war helped with this, but on his first tour they had not been developed (he spent quite a while as an air gunnery instructor between active tours). I found many of those photos interesting as they confirmed something that he always used to tell us about rear gunners removing much of the perspex from their turret, especially to the front. What many do not appreciate though is how cramped those turrets are. Rear gunners in Lancasters could not wear their parachutes in the turret, not enough room, they stored them just inside the fuselage where they could reach them through the turret doors. Then, if the aircraft was burning, which it often was, so blocking their escape through the rear fuselage escape hatch they would then have to travers the turret fully to one side and bail out through those doors. I have seen the turret doors on a Lanc's rear turret, they are not very big, the gunner was wearing a heated suit, heated boots, so even a fairly small guy would have difficulty moving in there. Part of the reason for the terrifying casualty rate of the rear gunners, besides the fact they were the first target of the attacking night fighters, was it was just so difficult to get out of the damned things!

The pics were brilliant most I have never seen and I watch the WWII shit like mad so, well done my good and faithful servent.

The Lanc is regarded with great warmth. My biggest bugbear about the plane was within bounds of its limitations. The escape hatch was a notorious problem, and - well I will speak of its price in a moment. Always at the heart of the problem with the Brits - was being limited in many regards which people often overlook. It went into the war in an unready state across the board, and in many areas a case of limitations and catching up is almost always visible. 303s, engines, lack of armour. The Lanc was able to take a great bombload a long way. Its was smaller than the other heavies (so its war cost to make was somewhat lower..) - and IIRC correctly - the flight support and crew requirements has made it the most heavily supported plane in British history (Factory staffing, ground crew - flight crew). An interesting side point on engines was that another aircraft that was a good plane in principle suffered like the Manchester. The Westland Whirlwind which used a pair of RR Peregrins - suffered from the lack of development, and production time and units available. So it was a bit off that RR then stuck two together in an X config, but that is for some other time. In all cases, an argument existed by Mosquito time frames about the heavies. The Mozzie could take the 4000lb load to Berlin as the B17 often carried, and could do so in half the time, and with an enormously lower resource and crew cost, and a much lower loss rate. It could not match Lancaster loads, but that is a side point. A note on American airmen, and their planes. I'm British. When I travel in the UK, to places that are near to where their airfields used to be, pubs nearby sometimes retain history. One that I had a few pints in has plaques on it's walls. Those plaques are in memory of US airmen who in 43 flew daylight missions with a 0.5 mission survival rate and suffered terrible losses. Etched into brass - pictures of B17's - and crews. Its a debt I am always mindful of, as young Americans came here in the fight for freedom, climbed about their planes facing by statistics certain death - in the fight that today has provided the very freedom I am so very fortunate to be a very thankful beneficiary. That debt can never be repaid, and no words I can ever write can thank them and their loved ones for the gift their gigantic price rendered. In lighter conversation, I would always plump in the Lanc vs B17 pubtalk for a Lancaster, but I should be ever thankful to all the planes, and all the crews. A final note, and harking back the to escape hatch. RAF bomber command lost 55,000. It took the war right to Germany, and then for a long time, Bomber command crews were treated badly, tainted by the claims made of Dresden and other missions. The Lancaster for whatever reason retained the love of the public - while the crews who flew her were mistreated. Only recently has Bomber command crews - seen a change with more reverence for their efforts. Night after night they would go into German skies, wrecking the German nations war making capacity, at enormous human cost it is fair to say on both sides. Along with Allied aircrews and planes - these missions greatly damaged, harmed, limited and havoc'd Germans ability to wage its war - and at the heart of that British effort was the Lancaster. Bomber Harris in terms of war, waged a terrible war - one which we had to fight, and we should remember with reverence the crews who did so. Many many thanks for taking time to speak about it.

Impressive work, as always. If you started this after the flap about the A-bomb raids, you pulled together a lot of material very quickly. Great work on the technical aspects, and a very well done on the photos.

excellent job as always Greg. Just on the twin tails, you are 100% regarding the stability however we were taught another reason Avro went with it was for the aircraft to be able to fit in the standard Brit hangar, the Bellman type

Excellent!!! You don't ever hear much about the Lancaster!!!

If you have not already subscribed to gregs channel and you like planes I recommend you do this man is like that history teacher you wished you had in school.

I was already going to give the video a like, but the combination of descriptions of the B-17's tail at the 11:30 mark had me bust out laughing.

Great video. FYI Lancaster wing dihedral is quoted as “outer plane, on datum: 7 degrees and outer plane, on top of rear spar: 5 degrees 19 minutes”.

A while back, when I was visiting my Mother, the Lanc from Hamilton flue over, That is a sound you won't soon forget.

I appreciated hearing Lancaster facts that are usually only vaguely alluded to or ignored completely. I'm looking forward to Part 2.

These are the best and most informative aviation related vids uploaded on YT by a country mile. This vid was brilliant. Learnt so much I had no idea of. I've seen the British Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster a few times (the first time flying into a setting a sun as it flew over my house), and it is an awesome sight to see in the air. There was actually a Lancaster factory not far from where I grew up, and the grandmother of someone I went to school with had actually worked there during the war. Happy someone has decided to make such an in depth vid therefore.

Always enjoy the little side-facts your videos contain - ever since I was a kid browsing through "history of aviation"-type books (you know the kind - lots of images of cool planes, combined with the least amount of technical explanation they could get away with), I was a believer of the "dihedral wings always return the plane to level" myth, as in the wings would automatically generate correcting momentum in the roll orientation. Thinking of it today, should have been obvious that there is nothing to it in that regard (obviously there is no change in roll momentum from the orientation of the plane relative to the horizon), but it's one of those concepts that sounded good and is sort-of-halfway-in-a-roundabout-way-semi-correct, as it does help stability; but I'm very glad you cleared up the whole thing - before your vid, the wings of those C-17/IL-76 you showed made zero sense to me, I actually thought they flex upwards enough in flight to turn dihedral again...

Using two Rolls-Royce Vultures in the Manchester reminds me of using two Daimler-Benz DB 606 in the Heinkel He 177.

I'm glad I wasn't partaking in a beverage when you mentioned the B-17's tail...

Absolutely brilliant Greg. As a Brit brought up on WW2, I learnt quite a bit I didn’t know. Thank you.

So good, as always, Greg! Can't wait for the next one!

Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.

Thanks for the technical disquisition that is understandable from us with a modest knowledge if aerodynamic engineering but totally enthusiastic about the topic.

A fascinating video Greg, looking forward to the next. A little historical background, the Avro company was a subsidiary of Hawker, like Gloster. Up to the Manchester the largest Two engined aircraft produced in volume was the Anson. Indeed the Anson would be an interesting video to consider. However the key to the Lancaster was the bizarre Air Ministry specification P13/36 which the Manchester tried to meet. 1 a large twin engined monoplane bomber capable of carrying 8,000 pound load, 2 or 2*18 inch Torpedos length 18ft 2.5 inches, hence the bomb bay and the possible positioning and design of the wing, 3. 24 fully armed troops if needed. 4. The specification also demanded capabilities to catapult take-off and arrested landing, through was to apply carrier characteristics if the airfield was damaged through bombing preventing long take-off 5. Dive bombing capabilities. Consequently the Manchester Type 679 got heavier and heavier has strengthening was added to meet, this all things to all men specification. At the same time George Volkert at Handley Page was given permission to go ahead with a four engine model HP57 which became the Halifax. Additionally an order for Bristol Blenhiems in 1937 gave Roy Chadwick the experience required with stressed-skinned aircraft. As you explained the Manchester was not a success for various reasons, however Avro’s Managing Director Roy Dodson and Roy Chadwick had considered a 4 engined Manchester, called Avro Type 683 or Manchester III, requiring an increase in the tailplane size and obviously wider wings for the 4 engines. In parallel they worked with Rolls Royce regarding the Merlin installation to address the poor Manchester hydraulic installation issues and were informed about the development of the Merlin installation for the Bristol Beaufighter for the two outer wing engines. This was brought to ahead when the Air Ministry binned the Manchester and wanted Avro to build the Halifax, at that point Bomber Harris preferred the Halifax 4 engined bomber, whilst it may be a post war myth, Avro’s are reported to have said “ Oh,no we bloody well won’t”. The first prototype was BT308, was a modified Manchester off the production line with a big wing. Avro were keen to demonstrate the Manchester III has quickly has possible. It went to Boscomb down and was successfully trialled. At this point they clarified the crew structure, where the second pilot was dropped due to the economic grounds of war for the flight engineer. Consequently the Lancaster could be considered has an austerity aircraft, so has many has possible could be made has quickly and cheaply has possible. The second prototype DG595 was the first true Lancaster stressed for an all-up weight of 60,000 pounds.The third prototype used the Bristol Hercules radial engines, known has the Lancaster II. The first production aircraft L7527 first flight 1 October 1941, was stressed to 65,000 pounds, this consistently increased with improved Merlins with later versions stressed to 72,000 pounds to carry grandslam. One weakness was the small escape hatches, undermining the crews ability to escape from the aircraft, it was very poor consequently with Lincoln they addressed these shortcomings by increasing the size of the escape hatches. If you review Freeman Dyson‘s bomber command work he covers this and the recommendation to move totally to mosquitoes given their performance advantage bomb load and crew of two. It was a recommendation actively considered before the Luftwaffe collapse. Finally considering Vulture, the principle was to get to a 2000 hp engine has quickly has possible, DB tried the same with 2* 601 engines. Interestingly the Vulture worked exceptionally well in Tornado, indeed the final prototype, though the program had been scrapped by the RAF, with the Vulture V engine outperformed the Sabre engined Typhoon because of its superior supercharger. However the Vultures development didn’t go to waste, the supercharger design significantly contributed to the development of the Merlin 61, RB 23 Welland and RB 37 Derwent.

Greg, Great video, as usual. Looking forward to part 2. It's about time we had a balanced analysis of this great bomber. Thanks

Re: the "Oh, my, God, Becky" tail - Greg, I appreciate your videos for their in-depth coverage and your matter-of-fact delivery. But seriously, you owe me a monitor and keyboard now.

What a coincidence, video uploaded on the same day that Kermit Weeks channel posted a video about his Lancaster restoration project. Worth checking out.

Watching your videos is always time well spent and this one is no exception. Looking forward to more. 👍👍

Hopefully Greg won't mind my linking this, by if anyone is interested in seeing what the typical nighttime city bombing raids Lancaster's took part in look like (as opposed to the specialized raids everyone knows of) I'm doing animated time-lapses of the RAF's "Ruhr Campaign" raids that occurred from March to July 1943. It shows how the raids were planned, executed, and assessed, while also showing how the German radar-based night defense reacted. This is the type of operation the Lancasters were most usually employed on, at least as far as 1943 was concerned --> kzfaq.info/get/bejne/btahfdSm1LXPpmw.html

I liked the discussion of dihedral, which clarified the behavior I saw in the flying models I built as a kid. I knew the basics of dihedral and its effect and built planes with varying dihedral. Greg’s explanation was better than the information I had at the time.

I do so appreciate the length you and your research go to bring us these stories!! Absolutely mind blowing every time, thankyou for your professionalism.

Nice work as usual Greg. It's a welcome breath of fresh air to have a presentation that just looks at facts re the (immeasurable) British contribution in WWII, rather than the usual heroic tales of British superweapons. Thus the way will be cleared to see the reality: Brits fighting alone, stuck with a war they did not want, understandably ill-prepared, but nevertheless doing the real dirty work at a time when it was not clear if or how victory could be achieved.

Hi Greg. Great video. Thank you. I am hoping that in the second video you comment on the choice of a single pilot, compared to two pilots in most American bombers as I've always found that strange. All the best.

I’m not a technically aware guy with regard to aircraft, really just have a love of them from an early age. Greg, with the way you present your aircraft videos along with your studies and information brought in these subjects you make it thoroughly interesting and easily understood to those interested with historical aircraft. Many thanks again for your posts. Cheers.

Leo Mckinstreys books on Spitfire Hurricane and Lancaster are all great books and very enjoyable on audible too 😊

Absolutely love the video. Especially interested in the discussion of the turrets. The Lancaster is oft criticized for being less defensible than American bombers, having less armament etc. Your comment about their usefulness in night operations got me thinking. I'd love to hear more about this topic.

Excellent video, just well-presented facts, no jingoism or BS. I have been very interested in aircraft since I was a small boy, particularly WW2 when I was younger (born in 1954 - UK boys' magazines were full of WW2 material well into the 60s... 'Achtung - Spitfeuer!'), and I learnt a lot from this. Interesting photos too. I particularly like how Greg emphasises how those who worked on and fought in the aircraft had to contend with its shortcomings. A mythology has grown up around the Lanc and too often it is presented as an almost perfect aircraft (unlike, say, the Stirling, whose faults are often the first thing mentioned) and as Greg rightly says, this can severely diminish the enormous contributions of ground and flight crews. This is what you want from a history channel.

i love this channel. i listen to it almost all day long while on my tractor

When I was a kid I saw an RCAF Lancaster do an aileron roll at the Canadian National Airshow.

My friend's dad used to work late so that he could pick us up after air cadets. While we waited for stragglers he would relate personal stories, many of which revolved around his experiences in the Lancaster. It was years later that I came to understand just how special his flying career was. After two tours as a Lancaster pilot performing night raids against Germany, he became a Pathfinder pilot flying Lancaster's, (mainly) Boston's and rarely Mosquitos. His fave was the Boston - by far but he noted that the Lanc. Was a close second, that could be thrown around like a fighter, when called upon. He did not have kind words for the Mossie. After pathfinders, he moved on to 617 squadron and performed during some noteworthy missions including pendulum raids to Russia, supply mission(s?) to the Jewish combatants during the Warsaw uprising, and the Tirpitz raids. He spoke of the Lancasters frequently being so overloaded that they

That’s an interesting note about the effectiveness of the A/B-26 ventral turret. I’d like to hear more about that.

Another great, informative video. I really appreciate how you note that making an airplane out to have a better reputation than its abilities can detract from the crew's skill, bravery and clever use of the airplane as you so rightly put it.

Geez, I'm two minutes and fifty five seconds in, and I've already learned something.

28:14 turret update: a quick google suggests with might be "Lancaster JB456 with Bristol Type 17 turret" as seen on World War Photos dot info. Their cropped photo looks very much like the one above, including the small white patch just aft of the port roundel

Awesome video as always. Thanks, Greg! Regarding the labels of "high wing" vs. "mid wing" vs "low wing" I think a better technical description starts with noting the thrust line as a datum, and those terms are relative to their locations as compared to the thrust line. Then the horizontal stab is also in a position relative to the thrust line and is often located above the wing centerline (ignoring the airfoil shape for the moment) to avoid the downdraft from the generation of lift that would give an upward pitching moment that varies with speed. Depending on the desired flight characteristics and role, you'd locate the wing and stab accordingly relative to the thrust line. I suppose other datums could be selected - the wing centerline - but given the forward thrust vector that seems a good choice and its opposed by the wing's drag component - hence the importance of the wing above or below the thrust line and the amount of leverage (the moment arm) it generates. Just my two cents worth. Fact check, please?

Dad was a WOAG flying in Liberators in RAF Coastal Command. He always referred to 303s as 'bloody pea shooters'. He flew mostly from Northern Ireland but had a couple of weeks of patrols over the North Sea. One entry in his log book reads 'Attacked by enemy fighters - A/C (aircraft) damaged'. Not sure he would have got away with it had the Lib been armed with 303s !

Once again Greg does not disappoint, his knowledge of WW2 aircraft sets him apart from every other wannabee! Really looking forward to part II! For anyone interested, the Douglas DB-7 "Boston" (AH 435) at 29:37 is pictured pre-delivery at Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, New York in 1941. It was apparently part of a batch originally ordered by France but sent to North Africa where it was most likely assigned to the South African Air Force. The SAAF, as part of the famous Desert Air Force, provided most of the bombers and all of the Bostons during the North Africa Campaign. Fun fact: SAAF used the same insignia (roundels and fin flashes) as the RAF and other Commonwealth air forces, but in orange instead of the red (often they did not bother with the colour change!).

I've also read an advantage of twin-tailed planes was that the tails didn't need to be as tall as a single tail would have to be, making for easier hanger storage.

Excellent in depth information on one of my favourite airplanes. Thanks for taking us off the beaten track of Upkeep, Grand Slam, Tallboys and 617 squadron into more of the often overlooked characteristics and history. Well done!

And the ability and dedication of the ground crews who serviced these kites in the open in all the vagaries of the British weather!

Another outstanding video from Greg.

Hi Greg, great video, looking forward to the rest. I have yet to be disappointed, they all beat anything on TV, that's why I am A patreon supporter. thank you

It* needed* the .50 cal and a larger escape hatch. Those two changes alone would have save a lot of crews and aircraft.

Both the Lancaster and the Spitfire are examples of British airplanes that where designed with a premium on excellent flying characteristics .

Did part of my trade training on Shackletons, derived from the Lancaster. A real assault course to get around inside. That huge central wing brace inside, a real climb and squeeze to get over. And getting to the far rear, a on hands and knees job.

Relating to ventral turrets on Lancasters, what they really needed was a good lookout window. Because flying at night and not in formation, a Lancaster’s best defence was evasive action. A flush window and a simple .50 mount was a modification adopted by some units.

This will be covered in the next video, but some of the radars like H2S guided Luftwaffe night fighters (with correct receivers) right onto the bomber. Devices like Gee and Oboe which were navigation beams, told the Germans what the target was, which is almost as bad because they would concentrate there. But the devices improved accuracy so...

You presented some great info on aerodynamics that, to non-pilots, was fascinating. This is such a great video on an aircraft that so often has been mis-characterized through history.

As always Greg great information on a fascinating subject. Looking forward to part two.

I am currently reading the book "Duel under the Stars" by a German ME-110 Night Fighter Pilot. In all his air battle accounts he seems to almost exclusively describe his planned attacks occurring from below the British bombers. Which makes me wonder how busy the top turret gunners in the Lancasters actually were....

I appreciate comparisons to the B-17, but I'm more curious how the Lancaster compared to the B-24, which was closer in time of development to the Lancaster, had similar speed, and followed a closer planform.

Great video as always Greg. I'm looking forward to the next installment. Cheers!

Excellent video--I got to see/hear the Lancaster taxi in and shut down engines visiting that great Canadian musem

I was taught that there are three regions of stability while in a bank in reference to bank angle. A shallow bank is a bank angle that when input pressure is released it will naturally return to the trim setting. A medium bank is a bank angle that will continue when input pressure is released. A steep bank is a bank angle that will increase when input pressure is released. I enjoyed slipping a plane in for a crosswind landing. I never understood the roll of dihedral (I'm still going to have to study on that some) except in kites. I always thought in terms of spilling air out from under the "high" side of the kite in order to return it to some level of equalibrium, (or some level of level) [see what I did there with level?] Also, it seems to me that dihedral and high-wings provide what appears to be pendulum like stability.

@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - this was a great video. FWIW, I agree about telling it like it was and not exaggerating the (any) plane’s capabilities. The in-depth way you explain things really puts all the aircraft in proper perspective. Thank you for that. Did you ever do a video explaining all the various markings on WWII allied aircraft? Aside from the roundels, some of these planes had a lot of letters, numbers, tail symbols, stripes, colored tails and/or noses, et cetera, all indicating something. Seems like the late war USAAF bombers in the ETA were the most “colorful”. What did it all mean? Any-who, if you did a video on this, tell me which one as I haven’t seen it yet. If not, hey, it’s an idea...thanks again and keep up the good work.

Very well done, Greg! Your extra effort and attention to detail is apparent

Very interesting! I'm looking forward to the next part (and hopefully more) - I do love deep dives into technical aspects as well as the interaction between man and machine.

Great video, thank you. The late war Lancasters were fitted with a single 303 machine gun in the ventral position, operated by a gunner laying on his stomach, in an attempt to foil the devastating German night fighter attacks from underneath the rear of the Lanc. One big difference between US doctrine and UK was that the US valued the lives of its servicemen; no attempt was made to enlarge the Lancaster's front escape hatch so that a crewman could exit wearing a parachute, and it was not until the end of the war that defensive armament was increased. The Lancaster should have been fitted with high-altitude Merlins years before it was carried out in the Lincoln, but I guess life was cheap.

So you mean you don't want to talk about the Lancaster variant that was armed with proton bombs and dropped them with pinpoint accuracy into the death star's thermal exhaust port that was only two meters wide? I heard about it from some British dude on youtube who has a Ph.D.

1:39 Manchester, had that model plane as an kid, it looked as an Lancaster with the same tail but only two engines. Never heard about it before so this was great.

11:34 sir mixalots favorite bomber😂 good one. and of course, and as expected from the autor, another very comprehensive video. thanks a lot.

My Great uncle was tail gunner in Stirlings, then Lancs. Over 80 sorties during the war, only fired his guns once. His primary role was spotter. Using tracer machine guns in the night sky over Germany was equivalent to turning your landing lights on. All three of the pilots he flew with forbade guns unless absolutely necessary.

22:59 - B-17 from my tail gunner Dad's bomber group: 384 Heavy, Grafton Underwood - Triangle P - Assigned to a different squadron though. Use this search string for more info: _B-17G 44-8007_ "44-8007 was equipped with a PFF (RADAR) system in place of the Ball Turret. Therefore, it did not have a Ball Turret Gunner assigned on any missions."

I had the pleasure of visiting the Bomber Command Museum in Nanton, Alberta, Canada. The Lanc is a very impressive machine, particularly when they start 3 engines for you with about 150 slackjawed air cadets just outside of salsa range. One thing I do remember being told was that the British tended to use .303s so often because they had massive stores of ammunition left over from the previous world war. And you know British practicality, there were hungry kids in the colonies who could've been eating those bullets, so they couldn't be wasted.

Hello Greg, we have had never saw or talked. I would like to thank you for your channel. It is incredible source of detailed and nicely explained knowledge about planes and engineering in general. I am really impressed by you work. And second thing, curse on you. Every time I am under impression that I know something about something, I find out that I have no idea. I don't like it, but please continue. It hurts my pride but you making me smarter person. Great work. Regards from Prague.