John Francis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:53:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: >> Adam Maas wrote: >>> Doug Franklin wrote: >>> >>>> Adam Maas wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with >>>>> it's 4 Merlins. >>>> I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static >>>> display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around >>>> 1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really >>>> sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. >>>> >>> >>> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based >>> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but >>> small by todays standards. >> Small but effective. I think it has three or four times the payload >> capacity of the B17. No armour except for the cockpit........ > > The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a 22,000lb bomb. > That was about three times the payload of a B17. > > To put thing in perspective - modern strike fighters such as the F-16 or > the Eurofighter have a payload of 14,000lb or so - something like 80% of the > normal payload of an unmodified Lancaster, or twice what a B17 could carry. > >
To put it even more in perspective, the B-52H has a max payload of 70,000lbs, and the B-1B holds 75,000lbs internally and can carry another 59,000lbs on pylons (but the START 1 treaty prevents the use of external stores on the B-1B). The B-2 is a lightweight, topping out at 40,000lbs. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
