All true! Thank you for making my point! Total RAF-BC KIAs were the larger figure and included those of the Sterling and the other Heavy Bomber, which name escapes me now. But I figure that it was more like 24,496 just from Lancasters because some of the crew made it out of stricken bombers. On the other hand American Casualties from Heavy Bombers in the ETO never exceeded 26,XXX, that from all types. The rest of America's 52,000 casualties were from Medium Bombers and fighter planes. so 815 medium bombers and the fighter losses equate to 26000ish casualties yet 5500 heavy losses only accounted for 26000?
Well, yes. 5,500 heavies would have had about 55,000 crew onboard when hit and since over 60% of our crews escaped after critical damage to create the 35-40 thousand POWs previously mentioned by you and others, that leaves about 26,000 KIA. So once again, I say yes, it is about 26,000 casualties.

so by your figures we have 26K killed in Heavy bombers, now if we are extream and state that all medium and light bombers carried 10 crew and all of them were lost in the planes loss we have another 8k, now assume another 2k for kia without the loss of the Bomber we than have 36k from 55k that would mean that the USAAF lost 17k fighter pilots

 

4. From that very paper; They have seven or is it ten different "Average Bomb Load" figures, NONE of which agree with their total bomb loads/sorties calculations!

yet you are certain you are correct, yet all the official sources show that there is no "definitive" number, however they all closely agree that you number is way off
5. The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s alone! 335K/298K!

as pointed out numerous time, bombing a target like the Ruhr is not the same as a railway yard in France, but it took the US twice as many missions to drop the same weight, despite having what was 4x the number of bombers availiable at the very end, if youi check the mission rate you will see that B17 flew more missions in 45 than it did in 44, in fact they flew more in 45 than it in 43 and 44 combined

 At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable of the two!

no as the numbers available were at the maximum and the opposition was at its lightest and the targets were softest all these would sway the figures

6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;

 

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the B-17, the B-17 will fly farther

(as proved many times the Lancaster could and did fly further with bomb loads that were completely beyond the ability of the B17)

, higher

(a requirement for day not for night operations, so pointless, you cannot state that a requirement specific to one aircraft makes it superior to the other, if you could we could say that the Lancaster was capable of carrying the tallboy - beyond the capability of the B17 so the Lancaster is superior, or even that the Lancaster was catapult capable the B17 not, could the Lancaster have increased celing, yes of course, use the High altitude Merlins and extend the wings by a couple of feet (proven in the later Lancasters/Lincoln)

 and more often than any Merlin engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II.

only because the RAF saw no reason for a > 30k bomber as it was more vulnerable than a night bomber and  by 44 less accurate, so no attempt was made to get this out of a heavy

The only real differance between the two is the typical mission profile.

no the only real difference is the bomb load

B. The B-17 was much tougher plane to knock down than the Lancaster. See losses/missions in the report above.

Not proven, only your misunderstanding of mission profiles would lead you to think this, if you fly risker missions you will suffer higher losses regardless of the survivability of the plane, if you check those daylight missions the Lancaster flew in 44/45 and compare to the B17 on the same type of missions you will find that the Lancaster suffered fewer losses, what can be concluded is that the RAF flew higher risk missions than the USSAF

 

C. The differances in bomb load delivered by the RAF heavies and American heavies was entirely due to the huge differances in mission profile, not Aerodynamic properties of the two planes.

not true, the B17 was incapable of carrying the loads to the ranges needed regardless of any mission profiles

 

If the Lancasters had to climb to altitude and circle over their bases forming up for up to 80-90 minutes before departing toward Germany like their American counter parts, their range would be about 250-320 miles less than the typical B-17 mission and 380-450 miles less than the typical B-24 mission. (The longer the mission, the larger the differance.

But not true, the Lancaster had a longer clean air range then the B17 or the B24 (excluding the ELR B24s) so whilst the difference might be less even if the Lancaster had to form up and fly formation it would still out range the B17s

 

D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended targets, most of those from their ~40,000 day light missions flown late in the war. Even then, the bomb scatter was excessive. See the above report.
yet it was superior to the USAAF efforts

E. The total weight that could have been carried, but was not, is about the same for the Lancaster and B-17G, IE 17,600 pounds and 18,000 pounds, ir-respectively!
but as pointed out that the Lancaster could and did fly with that weight and the B17 maximum war load was < 10000lbs and even that was for short range "special missions" and sub 3000lbs missions were common, you going back to using discredited number

F. While I can recently find no proof, the loads I stipulated COULD have been carried, there is no reason why they could not have been done IF they had chosen to do so!

whilst a 17600lb load could have been possible (but only a few G models with external racks which IIRC was less than 100 aircraft) it was never carried and was limited to a range of 650 miles their and back (including formup) now where near the range the Lancaster managed with 18000lbs and all lancasters could carry that

 The loads are with in respective lifting abilities and the bombs fit dimentionally!
yes they fit, to hit the 17600 you need to carry 2x4000lbs bombs on external racks something that was believed to be possible but was never tried operational and proved to be a bad idea when tried in the safety of the US

G. This late at night, if I have forgotten anything I could have said in the past, please enter it here!

their is a 4000 character limit and no one wants another 100 pages of the rubbish you spout

A little report I found ( figures up to end of 44)

 

type                  tons(long) dropped per Aircraft missing

Lancaster                           107.2

Halifax                                 48

US Heavy(not split)            41

 

 

that does not look impressive for US  bombers does it

 

 

Also

Lancaster bombload for 1500 mile range - 11500lbs

So, using your numbers, The USAAF flew 332,904 sorties of which 274,921 or ~82% were effective at a cost of about 5,500 heavy bombers of the B-17/24 types? Is that it? Are those the right numbers?
Is that about right? I mean lets use the correct numbers if we are going to do this right.
 

2, it would make the aircraft uncontrolable in pitch      
 Almost certainly resulting in a sudden pitch up, followed by a stall, or PIO= Pilot Induced Occilation resulting in ecessive loads beyond the aircraft's stress limits! With the CoG range AFT exceeded by more than one foot, or almost two feet, depending on who's guess you favor.    

If it was the second that would require both a bomb hang up AND pilot error,

Not at all. PIO is a condition caused by factors normally beyond the controll of the pilot, when the plane's CoG is so far behind the desired range!

so basically you are saying that they lost hundreds of planes to PIO? you seriously expecting this to hold water? that all these loses were down to a CONTROLLABLE situation?
Once again. Aft CoG excursion is not something that any pilot can control. When it happens the loss of control is both quick and beyond the pilot's ability to control.
Now that is rubbish, it would take longer than that to transit between one sudden climb and one sudden dive, and PIO would need sustained porposing to cause failure
However long it takes, how does that change the outcome?

But in any case the crew who are being tossed about by the sudden violent vertical positive and negitive G maneuvers can do nothing to escape when they are alternately flung from floor to ceiling! 

and not even the sudden disintegration of the plane there were never any survivors, yet in less losses due to flak(according to you) there were many reports of survivors from aircraft explosively disintegrating   
Point to any post where I stated any of the above sentance! You are "Inferring" things I never said because of your lack of knowledge about how and why aircraft do the things they do!

but his basic oppinion was that the whole idea was rubbish, whilst a CoG change of this order was not nice it certainly wouldnt have moved the plane out of control flight parameters.

OK, fine. That is his oppinion. Exactly how much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
 

No, I got the CoG "Ideal point" from a post by others and the CoG range from someone elses post.
well you never credited it you claimed it was YOUR idea!
Again, that is simply not true! I always atributed the sources, just like I did above. The problem is the other people making assumptions about what I wrote WO actually understanding it or taking the wrong point from it.

I use those Datums because they are larger than I would have expected, but are still exceeded by a hung 1,000 pound bomb in the last row aft!
only according to you no one else, in fact every one else thinks that this is a load of made up rubbish, it was when you tried the same question on a professional pilots site?
Please post a link to that prossessional Pilot's web site, so that I might review the data that is being used against me?
   
Also note that I am prepaired to argue the whole point again, should any one post copies of the realivant documents! 
Their are no relevant documents, Actually, there are realivant documents. They are the Lancaster's pilot's Manual where they list the CoG Datum and the Permissible range of CoG values! They have been posted several times over the length of this argument. Either look them up in the thread, or the various online copies of the manuals. If you are so convinced you find a document that states that such a loading at such a distance from the CoG would cause potentially fatal change in the flight envelope!
I never looked because I knew the results of such an excusion. But several other in this debate have looked and posted links to same. But their either thought it said something else, or failed to not the significance of scertain PPs in those links, like the PP and Graph of how a PIO happens and the result of same. (Which I pointed out in my next reply and they all ignorred.)

 

A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the B-17, the B-17 will fly farther

 
  

No, not at all, until you understand one set of number were for the easy, at least according to the RAF-BCnight missions at low altitude and the other number was for daylight missions at high altitude?
  I have never disputed this! Ever. Just tried to inform you how those numbers were arrived at. Take off, climb/cruise, gaining altitude on the way to the target, WO formation, fly 750 miles, drop the bombs, RTB 750 miles, land with no reserves or gas in the tanks, all at night in the absence of true opposition.
Now, why don't you calculate the numbers, IF, it had to fly the same mission as the B-17s in broad day light? RIGHT!

You misquote and misuse the numbers, one called Shooter.

You've only proven that you lie again because you use my numbers which are NOT your numbers that you originally used, (See your first posts.)

Additionally you write that B-17 losse were seen in daylight,which is obvious and a foolish statement (though you lie about those ratios since it was fighters/flak equal)  ignoring that you originally claimed most Lancasters were lost to flak, when you were warned that the British knew their losses were 2/1 fighters/flak.

The only consistent is that you are wrong, one called Shooter and we now know you write falsely.