AVRO Lincoln

[ross blackford]

:D, RCAFFAN, did you read the link in Dave Fleming's post? If being attacked by fully armed MiG-15s and getting shot down isn't combat involving an element of danger I don't know what is. Regardless of whether they were on the British side of the border or just over it on the Russian side makes no difference. The aircraft was attacked by MiG-15s firing live rounds and shot down. In this case the Lincoln was the one that couldn't fight back because the feed shutes to the mid upper turret had been removed and the tail turret guns had no ammo. Even one of the crew survivors was attacked and shot on the way down in his parachute as seen by witnesses on the ground. This poor crew member apparently had injuries consistent with large calibre rounds passing through him. What greater element of danger do you want in this story? I think that in any cogent observer's eyes this was real combat. An unarmed aircraft was shot down, one crew member was fired upon as he drifted down in his parachute and when his remains were taken for a post mortem there was evidence of large calibre holes in his body. The MiG-15 didn't have piddling 12.7 mm guns as you should well know. It had 2 X 23mm and 1 X 37mm cannons so those injuries would havc been substatntial. If that were me facing that I'd certainly consider it "bloody dangerous".

As to the Lincoln itself I wouldn't call it a little known type. It was a development of one of the most famous bombers of WW2 and actually did have a longer operational life than the Lancaster. It was quite well known here in Oz and I can even remember seeing a couple at Williamtown when I was little. Worldwide it would have certainly been better known than 0.1% of the population. As to kits of the Lincoln I have one of the old Contrail vacuforms in the stash that I intend to build as a longnose Aussie version.

,

Ross.

[vince14]

As to some other foolish examples given here, planes were indeed flying into danger and credible anti aircraft systems and there were certainly legit loses right up to the unfortunate Jordanian pilot lost recently, but the Lincoln never really was in any danger....

There was no air defence threat at all, at any stage in OEF, and with the possible exception of the opening night there was no real threat in OIF either. Do you want to go and tell those guys they were never in combat? That all they did was drop bombs on unarmed natives from a very safe height?

Oh, and the unfortunate Ft. Lt. Moaz Youssef al-Kasasbeh was brought down by a mechanical failure, not by enemy action and, seeing as your criteria is flying into a 'credible anti aircraft system' (which ISIS do not possess) he, apparently, wasn't in combat either...

[LanceB]

RCAFFAN, the Lincoln may not have seen as much combat as some aircraft, but it saw infinitely more than the aircraft in your avatar. Now, perhaps Canadian dictionaries differ from mine, but nowhere in my dictionary is there a footnote after the definition of "combat" as "active fighting in a war" that states "but only if both militaries are evenly matched in capabilities". Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply to combat - in fact, when I was being trained for such, it was made abundantly clear that a "fair" fight was something to not be desired. Overwhelming superiority was the desired state of affairs, not putting yourself in "danger". You want the other guy to be in danger.

[Rich in name only]

I have a question! Let's see, is there a hand-up smily face?

For Ross:

about Lincoln served longer than Lanc:

With Lancasters in service as long as they were in Canada and France, what are considered to be the dates of service for both types?

I think this is the kind of thing we ARC wingnuts and rivet-counters might find interesting in learning more about the type plane and it really is interesting to me 'cause I've had a life around less-famous planes.

Thanks!

:unsure:

[LanceB]

I have a question! Let's see, is there a hand-up smily face?

For Ross:

about Lincoln served longer than Lanc:

With Lancasters in service as long as they were in Canada and France, what are considered to be the dates of service for both types?

I think this is the kind of thing we ARC wingnuts and rivet-counters might find interesting in learning more about the type plane and it really is interesting to me 'cause I've had a life around less-famous planes.

Thanks!

:unsure:/>

The Lancaster first flew in 1941, entered RAF service in 1942, and Canada retired the type in 1963, for 21 years in active service.

The Lincoln first flew in 1944, entered RAF service in 1945, Argentina retired its last Lincoln in 1967, for 22 years active service.

And while we're on the family...

The York was in service for 20 years, the Lancastrian for 15, and the Shackleton for 40 years!

[ross blackford]

:D, Thank you for that Lance. And for the info on the rest of the family. I had read somewhere long ago that the Lincoln served a little longer than the Lancaster but I didn't know the York served almost as long as the Linc and Lanc. I did know that the Shack served almost twice as long as the Linc and Lanc. While we're on the family I read back in the 1980s in an American aviation mag that the Shackleton AEW 2, for what it was, was a good aircraft at it's job. Their comment was that only the Brits could fit a 1940s vintage radar to a 1950s vintage airframe and make it work so well in the 1980s in a role it was never meant to serve in in the first place.

,

Ross.

[Flankerman]

Ross,

Have you seen the T-shirts worn by Shackleton crews when the Boeing E-3 Sentry was just entering RAF service ???

It read.....

8 screws are better than 4 blow-jobs

I was reminded of it at the weekend - when I saw one for sale outside the MR.2 Shack at Coventry....(note:- this pic was taken in 2011 - it now has all four Griffons working)....

Ken

[ross blackford]

:D, Hey Ken, No I haven't seen that one, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. Some time during the F-111's career in the RAAF there developed a number of problems with the TF-30 engine. The 3AD and 482 SQN sumpies at Amberley had these t-shirts printed that read Pratt and Whitless, Deplorable Engines. A team from P&W came to Amberley to fix the problem and demanded that the t-shirts not be worn on base. In those days (it must have been the late 70s, because in late 1980 the CAS introduced summer working dress of a blue t-sirt and dark grey shorts for us) there was no official summer working dress until said CAS came to Learmonth and was aghast that we were all wearing locally printed deployment t-shirts in many different bright colours. I still have one although it no longer fits me. The OC at Amberley eventually saw the P&W team's point and banned them on base. So then they were worn after hours and on weekends all over Ipswich and Brisbane as far down as the Gold Coast. Nothing the P&W people could do about that.

,

Ross.

[RCAFFAN]

Boy...from discussing the nature of combat to T-Shirt slogans, talk about the tread taking an abrupt turn. I could say lots more but see no point as only my initial P.S. and a few others actually tried to answer the OP's question.

As to a popular plane (again not knocking the Lincoln or their crews in an way) if you asked "What bomber replaced the Lancaster in British service?" on the street (again not here where most of us are fairly military aware) I believe you would get very few correct answers. In fact you might get similar results even in the jet board here, especially among the younger members. I would love to see a 1/72 kit of the Lincoln but I am not holding my breath.....

P.S. Drewe if you use the term "Combat operations" as you now are then I agree with you completely. I guess I personally have trouble with equating the said operations with anything that bomber crews went through in say WWII and I guess that was my point.

Edited May 5, 2015 by RCAFFAN

[ross blackford]

:D, RCAFFAN, Is it not permissable to get a little off track and bring a little levity into the discussion? Actually I've told Ken's joke to a few aviation minded people at work today who know about the Lincoln and Shackleton and the E-3 and they got a real hoot out of it. To answer your statement about what that Lincoln crew went through compared to what wartime Lanc crews went through, at least the Lanc crews were able to defend themselves to a point. That poor Lincoln crew had no hope of defending themselves against those MiG-15s and what's more the crewman drifting down in his parachute had even less chance of defending himself. As I said earlier, if that's not combat with an element of danger then I don't know what is.

,

Ross.

[vince14]

I guess I personally have trouble with equating the said operations with anything that bomber crews went through in say WWII and I guess that was my point.

The average B-17 or Lancaster crew flying over Germany in March/April 1945 faced a level of danger not much higher than the Lincoln crews over Malaya. The Reich's defences were defeated by then, with very little Luftwaffe activity since January 1945 - there are countless P-51 pilots who flew in 1945 who never even saw a German aircraft airborne, let alone engaged one in combat - and significantly reduced AAA as well. They just didn't face the level of opposition that crews flying in 1943/44 did. Most bomber sorties in 1945 would have been considered 'Milk Runs' by the crews who flew in 1943/44 - and the aircrew flying over Afghanistan in the last decade faced even less opposition than those Lincoln crews, because the Taliban had absolutely no air defence capability whatsoever. But if you say the Lincoln crews were not in 'proper combat', then neither were those crews who flew in 1945, or the guys in OEF, either.

My point is that the level of opposition is irrelevant. Were those sorties flown with the intention of causing harm to an enemy? Did the aircrew on those sorties risk capture, imprisonment and perhaps torture or execution if they were to fall into the opposition's hands during the course of that sortie? If the answer is 'Yes', then those people were in combat.

Edited May 6, 2015 by vince14

[afspret]

Its amazing how my simple question about the lack of a 1/72nd scale Lincoln turned into a debate about "used in combat" means to some people, while there's yet to be a comment on possible viable reasons for this a/c not being kitted in 1/72 scale.

Oh, and I might as well throw my two cents worth, or 2 pence worth for all the Brits here; I recall reading a few years ago in either FlyPast or AeroPlane that the Shack replaced the Lincoln on ops in the Aden Protectorate & Oman where it flew a variety of missions, including ground attack & several short term bombing ops. So obviously the reason the Shack has been kitted & not the Lincoln has nothing to do those who claim the type never was "used in combat".

[sweier]

there's yet to be a comment on possible viable reasons for this a/c not being kitted in 1/72 scale.

Do you mean, aside from this one? The comment that started the discussion?

The Lincoln was never used in combat, and 99.9% of people have never heard of it.

Shane

Edited May 6, 2015 by sweier

[ross blackford]

:D, Hi afspret, the Lincoln has been kitted in 1/72 scale. As I said in an earlier post I have a Contrail vacuform 1/72 kit. Maybe no one has suggested it to any of the injection moulding manufacturers. Sometimes we have to make the suggestion because they are busy with other projects and may not even have thought of it. Years ago I emailed ICM asking if they had thought of making a new more accurate kit of the Polikarpov I-153 in 1/72 scale as their I-15 and I-15bis were beautifully done. They replied fairly quickly and said it was in their plans, just not at that time. Of course we now have that kit and although it does have some weaknesses it is better than what was available in the scale before.

Perhaps we as a modeling block should contact Airfix as they are the natural potential producer of such a kit. It may take several years but if they don't know there is a desire and a market for it they'll never produce it. Now that you've brought the subject up younger modellers will know of this aircraft and may also join us in lobbying the manufacturers as now they also know about it even if they didn't before.

,

Ross.

[Don]

Yes I know, its not 1/72 but she's still a beauty of a model in my humble opinion:

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/lincolncm_1.htm

Regards,

Don

[ross blackford]

:D, I'd like to tell an anecdote about a Lincoln in Aussie service back in the 50s. One of my flight sergeants back in the early 70s had been with one of the Lincoln squadrons in the 50s and one day they were returning to Nowra from a maritime patrol out over the Tasman sea. This man was in the tail turret and noticed a Navy Sea Fury approaching quickly from behind and reported to the skipper that this bloke had tucked in under the Lincoln's port wing and was using them as a sunvisor. The skipper said something along the lines of "Well, we'll see about that won't we" and promptly started a slow gentle descent towards the water. Every one was watching out for the Sea Fury until they were almost on the deck when the man in the nose turret called out "Coast coming up quick, full power Skipper." When the captain looked up he realized how close they were and applied full power to all engines and began a frantic climb out. When they got to Nowra there was a piece of saltbush caught in the tail wheel strut, that's how close they got to the coastal cliffs. None of them saw what happened to the Sea Fury but he also made it back to Nowra and from all accounts a few cross words were spoken in the Mess that night.

,

Ross.

[Flankerman]

'Woody37' has made a halfway decent job of converting the Airfix Lanc into a Lincoln - using the Blackbird models resin conversion set.....

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234978335-blackbird-avro-lincoln-172-resin-conversion/?hl=lincoln

Ken

[afspret]

I know about the Contrail kit, maybe I should've mentioned a Lincoln in injection molded form. I'm just wondering why there doesn't yet seem to be any type of discussion from one of the major kit makers about considering putting out an injection molded version of this aircraft.

[ross blackford]

:D, Hi afspret, Maybe there will be now that it's been discussed here. I'm sure the manufacturers read forums like this to see what's trending and what's not but maybe it's just as I said in my second last post that the manufacturers are busy with their current projects and just haven't thought of it yet. They're human too don't forget and like the rest of us do tend to get tied up with what they're doing at this time. I'm another who would like to see the Lincoln in 1/72 injected form, with the option of making the GAF Mk31 longnose version.

,

Ross.

[pigsty]

I know about the Contrail kit, maybe I should've mentioned a Lincoln in injection molded form. I'm just wondering why there doesn't yet seem to be any type of discussion from one of the major kit makers about considering putting out an injection molded version of this aircraft.

Yes, returning the original question ...

The truth is, the Lincoln is an interesting aircraft to we who know about the subject, but compared with the Lancaster or the Halifax or the Spitfire or the infernal bloody Bf 109, it's insignificant. Especially to the casual buyer who doesn't really know very much about aviation. We must always remember, model companies have to sell to them as well, and those who try to sell only to dedicated expert modellers rarely prosper. Least of all if they try to do it with injection moulding. I personally would much rather have a Lincoln than a Lancaster, in 151 Sqn colours because my father flew with them (in fact he made the RAF's last operational Lincoln flight). But I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Having said that, there's a rumour that Airfix may have enough CAD data from its Lancasters and the upcoming Shackleton to leave not much left to do to knock up a Lincoln. I reckon, unlikely though this seems, it's probably our best bet.

[vince14]

Having said that, there's a rumour that Airfix may have enough CAD data from its Lancasters and the upcoming Shackleton to leave not much left to do to knock up a Lincoln. I reckon, unlikely though this seems, it's probably our best bet.

I think Airfix is the most likely candidate. Since Hornby got them back on track, they seem to have realised that their core market is the UK and most of their 'new tool' releases have been distinctly British in flavour. Since they've already done the Lanc, and the Shackleton is on it's way, there's some logic in going with a Lincoln in future.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

The Lincoln was never used in combat, and 99.9% of people have never heard of it.

Irrespective of the "used in combat" debate, is there a rule book somewhere that states all aircraft model kits must be of types that were used in combat and are known about by more than 0.01% of people?

[ross blackford]

:D, Or seeing as we're discussing a rare bird, how about an even more rare conversion. Who's heard of the Lincolnian?

,

Ross.

[pigsty]

Irrespective of the "used in combat" debate, is there a rule book somewhere that states all aircraft model kits must be of types that were used in combat and are known about by more than 0.01% of people?

Of course there isn't. There's just market forces. Very few manufacturers are going to invest in the tooling unless they can be sure of selling the product. If it's not a well-known aircraft with a celebrated war record, it's playing off a very large handicap. If you doubt that, ask any model shop owner about his sales of, say, Revell Bf 109s -v- Revell BV 222s.

But I remain hopeful. I'd never have expected an AF-2 five years ago, or an An-28, and if they can pop up, anything can.

[ross blackford]

:D, Hi Sean, birds such as the An-28 aren't particularly well kown in the west but they are pretty well known in the east. All the kits of the An-28 I've seen so far are in 1/144 scale; so far I haven't seen a 1/72 scale one yet but I live in hope. I also live in hope of a 1/72 Lincoln apart from the Contrail vacuform.

,

Ross.