Help support TMP


"Ceilings for Loaded RAF Heavy Bombers?" Topic


11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Media Message Board

Back to the WWII Aviation Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land
World War Two at Sea
World War Two in the Air

Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Victory as a Campaign System

Can a WWII blockgame find happiness as a miniatures campaign system?


Featured Workbench Article

Dewoitine D.500: Panel Lines & Painted Details

miscmini Fezian builds, paints, and decals Reviresco's 1/144 scale Dewoitine D.510.


Featured Profile Article

The Simtac Tour

The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.


1,153 hits since 7 Oct 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mako1107 Oct 2016 11:02 p.m. PST

I tried doing a bit of searching, but haven't had much luck.

Just curious to see if there are any technical charts, or data for the ceilings of the Lancaster, Halifax, and Stirling bombers for various bomb load weights?

I understand that the ceiling of the Stirling was quite low, due to its clipped wings, but have read the Halifaxes also had lower ceilings than the Lancs.

Is there any on-line data available, or can anyone give me a rough estimate of their typical ceilings on deep raids, like to Berlin, Nuremberg, etc.?

A link to on-line info would be great, but I haven't found any good resources for them yet.

Could also use cruise speeds for various bomb loads too.

Alphanor08 Oct 2016 11:23 a.m. PST

From The U.S Strategic Bomber, by Roger Freeman (Macdonald, 1975) – A table on p.143 gives load-range-height operating factors.(The table says "typical", but I think the bombloads are pretty much the maximums.
Lancaster I – 16,000 ft ceiling, 14,000 lbs bombload, 1,500 miles range.
Halifax III – 15,000 ft ceiling, 13,000 lbs bombload, 1,050 miles range.
Stirling III – 12,000 ft ceiling, 9,000 lbs bombload, 1,400 miles range.
B-17G – 25,000 ft ceiling, 4,000 lbs bombload, 2,000 miles range.
B-24J – 20,000 ft ceiling, 5,000 lbs bombload, 1,700 miles range.

Hope this is of some use.

Mako1108 Oct 2016 11:47 a.m. PST

Thanks for that. It's a great start.

I know some Lancs flew with lesser loads, like 9,000 lbs. at 21,000 – 21,500 feet, due to anecdotal reports in various books.

Will need to do more research on the others.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2016 1:35 p.m. PST

Excellent reference cited by Alphanor. Agreed re the maximums.

BattlerBritain08 Oct 2016 2:25 p.m. PST

Good references.

Just out of idle curiousity I seem to remember that 617 Sqdn released Tallboys from quite high up.

Looking in Wikip apparently 12,000lb Tallboys were dropped on the Tirpitz from Lancasters between 12,000 and 16,000 feet.

Mako1108 Oct 2016 2:39 p.m. PST

So, looks like about 1,000 feet of ceiling gained, or perhaps a bit more, for every 1,000 lbs. of bombs below maximum capacity as a rough guide for the Lancasters.

Of course, the model of bomber, temperature of the air, gallons of fuel carried, distance to the target, etc., etc., all factor in as well, but at least that's a decent guide for the Lanc.

Now, to find more info on the Halifax and Stirling.

I did read that the latter frequently only carried 3,500 lbs. of bombs to targets deep into Germany (presumably Berlin, and other similar targets), due to its low ceiling. Max. ceiling for it is mentioned in Wikipedia as 16,500', and a 200 MPH cruise. I've also seen 165 MPH mentioned as the cruise speed for it as well, and that a 12,000' ceiling seemed to be more the norm for it, when loaded up with bombs.

John Secker08 Oct 2016 4:36 p.m. PST

Of course 617 Squadron also used the 22,000lb Grand Slam on several raids in 1945. The only reference to height I can find was one dropped from around 12,000 feet.

Rapier Miniatures09 Oct 2016 6:24 a.m. PST

Lancasters could and did go up to 35,000ft, but the crew needed to be in electric heated suits.

It was also faster at altitude than all the other bombers listed as its engines performed much better than the alternatives in the thinner atmosphere.

Skarper09 Oct 2016 7:45 a.m. PST

It was usual to return high and fast in Lancasters to evade the Nachtjaegers and FlaK.

Some crews allegedly dumped their 'cookies' in the North Sea in order to gain height and speed outbound. I'm not sure how they wouldn't get found out when the photos were developed though.

Being high up seems to have been a big help in survival but must also have led to even more inaccurate bombing results.

Mako1109 Oct 2016 1:54 p.m. PST

Many did that supposedly on cloudy nights, so there was little risk of being discovered, and they still had their regular bombs, so could perhaps claim their cookie was a dud, in clear weather.

A high proportion of bombs in WWII were duds, and many are still, even today.

Skarper10 Oct 2016 1:16 a.m. PST

I live in Vietnam, which is still littered with UXO from the 60s-70s, so yeah, plenty of bombs were/are duds.

As for the photography I thought they dropped a flash flare and used it in conjunction with a long exposure to get an image of the bombs soon after release.

As for clouds they usually flew above them, sometimes getting into the jet stream [though they didn't know it existed at the time] which is above 30,000 feet usually.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.