Irrespective of the performance figures for both these aircraft, I have heard it said that, given the rivalry of crews that flew either machine, it was not inknown for the crews of Halifaxes returning at dawn from a mission over Europe, to, when they saw a Lancaster in front, feather one propellor, open up the throttles on the other three engines, and then go sailing past the Lancaster whilst giving V signs and pointing out the fact that they had one engine out and could still overtake the Lanc. Has anybody else heard that ?
I've heard it, but the feathering-of-the-prop bit may be an embellishment.... Certainly, the Hercules-engined variants were faster than the Merlin-engined Lancasters, and I know a veteran ex-Lancaster Mk II man who confirms that they could 'out-run' Mks I/III.
Martin and I disagree on the merits of the Halifax but he is just a victim of errant thinking. I love Halifax's !
I have always been "for" the underdog and the B-24 and Halifax have never gotton the public reconginition that the Lancaster and B-17 have gotton. I also like the way it looks, even though the early models were not very aerodynamic. I am also a Short Sterling fan and I like the way it looks even though I would be intimitated to fly one. Going from landing a Wellington to landing a Sterling is quite a milestone.
