Shortround6
Major General
Bump to go with Tomo's 1940 RAF thread.
January 1936: build your RAF
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Since we have more time to work with things in this thread than trying to cobble together stuff after BoB lets see what we can do here.
Bristol, Junk the Taurus and see what can be done with the Mercury, better use of 100 ocatane gas? two speed supercharger? more cylinder fins?
Look at a hybrid Blenheim/Beaufort. See if construction method/s used in Beaufort can be used to update the Blenheim, at least in part. Lighter structural weight. Use Beaufort clamshell landing gear doors instead of the Blenheims 'apron" doors
Loose and engine and you have how many sq ft of airbrake dragging you down if the landing gear is down???? You may get a better fit for better streamlining with the gear up too. Such doors were fitted to the last variants.
Fit fulling feathering /constant speed props instead 2 position props, better performance and better safety.
A better turret, even if still only two .303s, turrets that retract for less drag while cruising and extend (slowing the plane down) for combat might be ok for long flights with little opposition but not what is wanted in really contested airspace.
A two speed Supercharger might offer another 100hp or so for take-off even on 87 octane fuel, 100 octane might add almost another 100hp to that allowing for higher take-off weights and or better safety if it lost and engine on take-off.
Use Beaufort design to jump off from for Beaufighter. but don't build much for Beauforts unless you can get P W R-1830s.
Bristol, Junk the Taurus and see what can be done with the Mercury, better use of 100 ocatane gas? two speed supercharger? more cylinder fins?
Look at a hybrid Blenheim/Beaufort. See if construction method/s used in Beaufort can be used to update the Blenheim, at least in part. Lighter structural weight. Use Beaufort clamshell landing gear doors instead of the Blenheims 'apron" doors
Loose and engine and you have how many sq ft of airbrake dragging you down if the landing gear is down???? You may get a better fit for better streamlining with the gear up too. Such doors were fitted to the last variants.
Fit fulling feathering /constant speed props instead 2 position props, better performance and better safety.
A better turret, even if still only two .303s, turrets that retract for less drag while cruising and extend (slowing the plane down) for combat might be ok for long flights with little opposition but not what is wanted in really contested airspace.
A two speed Supercharger might offer another 100hp or so for take-off even on 87 octane fuel, 100 octane might add almost another 100hp to that allowing for higher take-off weights and or better safety if it lost and engine on take-off.
Use Beaufort design to jump off from for Beaufighter. but don't build much for Beauforts unless you can get P W R-1830s.
- Thread starter
- #83
Shortround6
Major General
You might be able to use the up-rated Blenheim as a torpedo bomber but at shorter ranges than the Beaufort.
Things like the Fiat G.55S only work if the enemy very obligingly sails his ships very close to your air bases. Great if you need torpedo bombers to close off the English channel, not so hot if you are trying to hit convoys/shipping along the Norwegian coast or even the North Dutch coast 100km short of Emden
Things like the Fiat G.55S only work if the enemy very obligingly sails his ships very close to your air bases. Great if you need torpedo bombers to close off the English channel, not so hot if you are trying to hit convoys/shipping along the Norwegian coast or even the North Dutch coast 100km short of Emden
Last edited:
Well I have earlier - Blenheim has been replaced (see post #64) - by a bigger aircraft, some of which could allocated to CC for LR-TB, and the Atlantic Gap is covered by the new very large Short Swansea Flying boat - version of the 'G' Class - with a range of 3,000 miles.
I'm not in favour of trying to improve the Blenheim. It's a bit of a sow's ear. The Beaufort enters RAF service as its premier torpedo bomber on schedule and perhaps - issues with the Beaufighter notwithstanding, and the requirement for night fighters, Frise could offer the design as a torpedo bomber sooner - as suggested earlier? This wasn't done until 1942 and even then the Air Ministry refused until a more comprehensive paper on the Beaufighter torpedo bomber was prepared by Bristol that convinced the ministry, so Frise needs to do it as soon as the Beaufort is in service. Scrap Blenheim production altogether and replace with the Beaufighter.
One of the objections the Air Ministry had to the Beaufighter as a torpedo bomber was its high speed, particularly at release height - in reality this was overcome, the Beaufighter needed to slow down to drop the torpedo, but offered a faster transit than the Beaufort. By the time Torbeaus entered service though, the Coastal Command Strike Wing packages making their assaults on Norway were escorted by either Mustangs of Spitfires.
One of the objections the Air Ministry had to the Beaufighter as a torpedo bomber was its high speed, particularly at release height - in reality this was overcome, the Beaufighter needed to slow down to drop the torpedo, but offered a faster transit than the Beaufort. By the time Torbeaus entered service though, the Coastal Command Strike Wing packages making their assaults on Norway were escorted by either Mustangs of Spitfires.
parsifal
Colonel
I thought the Beafighter had to have a shortened smaller torpedo designed and built for it, and this was also a limitation on the earlier introduction of the torbeau
Shortround6
Major General
Britain had a problem with the Blenheim. They never came up with a satisfactory replacement until much, much too late. The Beaufort being a bit of a dud (mainly because of it's engines) and the Beaufighter also arrived late due to engine problems. The Mosquito doesn't even go into action (bomber or fighter wise) until May of 1942. This leaves waaay too many crews little option but to POR (Press On Regardless) for little return. Blenheim's last bombing mission in Europe was Aug 18th 1942. Let alone it's use in North Africa of the Far East.
as for the Beaufort This is from wiki so TIFWIW. "Although designed as a torpedo-bomber, the Beaufort more often flew as a level-bomber. The Beaufort also flew more hours in training than on operational missions and more were lost through accidents and mechanical failures than were lost to enemy fire." The last could be said of a number of planes though.
Less than half the number of Beauforts were made than Blenheims. Aside from being a stepping stone to the Beaufighter and being one of the airplanes that the Australian aircraft industry cut it's teeth on it really didn't do much that couldn't have been done by other aircraft types. The idea that you could replace 9 cylinder 24.9 liter engines with 14 cylinder 25.4 liter engines and stick a fatter fuselage on essentially the same wings and get much of a jump in performance/capabilities needs a LOT of faith in the sleeve valves. That faith crashed and burned, roughly 1/4-1/3 of Beauforts built used P W 14 cylinder 30 liter engines and more would have if the engine supply had been more secure.
A modestly improved Blenheim might well have paid dividends in greater survivability (better engine out capability, redundant systems, etc) rather than major differences in speed or bomb load. The British were late to the game when it came to constant speed and/or full feathering propellers. US airliners were using full feathering props before the Spitfire even flew the first time let alone got fitted with even a two pitch prop. The vast majority of BC aircraft in 1939/40 had two pitch props.
Perhaps the Hercules could be straightened out quicker if they weren't fooling with the Taurus at the same time? The Taurus having it's main claim to fame being in supply a few test sleeves to the Sabre. And it is really questionable if the whole Sabre program was worth the time and money spent on it. With about 4600 Sabre powered Typhoons and Tempest built (including post war) it's contribution, while valuable may not have been critical.
as for the Beaufort This is from wiki so TIFWIW. "Although designed as a torpedo-bomber, the Beaufort more often flew as a level-bomber. The Beaufort also flew more hours in training than on operational missions and more were lost through accidents and mechanical failures than were lost to enemy fire." The last could be said of a number of planes though.
Less than half the number of Beauforts were made than Blenheims. Aside from being a stepping stone to the Beaufighter and being one of the airplanes that the Australian aircraft industry cut it's teeth on it really didn't do much that couldn't have been done by other aircraft types. The idea that you could replace 9 cylinder 24.9 liter engines with 14 cylinder 25.4 liter engines and stick a fatter fuselage on essentially the same wings and get much of a jump in performance/capabilities needs a LOT of faith in the sleeve valves. That faith crashed and burned, roughly 1/4-1/3 of Beauforts built used P W 14 cylinder 30 liter engines and more would have if the engine supply had been more secure.
A modestly improved Blenheim might well have paid dividends in greater survivability (better engine out capability, redundant systems, etc) rather than major differences in speed or bomb load. The British were late to the game when it came to constant speed and/or full feathering propellers. US airliners were using full feathering props before the Spitfire even flew the first time let alone got fitted with even a two pitch prop. The vast majority of BC aircraft in 1939/40 had two pitch props.
Perhaps the Hercules could be straightened out quicker if they weren't fooling with the Taurus at the same time? The Taurus having it's main claim to fame being in supply a few test sleeves to the Sabre. And it is really questionable if the whole Sabre program was worth the time and money spent on it. With about 4600 Sabre powered Typhoons and Tempest built (including post war) it's contribution, while valuable may not have been critical.
Hmm, just a few points there, SR; your post is loaded with rash opinions. The Beaufort, yep, the the Mk.I had plenty of issue with its unreliable engines, but gave excellent service. Remember, the type was Coastal Command's primary torpedo bomber from 1940 to 1943, equipping five squadrons and yes, it did carry out more bombing ops than torpedo work, but all that proves is that it worked pretty hard in other roles aside from the one it was intended for - the British were at war. The pocket battleship Lutzow was torpedoed and disabled by a Beaufort, which kept it in dry dock for six months. Also, the Mk.I with the Taurus XII had improved reliability. Although produced in small numbers, the Mk.II was a success and proved that the primary issue was one of powerplant rather than airframe. If not the Beaufort, then what? The Botha and Hampden? It's vital. Until the Beaufighter comes along, the RAF doesn't have an effective primary torpedo bomber.
"Crashed and burned" is a little overly dramatic description; highly inaccurate and no reflection on the abilities and good service the type gave, as is the fact that less were built than the Blenheim. The reason why the Blenheim was kept in production and service for so long reflects numerical inadequacies within the RAF itself, not necessarily any performance advantages over its contemporaries, including the Beaufort. It was recognised at the time that by the time the war began, the Blenheim was inadequate and approaching obsolescence, but what could the RAF do? It had lots of them and had to go fight with what it had. Once superior aircraft like the Mosquito, Beaufighter etc enter service, the Blenheim was removed from front line duties in Europe pretty quickly. It suffered very high losses in all the commands it served in and was wholly inadequate a fighting machine in the European environment.
Regarding modifying it, when do you propose to do this and with what engine? You've already rubbished every other British engine around at the time and improving the Mercury isn't going to buy you much. By the time you've strengthened the framework to accommodate a new engine, then what? In service for late 41 - early 42? What are you going to do with it and will it be able to match performance of contemporary types. What about the Beaufighter in this? The RAF felt it was unreliable early on, but there weren't enough of it, nor the Mosquito - continuing Blenheim production for the sake of a marginal increase in performance isn't worth it, frankly.
Regarding the Sabre - actually, it was critical. the careers of the Typhoon and Tempest hinged on it until other engines came along. It was one of the powerplant types that the British standardised on producing, so definitely critical.
Parsifal, the Beaufighter could carry any standard British torpedo, the Mk.XII, XIII, but also had the Mk.XV, which enable the Beaufighter's higher speed to be taken into account when delivering the weapon.
"Crashed and burned" is a little overly dramatic description; highly inaccurate and no reflection on the abilities and good service the type gave, as is the fact that less were built than the Blenheim. The reason why the Blenheim was kept in production and service for so long reflects numerical inadequacies within the RAF itself, not necessarily any performance advantages over its contemporaries, including the Beaufort. It was recognised at the time that by the time the war began, the Blenheim was inadequate and approaching obsolescence, but what could the RAF do? It had lots of them and had to go fight with what it had. Once superior aircraft like the Mosquito, Beaufighter etc enter service, the Blenheim was removed from front line duties in Europe pretty quickly. It suffered very high losses in all the commands it served in and was wholly inadequate a fighting machine in the European environment.
Regarding modifying it, when do you propose to do this and with what engine? You've already rubbished every other British engine around at the time and improving the Mercury isn't going to buy you much. By the time you've strengthened the framework to accommodate a new engine, then what? In service for late 41 - early 42? What are you going to do with it and will it be able to match performance of contemporary types. What about the Beaufighter in this? The RAF felt it was unreliable early on, but there weren't enough of it, nor the Mosquito - continuing Blenheim production for the sake of a marginal increase in performance isn't worth it, frankly.
Regarding the Sabre - actually, it was critical. the careers of the Typhoon and Tempest hinged on it until other engines came along. It was one of the powerplant types that the British standardised on producing, so definitely critical.
Parsifal, the Beaufighter could carry any standard British torpedo, the Mk.XII, XIII, but also had the Mk.XV, which enable the Beaufighter's higher speed to be taken into account when delivering the weapon.
parsifal
Colonel
Beaforts did some fine work in CC, sank more than any other single type of LBA in terms of enemy shipping until 1943, undertook some really courageous and successful missions against heavily defended battleships in 1941 and afaik were the only RAF type capable of carrying a full sized 18 air torpedo (I double check that tonite. In 1943 RAAF Beauforts undertook crucial work in places like the Bismarck Sea and then proceeded to maintain the suppression of key Japanese bases in SWPA.
Australian built Beauforts used the Twin Wasp, because we got shafted over the Hercules, not because we preferred the TW. I think in the end that worked out for the best, but it certainly wasn't planned to happen that way.
Claiming the beaufort was a dud is just a little more fanciful than I can accept, sorry SR.
Australian built Beauforts used the Twin Wasp, because we got shafted over the Hercules, not because we preferred the TW. I think in the end that worked out for the best, but it certainly wasn't planned to happen that way.
Claiming the beaufort was a dud is just a little more fanciful than I can accept, sorry SR.
Shortround6
Major General
Gave excellent service? So did the Blenheim
And it did other jobs than the one it was intended for.
let's not confuse the effect of the weapon (torpedo) with the delivery system (particular airplane/airframe).
Crashed and burned referred to the Taurus engine, not necessarily the Beaufort airframe. But since only two airframes went into production with Taurus the engine problems affected the aircraft types. I don't like the "The reason why the Blenheim was kept in production and service for so long reflects numerical inadequacies within the RAF itself, not necessarily any performance advantages over its contemporaries, including the Beaufort. It was recognised at the time that by the time the war began, the Blenheim was inadequate and approaching obsolescence, but what could the RAF do? It had lots of them and had to go fight with what it had."
Part as it is a bit confusing. Yes the British had to fight with what they had when the war started and yes, that also meant producing existing designs in some cases. In the case of the Blenheim however they were still using them in 1942 for 1000 bomber raids ( purely for propaganda to make the "magic" number rather than any real target effect) and first MK V was delivered until June of 1942. MK Vs continued in service in secondary theaters (MTO?) until 1944. Nobody believed it was really very good at this point ( or even 2 years earlier).
The Beaufort is sort of what the Blenheim V (or VI) should have been. But the project was damned by being both too ambitious and not ambitious enough. Too ambitious in that they wanted more payload ( crew, guns, bombs, fuel) from engines that were only a little bit more powerful, and not ambitious enough in that the bombload requirement only went from 1000lb to 1500lbs and the gun armament, while doubled over the pre-war Blenheim, still only totaled four .303 mgs.
The British skipped a generation of light/medium day bombers. And their next generation that actually flew was late and jumped to 2000+ HP engines. Once the shooting started they filled the gap with Lockheed Hudsons/Venturas and Martin Baltimores. Which rather points to the lack of a 1200-1700hp engine early in the war. That isn't quite right as the Melrin certainly performed well in that class but you can't power every airframe with Merlin engines. The Hercules turned out to be a fine engine but it was expensive, not quite powerful enough to begin with (although a light/medium/torpedo bomber designed from the start for a 1400hp engine would have been a good start) ran rather late in actual service timing.
I believe I have "rubbished" them with fair reason. The Napier Dagger? The AS Tiger? The RAF couldn't get rid of them fast enough and that was before the shooting started.
The Blenheim should have been replaced much sooner than it was, but since it wasn't and unless you come up with a whole new airframe and move Hercules engine development up by quite a number of months you don't get a decent replacement. A few "improvements" to the Blenheim to help more crews survive during the bridge months/years until better planes do come along doesn't seem that far out of line. The Beaufighter should have been pushed a bit harder as a multi-use airplane. Perhaps by dumping the Taurus off the Swansea pier in 1939 the Hercules might have been moved up in timing?
P&W recognized in the late 1930s that the R-1535 simply wasn't big enough for future needs and stopped development to work on the R-1830 as the 'small' engine and the R-2800 as the big engine. That, in retrospect, is what Bristol needed to do. Ditch the "new" small engine and concentrate on the new big engines while modifying the "old" small engines just eough to try to bridge the gap.
Actually it wasn't critical at all as things turned out. A lot of planning went into it. A crap load of money went into it. A lot of aircraft were designed/planned around it. Due to late development and problems with early service engines all the other planes except the Typhoon were dropped. The Typhoon turns out to be not all that good at it's intended job and gets shuffled off to ground support, short range tactical bomber. Yes it did do a lot of good work but the war in Europe did NOT hinge on the Sabre or Typhoon. There were 3 Squadrons of Tempests in early July 1944 and 3 more added by the end of August, Nice to have but not really "critical".
- Thread starter
- #92
In a more peaceful tone: since the thread 'starts' in 1936, the 'better Typhoon' could be designed around 300 sq ft wing, a good deal thinner one (15% TtC ratio?), so both speed and altitude capabilities are improved. The fuel tankage need to be about twice as Spitfire and Hurricane (some 180 imp gals?), both to cater for a more powerful/thirstier engine, and to increase loiter 'fighting' time when in defense. Increased endurance/range vs. Spit Hurri should enable better concentration of fighter units, despite being located on more distant locations of respective fighter groups.
In case Taurus is removed both from development and production, the work on Centaurus should be a bit faster? Or a two stage Hercules? In case RR gets the 2-stage Griffon in production earlier in 1943, the 'better Typhoon' could get it?
Alternatively, we can gear the 'Typhoon' towards the Griffon and Hercules, with a bit smaller airframe? Another option is for the Hawker to produce a jet fighter?
In case Taurus is removed both from development and production, the work on Centaurus should be a bit faster? Or a two stage Hercules? In case RR gets the 2-stage Griffon in production earlier in 1943, the 'better Typhoon' could get it?
Alternatively, we can gear the 'Typhoon' towards the Griffon and Hercules, with a bit smaller airframe? Another option is for the Hawker to produce a jet fighter?
Shortround6
Major General
It sort of depends on what you know and when.
Some of my proposals for the Blenheim didn't really require a crystal ball at the time.
From Hamilton standard web site. Hamilton Standard Hydromatic Propeller History
Hamilton Standard introduced the first practical controllable pitch propeller in 1930.
In 1934 they won the Collier trophy for the greatest achievement in aviation in 1933.
In 1935 they introduce the constant speed governor.
In 1937 they introduced the fully feathering propeller as an alternative to using propeller "brakes" on an inoperative engine to stop the propeller from turning. It is soon adopted by 21 domestic and foreign airlines.
Why it took so long for the British to get on the band wagon I have no idea (Germans took out a license much quicker) but there was no good excuse for all those early war British planes to be flying around with fixed pitch or 2 pitch propellers. There are several not so good excuses
Rotol and DH were doing what they could but started later than they needed to, due in part, to official disinterest.
Quite a number of 2 seat or twin engine British aircraft used twin Lewis guns on a scarf mounting in WW I, Why they thought a single Lewis gun was adequate defensive armament for light bombers in the mid/late 1930s can only cause a lot of head shaking.
Those apron landing gear doors take a lot of looking the other way too. Why you would want a 1/2 dozen sq ft (or more) of airbrake deployed every time the landing gear was down takes a LOT of explaining after the first few engine out (single engine) landings or take-offs.
These are rather different issues than trying to pick a winner out of a number of proposed engines or trying to pick a great airfoil without decent wind tunnel experiments or flight tests.
Unfortunately for sleeve valve engines, most of the problems they were supposed to solve in the late 20s or 1930 were solved by other means by 1939/40.
Some of my proposals for the Blenheim didn't really require a crystal ball at the time.
From Hamilton standard web site. Hamilton Standard Hydromatic Propeller History
Hamilton Standard introduced the first practical controllable pitch propeller in 1930.
In 1934 they won the Collier trophy for the greatest achievement in aviation in 1933.
In 1935 they introduce the constant speed governor.
In 1937 they introduced the fully feathering propeller as an alternative to using propeller "brakes" on an inoperative engine to stop the propeller from turning. It is soon adopted by 21 domestic and foreign airlines.
Why it took so long for the British to get on the band wagon I have no idea (Germans took out a license much quicker) but there was no good excuse for all those early war British planes to be flying around with fixed pitch or 2 pitch propellers. There are several not so good excuses
Rotol and DH were doing what they could but started later than they needed to, due in part, to official disinterest.
Quite a number of 2 seat or twin engine British aircraft used twin Lewis guns on a scarf mounting in WW I, Why they thought a single Lewis gun was adequate defensive armament for light bombers in the mid/late 1930s can only cause a lot of head shaking.
Those apron landing gear doors take a lot of looking the other way too. Why you would want a 1/2 dozen sq ft (or more) of airbrake deployed every time the landing gear was down takes a LOT of explaining after the first few engine out (single engine) landings or take-offs.
These are rather different issues than trying to pick a winner out of a number of proposed engines or trying to pick a great airfoil without decent wind tunnel experiments or flight tests.
Unfortunately for sleeve valve engines, most of the problems they were supposed to solve in the late 20s or 1930 were solved by other means by 1939/40.
wuzak
Captain
de Havilland Propellers was formed in 1935.
Rotol was formed in 1937.
de Havilland produced Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers under licence.
I guess prior to that it was the engine manufacturers who built props? Rotol, of corse, being formed by Rolls-Royce and Bristol.
Rotol was formed in 1937.
de Havilland produced Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers under licence.
I guess prior to that it was the engine manufacturers who built props? Rotol, of corse, being formed by Rolls-Royce and Bristol.
Shortround6
Major General
The companies may have seen an advantage but there seems to have been some resistance to actually buying/equipping service aircraft with them. At least in the 1934-39 period. I believe Rotol was formed, in part, by Roy Fedden (and perhaps somebody at Rolls) getting fed up with the lack of British interest in modern propellers. Fedden and few others could see the advantages but some people thought the weight, price and complexity weren't worth it. This based off experiments done back in the 20s with much slower, lower powered aircraft.
Problem with the Belnheim with American engines, SR, is that there was no way that in 1936 the British would accept powering a front line military aircraft with them. You're right about the problem the Brits had with the Blenheim - what option did they have? The proposal you make regarding re-engining it leaves no option since the British engines required were too unreliable - as you've stated by rubbishing them, so the Mercury is all you have. Is it a Blenheim V you are after in 1936? So, essentially, the Blenheim goes from being a nearly obsolescent aircraft during WW2 to a slightly faster nearly obsolescent aeroplane that's unpopular with its crew. There's nothing you can really do with it except take it off the production line as soon as feasibly possible and relegate it to support roles. Why didn't the Brits do this and keep it in production and service for so long? That's a damned good question. Hmmm.
The Beaufort, again we are faced with the same problem as the Blenheim regarding its engines. The Taurus is not going to get better in a hurry, but what is left is little substitute, so it has to continue, otherwise, what torpedo bomber does the RAF have? The Botha? You complain about the Beaufort! It did give excellent service, as did the Blenheim actually, the latter carrying out tasks beyond its original remit, expectation and capability, resulting in high losses and unecessary deaths of aircrew. Regarding the Beaufort launching torpedoes at the Lutzow and other targets that Parsifal mentions in his post, yes, the weapon is responsible, but what you are proposing means the RAF has no effective front line land based torpedo bomber, which makes such attacks less likely, which is not acceptable. What use is an air launched torpedo with nothing to fire it from? Therefore, like the Blenheim, there is no other option but to proceed with fitting the Taurus until US engines can be supplied, which was not going to happen until after the war began. Many in Britain had real issues with the order for Hudsons, what would they have thought if it was proposed that British aircraft were powered by American engines?!
Regarding the definition of medium bombers, well, the British did consider the Blenheim a medium bomber to begin with, and who are we to argue in 1936 with aircraft like the heavy Wellington and Whitley not far away? By wartime and the advent of the heavies, these became medium bombers and far from the British being left short handed by not having a class of aircraft like the Boston or Mitchell (hindsight - lovely to have) pre-war, the main reason the Brits went to the US was to bolster numbers of aircraft, albeit types that were in many cases technically more advanced that their own, the Hudson compared to the Anson, for example. It's worth remembering that with the arrival of the Mosquito, the Boston and Mitchell were out performed. It is also worth remembering that the first Bostons to arrive in Britain, in mid/late 1940 became trainers (Boston Is) and undertook conversion to night fighters (Boston IIs) as Havocs. Boston medium bombers didn't make an appearance until summer 1941, sensibly replacing Blenheims.
As for the Sabre, again, what other options are there? I guess the Sabre was troublesome from the start, but the Air Ministry had placed stock in it and certainly expected the numerous issues to be cured far swifter than they were, but, like I said, it was expected as one of the principal engines under development - the attraction of its power output must have been a factor behind this. At the time the Air Ministry considered it crucial to their plans - with hindsight, you are right - but during wartime, not so easy to just can something, even when it doesn't work as well as you'd like - look at the Halifax and Manchester.
Largely, although there were different firms that were contracted to do so as branches of existing firms, like de Havilland Propellers, Fairey Reed etc. The Brits did develop a variable pitch propeller that was experimentally fitted to either a Gauntlet or a Gladiator, can't remember which in the early to mid 1930s, but for some odd reason this was not progressed with - a bit of a blunder leaving that 'till late in the day.
This is precisely why the Brits were the first to develop power operated turrets, which they did before anyone else. The status quo overseas was not much better than .303 Lewis guns for bombers at the time, remember.
The Beaufort, again we are faced with the same problem as the Blenheim regarding its engines. The Taurus is not going to get better in a hurry, but what is left is little substitute, so it has to continue, otherwise, what torpedo bomber does the RAF have? The Botha? You complain about the Beaufort! It did give excellent service, as did the Blenheim actually, the latter carrying out tasks beyond its original remit, expectation and capability, resulting in high losses and unecessary deaths of aircrew. Regarding the Beaufort launching torpedoes at the Lutzow and other targets that Parsifal mentions in his post, yes, the weapon is responsible, but what you are proposing means the RAF has no effective front line land based torpedo bomber, which makes such attacks less likely, which is not acceptable. What use is an air launched torpedo with nothing to fire it from? Therefore, like the Blenheim, there is no other option but to proceed with fitting the Taurus until US engines can be supplied, which was not going to happen until after the war began. Many in Britain had real issues with the order for Hudsons, what would they have thought if it was proposed that British aircraft were powered by American engines?!
Regarding the definition of medium bombers, well, the British did consider the Blenheim a medium bomber to begin with, and who are we to argue in 1936 with aircraft like the heavy Wellington and Whitley not far away? By wartime and the advent of the heavies, these became medium bombers and far from the British being left short handed by not having a class of aircraft like the Boston or Mitchell (hindsight - lovely to have) pre-war, the main reason the Brits went to the US was to bolster numbers of aircraft, albeit types that were in many cases technically more advanced that their own, the Hudson compared to the Anson, for example. It's worth remembering that with the arrival of the Mosquito, the Boston and Mitchell were out performed. It is also worth remembering that the first Bostons to arrive in Britain, in mid/late 1940 became trainers (Boston Is) and undertook conversion to night fighters (Boston IIs) as Havocs. Boston medium bombers didn't make an appearance until summer 1941, sensibly replacing Blenheims.
As for the Sabre, again, what other options are there? I guess the Sabre was troublesome from the start, but the Air Ministry had placed stock in it and certainly expected the numerous issues to be cured far swifter than they were, but, like I said, it was expected as one of the principal engines under development - the attraction of its power output must have been a factor behind this. At the time the Air Ministry considered it crucial to their plans - with hindsight, you are right - but during wartime, not so easy to just can something, even when it doesn't work as well as you'd like - look at the Halifax and Manchester.
Largely, although there were different firms that were contracted to do so as branches of existing firms, like de Havilland Propellers, Fairey Reed etc. The Brits did develop a variable pitch propeller that was experimentally fitted to either a Gauntlet or a Gladiator, can't remember which in the early to mid 1930s, but for some odd reason this was not progressed with - a bit of a blunder leaving that 'till late in the day.
This is precisely why the Brits were the first to develop power operated turrets, which they did before anyone else. The status quo overseas was not much better than .303 Lewis guns for bombers at the time, remember.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Mercury engines (late ones) came in two versions. Full supercharger and medium supercharger, on 87 octane fuel the full supercharged one gave 840hp at 14,000ft. This is not going to be improved much, if at all. The medium supercharged version/s gave 890hp at 6000ft. The real problem was at take-off where the full supercharger was limited to 725/730hp on 87 octane. the medium supercharger was limited to 830hp. A two speed supercharger (already fitted to the Pegasus) would have given both. An extra 14% (100hp) would have been nice in an engine out situation and would have been nice for take-off. SO nice that the British actually went one better and often ran the Mercury's in the Blenheim on two different grades of gas. The outer tanks were filled with 100 octane and the inner tanks with 87 octane. Take-off and climb out were done with 100 octane fuel and then they switched to the 87 for cruise to target area where they switched back to the 100 octane and then back to the 87 octane for the trip back. Put the 100 octane together with a two speed supercharger and you have just under 1000hp for take-off. No change at 14,000ft.
2 speed supercharger doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage Hercules and Sabre engines
Beef up the landing gear a bit ( Blenheims had a lower landing weight than take-off weight, the reason for those fuel dump pipes under the outer wings, they had to dump hundreds of pounds of fuel in a hurry if they lost an engine at low altitude or on take-off) and the Blenheim might have been able to 'fill in' as a torpedo bomber. With the torpedo hanging outside it wouldn't have the range of the Beaufort though. IF you could get the two speed supercharger and stronger landing gear (and attachment points?) there is a good chance you wouldn't need the Botha
I believe a fair number of my proposals are to prevent some of the "high losses and unecessary deaths of aircrew" as much as they are to increase the operational capability of the Blenheim or turn it into 'super bomber". Better engine out capability means more crews make it back after loosing an engine, and better chances of getting the plane back on the ground in one piece if an engine cuts out on take-off. Better cockpit layout would help there too and doesn't realy cost much in the grand scheme.
It should have been replaced much quicker but the "replacements" were slow in coming. Improve the Blenheim so more aircrew survive until the replacements come and for this "what if" try to make sure the effective replacements come sooner by ditching some of the intermediate designs that took up so much time and weren't that effective. All too many Beaufort crews were lost too.
2 speed supercharger doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage Hercules and Sabre engines
Beef up the landing gear a bit ( Blenheims had a lower landing weight than take-off weight, the reason for those fuel dump pipes under the outer wings, they had to dump hundreds of pounds of fuel in a hurry if they lost an engine at low altitude or on take-off) and the Blenheim might have been able to 'fill in' as a torpedo bomber. With the torpedo hanging outside it wouldn't have the range of the Beaufort though. IF you could get the two speed supercharger and stronger landing gear (and attachment points?) there is a good chance you wouldn't need the Botha
.
I believe a fair number of my proposals are to prevent some of the "high losses and unecessary deaths of aircrew" as much as they are to increase the operational capability of the Blenheim or turn it into 'super bomber". Better engine out capability means more crews make it back after loosing an engine, and better chances of getting the plane back on the ground in one piece if an engine cuts out on take-off. Better cockpit layout would help there too and doesn't realy cost much in the grand scheme.
It should have been replaced much quicker but the "replacements" were slow in coming. Improve the Blenheim so more aircrew survive until the replacements come and for this "what if" try to make sure the effective replacements come sooner by ditching some of the intermediate designs that took up so much time and weren't that effective. All too many Beaufort crews were lost too.
wuzak
Captain
How about giving the Whitley flaps, so that they can reduce the wing incidence and improve the top and cruise speeds?
2 speed supercharger doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage Hercules and Sabre engines
This sentiment seems fitting for the Americans as well:
2 speed supercharger (on Allison V-1710) doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage R-1830, R-2800 and V-1650 engines
Shortround6
Major General
This sentiment seems fitting for the Americans as well:
2 speed supercharger (on Allison V-1710) doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage R-1830, R-2800 and V-1650 engines
Depends what you are looking for.
A Mercury giving 840hp at 14,000ft is already doing pretty good for a 25 liter air cooled engine, altitude wise. But the take-off performance was bit lacking. The Fiat A74-RC38 used in Fiat CR 42s, Fiat G.50s and Macchi C.200s was only good for 840hp at 12,500ft although they could pull 890hp for take-off from the 31.2 liter engine. Using a lower gear ratio to improve take-off performance is one thing ( and used by just about ALL big American radial engines).
Going to a two speed supercharger on the Allison really isn't going to buy you a whole lot of altitude performance (a couple of thousand feet) but it might buy you that altitude performance while increasing the take-off power to around 1425hp, instead of cutting it to 1200hp.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
