AHC: a better British Army co-op 'airforce'

What about rough field capability for the Bristol 148? How does it compare to the Lysander? Chances are wherever it is used, the field will be sub-optimal, so it needs to be rugged and capable of withstanding some poor landings in bad conditions.
 
Bristol 148 built to the same specification as the Lysander, Reasons for choosing the Lysander were reputedly due to the better observation of the ground given by the high mounting of the wing.Otherwise as far as I am aware the Bristol 148 was as good as the Lysander at meeting all aspects of the AM specification including the STOL and rough field components.
 
...
Specifications (66-70 Aircruiser)
General characteristics
  • Crew: one, pilot
  • Capacity: 16 passengers
  • Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
  • Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
  • Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
  • Wing area: 520 ft² (48.3 m²)
  • Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 165 mph, 266 km/h
  • Range: 608 nm (700 miles, 1,130 km)
  • Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)

Ju 52 needed 3 times the power to carry 18 people on board.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
tilabtw1.jpg


Specifications (66-70 Aircruiser)
General characteristics
  • Crew: one, pilot
  • Capacity: 16 passengers
  • Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
  • Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
  • Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
  • Wing area: 520 ft² (48.3 m²)
  • Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 165 mph, 266 km/h
  • Range: 608 nm (700 miles, 1,130 km)
  • Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)
Squee! An-2's older brother!
What is the FAA which banned single engine transports? Not the Fleet Air Arm, I presume?
 
Squee! An-2's older brother!
What is the FAA which banned single engine transports? Not the Fleet Air Arm, I presume?

Federal Aviation Administration.

So you can compare the brothers from another mother

AN-2
  • Crew: 1–2
  • Capacity: 12 passengers
  • Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
  • Wingspan:
    • Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
    • Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
  • Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
  • Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
  • Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
  • Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
 
Last edited:
Ju 52 needed 3 times the power to carry 18 people on board.
I've see other reports that most were 140mph class, but that corrugated skin was great for strength, drag, not so much.

From a quick google
The final model, the Aircruiser, was the most efficient airplane of its day and even would rank high among all airplanes designed. With a Wright aircooled supercharged radial engine (Cyclone), rated at 715 hp. the Aircruiser could carry a useful load greater than its empty weight! It could carry 4,000lb payloads at a speed of between 145-155 mph. This was in the mid-1930's; Fokkers and Ford Trimotors could not come close to this capacity, and they were both multi-engine airplanes.

While the Aircruisers did stellar work in Canada, they still were of composite fabric/wood/duraluminum construction that could be lighter than all metal.
 
Last edited:
Merlin, as-is, was not a drop-in replacement for the V-1710 in P-39, since the V-1710 have had a removable reduction gear for the prop. Thus the same base engine can have either a reduction gear attached to the engine (use on, say, P-40, P-38, P-51) and remotely installed reduction gear (on P-39, P-63, XB-42).
However, a version of Packard Merlin, with redesigned crankcase (without the integral redcution gear) was mooted for the P-63. Designation of the engine was V-1650-5, that puts it in witer of 1943/44 time frame, ie. too late for P-39. I'm not sure that any of those -5 engines was actually produced.

Thanks Tomo pauk, everyday is a learning day!
 
Thanks Tomo pauk, everyday is a learning day!

Agree 100%. I myself read about warfare for some 40 years now, mostly about airforces's business of ww2, and many times one question answered opens several new questions. Even today, and it is not like it will stop, so I look forward to learn new stuff.
 
Last edited:
I've see other reports that most were 140mph class, but that corrugated skin was great for strength, drag, not so much.

From a quick google
The final model, the Aircruiser, was the most efficient airplane of its day and even would rank high among all airplanes designed. With a Wright aircooled supercharged radial engine (Cyclone), rated at 715 hp. the Aircruiser could carry a useful load greater than its empty weight! It could carry 4,000lb payloads at a speed of between 145-155 mph. This was in the mid-1930's; Fokkers and Ford Trimotors could not come close to this capacity, and they were both multi-engine airplanes.

While the Aircruisers did stellar work in Canada, they still were of composite fabric/wood/duraluminum construction that could be lighter than all metal.

As this is intended for Army Co-operation work how was it at getting in and out of small, rough and possibly improvised airstrips? If it can't do that then it's not the right aircraft for the job.
 
As this is intended for Army Co-operation work how was it at getting in and out of small, rough and possibly improvised airstrips? If it can't do that then it's not the right aircraft for the job.

Sounds exactly what it did in Canada, operating from unimproved mining sites
CF-AWR-InFlight-10-287-007.jpg

either on skis or floats, mostly
 
I posted this in the Greek Air Force thread, but I think it is relevant here too.

This is an extract of Table VI PARTICULARS RELATIVE TO AIRCRAFT OF VARIOUS TYPES FROM 1924 ONWARDS from a Cabinet Paper called Defence Expenditure in Future Years. I have only included the aircraft from 1937 and onwards.

Fighters
£5,300 Gladiator 1937
£3,850 Demon 1937
£8,000 Spitfire 1939
£10,500 Defiant 1939​
Light Bombers - NOTE: From 1937 onwards Light Bombers are being replaced by Medium Bombers (S.E.)
£4,150 Hind 1937​
Medium Bombers (Single Engine)
£11,750 Wellesley 1937
£11,250 Battle 1937
£11,250 Battle 1939​
Medium Bombers (Twin Engine)
£13,500 Blenheim 1937
£20,000 Hampden 1939
£18,500 Wellington 1939​
Heavy Bombers
£24,000 Harrow 1937
£30,000 Whitley 1937
£30,000 Roe P13/36 1939
£42,000 Handley Page P13/36 1939​
Army Co-operation
£6,000 Hector 1937
£7,750 Lysander 1939​
Flying Boats
£31,500 London 1937
£31,500 Stranraer 1937
£46,500 Sunderland 1939
£38,000 Saunders Roe R1/36 1939​

The costs are Cost Complete. That is the figures of cost (which, for the latter types, are estimated only) shown includes airframe, engine(s), aircraft equipment (instruments, &c) and armament, other than bombs and ammunition.
 
Surprising in the above the cost of the Hampden - more than the Wellington, which was complicated to build.

To get a better and earlier Army Co-op in the Tactical Air Force sense, is hard both politically and militarily. The Government thought by increasing the deterrent factor of the RAF bomber force, it could ignore the need (and expense) of a BEF in the first place. However, before that stage gets reached things could have been different.

With the formation of the various commands - Trafford Leigh-Mallory is brought in from the Middle-East to become Deputy Commander of the Army Co-operation. While his boss toured the various Army Commands, L-M set about looking into the aircraft requirements.
He was able with lobbying to get the Light bomber category reinstated, with the Hawker Henley continuing as designed.
Comments were made about the Hector, apparently going backwards in design, back to a biplane, so Bristol were asked to resubmit their 148 for an Audax replacement.
While touring the Gloster plant, where the Henley would be built, he saw the f.5/34 prototype being made ready (earlier than OTL), and wondered if he could get 'fighters' included in his Command, but later he came across the f.34/35 being redone for f.37/35 back-up and said 'could it carry bombs'?
Slowly, but surely, his composite Air force was coming together, offering - observation, attack at targets of opportunity, and precision attack, together with mistaken identity with the mix of aircraft Battle/Henley/Hurricane, 148/Gloster f.5/34, and Blenheim/Glosterf.34/35
 
I posted this in the Greek Air Force thread, but I think it is relevant here too.


Medium Bombers (Twin Engine)
£13,500 Blenheim 1937
£20,000 Hampden 1939
£18,500 Wellington 1939​

The costs are Cost Complete. That is the figures of cost (which, for the latter types, are estimated only) shown includes airframe, engine(s), aircraft equipment (instruments, &c) and armament, other than bombs and ammunition.

The first DC-3 in 1935 cost $79,500, in Pounds would be £19,875
 

Driftless

Donor
The first DC-3 in 1935 cost $79,500, in Pounds would be £19,875

For comparison sake, would the DC-3 be decked out with comparable fittings? Engines, radios/no radios, etc. (I know the engines are different, but what does the list consist of: airframe, engines,? One of the other thread on this site pointed out that often US WW2 aircraft costs were basically airframe only)
 
Last edited:
For comparison sake, would the DC-3 be decked out with comparable fittings? Engines, radios/no radios, etc. (I know the engines are different, but what does the list consist of: airframe, engines,? One of the other thread on this site pointed out that often US WW2 aircraft costs were basically airframe only)

That was 1/10 the original order of Ten for American Airlines
 
Some More Prices
£61,000 Short S.23 Empire Flying Boat date 1936 source Short Brothers & Harland
£117,000 Short S.26 Golden Hind flying boat date 1939-40 source Short Brothers & Harland

£c.2,800 DH.84 Dragon date 1933 source De Havillands
£c.5,500 DH.89 Dragon Rapide date 1934 source De Havillands
£c.11,000 DH.86 Diana date 1934 source De Havillands
£c.35,000 DH.91 Albatross date 1938 no source was given

£c.53,000 AW Ensign date 1938 source The Aeroplane

$59,000 Lockheed Electra date 1936 source Lockheed's
$51,000 Lockheed Electra date 1938 source Lockheed's (yes it is $8,000 less 2 years later)
$51,000 Lockheed 12 date 1938 source Lockheeds (£10,000)
$105,000 Lockheed 14 date 1939 source Lockheeds (£21,000)​

Unfortunately no cost for the DH.95 Flamingo, DC-2 or DC-3.

Source Appendix III of Britain's Imperial Air Routes 1918-1939 by Robin Higham
 
Last edited:
That was 1/10 the original order of Ten for American Airlines

Was it just a simple cash payment. I ask because modern airlines and plane makers go through some very convoluted finance deals and some of the sales of Boeing and Airbus seem to defy economic sense.
 
Top