AHC: have Bristol make performers for ww2+

Bristol aircfat company that is.
We will asume full cooperation with between the company, Air Ministry, RAF and/or FAA. Blenheim starts off as it is historically, next opportunity might be torpedo bomber, 'classic' and/or dive bomber, day and/or night fighter, fighter-bomber etc. Preferably using Bristol own radials, but nothing firmly tailored for them. Aim is to out-perform and out-do OTL Bristol A/C, the company being encouraged to use latest known aerodynamic data for that goal.
'ww2+' meaning that resulting aircraft are usable well after ww2.
 
Perhaps a continued development of the type 146 results in a Parallel development of a radial fighter to the Merlin powered Spitfire and Hurricane

By 1940 a 1200 HP Bristol Taurus XIII (A Taurus XII but configured with a more powerful Supercharger with 8+ Boost and rated for 100 Octane fuel) powered fighter called the Buzzard is being produced in low rate production - it equipped 2 FAA squadrons tasked with protecting Scapa flow during the Battle of Britain

Eventually by 1941 the fighter is equipping RAF and Commonwealth squadrons operating overseas in Tertiary theaters

Due to the continued reliability issues with the Taurus - Winston Churchill - then Minister for War Production and Lord Beaverbrook - then Minister of Air Production arrange for Bristol to build the PW 1830 Twin wasp under Licence (primarily due to the US production then not able to even approach British orders)

Although the move was resisted by both Pratt and Whitney as well as Bristol and caused several angry sittings in Parliament regarding the building of a US design, Churchill and Beaverbrook with US President Roosevelt's backing forced this change through using a combination of tact and bullying.

By mid 41 all Taurus powered Aircraft then in production had switched the the US Engine and this had an immediate effect on both the development of this Engine and the performance of the Buzzard.

Equipping many Commonwealth Squadrons in the DAK (Desert Air Force) and units in the Far East it gave those forces a reliable easily maintained fighter that could hold it own verse the enemy fighter of the day.

Indeed while its top speed was lower than the Hurricane MK II it was slightly more maneuverable at up to 18,000 feet and while heavier than the Japanese A6m and KI-43 of the Japanese Navy and Army, and shorter ranged its extra engine power allowed it to maneuver with those designs and its 8 x browning 303 MGs while now effectively obsolete in the ETO was devastating to the lightly built Japanese fighters who lacked pilot protection and any form of self sealing in the aircrafts considerable fuel tanks allowing Commonwealth and Dutch forces (who were largely equipped with the aircraft) to maintain relative air parity for much of the Malaya campaign.

The Dutch units experimented with removing the outer 2 guns reducing the armament to 4 MGs as well as removing items such as the lifeboat and many of the Dutch pilots claimed that this allowed the Buzzard to outperform the Japanese planes during the Malayan campaign in 1942

While eventually overshadowed by later aircraft the Buzzard soldiered on in the Far East in commonwealth and Dutch service until 44 when the last airframes had used up their airframe life and Squadrons had replaced them with more modern types.

The Chinese National Army however used them well into the 50s and even many of the former Commonwealth and Dutch aircraft that were 'life expired' ended up in the Chinese air force and many of the airframes produced ended their lives in China.

Several hundred were sent to Russia during the late 41 and almost all of the Canadian produced Buzzards went to Russia as well - many of these were used up by 1943 although several dozen ended up in service with the Chinese Communists and there are several recorded instances of Buzzard verses Buzzard clashes during the civil war which almost always were won by the Nationalists who had been using them for years.

The Sea Buzzard built by Follands and Cunliffe Owen started to replace the Fulmar Fighter in RN service in early 41 and 623 (all marks) were produced in 1941 and 42 before Martlet/Wildcat and later Seafire/Corsair/Hellcat became the principle fighters and production was halted in late 42.

The Sea Buzzard differed with a folding wing, arrester hook and an armament of 4 and later 6 Browning AN2 .50 MGs - most of these ended up in Dutch service as CAS aircraft in the Far East and served until the late 40s - and many ended up in service (mostly as spares) for the Chinese national Army's relatively large force of Buzzards.
 
Lord Beaverbrook - then Minister of Air Production arrange for Bristol to build the PW 1830 Twin wasp under Licence (primarily due to the US production then not able to even approach British orders)

Bristol were going flat out getting the Hercules into production isnt this going to slow the Herc down. I would say get one of the big engineering concerns building the R1830 such as English Electric or MetroVick, Alvis might also be a candidate they had been interested in aviation for some time.
 
Perhaps a continued development of the type 146 results in a Parallel development of a radial fighter to the Merlin powered Spitfire and Hurricane

By 1940 a 1200 HP Bristol Taurus XIII (A Taurus XII but configured with a more powerful Supercharger with 8+ Boost and rated for 100 Octane fuel) powered fighter called the Buzzard is being produced in low rate production - it equipped 2 FAA squadrons tasked with protecting Scapa flow during the Battle of Britain

Eventually by 1941 the fighter is equipping RAF and Commonwealth squadrons operating overseas in Tertiary theaters

Due to the continued reliability issues with the Taurus - Winston Churchill - then Minister for War Production and Lord Beaverbrook - then Minister of Air Production arrange for Bristol to build the PW 1830 Twin wasp under Licence (primarily due to the US production then not able to even approach British orders)

Although the move was resisted by both Pratt and Whitney as well as Bristol and caused several angry sittings in Parliament regarding the building of a US design, Churchill and Beaverbrook with US President Roosevelt's backing forced this change through using a combination of tact and bullying.

By mid 41 all Taurus powered Aircraft then in production had switched the the US Engine and this had an immediate effect on both the development of this Engine and the performance of the Buzzard.

Equipping many Commonwealth Squadrons in the DAK (Desert Air Force) and units in the Far East it gave those forces a reliable easily maintained fighter that could hold it own verse the enemy fighter of the day.

Indeed while its top speed was lower than the Hurricane MK II it was slightly more maneuverable at up to 18,000 feet and while heavier than the Japanese A6m and KI-43 of the Japanese Navy and Army, and shorter ranged its extra engine power allowed it to maneuver with those designs and its 8 x browning 303 MGs while now effectively obsolete in the ETO was devastating to the lightly built Japanese fighters who lacked pilot protection and any form of self sealing in the aircrafts considerable fuel tanks allowing Commonwealth and Dutch forces (who were largely equipped with the aircraft) to maintain relative air parity for much of the Malaya campaign.

The Dutch units experimented with removing the outer 2 guns reducing the armament to 4 MGs as well as removing items such as the lifeboat and many of the Dutch pilots claimed that this allowed the Buzzard to outperform the Japanese planes during the Malayan campaign in 1942

While eventually overshadowed by later aircraft the Buzzard soldiered on in the Far East in commonwealth and Dutch service until 44 when the last airframes had used up their airframe life and Squadrons had replaced them with more modern types.

The Chinese National Army however used them well into the 50s and even many of the former Commonwealth and Dutch aircraft that were 'life expired' ended up in the Chinese air force and many of the airframes produced ended their lives in China.

Several hundred were sent to Russia during the late 41 and almost all of the Canadian produced Buzzards went to Russia as well - many of these were used up by 1943 although several dozen ended up in service with the Chinese Communists and there are several recorded instances of Buzzard verses Buzzard clashes during the civil war which almost always were won by the Nationalists who had been using them for years.

The Sea Buzzard built by Follands and Cunliffe Owen started to replace the Fulmar Fighter in RN service in early 41 and 623 (all marks) were produced in 1941 and 42 before Martlet/Wildcat and later Seafire/Corsair/Hellcat became the principle fighters and production was halted in late 42.

The Sea Buzzard differed with a folding wing, arrester hook and an armament of 4 and later 6 Browning AN2 .50 MGs - most of these ended up in Dutch service as CAS aircraft in the Far East and served until the late 40s - and many ended up in service (mostly as spares) for the Chinese national Army's relatively large force of Buzzards.

Wow, this TL practically writes itself - The Glorious Bristol Buzzard

One question though, wouldn't the Sea Buzzard butterfly away the need to acquire the Martlet for the FAA? They sound pretty similar.
 
Better, a thin wing Beaufort that would beget a thin wing Beaufighter.

On the engine side leave sleeve valves alone and go for the double Mercury and double Pegasus.

Thin-wing Beaufighter I like. I'd also go one or two steps further, namely introduce the Fowler flap (NACA has it in testing by 1932, invented 8 years earlier), so the wing area can also be smaller - 400 sq ft vs. 503?. Small + thin wing = considerable decrease of drag = increased speed (300 mph on Twin Wasps, less on Taurus?). Fowler flaps help with low speed handling.
 
I was thinking about a possible airliner/transport aircraft.

OTL the need wasn’t really recognised till the BEF deployed for transport aircraft to support an airforce and army in the field. What if the Air Ministry put in a spec in 1935/6 for a simple/cheap twin engined transport using as many off the shelf components and parts as possible.

Bristol come up with a design based on the Blenheim and limited production starts pre war (the Blenheim was based on an airliner so I don’t think it’s that far fetched). This transport goes on to support operations and theatres across the globe during the war and as the Blenheim becomes obsolete, production of the transport is increased. Indeed due to the reliability and availability of this simple aircraft Bristol continues limited production into the mid 50’s and for spares much longer.

Post war these aircraft get sold to the private sector where they continue till the 70’s much like the DC3. Indeed today many people still debate which of these aircraft was the more successful.
 
Making the Twin wasp in the UK at this point is a waste of time, just as you gear up to get production going it will be obsolescent, better to kick the cousins in charge of Bristol out and get the correct machine tools and treatments in to make the sleeve valves work from an early date, reliable Taurus before the war starts with Hercules and Napier's Sabre coming into reliable service maybe 2 years before they did in otl.

The only way thin wings will make an appearance is if the RAE get funding for a high subsonic wind tunnel at the start of the 30s, possibly funded by the government and contributions from the manufacturers and the designers get better information on how thin wings Vs thick wings perform just as the monoplane fighters are reaching the design stage,which will have a knock on effect towards twin engine aircraft.

So if we follow both threads then we get a thin wing Hurricane's with an early Sabre by 1940 and a high speed, thin wing Blenheim converted to a heavy fighter with updated Taurus in place of it's Mercury engines in 1939.

A better Blenheim will possibly butterfly the Beaufort away, with the new heavy fighter, based on the new thin Blenheim wing, coming into service around the same time as the OTL Beaufighter.

Would a Westland Whirlwind work if it's designed with a set of Taurus from the start in place of the Peregrines?
 
Last edited:
Making the Twin wasp in the UK at this point is a waste of time, just as you gear up to get production going it will be obsolescent,

Wildcat VI (aka GM FM-2) for British use were built right up May 1945 using the R-1820. Obsolescent doesn't mean not very useful

The 'Sea Buzzard' I see taking the place of the Wildcat
 
Wildcat VI (aka GM FM-2) for British use were built right up May 1945 using the R-1820. Obsolescent doesn't mean not very useful

The 'Sea Buzzard' I see taking the place of the Wildcat

This, the General Motors FM-2 variant of the Wildcat was pretty good (not great) performer and used until the end of the war by the USN and RN because they worked well off of escort carriers. Same reason the Swordfish lasted longer than its replacement the Albacore. The Albacore was replaced on the big decks by Barracudas and Avengers but the Stringbag was better than the Albacore for the escort carriers so it soldiered on. Like you said, still useful...
 
Not saying the twin wasp wasn't useful, but we don't need to mess around one of the UKs main engine manufactures to make an engine that is only being used on aircraft that are being used in 2nd line roles such as the Wildcat and Stringbag later in the war.

Set up another factory with Alvis or Armstrong Siddley to make Twin wasps by all means but the UK will see a bigger benefit from Bristol working with the Pratt and Whitney machine tool company to sort out manufacturing bores and sleeve vales earlier, a 1300hp Taurus is a very good early to mid war engine, and bringing forward a sorted Hercules and Centaurus will have numerous benefits.

Sleeve vales are a technological dead end, but really all Piston engines will be soon. The sleeve valve engines are better aerodynamically and they are quieter so they will be excellent for passenger aircraft use, the Hercules and Centaurus gave excellent service post war in a number of aircraft, with the Hercules having excellent reliability.

Albacore wasn't a bad aircraft to be fair, and if i was flying one off a CVE in an Atlantic storm I'd be glad of the cockpit and heater.
 
Not saying the twin wasp wasn't useful, but we don't need to mess around one of the UKs main engine manufactures to make an engine that is only being used on aircraft that are being used in 2nd line roles such as the Wildcat and Stringbag later in the war.

Set up another factory with Alvis or Armstrong Siddley to make Twin wasps by all means but the UK will see a bigger benefit from Bristol working with the Pratt and Whitney machine tool company to sort out manufacturing bores and sleeve vales earlier, a 1300hp Taurus is a very good early to mid war engine, and bringing forward a sorted Hercules and Centaurus will have numerous benefits.

Wery true for the Twin Wasp made in UK - Bristol is the only Company doing actual work on development of meaningful radials in the UK, better have other people make the Twin Wasp instead, so Bristol can deliver Hercules as fast as possible, and even the Centaurus.
Unfortunately, Taurus never went above 1200 HP in OTL, it was mostly 1050-1130 HP in service, at low altitude.

Sleeve vales are a technological dead end, but really all Piston engines will be soon. The sleeve valve engines are better aerodynamically and they are quieter so they will be excellent for passenger aircraft use, the Hercules and Centaurus gave excellent service post war in a number of aircraft, with the Hercules having excellent reliability.

Albacore wasn't a bad aircraft to be fair, and if i was flying one off a CVE in an Atlantic storm I'd be glad of the cockpit and heater.

Sleeve engines were renown after the war for long time between overhauls. No aerodynamical advantage, though, at 52-55 in diameter for Hercules and Centaurus.
Albacore was behind the curve by perhaps 5 years? Closed & heated cockpit was nothing new in 1940, let alone later.
 
Last edited:
Wery true for the Twin Wasp made in UK - Bristol is the only Company doing actual work on development of meaningful radials in the UK, better have other people make the Twin Wasp instead, so Bristol can deliver Hercules as fast as possible, and even the Centaurus.
Unfortunately, Taurus never went above 1200 HP in OTL, it was mostly 1050-1130 HP in service, at low altitude.



Sleeve engines were renown after the war for long time between overhauls. No aerodynamical advantage, though, at 52-55 in diameter for Hercules and Centaurus.
Albacore was behind the curve by perhaps 5 years? Closed & heated cockpit was nothing new in 1940, let alone later.

The Taurus wasn't really developed though, all the time was spent on trying to fix the issues with the sleeves, without the time spent on rectifying the issues it had, better fuel and possibly a better supercharger an extra 100hp isn't too much of a stretch , plus it's quite a small frontal area for a radial of that power, 48" if i remember right.

Was the Albacore that far behind, I don't think so for the time it was specified, it certainly compares well to the Devastator and loses out to the B5N in several areas, but I'd rather be in a Albacore than a B5N if I'm being shot at.

Also the Albacore was a capable divebomber with a very decent bomb load for it's type at the time, which was used to great effect by a couple of FAA squadrons at night in the desert, while it's contemporaries were not built for dive bombing.

The cockpit and Heater were certainly new innovations if you had just been flying a Swordfish.
 
Last edited:
The Taurus wasn't really developed though, all the time was spent on trying to fix the issues with the sleeves, without the time spent on rectifying the issues it had, better fuel and possibly a better supercharger an extra 100hp isn't too much of a stretch , plus it's quite a small frontal area for a radial of that power, 48" if i remember right.

British fuel was always the best.
Unfortunately, Taurus was a small engine - 1550 cu in - and it will lag behind in power vs. 1800-2000 cu in types (R-1820, -1830, -2000, Japanese Kasei). R-1830/2000 and Kasei were also of modest diameter, 48 in. Japanese got 1150 CV with 1700 cu in Sakae, on 91 oct fuel, noted as a very reliable engine, 45 in diameter.
Any more resources spent on development of Taurus probably means less resources are spent on Hercules and/or Centaurus.
 
British fuel was always the best.
Unfortunately, Taurus was a small engine - 1550 cu in - and it will lag behind in power vs. 1800-2000 cu in types (R-1820, -1830, -2000, Japanese Kasei). R-1830/2000 and Kasei were also of modest diameter, 48 in. Japanese got 1150 CV with 1700 cu in Sakae, on 91 oct fuel, noted as a very reliable engine, 45 in diameter.
Any more resources spent on development of Taurus probably means less resources are spent on Hercules and/or Centaurus.

Come on, the Merlin doubled it's horse power without changing its capacity due to better Fuel and Supercharging, the Hercules was similar going from 1290 hp to around 1800hp in later war years, with a bit more coming from it later. Also sleeve valve engines run at a higher RPM so you get a bit power out of them for the capacity.

The Bristol sleeve valve engines are very similar in design and execution so improvements in one engine should help with the development with the other engines, there is growth in the design, 10 to 15% improvement would be enough to get 100hp extra out of it. It already compares well to the twin wasp in almost every area without much in the way of development work.

It's not an engine that will be on the front line throughout the war, but potential is there to make it useful in the early part of the war. Which is what the R-1830 was.
 
Come on, the Merlin doubled it's horse power without changing its capacity due to better Fuel and Supercharging, the Hercules was similar going from 1290 hp to around 1800hp in later war years, with a bit more coming from it later. Also sleeve valve engines run at a higher RPM so you get a bit power out of them for the capacity.

Just because Merlin did it, it does not mean that Taurus or any other engine will do it too. RR invested heavily in racing engines between the war, unlike most of companies in UK and abroad, that paid off nicely from late 1930s on.
Merlin III, in service well before ww2, jumped from 1030 HP to 1300, 87 oct vs. 100 oct, again before ww2. Even to 1440 HP (+16 psi boost) for CAM Hurricane. Without improvement of supercharger. Taurus crawled from 1050 to 1130, 87 oct vs. 100 oct.
Taurus run fast because of it's small stroke, not because it was a sleeve valve engine; 3100 rpm series produced engines, 3300 rpm experimental. The poppet-valve Dagger turned 4400 rpm, tiny stroke.
Hercules and Centaurus - 2800-2900 rpm vs. R-2800 of 2600-2700-2800 rpm and Homare 3000 of rpm?
Hercules was a 2360 cu in engine, it does not require a crystal ball that it will be a far better return of investment than the Taurus.

The Bristol sleeve valve engines are very similar in design and execution so improvements in one engine should help with the development with the other engines, there is growth in the design, 10 to 15% improvement would be enough to get 100hp extra out of it. It already compares well to the twin wasp in almost every area without much in the way of development work.

It's not an engine that will be on the front line throughout the war, but potential is there to make it useful in the early part of the war. Which is what the R-1830 was.

Unlike the Twin Wasps installed on Beauforts, it sported only 1-speed supercharger, and Taurus engines on Beauforts were rated for 1085 HP even in 1944 (this is already 100/130 grade fuel), vs. 1200 for the T-Ws (on 100 oct). Thus a 20-40 mph speed advantage for the T-W powered Beaufort.
But yes, if Bristol cames up with a Taurus that in-service does 3300 rpm and has 2-speed S/C, then we will probably get 1200++ HP down low, and 1000+ at 15000 ft? Another problem that Taurus had, and was not 'guilty of', was that it was saddled to power a big biplane with fixed U/C, and a big & heavy 2-engined aircraft, so no wonder the engine will be regarded as indifferent at least.
 
This is my point though, it never got the needed development to make better use of the improvements in fuel and supercharging as development stopped as no one was going to design aircraft round it due to reliability issues, if the issues are sorted before the war then we might see more use for it

If the issues with the taurus are ironed out earlier to allow some fine-tuning for slightly more power then it might allow some improvement if fitted to the Blenheim in place of it's Mercury's with a couple of hundred extra horse power, clean up the airframe and drop the turret and it "might" the a reasonable heavy fighter for the first 18 months of the war, it would make a decent torpedo bomber as well.

Bristol didn't really make any great aircraft during the war with the exception of the Beaufighter, the Bombay had potential as a transport but it was compromised by its dual role as a bomber and it's it's over engineered wing with 7 spars. It's possible a better use of the company is to speed up development of the Bristol Freighter, get it into service by let's say 1942.
 
The Taurus wasn't really developed though, all the time was spent on trying to fix the issues with the sleeves, without the time spent on rectifying the issues it had, better fuel and possibly a better supercharger an extra 100hp isn't too much of a stretch , plus it's quite a small frontal area for a radial of that power, 48" if i remember right.

Was the Albacore that far behind, I don't think so for the time it was specified, it certainly compares well to the Devastator and loses out to the B5N in several areas, but I'd rather be in a Albacore than a B5N if I'm being shot at.

Also the Albacore was a capable divebomber with a very decent bomb load for it's type at the time, which was used to great effect by a couple of FAA squadrons at night in the desert, while it's contemporaries were not built for dive bombing.

The cockpit and Heater were certainly new innovations if you had just been flying a Swordfish.

The Albacore never got a "big moment" like the Swordfish and the Swordfish had two - Taranto and crippling the Bismarck. Also, the Albacore gets criticized in popular histories as a plane that was outlasted by the plane it was meant to replace. While that is a true statement, it's not because the Swordfish was a better plane, it's because the Albacore was then replaced by newer machines while the Swordfish was kept around because it was viewed as a better option for escort carriers, I guess due landing speeds and deck handling characteristics - http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_fairey_albacore.html

Bingo on the Albacore as an underrated dive bomber. Totally unappreciated in that role.
 
Albacore was behind the curve by perhaps 5 years? Closed & heated cockpit was nothing new in 1940, let alone later.

The FAA seemed about 5 years behind what the USN was doing.

Swordfish was hardly different than the Great Lakes TG-2, that was a very slight improvement of the Martin T4M of the Late '20s in 1934, when the USN was moving to the Devastator, the most advanced Torpedo plane in the World.
Gladiators at the same time as the Buffalo and Wildcat, and the Skua while Douglas was changing the BT-2 into the SBD
 
Top