AHC: have Bristol make performers for ww2+

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

In fairness to the much maligned Skua, it was IOC two years before the SBD-1 was IOC with the USMC (they Navy loved the initial variant so much they gave them to the Marines) and over two years before the USN achieved IOC with the SBD-2. The Skua is more a contemporary of the Vindicator which achieved IOC a year before the Skua.
 
Except the Devastator flew over 3 1/2 years before the Albacore.
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.
 

hipper

Banned
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

well they got a single engine monoplane fighter with folding wings in significant service in 1940 which was a year or two before the USN.

however you are correct the suffered a years or two's drag because of shenanigans at the air ministry and the RAF
 
IMO the Albacore was a superior carrier attack plane to the Devastator and the Swordfish was the equal of the TBD. Why?

1. Albacore had almost twice the range.

2. Albacore was also an effective dive bomber.

3. Swordfish had superior range (not as much as the Albacore).

4. Swordfish could also dive bomb.

5. All three cruised at about the same speed.

6. The only real advantage the TBD offered was higher top end speed but that is more theoretical because it could not get close to that when hauling a torpedo.

7. The fact is all three planes were dead meat against fighters but all things being equal I would actually rather face enemy fighters in one of the RN's biplanes because those at least have the ability to make low speed snap turns, about the only maneuver available to them, the TBD can't do that.

Note - none of the above has anything to do with the torpedoes, that is a separate issue.
 
The Albacore is a design that's 3 1/2 years newer. Why not compare the Albacore to the Avenger? The Avenger is less than 2 years newer. Or better yet, the Nakajima B5N? The B5N is older by 2 years. In any reasonable comparison, it's hard to see the Albacore as anything but the loser and a failure.

IMO the Albacore was a superior carrier attack plane to the Devastator and the Swordfish was the equal of the TBD. Why?

1. Albacore had almost twice the range.

2. Albacore was also an effective dive bomber.

3. Swordfish had superior range (not as much as the Albacore).

4. Swordfish could also dive bomb.

5. All three cruised at about the same speed.

6. The only real advantage the TBD offered was higher top end speed but that is more theoretical because it could not get close to that when hauling a torpedo.

7. The fact is all three planes were dead meat against fighters but all things being equal I would actually rather face enemy fighters in one of the RN's biplanes because those at least have the ability to make low speed snap turns, about the only maneuver available to them, the TBD can't do that.

Note - none of the above has anything to do with the torpedoes, that is a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
The Albacore is a design that's 3 1/2 years newer. Why not compare the Albacore to the Avenger? The Avenger is less than 2 years newer. Or better yet, the Nakajima B5N? The B5N is older by 2 years. In any reasonable comparison, it's hard to see the Albacore as anything but the loser and a failure.

Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed, 104mph cruising speed, 46mph landing 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 201 gallon tank, optional 82 gallon tank in observers place 1934

Devastator had a 206mph top speed, 128mph cruising speed, 63 mph landing speed, 128moh cruising speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank. 1935

B5N Kate had a 235mph top speed, 159mph cruising speed, 72 mph landing speed, 406sq.ft area and 4016 pounds of payload, 255 gallon tank 1937

Fieseler Fi-167 had a 198 mph top speed 155mph cruising speed, 59 mph landing speed, 490sq.ft area and 3859 pounds of payload, 286 gallons with external 66 gallon drop tank. 1938

Fairey Albacore had a 161 mph top speed, 116mpg cruising speed 59? mph landing speed, 623sq.ft area and 5350 pounds of payload, 240 gallon tank in center Fuselage. 1939

One forward .303 Browning, two .303 K guns in free mount for gunner, and slats and flaps and highest power engine of 1,130 hp allowed a greater takeoff weight.

Now look again at that Fieseler. Germans had zero carrier experience, and zero experience with aircraft to fly them from, while the RN had been running torpedo planes since 1917.

As far as the dive bombing ability of the Albacore, did it have a swing out bomb crutch to clear the prop? otherwise, you are stuck with shallow dive angles.
 
You forgot to include the Avenger, which the FAA flew until 1954.
Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed, 104mph cruising speed, 46mph landing 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 201 gallon tank, optional 82 gallon tank in observers place 1934

Devastator had a 206mph top speed, 128mph cruising speed, 63 mph landing speed, 128moh cruising speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank. 1935

B5N Kate had a 235mph top speed, 159mph cruising speed, 72 mph landing speed, 406sq.ft area and 4016 pounds of payload, 255 gallon tank 1937

Fieseler Fi-167 had a 198 mph top speed 155mph cruising speed, 59 mph landing speed, 490sq.ft area and 3859 pounds of payload, 286 gallons with external 66 gallon drop tank. 1938

Fairey Albacore had a 161 mph top speed, 116mpg cruising speed 59? mph landing speed, 623sq.ft area and 5350 pounds of payload, 240 gallon tank in center Fuselage. 1939

One forward .303 Browning, two .303 K guns in free mount for gunner, and slats and flaps and highest power engine of 1,130 hp allowed a greater takeoff weight.

Now look again at that Fieseler. Germans had zero carrier experience, and zero experience with aircraft to fly them from, while the RN had been running torpedo planes since 1917.

As far as the dive bombing ability of the Albacore, did it have a swing out bomb crutch to clear the prop? otherwise, you are stuck with shallow dive angles.
ou
 
You forgot to include the Avenger, which the FAA flew until 1954.

No so much forgot, as left out. I just was going over all torpedo craft accepted before the War actually started.

Sort of debated adding in this one from the wiki

Specifications (N-3PB)

Northrop N-3PB in "Little Norway" colours, c. 1941

Data from War Planes of the Second World War: Volume Six Floatplanes,[38] The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II[29]

General characteristics

  • Crew: Three (pilot, navigator/bombardier and wireless operator/rear gunner)
  • Length: 36 ft (11 m)
  • Wingspan: 48 ft 11 in (14.91 m)
  • Height: 12 ft (3.7 m)
  • Wing area: 376.8 sq ft (35.01 m2)
  • Empty weight: 6,190 lb (2,808 kg)
  • Gross weight: 8,500 lb (3,856 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 10,600 lb (4,808 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright GR-1820-G205A 9-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (890 kW)
  • Propellers: 3-bladed variable-pitch propeller

Performance


  • Maximum speed: 257 mph (414 km/h; 223 kn) at sea level
  • Cruise speed: 184 mph (296 km/h; 160 kn)
  • Range: 1,000 mi (869 nmi; 1,609 km)
  • Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,300 m)
  • Time to altitude: 15,000 ft (4,600 m) in 4.4 minutes

Armament


  • Guns: 4 × fixed forward firing 0.50 in (12.70 mm) machine guns
  • 2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine guns in dorsal and ventral positions
  • Bombs: 1 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) torpedo or equivalent weight of bombs or depth charges
Northrop during the '30s was making all kinds of aircraft. Fixed gear, rearward retracting and outward retracting, and float options for all types. Dive Bombers, Attack, Scouts.
This one was based of the old Gamma 2F of 1934, that over the years slightly updated in US service as the A-17/A-33 and and International as B 5B, Model 8A-3N, N3-PB with floats.

Not bad performance for a float plane, really.

13 mph slower than the A6M2-N Rufe Float fighter
 
Perhaps a continued development of the type 146 results in a Parallel development of a radial fighter to the Merlin powered Spitfire and Hurricane

*snip*.

And lo...did the glorious Type 146 descend from heaven, pausing only to smile at the awestruck onlookers and whisper... "What if?"

Wonderful stuff as always CryHavoc :D

And seriously, the 146 gets more love than the TSR here with us all sitting here going "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!"
 
To be blunt one good PoD for Bristol would be for them to ignore Ricardo and continue to develop the standard poppet valve engines that they already had. Then build bigger and better ones using the known technology and it's logical developments. Wirhout all the angst and delays of getting the sleeve valve machining right and getting the blooming things to work I think it is quite possible that Bristol could have had two, two row radials fully developed and running in 1939, one in the Taurus class (1000/1100hp) and one in the Hercules class (1300/1500+ Hp) which would course some major butterflies regarding aircraft. For example. The Beaufort is a mature in service aircraft, the Beaufighter is in series production, the Albacore is entering service, the Gloster Reaper (F9/37) and the Gloster no name fighter would have a reliable 1,100 hp engine instead of the Mercury. Going further the 1,100 hp Taurus clone might well give the Bristol 148 a fighting chance as a skua replacement in 1940. A 1500hp Hercules equivalent in series production in 1939 might see quite a different Barracuda coming out of Fairies prototype shed!
 
A 14 cylinder 2 row engine using Mercury cylinders would be a very useful engine. By 1939 the Mercury was reliably producing 95hp per cylinder on 87 octane and 100 hp per cylinder on 100 octane. That's going to be a very competitive engine not many engines are producing 1400 hp in 1940.
 
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?

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.

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.

I would firstly point out that this was all effectively written on the back of a cigerette packet in about 10 frenzied minutes

You all pose some good points

My shameless intention of having the Twin Wasp repalce the Taurus was to benefit both producers in taking the best practices of both companies and resulting in an earlier superior Centurus/Hercules and PW Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone improving the performance 'earlier' of those aircraft fitted with these engines - in other words a B29 that does not catch fire on takeoff - the Bomber unlike other aircraft sought airspeed and not height on take off in order to produce enough airspeed for effective cooling effect and the engine testing ie magneto drops etc - were conducted while taxying to the runway then immediately rolling for takeoff. If not acheived then the engine fires were so hot that the heat would melt the wing spar in seconds of the Engine catching fire - this obviously an undesirable thing to happen on take off....or any time.

A superior Centarus would beenfit the Typhoon / Tempest.

The reliable Twin Wasp would benefit existing designs such as the Beaus and the Wellington as well as the Albacore with as suggested production carried by 3rd parties with Bristol concentrating on Centurus/Hercules

I would think that the Wildcat would still be ordered with perhaps less P40s being delivered for the RAF

Need to think on this some more
 
An in service Bristol 146, circa 1937ish.

16665200_1877507935798667_8998946541279627766_o.jpg


Based on the now nearly unobtainable Magna kit. I've a pair stashed away for a rainy day - I'd like one in later mid war colours, but a developed version with a Hercules, four 20mm Hispano cannons and a proper bubble hood would look fabulous.

It doesn't really matter whether Bristol is going for poppet or sleeve valve engines, because in June 1940, Beaverbrook is going to fuck about with production to ensure more Mercury engines for the obsolescent Blenheim. That vandalism cost Bristol valuable engineering time trying to get Taurus, Hercules and Centaurus ready.
 
Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed, 104mph cruising speed, 46mph landing 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 201 gallon tank, optional 82 gallon tank in observers place 1934
Devastator had a 206mph top speed, 128mph cruising speed, 63 mph landing speed, 128moh cruising speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank. 1935
B5N Kate had a 235mph top speed, 159mph cruising speed, 72 mph landing speed, 406sq.ft area and 4016 pounds of payload, 255 gallon tank 1937
Fieseler Fi-167 had a 198 mph top speed 155mph cruising speed, 59 mph landing speed, 490sq.ft area and 3859 pounds of payload, 286 gallons with external 66 gallon drop tank. 1938
Fairey Albacore had a 161 mph top speed, 116mpg cruising speed 59? mph landing speed, 623sq.ft area and 5350 pounds of payload, 240 gallon tank in center Fuselage. 1939
One forward .303 Browning, two .303 K guns in free mount for gunner, and slats and flaps and highest power engine of 1,130 hp allowed a greater takeoff weight.
Now look again at that Fieseler. Germans had zero carrier experience, and zero experience with aircraft to fly them from, while the RN had been running torpedo planes since 1917.
As far as the dive bombing ability of the Albacore, did it have a swing out bomb crutch to clear the prop? otherwise, you are stuck with shallow dive angles.
What this tells us is that the cruising speeds and maximum speeds were all grossly deficient vis a vis opposing fighters and the defensive armament was gratuitous.
Move on to late WW2 and the same applies to the Barracuda and Avenger. Different numbers but same effect.
 
An in service Bristol 146, circa 1937ish.
...
It doesn't really matter whether Bristol is going for poppet or sleeve valve engines, because in June 1940, Beaverbrook is going to fuck about with production to ensure more Mercury engines for the obsolescent Blenheim. That vandalism cost Bristol valuable engineering time trying to get Taurus, Hercules and Centaurus ready.

Looks good :)
BTW - the Hercules was in service in 1939. Too bad it was installed on a no-good Saro Lerwick. Things went better in 1940, with Beaufighter in production.
Taurus was in service before 1940, too. Quirk might be that Bristol's engineers worked and Taurus, Hercules and Centaurus all in about the same time.
 
It doesn't really matter whether Bristol is going for poppet or sleeve valve engines, because in June 1940, Beaverbrook is going to fuck about with production to ensure more Mercury engines for the obsolescent Blenheim. That vandalism cost Bristol valuable engineering time trying to get Taurus, Hercules and Centaurus ready.

Beaverbrook caused a lot of damage to a lot of projects. I know there was an emergency but did the RAF really need a bunch of obsolete aircraft good only for training and killing aircrew.

You put some good images of the Magna 146 on britmodeller but the links seem to have died of old age. I had the chance to buy the Magna kit but passed it up, still have the bruises from the good kicking I gave myself I wonder if the moulds will ever return to the market.
 
What this tells us is that the cruising speeds and maximum speeds were all grossly deficient vis a vis opposing fighters and the defensive armament was gratuitous.
Move on to late WW2 and the same applies to the Barracuda and Avenger. Different numbers but same effect.

Even a Douglas A1 Skyraider is going to be shot down in droves in 1942. Sending unescorted heavily loaded strike aircraft against defended targets is a very quick way of killing pilots
 
Top