Back to the original OP, the cousins at Bristol make a decision to establish a priority on development of the Hercules and the Air Ministry issues a specification for a medium bomber to use it. Frank Barnwell is so busy with the design that he neglects his motorcycle-engined home-built aircraft and builds a Beaufort with Hercules. Barnwell doesn't die, due to over-work. However, his two sons who died in Blenheims now die in Beauforts, unless they get some local air superiority from offensive fighters.
AHC: replace Bristol Blenheim much earlier
- Thread starter merlin
- Start date
Thank you. That is a Hisso nose cannon, and the shorter range model features 4 wing mounted .303 Brownings. Performance is comparable to B-25 Mitchell. I don't want to compare it to Ju-88 because I read that the Junkers suffered the most losses in the Luftwaffe. I don't know if it's factual, or significant. The Ju-88 carried external bombs, and featured poor defensive armament.
The Ju 88 was also a most widely produced German bomber, so it will inevitably suffer the greatest losses? The necessity to carry bombs heavier than 50 kg externally certainly killed plenty of speed and range.
'Hercules Beaufort' might sport the 4 gun turret from Defiant, both for boost of defensive power and to make counter-ballancing the heavier Hercules engines an easier job?
'Hercules Beaufort' might sport the 4 gun turret from Defiant, both for boost of defensive power and to make counter-ballancing the heavier Hercules engines an easier job?
WI aircraft normally feature perfect balance as drawn. The Beaufighter, real, had a slight tail-heaviness. I remember a case where engineers were discussing a slight tail-heaviness in an aircraft, and one mentioned the possibility of removing the 40 lb lead ballast from the tail to solve it. I'd prefer a Martin turret with twin 50s instead of the BP unit.
Driftless
Donor
Do you know the approximate weight difference between the two types of turrets (including guns & normal ammo load) ?
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
I asked the restorer of the Mosquito FB.26 (before it whad flown) how they planned to deal with the resin guns installed being a lot lighter than the originals. The cannon (in the forward bomb-bay) are on the CoG, while the .303s (in the extreme nose) are countered by reducing the sizable tall ballast.
Until the ship carrying the next 6 months supply of Martin turrets is sunk. The Beaufort was going to get a Twin Wasp version but the ship carrying them sank. That is why the Blenheim's replacement has to be UK sourced.
In the end, the RAF should have bought huge numbers of B-25 Mitchell light bombers as the replacement for the Blenheim--especially after the Lend-Lease Agreement was signed.
The RAF began receiving Mitchells in 1943 which is as early as it could (unless the USAAF decides not to put it in service).and when the Blenheim was finishing it's service. The Mitchell still needed escort to survive in the face of enemy fighters, was only a little faster but was better armed and carried a larger bomb load although with twice the power it ought to have. The RAF was already receiving all the Martin Maryland production and a very large part of the Boston production. The Blenheim served 1939 to the end of 1942 (doubtless with some exceptions). Thus, to replace the Blenheim earlier than IOTL you need something that is in production by 1939 and be UK sourced. The only candidate I can think of is either (or both) of strike versions of the Bristol Beaufighter or Gloster G.39.
The Martin is over 900 lb, the BP about 700. The original Bristol, in Mk V version was lightest, and, used by DAP Beauforts, was fitted two .50s. I guess the boat to Australia didn't sink, because they got the .50s and Twin Wasps too.
Eventually, Lend-Lease B-25 Mitchels replaced Albamarles and a variety of other British medium bombers. B-25s sported up to 5 Browning .50 cal. MGs for defends. A few USN B-25s sported extra forward-firing .50s to suppress U-boat AAA gunners.
Twin .50s would have been far more effective than a dozen pip-squeak
gins firing .303 "bird-shot."
If you visit the "www.homebuiltairplanes.com" forum, you will realize how often ballast bricks are used to adjust balance in finished airplanes. A slightly more difficult alternative is moving the battery to improve balance. The third alternative is lengthening or shortening engine mounts. After that, balancing an airplane gets complicated.
Twin .50s would have been far more effective than a dozen pip-squeak
gins firing .303 "bird-shot."
If you visit the "www.homebuiltairplanes.com" forum, you will realize how often ballast bricks are used to adjust balance in finished airplanes. A slightly more difficult alternative is moving the battery to improve balance. The third alternative is lengthening or shortening engine mounts. After that, balancing an airplane gets complicated.
There was also the problem that many of the aircraft producers, even during the war, seem to have been very resistant to making alterations to their designs or swapping over to manufacture new models, even their own ones never mind other from other companies. Edgerton mentions this a couple of times in England and the Aeroplane, I'll dig out my copy later for a specific quote.
The hardest part us likely getting the Cousins to be sensible, the only people that had the power to even possibly force their hand was the Air Ministry and they didn't. My original idea was to simply have someone go into a board meeting and keep smacking them over the head with a cricket bat until they agreed to give Fedden his head to design a better engine like your proposed twinned Perseus which I mentally dubbed the Orion.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
I still think the obvious answer is to switch production and build more Wimpys?
After all they can build them in 24 hours
After all they can build them in 24 hours
I still think the obvious answer is to switch production and build more Wimpys?
After all they can build them in 24 hours
They already built the most Wimpys, 11,461. But Willow Run built a Liberator every 63 miutes, 24 hours a day. Still, neither the Wimp or the Lib make a good light bomber.
Factoid: The Wellington's method of construction was invented by Irishman George O'desic.
Get the Mossie into production 6-9 months earlier by shooting the entire Air Ministry staff.
Or is this ASB?
Or is this ASB?
Do the Air Ministry and Air Staff deserve half the vitriol they receive on here? Admittedly I'd do it differently, but that's because I have the benefit of hindsight and they didn't. I can also play around with more money, which they couldn't.
Some of the failures were because they had to order aircraft into production off the drawing board, i.e. before the prototypes could be tested, so some of the aircraft were bound to be failures. As far as I can see they tried to cover as many bases as funds and the capacity of the aircraft industry would allow. Some they didn't cover, but should have and some that were covered should have been left uncovered.
And AFAIK the French, Germans, Italians and Japanese had their fare share of stupid ideas too, if not more than the British and Americans.
Some of the failures were because they had to order aircraft into production off the drawing board, i.e. before the prototypes could be tested, so some of the aircraft were bound to be failures. As far as I can see they tried to cover as many bases as funds and the capacity of the aircraft industry would allow. Some they didn't cover, but should have and some that were covered should have been left uncovered.
And AFAIK the French, Germans, Italians and Japanese had their fare share of stupid ideas too, if not more than the British and Americans.
There were later aircraft- the Vickers Windsor for prime example- built to the same constructional method as the Wimpy, which was largely a failure, did not come close to its' predicted performance, and I wonder if the geodesic structure was the problem; that it was maybe a bit too flexible to push through the air at high speed?
Advantageous at two hundred knots, debatable at three hundred, liability at four hundred and up- simply too likely to deform with the airstream and throw up large, unpredictable amounts of drag and turbulence? Wouldn't swear to it without modelling it, but it smells right.
What was actually available at the time or in very near prospect? We're looking at the phoney war here, realising at some point between September 3, 1939 and May 10, 1940 that the Blenheim is not likely going to do very well at all, and anything picked is going to have to exist there and then, or be very easily kitbashed together.
How much faster would an Avro Anson go with standard Pegasus engines, 900hp or thereabouts, in place of the existing 350hp motors? Granted it is very, very un- fast to begin with, but it's not that lumpy- tilt the windscreen back a bit and it would look sleeker than the Blenheim.
Gloster Reaper would be ideal if it had actually made it past the prototype stage. Sufficient changes and yes, but not at the last minute. The reason, according to Wiki, is that despite it's promise it was ditched to free Gloster to concentrate on jet aircraft development; now is this an example of foresight that could have been done without? Is it worth trading a tactical bomber in 1940 for a V1 interceptor in 1944?
What about the allied, in- production Liore et Olivier 451? A good thirty miles an hour faster than the Blenheim with a better defensive armament and more than twice the bomb load, it is a generation ahead of the Blenheim and it shows.
Advantageous at two hundred knots, debatable at three hundred, liability at four hundred and up- simply too likely to deform with the airstream and throw up large, unpredictable amounts of drag and turbulence? Wouldn't swear to it without modelling it, but it smells right.
What was actually available at the time or in very near prospect? We're looking at the phoney war here, realising at some point between September 3, 1939 and May 10, 1940 that the Blenheim is not likely going to do very well at all, and anything picked is going to have to exist there and then, or be very easily kitbashed together.
How much faster would an Avro Anson go with standard Pegasus engines, 900hp or thereabouts, in place of the existing 350hp motors? Granted it is very, very un- fast to begin with, but it's not that lumpy- tilt the windscreen back a bit and it would look sleeker than the Blenheim.
Gloster Reaper would be ideal if it had actually made it past the prototype stage. Sufficient changes and yes, but not at the last minute. The reason, according to Wiki, is that despite it's promise it was ditched to free Gloster to concentrate on jet aircraft development; now is this an example of foresight that could have been done without? Is it worth trading a tactical bomber in 1940 for a V1 interceptor in 1944?
What about the allied, in- production Liore et Olivier 451? A good thirty miles an hour faster than the Blenheim with a better defensive armament and more than twice the bomb load, it is a generation ahead of the Blenheim and it shows.