Bristol Bombay as a big seller.

[riggerrob]

Bombay was only 18 mph slower than DC2, meaning that fixed, carefully-faired undercarriage was not much of an impedance to cruising speed.
Eliminating turrets and simplifying tail surfaces would almost make up the difference.
An aluminum or wooden monocoque fuselage would be less labour-intensive.
WI hundreds of Bombay gliders were built - in stead of Hamilcars?
WI most of those Bombay gliders were recovered by war’s end?
WI Bristol converted most to powered Bristol Bombays?
Why did the Air Ministry order both Bombay’s and Harrows?
Modern practice is a fly-off between two or three competitors, then grant production contracts to the best-performing.

 

[fscott]

With the various designs and type of aircraft being built the United States could I believe better than Britain build six different Fighters. Based on the fact of the size of the country and and the work Force. In the United States while we did have a variety of aircraft the better performing ones were built by competing, in peacetime, aerospace companies. To me that seems a lot more sensible and practical to do the same thing in Britain. Is there something that I'm missing in the equation because this is not one of my more knowledgeable areas as to why they didn't?

 

[marathag]

Bombay was only 18 mph slower than DC2, meaning that fixed, carefully-faired undercarriage was not much of an impedance to cruising speed.

1939 Bombay was flying with 1010 HP Bristol radials, vs 1935 DC-2 with 730HP.

Some DC-2 were modified with 1000 HP Pratt and Whitney radials for use as USAAF staff transports, they added 10-15mph to top speed, but bumped the cruising speed to over 200mph, 40mph better than the Bombay cruise speed on same power.

 

[Driftless]

A bit of a tangent.... What aircraft in the interwar era had the highest internal volume (for transporting larger materials)? Similarly, which transport aircraft had high weight lifting capacity?

 

[marathag]

A bit of a tangent.... What aircraft in the interwar era had the highest internal volume (for transporting larger materials)? Similarly, which transport aircraft had high weight lifting capacity?

Probably the Soviet ANT-20 for weight, but really wasn't set for cargo

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. What I want is a way for a commercially viable British built transport with the option of a military version also able to act as a bomber that can meet the Empire and Commonwealth's needs. The Empire has a huge amount of territory with townships sometimes hundreds of miles apart reached by terrible roads. This is the sort of situation where air transport can be a huge benefit, and yet this seems to have been discounted. True Imperial Airways did run services throughout the Empire, but that was aimed at moving the elite quickly at huge expense to big cities, not serving the small isolated communities that could most benefit. This was done to some extent in Australia and Canada but not elsewhere. It's much better to spend 6 hours in an aircraft to get to hospital than it is 6 days in the back of a truck to get there.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

True Imperial Airways did run services throughout the Empire, but that was aimed at moving the elite quickly at huge expense to big cities, not serving the small isolated communities that could most benefit.

IIRC the raison d' etre for Imperial Airways was to aid commerce by speeding up the mails - e.g. the Empire Air Mail Scheme of the 1930s - the carriage of passengers and freight were secondary and tertiary considerations.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. What I want is a way for a commercially viable British built transport with the option of a military version also able to act as a bomber that can meet the Empire and Commonwealth's needs. The Empire has a huge amount of territory with townships sometimes hundreds of miles apart reached by terrible roads. This is the sort of situation where air transport can be a huge benefit, and yet this seems to have been discounted. True Imperial Airways did run services throughout the Empire, but that was aimed at moving the elite quickly at huge expense to big cities, not serving the small isolated communities that could most benefit. This was done to some extent in Australia and Canada but not elsewhere. It's much better to spend 6 hours in an aircraft to get to hospital than it is 6 days in the back of a truck to get there.

I think you are going the wrong way because by 1931 civil and military aviation had reached the point where a dual purpose aircraft such as the one you propose would be unsatisfactory in either role.

However, IOTL we had several airliners that were used as advanced trainers and maritime patrol aircraft.

A larger civil aviation sector in the Empire and Commonwealth would have helped the Empire Air Training Scheme by providing a larger pool of aircraft that could be requisitioned for the training school plus a larger pool of pilots who could be conscripted to provide the instructors and mechanics who could be conscripted to maintain them.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. What I want is a way for a commercially viable British built transport with the option of a military version also able to act as a bomber that can meet the Empire and Commonwealth's needs. The Empire has a huge amount of territory with townships sometimes hundreds of miles apart reached by terrible roads. This is the sort of situation where air transport can be a huge benefit, and yet this seems to have been discounted. True Imperial Airways did run services throughout the Empire, but that was aimed at moving the elite quickly at huge expense to big cities, not serving the small isolated communities that could most benefit. This was done to some extent in Australia and Canada but not elsewhere. It's much better to spend 6 hours in an aircraft to get to hospital than it is 6 days in the back of a truck to get there.

There were airlines in the Empire and Commonwealth that provided local services as well as acting as feeders for Imperial Airways.

AFAIK the aircraft types most commonly used by these airlines were the De Havilland types 84, 86 and 89.

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that they didn't use a larger aircraft like the Bombay because there wasn't enough traffic to make it commercially viable.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Still comes off 2nd(or 3rd) best to the DC2/3 series on the civilian market, and B-18/B-23 for Military. Outside the Commonwealth, can't compete with Douglas

And Airspeed had a licencing agreement with Fokker that included the right to build the DC2/3 series and sell them in the British Empire.

IIRC British Continental Airways (which became part of British Airways Mk 1) wanted to order 12 DC3s from Airspeed in 1936. However, the firm had to turn down the offer because it was busy with other work, presumably building Oxford trainers for the RAF.

I've written before that priority to the Whitley delayed the AW Ensign airliner. Plus according to Robin Higham the Bristol Blenheim didn't go into service as an airliner because the RAF took all of them. Though strictly speaking the Bristol Type 142M Blenheim was a modification of the Type 142 airliner.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Handley Page Harrow was built during 1937 so could that production line be transferred to Short and Harland in Belfast to continue production instead of the more complex Bombay?

Yes.

However, I'd prefer for Short & Harland to build 200 Hampdens instead of the 50 Bombays and 150 Herefords that it actually built.

AFAIK the Harrow was designed with ease of manufacture in mind which is why so many were built so quickly. I'd like to change things so that 76 additional Heyfords were ordered from Handley Page instead of the Hendon from Fairey and then 80 extra Harrows from HP instead of the 80 Bombays from S&H. I think that Handley Page could have built them without delaying the Hampden and Halifax - hopefully the opposite because having a larger factory aught to enable to firm to build these aircraft in larger numbers.

 

[sonofpegasus]

As in the Peerless Air Ministry thread cancel the B!@@#% Blackburn Botha and build 500 De Haviland Flamingo's instead. They can be used by Coastal Command, Training Command and Transport Command. Get Armstrong Whitworth to design a A23 type transport fuselage to go with the Whitley wings and tail so that the transport variant can be built when the Bomber becomes surplus.
This is the A23 so imagine this without the turrets! Build this instead of Harrows et-al.

 

[Astrodragon]

You need to avoid the AM fixation that Every.Single.Aircraft needs to carry bombs.
Make it a pure transport, that will save weight and allow more streamlining.

make the fixed undercart a feature, strong and easy to maintain on rough fields, the high engine position helps (less chance of crap going into the engines).

It should be much closer to the DC, and wont need dollars to buy.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

My thinking here is that Governments might be willing to subsidise the purchase of aircraft by national airlines that can in time of need act as bombers as a way to boost their nations airpower.

 

[riggerrob]

Gov’ts already subsidised airlines with mail contracts. DC3 was the first airliner that was fast enough and comfortable enough to turn a profit while only carrying passengers.
Also consider how profitable modern courier companies are carrying a hundred over-night envelopes in the same space as a human passenger.

Yes, the AM insisting on every RAF airplane being able to carry bombs was silly. Maybe that was a budget loop-hole. Maybe they fixated on WW1 bombloads. Maybe they fixated on policing Afghan tribesmen ......
Bombay was silly to sling bombs outside the fuselage. They would have been faster with bombs streamlined inside the belly or engine nacelles (e.g. Grumman Tracker). Bombays’ large cargo bays also made them easier for conversion to carrying large bombs internally (B-17 versus B-24).

 

[Draconis]

You need to avoid the AM fixation that Every.Single.Aircraft needs to carry bombs.
Make it a pure transport, that will save weight and allow more streamlining.

make the fixed undercart a feature, strong and easy to maintain on rough fields, the high engine position helps (less chance of crap going into the engines).

It should be much closer to the DC, and wont need dollars to buy.

Give it a tricycle landing gear. And an upswept tail for rear cargo doors into that spacious fuselage.
If the fixed main landing gear can be designed to be partially enclosed within fuselage sponsons to reduce drag and improve the strength by eliminating long gear struts than we are well on our way to something as efficient as a C-130. The wing struts could still be run to the fuselage and braced. Or Bristol could design it with a cantilever wing.

 

[Simon]

And Airspeed had a licencing agreement with Fokker that included the right to build the DC-2/3 series and sell them in the British Empire.

IIRC Fokker paid Douglas a fee of $100,000 for the licence. Do you happen to know if that was a flat fee or if they had to lay that plus a set amount per aircraft constructed? Considering that Airspeed agreed to pay Fokker a percentage on any aircraft - Fokker, Douglas, or Airspeed - they built as part of their deal, the idea of their also seeing the advantage of the DC-2 and beating Fokker to agreeing a production licence for the British Empire, likely excluding Canada, has a certain appeal.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC Fokker paid Douglas a fee of $100,000 for the licence. Do you happen to know if that was a flat fee or if they had to lay that plus a set amount per aircraft constructed? Considering that Airspeed agreed to pay Fokker a percentage on any aircraft - Fokker, Douglas, or Airspeed - they built as part of their deal, the idea of their also seeing the advantage of the DC-2 and beating Fokker to agreeing a production licence for the British Empire, likely excluding Canada, has a certain appeal.

Unfortunately, no I don't.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My thinking here is that Governments might be willing to subsidise the purchase of aircraft by national airlines that can in time of need act as bombers as a way to boost their nations airpower.

"Civil aviation must fly by itself."

Winston Churchill​

He said that in 1919 when he was Secretary of State for War and Air. It reflects the attitude of the British Government to civil aviation, which received minimal state support until the middle of the 1930s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You need to avoid the AM fixation that Every Single Aircraft needs to carry bombs.

That might have been because the RAF had relatively few aircraft when the specifications were drawn up. Therefore multi-purpose aircraft might have been more useful than single-role aircraft even if this compromised their performance.