Make the Blackburn Botha successful

The majority of what I have read regarding the Botha has been very negative, all of it in fact. The only reports where it wasn't completely damned were from a couple of pilots who actually flew it. Those however, made me wonder if the plane wasn't quite as bad as thought. Could it have been made at least serviceable? Useful in other theaters? What realistic options are there for this?
The first area of improvement would be to install more powerful engines. However, that may not be possible as aero engines were not easy to make, and other aircraft have priority for them. The visibility issue though, could be partially resolved by fitting a glazed nose vice the half glazed and increasing the number of windows. Since I've the practical aero knowledge of my cat, I'm hoping others here will weigh in.
 
While the Botha was considered less than successful as an aircraft and as a warplane, it was eminently useful and successful at playing a key role in the advancement of Adrian Warburton's fabulous career. Had he been happy with the Botha, he would not have been banished to the hell hole that was Malta for his bickering. One could say that Warburton's accomplishments exceeded that of the entire production of the Botha.
 
From the perspective of an "eyeball engineer."

1 - More horsepower. Production Bothas had 9.9 pounds per horsepower.
Stick with the originally-specified 1130 horsepower Taurus engine (8.2 lbs/hp).
Secondly, install the 1100 horsepower Bristol Perseus 100 engine (8.4 lbs/hp) or wait for Hercules to come into production. Hercules was planned for the (unbuilt) Botha Mark II (6.8 lbs/hp). Hercules would bring the power to weight ratio close to DH Mosquito.

2. That wing looks too small ... increase wingspan. Greater wingspan would help reduce stall speed and take-off distance.
The original had a span-loading of 313 pounds per foot .... similar to Bristol Beaufort?????
Alternately, reducing stall speed requires reducing turbulent airflow around the wings' leading edges, nacelles and fuselage .... concepts poorly understood until the 1970s (see Robertson STOL).

3. The vertical tail looks too small. Three options: first, install a dorsal fin. Secondly, move the existing fin and rudder farther aft. Thirdly, make both the fin and rudder larger.

4. Eliminate the dorsal turret and all the turbulence it creates around the tail. In many respects, that turret looks like a crude attempt at improving rearward visibility by adding a rear gunner. Disadvantages include: weight, drag and turbulent airflow over the tail.

5. Raise the cockpit (like Beaufort and DH Mosquito) to improve lateral visibility.

4 and 5 reduce the number of crew to 2 or 3, lightening the airframe and making it more like a Mosquito and all post-war naval strike aircraft.
 
Last edited:
From the perspective of an "eyeball engineer."

1 - More horsepower. Production Bothas had 9.9 pounds per horsepower.
Stick with the originally-specified 1130 horsepower Taurus engine (8.2 lbs/hp).
Secondly, install the 1100 horsepower Bristol Perseus 100 engine (8.4 lbs/hp) or wait for Hercules to come into production. Hercules was planned for the (unbuilt) Botha Mark II (6.8 lbs/hp). Hercules would bring the power to weight ratio close to DH Mosquito.

2. That wing looks too small ... increase wingspan. Greater wingspan would help reduce stall speed and take-off distance.
The original had a span-loading of 313 pounds per foot .... similar to Bristol Beaufort?????
Alternately, reducing stall speed requires reducing turbulent airflow around the wings' leading edges, nacelles and fuselage .... concepts poorly understood until the 1970s (see Robertson STOL).

3. The vertical tail looks too small. Three options: first, install a dorsal fin. Secondly, move the existing fin and rudder farther aft. Thirdly, make both the fin and rudder larger.

4. Eliminate the dorsal turret and all the turbulence it creates around the tail. In many respects, that turret looks like a crude attempt at improving rearward visibility by adding a rear gunner. Disadvantages include: weight, drag and turbulent airflow over the tail.

5. Raise the cockpit (like Beaufort and DH Mosquito) to improve lateral visibility.

4 and 5 reduce the number of crew to 2 or 3, lightening the airframe and making it more like a Mosquito and all post-war naval strike aircraft.


But then it really wouldn't be a Botha.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, like a lot of famous quotes, it is hard to track down the exact origin of that one. Think it was Eric Winkle brown ? but I can't remember what aircraft.
 
Giving the Botha more horse power is gilding the lilly getting Blacburn to build a military version of the DeH Flamingo is a result. If they can morph the Lockheed Electra into the Hudson then a similar route for the Flamingo should be practicable.
 
IIRC it was in the trials report at, I think, Boscombe Down.

The lateral instability was tracked down mostly to the turret and that combined with the total inability to hold height on one engine, even lightly loaded, was the prime cause of training losses. Lose an engine and the turret blanked the airflow over the fin and rudder.Of course wartime training came with a high loss rate for any type. With the Perseus the actual war load was trivial and carrying a torpedo meant leaving behind crew and reduced fuel so it was unlikely to even reach a target. Blackburn told the Air Ministry that it would be underpowered with the Perseus but Taurus production could only accommodate the Beaufort and Albacore so Perseus it had to be to put something on the wings. The Perseus 100 was a civil post war engine using Centaurus cylinders on a Perseus crankcase for more capacity. The Botha's issue for service was in desperation for lack of anything else and the RAF already knew it was unfit.

Perhaps the best that could have been done would be to take off anything warlike to save weight and improve flying qualities, reduce the tankage to a safe minimum to tailor it better for the training task. Something had to do the job and production was underway and materials to hand. What else could you have in quantity in time without significant extra expense? Gross modifications would be pointless. Really the only domestic engines otherwise available would have been Napier Dagger or Armstrong Siddeley Tigers. The Tiger was heavy and Napiers did not really understand air cooling ducting. The Perseus would suffice for training if only you could reduce weight. A rack for 4x25lb bombs would be adequate for that task.
 
Last edited:
Ok, it seems there is little to be gained from using this aircraft as anything other than what it ended up doing. I've two questions, and then I am done. #1. Could the Botha actually carry a torpedo to the distance it was supposed to? #2. Obviously there is nothing to be gained from sinking anything other than spare change into the project, so, if the plane CAN carry a torpedo to at least some distance, would it have been worthwhile to reduce the crew to three, install additional windows, remove the turret and install possibly with a fuselage fairing with an open mount mg?
 
Top