RAF/RAAF - Bristol P.13/36 or Beaufort

I did something similar on another site (different username), thought I'd see what extra feedback I get!

This is a two-part WI.

The D A P (Bristol) Beaufort came as a result of a British Air Mission to Australia early in 1939. with contracts for the Beaufort being made for 90 each for the RAF & RAAF.

Now, it doesn't seem unreasonable (to me) to think that such a 'decision' could have been taken much earlier e.g. the Australian Mission that resulted in the Wirraway was in the first half of '36.

Now the next 'what-if' relates to the P.13/36 - granted the Air ministry were impressed by the Avro & Handley Page designs. But 'what-if' seeing that the Bristol design is the smallest entry - at 79 ft wigspan, they see it as a worthy successor to the Blenheim!?

So would the Bristol P.13/36 (I like the name Buckfast), have been better for the Australians?

Buckfast:
W/span 79'., length 55' 9", wing area 800 sq ft., max weight 22,000 lbs., engines 2 x Hecules HE.3.SM Est Max 315 mph at 15,000 ft., armament - 16 x 250 or 500 lb., or 4 x 2,000 lb bombs, (or two 18" torpedos as per original spec); 6 x 0.303 machine guns. The 'spec' called for a range of at least 2,000 miles.

DAP Beaufort:
W/span 57' 10", length 44' 3", max weight 22,500 lb., normal weight 21,000 lb, engines two x 1,200 hp Pratt & Witney Twin Wasp, max speed 268 mph at 14,500 ft., range 1,450 miles, amament 2 x 500 or 250 lb bombs internally, or one 21" torpedo plus two 25 lb bombs.

So its a larger bomb load & range versus smaller aircraft - which may be easier to build!? Moreover, with initial problems with the Hercules the Aussies will problem go US for the engine 1,600 hp Wright Cyclone?

Comments on both aspects please Buckfast to replace Blenheim (RAF), and Buckfast instead of Beafort (RAAF).
 
Pictured is my rendition of the Beaufort powered by an 18 cyl Bristol engine which I call Orion, based on Hercules/Perseus cylinders. The P13/36 specification called for front and rear power turrets. The original Beaufighter with original Hercules barely did 300 mph, and required some work to get that figure up to 321. The original Beaufort specification called for Perseus engines, as fitted to the Blackburn Botha which stuck to specs and was a total failure typical of Blackburn during the period. The Hercules engine was not ready in this time frame, and the P&W R-1830 was chosen for availability and reliability for Australian production aircraft. A larger payload/range smaller aircraft might be called a Beaufighter. Better performance might be gained by using a more refined wing of thinner section, something that was not done even for the Centaurus-powered follow-ons Buckmaster etc. Using a smaller fuselage may result in problems such as befell HP Hampden.

Buckfast.png
 
Just Leo:

The original Beaufort, in RAF use was pwered by the Tqaurus engine, although yes the initial spec gave the Perseus whcih Blackburn kept to and suffered as a result - but then again the Botha was 2,000 lb heavier than the Beaufort. Bristol were able to change engines, after the Air Ministry changed the primary role to 'bombing', therefore an operating height of 15,000 ft meant a fully supercharged engine.
But due to problems with the Taurus, both the Mk II and DAP versions had Pratt & Witney engines.
I don't see any problem, with the RAAF having the Beaufighter as per OTL. I'm just posing the question whether the 'Buckfast' in an ATL would have been better than the Beaufort for RAAF use, and as a more flexible Blenheim replacement for the RAF.
I appreciate that the ext max speed could be optimistic, especially considering the initial problems with the Hercules, but than the Beaufort had a similar problem - so what's new!
 
I'd like to see what a paste-up of the Buckfast looks like. The specifications don't seem to agree with the performance norms of comparable period aircraft. The speed/range would seem to require a P&W R-2800, but the weight would be wrong.
 
Top