alternatehistory.com

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).
Top