The Blenheim soldiers on

I find it amazing that the Blenheim soldiered on so long as it did. After the Fall of France the Battle was shifted to other duties as soon as possible, yet the Blenheim, which fared just as badly continued on in frontline service. Once the Beaufighter was shown to be a success production should have shifted to it in place of both the Blenheim and Beaufort. It could fill the Night Fighter, light(ish) bomber and torpedo bomber roles better than either of them.
 
Once the Beaufighter was shown to be a success production should have shifted to it in place of both the Blenheim and Beaufort. It could fill the Night Fighter, light(ish) bomber and torpedo bomber roles better than either of them.

Except the Beaufighter had no bombsight, so could only shallow dive in for any real accuracy.
Sometime you really need that 3rd guy if you want to level bomb
 
No need for a third man, the observer in the back can do that, not that adding a third man would be much of a problem, the aircraft is big enough. Just use the same method for mounting a bomb sight as the Battle.
 
Thing about the Beau was that it wasn't a bomber, with two 250 lb bombs on a rack, externally. The Beaufort carried up to a single 2,000 lb bomb or equivalent mines or a torpedo, semi-conformal. It just didn't have the Hispanos. With a pair of Hercules, it might have been quite impressive. However, the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 lb bomb, or guns, and a late version carried a torpedo and it had folding wings. It did it all, faster, higher.
 
my original post came out of a thought which was sparked by the book im reading at the moment Greg Baughen's third book on the RAF "The RAF in the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain: A Reappraisal of Army and Air Policy 1938-1940"

it is as the other two were excellent and thought provoking - half way through this one but continues the thesis from book 2 (up to 1938) and is critical of the RAF's bomber command obsession with strategic bombing - even Trenchard realised in May 1940 that at critical moments of crisis that bombing oil targets or even sitting on airfield was not was required.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1781555257/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
The RAF adopted the Maryland/Baltimore, Mitchell, Marauder, and particularly the Boston in the Blenheim role of light/medium bombing, but never went in for the gunship models. The maritime Beaufighter and ubiquitous Mossie FB.VI served those roles just fine. The gunship Bisley really was a curious choice.
 
Just some related doodles.

Beausquitozxz.png


See if you can guess what they are.
 

Driftless

Donor
Just some related doodles.

View attachment 324327

See if you can guess what they are.

All are SWAG's (which will become obvious in a second...):
Upper left - Mosquito fuselage, Idunno for the anhedral wing - nothing on the engines either
Upper right - Mosquito fuselage, #$%@# anhedral wing, Sabre engine?
Lower left and lower center - Hornet fuselage, Bristol tail,​

I'm terrible with engine ID. What did the wing come from?

*edit* some Italian bombers had the anhedral wing form, but thicker
 
Last edited:
All are SWAG's (which will become obvious in a second...):
Upper left - Mosquito fuselage, Idunno for the anhedral wing - nothing on the engines either
Upper right - Mosquito fuselage, #$%@# anhedral wing, Sabre engine?
Lower left and lower center - Hornet fuselage, Bristol tail,​

I'm terrible with engine ID. What did the wing come from?

The wing on all is Beaufighter II Merlin XX BUT with RAF 34mod airfoil per Mossie wing on standard Beau planform. Fuselage on 2 are Mossie B.IV, and profile is a Hornet nose blended into Bristol tail, which shows both how small the fuselage is, and how big and clumsy the Merlin XXs are compared to the Hornet's standard Merlin 130s. The orange shadow in the airfoil section is the difference between a Beau airfoil thickness and the Hornet airfoil thickness in approximation, which is the point behind the wing being so slow, and which carried on with later Bristol aircraft, while Hawker/Sir Sydney saw the light when they told him thick sections suck speed.
 
Mossie wing looking from above & Caribou wing looking from the front?

That is a Beaufighter wing from above (planform) with Mossie section/profile and thickness. The Caribou wing has anhedral on upper and lower surfaces inboard, and my doodle has a flat lower surface and an anhedral upper surface, like my doodle.
 

Driftless

Donor
The wing on all is Beaufighter II Merlin XX BUT with RAF 34mod airfoil per Mossie wing on standard Beau planform. Fuselage on 2 are Mossie B.IV, and profile is a Hornet nose blended into Bristol tail, which shows both how small the fuselage is, and how big and clumsy the Merlin XXs are compared to the Hornet's standard Merlin 130s. The orange shadow in the airfoil section is the difference between a Beau airfoil thickness and the Hornet airfoil thickness in approximation, which is the point behind the wing being so slow, and which carried on with later Bristol aircraft, while Hawker/Sir Sydney saw the light when they told him thick sections suck speed.

I know you've mentioned a number of times how the faulty data from the wind tunnel tests impacted the wing-form designs of several planes at a critical time. How did they figure out the error and make it known to the British aeronautical world? That's a wing-ding of a potential point-of-departure - to have better data from he beginning.

So, circling back to the Original Post, you might get a more useful career for the Blenheim, with better data leading to an improved wing design? Might, being the key word.


That is a Beaufighter wing from above (planform) with Mossie section/profile and thickness. The Caribou wing has anhedral on upper and lower surfaces inboard, and my doodle has a flat lower surface and an anhedral upper surface, like my doodle.

I think both Peg Leg Pom and I suffered the same optical illusion of not seeing the flat lower wing surface till your comment, and taking the whole inner wing as anhedral. I see the flat lower surface now that you've explained it, but I didn't before.
 
Last edited:
That's a wing-ding of a potential point-of-departure - to have better data from he beginning.

The RAF 28 airfoil came highly recommended, by experts, and was used. Much research was government funded and freely offered to specified aircraft constructors. But Supermarine and De Havilland had their own aerodynamicists with their own beliefs and ideas, and went with it. I have no idea how NPL discovered their error, but I have seen the letter, and read of Camm's reaction to it, and attempted a thin-wing Hurricane TL, but I'm better at thinking an engineering TL and drawing it than writing it, I think.
 
Top