WI/PC Improved SHORT'S BELFAST used by Aust/Canada/NZ

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
With a post 1970 pod, in what ways would you improve the SHORT'S Belfast aircraft, negating it's performance problems so it would be bought by the RAF as it's main transport aircraft instead of the Lockheed C-130?

Not only that, Australia, Canada and New Zealand must also purchase the aircraft, again at the expense of the C-130.

Regards filers
 
Not with a 1970 PoD, by then the Herc was entrenched in the RAF and the RAAF. The best bet would be for a big RAF buy in 1966 and the RAAF to buy a squadron instead of the C130Es that we got in 1966. Once the planes are built get a retrofit happening, with a big enough fleet it would be worth spending the money to get any problems sorted. The Kiwis don't need a strategic transport, but South Africa, India, Canada and France are potential customers.
 
Not with a 1970 POD. However, Shorts did propose a jet powered development of the Belfast to replace the Britannia to AST 362 (or was it 364?). However, I think that the RAF's preferred solution was to buy the C-5A Galaxy. I have seen RAF planning documents at the National Archives for Air Support Command's order of battle for 1967-75 and they show 15 Galaxies to replace the Britannias.
 
This doesn't answer your question but, I have read that the RAF studied fitting its C-130Ks with Tyne engines, but decided that the improvement in performance was not worth the improvement in cost.

Also Bristol/BAC proposed a licence built STOL Hercules with Tynes to OR 351 called the BAC222, but was beaten by the AW/HS 681. However, if the RAF had selected the BAC222 and the licencing agreement had included exclusive sales rights in the Commonwealth and Europe (like Westland's licences on Sikorsky helicopters did) then there are some export sales too.

However, my preferred solution is this. I don't see why the British aircraft industry with all the British turboprops that were under development in the 1950s could not have developed a superior aircraft to the C-130A and put it into service with the RAF instead of the Beverley.

As the Beverley was a Blackburn product and it became part of Hawker Siddeley, I think Armstrong Whitworth should have developed it. 50 Mk 1 aircraft are built for the RAF instead of the Beverley. Then 56 Mk 2 plus 17 civil sales instead of the Argossy. Next 93 Mk 3 in place of the 6 HS 681 ordered, 66 C-130K and 31 Andover Mk 1. That's 216 so far.

Then the RAAF buys 12 instead of the 12 C-130A it bought in the 1950s and 12 instead of the 12 C-130E it bough in the 1960s. The RCAF buys it in place of the C-130B, E and H it bought in the real world and the RNZAF 5 instead of the C-130H it bought in the 1960s. The SAAF buys 7 in place of the C-130B it bought and possibly 9 in place of the Transals, depending upon when the arms embargo comes in and how strict it is.
 
However, my preferred solution is this. I don't see why the British aircraft industry with all the British turboprops that were under development in the 1950s could not have developed a superior aircraft to the C-130A and put it into service with the RAF instead of the Beverley.

As the Beverley was a Blackburn product and it became part of Hawker Siddeley, I think Armstrong Whitworth should have developed it. 50 Mk 1 aircraft are built for the RAF instead of the Beverley. Then 56 Mk 2 plus 17 civil sales instead of the Argossy. Next 93 Mk 3 in place of the 6 HS 681 ordered, 66 C-130K and 31 Andover Mk 1. That's 216 so far.

Then the RAAF buys 12 instead of the 12 C-130A it bought in the 1950s and 12 instead of the 12 C-130E it bough in the 1960s. The RCAF buys it in place of the C-130B, E and H it bought in the real world and the RNZAF 5 instead of the C-130H it bought in the 1960s. The SAAF buys 7 in place of the C-130B it bought and possibly 9 in place of the Transals, depending upon when the arms embargo comes in and how strict it is.
Sounds to me like you want the Blackburn B.107 - four Tynes on a Beverley wing, with a new fuselage for 75 paratroops or 108 passengers. Looks like a slightly larger C-130 - actually very similar to the C-130J-30 - with a twin tail. It's rather obscure, but IMHO one of the big might-have-beens of British aviation.
 
Sounds to me like you want the Blackburn B.107 - four Tynes on a Beverley wing, with a new fuselage for 75 paratroops or 108 passengers. Looks like a slightly larger C-130 - actually very similar to the C-130J-30 - with a twin tail. It's rather obscure, but IMHO one of the big might-have-beens of British aviation.

I don't have it handy because I'm on holiday, but I think its mentioned in Roy Boot's book from Spitfire to Eurofighter and in Humphrey Winn's book on Transport Command.

I though the Mk 1 would have Proteus engines with subsequent marks having the Bristol Orion or RR Tyne.

Again not answering the OP, but instead of the VC7, Britannia, VC10 and Belfast I don't see why my turboprop tactical transport could not have been complimented by a Conway powered equivalent to the C-141 Starlifter if the Operational Requirements branch had been more sensible in the early 1950s. In addition to 47 instead of the Britannias, VC10s and Belfasts the RAF purchased we might get the RCAF buying 12 instead of the Yukon. Perhaps it could have been done as a co-production as 80% British companies and 20% Canadian.
 
The nacelle on a herc can only absorb 4500hp which is why the t56s and the new engines only have that much. Tynes would have to be downrated to 4500hp to go on a herc which makes it a pointless exercise.
 
With a post 1970 pod, in what ways would you improve the SHORT'S Belfast aircraft, negating it's performance problems so it would be bought by the RAF as it's main transport aircraft instead of the Lockheed C-130?

Not only that, Australia, Canada and New Zealand must also purchase the aircraft, again at the expense of the C-130.

Regards filers

RNZAF Hercs were ordered in 1963, and the first in service in 1965. The Belfast is probably more aircraft than the RNZAF needs or wants at the time, regardless of performance issues. The role and requirements for the Belfast and C-130 are also different. One is a strategic heavylifter, the other is a tactical oriented transport -Khe Sanh approaches in a Belfast anyone? :D
 
RNZAF Hercs were ordered in 1963, and the first in service in 1965. The Belfast is probably more aircraft than the RNZAF needs or wants at the time, regardless of performance issues. The role and requirements for the Belfast and C-130 are also different. One is a strategic heavylifter, the other is a tactical oriented transport -Khe Sanh approaches in a Belfast anyone? :D

I'll second this one, but substitute Canadian Arctic landing strips. The Belfast could steal overseas sales from the C-133 and C-141, but not the Herc.
 
The Belfast would be good for trans continental and trans atlantic work that Canada does. Canada needs to maintain their forces in Europe much like Australia does in South East Asia. Besides, the likes of Australia, NZ etc don't operate Hercs on dirt very much, the RAAF had Caribou for that sort of thing and I think Canada had the Buffalo. These countries operate the Herc much like the Belfast, in the strategic transport role, that's why the RAAF C130Es were painted up in pretty white and grey with red roundels, because they never saw the dirt. The C130H were painted camo, but they were acquired in 976 and if the RAAF had Belfasts I'd suggest the H's buy would be replaced by C160 Transalls with common Tyne engines.
 
The Belfast would be good for trans continental and trans atlantic work that Canada does. Canada needs to maintain their forces in Europe much like Australia does in South East Asia. Besides, the likes of Australia, NZ etc don't operate Hercs on dirt very much, the RAAF had Caribou for that sort of thing and I think Canada had the Buffalo. These countries operate the Herc much like the Belfast, in the strategic transport role, that's why the RAAF C130Es were painted up in pretty white and grey with red roundels, because they never saw the dirt. The C130H were painted camo, but they were acquired in 976 and if the RAAF had Belfasts I'd suggest the H's buy would be replaced by C160 Transalls with common Tyne engines.

Strategic transport is only one role of the RNZAF Hercules, NZ not having the luxury of being able to afford separate fleets like the RAAF does. Throughout their operational life the RNZAF has used the Hercules for tasks the Belfast wasn't built for, which makes sense as they aren't equivalent types - some serious POD tomfoolery around 1960 or earlier is required to realistically get the Belfast for the RNZAF at the expense of the Hercules.
 
I mentioned earlier on that the Belfast is too much for the Kiwis, and given their Hercs were bought in 63 the window of opportunity doesn't exist anyway. But the RAAF cold make use of them instead of our squadron of C130E that we got in 66, it fits the timeframe and the strategic role. Indeed any big country with a bigish military could make use of the Belfast, its basically a herc-and-a-half.
 
The Short Belfast would have been useful for the RAF as well. Unlike the Hercules, the Belfast's 5,300 mile range would more than make the flight from Ascension to the Falklands.

As for Canada, by the 1950s pre-Hercules transports were home built. let's have Canadair produce the Belfast, same plant as the Canadair's North Star and CC-109 Cosmopolitan transports.

British_Midland_Canadair_C4_G-ALHG.jpg


109160a_001.jpg


The Belfast does look good in the snow.

3296-elmdon-birmingham-1985.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top