WI: RAF Bomber B.12/36 Boulton-Paul P.90

In the first Tender Conference of Oct '36, the B-P design came second after the Vickers design. However, in November after lobbying by R J mitchell the placings were revised Supermarine first & B-P second. But in January '37 when prototypes were ordered it was two Supermarine and two from Shorts!

Some stats:
Boulton-Paul P.90 (Barnsley)
Span 100' length 77' 3", w/area 1,450 sq ft., max weight 47,922 lbs.

Shorts S.29
Span 102', length 86' 6", w/area 1,300 sq ft., max weight 53.100 lbs.
Shorts S.29 (revised)
Span 100' length 86' 8", w/area 1,300 sq ft., max weight 56,000 lbs.
Stirling Mk I
Span 99' 1", length 87' 3", w/area 1,300 sq ft., max weight 70,000 lbs.

So the question is how much better could the 'Barnsley' have been in comparison, if it had remained second choice (as per OTL Supermarine doesn't get built due to bomb damage to the prototype), and with the Stirling not ordered, seems plausible to me that a military version of the Short 'G' Class flying boat could have been built - it would have meant no blind spots in mid Atlantic.
To elaborate, the Sunderland and the Short 'C' Class shared much in development, while the 'C' was intended for Empire routes, the 'G' Class was intended for a non-stop transatlantic mail service.

I had a similar post on another forum, see what comments I would get here.
Pleased that my previous Threads weren't derided as being implausible!
 
I have to admit that an aircraft about which I know nothing would probably have been superior to the Short Stirling, and that the Short Seaford could thus have been developed on a more suitable timescale, if priorities allowed. That said, priorities would probably have been denied, and the performance of the BP aircraft may have been less than stirling.
 
I have to admit that an aircraft about which I know nothing would probably have been superior to the Short Stirling, and that the Short Seaford could thus have been developed on a more suitable timescale, if priorities allowed. That said, priorities would probably have been denied, and the performance of the BP aircraft may have been less than stirling.

The Seaford was an 'improved' Sunderland, indeed it was initially called a Sunderland IV. To show the potential difference, for example:
Sunderland span 112 ft., and range 2,690 miles at 133 mph.,
Seaford span 112 ft., range 2,800 miles at 155 mph.,
Short 'G' Class (Military) span 134' 4"., range 3,200 miles at 161 mph.
For further info -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_S.26

Re: the Boulton-Paul P.90, it like most of the other designs for the spec were markedly shorter than the Short designs, Supermarine = 73ft., Vickers = 81 ft., B-P = 77 ft., while Shorts were 86 to 87 ft. That gave it unwarranted extra weight. The engines for the P.90 were RR Kestrels so making them Merlins gives an extra insurance for any extras in the spec. - so seems very unlikely to be as bad as the Stirling!
All B.12/36 info from BSP.
 
The Seaford was proceeded with because it was a military aircraft equipped to dispense ASW stores, equipped with radar, armed and armored, and fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks. It's progress was inexorably slow because it lacked priority, at a time when Liberators were becoming available and viable in the ASW role. The G Class was designed for passengers on a trans-Atlantic voyage, comparable with the Boeing Clipper. Had it displayed a genuine talent in the role of ASW, which it had an opportunity to display, I would have thought that the powers that be might have decided to proceed as you suggest, with a genuine military variant. They did not.
 
Just Leo:
Thanks for your reply - surprised so far no other comments.

I agree with your comments - but as per the OTL world. In 1937/38 the RAF didn't know about the Liberator.
I previously thought, that maybe with no Stirling, Shorts could be asked to design an improved Sunderland to follow on. But when I recently read about the 'G' Class I thought that this makes this option more likely - the Air Ministry gave Imperial Airways a subsidy - because they can see the military potential of the design.
Granted, bomber production had priority - so its quite likely that Shorts would have been seconded to also produce the 'Barnsley' or other heavy bombers, but before this took place there would IMHO have been an availability of design and production that could have been used for a Military version of the 'G' Class.
 
While we're having this private conversation, I might also mention the medium range patrol boat, the Saro Lerwick. Curious that it couldn't plane or fly. Shorts was the only British company that figured out how to build a flying boat warplane that floated and flew.

Anyway, what does the Barnsley look like? When I want to know, I just draw a picture. Like when I wondered what a 4-engine DH fast heavy bomber would look like.

DH.97Tse-Tse.png
 
"While we're having this private conversation"
LoL yes I know what you mean, but others are welcome!

"Anyway, what does the Barnsley look like? When I want to know, I just draw a picture. "
Yes, I'm impressed - but how do you do that?? I have the dimensions, and a 'plan' from BSP (I think they are not to keen on 'copying'). Do you use a software program and is it easy to use?
 
It's called MS paint, and it came with the computer. I had a better program, but I couldn't figure out how to use it. I suffer from Ludditis. A visual representation could allow for a better determination of the aircraft's relative viability, whereas dry statistics fomented in an engineer's mind means so much less.
 
Just Leo:

It seems its just the two of us!!

I tried to attach a plan of the 'Barnsley' - hope it comes out ok, sadly no painting.

You may be able to see where the rear guns are, that B-P patented a 'Dumb-bell' type mounting, with the guns on a stub-wing attempted to do away with the extra drag and weight of a complete turret.

IMG.jpg
 
I can't see the advantage over the Stirling. I presume the main gear operates like the Liberator units, and is probably too advanced for B-P or Dowty to manufacture without protracted development. The rear armament never saw use on any other type, presumably because it doesn't work well. The lateral fuselage sponsons aren't depicted properly, and the tail group doesn't show on the front view. The retractable ventral turret, another Liberator touch, would have been nice on British night bombers but curiously was never applied. The tail group does seem draggy. All in all, it doesn't offer much to impress.

P.90.png
 
So the question is how much better could the 'Barnsley' have been in comparison, if it had remained second choice (as per OTL Supermarine doesn't get built due to bomb damage to the prototype), and with the Stirling not ordered, seems plausible to me that a military version of the Short 'G' Class flying boat could have been built - it would have meant no blind spots in mid Atlantic.
To elaborate, the Sunderland and the Short 'C' Class shared much in development, while the 'C' was intended for Empire routes, the 'G' Class was intended for a non-stop transatlantic mail service.

Better still, replace the Sunderland with VLR Stirlings possibly fitting a few out for In Flight Refueling.

IIRC, John Terrain mentions in 'The Right of the Line' that a Sunderland took twice (possibly three..my books are all stored away at the moment) times the resources of a Stirling to make.

Of course, it does mean some accidents for a few Bomber Command chiefs.
 
The performance specifications given for the Vickers 293, based on Kestrel, Taurus and Dagger powerplants, do not correlate well to reality. The 1,050hp Taurus was still in the future, and the 900hp Taurus had more power than Kestrel and the over-rated Dagger which failed to give rated power. Ceiling over 30,000 feet is totally unrealistic, and maximum speeds stetched. The much later Vickers Windsor failed to achieve that rated altitude, and exceeded the maximum speed only with the aid of late-model Merlins.
 
One major problem with the British aircraft industry at the time, as I sees it, is that original thought and budding genius were quickly stamped out of freshman engineers, and brilliant designs were largely ignored. The exceptions are notable, but not common enough. Sir Roy Fedden helped establish Cranwell University in 1946 to address the issue as he saw it. Expecting companies which did pedantic work to come up with a revolutionary design breakthrough was difficult.
 

Sior

Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Windsor



General characteristics
Performance
Armament

  • Guns: 4 × 20 mm cannon in remote controlled barbettes firing to rear[3]
  • Bombs: about 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of bombs[3]
 
Top