# Who help to identify this?



## rousseau (Jan 10, 2007)

what's this?
http://i1.tinypic.com/402e4g0.jpg


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 10, 2007)

2 radials and 2 inline with massive undercarriage


----------



## Smokey (Jan 10, 2007)

Supermarine B.12/36 bomber









> Following issue of Specification B.12/36 Mitchell submitted his tender in September 1936 for a four engined bomber. The plane was a single-spar, mid-wing monoplane, with swept back leading and straight trailing edges. Bombs could be carried in the fuselage as well as in the wings, reducing the overall size of the planes fuselage. Three possible engines were proposed (see below). The plans were accepted by the Air Ministry but unfortuanely the two prototypes, along with the detailed plans, were destroyed by the bombing of the Supermarine Works, Woolston in September 1940.
> 
> Type: Six crew bomber
> Engines: Four either 1,100hp Rolls-Royce Merlin, or 1,330hp Bristol Hercules, or 1,100 Napier Dagger
> ...



RJ Mitchell. A life in Aviation - Other Aircraft - From 1932 to 1937


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 10, 2007)

And spec 12/36 gave birth to

Striling
Halifax
Manchester / Lancaster


----------



## rousseau (Jan 10, 2007)

Oh, yerh, it's unlucky, if the plan not was burned, Britian might has heavy bomber eralier. Thanks for your post


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 12, 2007)

Does that say IN THE WINGS? interesting, wonder why no one did that during ww2? sort of a semi-lifting body?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

It was done on many occassions including with the Stirling or Halifax, can never remember which...........

and the Manchester/Lancaster _and_ the H.P.56/Halifax come from specification B.13/36, _not_ B.12/36.............


----------



## merlin (Jan 13, 2007)

The idea of having the bombs within the wing structure would've been a dead end. It was thought that many small bombs would be the ideal load. What was needed was a cavernous bomb bay - to house big bombs. The Lancaster Halifax were able to load the 4,000lb bomb and indeed the 'tallboy' 'grand slam' penetration bombs, because the initial specification called for the option of carrying a torpedo!
Such was the need for 4,000 lb bomb carriers that the Mosquito was adapted to carry one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

plus of course fuel could no longer be carried in the wings so i can only assume it went in the fusilage? massive CoG problems as fuel is used during flight!


----------

