On the technology (aerodynamics, structure, engines, fuel, guns, electronics etc.) or the day, what might be the best course for the development of the bomber for RAF? No change to the Battle here (it is in pipelline by the cut-off date). Don't bet on the shiny new engines that are yet to make it on the test bench, going conservative with engine choice might be a good thing.
1935-45: alternative British bombers
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Shorts could use the wing from the Sunderland on the Stirling. Better altitude performance and no need to have the extended undercarriage legs to increase wing angle for take off. Remove the need to have a 2nd function as a troop carrier and build a cavernous bomb bay able to carry any bombs or fuel.
- Thread starter
- #3
I'd try to beat Germans in their own game - masquerading a bomber under the passenger aircraft guise.
Thus, Armstrong Whithworth makes the Ensign-like aircraft as a bomber from day one instead of the historical Ensign. With better engines, Pegasus for the starters.
Thus, Armstrong Whithworth makes the Ensign-like aircraft as a bomber from day one instead of the historical Ensign. With better engines, Pegasus for the starters.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Was there a twin engined concept already in place for the Fairey Battle?
- Thread starter
- #5
I'd keep the Battle as-is, but not made past 1000 copies (2000+ were made historically). Probably keeping it at 600-700 pieces, something is needed to replace a lot of bomber biplanes and to train both air- and ground-crews.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I agree tomo pauk, I just thought I saw something posted somewhere about the Battle having a twin engine proposal. Didn't want to jack the thread.
- Thread starter
- #7
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
Wellington is superceded by a 4 engined Warwick. Initially Pegasus then Hercules/Merlin engines. Vickers are geared up for geodesic construction.
Admiral Beez
Major
Can we get the English Elecitric Canberra into service in 1945? It's essentially a Gloster Meteor with a bomb bay.
- Thread starter
- #10
Let's defeat the Germans 1st
Canberra had perhaps 4 times the thrust vs. 1st Meteors? But we could certainly get the 'British Ar-234'...
wuzak
Captain
Develop the Handley Page unarmed high speed bomber proposed in 1937.
Projected top speed ~ 380mph, estimated cruising speed ~300mph with 7,000lb bombs and ~3,000 mile range (requires catapult take-off).
Projected top speed ~ 380mph, estimated cruising speed ~300mph with 7,000lb bombs and ~3,000 mile range (requires catapult take-off).
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
Let's defeat the Germans 1st
Canberra had perhaps 4 times the thrust vs. 1st Meteors? But we could certainly get the 'British Ar-234'...
A new design from the outset. The requirements that were released that spawned the four engined bombers, P.13/36 and B.12/36 gave the British essentially what they needed - in hindsight, of course. We know that a four engined bomber is desirable, but all the four engined bombers that Bomber Command operated from large production runs started off with issues that affected them in service - the Stirling was plagued with weight problems whilst under development, which meant the span wasn't going to be lengthened, which resulted in a poor ceiling and the production standard was settled on before trials with the half scale prototype revealed that the wing's incidence needed to be altered, which resulted in that awkward undercarriage.
The Halifax was overly complex, too heavy and excessively draggy and suffered from severe rudder overbalance, which put the aircraft into an irrecoverable dive into the ground. It took over two years of production before this horrendous flaw was rectified. The Lancaster appears to be relatively saintly compared to these two, but the Manchester before it suffered all sorts of problems, from aerodynamic issues to electrical and hydraulic system failures on the same airframe, not to mention its engines, which the change to four Merlins certainly did away with. It's interesting to note that the Manchester was Avro's first indigenous 'modern' all-metal monoplane design and the firm gained production experience in metal fabrication techniques from Bristol by building Blenheims under licence. Prior to that the only 'modern' aircraft the firm had designed was the Anson, which was based on the 1920s Fokker F.VIIb's production techniques.
Despite all this however, a clean sheet design is the only way forward if a modern capable bomber with a large production run is required.
Nope, not unless you want built-in obsolescence. Combining a passenger aircraft and bomber from the same airframe is not smart and yes, we can point to examples where the idea proved fruitful, but let's face it, the most notable of these, the He 111 and SM.79, while good at what they did, were very much early to mid 1930s designs with a limited shelf life. From 1942, these aircraft were well past their use-by date and should have been replaced, not to mention the quirks inherent in their individual designs as a result of their pedigree. When Gustav Lachmann of Handley Page was designing what became the HP 52, which became the Hampden and Hereford, he offered the idea of basing the design on an airliner airframe as well, but the Air Ministry was against the idea - for good reason. Britain doesn't need to do this. A resource strapped Germany and Italy did because they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.
Regarding the Ensign, certainly the wing structure mated to a new fuselage might be a good starting point, but although a metal internal structure the after portion of the upper wings was covered in fabric. Make the whole wing metal. The problem the Ensign had was its unreliable and under producing powerplant - it was terribly underpowered, so those Tigers have to go. Next is the issue of production. AW is busy building Whitleys, which were ordered before the timeline commences, so the RAF is receiving these in large numbers, at their main plant at Baginton, Coventry, so the Ensigns were built at Hamble, at a very slow rate because space was limited to allow only a maximum of two on the production line at once - clearly unsatisfactory for a major production aircraft. AW needs to build a new factory at some suitable airfield, but with that comes delays in production, which result in delays in introducing it into service.
The Halifax was overly complex, too heavy and excessively draggy and suffered from severe rudder overbalance, which put the aircraft into an irrecoverable dive into the ground. It took over two years of production before this horrendous flaw was rectified. The Lancaster appears to be relatively saintly compared to these two, but the Manchester before it suffered all sorts of problems, from aerodynamic issues to electrical and hydraulic system failures on the same airframe, not to mention its engines, which the change to four Merlins certainly did away with. It's interesting to note that the Manchester was Avro's first indigenous 'modern' all-metal monoplane design and the firm gained production experience in metal fabrication techniques from Bristol by building Blenheims under licence. Prior to that the only 'modern' aircraft the firm had designed was the Anson, which was based on the 1920s Fokker F.VIIb's production techniques.
Despite all this however, a clean sheet design is the only way forward if a modern capable bomber with a large production run is required.
Nope, not unless you want built-in obsolescence. Combining a passenger aircraft and bomber from the same airframe is not smart and yes, we can point to examples where the idea proved fruitful, but let's face it, the most notable of these, the He 111 and SM.79, while good at what they did, were very much early to mid 1930s designs with a limited shelf life. From 1942, these aircraft were well past their use-by date and should have been replaced, not to mention the quirks inherent in their individual designs as a result of their pedigree. When Gustav Lachmann of Handley Page was designing what became the HP 52, which became the Hampden and Hereford, he offered the idea of basing the design on an airliner airframe as well, but the Air Ministry was against the idea - for good reason. Britain doesn't need to do this. A resource strapped Germany and Italy did because they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.
Regarding the Ensign, certainly the wing structure mated to a new fuselage might be a good starting point, but although a metal internal structure the after portion of the upper wings was covered in fabric. Make the whole wing metal. The problem the Ensign had was its unreliable and under producing powerplant - it was terribly underpowered, so those Tigers have to go. Next is the issue of production. AW is busy building Whitleys, which were ordered before the timeline commences, so the RAF is receiving these in large numbers, at their main plant at Baginton, Coventry, so the Ensigns were built at Hamble, at a very slow rate because space was limited to allow only a maximum of two on the production line at once - clearly unsatisfactory for a major production aircraft. AW needs to build a new factory at some suitable airfield, but with that comes delays in production, which result in delays in introducing it into service.
- Thread starter
- #14
Please note that I've said "masquerading a bomber under the passenger aircraft guise ". In other words, say you are making something innocent, while actually designing a weapon system
"With better engines, Pegasus for the starters."
Going by WIkipedia:
In June 1935, owing to the urgent need to replace biplane heavy bombers then in service with the RAF, a verbal agreement was formed to produce an initial 80 aircraft, 40 being of an early Whitley Mk I standard and the other 40 being more advanced Whitley Mk IIs.
That verbal (or other) agreement does not happen. RAF does not order the Whitley here, but a 4-engined bomber instead of it.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Why does Britain have to hide a new bomber as an airliner. They can build anything they want it's not like naval construction which was limited by the Washington treaty.
- Thread starter
- #16
In order not to show their hand.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
The UK could show its hand all it wanted; Germany needed to cheat as it was forbidden to build bombers by a treaty to which it was party.
The compromises needed to make a plausible passenger plane that is also a plausible bomber are pretty severe; unless a country needs to hide military construction it's worse than unnecessary.
- Thread starter
- #18
Okay, 3 people didn't exactly liked my idea of foxing the Germans, so I'd forget it - A-W makes a proper 4-engined bomber instead.
About the engines for the newly fanged bombers:
- the sooner we forget the A-S Tiger, the better - use Pegasus instead
- Welington was tested with Merlin 60 (grand daddy of the 2-stage Merlins) - press on with such engine versions on in-service bombers by winter of 1942/43 as much as possible?
- Bristol was using the 2-stage supercharged engines in 1st half of 1940s for altitude records - keep up with good work during the second half of 1930s so we can have them on bombers
Granted, flying at 25000+ ft puts a renewed effort for navigation, training and accuracy of bombing, as well as for the crew comfort. More training is usually a good thing, here it might be the key to use the bombers efficiently.
Another thing, once night bombing is the chosen doctrine - cut as much of defensive armament as possible. The gun-less bomber is also an asset, provided it can be very fast
W wuzak - care to post a bit more on the HP high-speed bomber (dimensions, engines, bomb load/fuel load etc)?
Shortround6
Major General
The British could and did build anything they wanted.
However a lot of what they built was hampered/constrained by a number of factors.
1. size of the airfields. (not the size of the Hangers).
2. Weight limits due to
a. proposed treaties that never happened.
b. artificial budget restrictions
c. weight limits on sod/grass airfields.
3. poor understanding of necessary bomb loads and bombs.
4. poor bomb sights.
5. poor navigation training even for daylight bombing.
and others.
Manchester for example was being stressed for catapult launches to get around the short airfield problem. How much time and effort was wasted on that before they decided to make the airfields bigger? Much easier to do with war either imminent or already started.
Number of British bombers with bomb cells in the wing? Yes it spreads the load out making for a lighter structure and allows for smaller fuselage (smaller fuselage bomb bay) but sucks up space for fuel and oil tanks and limits the size of the individual bombs.
Bombing theory also had something to with bomber design. The RAF paid lip service to army support (to get more of the defense budget?) but in actual hardware and squadrons equipped and trained to do so they were rather lacking in the early part of the war. Dropping bombs on mud huts of mid east tribesmen, while supporting the army was hardly what was required against a continental adversary. 250lb and 500lb bombs were not really suited for the destruction of factories/industries or heavy infrastructure (bridges) a fact that was known form the results of WW I bombing.
Army support could NOT be done by any old airplane hanging around that the RAF didn't want to use for strategic bombing anymore. Especially with the standard RAF bomb sight being somewhat useless under 3000ft.
However a lot of what they built was hampered/constrained by a number of factors.
1. size of the airfields. (not the size of the Hangers).
2. Weight limits due to
a. proposed treaties that never happened.
b. artificial budget restrictions
c. weight limits on sod/grass airfields.
3. poor understanding of necessary bomb loads and bombs.
4. poor bomb sights.
5. poor navigation training even for daylight bombing.
and others.
Manchester for example was being stressed for catapult launches to get around the short airfield problem. How much time and effort was wasted on that before they decided to make the airfields bigger? Much easier to do with war either imminent or already started.
Number of British bombers with bomb cells in the wing? Yes it spreads the load out making for a lighter structure and allows for smaller fuselage (smaller fuselage bomb bay) but sucks up space for fuel and oil tanks and limits the size of the individual bombs.
Bombing theory also had something to with bomber design. The RAF paid lip service to army support (to get more of the defense budget?) but in actual hardware and squadrons equipped and trained to do so they were rather lacking in the early part of the war. Dropping bombs on mud huts of mid east tribesmen, while supporting the army was hardly what was required against a continental adversary. 250lb and 500lb bombs were not really suited for the destruction of factories/industries or heavy infrastructure (bridges) a fact that was known form the results of WW I bombing.
Army support could NOT be done by any old airplane hanging around that the RAF didn't want to use for strategic bombing anymore. Especially with the standard RAF bomb sight being somewhat useless under 3000ft.
- Thread starter
- #20
A lot of good points, especially those that underscore need for bombers being better outfitted and crews needing more training.
Weight of the bomber might or might not be a problem on anything that is not tarmac, but ground pressure needs to be kept in check - IOW, heavier bomber will need bigger wheels or more of them, when compared with a lighter bomber.
Bomb bays were all around the map for not only British bombers, curiously enough the bomber with most generous wing cells was the one with greatest payload - the Whitley. With advent of Whitley and Wellington, bomb bays/cells and payloads of British bombers were a big step ahead of any European or Japanese bombers. Going for a big bomber will just reinforce this.
As for the take-off strips, Wellington I, Hampden*, Manchester and 1st Halifax used 1300-1400 yds, Wellington III under 1100 yds, Whitley with Merlin just 1000 - the big, thick and 'tilted' wing has it's advantages. No british bomber used much of a high-lift devices that help with take offs, like the Fowler flaps, or even something like the 'Junkers flaps', so there is opportunity for improvement.
All figures are for max weight, to clear 50 ft obstacle.
(champion amongst British 'proper' bombers in take-off distance was the Beaufort with Twin Wasps, sometimes under 700 yds)
For comparison, the Ju 86P (one with diesels) needed ~700 yds to clear 20 m obstacle at 10500 kg (it's max take off weight in bomber version, 2200 lbs of bombs); He 111H-4 needed more than 1500 yds at 13.6 ton TOW.
*at 22700 lbs; there is a figure of just 1150 ft at 22500 ft in another data sheet.
Weight of the bomber might or might not be a problem on anything that is not tarmac, but ground pressure needs to be kept in check - IOW, heavier bomber will need bigger wheels or more of them, when compared with a lighter bomber.
Bomb bays were all around the map for not only British bombers, curiously enough the bomber with most generous wing cells was the one with greatest payload - the Whitley. With advent of Whitley and Wellington, bomb bays/cells and payloads of British bombers were a big step ahead of any European or Japanese bombers. Going for a big bomber will just reinforce this.
As for the take-off strips, Wellington I, Hampden*, Manchester and 1st Halifax used 1300-1400 yds, Wellington III under 1100 yds, Whitley with Merlin just 1000 - the big, thick and 'tilted' wing has it's advantages. No british bomber used much of a high-lift devices that help with take offs, like the Fowler flaps, or even something like the 'Junkers flaps', so there is opportunity for improvement.
All figures are for max weight, to clear 50 ft obstacle.
(champion amongst British 'proper' bombers in take-off distance was the Beaufort with Twin Wasps, sometimes under 700 yds)
For comparison, the Ju 86P (one with diesels) needed ~700 yds to clear 20 m obstacle at 10500 kg (it's max take off weight in bomber version, 2200 lbs of bombs); He 111H-4 needed more than 1500 yds at 13.6 ton TOW.
*at 22700 lbs; there is a figure of just 1150 ft at 22500 ft in another data sheet.
