Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
785-gallon standard fuel tanks
To do what? In the 1930s nobody believed that France would be defeated, so there was no (visualised) chance of the Germans using the Channel, meaning that they had to go round the top of Scotland, and risk the attentions of the Navy, and all destroyers carried torpedoes.
The Beaufighter was rushed into service as a nightfighter, to replace the Blenheim fighter, and was only considered for other roles when the Mosquito proved that it could take over the nightfighting role, especially with the two-man crew together, rather than several feet apart.
Would it have been possible to use the H P Hampden instead of the Beaufort. It seems to have been liked as a torpedo bomber with Pegasus engines when used off Norway, maybe modify the H P Herefords to take the Hercules instead of the original Dagger to Pegasus conversion.
- Delete bomb bay unless it can carry an aerial torpedo or aerial mine.
Navigator was seated behind the pilot, so your version looks very plausible.
Recent image by Iainart on Photobucket
Item No.12 is the navigator's seat on the pic.
Would it have been possible to use the H P Hampden instead of the Beaufort. It seems to have been liked as a torpedo bomber with Pegasus engines when used off Norway, maybe modify the H P Herefords to take the Hercules instead of the original Dagger to Pegasus conversion.
My take on the last verison of the Bristol twin engined plane, built from 1942, would be a 1600-1700 HP Hercules, 4-5 Hispano (two in wing roots, other added in the lower nose), 4 gun BP turret (neatly faired, not just a slapped one like at Beau V); night fighter with as good Merlin as possible, maybe with lighter turret armament (or none). Both inner- and outer-wing racks.
Any takers for the Bristol's twin engined (multi role) plane, in service, say, from Spring of 1943 until VJ day? Multitude of engines are available, from different Merlins, Hercules makes 1670-1770 HP, Griffon, LL R-2800, Centaurus for 1945... Then, the Molins cannon, S class, down to Hispano, maybe it's time to go for a tricycle, a Cookie-capable bomb bay (no bulges), laminar-flow wing, full span flaps...
Since 'my' 1940 Bristol is going to have a bomb bay, the cannons their ammo need to somewhere else (compared with Beaufighter). Two of them are going into wing roots, a pair can be located outboard of the engines, another pair (or 3 pcs) can use the bomb bay, installation akin to the Ju-88's one. On the variants where the bomb bay is used for the original purpose, 4-6 LMGs can be located in the nose.Why the wing root cannon? In existing Bristol aircraft the wing roots were full of fuel tanks. Putting guns in the wing roots means fuel displaced by guns has to be carried some were else.
In 1942 leave Beaufighter pretty much alone. If you want a night fighter with upward firing armament just do what the Germans did. Stick a pair of Hispano guns firing upward between the pilot and the rear seater. A lot less weight and drag than any turret no matter how well faired. If you are trying to defend from the rear give the observer of pair of .303 Brownings and get on with it. Even this will slow the plane but a 600lb turret with four .303s slows the plane more and really doesn't offer that many advantages for a twin engine fighter.
You can't really use the same plane for too may jobs. A Beaufighter cannot substitute for a twin Hercules powered bomber. A twin Hercules powered bomber should be carriying 2000-5000lbs of bombs and that is too much to carry outside the plane without incurring too much drag. Unless you are trying for a Hercules powered Mosquito, in which case the 20mm guns and the turret start becoming redundant. Please remember that Mosquitos AS USED in WW II were pretty much limited to four 500lb bombs or one 4000lb cookie. No eight 500lb or four 1000lb or even two 1000lb missions.
Bringing the Hamden back for a moment, at a certain point in WW II it was the ONLY British bomber that could carry a 2000lb armor piercing bomb inside the bomb bay. The Whitley even with it's 7000lb total bomb load didn't have the size bomb bay needed to house the bomb and neither did the Wellington.
Sort of the same problem, what do you really want it to do?
"a Cookie-capable bomb bay (no bulges)" bomb bay means a big fuselage for a fighter/night fighter aircraft.
See the Bristol Type 163 Buckingham and Brigand. They didn't to try to use the same fuselage for the different roles.
Maybe they didn't make the best use of the space but here is a cut away of Brigand.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/leecoll/BrigandCutaway001.jpg
Please remember that Mosquitos AS USED in WW II were pretty much limited to four 500lb bombs or one 4000lb cookie. No eight 500lb or four 1000lb or even two 1000lb missions.
Bringing the Hamden back for a moment, at a certain point in WW II it was the ONLY British bomber that could carry a 2000lb armor piercing bomb inside the bomb bay. The Whitley even with it's 7000lb total bomb load didn't have the size bomb bay needed to house the bomb and neither did the Wellington.
Beaufort was designed produced in order to equip the RAF with a torpedo-bomber.
My take on that would be a plane with a bomb bay, mid- or high-wing, featuring maybe both slats fowler flaps, so the wings can be of somewhat thinner profile. Low-risk part of the engines would be covered by usage of the Pegasus engines (for prototypes 1st series), wing being stressed for Merlin and Hercules (such planes built from, say, Spring of 1940). The MGs would be 4 in the wing roots (replaced with belt-fed Hispano when available), space for 4-6 in outer wings, 2 in the back. An adaptation for the NF job would include 4-6 belly mounted MGs, ammo feed from bomb bay (all akin to the NF Blenheim); we should have the Merlin, or even Hercules versions by then. Radar as available. All in all, a British Ju-88?
Taking time to design new wings with high lift devices and test them would have delayed things even more.