wuzak
Captain
It's late 1940, the Battle of Britain has come and gone and the newest British bombers, the Manchester, Halifax and Stirling are about to enter service.
Barnes Wallis has proposed a 10 ton (22,000lb) penetrating bomb for attacking mines, dams and the like. Ideally the bomb would be dropped from 40,000ft.
To carry the bomb, Wallis has proposed the 6 engine "Victory" bomber.
The MAP isn't impressed with a single use bomber.
What if the MAP likes the idea of the bomb, but would like more flexibility with the bomb load?
They ask for a high altitude bomber which can carry a single 22,000lb bomb or equivalent in conventional bombs, witha 2,000 mile range with maximum bomb load.
Operating altitude to be above 30,000ft, preferably 40,000ft. A pressurised cockpit is to be used.
Engine options in production are 2 stage Merlins, which were under development in 1940, Hercules and the Vulture, which is soon to be cancelled.
Engines in development, or in early production, include the Napier Sabre, Bristol Centaurus and the Rolls-Royce Griffon.
For the high altitude role, the engines would need to have 2 stage superchargers developed, or be coupled for a turbocharger. I'm not sure US turbos would be available, so the British would have to develop them. Bristol had some experience with turbos in the 1930s.
What engines would be the best option? 4, 6, 8?
Also in 1940, Hawker are researching the new "laminar flow" wings developed by NACA. Ths would lead, eventually, to the Hawker Tempest.
Can this research be used to improve the performance of the high altitude bomber?
What defensive armament will be required?
The Manchester, Halifax and Stirling each have 3 powered turrets, armed with 0.303" mgs.
Are 0.5" hmgs an option?
20mm gun turrets?
For speed of development, remain with manned turrets in preference to remote controlled guns?
Any chance of the bomber being available in 1944?
Barnes Wallis has proposed a 10 ton (22,000lb) penetrating bomb for attacking mines, dams and the like. Ideally the bomb would be dropped from 40,000ft.
To carry the bomb, Wallis has proposed the 6 engine "Victory" bomber.
The MAP isn't impressed with a single use bomber.
What if the MAP likes the idea of the bomb, but would like more flexibility with the bomb load?
They ask for a high altitude bomber which can carry a single 22,000lb bomb or equivalent in conventional bombs, witha 2,000 mile range with maximum bomb load.
Operating altitude to be above 30,000ft, preferably 40,000ft. A pressurised cockpit is to be used.
Engine options in production are 2 stage Merlins, which were under development in 1940, Hercules and the Vulture, which is soon to be cancelled.
Engines in development, or in early production, include the Napier Sabre, Bristol Centaurus and the Rolls-Royce Griffon.
For the high altitude role, the engines would need to have 2 stage superchargers developed, or be coupled for a turbocharger. I'm not sure US turbos would be available, so the British would have to develop them. Bristol had some experience with turbos in the 1930s.
What engines would be the best option? 4, 6, 8?
Also in 1940, Hawker are researching the new "laminar flow" wings developed by NACA. Ths would lead, eventually, to the Hawker Tempest.
Can this research be used to improve the performance of the high altitude bomber?
What defensive armament will be required?
The Manchester, Halifax and Stirling each have 3 powered turrets, armed with 0.303" mgs.
Are 0.5" hmgs an option?
20mm gun turrets?
For speed of development, remain with manned turrets in preference to remote controlled guns?
Any chance of the bomber being available in 1944?
Last edited: