How dangerous was the RAF Bristol Beaufort Mk I and Mk Ia?

Allan Hunter · Aug 17, 2021

MiTasol said:
Another book that covers Australian Beaufort accidents is the biography of Charles Learmonth who was killed in a Beaufort crash. This crash actually proved that the elevator trim was the cause of many of the Aus Beaufort accidents. The Breeze actuators used on many other aircraft was disassembling itself in flight and then causing the aircraft to go into an unrecoverable dive. As far as I know, this failure was exclusive to Australian made AWA actuators. Certainly the same unit made by Plessey in the UK was trouble free on the RAAF Beaufighters and the US made ones on the P-40s and other aircraft were also trouble free.

Further, a significant number of early Aus Beauforts were bought down by exhaust gasses (carbon monoxide) entering the cockpit and incapacitating the pilot.

This is very useful. I did not know about Learmouth's biography and I'll have to get it. Many thanks!

Mugwump58 · Aug 17, 2021

Was the Westland Whirlwind classed as a long range fighter ?
Not sure if it was still in use at the end of 1942.

MikeMeech · Aug 17, 2021

Mugwump58 said:
Was the Westland Whirlwind classed as a long range fighter ?
Not sure if it was still in use at the end of 1942.

Hi
It was considered 'longer-ranged' then other single seat fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Whirlwind served in No. 137 Sqn. until June 1943, replaced by Hurricane IVs, and with No. 263 Sqn. until November 1943, replaced by Typhoons.
The data that was put on the previous post was not for the end of 1942, that was when it was 'published', it was compiled over a period of time previously, it is that time period that we do not have the dates for.

Mike

MiTasol · Aug 17, 2021

The Learmonth book is Wings of destiny : Wing Commander Charles Learmonth DFC and Bar and the air war in New Guinea / Charles Page.

Greyman · Aug 17, 2021

MikeMeech said:
Hi
It was considered 'longer-ranged' then other single seat fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Whirlwind served in No. 137 Sqn. until June 1943, replaced by Hurricane IVs, and with No. 263 Sqn. until November 1943, replaced by Typhoons.
The data that was put on the previous post was not for the end of 1942, that was when it was 'published', it was compiled over a period of time previously, it is that time period that we do not have the dates for.

Mike

The Whirlwind was never considered 'long-range' -- it was basically the same as the Hurrie / Spit.

Hurricane I: 600 miles
Spitfire I: 575 miles
Whirlwind I: 590 miles

Long-range Beaufighter I had a range of 1870 miles with a 76 imp gal fuel allowance (above figures are without allowance, I'm fairly certain).

Graeme · Aug 17, 2021

MiTasol

Thread drift - but going by memory, was it Peter Luck's TV series 'A Time to Remember' - that always showed (briefly) the Beaufort collision at the start of each show? And the theme song was 'You Must Remember This' - ?

Cheers.

Peter Luck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 17, 2021

Good lord, that's FUBAR.

GreenKnight121 · Aug 18, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Most lethal for ground targets or ships? I'd think the latter would be Torbeaus, and the former, Typhoons.

Most dangerous to the crew flying it.

That's the premise of the thread.

GreenKnight121 · Aug 18, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Not to pick on the British too much the Americans had the Curtiss AT-9

From Wiki:
"Because of its difficult flying characteristics the AT-9 was not offered for sale to civilians after the war, although many non-flying examples were given to ground schools for training purposes."
They built 792 of them.

That was a deliberate design choice.

The AT-9 was purposely designed to be less stable and proved to be difficult to fly or land, which made it particularly suitable for teaching new pilots to cope with the demanding flight characteristics of a new generation of high-performance, multi-engined aircraft such as the Martin B-26 Marauder and Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

Shortround6 · Aug 18, 2021

Well, they would sell you a Martin B-26 Marauder or a P-38, but they wouldn't sell you the AT-9??????

Greyman · Aug 19, 2021

A telling bit from a No.39 Squadron report on operations Sep 42 - June 43:

Only Beaufort Mark IIs were used by this Squadron, although on a few occasions Mark Is were unwillingly used for training. No definite case of engine failure is known, although two aircraft forced landed without damage in the Middle East with a broken oil pipe. A modified oil banjo union has since cured this trouble. The running of the Twin Wasp has proved very reliable at all times.

Emphasis mine.

GreenKnight121 · Aug 24, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Well, they would sell you a Martin B-26 Marauder or a P-38, but they wouldn't sell you the AT-9??????

Because it was designed solely for military training, with no consideration whatsoever towards meeting CAA airworthiness standards... thus it could NOT be legally registered as a civilian aircraft. When they were no longer needed for training they were scrapped.

The other aircraft took a bit before any civilians could get their hands on a flying/could be made flyable example (and the CAA had loosened its registration standards) - by which time no AT-9s existed.

Reluctant Poster · Aug 24, 2021

MIflyer said:
I'd guess you'd have to say that Beauforts were bloody dangerous if you were flying in one.

Data from Nov 1942
Probability of completing tours of duty: One Tour Two Tours
Catalina Flying Boat 77% 60%
Long Range Fighter 59.5% 39.5%
Heavy and Medium Bombers 44% 19.5%
Day Fighter 43% 18.5%
Night Fighter 39% 15%
Light Bomber 25.5% 6.5%
Torpedo Bomber 17.5% 3%

Odd that for other than long range fighters the probabilities seemed to be markedly worse for experienced crews. Perhaps this reflects such crews being assigned to tougher missions?

In any case, Beaufort light bomber or Beaufort torpedo bomber was a grim assignment.

And I wonder what a Long Range Fighter was to the RAF in late 1942? The Mustang had not been in combat but a month or so, and I can only think that the Beaufighter and maybe the Mosquito were the others.

Quite unfair to the Beaufort. Every torpedo bomber suffered terrible loses in 1942. A Devastator, or Avenger for that matter, had little chance of surviving a single mission let alone a tour. The life expectancy of a Kate crew would be extremely low as well. Torpedo bombers have to fly low and slow leaving them extremely vulnerable to fighters. The USN realized this and consider dropping them entirely before WWII. As an example the USS Ranger was originally built without provisions for torpedo bombers

How dangerous was the RAF Bristol Beaufort Mk I and Mk Ia?

More options

Allan Hunter

Airman

Mugwump58

Airman

MikeMeech

Senior Airman

MiTasol

1st Lieutenant

Greyman

Tech Sergeant

Graeme

1st Sergeant

Peter Luck - Wikipedia

Thumpalumpacus

Major

GreenKnight121

Staff Sergeant

GreenKnight121

Staff Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

Greyman

Tech Sergeant

GreenKnight121

Staff Sergeant

Reluctant Poster

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads