Shortround6
Major General
Bump to go with Tomo's 1940 RAF thread.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Have we already covered the land-based torpedo bomber? Any chance for the Blenheim with up-rated engines, or something along the lines of the Fiat G.55S?
Hmm, just a few points there, SR; your post is loaded with rash opinions. The Beaufort, yep, the the Mk.I had plenty of issue with its unreliable engines, but gave excellent service. Remember, the type was Coastal Command's primary torpedo bomber from 1940 to 1943, equipping five squadrons and yes, it did carry out more bombing ops than torpedo work, but all that proves is that it worked pretty hard in other roles aside from the one it was intended for - the British were at war. The pocket battleship Lutzow was torpedoed and disabled by a Beaufort, which kept it in dry dock for six months. Also, the Mk.I with the Taurus XII had improved reliability. Although produced in small numbers, the Mk.II was a success and proved that the primary issue was one of powerplant rather than airframe. If not the Beaufort, then what? The Botha and Hampden? It's vital. Until the Beaufighter comes along, the RAF doesn't have an effective primary torpedo bomber.
"Crashed and burned" is a little overly dramatic description; highly inaccurate and no reflection on the abilities and good service the type gave, as is the fact that less were built than the Blenheim. The reason why the Blenheim was kept in production and service for so long reflects numerical inadequacies within the RAF itself, not necessarily any performance advantages over its contemporaries, including the Beaufort. It was recognised at the time that by the time the war began, the Blenheim was inadequate and approaching obsolescence, but what could the RAF do? It had lots of them and had to go fight with what it had. Once superior aircraft like the Mosquito, Beaufighter etc enter service, the Blenheim was removed from front line duties in Europe pretty quickly. It suffered very high losses in all the commands it served in and was wholly inadequate a fighting machine in the European environment.
Regarding modifying it, when do you propose to do this and with what engine? You've already rubbished every other British engine around at the time and improving the Mercury isn't going to buy you much. By the time you've strengthened the framework to accommodate a new engine, then what? In service for late 41 - early 42? What are you going to do with it and will it be able to match performance of contemporary types. What about the Beaufighter in this? The RAF felt it was unreliable early on, but there weren't enough of it, nor the Mosquito - continuing Blenheim production for the sake of a marginal increase in performance isn't worth it, frankly.
Regarding the Sabre - actually, it was critical. the careers of the Typhoon and Tempest hinged on it until other engines came along. It was one of the powerplant types that the British standardised on producing, so definitely critical.
I guess prior to that it was the engine manufacturers who built props?
Quite a number of 2 seat or twin engine British aircraft used twin Lewis guns on a scarf mounting in WW I, Why they thought a single Lewis gun was adequate defensive armament for light bombers in the mid/late 1930s can only cause a lot of head shaking.
.the latter carrying out tasks beyond its original remit, expectation and capability, resulting in high losses and unecessary deaths of aircrew
2 speed supercharger doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage Hercules and Sabre engines
This sentiment seems fitting for the Americans as well:
2 speed supercharger (on Allison V-1710) doesn't seem like much to ask for when others want two stage R-1830, R-2800 and V-1650 engines