Make the Bristol Beaufort a viable 'general-purpose' bomber from 1940-45

[tomo pauk]

...while retaining the basic fuselage (with bomb bay, multiple crew emplacement etc.). Installing the Twin Wasp engine is a good start (like it was historically), but probably not the end. Hopefully, the modified bomber will will offer more than a 2-engined Battle or the historical Beaufort

('make more Beufighters' answer does not apply here)

 

[Shortround6]

you have 3 choices, none of them very good.

1, Fit the Hercules engine, except they are in high demand for other aircraft.
2, Fit the Merlin XX, again you have supply problems.
3, Fit Wright R-2600s, supply is.......................?

The plane is sort of an "inbetweener" It is in between most light bombers (it is bigger) and smaller than many mediums.

The plane was too big for the engines it was fitted with and fitting larger engines runs into the same problem the A-20 had. The weight of the bigger engines cuts into the payload until further modifications are made. Beauforts had about 8,000lbs of useful load. Crew, fuel, bombs, guns electronic equipment, etc. Yes with more power the max gross weight can be upgraded some but you need to make other modifications (DB-7s got a stronger spar when they fitted the R-2600s as one change, also got the larger fin and rudder) not to mention beefed up landing gear and tires.

I am not sure what you mean by "general purpose"?

It could carry 2000lbs in the bomb bay (four 500lb bombs?) and many had under wing racks, 250lb or 500lb per wing depending on version? early and late versions of the same MK seem to vary a lot.

It was never going to be a bomber for attacking Germany from England.
It's ability as a daylight tactical bomber attacking ground targets might be suspect without major modifications.

A comparable plane in size and weight using R-2600s was the Martin Baltimore.

 

[Kevin J]

...while retaining the basic fuselage (with bomb bay, multiple crew emplacement etc.). Installing the Twin Wasp engine is a good start (like it was historically), but probably not the end. Hopefully, the modified bomber will will offer more than a 2-engined Battle or the historical Beaufort

('make more Beufighters' answer does not apply here)

The Australians used it as a medium bomber in the Pacific.

 

[tomo pauk]

you have 3 choices, none of them very good.

1, Fit the Hercules engine, except they are in high demand for other aircraft.
2, Fit the Merlin XX, again you have supply problems.
3, Fit Wright R-2600s, supply is.......................?

The plane is sort of an "inbetweener" It is in between most light bombers (it is bigger) and smaller than many mediums.

The plane was too big for the engines it was fitted with and fitting larger engines runs into the same problem the A-20 had. The weight of the bigger engines cuts into the payload until further modifications are made. Beauforts had about 8,000lbs of useful load. Crew, fuel, bombs, guns electronic equipment, etc. Yes with more power the max gross weight can be upgraded some but you need to make other modifications (DB-7s got a stronger spar when they fitted the R-2600s as one change, also got the larger fin and rudder) not to mention beefed up landing gear and tires.

I am not sure what you mean by "general purpose"?

It could carry 2000lbs in the bomb bay (four 500lb bombs?) and many had under wing racks, 250lb or 500lb per wing depending on version? early and late versions of the same MK seem to vary a lot.
It was never going to be a bomber for attacking Germany from England.
It's ability as a daylight tactical bomber attacking ground targets might be suspect without major modifications.

A comparable plane in size and weight using R-2600s was the Martin Baltimore.

Seems like the bomb bay was carrying only 4x250 lbs, or two 500 lb bombs, or a single 2000 lb bomb. Fuel was on par what mosquito carried, granted Beaufort was not as streamlined, to put it mildly.
(kindly provided by Neil Stirling):



Judging by your pic, the torpedo was located partly in recess (bot front and back?), with bomb bay doors partially open.

Engine choice for upgrade is indeed tricky. Merlin XII perhaps?
From the get-go, perhaps it is/was too bad the Beaufort was not designed around Pegasus. Yes, it is a more 'blocky' engine, but then Beaufort was not a miracle of aerodynamics to start with.

 

[Kevin J]

Seems like the bomb bay was carrying only 4x250 lbs, or two 500 lb bombs, or a single 2000 lb bomb. Fuel was on par what mosquito carried, granted Beaufort was not as streamlined, to put it mildly.
(kindly provided by Neil Stirling):

View attachment 575588

Judging by your pic, the torpedo was located partly in recess (bot front and back?), with bomb bay doors partially open.

Engine choice for upgrade is indeed tricky. Merlin XII perhaps?
From the get-go, perhaps it is/was too bad the Beaufort was not designed around Pegasus. Yes, it is a more 'blocky' engine, but then Beaufort was not a miracle of aerodynamics to start with.

Didn't you notice that if you scale it up and put in Hercules you get the Albemarle?

 

[Admiral Beez]

...while retaining the basic fuselage (with bomb bay, multiple crew emplacement etc.). Installing the Twin Wasp engine is a good start (like it was historically), but probably not the end. Hopefully, the modified bomber will will offer more than a 2-engined Battle or the historical Beaufort

Can we start by identifying the limitations or competitive shortcomings you want to address? I suggest you start with your thoughts on the Beaufort's performance (speed, ceiling, rate of climb, etc), range, protection and ordnance. Just "make it better" is not a discussion.

As it was, I'd put every available Beaufort in Malaya. It's about as fast as the IJAF's Ki-27, so you only need worry about the IJAF's Ki-43 and any available IJN Zeros. Not having a credible torpedo bomber (sorry Vilderbeast) in what was predicted pre-war to be a naval campaign against Japan was just one of the big screw ups in Malayan air defence planning.

We also need to ask why we need an improved Beaufort when from 1940 onwards the Beaufighter is joining operational squadrons.

 

[Shortround6]

Seems like the bomb bay was carrying only 4x250 lbs, or two 500 lb bombs, or a single 2000 lb bomb. Fuel was on par what mosquito carried, granted Beaufort was not as streamlined, to put it mildly.

I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. Some sources list more but that may be for the Beaufort II with the R-1830 engines?
Or perhaps they traded fuel for bomb weight?
Speeds listed on that data sheet are worse than most figures in books.

Engine choice for upgrade is indeed tricky. Merlin XII perhaps?
From the get-go, perhaps it is/was too bad the Beaufort was not designed around Pegasus. Yes, it is a more 'blocky' engine, but then Beaufort was not a miracle of aerodynamics to start with.

Merlin's are in short supply no matter which version you pick but timing is also critical. Do you get 100 octane for it? or more critically, during the planning stages are you likely to get 100 octane for it? Or is "modification" to be done in the summer of 1940 or after when 100 octane is a standard but the production line for the Beaufort I is already well established?

edit: I hope the speeds on the data sheet are a typo with mph being shown instead of knots?

 

[Shortround6]

We also need to ask why we need an improved Beaufort when from 1940 onwards the Beaufighter is joining operational squadrons.

Because the Beaufighter won't carry a torpedo for several years after first joins an operational squadron, It also took quite a while to rig it with bomb racks of any sort.

and/or

Not saying it couldn't have been done earlier but for the first year or two Beaufighters were more often needed for other duties.

 

[tomo pauk]

Can we start by identifying the limitations or competitive shortcomings you want to address? I suggest you start with your thoughts on the Beaufort's performance (speed, ceiling, rate of climb, etc), range, protection and ordnance. Just "make it better" is not a discussion.

As it was, I'd put every available Beaufort in Malaya. It's about as fast as the IJAF's Ki-27, so you only need worry about the IJAF's Ki-43 and any available IJN Zeros. Not having a credible torpedo bomber (sorry Vilderbeast) in what was predicted pre-war to be a naval campaign against Japan was just one of the big screw ups in Malayan air defence planning.

We also need to ask why we need an improved Beaufort when from 1940 onwards the Beaufighter is joining operational squadrons.

My thoughts on Beaufort's limitations: too slow, low practical ceiling, low rate of climb, ordnance weight was not exactly stellar. Range was okay. (heck out the data sheet from post #4)
So I'd be okay if people suggest negating the listed limitations, that were mostly caused by engine choice.
Beaufighter was many things, a good bomber it was not.

I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. Some sources list more but that may be for the Beaufort II with the R-1830 engines?
Or perhaps they traded fuel for bomb weight?
Speeds listed on that data sheet are worse than most figures in books.

We can point the finger on Taurus - it was supercharged for low altitude, and was not a powerful engine for starters (less than 1100 HP when on Beaufort). Talk ~750 HP at 15000 ft? It might also be that speed figure is with external bombs - another data sheet lists 247 mph with just internal bombs (1000 lb). The low-level-only engine also reflects the initial purpose of the Beaufort, that of torpedo bomber?
Data sheet for the R-1830-powered version (249 mph at 20370 lbs - this might be with external bombs and with some fuel expended?):



Another data sheet states 278 mph (!) at ~18000 lbs, and yet another states 268 mph at ~18400 lbs.

Merlin's are in short supply no matter which version you pick but timing is also critical. Do you get 100 octane for it? or more critically, during the planning stages are you likely to get 100 octane for it? Or is "modification" to be done in the summer of 1940 or after when 100 octane is a standard but the production line for the Beaufort I is already well established?

edit: I hope the speeds on the data sheet are a typo with mph being shown instead of knots?

Mph speed figures, I'm afraid.
About the hi-oct fuel - the R-1830 also needed 100 oct fuel to make 1200 HP down low, and 1050 HP at altitude.

But, for starters, I'd have the Beaufort 1st designed around the Pegasus. That should remove a lot of worries centered on reliability, availability and price tag of the Taurus, and also save 400-600 lbs total, the Pegasus being lighter than Taurus.

(data sheets kindly provided by Neil Stirling)

 

[MIflyer]

1. Pry off the Beaufort nameplate.
2. Rivet it on a B-25.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Because the Beaufighter won't carry a torpedo for several years.....Not saying it couldn't have been done earlier but for the first year or two Beaufighters were more often needed for other duties.

Of course torpedo capability could have been added to the Beaufighter earlier. Likely it wasn't done because the torpedo-armed Beauforts along with Hampdens and unfortunately Vildebeests were deemed sufficient for the RAF's torpedo strike squadrons. The torpedo-armed Wellington was added later, in small numbers.

 

[Shortround6]

Most of the early Beaufighters were given radar and used for night fighting/bomber interception.
The Beaufighter I used a Hercules engine rated at 1375-1400hp for take-off, at least in early Production.
The Beaufighter used the Merlin XX of about 1280hp for take-off (re-rated later?)
late production Beaufighter Is got Hercules VI engines of about 1600hp for take-off and most later Beaufighters got similar engines or somewhat improved.

Perhaps the Beaufighter could have taken over but you need to make the decision in late 1939 or early 1940, retool the Beaufort production lines and secure a source of the engines you intend to use. The whole idea of the Beaufighter II was an anticipated shortage of Hercules engines,

 

[Admiral Beez]

My thoughts on Beaufort's limitations: too slow, low practical ceiling, low rate of climb, ordnance weight was not exactly stellar. Range was okay. (heck out the data sheet from post #4)

What were the best multi-engined torpedo strike aircraft of 1939-40 when the Beaufort and Hampden were the RAF's primary such aircraft? Top marks have to go to the Mitsubishi G4M Betty and the twin-torpedo armed Savoia-Marchetti SM.79. What about the Germans? I've read that the Junkers Ju 88 could carry twin torpedoes.

 

[tomo pauk]

What were the best multi-engined torpedo strike aircraft of 1939-40 when the Beaufort and Hampden were the RAF's primary such aircraft? Top marks have to go to the Mitsubishi G4M Betty and the twin-torpedo armed Savoia-Marchetti SM.79. What about the Germans? I've read that the Junkers Ju 88 could carry twin torpedoes.

The G4M was introduced in mid 1941, and I don't know whether the Ju 88 was carrying torpedoes before 1942, ditto for Hampden? Germans have had problems with aerial torpedoes until well into the ww2.
SM.79 was probably the best of the lot, it was helped with Italian torpedoes that actually worked.

 

[Shortround6]

What were the best multi-engined torpedo strike aircraft of 1939-40 when the Beaufort and Hampden were the RAF's primary such aircraft? Top marks have to go to the Mitsubishi G4M Betty and the twin-torpedo armed Savoia-Marchetti SM.79. What about the Germans? I've read that the Junkers Ju 88 could carry twin torpedoes.

timing
timing
timing
In 1940 the Italians had one under strength squadron of SM.79s acting as torpedo bombers (often just four aircraft and often flying as pairs or single aircraft). More showed up in 1941.
The G4M Betty first operational use may have been as a bomber, it took until March of 1942 to build 241/242 of them so use in 1940 was pretty thin even if they did paly a primary role is sinking the Prince of Wales and Repulse.
Ju-88 with torpedo/s may not have showed up until early 1942. He 111 was earlier?

 

[Admiral Beez]

The G4M was introduced in mid 1941, and I don't know whether the Ju 88 was carrying torpedoes before 1942, ditto for Hampden? Germans have had problems with aerial torpedoes until well into the ww2.
SM.79 was probably the best of the lot, it was helped with Italian torpedoes that actually worked.

Does that make the Beaufort the second best multi-engine torpedo bomber of 1939-1940? Not bad for an aircraft we're herein deeming to have so many shortcomings.

 

[tomo pauk]

Does that make the Beaufort the second best multi-engine torpedo bomber of 1939-1940? Not bad for an aircraft we're herein deeming to have so many shortcomings.

The best was probably the G3M? Or the Ilyushin DB-3T?
Shortcomings of the Beaufort, especially as a 'general-purpose bomber' were real, not imagined - thus this thread.
FWIW, a quote from Wikipedia, credited to the book by Bruce Roberts (my bold): "The Beaufort also flew more hours in training than on operational missions and more were lost through accidents and mechanical failures than were lost to enemy fire.[6] "

 

[Reluctant Poster]

1. Pry off the Beaufort nameplate.
2. Rivet it on a B-25.
View attachment 575642

Unfortunately the British didn't have the luxury of waiting until 1942. Their war started in 1939.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Shortcomings of the Beaufort, especially as a 'general-purpose bomber' were real, not imagined - thus this thread.

Maybe that's why it wasn't a GP bomber.

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe that's why it wasn't a GP bomber.

It was.