glennasher
Senior Airman
I'm not at all familiar with the Beauforts, would Hudsons or Venturas be suitable as substitutes as either torpedo planes or light bombers?
Make the Bristol Beaufort a viable 'general-purpose' bomber from 1940-45
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Hudsons used R-1830 or R-1820 engines, might have been bit faster? didn't carry quite as much for bombs. They were used as light bombers on occasion.
The Ventura was the same size as the Hudson(a bit longer fuselage) but had R-2800 engines and was around 50% heavier. (about 30% heavier than the Beaufort).
It could be pretty zippy down low and some did carry a torpedo. But they don't show up until 1942 or so.
The Ventura was the same size as the Hudson(a bit longer fuselage) but had R-2800 engines and was around 50% heavier. (about 30% heavier than the Beaufort).
It could be pretty zippy down low and some did carry a torpedo. But they don't show up until 1942 or so.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Not according to Wikipedia.
Even RAF testing of the prototype determined that it wasn't a suitable GP bomber.....
Of course any twin engined aircraft can be made into a general purpose level bomber, such as this Lisunov Li-2 (DC-3 clone) with bombs, but that doesn't mean it was designed or intended as such.
- Thread starter
- #24
There it is - it was a general-purpose bomber, but not a good one. According to the data sheets I've posted, it was designed to carry bombs in a bomb bay, and torpedo could not fit in that very bomb bay.
Again, thus this thread.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I read where an RAF crewman transitioned from the Ventura to the Mitchell and said that every single aspect of the Mitchell was an improvement over the Ventura.
Shortround6
Major General
Could very well be, the Mitchell was designed as a warplane. The Ventura was designed as an airliner and was pretty much a slightly stretched, beefed up, highly powered Hudson which may have lead to a few quirks, or more than a few.
Modern land based torpedo bombers at the outbreak to WW2 in 1939 equates to the Beaufort and the Ilyushin DB-3T, and that's it. The SM-79, as recounted earlier did not begin torpedo operations until July 1940, but did not really get into its stride until early to mid 1941 owing to a lack of parts equipping the units based in North Africa, a lack of doctrine, training and almost everything else required from a new unit experimenting with a new means of using an existing airframe, and a tricky new means that requires training. The SM-79 was an inspired choice as it had good performance and a good climb rate for an aircraft its size, but of what benefit are those to a torpedo bomber? Low and slow is what's needed and yes, eveading an enemy after the torpedo drop is useful, but even the much vaunted Sparviero could be shot down by a Gloster Gladiator.
Nonetheless, by 1940/1941, in reality the Sparviero is rapidly becoming obsolescent; built of metal tubing covered in fabric with a wooden wing, it has more in common with the Fokker F.VIIb mid 1920s airliner than it does with the Beaufort, construction wise. Like the He 111, it began life as an airliner, and like the He 111 was a bit of a hasty conversion; similar layout for a very small bomb load, defensive armament thrown anywhere there was room and less than ideal crew positions; the bomb aimer was located in the bath tub aft of the bomb bay. Nonetheless, the Sparviero did very well against the RN in the Meditteranean campaign as a torpedo bomber.
The Ilyushin DB-3T torpedo carrier was introduced in 1937, so predates the Beaufort. In this role it certainly had promise and the Russians even trialled an air drop from 1,000 feet, which is extraordinarily high (I'm looking at you, P-8 Poseidon) for its time, and technologically, the aircraft matches all metal monoplanes built anywhere else in the world in the mid - late 1930s. It also has reasonable performance for what was essentially a medium bomber, despite the Russians considering it a heavy bomber, and the torpedo carrier was lighter owing to the removal of bombing equipment. It was hampered, like most multi-engined aircraft of its time, but low powered engines, two 900+hp radials. Ilyushin's design and construction of this aircraft stretched the resources of his manufacturing team, specifying lightness for better performance, and it was allegedly a tall order to manufacture for the Soviet factory at the time.
The only surviving Ilyushin DB-3.
Illyushin DB-3 002
Hampden, He 111, Ju 88, G4M don't appear as torpedo carriers until 1941 and 1942.
Nonetheless, by 1940/1941, in reality the Sparviero is rapidly becoming obsolescent; built of metal tubing covered in fabric with a wooden wing, it has more in common with the Fokker F.VIIb mid 1920s airliner than it does with the Beaufort, construction wise. Like the He 111, it began life as an airliner, and like the He 111 was a bit of a hasty conversion; similar layout for a very small bomb load, defensive armament thrown anywhere there was room and less than ideal crew positions; the bomb aimer was located in the bath tub aft of the bomb bay. Nonetheless, the Sparviero did very well against the RN in the Meditteranean campaign as a torpedo bomber.
The Ilyushin DB-3T torpedo carrier was introduced in 1937, so predates the Beaufort. In this role it certainly had promise and the Russians even trialled an air drop from 1,000 feet, which is extraordinarily high (I'm looking at you, P-8 Poseidon) for its time, and technologically, the aircraft matches all metal monoplanes built anywhere else in the world in the mid - late 1930s. It also has reasonable performance for what was essentially a medium bomber, despite the Russians considering it a heavy bomber, and the torpedo carrier was lighter owing to the removal of bombing equipment. It was hampered, like most multi-engined aircraft of its time, but low powered engines, two 900+hp radials. Ilyushin's design and construction of this aircraft stretched the resources of his manufacturing team, specifying lightness for better performance, and it was allegedly a tall order to manufacture for the Soviet factory at the time.
The only surviving Ilyushin DB-3.
Hampden, He 111, Ju 88, G4M don't appear as torpedo carriers until 1941 and 1942.
wuzak
Captain
Wasn't the He 111 as an airliner a ruse?
An excuse to build the aircraft without falling foul of treaty obligations?
- Thread starter
- #29
Sparviero was the 'Hurricane among the bombers' - old-fashioned, but useful. Any bomber of the day (1938-41) could be shot down by obsolescent fighter.
He 111 carried 4400 lbs of bombs internally - that is not a 'very small bomb load'. Also the 5500 lb bomb could be carried under the belly. Or a combination of 4 x 551 lb bomb inside plus a big bomb under the belly. It was designed as a bomber, the airliner livery was intended to fool foreign observers. Bomb-aimer was not located in the aft bath tub, but next to the pilot.
The G3M predates the Beaufort. Beaufort entered service in 1940. As a torpedo-bomber 1st use in 1941?
Yes, the G3M pre-dates the Beaufort, forgot about that one. And yes, the Beaufort entered service in January 1940, again, my mistake (must be something in the air - cough cough...).
Was talking about the SM.79's bomb aimer being in the bathtub, and it had a small bomb load. Yes, I know the He 111 was designed as a bomber, but it began life as an airliner as the first production aircraft were airliners and went to Lufthansa, a batch of pre-production He 111A-0s were deemed unsuitable by the Luftwaffe and exported to China. And it was a bit of a hash of a job in conversion to a bomber, which was my point in comparing the SM.79 to it.
You've missed the point of me mentioning this aspect of it, the Beaufort was a more modern aircraft, it had a power operated gun turret for starters. Performance wise, it didn't matter that it wasn't high, my point being that even though the Sparviero had good performance, it didn't make a difference in the role it carried out. (don't fret, I'm not criticising the Sparviero, I think it's a neat aeroplane and in the flesh smaller than I had anticipated)
The one thing that I take issue with is that the Beaufort is often considered as being less than successful and that it should have been better (the premise behind this thread), but what are we hoping to achieve that wasn't done in reality? It was a purpose built torpedo carrier with a secondary role as a general reconnaissance bomber (during trials with the A&AEE it was found that it made a "poor bombing platform" - if you want to change this, you need to redesign it) and general purpose aircraft. The Beaufort had terribly unreliable engines in the Taurii and a few teething troubles before entering service, granted, but it was a good modern design for its time and with the Pratt engines was a vast improvement over the earlier model.
Service wise it first was used as a bomber and often as a dive bomber, attacking the Scharnhorst as such in June 1940 at the hands of 42 Sqn. The Beaufort first fired a torpedo in anger in April 1940, sinking a tanker off the coast of Holland.
During the trials with the first Pratt powered aircraft, it was found to give crews who flew it greater confidence and there was less 'wallowing'. Re-engining it was only a matter of time as a result of the Taurus and at one point the Merlin XX was considered. The original specification 10/36 called for Perseus engines, as fitted to the Blackburn Botha - now, there was a terrible torpedo bomber.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The Beaufort would have almost as terrible if fitted with the Perseus engines. They may have been more reliable but perhaps not if being thrashed on continual basis. If you are down 100-150hp per engine the lower powered engines are going to running near max a lot more often, Not that the Taurus offered an abundance of power itself.
One reason for the less than satisfactory early He 111s was the BMW V-12 engine. 750hp for take-off? and with no supercharger that was as good as it got.
One has to remember that the main competitor for the He 111 was the Ju 86 which might have been biased a bit more to the airliner role?
A number of companies embraced the dual purpose (airliner/bomber) philosophy in the early 30s. They were coming out of the biplane era and even a fat fuselage airliner with retractable landing gear was much faster than any biplane bomber. With the worldwide depression still going on companies hoped for as many sales as possible from each design.
One reason for the less than satisfactory early He 111s was the BMW V-12 engine. 750hp for take-off? and with no supercharger that was as good as it got.
One has to remember that the main competitor for the He 111 was the Ju 86 which might have been biased a bit more to the airliner role?
A number of companies embraced the dual purpose (airliner/bomber) philosophy in the early 30s. They were coming out of the biplane era and even a fat fuselage airliner with retractable landing gear was much faster than any biplane bomber. With the worldwide depression still going on companies hoped for as many sales as possible from each design.
- Thread starter
- #32
Okay, got it now. Bomb bay of the SM.79 was indeed on the small side, max load was either 5 x 551 lb bombs, or two 1100 lb ones.
Beaufort was more modern aircraft, it was designed years after the SM.79. Unfortunately, that didn't transpired into being superior, that being usually asked from more modern aircraft,
We (al least I) might hope to achieve a good mix between availability, reliability, bomb-load over distance, better cruise speed and range, better top speed, better survivability in engine-out situation etc. All on technology of the day, while not much changing the basic design.
You know, the standard drill in this sub-forum.
Admiral Beez
Captain
I expect that a lot of the Fairey Fulmar's victories, as the FAA's all-time top scoring fighter were Sparviero kills.
AIUI, most Beauforts we're lost in accidents rather than in combat. This suggests one of three things..... the Beaufort had a higher than average accident rate, the Beaufort survived combat ops, or the Beaufort saw little combat ops.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Remember the first 90 Australian Beaufort's were built for the RAF, not the RAAF.
Every available RAF Beaufort was sent from Aus to Singapore and Malaysia with no bomb racks and, if memory is right, no guns. This version had the top turret fitted with ONE Vickers gas operated gun.
Strange to say they were sent back to Aus where their unit soon became 100 Squadron RAAF
As for improvements the one needed most was a stronger landing gear installation. There are dozens of photos of Beauforts with the diagonal brace support tubes punched up through the top of the nacelle.
The problem was the rear/diagonal brace (arrowed) has too small an angle to handle severe loads. It was partially fixed on the Beaufighter by using much heavier materials, but was far from a full fix.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
There are weight charts for the RAAF Beauforts in the manual section.
Australian Beaufort Manuals
A major problem in operations might be the max allowable landing weight of 18.000lbs as opposed to the max weight for straight flying and gentile turns of 21.500lbs.
If you have to land right after take-off you have to get rid of 3,500lbs in a hurry.
The Australian Beauforts seem to have had two .303 guns in the wings, two in the nose, two in the turret, one out each side and another one upward firing?
Australian Beaufort Manuals
A major problem in operations might be the max allowable landing weight of 18.000lbs as opposed to the max weight for straight flying and gentile turns of 21.500lbs.
If you have to land right after take-off you have to get rid of 3,500lbs in a hurry.
The Australian Beauforts seem to have had two .303 guns in the wings, two in the nose, two in the turret, one out each side and another one upward firing?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Admiral Beez
Captain
Would the twin torp Wellington have been a feasible substitute instead of making the Beaufort? We know the Wellington is a good GP level bomber, and could carry twice the torpedo armament of the Beaufort.
The Wellington certainly looks good at low level. Imagine seeing this coming at you.
The Wellington certainly looks good at low level. Imagine seeing this coming at you.
So, don't laugh. Strafing runs, skip bombing, etc., all seem "normal" for a B-25. Why does a torpedo run in a Wellington seem just the other side of crazy?
Anyone have history on the missions?
Admiral Beez
Captain
Some offsite chatter here on operational history of the anti-ship Wellingtons.
Let's stick a couple of these Vickers gun pods to the Wellington for added anti-ship work. That would keep any nervous AA gunners' heads down during torpedo runs.
Last edited:
Thank you.
