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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Beaufort's were fitted with a fuel dump system to reduce landing weight in a hurry. That is the tube hanging down under each wing and sloping back at an angle just outboard of each nacelle.

The Australian ones carried one 50cal in each wing, the Brit ones had one 303 in one wing.
The Brit ones had that useless aerodynamic ass**** rear firing nose turret. The nav had to get down on his knees and sight through a small mirror. As soon as he started firing the view and aim were lost. The Aussies deleted this.

The Aussies installed a bigger fin that fixed the directional stability problem and a bigger rudder tab to compensate for the more powerful Pratts.
They installed two gimbal mounted guns in the nose. Also done in Britain but I think it originated here
They cut an extra window opposite the entry door and fitted a gun there.
On some aircraft they cut a hole in the roof and mounted a gimbal mounted gun there
They flush riveted the structure, reducing drag.

All in all they made a much better aircraft out of it.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Unfortunately, that didn't transpired into being superior, that being usually asked from more modern aircraft,
Click to expand...

It depends on what you are referring to specifically, but granted, the Sparviero could outperform the Beaufort, but then it was designed as a bomber first and foremost and it stands out at the time it was first conceived as being something of a hot rod. Comparing the SM.79 to the Whitley or Wellington, He 111, G3M etc seems more appropriate given its original intent in italian service, whereas the Beaufort has little comparison with any other aircraft of its time owing to the fact it was specifically designed as a land based torpedo carrier and general recon machine, which to a degree narrows its purpose down somewhat.

Thereare still a few niggles I have regarding the general perception of the Beaufort, and this revolves around its service use. The Beaufort began the war, from service introduction laying mines in German shipping lanes in April 1940. Beauforts, Hudsons and Ansons carried out roving patrols looking for shipping to attack at whim also. Mining became the type's primary useage in home waters from around December 1940 and a sustained campaign by Coastal Command of these types of operations was undertaken.

It had a good war, for want of a better expression as a maritime patrol aircraft - and this is specified in its original requirement, so how do you quantify it not being better than it was? It could carry 2,000lbs of warload at a speed and range expected as a coastal patrol aircraft, yes its losses were high, but take that raid against the Scharnhorst I mentioned, while none were damaged by the ship's AA guns, Bf 109s sawed through the British aircraft and 42 Sqn suffered high losses. A Beaufort also badly damaged the Gneisenau and Lutzow, sank an Italian submarine and a host of Italian and German supply ships in the Mediterranean. And that doesn't begin to describe the Australian use of the type.

Admiral Beez said:
the Beaufort had a higher than average accident rate, the Beaufort survived combat ops, or the Beaufort saw little combat ops.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. it certainly wasn't little combat ops, RAF Beauforts were in the thick of it in the first three years of the war and Aussie ones right until the very end. Granted, training losses were high, according to Bruce Robertson, but no figures are given that puts that into context regarding how those losses took place and over what time period. RAF Beauforts ended up with OTUs once the Beaufighter became standard Coastal Command strike aircraft. The Strike Wings were almost entirely equipped with Beaufighters and Mosquitoes from mid to late 1944 until the end of the war, so Beauforts went to places like Scotland and the north of England, where tyro torpedo and attack pilots flew them into the sea at low level or hills in bad weather. To put this into perspective, the unit that operated more Defiants than any other unit or squadron was No.60 OTU, which was a night fighter training unit based in Yorkshire, then Scotland.

In actuality in training, lots of types suffered high attrition rates. Beaufighters, Blenheims and Defiants suffered disproportionally high loss rates in the hands of night fighter pilots under training. RAF Charterhall in Northumberland became known as 'Slaughter Hall' as a result of the high rate of crashes.

Shortround6 said:
The Beaufort would have almost as terrible if fitted with the Perseus engines.
Click to expand...

Completely agree!
 

Pratt Beaufort performance from Tomo Pauk in post 9 -- Data sheet for the R-1830-powered version (249 mph at 20370 lbs - this might be with external bombs and with some fuel expended?):
Assuming that this speed is clean this gives the Beaufort a 14 mph edge over the Wellington IF wiki is correct. That is nice to have if you need to run. The Beaufort's lower fuel consumption when fuel is very short supply is not exactly a minus either.
And where are you going to get the extra engines for the extra Wellingtons?
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 235 mph (378 km/h, 204 kn) at 15,500 ft (4,700 m)

From the UK Pratt Beaufort AP 1580B-PN the cruise is only 5mph faster than the Wellington

Wellington performance from AP 1578C,K,L,M-PN
 
I'm kinda defending the Beaufort a bit because I think it gets an unnecessarily bad rap - it's crap engines don't help, but from what I have read from squadron reports, articles etc, it fared no worse than aircraft of its era. yes it had teething troubles, but look how many aircraft we examine on this forum that did? The P-38, the B-29 (egads!) the Manchester/Lancaster, Halifax, Me 262, He 177, Me 410 etc etc etc.
 
Shortround6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was normally achieved by dispensing of its max load of 2,000lbs and a bit of fuel. That wasn't that uncommon, it still isn't. Almost every large airliner cannot land with a full load, this is why if they have to return to their field of departure, they begin circling round showering everything below them in fuel.
 

Lets not and pretend we didn't even see this.

The 40mm Vickers gun is not a particularly good strafing weapon. It only fired at about 100rpm compared to the 600rpm of a Hispano gun. it had a poor muzzle velocity. about 1000fps less than the Hispano.



From Anthony Williams website. The Vickers S gun fired the 40x158r ammunition. the 2pd AT gun fired the 40x304R and the Bofors gun fired the 40x311R ammo. The 40x364R is the post war ammo for the 40mm/70 Bofors. The gun was around 2 1/2 times heavier than 20mm HIspano.
However good it was a busting light tanks or barges it was not a very good weapon for a lot of other tasks.
Another problem for torpedo bombers is that unless the target is dead in the water (or close to it) they have to aim the torpedo ahead of the target and hold a steady course for a number of seconds before releasing the torpedo. No bobbing and weaving about trying to spray the upper works of the ship. Which Is why flak suppression was usually assigned to different aircraft. LIke Blenheim fighters or Beaufighters.
Trying to play strafer with your torpedo bombers is pretty much guaranteeing a miss with the torpedo/s which rather ruins the point of the whole mission.
 
Last edited:

In Australia there were two causes.

Early on carbon monoxide from the engine exhausts was entering the cockpit and incapacitating the pilots.

Many Beaufort's here were lost to landing accidents because of the landing gear having insufficient diagonal bracing resulting in the arrowed tubes exiting the top of the wing or snapping resulting in embarrassments like the photo below (photo source unknown). This system was identical to the UK Beauforts and there was almost certainly a similar loss rate there.



 

Yes but what was most unusual for the time was the ability to rapidly dump fuel in an emergency. 570 imp gal is about 2785 litres at .72sg gives the ability to lighten by a theoretical 1860 kg/4090lb (yes I did round down on every calculation). In reality there was a limit to how much could be dumped but I cannot remember how much. This bought the aircraft down to max landing weight without jettisoning bombs on friendly territory and people.

From the UK PN


and from the AU PN
 

Great photos and your photo below shows everyone with engineering knowledge why this was a problem. I generally do not collect accident photos other than those I need for work but the Beaufort restoration group near Brisbane have a proverbial truck load of photos showing the gear (or gear and engine) torn out.
 
The fuel dump may have been inherited from the Blenheim. How much of the landing gear was inherited I don't know. By that I mean basic design, as the Blenheim had even lower landing weights.

Funny how improvements for real world problems rarely come up in some of these threads.

Reducing the accident rate for some planes might have gone a long way in reducing total losses or keeping squadron strengths up.

The British built over 1000 Beauforts ( Australians built about 700 more) and it never equipped more than 4 (?) squadrons at a time and some of the British squadrons got moved around. Like going from England to Malta. Yes it served for a number of years but not in large numbers at any one time.

edit, correction. it served with 8 RAF combat squadrons, and 6 FAA squadrons plus assorted OTUs and other alphabet soup squadrons.
No 22 from Jan 1940 to Feb 1942 in the UK and then in Ceylon till June 1944
No 39 from Aug 1941 till June 1943 in the Med
No 42 from April 1940 till June 1942 the UK then India and Ceylon until Feb 1943
No 47 from July 1942 to June 1943 in the Med
No 48 from May until Nov 1940 in the UK
No 86 from June 1941 to July 1942 in the UK
No 217 from May 1940 to May 1942 in the UK and then Ceylon until Aug 1944.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
Funny how improvements for real world problems rarely come up in some of these threads.
Click to expand...

Hmm, yes. When the Beaufort was being first designed it had a front faired undercarriage door like the Blenheim, but it was found to induce vibration so was replaced by the clamshell doors aft of the legs.
 

Hi

The undernose gun was fitted due to early experience of fighter attack experienced in Europe. The gun was not that useful and was removed, photos show the position missing from Beauforts during 1942, including at Filton and in Malta. The beam guns were introduced during 1940. Also the forward firing VGO's were also in use. Indeed Bristol had designed a twin Browning installation for this position for the proposed Merlin powered Beaufort Mk. III, which did not go ahead, Merlin shortage at the early stage of the war. There was also a proposal for a 'high speed' Beaufort powered by Hercules, using a Beaufighter wing I believe, this never got off the ground as a Beaufighter could be used instead for the roles it was meant for. During 1942 there was only one Australian squadron equipped with the Beaufort, No. 100 Sqn., so most of the developments made by the RAF in UK and Mid-East would have been incorporated by then. However, the Australians did still use the nose under gun position initially as photos of the Mk. VI and Mk. VII show, they followed the RAF in deleting it:

Nearest aircraft A9-70. Mk. VI.

Mk. VII

The .50 armament used came much later in the war, by which time the RAF was mainly using the Beaufighter for these Beaufort roles, so probably a bit pointless update for the RAF.

From various sources it appears that the Taurus problems were mainly 'solved' with the later Taurus XVI which by the end of 1941/beginning 1942 was being fitted to the Beaufort I was considered reliable.

From all this it appears that both the Merlin and Hercules were considered for the Beaufort, then rejected because of supply problems or alternative aircraft becoming available. The Beaufort would never have become a 'Medium bomber' as it would have to be in the 'Light bomber' role at most, after all it was lighter and smaller than other 'light' bombers coming into service such as the Maryland, Baltimore, Boston and Ventura as well as the Mosquito, so probably not needed in the later war period for that role as well as being replaced by the Beaufighter for the shipping strike role from the end of 1942 and through 1943.

Mike
 
The weight chart referred to earlier was issued in June of 1943 and so would not have any of the later modifications. The .303 wing guns are spelled out quite clearly in addition their weights and the weight of the ammunition (1200 rounds for 78lbs).

While the "under defense" gun is listed in the general weight chart it is not listed in the equipment weights for the different missions listed.

The Taurus XVI on 100/130 fuel was rated at 1085hp for take-off (3100rpm/4.75lbs) and 1130hp at 3500ft max for 5 minutes (3100rpm/4.75lbs)

Even if it was reliable (or more so than the earlier versions) by 1941/42 that is not enough power to be looked on favorably by either allied planners or aircrew.

The P & W engines used in the Australian Beauforts were rate at 1200hp for take-off, 1200hp at 4900ft military (5min) in low gear and 1050hp at 13,100ft in high gear. (need to get over the Owen Stanley's ?

Please note the engine powers are for a "standard" day. 59 degrees F at sea level. Power in the tropics will be lower.

The Beaufort seems to have been a bit of dead end. It did perform some useful work for the crews that used it. We might debate wither it did more or less than another aircraft in identical circumstances. Being based off the Blenheim it had some advantages but inherited a few disadvantages. Easy upgrades are elusive as it had already maxed out the two best available engines and the next two in line (Hercules and Merlin) are in short supply. The other two engines that might be used (Pegasus and Wright R-1820) offer very little power change and increased frontal area/drag and worse vision over the larger cowls.
Landing gear would have to be fixed to allow any significant increase in gross weight.
Possibility to increase bomb load on short range missions? trading away fuel, but in the Pacific that may not be a good option.
There was an auxiliary tank (138imp gallons) that could be fitted (bomb bay?)

Three of the 6/7 gun options
1. two fixed wing guns
2. two gimbal mounted guns in nose
3. two guns in the rear turret.
4. gun out left side
5. gun out right side
6 gun out the roof
7. gun under the nose firing backward

are intended to fired by one very busy man. But certainly no worse than many German gun set ups.
2 and 7 in blue are also handled by one man.
 
Last edited:
That's interesting info. I wonder why they didn't keep them in Malaya? When did they arrive - perhaps this was before the autumn 1941 RAF increases Malaya?
 
Admiral Beez said:
That's interesting info. I wonder why they didn't keep them in Malaya?
Click to expand...

Because they were nearly useless?
A bomber with no bomb racks?
Rear gun setup no better (and perhaps worse) than a Blenheim?

If you are going to send planes (and more importantly crews) into a dangerous situation it should be for a better purpose than showing they can die bravely while "showing the flag" (doing something/anything that will show up in the press).
 
Admiral Beez said:
That's interesting info. I wonder why they didn't keep them in Malaya? When did they arrive - perhaps this was before the autumn 1941 RAF increases Malaya?
Click to expand...

Hi

Not only were they not fully equipped the crew's were only semi-trained. Also I believe it was only seven aircraft, six were sent back and one was retained to undertake reconnaissance missions.

Basically there was not much point in the British keeping developing the Beaufort as other, more 'modern' types, were coming into service. More earlier might have been useful but it had been rushed into service anyway (no prototype built for instance).

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Getting the best mileage from the squeeze-bore guns?
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Realistic limits of the small 12 cyl engines, 1935-45
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Steel in aircraft construction, 1935-45?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
fshort
Make-A-Plane Palooza: Late war / post war superprop fighters!
Replies
13
Views
890
Howard Gibson
W
High Altitude Heavy Bomber for RAF
9 10 11
Replies
205
Views
18K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register