Ok, so I can, like you guys only guess at questions and being a what-if we can make up any scenario, unless highly unrealistic and improbable, we like.
Thanks Dave. I guess it depends entirely on what the Admiralty's requirements are for a heavy bomber and whether they match B.12/36. Let's say they do, but there is no P.13/36 medium bomber specification, which in hindsight seems almost redundant given that the differences seem to be in terms of bomb load being less in the latter but with greater performance over similar distance, so that means the types drawn up for that spec go as tenders to B.12/36. This means the Handley Page submission HP.56 is not drawn up as a twin but as a four-engined bomber, which becomes what in reality was the HP.57, the Halifax, and Avro submit the 679 as a four-engined bomber from the outset, still named Manchester but re-engined with Merlins and/or Hercules.
The fact that the Lancaster could achieve the performance stipulated in P.13/36 but with the bomb load of B.12/36 demonstrates the soundness of the original Manchester fuselage design and the expectation that perhaps there needs to be only the one specification, but combining the bombload of the latter with the performance of the former.
This means it's likely that the Short submission is not the winning tender. A lot has to happen for Avro to produce the four-engined Manchester as the winning tender however, as it did in reality, as Avro had no experience in building large all-metal aeroplanes as complex as the Manchester when they won the tender to P.13/36. The only all-metal modern aeroplane Avro had built up to that time was the Blenheim under licence (the Avocet single-seat naval fighter's fuselage was all-metal stressed skin), so its workforce needs to have this experience and knowledge of complex modern systems beforehand. Prior to the Blenheim, the most "modern" aeroplane Avro built was the Anson, which was based on the structural elements of the Avro Ten, a licence built Fokker F.VIIb 1920s era airliner, so Avro need that Blenheim experience from Bristol.
It's also likely that the Manchester would suffer the electrical and aerodynamic issues that the original suffered as it would be fitted with that terrible FN.7 upper turret that was fitted to the early Stirlings and caused severe vibration in the Manchester when rotated, enough to rip off the central fin, which was made of wood and fabric. Perhaps being a bigger four-engined aeroplane, Avro might think to lengthen the vertical stabilisers, which underwent lengthening in the Manchester Mk.III in real life before being retrofitted to Manchester Mk.Ias.
It's possible and depends on which service is allocated the air defence of the UK. No doubt British scientists would have been working on radar in the 1930s and experience from the Great War and subsequently in air defence would have been relatively the same as in reality I would imagine - again, a what-if, but it's worth remembering that the RNAS was tasked with home air defence at the outbreak of the Great War, but this changed to RFC duties around 1916, so expectations might not change much.
Thanks Dave. I guess it depends entirely on what the Admiralty's requirements are for a heavy bomber and whether they match B.12/36. Let's say they do, but there is no P.13/36 medium bomber specification, which in hindsight seems almost redundant given that the differences seem to be in terms of bomb load being less in the latter but with greater performance over similar distance, so that means the types drawn up for that spec go as tenders to B.12/36. This means the Handley Page submission HP.56 is not drawn up as a twin but as a four-engined bomber, which becomes what in reality was the HP.57, the Halifax, and Avro submit the 679 as a four-engined bomber from the outset, still named Manchester but re-engined with Merlins and/or Hercules.
The fact that the Lancaster could achieve the performance stipulated in P.13/36 but with the bomb load of B.12/36 demonstrates the soundness of the original Manchester fuselage design and the expectation that perhaps there needs to be only the one specification, but combining the bombload of the latter with the performance of the former.
This means it's likely that the Short submission is not the winning tender. A lot has to happen for Avro to produce the four-engined Manchester as the winning tender however, as it did in reality, as Avro had no experience in building large all-metal aeroplanes as complex as the Manchester when they won the tender to P.13/36. The only all-metal modern aeroplane Avro had built up to that time was the Blenheim under licence (the Avocet single-seat naval fighter's fuselage was all-metal stressed skin), so its workforce needs to have this experience and knowledge of complex modern systems beforehand. Prior to the Blenheim, the most "modern" aeroplane Avro built was the Anson, which was based on the structural elements of the Avro Ten, a licence built Fokker F.VIIb 1920s era airliner, so Avro need that Blenheim experience from Bristol.
It's also likely that the Manchester would suffer the electrical and aerodynamic issues that the original suffered as it would be fitted with that terrible FN.7 upper turret that was fitted to the early Stirlings and caused severe vibration in the Manchester when rotated, enough to rip off the central fin, which was made of wood and fabric. Perhaps being a bigger four-engined aeroplane, Avro might think to lengthen the vertical stabilisers, which underwent lengthening in the Manchester Mk.III in real life before being retrofitted to Manchester Mk.Ias.
It's possible and depends on which service is allocated the air defence of the UK. No doubt British scientists would have been working on radar in the 1930s and experience from the Great War and subsequently in air defence would have been relatively the same as in reality I would imagine - again, a what-if, but it's worth remembering that the RNAS was tasked with home air defence at the outbreak of the Great War, but this changed to RFC duties around 1916, so expectations might not change much.
Last edited: