not sure if this ones been covered before but could the Blenheim have been converted to a bomber destroyer in the battle of Britain the mark one had a top speed of just over 300 mph if you just had the single crew got rid of the upper turret and internal bomb rack could that have pushed it up to say 320mph plus give that 4 pack 303 guns which later versions had or they might have got the canons to work on it its just a random thought does any body have any
the Blenheim in battle of britian
- Thread starter steveyd
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
michaelmaltby
Colonel
.... how would they fare against Me 110s? German 'bomber-killrer' AC were not able to defend themselves against well-flown single-engined fighters that I am aware of. Other than ambush they they weren't as 'nimble' in fights.
Your Blenheims would be a natural target for escorting 110s, I would imagine.
But I really like your picture .... how about putting them in team with Hurri tank-busters in N Africam .... eastern front style?
They offer greater range than the Hurris - which translates into loiter-time + 2 engines are air cooled ... better aerodynamics than the He-129 IMO ..
Your Blenheims would be a natural target for escorting 110s, I would imagine.
But I really like your picture .... how about putting them in team with Hurri tank-busters in N Africam .... eastern front style?
They offer greater range than the Hurris - which translates into loiter-time + 2 engines are air cooled ... better aerodynamics than the He-129 IMO ..
Last edited:
I dont really understand the question, the Blenheim was used in the Battle of Britain but not with much success.
buffnut453
Captain
Yeah, I'm not tracking the question since the Blenheim MkIf had the gun pack with the 4x.303s.
The Blenheim participated in the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain, mostly as a light bomber, the role it was designed for. It had a few successes, but mostly suffered heavy losses. It did have some success in anti-shipping missions over the Channel. It was also pretty successful as a night fighter, where there was no opposing fighter escort. It was rapidly replaced by the Beaufighter in both roles.
Blenheim I (bomber) was supposed to make 286 mph max speed. Blenheim IV with gunpack and no bombs was good for 260 mph, or 266 mph without the gunpack but with bombs. Granted, the Mk.IV was heavier.
With regard to what-if part of the question - yes, deleting of the turret should decrease drag and thus increase speed. Unfortunately, addition of the gunpack will add drag and reduce speed. Not sure that such a Blenheim buys anything for the RAF, they were short of pilots, not aircraft.
With regard to what-if part of the question - yes, deleting of the turret should decrease drag and thus increase speed. Unfortunately, addition of the gunpack will add drag and reduce speed. Not sure that such a Blenheim buys anything for the RAF, they were short of pilots, not aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
My first impression of the OP's proposal was a Beaufighter...
Shortround6
Major General
I think the original poster is way, way too optimistic as to the modifications.
Sydney Cotton and crew took a Blenheim MK I and modified it considerably for photo recon use. I am going y memory so bear with me.
Mods included clipping the wings, removing the turret and plating over the hole. Adding metal fairings to the nose (shape not described), They fitted the engines with constant speed propellers instead of the two pitch props and ran it on 100 octane (this was in 1940), they also painted and sanded the airframe with about 20 coats of paint. There may have been other modifications, can't remember if they tried spinners on the prop hubs. They got it over 290mph using 9lbs of boost?
Chances of the Blenheim getting anywhere near 320mph are about zero. Gun pack was worth about 15mph.
Blenheim fighter squadrons were in the West and in the North where they were less likely to fun into Luftwaffe fighters during the BoB.
Sydney Cotton and crew took a Blenheim MK I and modified it considerably for photo recon use. I am going y memory so bear with me.
Mods included clipping the wings, removing the turret and plating over the hole. Adding metal fairings to the nose (shape not described), They fitted the engines with constant speed propellers instead of the two pitch props and ran it on 100 octane (this was in 1940), they also painted and sanded the airframe with about 20 coats of paint. There may have been other modifications, can't remember if they tried spinners on the prop hubs. They got it over 290mph using 9lbs of boost?
Chances of the Blenheim getting anywhere near 320mph are about zero. Gun pack was worth about 15mph.
Blenheim fighter squadrons were in the West and in the North where they were less likely to fun into Luftwaffe fighters during the BoB.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Mk1 Bristol Blenheim
My question still remains unanswered ... did the airframe have another possible career ? ... tank-buster in the style of the He-129?
Strictly in N Africa ..... sane with the canon Hurricanes ...
I think it would have been a lovely plane to toss around
My question still remains unanswered ... did the airframe have another possible career ? ... tank-buster in the style of the He-129?
Strictly in N Africa ..... sane with the canon Hurricanes ...
I think it would have been a lovely plane to toss around
Last edited:
Reading the wiki pages on the Blenheim, Beaufort and Beaufighter, the Blenheim was much heavier than it looked using steel brackets and reinforcing where the later planes used alloy forgings.
Any numbers to sift through wrt. the weight of the 3 types (or/and many versions)?
Just the text of the wiki article on the Beaufort which had 18" more wing span and was longer "The basic structure, although similar to the Blenheim, introduced refinements such as the use of high-strength light alloy forgings and extrusions in place of high-tensile steel plates and angles; as a result the structure was lighter than that of the Blenheim.[11][N 3] The wing centre section was inserted into the centre fuselage and the nacelle structure was an integral part of the ribs, to which the main undercarriage was attached. Transport joints were used on the fuselage and wings: this allowed sub-contractors to manufacture the Beaufort in easily transportable sections and was to be important when Australian production got under way.[11] The Vickers main undercarriage units were similar to but larger than those of the Blenheim and used hydraulic retraction, with a cartridge operated emergency lowering system.[N 4]"
Tare (no guns, crew, bombs, fuel) weight of the Blenheim I was 8077 lbs, grew to ~9500 lbs for the Mk.IV (new nose, increased fuel tankage, self-sealing tanks) and then upped to 10700 lbs with Mk.V (again new nose, among other things). Max weight - 12500 to 17040 lbs.
Tare weight of Beaufort was between 12760 and 14030 lbs. Max weight was between 20600-22430 lbs.
I'd say that Bleinheim I was a featherweight, even if the Mk.V was not (it was a folly to make those).
Tare weight of Beaufort was between 12760 and 14030 lbs. Max weight was between 20600-22430 lbs.
I'd say that Bleinheim I was a featherweight, even if the Mk.V was not (it was a folly to make those).
Could have, but why would you? The RAF already has two squadrons of slow bomber destroyers in its Defiant units, which were found wanting when used in traditional fighter roles (here's a sensible idea, base the less adequate fighters up north where they are less likely to encounter effective single-seat opposition). The Blenheim units did carry out bomber destroyer sorties during the BoB, but sensibly, before the outbreak of WW2 the RAF decided that the type should be used as a specialised radar equipped night fighter, which laid the grounds for better aircraft to enter service over a year later.
As I said it was from wiki. The Blenheims engines didn't weigh much but didn't make much power and were in huge nacelles. Its performance was impressive when introduced But it needs bombs crew fuel and guns and by the time those are on board its circa 1660 HP just wasn't enough. But what they wanted to do at the time was fly in enemy air space, I doubt you could soup up a Blenhein to do that safely regardless of engines.
Shortround6
Major General
Blenheim fighters may also have been used for over water patrols, or patrols/intercepts on bombers outside of 109 range.
We have been over the weight thing with the Blenheim before. It was quite possible for the "structure" of the Beaufort to be lighter, or at least major structural components.
The Beauforts heavier landing gear, quite possibly heavier tires/brakes, heavier engines, possibly heavier props, heavier fuselage, and so on to push the weight of the Beaufort much higher than th eBlenheim despite having a lighter structure.
Blenheim main spars were steel top and bottom with alclad sheet web between. Beaufort spars were still multi piece but all pieces were aluminium alloy.
Photo of part of the structure of a Blenheim.
I would note that the Blenheim V certainly looks like a collection of mistakes, There may very well have been detail improvements but these were overshadowed by some other features.
Blenheims operating out of India. A MK V in the background. Larger turret may have given gunner more room to work or had other improvements but it had higher drag than the old turret. The rearward firing gun mount under the nose was of dubious value but contributed a fair amount to drag (and weight)
Few, if any, of the MK Vs had the turret faired into the fuselage, just sort of plopped into the large opening.
We have been over the weight thing with the Blenheim before. It was quite possible for the "structure" of the Beaufort to be lighter, or at least major structural components.
The Beauforts heavier landing gear, quite possibly heavier tires/brakes, heavier engines, possibly heavier props, heavier fuselage, and so on to push the weight of the Beaufort much higher than th eBlenheim despite having a lighter structure.
Blenheim main spars were steel top and bottom with alclad sheet web between. Beaufort spars were still multi piece but all pieces were aluminium alloy.
Photo of part of the structure of a Blenheim.
I would note that the Blenheim V certainly looks like a collection of mistakes, There may very well have been detail improvements but these were overshadowed by some other features.
Blenheims operating out of India. A MK V in the background. Larger turret may have given gunner more room to work or had other improvements but it had higher drag than the old turret. The rearward firing gun mount under the nose was of dubious value but contributed a fair amount to drag (and weight)
Few, if any, of the MK Vs had the turret faired into the fuselage, just sort of plopped into the large opening.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
After reading the two Night Fighter books I concluded that the Blenheim 1F should have been used as night intruders over Luftwaffe bomber bases in France. It was slower than a Ju88 and really not fast enough to intercept most of the German bombers.
The Blenheim was marginal as an interim solution, but then for every role it could take on, the RAF had or came up with a better solution: whether faster, more maneuverable, or bigger bomb load. As an interceptor, that would be the Hurricane and Spitfire; as a heavy fighter: Mosquito; light bomber: Mosquito, Boston; night fighter: Beaufighter, Mosquito. The Blenheim was weighed in the scales (repeatedly!) and found wanting. Maybe it could have been improved, but nobody would bother - far better to spend that effort in a plane that was already superior in one or more areas.
Shortround6
Major General
Bit harsh on the poor old Blenheim aren't you?
Old being a key word.
7 squadrons being equipped with Blenheims as of Jan 1st 1938. In March of 1938 the Germans had 12 fighter groups, 1 was still flying He 51s and 5 were still equipped with Arado Ar 68 E & Fs. The rest were equipped with Jumo powered 109 Bs and a few Cs.
The gun pack equipped Blenheims were never intended to be interceptors, they were always intended to be long range fighters (heavy fighter?) The replacement aircraft for the Blenheim in the heavy fighter role was the Beaufighter.
Replacement/s for the Blenheim in the light bomber and maritime recon roles were the Botha and Beaufort and we know how that turned out.
The prototype for the Blenheim V flew end of Feb 1941. Perhaps it shouldn't have been made but they were still flying trials with the prototype Mosquito at that time. Production lines for the Blenheim existed.
No doubt at all that the Mosquito was superior but the effort spent on the Botha was a total waste. Improvement offered by the Beaufort was marginal and arrived both late and slowly.
The Blenheim V finally got constant speed props(but not deathering?) in 1941, many Blenheim crews (and other crews of british twin engine planes) were lost due to the fitting of two pitch props and non-feathering props making single engine operation much more dangerous.
The Blenheim was improved/modified only by the smallest amount of effort while the newer/better planes were worked on and when they turned out worse than hoped for the Blenheim had to carry on.
The Beaufighter wasn't far behind the Blenheim in terms of the war, introduced 10 months after it started. It took some time for reality to be forced on those buying planes, bombers and other aircraft needed engines as powerful as fighters and you cant just specify more crew than you actually need because it seems like a nice idea. For me, with the engines used the Blenheim had no chance of success with a three man crew and the Hampden and Beaufort even less chance with four crew. The extra men, space, fuel and equipment are equal to a pay load.
