the Blenheim in battle of britian

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

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.

Even if we get the Blenheim down to a single crew member - pilot - it will be a bad fighter. It was too big & too draggy.
 
The Thick draggy wings offered high lift for planes designed before high lift devices were common.
Blenheim I was practically a STOL machine. Even at 14,500lbs the Blenheim IV wasn't much different in take-off than P-39 clean or a P-40 with bomb or tank under the fuselage. got to pay for it on the top end though.
 
Bristol seems to have liked building thick draggy wings and fuselage's. Even the late model Beaufighter with 3500hp on tap was a bit of a slow coach compared to a Ju88
The Thick draggy wings offered high lift for planes designed before high lift devices were common.
Blenheim I was practically a STOL machine. Even at 14,500lbs the Blenheim IV wasn't much different in take-off than P-39 clean or a P-40 with bomb or tank under the fuselage. got to pay for it on the top end though.

Even if the thick wing withouth high-lift devices was a thing in 1934-35, Bristol kept doing the same in the 1940s.
About the Ju 88 - seems it was more a fast aircraft in a legend, rather than in effect?
 
About the Ju 88 - seems it was more a fast aircraft in a legend, rather than in effect?
It required a bit of slight of hand for the Ju-88 to get to the higher speeds.
The S versions (more specifically the S-1) are the ones usually trotted out as speed demons.
However in the usual compromise between speed, range and warload (bombs, etc) were the user gets to pick two, the Ju-88S-1 got to pick one.
You want the 379mph speed you fill the rear bomb bay with the nitrous oxide tanks, the forward bombay gets up to 14 143lb bombs and the the plane holds 369 imp gallons of fuel.
Put extra fuel in the forward bay and hang bombs underneath and some of the speed goes away. Take out the nitrous and put fuel in the rear bay and the plane is down to 340mph, about the speed of an A-20 :)
And the S-1 didn't show up until early 1944.
 
The fastest Beaufighter seems to be the MkVI F with 1670hp engines, 333mph at 16,000 feet.
If you wanted speed you'd send a Mosquito. If you want two 40mm internal cannons.... https://i.redd.it/i8q25qs4ytyy.jpg
...single crew got rid of the upper turret and internal bomb rack
A good start. We need more power or streamlining. Was the Blenheim ever trial fitted with RR Kestrels, Peregrines or Merlins, like the Beaufiughter below.

d85ef2ce5afef8e800c39ae5fae6c21c.jpg
 
If you want two 40mm internal cannons.... https://i.redd.it/i8q25qs4ytyy.jpg

While popular with some ACAMs (Arm Chair Air Marshal) the 40mm guns were lousy for air to air and not that great against surface targets. They used the same ammo as the British 2pdr pom pom AA gun, much less powerful than the 2pdr AT gun or the 40mm Bofors gun. The Vickers gun fired at about 100rpm and weighed over twice what a Hispano gun did.
The RR gun was trialed in aircraft but just about all of the production was used on MGB, motor minesweepers and harbor defense craft and in this application there was no magazine., the gun was manually loaded for each shot.


A good start. We need more power or streamlining. Was the Blenheim ever trial fitted with RR Kestrels, Peregrines or Merlins, like the Beaufiughter below.

No. The Kestrels do NOT make enough power,

There is no good, easy replacement for the Mercury. it only weighed a touch over 1000lbs, All the alternatives being bandied about are going to go 1200-1500lbs once you include radiators and accessories. On a 12,000-14,500lb plane that is a major change. The Blenheim IV (and V) could not land at max take-off weight and had to dump weight (like fuel in the outer tanks) in order to land without risking damage (like landing gear breaking loose and punching through the top of the nacelle).

Yes, things could be beefed up and were on the Beaufort.
 
If we can find some more homes for the Peregrine we might give the Whirlwind a longer life. So, a light weight, streamlined Blenheim with Peregrines? Then again, might as well make more Whirlwinds.
Depends on what range you want.

Find something for the Blenheims to do that needs doing but doesn't expose them to enemy fighters as much.
Like give them to Coastal Command for anti sub work. Carry four 250lb anti sub bombs/depth charges. Fit equipment that will allow the bombs to dropped at certain intervials instead of salvo. Fit better props so the plane has a chance of getting back on one engine.
 
Yeah - a bit of a 'summary' post which includes some of the other points by respondents with which I agree.

- The RAF had a dedicated purpose designed 'bomber destroyer' design already, in the form of the Defiant (even if it was mistakenly used as an interceptor fighter within range of enemy single engine fighters)
- The Blenheim *was* used as an interim 'heavy' fighter - despite its poor performance and only having 5 forward and 1 or2 turret guns. The RAF and Dowding were wise enough to keep it to secondary duties and patrols in the main (though of course they picked up the torch when modified for the night component of the blitz - something which by happy accident, wouldn;t have been possible I guess if they'd been committed to and then hacked down during the main BoB engagements down to the south)
- A cannon armed twin was already in embryo existence in the form of the Wirlwind, and in the months up to1940 much faith was still invested in it
- The perceived need for better performing twin 'heavy / long range/endurance fighter' was quickly addressed in the post BoB interim by the Beaufighter.... Which arguably was a direct Blenheim descendent if you stretch the fact that it was developed from the Beaufort which in turn came from the designed lessons derived from the Blenheim.
-There *was* a ground attack 'optimised' Blenheim as you also described in the form of the Bisley (aka mk v) , although the extra armour plate and drag reduced its already marginal performance and it was not a success... Pretty much any contemporary from line twin in British service was a better option by the time it went into service.

So, a 'what if' 'souped up fighter Blenheim' has a lot of hurdles to jump.

The bomber versions in service were actually working b@lls-out throughout the blitz raiding German airfields and invasion embarkation harbours an installations - one of the unsung stories of the BoB and an important contribution which is often over looked. In summary, there weren't the spare airframes of an already obsolete airfcraft and the time to tinker with them, and even if the concept hadn't been covered off by the mk1f and ivf already, the aircraft's insufficient performance as a fighter had already been acknowledged by the time of the BoB. There were better looking options already in the pipeline. The poor old Blenheim was a victim of the rapid progress of tech and design in wartime. A fine looking aircraft, loved by its crews and apparently nice to fly (in the early models at least), but hopelessly outclassed when faced by more modern opponents.

It was an interesting question though.
 
Yeah - a bit of a 'summary' post which includes some of the other points by respondents with which I agree.

- The RAF had a dedicated purpose designed 'bomber destroyer' design already, in the form of the Defiant (even if it was mistakenly used as an interceptor fighter within range of enemy single engine fighters)
- The Blenheim *was* used as an interim 'heavy' fighter - despite its poor performance and only having 5 forward and 1 or2 turret guns. The RAF and Dowding were wise enough to keep it to secondary duties and patrols in the main (though of course they picked up the torch when modified for the night component of the blitz - something which by happy accident, wouldn;t have been possible I guess if they'd been committed to and then hacked down during the main BoB engagements down to the south)
- A cannon armed twin was already in embryo existence in the form of the Wirlwind, and in the months up to1940 much faith was still invested in it
- The perceived need for better performing twin 'heavy / long range/endurance fighter' was quickly addressed in the post BoB interim by the Beaufighter.... Which arguably was a direct Blenheim descendent if you stretch the fact that it was developed from the Beaufort which in turn came from the designed lessons derived from the Blenheim.
-There *was* a ground attack 'optimised' Blenheim as you also described in the form of the Bisley (aka mk v) , although the extra armour plate and drag reduced its already marginal performance and it was not a success... Pretty much any contemporary from line twin in British service was a better option by the time it went into service.

So, a 'what if' 'souped up fighter Blenheim' has a lot of hurdles to jump.

The bomber versions in service were actually working b@lls-out throughout the blitz raiding German airfields and invasion embarkation harbours an installations - one of the unsung stories of the BoB and an important contribution which is often over looked. In summary, there weren't the spare airframes of an already obsolete airfcraft and the time to tinker with them, and even if the concept hadn't been covered off by the mk1f and ivf already, the aircraft's insufficient performance as a fighter had already been acknowledged by the time of the BoB. There were better looking options already in the pipeline. The poor old Blenheim was a victim of the rapid progress of tech and design in wartime. A fine looking aircraft, loved by its crews and apparently nice to fly (in the early models at least), but hopelessly outclassed when faced by more modern opponents.

It was an interesting question though.
Great post, for the bolded part of your post: As I understand it at the time of the BoB the "bomber boys" got equal credit. Many of those involved claimed that the destruction of barges played as much a part in the calling off of Sealion as the air battle. It is only post war that it has become overlooked.
 
Find something for the Blenheims to do that needs doing but doesn't expose them to enemy fighters as much.
Like give them to Coastal Command for anti sub work. Carry four 250lb anti sub bombs/depth charges. Fit equipment that will allow the bombs to dropped at certain intervials instead of salvo. Fit better props so the plane has a chance of getting back on one engine.

I actually pondered the same possibility. However, although the Blenheims were outdated, they were far from surplus. They were pretty much all the RAF had immediately post 1940 for their extensive anti shipping strikes - not to mention the (needlessly wasteful!) Ramrods and Circuses which followed.

Coastal command, ever the Cinderella, had to soldier on with a mixed bag of largely obsolete aircraft like Ansons until sufficient supplies of newer equipment like Hudsons came through. A CC designed Blenheim might have been a useful addition, but I suspect Bristol were already maxed out gearing up Beaufort and Beaufighter by this stage - and both of those would make a better CC option, I suspect.
 
If you wanted speed you'd send a Mosquito. If you want two 40mm internal cannons.... https://i.redd.it/i8q25qs4ytyy.jpg
A good start. We need more power or streamlining. Was the Blenheim ever trial fitted with RR Kestrels, Peregrines or Merlins, like the Beaufiughter below.

View attachment 614006
The whole point of cancelling the Kestrel and Peregrine was to get more Merlins. Since they were all made in the same place by the same people producing 1 Peregrine means losing more than one Merlin because you have to change the machines over to a different size. The Beaufighter wasn't trial fitted with Merlins more than 400 were made. Many say it was lower on performance than with the Hercules, but as I see it it was better than with the early Hercules engines not as good as the later ones.
 
The whole point of cancelling the Kestrel and Peregrine was to get more Merlins. Since they were all made in the same place by the same people producing 1 Peregrine means losing more than one Merlin because you have to change the machines over to a different size. The Beaufighter wasn't trial fitted with Merlins more than 400 were made. Many say it was lower on performance than with the Hercules, but as I see it it was better than with the early Hercules engines not as good as the later ones.

As I remember, I think the merlin was introduced for the Beaufighter not for the sake of aerodynamics, but because supplies of the Hercules couldnt keep pace with airframe production. I remember reading that the mk2 was considered a pig to fly, unstable - and (interestingly!) under-powered.

(Weird, isn;t it? The Lancaster later ended up being re-engined with Hercules in its Mk B2 form - though I'd need to track down info as to whether its peformance was diminished or benefitted! No idea why the decision was made - though maybe by this time in the war, perhaps demand and supply had swapped over)
 
I actually pondered the same possibility. However, although the Blenheims were outdated, they were far from surplus. They were pretty much all the RAF had immediately post 1940 for their extensive anti shipping strikes - not to mention the (needlessly wasteful!) Ramrods and Circuses which followed.

Coastal command, ever the Cinderella, had to soldier on with a mixed bag of largely obsolete aircraft like Ansons until sufficient supplies of newer equipment like Hudsons came through. A CC designed Blenheim might have been a useful addition, but I suspect Bristol were already maxed out gearing up Beaufort and Beaufighter by this stage - and both of those would make a better CC option, I suspect.

Hi

During the BoB CC did have three squadrons (No. 235, 236 and 248 sqns) of fighter Blenheims If and IVf, (mainly the latter), and two squadrons (No. 53 and 59 sqns) of Blenheim IVs for bombing and GR. Also five Hudson squadrons (No. 206, 220, 224, 233 and 269 sqns). So CC was not totally dependent on Ansons (about nine or so squadrons) during the BoB.
Bomber Command were using Blenheim bombers to attack Luftwaffe airfields throughout the BoB, including at night so undertaking a 'night intruder' role. As well as the six squadrons (No. 23, 25, 29, 219, 600 and 604 sqns) of Ifs with Fighter Command.

It appears that many of the roles suggested on the Thread for Blenheims during the BoB were already being engaged in to some extent.

Mike
 
Merlins were not very popuar on the Beau. They did not yet have carbs capable of handling negative G and that came as a deadly surprise on occasion. I read a description of when the first Merlin Beaus got to Malta one climbed over its airfield, the pilot shoved the nose down, the engines quit and it crashed in a Spitfire maintenance area, killing several groundcrewmen as well as the Beau crew.
 
As I remember, I think the merlin was introduced for the Beaufighter not for the sake of aerodynamics, but because supplies of the Hercules couldnt keep pace with airframe production. I remember reading that the mk2 was considered a pig to fly, unstable - and (interestingly!) under-powered.

(Weird, isn;t it? The Lancaster later ended up being re-engined with Hercules in its Mk B2 form - though I'd need to track down info as to whether its peformance was diminished or benefitted! No idea why the decision was made - though maybe by this time in the war, perhaps demand and supply had swapped over)
That's what I read too, but there was a "thing" about the power egg and contingencies for a factory being knocked out. Many types were tried out with various engines as a "just in case we lose the other type" scenario. With the Lancaster I think the Hercules was better than earlier Merlins, not as good as later ones. With bomber types max continuous power, power at altitude and fuel consumption are also issues. They made all sorts of mods to the Lancasters that carried Grand Slam bombs, fitting Hercules engines wasn't one of them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back