- Thread starter
- #81
Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed. If you can stick a torpedo on a single-engined fighter, you don't need four men to deliver the same payload.
The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
Maybe what Armstrong should have done is to get a license for either Pratt or Curtiss radials. They seemed to have somewhat given up on designing viable engines sometimes in the 1930s.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
Indeed. If you can stick a torpedo on a single-engined fighter, you don't need four men to deliver the same payload.
View attachment 577223
Especially since the FAA had operated single-seat torpedo bombers well before WW2.
The Botha's problems went far deeper than engine choice. Design issues, inadequate control surfaces, distribution of weight, odd cockpit layout, bad visibility to anywhere from the cockpit except straight ahead. it was just a bad design. Best off sticking with the Beaufort, which was a good design hampered by boat anchors for engines.
As far as 608 Sqn is concerned, the aircraft were evaluated and used operationally for escort patrols only (my bad); the 30 aircraft it received remained largely inactive and the Botha never dropped a torpedo in anger. 8 squadrons were to receive the aircraft and deliveries did begin, but they were never impressed into action in the role they were designed for. In May 1940 the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Training) reported that although 150 aircraft had been delivered to various units, not one was considered reliable enough to be declared fully operational. By August, when 608 received their aircraft, pilot's opinions were so low that the universal opinion was that it was unsuitable for operations. Trials were carried out for convoy escort duties and found that the view from the cockpit was too bad and that the Anson should be kept on station for the role. In October the hammer fell when a memorandum was released that stated "It has been decided that the Botha will no longer be used as an operational aircraft", and they were withdrawn in November, after a convoy escort flight on the 6th of that month.
- Thread starter
- #85
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder if the Westland Wyvern was any better. A1 Skyraider aside, the USN was focused on jets, but the FAA kept pursing prop strike aircraft well into the mid 50s.
Last edited:
It's strange how things swing in roundabouts, the RNAS and RAF's first torpedoplane was the T.1 Cuckoo, which was a single-seater with no defensive armament and with manoeuvrability that was considered sufficient to be able to evade being shot down at low altitude. This was the concept behind the Blackburn Swift, then Dart, which entered RAF service after the Cuckoo, to become the newly formed FAA's first torpedoplane. But these aircraft were carrier based and the need for a multi-role torpedo, fleet spotter and reconnaissance aircraft meant that torpedo bombers became, well, bombers, recon machines and so forth, which required more crew. The Botha and Beaufort were land based equivalents, so try doing all that in a single-seat fighter.
Sadly, Admiral, it was more common than you might want to believe, especially in that period before the outbreak of war when new all metal machines with unprecedented levels of complexity were being introduced. The big bombers were by far the ones that suffered the most issues in terms of things that required fixing before trials could begin. The Halifax stands out as being a particularly rubbish piece of kit, with severe rudder over balance as well as a myriad other defects afflicting the aircraft. In the Merlin engined variants the aircraft was never a happy one, with the sheer number of sub marks being an indication of this and even then, the standard Mk.III, which appeared three years after the type's first trials was still not a patch on the Lancaster in terms of reliability. On first delivery to Boscombe, the first Halifax was sent back to the manufacturer for fixing before it had left the ground because the evaluators found something like 150 defects that should have been rectified before it first flew for testing.
The Manchester was not much better, and that's aside from the engines fitted. The electrical and hydraulic faults it suffered kept the engineers on their toes. The Manchester was a very advanced aircraft for its time with lots of electrically actuated systems and thankfully most of these were sorted before the Manchester Mk.III with its four engines rolled off the production line.
at6
1st Sergeant
The XP-75 was hybrid garbage. Are you sure that Blackburn didn't have a secret hand in the design?
Test pilot Harald Penrose said of the Wyvern that it..."was very nearly a very good aeroplane."
- Thread starter
- #90
Admiral Beez
Major
P&W had an operation in Canada. Ask them to build them.
Shortround6
Major General
As a torpedo bomber it didn't, Unfortunately the AIr Ministry demanded a range of not less than 1200 miles which rather made the navigator indispensable, rear gunner is the radio operator and they had the bomb aimer in the nose. Why they insisted on the navigation station being behind the pilot isn't written in most accounts. Seems to have worked in the MK IV
Yes you can hang a torpedo under a single engine fighter, you just aren't going to very far with it. Great for defending your own coast from invasion. Lousy for trying to keep the enemy from running his own coastal convoys or Island resupply or any other mission that requires projected power at any distance.
A few Statistics from "The British Bomber" by Mason.
No 608 squadron completed 309 Sorties with the 32 aircraft delivered to the squadron. They meet no enemy aircraft or vessels. 2 planes were lost due to accidents. However of the 478 aircraft flown by training units between May 1940 and JUly 1943 169 were written off due to accidents, including 24 ditched at sea following an engine failure.
I don't want to get into argument over 30 aircraft or 32
Mason gives the stalling speed of the Botha as 82mph which was higher than the Beauforts.
Shortround6
Major General
Will you stop with the time machine stuff?
From Wiki unless you have a better source (not hard)
"The Canadian Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, Ltd. was founded in November 1928 to act as a service centre for P&W aircraft engines.[3] During World War II, it assembled Pratt & Whitney Wasp series engines built in the U.S. In 1952, the production of Wasp engines was transferred to Canadian Pratt & Whitney so P&W could concentrate on developing jet engines."
A repair or overhaul facility is not a production line/factory. The Wasp engine is the R-1340 used in Texans and Harvards, post war it saw a lot of use in helicopters, bush planes (DH Otter) and crop dusters.
I don't want to get into argument over 30 aircraft or 32
My info comes from a lengthy piece in Aeroplane Monthly written a couple of years ago; Mason wrote his in the 60s, if it's of any consolation, but me neither frankly, and the Botha's just not worth it!
The figures I have are the same but with 30 aircraft broken down as follows: 68 in August, 130 in September, 100 in October and 11 in November, which split between 30 aircraft isn't that active at all. That's 10.3 sorties per aircraft in four months, mathematically speaking. Even at the aircraft's highest month of September with 130 sorties, that's an average of just over four sorties by each aircraft that month. Taking into consideration the fact that the squadron received 19 aircraft in August, the figures look a little better, but not by much.
According to this account, a 17 page assessment of the type written and researched by Roger Hayward in 2013, a total of 129 Bothas were lost in accidents, most of which were due to engine failure, which is an attrition rate of 22.4%.
Which ever way we look at it, the Botha was a terrible aircraft. On 7 November the ACAS(T) wrote regarding production of the type that "it should be stopped", without compromising work for the Blackburn factories building it. The only answer was to continue building it and another 138 were built at Brough, with orders for 632 cancelled. In February 1941 it was suggested that, for want of a suitable role for those that had been built, the type should be used as a bomber. This was rejected out of hand because the decision had already been made to abandon it as an operational type and to use it exclusively for training, besides, performance wise it was worse than the Blenheim, which was subject to replacement at any rate.
Last edited:
Here's an account of flying the Botha by test pilot Sqn Ldr D.H. Clarke:
"When the first Botha landed at Gosport, I wondered, would those wings lift a full war load into the air? As it turned out, they wouldn't! Either the two Perseus engines were not sufficiently powerful - or dear old Blackburns had miscalculated again. Blackburns always built wonderfully comfortable and strong aircraft, though as a result were unfortunately always too heavy, inevitably underpowered and regularly outdated before reaching a squadron."
"we set of the next day, August 6 1940, in Botha L6347 with a full crew. One or two others managed to scrounge on board (! stowaways?) oh yes, and we had a whopping great mine in the belly. The Botha had to be heaved off the aerodrome, and she wallowed alarmingly in the air. I was not happy with the Botha, which continued to wallow, although the revs were well up and we had plenty of speed. The two Perseus' purred sweetly, but the Botha! Phew! I didn't like the feel of her at all. So we didn't go to France. Instead we dropped the mine about 15 miles short of our target and came home. Even without the mine, the Botha was somehow unpleasant to fly. She seemed to give the impression that any moment she was going to fall out of the sky - just stop flying."
"When the first Botha landed at Gosport, I wondered, would those wings lift a full war load into the air? As it turned out, they wouldn't! Either the two Perseus engines were not sufficiently powerful - or dear old Blackburns had miscalculated again. Blackburns always built wonderfully comfortable and strong aircraft, though as a result were unfortunately always too heavy, inevitably underpowered and regularly outdated before reaching a squadron."
"we set of the next day, August 6 1940, in Botha L6347 with a full crew. One or two others managed to scrounge on board (! stowaways?) oh yes, and we had a whopping great mine in the belly. The Botha had to be heaved off the aerodrome, and she wallowed alarmingly in the air. I was not happy with the Botha, which continued to wallow, although the revs were well up and we had plenty of speed. The two Perseus' purred sweetly, but the Botha! Phew! I didn't like the feel of her at all. So we didn't go to France. Instead we dropped the mine about 15 miles short of our target and came home. Even without the mine, the Botha was somehow unpleasant to fly. She seemed to give the impression that any moment she was going to fall out of the sky - just stop flying."
This is true, but the Fw 190 was not the answer. The Germans only built three A-5/U14s, the one pictured was the second, before giving up on the 'Jato' project. The first '0' has been left off the werknummer.
Maybe all the modifications (the visible extended tail wheel, modified flaps, enlarged fin etc.) were more trouble than it was worth. The Germans always had a preference for bombing over torpedo attacks anyway. Another factor might have been the expense of torpedoes which were in demand eslewhere. A LTF 5b torpedo, as pictured, took 2,000 man hours to produce!
Kevin J
Banned
Sometimes it's best to say to your customer that it can't be done. Actually you have to be political to avoid losing them. Look at the Botha, a ton heavier than a Bolingbroke with same engine power, a ton lighter than a Beaufort but same size and less power. What you do is estimate the cost of doing it then double the price. Your customer soon goes away. Then your competitor gets the bad press. I remember doing that once in my I.T. days. LOL.
- Thread starter
- #98
Admiral Beez
Major
I suppose that's why some of the best British aircraft were built independently on speculation/hope with the Air Ministry issuing the sole-source spec or tender afterward. IIRC, this was the case with the Mosquito, Swordfish, the Supermarine Type 300 that led to the Spitfire, and much of Whittle's jet propulsion development.
So, if you have both deep pockets/backers and faith in your design you build what you want and present it as a fait accompli to the Air Ministry.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #99
Admiral Beez
Major
I doubt I can untie your knickers, but if P&W Canada can assemble engines for the US, they could presumably assemble them for Canada.
Of course a subsidiary engine maintenance and assembly operation is not an engine plant. My point is that if Canada wanted to produce a radial engine a good place to start is with a call to P&W Canada to inquire if they can: expand their existing assembly/maintenance operation; build a manufacturing plant; or, consult to an existing Canadian engine producer to license build the P&W engine, such as GM Canada. Same as Australia license-built the P&W Twin Wasp for their Bristol Beauforts, in this case P&W licensed the plans to GM Australia's Holden Motors. The existence of a P&W operation in Canada would have helped facilitate this - why is this such a stretch for you?
As an aside, unlike P&W, Rolls Royce wouldn't open a Canadian aeronautics operation until 1947 and Bristol Aerospace not until 1953.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
Let's be Frank here about the ROC. Take out the turret, give the gunner a couple of LMG and stick a cannon in each wing and you'll have a worthy adversary of the Ar 196. As for the Botha, get Blackburn to make some Bombays instead as they will come in handy in the Far East when the Japanese attack. Use them for night bombing, medivac and aerial resupply for troops cut off by the Japanese advance into Malaya, Burma, Timor and New Guinea.
