Botha would have been at least adequate with a pair of R1820s
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Botha would have been at least adequate with a pair of R1820sThe same as with the Manchester : make them four engined.
It would have solved the power problem, it would not have solved the poor/restricted vision and the control issues (might have made them worse?), the high landing speed. Other problems that might have been fixable were petrol and exhaust fumes entering the cockpit and that asymmetrical dorsal turret causing rudder buffet.Botha would have been at least adequate with a pair of R1820s
Blenheim.The question that always comes to my mind is, if the Botha was not around what what would be taken away to do the high speed twin advanced trainer role?
No, but you can roll it in Glitter!Dad used to say, "You can't polish a turd."
They were used for a wide variety of training. Navigators, bomb aimers and gunners come to mind.The question that always comes to my mind is, if the Botha was not around what what would be taken away to do the high speed twin advanced trainer role?
Would that not reduce the number of Blenheims for operational tasks? Whatever one thinks of the Blenheim it was the period light bomber of the RAF.Blenheim.
Bothas in trainer role are red herring, used to defend the good-awful design. And slow, as very slow.
True, but you can dry it out in the sun and apply three coats of marine varnish.Dad used to say, "You can't polish a turd."
A Blenheim didn't have the internal space for navigator / bomb aimer training. Larger aircraft capable of carrying an instructor and multiple pupils was what was needed. Another type used early War was the early Whitleys. Later of course trainer versions of the Wellington came to be used as Bomber Command moved to 4 engined heavies.Blenheim.
Bothas in trainer role are red herring, used to defend the good-awful design. And slow, as very slow.
Would that not reduce the number of Blenheims for operational tasks? Whatever one thinks of the Blenheim it was the period light bomber of the RAF.
Training accidents were much more common in the WW II era (and into the 50s) than they are now. But the Botha was among the front rank of most dangerous. One source (welcome to correction) claims out 478 aircraft in the training units 169 were written off in accidents, including 24 ditched into the sea after engine failures. Better engines could help with this, both through fewer engine failures (same engine as the Skua/Roc) and the fact that the Botha struggled and often failed to fly on one engine. British seemed to have problem with this. Other countries were not immune or the short periods of time (France ?) didn't really register.We want the pilots and other crewmembers to train in a safe aircraft.
Blenheims were ill suited for daylight tasks against the German opposition, and used 4-8 times as much of pilots per ton of bombs delivered than the better bombers RAF had in service.
Not quite sure.Dad used to say, "You can't polish a turd."
And with a design like that you dare mock French ones ?Training accidents were much more common in the WW II era (and into the 50s) than they are now. But the Botha was among the front rank of most dangerous. One source (welcome to correction) claims out 478 aircraft in the training units 169 were written off in accidents, including 24 ditched into the sea after engine failures. Better engines could help with this, both through fewer engine failures (same engine as the Skua/Roc) and the fact that the Botha struggled and often failed to fly on one engine. British seemed to have problem with this. Other countries were not immune or the short periods of time (France ?) didn't really register.
The courage of the crews that under took long over water flights with such machines (Whitley's with large radar arrays) is often overlooked.
It took a while for the idea that twin engines alone were NOT enough to sink in. You needed both enough power to fly on one engine and a good enough propeller to fly at a useable speed. Using the smallest, cheapest engines was not, in the end, a smart choice.
The Lockheed Hudson, a converted airliner, was a much better choice for ASW and maritime recon because most of them would continue to fly on one engine and not slowly and steadily descend to water/ground. Hudson also had plenty of room for students. It cost more though.
Getting back to the original post.
Blackburn Botha
Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn B-20
The first 3 were under powered. Then we can get into the other problems.
The Blackburn doesn't have enough track record. It crashed after about 13 days so high speed testing is doubtful. Maybe the Vulture wasn't the best choice of engine but the crash was due to alerion flutter. Not the first or last airplane to have that problem, but then there is the problem of if it was actually useable as a service aircraft.
View attachment 765273
A lot may depend on the sea state requirement for landing and take-off. It may have worked well in sheltered waters but if they wanted it to land and take-off in 6 ft waves it might not have worked? or needed a lot of work on the shape of the nose float/pontoon and wing floats.
When folded up and flying.And with a design like that you dare mock French ones ?
1. Pry off the nameplateArmstrong Whitworth Albemarle
Spec R.1/36 saw 4 submissions from Blackburn, Shorts, Supermarine & Saunders-Roe. The last named "won" with the S.36 Lerwick design, gaining a small production contract as a result. A single Blackburn B.20 was ordered but was only ever meant to be a "proof of concept" aircraft.Training accidents were much more common in the WW II era (and into the 50s) than they are now. But the Botha was among the front rank of most dangerous. One source (welcome to correction) claims out 478 aircraft in the training units 169 were written off in accidents, including 24 ditched into the sea after engine failures. Better engines could help with this, both through fewer engine failures (same engine as the Skua/Roc) and the fact that the Botha struggled and often failed to fly on one engine. British seemed to have problem with this. Other countries were not immune or the short periods of time (France ?) didn't really register.
The courage of the crews that under took long over water flights with such machines (Whitley's with large radar arrays) is often overlooked.
It took a while for the idea that twin engines alone were NOT enough to sink in. You needed both enough power to fly on one engine and a good enough propeller to fly at a useable speed. Using the smallest, cheapest engines was not, in the end, a smart choice.
The Lockheed Hudson, a converted airliner, was a much better choice for ASW and maritime recon because most of them would continue to fly on one engine and not slowly and steadily descend to water/ground. Hudson also had plenty of room for students. It cost more though.
Getting back to the original post.
Blackburn Botha
Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn B-20
The first 3 were under powered. Then we can get into the other problems.
The Blackburn doesn't have enough track record. It crashed after about 13 days so high speed testing is doubtful. Maybe the Vulture wasn't the best choice of engine but the crash was due to alerion flutter. Not the first or last airplane to have that problem, but then there is the problem of if it was actually useable as a service aircraft.
View attachment 765273
A lot may depend on the sea state requirement for landing and take-off. It may have worked well in sheltered waters but if they wanted it to land and take-off in 6 ft waves it might not have worked? or needed a lot of work on the shape of the nose float/pontoon and wing floats.