Worst British twins, and how to fix?

[Frog]

Just a black coffee for now, thanks!

Sweetened ?

 

[buffnut453]

Blue Ribbon winner from Biscarosse to NYC, 5 875 km including half with one feathered propeller.
A kitchen, barroom, saloon, sleeping rooms... What do you need ?

Just a bag over my head so I don't need to look at it.

 

[yulzari]

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.

However there was the slight problem of plenty of naughty Germans and Italians who needed something dropped on them from something. All the Blenheim were needed for the task however weak they might be. In the Middle East they were dropping bombs from Vickers Valentias and in the BoF Hawker Hectors over Calais and dive bombing tanks with Swordfish.

 

[tomo pauk]

However there was the slight problem of plenty of naughty Germans and Italians who needed something dropped on them from something. All the Blenheim were needed for the task however weak they might be. In the Middle East they were dropping bombs from Vickers Valentias and in the BoF Hawker Hectors over Calais and dive bombing tanks with Swordfish.

Need much more and/or better bombers? Than have Blackburn make a workable bomber, not the Botha - even Hampden made there is a boon.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Until the mid-1930s most flying boats were biplanes with somewhere high up to mount the engines and props away from any sea spray. The move to monoplanes generally meant accepting a deep and therefore draggy fuselage to achieve the same effect e.g. the Sunderland (Consolidated got round the problem with the PBY parasol wing layout)

I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.

 

[EwenS]

I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.

Can't really see how. Look at the performance improvement between the last generation of biplane maritime recce aircraft in the shape of the Short Singapore and Saro London in comparison with the Sunderland. Just about everyone else was moving to monoplane flying boats in the same timeframe.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

580 Botha built, 380 at Brough August 1939 to June 1942, 200 at Denny October 1939 to June 1941.

As of end February 1943 there were 5 with Coastal Command, 162 flying training, 46 technical training, 198 in Maintenance Units (Stored), 6
under repair category AC, 45 under repair category B, 4 AW/CN, 1 Admiralty, 10 instructional airframes, 103 lost

End March 1943 there were 159 flying training, 198 stored, losses 133 plus 10 instructional airframes.
End April 1943 there were 155 flying training, 199 stored, losses 152 plus 10 instructional airframes.
End May 1943 there were 138 flying training, 194 stored, losses 174 plus 13 instructional airframes.
End June 1943 there were 112 flying training, 197 stored, losses 204 plus 26 instructional airframes.
End July 1943 there were 110 flying training, 141 stored, losses 261 plus 26 instructional airframes.
End August 1943 there were 65 flying training, 141 stored, losses 307 plus 26 instructional airframes.
End September 1943 there were 37 flying training, 54 stored, losses 440 plus 23 instructional airframes.
End October 1943 there were 6 flying training, 50 stored, losses 475 plus 23 instructional airframes.

End June 1944 losses were up to 510 plus 12 instructional airframes.

It is quite possible over roughly 4 years of flying a hundred and seventy Botha had been lost, the numbers above suggest it had a "normal" loss rate, assuming all lost to end February 1943 were accidents, however in 4 months March to June 1943 inclusive a force of 110-160 flying machines apparently lost 100. That seems a little high. Clearly as of early to mid 1943 the aircraft were being scrapped.

Ansons as of end February 1943 had 536 lost out of 4,984 delivered. Master I 388 out of 900, Master II 130 out of 1,748, Master III 130 out of 602, Magister 422 out of 1,238, Oxford I 529 out of 3,904, Oxford II 478 out of 2,433.

For consideration, again end February 1943, Beaufort I 322 out of 743, Blenheim I 654 out of 1,154, Blenheim IV 2,166 out of 3,268

Whitley 34 I in 1937, 46 II in 1938, 80 III in 1938 to April 1939, 33 IV May to August 1939, 7 IVa in August 1939, mark V start in August.

7 Squadron, Whitley II March 1938, III November 1938, to Hampden April/May 1939
10 Squadron, Whitley I March 1937, III May 1939, V May 1940
51 Squadron, Whitley II February 1938, III added February 1938, IV added November 1939, II gone December 1939, V added January 1940, III gone March 1940, IV gone May 1940
58 Squadron, Whitley I and II October 1937, I gone April 1938, III May 1939, V March 1940, III gone in April.
77 Squadron, Whitley III November 1938, V September 1939.
78 Squadron, Whitley I July 1937, IVA and V September 1939.
97 Squadron, Whitley II and III February 1939, not operational, disbanded April 1940
102 Squadron, Whitley III October 1938, V November 1939
166 Squadron, Whitley I June 1939, III added December 1939, not operational, disbanded April 1940

 

[don4331]

This is another example of the difference between USN and British practice in the maritime aviation sphere. The RAF flying boat bases were generally in sheltered locations adjacent to land masses and the RN made little use of seaplane carriers interwar, and when they did the RAF aircraft supplied were no larger than the Walrus. This is unlike the USN where it used a significant number of AV/AVP/AVD from the 1930s, starting with converted 4 stack destroyers and minesweepers to support their flying boats often in much more open waters.

Wasn't RN using their light carriers - Hermes/Argus/Eagle - more/less as seaplane carriers interwar? Additionally there are the dedicated seaplane carriers: Pegasus and Albatross.

That the Commonwealth had more flying boat bases than USA goes without saying.

Note: RN didn't make as much use of Destroyer or Submarine tenders either - advantage of the sun never setting on the British Empire.

 

[EwenS]

Wasn't RN using their light carriers - Hermes/Argus/Eagle - more/less as seaplane carriers interwar?

Well yes and no. The facilities were there but the question is how much use was made of them.

I think that this idea arises from two things. Firstly Argus & Hermes were designed to allow floatplanes to be handled across their quarterdecks while Eagle had a large crane abaft the island to lift floatplanes on and off the flight deck. Secondly some of the aircraft in the interwar period were designed with interchangeable wheel & float undercarriages. While the floatplane versions could operate from a carrier deck using trolleys and would land back on the sea, the main reason was to provide floatplanes for capital ships and cruisers. I'm think of the Fairey IIID & IIIF. But on the whole the carriers were operating wheeled aircraft.

Argus incidentally reduced to Reserve in Sept 1932 and didn't emerge again until after her conversion to a Queen Bee Carrier in Aug 1938.

Additionally there are the dedicated seaplane carriers: Pegasus and Albatross.

After 1923 Pegasus (Ark Royal until Dec 1934) was variously used as an aircraft ferry & minesweeper depot ship until 1930. After that she was used for early catapult trials and then periods in Reserve mixed with training seaplane crews in catapult launches (destined for capital ships and cruisers). Those activities continued into WW2 when she also saw service for a while as a fighter catapult ship with Fulmars.

Albatross was bought by and paid for by the RAN not the RN. Completed in Jan 1929 she paid off to Reserve in April 1932. Initially she received 6 Supermarine Seagull III amphibians. While refitted in 1936 and given a catapult, her reactivation was cancelled as an economy measure. She was transferred to the RN in 1938 as part payment for the cruiser Apollo (HMAS Hobart). Used by the RN for 3 months at the end of 1938 as a seaplane trials ship she then went to Reserve for use as an accommodation ship and in the process lost her catapult. She only became a seaplane carrier in the RN in Aug 1939, a role she carried out in the South Atlantic & Indian Ocean until April 1943 when she was converted for other purposes.

That the Commonwealth had more flying boat bases than USA goes without saying.

Maybe not as many interwar as you might think given that Coastal Command was the poor relative in the RAF in this period.

Mount Batten (Plymouth)
Pembroke Dock from 1930
Stranraer / Wig Bay (advanced alighting area. Used from 1929)
Invergordon / Alness (for use in exercises and transits)
Woodhaven (from Sept 1938)
Calshot (on Southampton Water)

And abroad:-
Kalafrana (Malta)
Aboukir (Egypt)
Alexandria (Egypt)
Basra (Iraq)
Seletar (Singapore)
Hong Kong

Note: RN didn't make as much use of Destroyer or Submarine tenders either - advantage of the sun never setting on the British Empire.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can't really see how. Look at the performance improvement between the last generation of biplane maritime recce aircraft in the shape of the Short Singapore and Saro London in comparison with the Sunderland. Just about everyone else was moving to monoplane flying boats in the same timeframe.

Another odd format is the Sikorsky S-40.

 

[Howard Gibson]

The Halifax like the Manchester was originally supposed to be a twin and there was a proposal for a Sabre engined Mosquito. The problem was with the Sabre and Vulture engines.

From late 1943 on, there was nothing wrong with the Napier Sabre other than availability. They did investigate Griffon engined mosquitos, but Hornets and Vampires were more important.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.

Biplanes are a very clever solution to adequate structural strength and rigidity in a low-speed aircraft. As your cruising and do-not-exceed speeds go up, you ruggedize the airframe, making it no longer light-weight. You might as well stick with cantilever wings. I think more light general aviation aircraft should be biplanes.

 

[EwenS]

Note: RN didn't make as much use of Destroyer or Submarine tenders either - advantage of the sun never setting on the British Empire.

Missed this point yesterday. Again you might be surprised. Some of the old WW1 ships served until the end of WW2 (Titania, Lucia).

Depot Ships

Submarines were relatively small compared to most oceangoing vessels, and generally did not have the ability to carry large amounts of food, fuel, torpedoes, and other supplies, nor to carry a full array of maintenance equipment and personnel. The tender carried all these, and periodically met...

rnsubs.co.uk

In the late 1920s/1930s the RN embarked on a renewal programme:-

Fleet repair ship:
Resource 1928

Sub depot ships:
Medway - completed 1929 to support new classes of subs being built for service in the Far East. Until 1940 spent her time at Hong Kong.
Maidstone
Forth
Adamant

Destroyer depot ships:
Tyne
Hecla

Then when WW2 broke out various merchant ships were acquired for use as destroyer or submarine depot ships (or for other vessels) or as fleet repair ships from 1940 onwards, something that gathered pace from early 1942 with the loss of the Singapore dockyard and then again from late 1943 with the requirement to build a fleet train for Pacific operations. Four of the bigger vessels used as depot ships:-

Blenheim
Philoctetes
Montclare
Wolfe

 

[z42]

Biplanes are a very clever solution to adequate structural strength and rigidity in a low-speed aircraft. As your cruising and do-not-exceed speeds go up, you ruggedize the airframe, making it no longer light-weight. You might as well stick with cantilever wings. I think more light general aviation aircraft should be biplanes.

Maybe biplanes are set to make a comeback, see the so-called Truss-braced wing concept. Idea being to have a very high aspect ratio wing that overcomes the extra drag caused by the trusses.

 

[don4331]

Missed this point yesterday. Again you might be surprised. Some of the old WW1 ships served until the end of WW2 (Titania, Lucia).

Depot Ships

Submarines were relatively small compared to most oceangoing vessels, and generally did not have the ability to carry large amounts of food, fuel, torpedoes, and other supplies, nor to carry a full array of maintenance equipment and personnel. The tender carried all these, and periodically met...

rnsubs.co.uk

In the late 1920s/1930s the RN embarked on a renewal programme:-

Fleet repair ship:
Resource 1928

Sub depot ships:
Medway - completed 1929 to support new classes of subs being built for service in the Far East. Until 1940 spent her time at Hong Kong.
Maidstone
Forth
Adamant

Destroyer depot ships:
Tyne
Hecla

Then when WW2 broke out various merchant ships were acquired for use as destroyer or submarine depot ships (or for other vessels) or as fleet repair ships from 1940 onwards, something that gathered pace from early 1942 with the loss of the Singapore dockyard and then again from late 1943 with the requirement to build a fleet train for Pacific operations. Four of the bigger vessels used as depot ships:-

Blenheim
Philoctetes
Montclare
Wolfe

I'm not surprised; I would have added Greenwich and Woolwich to your DD depot ships (at >8k tons they weren't exactly small) and SS depot Wuchang (far east conversion mid war) & Bonaventure (ii) <midget SS>:

USN had 14 Destroyer Tenders alone:

USS Melville, Black Hawk & Cascade​

USS Altair class (2)​

USS Dobbin class (2)​

USS Dixie class (5)​

USS Hamul class (2)​

​

And that doesn't count <only lead ships in class are commissioned before war ends, none in service>

USS Shenandoah class (6)​

USS Klondike class (4)​

​

Submarine Tenders

USS Antaeus​

USS Beaver​

USS Euryale​

USS Holland​

USS Otus​

USS Canopus​

USS Griffin class (2)​

USS Aegir class (4)​

Seaplane Tenders

6 ship classes (47 ships*) <Too many to list individually, especially as some get...grey - when did cease to be AM/DDs and become AVPs>. Barnegat class of 30 being the majority.​

*some are completed post war​

But my point is USN had more tenders before the war started, than RN did total. And yes, I counted Dominion ships in RN totals - we fought the same enemies at the same times largely under RN command.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wither the Armstrong Siddeley engines were good or bad in the 1920s may be up for argument. The Problem in the 30s was that A-S didn't make any significant improvements over the 1920s engines while most of the rest of world (or British companies) did. The A-S engines were OK for trainers but high power eluded them. 1939 engines were much improved over 1931 engines and A-S was stuck in the early 30s.

It's a shame that Armstrong-Siddeley through either a merger or investment-driven expansion (they were owned by Hawker since 1935) couldn't find the funding, talent or Air Ministry attention to pursue their best potential.

A large 38-40 L, sodium-cooled poppet valve A/S engine could have beat the Bristol Hercules as the first British 1,200 hp 14-cylinder two-row radial aircraft engine by years, which might have led to some truly interesting pre-war (presumably non-Bristol) aircraft designs to use it. A scaled-up Gloster F5/34 or Skua, a monoplane TSR, or something single-seat for the FAA to replace the Nimrod come to mind. As for this thread's topic on twins: a 1,200 hp 14-cyl radial available in 1936-38 could have given us some faster non-Bristol twins, such as the Handley Page Hampden or Vickers Wellington.

Bristol's sleeve valve distraction was a wrench in the works of British radial-powered aircraft development.