Effects of no Bristol Type 142

[PMN1]

The Bristol Type 142 was the design that ultimately led to the Blenheim.

If there had been no Type 142, would the RAF have independently issued a specification for an aircraft of the Blenheim specification in 1935?

If not, what does it do?

[Ricky]

Unlikely, as the RAF seemed perfectly happy to soldier on with biplanes until the pivate enterprise 'England First' was donated to them.

Without it - well, quite possibly they would have been cured of the 'fast bomber' idea that the early monoplane bombers gave rise to.

Oh, and our biplane bombers would have been hacked down faster than the Fairey Battles.

[merlin]

Unlikely, as the RAF seemed perfectly happy to soldier on with biplanes until the pivate enterprise 'England First' was donated to them.

Without it - well, quite possibly they would have been cured of the 'fast bomber' idea that the early monoplane bombers gave rise to.

Oh, and our biplane bombers would have been hacked down faster than the Fairey Battles.

Unlikely, even the Battle - a monoplane - was designed to a spec issued in 1932.

In a way, the Blenheim arrived too early - in action it was too slow, and under-armed.
Perhaps, it might have been better if not.
But what then - well as a light-bomber (and perhaps Battle replacement) there could have been conversions of the Supermarine 313 fighter, and also the Gloster F.34/35 (turret) fighter. For something a bit larger, as Bristol had (now with no Blenheim) little production orders, then seems highly likely the Bristol's proposal to spec P.13/36 would have been ordered. With two Hercules engines, it had an est. max. speed of 315 mph at 15,000 ft., a max bomb-load of 8,000 lbs, or 2,000 miles at 2,500 lb.

[Stony]

If there was no Type 142, the Beaufort, Beaufighter and their succesors wouldn't exist either.....

[PMN1]

If there was no Type 142, the Beaufort, Beaufighter and their succesors wouldn't exist either.....

Well Specification M.15/35 and G.24/35 later combined to 10/36 would still exist and Bristol would probably still submit a design.

Having said that, they would probably be hacked out of the sky in the same way the Blenheim was.

[PMN1]

Unlikely, even the Battle - a monoplane - was designed to a spec issued in 1932.

In a way, the Blenheim arrived too early - in action it was too slow, and under-armed.
Perhaps, it might have been better if not.
But what then - well as a light-bomber (and perhaps Battle replacement) there could have been conversions of the Supermarine 313 fighter, and also the Gloster F.34/35 (turret) fighter. For something a bit larger, as Bristol had (now with no Blenheim) little production orders, then seems highly likely the Bristol's proposal to spec P.13/36 would have been ordered. With two Hercules engines, it had an est. max. speed of 315 mph at 15,000 ft., a max bomb-load of 8,000 lbs, or 2,000 miles at 2,500 lb.

I think the Bristol P13/36 is a bit too late.

You might have noticed the Supermarine Type 313 in the Blenheim shadow factories is a pet 'what if' of mine, it was originally supposed to be able to carry 4 x 500lb bombs internally behind the pilot - would have to do something about the Goshawks though.

[merlin]

Re: Supermarine 313/312
Instead of the Goshawk, the Hispano 12Y was offered as an alternative.

Possibly a previous comment of yours made me check it out, and I thought - why not.

And the Bristol P.13/36 too late, too late for what?

[PMN1]

And the Bristol P.13/36 too late, too late for what?

Too late for it to be built at Bristol's own factories in place of the Blenheim.

[merlin]

Maybe Bristol will carry on making the Bombay for awhile longer.

[PMN1]

Given the Supermarine Type 313 was supposed to be able to carry 4 x 500lb bombs behind the pilot, is this kind of bomb carrying arrangement possible for the Type 142 and the 4 x 250lb bombs of the Blenheim??

[merlin]

Given the Supermarine Type 313 was supposed to be able to carry 4 x 500lb bombs behind the pilot, is this kind of bomb carrying arrangement possible for the Type 142 and the 4 x 250lb bombs of the Blenheim??

I think it more likely the Supermarine 313/312 bomb storage was more like that of the Russian Yak 9B.
"Yakovlev was requested to provide underwing bomb racks for his Yak-9 fighter, but revolted against such an idea as an aerodynamic abomination.To show such a measure was not necessary, he re-designed the fighter to carry four 100 kg bombs internally behind the pilot. Stowed at an angle and released tail-first ...... "
Source: Ground Attack Aircraft of WW2 by Christopher Shores

Whereas the Blenheim bombload, would be carried via a more conventional bomb-bay design.

[PMN1]

Did the Blenheim with its 1,000lb bombload really suit the RAF pre-war thinking about the use of bombers?

What if it had been decided that something like the Blenheim was not what was wanted, what happens then?

Presumably to avoid the Bristol factory being idle it continues to produce Bombays or possibly one of the other designs that had been approved - Whitley, Hampden, after all Shorts did build the Hereford version of the Hampden

The Shadow Factories that made Blenheims, again produce another approved aircraft.

I realise that this unfortunatley also means the Battle and in the numbers game, well......

Would the non existence of the Blenheim have any adverse effects on the British war effort?

[Ricky]

Well, IIRC* the Blenhiem was the type most used in the large-scale expansion of Bomber Command pre-war, presumably because of its percieved high performance.


* But as my only other post in this topic was incorrect...