British specification C.16/28 Bomber-transport

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
31 May 2007
Messages
8,567
Reaction score
6,742
Hi! Gloster TC.33.

C.16/28 Bomber-transport capable of carrying 30 fully armed troops, or their equivalent in cargo or bombs, for a distance of 1,200 mi (1,900 km) nonstop Gloster TC.33, Handley Page H.P.43, Vickers Type 163, Bristol Type 115, Bristol Type 116

Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_TC.33

"The TC.33 was also unusual in having a lower wing of (slightly) greater span than the upper; most unequal span wings had a larger upper wing. The four evaporatively cooled Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines were mounted in two nacelles, each containing a tractor-pusher pair together with their steam condenser and mounted between the wings at the end of the centre section. They were each carried by two vertical struts above the nacelle, complicated strutting below and by further strutting to the lower wing roots. The wide (22 ft 6 in (6.8 m)) split axle undercarriage had vertical legs from the front wing spar at the same point and bracing from the axles to the fuselage.

The fuselage was quite elegant, slender, oval in cross section and smoothly metal skinned. The cockpit was enclosed, but there were open gunners' positions at nose and tail. Like the cockpit, the long main cabin was heated and soundproofed. There was a large hatch in the floor for heavy loads with an integral hoist mounted above it, plus a smaller roof hatch through which loads could be lowered by crane. The biplane tail unit had conventional fabric covered endplate fins and rudders, but the tailplanes were an unusual sesquiplane type. The upper tailplane and elevator was strut mounted above the fuselage and the much narrower chord lower part fixed to the lower fuselage."

Picture source.
http://alternathistory.com/opytniy-bombardirovshchik-transportnyi-samolet-gloster-tc33-velikobritaniya
https://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks/t-c-33-troop-carrier-j9832-rolled-out-of-hucclecote-works-gloucester-62213
 

Attachments

  • Gloster_TS_33-08.jpg
    Gloster_TS_33-08.jpg
    102.6 KB · Views: 299
  • GLW_GCIT_ART01902.jpg
    GLW_GCIT_ART01902.jpg
    96.8 KB · Views: 278
  • 644-1.jpg
    644-1.jpg
    87.4 KB · Views: 246
  • Gloster_TC_33.jpg
    Gloster_TC_33.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 235
  • 580-2.jpg
    580-2.jpg
    50.7 KB · Views: 225
  • 579-2.jpg
    579-2.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 78
Hi! Vickers type 163.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Type_163

Picture source
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww1/vickers163.html
 

Attachments

  • vickers163-6.jpg
    vickers163-6.jpg
    65.3 KB · Views: 98
  • vickers163-1.gif
    vickers163-1.gif
    197.7 KB · Views: 102
Hi! Handley Page H.P.43.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_H.P.43
 

Attachments

  • 1200px-Handley_Page_H_P__43.jpg
    1200px-Handley_Page_H_P__43.jpg
    235.8 KB · Views: 88
  • hp43-i.jpg
    hp43-i.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 79
In this competition,also Vickers Type-212,Bristol Type-115 & Type-116,Fairey and
Boulton Paul P.40 were involved.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    57.8 KB · Views: 66
  • 2.png
    2.png
    36.6 KB · Views: 93
  • 3.png
    3.png
    99.5 KB · Views: 137
Oh!! What were the shape of Bristol designs?
 
On the TC.33

Once in the air, the TC.33 was judged a pleasant machine to fly, but it was crucially let down by its full load take off performance. Even at Martlesham it was hard to get it off the ground in a reasonable distance. The undercarriage behaviour was also criticised. Because of these concerns over take off performance at English temperatures and altitudes, the Air Ministry did not place an order, judging it would not cope with the hot and high conditions found at many RAF fields across the Empire.


Were the performance problems down to lack of engine power?
 
Were the performance problems down to lack of engine power?
It seems likely. It didn't want for wing area. It's entirely possible the evaporative cooling contributed to poor engine performance. The Buzzard was available at 850hp each in a tractor/pusher arrangement slightly later in 1932 with the Short Sarafand. That would be my recommendation.

Gloster's own TSR.38 was also underpowered and re-emerged in 1933 with a 690hp Goshawk. That may be the solution if you must retain evaporative cooling. It would seem Gloster underestimated power requirements on more than one project in 1932.
 
Oh!! What were the shape of Bristol designs?
I can’t tell you for sure. But I can speculate.

In 1927 the first flights of the Bristol Bagshot had revealed severe problems with aileron reversal due to wing flex. Due to this Harry Pollard, a Bristol engineer, designed an extremely stiff and strong wing with 7 (!) spars. This was the wing that the Type 115 would be built around.

The wing was originally internally braced, and fabric covered but there was apparently a sudden availability of Alcad from a British manufacturer. Due to this the wing was clad in aluminium and the internal bracing removed, making it possibly Britains first stressed skinned monoplane wing.

Dinger Aviations page on the Bristol Bombay (https://dingeraviation.net/bristol/bombay.html) states that the Type 115 (and presumably 116) were too small for the Air Ministry’s requirements for C.16/28 and that the specification was superseded by C.26/31 for a smaller aircraft. This was won by the Bristol Bombay, again built around the extremely strong wing.

Therefore, it would stand to reason that the Bristol Type 115 would bear some similarity to the Bristol Bombay, though outfitted as a trimotor. The 116 would likely be similar though a bi-plane.

1656366717744.jpeg
Early Configuration Type 130 Bombay (again from Dinger Aviation’s site).
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Blackburn also submitted a proposal,called TC.1.
Yes indeed, one that is in the BAe Systems archive.
As I noted on the designations thread many of the project names/numbers assigned to Blackburn projects were not in use at the time have been added some time later, they do not always appear on the tenders and specification documents. If the company were responding to an official Air Ministry specification, such as C.16/28, they only used that designation. This is the case, for example, for R.10/30, R.24/31, R.2/33, B.1/35, R.13/35 and no doubt others.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom