• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Bristol 159

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,936
Reaction score
400
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Couldn't find a thread on this so here goes:

In March 1938 the Air Staff put together a paper that described an ideal bomber, and then a few months later specification B.19/38 was produced which indicated that the bomber would have a strong defensive armament of eight 20mm “shell-firing gun” (cannon) mounted in to turrets amidships, one above and one below the fuselage, to provide protection above, below and to the aircraft’s rear. On 28 December B.19/38 was revised as B.1/39 and the new document, issued in March 1939, outlined a cruise speed of 451 km/h (280 mph), a minimum range flying at 4,572 m (15,000ft) with 4,082 kg (9,000 lb) of bombs aboard of 4,023 km (2,500 miles), and (at that time) a gross weight of 22,680 kg (50,000 lb). The aircraft was to replace all current heavy and medium bomber types, fabric was not to be used as a wing covering (in other words all Boulton Paul turrets, but in smaller streamlined Bristol-designed turrets).

The favoured powerplant was the Bristol Hercules Radial engine (the Rolls-Royce Griffon was an alternative) and the aircraft had a nosewheel undercarriage and eight internal fuel tanks which, for the 4,023 km(2,500 mile) range requirement, would hold 11,731 litres (2,580 gallons). The 159 could carry a further four fuel tanks on the bomb racks while the maximum estimated range was 5,632 km (3,500 miles) when flying at a speed of 451 km/h (280 mph). Wind tunnel tests with the design showed promise and indicated low drag and good stability, and by spring 1940 the process of structural design had reached an advanced stage.

Fate:
Mock-up dismantled in January 1941 due to great urgency by the outbreak of war.

Bristol 159 - Data

(1939 Brochure Figures or Air Staff Estimates)

Type: Seven-Seat Heavy Bomber

Powerplant: Four 1,500hp (1,156kW9 Bristol Hercules HE.7.SM air-cooled radial engines

Alternative: Four Rolls-Royce Griffon liquid inline engines

Dimensions
Span 34.90 m (114ft 6in)
Length 24.46 m (80ft 3in)
Wing area 167.4m2 (1,800sq.ft)

Weights
Maximum weight
Hercules engines 35,317 kg (77,860 lb); Griffon 34,596 kg (76,270 lb)

Performance
Rate of climb Not Available
Maximum speed: Hercules 486 km/h (302 mph); Griffon 488 km/h (303 mph) both at 4,572 m (15,000ft)

Ceiling
Hercules 7,711m (25,300ft), Griffon 7,224m (23,700ft)

Armament
8 x 20mm cannon; 6,804 kg (15,000 lb) bombs

Source






 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
3,225
Wow,great find my dear GTX.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
76
Any information regarding the ammunition load for the turrets? Could they be reloaded in flight?

Also, I assume the bombload was mainly in the wings (thus limiting the maximum size of the bombs)?

Lots of interesting counterfactuals to guess about:

The 20mm Hispano cannons would be able to engage the enemy at greater range (so traverse speed wouldn't be an issue) and would be very lethal with more than enough density of fire. However sighting them at long range might be a bit of a challenge and ammunition could be expended quickly.

The design might be vulnerable to head on attacks, which would encourage the bombers to break formation which wouldn't be nearly so suicidal as would be the case with less well armed bombers since enemy fighters would hesitate to attack from the rear sector. The low ceiling would increase vulnerability to anti-aircraft artillery, so that would also encourage aircraft attacking out of formation (i.e. approaching at multiple angles, and altitudes - much like in night attacks).
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
307
Is there also a good drawing of the Type 162 "Beaumont"?
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
410
The Type 162 Beaumont was essentially an adaption of the Beaufighter with a new bomber-focused forward and centre fuselage, the tail of the Type 159 Beaufighter III* and a Beaughfighter-derived wing, so we know what the basic wing platform would have been. However requirements growth pushed it to the point the Hercules would have been inadequate and it had to be scaled up for Centaurus, becoming the Buckingham. There's an outline of the development in Chapter 5 of British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers, including sketch drawings of the alternate noses for the preceding Type 161, from which Type 162 evolved.

*Another one for which no drawings are known, though I suspect it might well have looked rather like the eventual Brigand.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
2,398
Hi! Sorry for off topic.
http://drawingdatabase.com/bristol-beaufighter/

Beaufighter MK.Ⅰ.
http://scale-model-aircraft.com/plans-drawings/wwii-aviation/bristol-beaufighter

Beaufighter MK.Ⅱ.
https://www.historicflyingclothing.com/en-GB/ww2-raf-documents/bristol-beaufighter-ii-specification-manual/prod_10425#.WcKHy7kUnIU

Beaufighter Mk.Ⅲ.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2309.0/all.html
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Beaufighter/Beau_index.html

Beaufighter Mk.Ⅳ and Ⅹ.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/draw/bf4c.shtml

Beaufighter Mk.V.
http://pro-samolet.ru/samolety-england-ww2/57-istrebiteli/577-multipurpose-aircraft-bristol-beaufighter?start=1

Beaufighter Mk.Ⅷ
http://www.aviation-history.com/bristol/beaufite.html

161 and 162.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10040.msg175037.html#msg175037
 

Attachments

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
212
JFC Fuller said:
. . . Interestingly, the various drawings show a very stylised aircraft with lots of curves that looks almost Russian from some angles, by contrast the wooden mockup appears to be more traditionally British slab-sided, in fact the fuselage almost looks like a giant Beaufort.
The top 3-view in the image posted above, by the OP :-

https://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/39/1d3e771c0a08cd85d3924906957ce14927d70d_mq/Screenshot_11.png

appears to show the version represented by the mockup. Note also the different, simpler, wing planform . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
1,072
JFC Fuller raises an interesting point.
The mock-up doesn't fit any of the 3-views or drawings from the time.

As robunos points out the top 3-view drawing looks closer but even then its not identical, note the dorsal turret isn't above the cockpit roof line and the fairing from the canopy to the turret is flat rather than sloped on the other 3-views. The nose layout of the mock-up though does match the later 3-view drawings. I think that aerodynamic refinement or efforts to simplify the design for wartime mass production probably led to less curved surfaces. Also, if you compare the distances between the cockpit canopy, the dorsal astrodome and the turret it seems like the nose is longer (or the cockpit further forward) compared to the cross-section posted below the photo.
In many ways the mock-up reminds me of an over-sized Type 155 (later aka AW Albermarle), I would how much of the strategic materials saving behind that project informed the design of the 159?
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
745
And the Albemarle (how much Type 155 survived we don't know) looks to me like a fat Type 152 (Beaufort). The mock-up does not match the top drawing at all, the nose and aft fuselage look completely different.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
410
The text on Blackkite's Mk III image seems to confirm it as actually a Mk VI. As the text appears to be wartime, Mk III would have been a logical guess for the designation of the next version after the Mk I and II, given no knowledge of the three intermediate types.
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
250
Hood said:
JFC Fuller raises an interesting point.
The mock-up doesn't fit any of the 3-views or drawings from the time.

As robunos points out the top 3-view drawing looks closer but even then its not identical, note the dorsal turret isn't above the cockpit roof line and the fairing from the canopy to the turret is flat rather than sloped on the other 3-views. The nose layout though does match the later 3-view drawings. I think that aerodynamic refinement or efforts to simplify the design for wartime mass production probably led to less curved surfaces. Also, if you compare the distances between the cockpit canopy, the dorsal astrodome and the turret it seems like the nose is longer (or the cockpit further forward) compared to the cross-section posted below the photo.
In many ways the mock-up reminds me of an over-sized Type 155 (later aka AW Albermarle), I would how much of the strategic materials saving behind that project informed the design of the 159?
The mock-up definitely has the cockpit further forward than any of the three views posted. The cockpit position in those three views seem a little iffy to me as an inboard prop blade coming lose could tear into the cockpit. This would be a good reason to move the cockpit forward.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
2,398
DWG said:
The text on Blackkite's Mk III image seems to confirm it as actually a Mk VI. As the text appears to be wartime, Mk III would have been a logical guess for the designation of the next version after the Mk I and II, given no knowledge of the three intermediate types.
Thanks a lot. :D

Bristol participant in the competition of projects to specifications B 12-36 and P 13 -36 in 1937.
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1510&start=220

http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1510&start=220
 

Attachments

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1,503
The Bristol 162 "beaumont" exists in an alternate universe: France Fights On. http://1940lafrancecontinue.org/forum/

Paul Reynaud grows a spine, Vichy France never happens, Pétain dies of stroke, French government moves everything but the kitchen sink to Algiers, WWII ends in 1944, MN Richelieu replace Princes of Wales and helps HMs Hood sinking Bismarck.
Per lack of North Africa industrial base, French engineers are dispatched to the Wallies all across the world, including Bristol...
 
Top