British B.12/36 Heavy Bomber Competition ?

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
Hi,

In early 1936,the Air Ministry announced for heavy bomber four engined aircraft competetition,
and by July of the same year,they asked; Avro,Blackburn,Bristol,De Havilland,Fairey,Gloster,
Hawker,Saro,Shorts,Supermarine and Westland.

A few weeks later also anther tenders were reached to submit a proposals; Armstrong Whitworth,
Boulton Paul,Handley Page and Vickers.

The mystery that the concepts from Avro,Blackburn,De Havilland,Fairey,Gloster,Handley Page,Hawker,
Saro and Westland were missing,anyone heard about them ?.

Profile magazine
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
OK, yes. 21st Profile, Vol 1, No 6. Possibly written by Eric Morgan. It would be useful if this could be verified as it is not repeated elsewhere, as far as I am aware, and it is a surprisingly wide circulation if true.
There are a few points. Firstly even if a company received a copy of the specification it does not imply that they actually chose to work on a project. We know, for example, that Avro did not and concentrated their efforts on P.13/36, the Manchester. Secondly we have to remember that many of these companies were conglomerates and managed centrally, so internal competition was kept under control. We have Vickers/Supermarine and the Hawker Siddeley group of Hawker/Gloster/AW/Avro. So here while Avro worked on P.13/36 AW were tasked to look at B.12/36. Thirdly, Specifications were not written without prior consultation with selected parts of industry. An operational requirement was issued and Ministry representatives discused parts of this with designers prior to the formal issue of the specification. This reduced the possibility that the spec. could not be met and shortened the time between the issue of the spec. and receipt of tenders. The companies consulted were generally those judged to be most capable for the type of aircraft required. Vickers were one consulted for B.12/36 and as they ran a joint design coordination committee with Supermarine, Mitchell was able to initiate work on a design, based on preliminary work for a bomber to B.1/35, ahead of the formal issue of the spec.
If some of the companies in the list had indeed received a copy of the specification it seems highly unlikely that they could have initiated work on a project from a clean sheet of paper and produced a viable tender in the time available. DH, Saro and Gloster certainly look like companies who would have struggled.
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
121
B12/36 (OR.40)

Armstrong Whitworth AW.42
Boulton Paul P.90
Short S.29
Supermarine 316/317 & 318
Vickers 293
Bristol B 12/36 later

Source : British Secret Projects
Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950- page 236

Tony Buttler
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
Yes,

but we must don't forget that,the Fairey and Handley Page presented a concepts,if we exclude Avro,DH,Gloster,Hawker and Saro,we can suppose Blackburn and Westland maybe submitted
a proposals but reject in early stage ?.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
Blackburn could have looked at the specification as they still had aspirations to return to building larger aircraft (perhaps something along the lines of the B20 flying boat?) but it would have been completely out of Westlands league. They were also in the midst of a major boardroom struggle over funding/expansion.

We have to remember to place this in context. Britain was two years into its major RAF expansion plans and all the major constructors already had contracts to build new aircraft; some of their own design and some as sub-contracts for others. More factory space and funds were required and we see a lot of public share floatations, industry consolidations and buy-outs. There was intense competions to recruit design and experienced workshop staff. All this served to keep management focussed on what was realistic and it was not feasible to carry out early design work on every specification that arrived from the Ministry.

In mid 1936 new specifications were being issued every week or two; remember that the year date in a specification refers to a finacial year, April to April, not a calendar year. B.12/36 was issued in mid July, which means that there had been 12 specifications between early April and that date, which gives an indication of how the pace of expansion was increasing.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
Hi,

at least,the Fairey and Handley Page are still unknown ?.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
I expect that HP did the same as Avro and concentrated on submitting a project to P.13/36. If Fairey worked on a project, and I am sure they would have given it some thought as they had for B.1/35 and later B.1/39, it would almost certainly have been something like a development of the Hendon.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Hi Supermarine 317, Armstrong Whitworth AW.42 and Boulton Paul P.90.

https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/366-additional-raf-might-have-beens/

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-raf-bomber-b-12-36-boulton-paul-p-90.214853/

B12/36 (OR.40)
Armstrong Whitworth AW.42
Boulton Paul P.90
Short S.29
Supermarine 316/317 & 318
Vickers 293
Bristol B 12/36 later
 

Attachments

  • SupermarineB1236.jpg
    SupermarineB1236.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 402
  • ArmstrongWhitworthB1236.jpg
    ArmstrongWhitworthB1236.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 351
  • Boulton Paul P.90.jpg
    Boulton Paul P.90.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 197

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Hi! Supermarine 316,317 and 318.

http://johnkshelton.blogspot.jp/2012/07/r-j-mitchells-bomber-and-his-death.html

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1510&start=490

http://ru-wunderluft.livejournal.com/310057.html#/310057.html
 

Attachments

  • Supermarine 316.jpg
    Supermarine 316.jpg
    37.1 KB · Views: 218
  • Supermarine 316 planview.jpg
    Supermarine 316 planview.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 224
  • pecD4s5.png
    pecD4s5.png
    28.3 KB · Views: 194
  • 316 picture.jpg
    316 picture.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 171
  • 316 picture2.jpg
    316 picture2.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 136

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212

lucamax

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
41
Website
www.res-aeronautica.com
Dear,
here it is an artist's impression of the Supermarine Type 317.
Source: RAF Bomber Command and its Aircraft 1936 - 1940, James Goulding and Philip Moyes.
Regards.
 

Attachments

  • 12364.JPG
    12364.JPG
    106.8 KB · Views: 148

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Wow beautiful picture.!!
I imagine that Supermarine 317 and 318 were basically same aircraft except engine.
317 : Hercules, 318 : Merlin

What is this??
https://live.warthunder.com/post/424767/en/
 

Attachments

  • Swansea.jpg
    Swansea.jpg
    21.6 KB · Views: 173

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
No,they are not the same,the Type-318 had a single tail fin,and Type-317 had a twin tail fin.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
No Hesham, Blackkite is correct. The project was initiated as Type 316 with a single fin and a choice of engines, including Hercules or Merlin. A few months later this project was completely redesigned with new wings, fuselage and a twin tail, still under Type 316 but subsequently renumbered Type 317 with Hercules engines. Type 318 was Type 317 but with Merlin engines (but I have never seen any Supermarine drawings with the Type 318 number).

Blackkite, that illustration is a piece of 'what-if' fiction that has no connection to any Supermarine design.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Thank you so much schneiderman-san. :D Also Tony-san said so in his great book. ;)
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
Yes it is a great book. I wish he would consider an updated version, there is much that could be added now
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
My dear Schneiderman,

here is a drawing to Type-318 with a single tail fin.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    198.5 KB · Views: 304

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,455
Reaction score
6,108
Schneiderman said:
Hesham, the caption is wrong. The drawing number is 31600, which means that it is Type 316

Schneiderman,

I have also anther drawing to Type-317 with drawing number 31600 Sheet 2,if we take
your theory,it means Type-316 ?!.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
914
Yes, that is what I said on my earlier post.

The design we refer to as Type 317, the one with twin fins, was initially developed as a revision to Type 316. Almost all the detailed drawings of the aircraft they were building still had a 316 number. It isn't clear why they reassigned the project to Type 317 at a later date and not when detailed design started. Under the Vickers drawing number system used by Supermarine drawings were updated using a letter code. So the original drawing would be 31600 sht 2 and the revisions would be 31600 sht 2B, 2C and so on. The legend in the top left corner of the drawing gives the date of the change and a very brief description. For 31600 sht 2 the first revision is dated Feb 1937 and says 'B - redrawn', which indicates that this is the point at which the twin-fin design was adopted. The last revision, 'E', is dated July 1937 and is probably the version of the drawing you mention.

The original Type 316, with single fin, never really got beyond the initial General Arrangement drawing stage (dated Sept 1936). This project was not supported by the Air Ministry so Mitchell had his team undertake a complete redesign following a meeting with the ministry in November. By February 1937 the twin-fin design was submitted and was approved by the Air Ministry. The allocation of Type 318 would have covered the relatively few drawings required to modify the engine mounts, nacelles and associated parts, the remainder of the airframe being unchanged.

EDIT ...it is worth mentioning that this multiple numbering is typical of Vickers and Supermarine projects. For example the Type 236 Walrus would have include parts with drawing numbers starting with 236 and also many with 228 (production Seagull V) and 223 (prototype Seagull V). No doubt there would be others 'borrowed' from other aircraft, maybe some minor components shared with the Southampton or Scapa and hence with drawings starting with their Type number.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Schneiderman said:
Yes it is a great book. I wish he would consider an updated version, there is much that could be added now
Indeed!! ;)

Boulton Paul P.90 and Short Stirling.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-raf-bomber-b-12-36-boulton-paul-p-90.214853/
 

Attachments

  • P_90.png
    P_90.png
    237.9 KB · Views: 228
  • stirling.gif
    stirling.gif
    69 KB · Views: 171

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212

Attachments

  • supermarine-317 mockup.png
    supermarine-317 mockup.png
    238.6 KB · Views: 64
  • 317 prototype.jpg
    317 prototype.jpg
    119.6 KB · Views: 46
  • Page from Supermarine Aircraft Since 1914 showing the completed fuselage prior to its destruct...jpg
    Page from Supermarine Aircraft Since 1914 showing the completed fuselage prior to its destruct...jpg
    320.4 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
https://www.destinationsjourney.com...hotographs/supermarine-type-317-heavy-bomber/

"Supermarine Type 317

In 1936 the Air Ministry issued specification B12/36, its first for a four-engined heavy bomber for the Royal Air Force. Supermarine, among others, were invited to tender a design.

Supermarine’s design, the Type 316, was a single-spar, mid-wing aircraft; the leading edge was swept-back but the trailing edge was straight. Bombs were carried in both the wings and the fuselage and defensive armament was in three turrets. Of the different power plants suggested for the Type 316, there were three of more than 1,000 hp (746 kW): the Rolls-Royce Merlin, the Bristol Hercules radial engine and the Napier Dagger. The aircraft’s estimated maximum speed was between 325 and 360 mph and the estimated cruising speed was 260 mph. The estimated operating ceiling was around 30,000 ft (9,144 m) and range was 3,000 mi (4,800 km).

The different proposals were considered by the Air Ministry in late 1936. The 316 was initially low down in the list of preferred designs but by January 1937 it had been selected as the preferred choice. Both the Air Ministry and Supermarine initiated changes to the design, giving it a larger wing area and a twin tail unit. This revised design was the Type 317 and two prototypes with Hercules engines were ordered on 22 March 1937.

To offer the greater use of possible engines, Supermarine continued with design work for a Merlin engined version – the Type 318. In July 1937 Supermarine were told to stop work on the 318 to concentrate on the 317.

Loss of the Prototype

While still under construction, the two prototypes were lost when the Supermarine Works at Woolston was bombed by the Luftwaffe. This attack on 26 September 1940 also resulted in the loss of the construction plans . The Air Ministry formally cancelled the order in November."

 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
Hi! Another Armstrong Whitworth AW.42 three side view drawing.
http://alternathistory.com/proekty-britanskikh-bombardirovshchikov-spetsifikatsii-b1236-chast-1/
Armstrong Whitworth AW.42
Purpose:
heavy bomber
Power point:
four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines
four Rolls-Royce Vulture
engines four Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound engines
Dimensions:
wingspan 98 ft 0 in (29.9 m)
length 90 ft 0 in (27.4 m)
Weight:
total flight 74,990 lb (34,015 kg)
Flight characteristics:
top speed 370 mph (595 km / h)
Armament:
bomb
41 × 250 lb (113 kg)
41 × 500 lb (227 kg)
7 × 2000 lb (907 kg)
infantry 8 × 0.303 ″ (7.7 mm) machine guns
 

Attachments

  • Armstrong_Whitworth_AW_42-01.jpg
    Armstrong_Whitworth_AW_42-01.jpg
    110.4 KB · Views: 96
Last edited:
Top