British B.12/36 Heavy Bomber Competition ?

[hesham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi,

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

 

[Schneiderman]

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]

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

 

[blackkite]

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

 

[Hood]

Those images would be better with the rest of the series you've posted here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29331.0.html

We seem to have a scattering of Ideal Bomber posts everywhere, we should really try and stick to one consolidated thread.

Split amd merged, thanks for the clue !

 

[blackkite]

Those images would be better with the rest of the series you've posted here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29331.0.html

We seem to have a scattering of Ideal Bomber posts everywhere, we should really try and stick to one consolidated thread.

HmHmHm......Thanks a lot. British aircraft specification naming system is hard for me. ???

 

[lucamax]

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.

 

[blackkite]

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/

 

[hesham]

No,they are not the same,the Type-318 had a single tail fin,and Type-317 had a twin tail fin.

 

[Schneiderman]

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]

Thank you so much schneiderman-san. Also Tony-san said so in his great book.

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes it is a great book. I wish he would consider an updated version, there is much that could be added now

 

[hesham]

My dear Schneiderman,

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

 

[Schneiderman]

Hesham, the caption is wrong. The drawing number is 31600, which means that it is Type 316

 

[hesham]

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]

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.

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Schneiderman.

 

[blackkite]

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/

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Supermarine 317 mockup pictures.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/aircraft-mock-ups.38106/page-31
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/432370-supermarine-type-316-heavy-bomber/

 

[blackkite]

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."

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/supermarineb1236-jpg.587437/

 

[blackkite]

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

 

[PMN1]

Has anything more turned up on the original S.29 proposal that Short submitted?

It was rejected and described as 'a robust design but too near flying boat design'.

Shorts records were destroyed in the war so there is very little on it.

The design changed into the Stirling as we know it.

 

[hesham]

Has anything more turned up on the original S.29 proposal that Short submitted?

It was rejected and described as 'a robust design but too near flying boat design'.

Shorts records were destroyed in the war so there is very little on it.

The design changed into the Stirling as we know it.

My dear PMN1,

as I know,the earlier concept had a shoulder or high-wing,that's in my
files,but I can't remember the source now,need confirm of course ?.

 

[PMN1]

My dear PMN1,

as I know,the earlier concept had a shoulder or high-wing,that's in my
files,but I can't remember the source now,need confirm of course ?.

JustLeo posted this on the AltHistory site a while back, from the description in BSP i can imagine something similar with a wide and deep fuselage.

 

[Schneiderman]

JustLeo posted this on the AltHistory site a while back, from the description in BSP i can imagine something similar with a wide and deep fuselage.

It is likely that their submission to B.12/36 would have shared much of the design philosophy seen in their project for P.13/36

 

[Schneiderman]

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 ?.

Blackburn had tendered a design to B.1/35 but there is no indication in the archive that they did so for either B.12/36 or B.13/36. Probably to preoccupied with current projects and new flying boat designs.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

for Boulton Paul,it submitted a proposal,had a four-seat and powered by two
engines,derivative of P-79.