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

British B.12/36 specification

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
806
Reaction score
261
British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 Tony Buttler

A Design Tender Conference was held in October 1936 and the orders of merit put Vickers (Type 293) first followed by Boulton Paul, AWA, Supermarine and Short Brothers. Shorts’ project was described as ‘a robust effort but too near a flying boat design’. In the event, no immediate decision was taken on prototypes and the discussion continued for another three months. DTD recommend that, if Vickers was held up by Wellington production, Boulton Paul’s P.90 should be accepted which was ahead of the others in terms of easy manufacture.

The Shorts design was their original proposal, not the one we know was accepted while the Vickers Type 293 design employed geodetic construction.

Vickers Type 293

Span 100.0ft
Length 81.6ft
Wing area 1,290 sqft
Engines: 4 Kestrel (297mph at 17,000ft), Taurus (291mph at 17,000ft) or Dagger (297mph at 15,000ft) giving a ceiling 30,000ft – 33,000ft
Bombload: 30 250lb or 500lb bombs or 7 2,000lb


By January 1937 the Supermarine design was favoured and prototypes ordered but Shorts was encouraged to develop their original proposal as an insurance and this became the Stirling as we know it..


If The Vickers 293 had been the insurance aircraft, what does that do for Bomber Command’s and later on Coastal Command’s capabilities assuming the Type 293 replaces the Wellington?
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
617
Reaction score
225
Your Q infers that anything Wallis/Weybridge must prove superior to anything Gouge/Short. Why so? A.M tender evaluators disregarded all bidders' yesterdays, good, bad, indifferent, and addressed dynamics, aero and industrial, of the bids on the table. The Heavy Bomber, as seen in 1936, was Warwick: if T.293 had defeated (to be) Stirling, the RAF of 1940 would have been doubly de-kitted, our enemy doubly comforted. After the debacle of Windsor, when appraising T.660 bid for (to be V-Bombers) in 1947 RAE was lecturing Weybridge on their habit of "over-ambitious fabrication techniques".
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
664
Tenders for this specification I have listed so far:

- Armstrong Whitworth A.W.38 (B.12/36)
- Boulton Paul P.90
- Bristol design,
- Fairey design
- Short S.29 Stirling
- Supermarine Types 316 to 318
- Vickers Type 293
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
Stargazer2006 said:
Tenders for this specification I have listed so far:

- Armstrong Whitworth A.W.38 (B.12/36)

A.W.38? ??? Isn't A.W.38 the Whitley?
 

Bailey

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
308
Reaction score
12
redstar72 said:
Stargazer2006 said:
Tenders for this specification I have listed so far:

- Armstrong Whitworth A.W.38 (B.12/36)

A.W.38? ??? Isn't A.W.38 the Whitley?

The British Specification File gives it as A.W.36?/unnamed proposal, or the A.W.42. Illustration from the same book attached.

Regards Bailey.
 

Attachments

  • AW42.jpg
    AW42.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 156

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
664
Aftersome more investigation, it seems like the B.12/36 four-engine bomber proposal from Armstrong-Whitworth was indeed the A.W.42 and NOT the A.W.36 or A.W.38. The latter was the Whitley, while the former is described as an Army co-operation biplane based on the Atlas II, with new body fairing, wheel spats, and either a Tiger or a Panther engine. I believe therefore that "A.W.36" must be a confusion with "B.12/36".
 

Bailey

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
308
Reaction score
12
Stargazer2006 said:
Aftersome more investigation, it seems like the B.12/36 four-engine bomber proposal from Armstrong-Whitworth was indeed the A.W.42 and NOT the A.W.36 or A.W.38. The latter was the Whitley, while the former is described as an Army co-operation biplane based on the Atlas II, with new body fairing, wheel spats, and either a Tiger or a Panther engine. I believe therefore that "A.W.36" must be a confusion with "B.12/36".

I've just done the same and agree with you. Also of interest is the A.W.43 listed by Oliver Tapper as a four engined monoplane airliner, wonder if it was a development of the A.W.42 of which Tapper makes no mention.

Cheers Bailey.
 

Similar threads

Top