Bristol Beaufighter NF Mk. V; How to Use ‘Good’ Ideas to Ruin an Aircraft
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- When the RAF were trying to figure out the best way to tackle German night bombers, they took a solid aircraft and applied a couple of logical concepts... which ruined it.
Book suggestion: amzn.to/3ykmK3N
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
If I remember correctly in Guy Gibson's "Enemy Coast Ahead" he covered when he temporarily switched from bombers to night fighters. He recounted how when he got there all the pilots were bitching about the Beau (don't know what mark it was). Said it was a terrible plane, almost unflyable etc. Then one day a new Beau was delivered. The pilot did a flyover then executed a perfect landing and taxied to a halt. They all gathered round expecting some ace to step out and were suddenly red faced when the pilot turned out to be a young woman from the Air Transport Auxilary. Apparently the complaints dried up after that!
She probably *was* an ace pilot! The ATA attracted all the top women pilots of the time. Pity the RAF would not let them fly combat.
yes
@@John.0z the definition of ace refers to shooting down at least 5 enemy airplanes in combat... So, no, she could not have been an ace pilot.
She may well have been a skilled pilot, no slight intended against her in particular, or female pilots in general; I'm just talking about the use of the "ace" denomination.
29 Squadron flew NF Mk 1's and the aircraft did have flaws that took a year to fix.
I saw this exact situation in a ‘Commando’ comic 40 years ago
Wartime production - five minute ideas take months to evolve . . . but by then . . .
It's incredible how RAF higher-ups were so fixated with turret fighters, they didn't understand that the simple turrets' weight would've indered aircrafts' performances?
The higher the rank, the less time they had for flying. Let alone getting into an aircraft for combat.
The Beaufighter had problems with its front-heavy weight and dodgy aerodynamics. I suspect putting a turret in the back might have pushed the C of G rearwards, but I'm guessing.
Well for a twin-engine heavy fighter that's operating at night (and thus implicitly *not* having any need to dogfight), there is some logic to it. Lower performance isn't necessarily that big a deal in a night fighter. What I find most mystifying about the Beaufighter Mark V is that they chose the already-unpowered Mark IIF for conversion instead of the Mark IF with Hercules engines.
The merlin had already been tried on the Mk2 & they knew it didn't work. They used 2 Mk2s as Mk5 prototypes because they were available. The point of the Mk5 was the turret which also didn't work.
And the video is about 'ruining' an aircraft with 'good' ideas. They made _two_ prototypes of the Mk 5 for _testing_ to see if it would be more effective; they weren't, so the idea was scrapped. At the time, night fighters were barely starting to be a concept; no one knew what would work well and what wouldn't. Testing concepts and junking them when they fail is hardly "ruining".
Britain was lucky to have two great engine manufacturers in Rolls Royce and Bristol. The Merlin was RR's only successful engine of the war, as the Griffon came too late to make much difference. But there were so many variants of the Merlin, the early types and the later types were virtually different machines. I get muddled with the various types of Bristol engine. I tend to think of them as variants of the same engine, as they are all air-cooled radials. Gladiators, Lysanders and Blenheims had Bristol Mercury engines. Most the other early British bombers had Bristol Pegasus engines. The heavy bombers and Beaufighter had Hercules engines, and sadly the Centaurus came too late to make much difference.
Dear Ed, I built a plastic model of the Beaufighter in the late 50s, early 60s. I read it was originally designed as a night fighter, first such aircraft for the RAF. One keeps reading more. You make excellent presentations but I do note occasional errors in English syntax, pronunciation, ermm ... and I'm a pedantic Irishman.
Dinnae fash yersel as they say in Scotland.
Most enjoyable expositions.
Slante!
☘
I always find it fascinating that the Australian pilots in the AAAF liked this plane much better than the Mosquito. The people who really hated the Beaufighter were the Japanese who called it the 'Whispering Death.'
Funny how the turret/radar idea culminated in the P-61 Black Widow, which was late to the game but pretty effective once it entered the war.
I liked the picture of the radar screen. Could you do more on the Radars used by the RAF, i.e. what did the screen look like how was the information displayed. The little I have seen shows them being radically different to what we think of as a radar screen these days.
It is a L scope (a pair of A scopes). The left shows the range to the target, the right the relative altitude. The relative size of the "horns" shows whether the target is to the left or right. As shown in the video, the target is dead ahead and flying higher.
"A slightly modified version of the K-scope was commonly used for air-to-air and ground-search radars, notably in AI radars and ASV radars - (Air-Surface Vessel). In these systems, the K-scope was turned 90 degrees so longer distances were further up the scope instead of further to the right. The output of one of the two antennas was sent through an inverter instead of a delay. The result was that the two blips were displaced on either side of the vertical baseline, both at the same indicated range. This allowed the operator to instantly see which direction to turn; if the blip on the right was shorter, they needed to turn to the right. These types of displays were sometimes referred to as ASV-scopes or L-scopes, although the naming was not universal"
Another example of Merlins not improving an aircraft is the P-40 models equipped with Merlins. Both engines had single stage SCs. The Allison actually made more power. Plus the Allison was capable of handling insane amounts of boost compared to its rated boost levels. Australian squadrons in the SouthWest Pacific would often run 60 inches or more of manifold pressure.
You must have seen Greg’s video, he casually dismissed the massive performance boost at altitude from the *two speed* supercharger in the Merlin P-40. Greg follows the path that best knocks the Brit’ equipment, I still like and admire his work. He was right about the P-40 (both versions) outperforming the Spitfire Mk V at low altitude.
*_Most_* Seafires, Mosquitoes and Lancasters did perfectly well with single stage, two speed Merlins, they were never going to operate much above 20,000 feet.
60 inches is about +15lbs boost. The Merlin 60 series was cleared for +18, 70 series ultimately +25. The problem was that Merlin P-40s only got the equivalent of 20 series engines with a maximum of +12 in the most highly rated versions. So the issue wasn't the Merlin, just the version provided for the P-40.
@@wbertie2604
See Greg's P-40 video that covers the Merlin vs Allison. I thought it was 60 inches. It may well have been 60 pounds.
The Allison’s didn’t have the turbochargers they were designed for. They died above 13,000 ft.
The only Allison engined production aircraft with the turbochargers they were designed for were the P-38’s.
@@allangibson8494
Allison eventually did design and develop a mechanical second stage supercharger for the V-1710. Only too late to do any good. Plus the finished design was not to compact.
For some perspective I understand there were approx 112,000 Rolls-Royce engines UK built during WW2, and around 100.000 Bristol engines.
I always thought the Merlin powered beaufighter would be quicker than it's Bristol Hercules counterpart for the simple fact it had less drag but apparently I am completely wrong here and chalk one up for a radial (even though the thunderbolt and all the United States navy's fighters of world War II were powered by a radial)
It's a really complex subject - Greg's Airplanes does the most in-depth look at it that I have seen. Liquid cooled inlines need to have coolant radiators and oil coolers which cause drag etc, and usually are heavier units. The other issue - if you look at how far in front of the wing the Merlins extend in Ed's video - is a change to the centre of gravity too; the Merlin powered Wellington had to have some work done to deal with the change of CoG, and looking at the Beau, I bet it really buggered the balance up!
I believe my grandfather flew these, and apparently crashed one into a Welsh mountain... though I've never seen any proof of this...
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> Great video...👍
The beau was definitely a beautiful and deadly aircraft, lots of E-boat captains testified to that, along with several Fw-200 pilots, but why stick a pair of merlins on it? Why not stick 4 merlins in the Sterling? It would have the same performance as its big brother the Lanc? A question my dad often pondered and he was ex-RAF, someone up there in the lofty halls of flight commando had never flown these types so didn't have a scooby doo what was actually a good idea, but, as is often said, if you don't try it, you can't reject it. Thank gawd KG-200 didn't get hold of any beau's, they would have had some fun. Thank you for another cracking insight into a ludicrous idea, maybe that could be a video catalogue for you to put together? What the f*£@ were they thinking? lol
Four merlins wouldnt have done anything for the stirling which was castrated by an air ministry requirement for a wingspan no greater than 100 feet, an extra twelve feet of wingspan would have greatly improved the Stirling
@@chitlika the weird thing is, we have these seemingly bright ideas but the truth is, not knowing the full story is enlightening, thanks fella, i didn't know that. The manchester, didn't that have just 2 engines (again merlins)?
@@bongodrumzz No, Manchester had 2 Vultures (24cyl in X, based on the smaller Peregrine).
Besides that - just sticking on Merlins does not cure other aerodynamical issues or design shortcomings on the Stirling like the bomb bay. In fact, the Stirling's Hercules radials were higher rated than available Merlins could deliver at the time of development.
Perhaps extending the wing span to 110 feet or so may have made it better, but still would not have cured the limited size of individual stores that could fit in the bomb bay (which precluded using the later 1000lb or 4000lb cookies the Lanc could carry).
Was Richard Hillary of "The last enemy" flying the merlin version when he went in?
I will never understand the british obesession the calibre 303.
The 0.50 seem to be a much more reasonable compromise between high rate of fire and punch
It was that the British armaments factories were geared up to produce .303s, and switching to .50 would have taken time.
? The Beaufighter had x4 20mm cannons.
@@JohnyG29 The two converted Beaufighters mentioned in the video also had quad 303 Turrets
In 1939 the UK had only really just ramped up production of Browning 303s. Turrets for 50 calibre guns were being developed, but guns and ammunition would have to be bought for cash from the USA. 20mm cannon were already seen as the ultimate end point for fighters and bombers. Beaverbrook took the decision to deprioritise 50 calibre turrets, to allow existing types to be built quickly. In the end a decision to try 50 calibre ones was made a bit late, in 1943, and few UK 50 calibre turrets made it into service, although Lancasters did get Martin turrets on some marks. The UK turned over a lot of turret development data to the USA which helped the USA development cycle. They should probably have considered adapting more aircraft to US turrets, but it would have been a lot of retooling and redesign to put a Consolidated nose and tail turret from a Liberator onto a Lancaster compared to turrets the British designed to basically drop right in.
@@wbertie2604 Most of the British Turret work done by Fraser Nash. Bolton Paul turrets were copied off the French. British did build their own .50 Cal Turret towards the end of the war, designed by a Compony called Rose & Son's in Lincolnshire. They were fitted to a few Lancaster Squadrons in No. 1 Group and were basically designed for and paid for by Bomber Command directly (Harris and the AOC of 1 Group, Rice). Getting .50 Cal guns in the early part of the war after the USA entered it would not have been easy either.
Wonder what a couple of upward firing cannon 'schrage muzik' style would've done instead
The Merlin Beaufighter was not a success, but it's engine nacelles were used with the redesigned Manchester bomber, which became the Lancaster.
The Germans found an effective solution in their upward firing cannon or Schräge Musik which involved the fighter positioning itself under the bomber and firing into its belly,. RAF aircraft did not have a belly turret.
Nice one edd
Will you cover the Stirling please 👍
Great vid!
0:38 that's a Mitchell.
One wonders how the war had gone, had the mediocre merlin engine of the Spitfire been replaced with the glorious hercules
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Fantastic video! I love your channel, keep up the good work! Can you Please do a video on the Crusader III?
I think the US Navy and Marine Corp made the right choice in choosing the F-4 Phantom II-BUT I think that it would have made a truly
awesome Vietnam era fighter for the USAF (with the carrier equipment removed that is). Thank's Ed.
The good idea fairy sure does have a lot to answer for
The Beaufighter is my favourite aeroplane.
How does that top speed compare to the aircraft it was hunting? German bombers must have been approaching that speed.
The Beaufighter could catch all the German medium bombers. The main advantage of the Mosquito is that is could also intercept the faster fighter bombers the Germans were sending over at night (FW190s, ME410s etc.).
The Beau may have been faster, but by how much? The shorter the interception time, the faster you can deal with one bomber and then go to deal with the next. Therefore, the greater the speed margin between the fighter and the bomber, the better
I had a quick look at the HE111 and Wikipedia gives the speed as 270 mph. It must have been painful to try and catch a bomber with only a 30mph advantage.
@@mattheweagles5123 it depends on height. At some speeds it might have 30mph advantage, at others less or more. It depends on loads carried, paint, dampers, etc. And by 1942, Germany had newer, faster Dorniers and Junkers.
It's too bad the British couldn't have gotten their hands on some P&W R2800s to make up for the lack of Hercules engines.
North American tried P+W R2800s on a B-25, which was originally configured for Wright R2600s. The Company test pilots thought it was great, a real performer. Then an AAF test pilot tried it the next hop. He really liked it, until he flew the wings off the airframe at low altitude, killing himself. After that the project was scrapped. North American designed their next medium bomber around the R2800 -- XB-28 -- which looked suspiciously like the Martin B-26 -- single tail and 4-blade props, and all. Jets, and the War ending killed the XB-28.
It's like the Brits forgot how bad the entire concept of "turret fighter" is and decided to made an even worse version of the Defiant just to re-discover of how bad it is.
But the concept of a turret nightfighter was not bad. Remember the Nazis used upward firing guns later in the war….of course they used cannons…much much more effective.
@@babaganoush6106 Bristol was working on cannon turrets around 1940, but was asked to stop as the war situation required immediate answers. Eventually it did complete the B. 17 turret with 2 20mm cannon for the Lincoln.
You showed several scenes of B25s as Beaufighters
Yes, the australian footage I used was of a joint mission.
Aussies loved beaus 4 pop guns were totally useless, should have used 2 x 50 cals
M3 fifties suck so so much next to any 20mm machine cannon it's still not even comparable at 4-to-1 ratios
The Australians produced a version, The Mk 21 that replaced the 6x.303 machine guns in the wings with 4x0.5 calibre weapons. Add that to the 4x20mm cannons and you have some serous firepower.
They weren't totally useless with incendiary ammo (as proved in the BoB). Anyway, the main armament of Beaufighters was 20mm cannon so I don't get your point tbh.
@@LolTollhurst 50 cals were effect in B-17, had longer range the 20mm cannons apparently. A "rain" of bullets, German pilots stated. they would hide behind their FW-190s large radial engine.
🙏
Beaufighters were excelkent planes but they they dont get the exposure they deserve .
The plural of radar is actually radar.
:)
The video in this is terrible. Place holding, what can I find crap.
One of my teachers at primary school served on Beaufighters in WW2. He once told us that he was only shot at 6 times in the 3 years he flew them. 4 of those occasions was by the Americans. He really disliked Americans.
I guess we should be grateful that these particular Yanks were poor shots?
I had an ex fleet Air Arm pilot as my maths teacher in secondary school. He had flown corsairs in the Pacific during the war. He wasn't a fan of Americans either, he said there aircraft identification skills were crap. And they had a habit of shooting at any planes they saw.
@@jamesdeery5377 And not gotten any better. Remember the British soldiers killed in the first Gulf War because a couple of trigger happy A-10 pilots was so set on getting kills they attacked a British column claiming the were Iraqis. And they were supposed to be experts at vehicle recognition. An RAF Jaguar pilot sent to check flew at a higher altitude and recognised them as British.
You ingrates actually think friendly fire went just one way? Smh
@@davidlee-ln9vh dude.
Americans are famous for it
Great video, but you've got some errors here (3:36) regarding the operation of the MkIV AI set.
It was ground control radar (not the AI set) that got the aircraft to within 3 miles or so of the target, and from that point the radar operator would try and pick up the target on his AI set and guide the pilot to a visual identification (i.e. to within a few hundred yards). The last part was tricky with early sets, and they didn't work at lower altitudes because of ground returns, however this got better with later marks.
The pre magnetron sets had a minimum range far exceeding the maximum visual range so the close approach was blind with the possibility of missing, being seen and fired on and of collision.
oh good god not the turret again...always the turret. no it's not a good idea stop it...get help.
wait .. wait .. the defiant could .... put that gun down stop STOP LOL
@@RemusKingOfRome seems there really were some addicted to the idea
@@mikepette4422 more eyes peering rearwards would have saved many more lives..
The Lancaster BII Bomber had Bristol Hercules VI or XVI engines, instead of the RR Merlin due to limited supply of that engines.
I understood it was more to make sure the plane would work if the supply of Merlins was interrupted?
This has been mentioned in respect of all the Hercules/Merlin replacements, in both directions, on various bombers as well as the Beaufighter.
The high altitude Wellington was an exception. For that the production example had better altitude performance with the Merlin.
Fun fact, Avro took four of the Merlin power egg's (as they were known) off the Beaufighter Mk II and stuck them and a new wing on the Manchester!!! Something very useful came out of the Merlin powered Beaufighter program.
Only 300 of the BIIs were produced (by Armstrong Whitworth) in case of a shortage of RR & Packard Merlins but increased production of RR and Packard Merlins made further production unnecassary.
@@John.0z I understood that to be the case too - as Grahame Pigney notes further down with the B.II Lancaster - that Halifaxes, Wellingtons, and Lancs all had RR and Bristol engined variants to make sure they worked - just in case of supply interruptions.
Actually thought the RAF might be on to something with turreted night fighters. Lock the turret facing forward with the guns elevated. You've got Schrage Musik before the Luftwaffe invented it. Once the concept is proven on things like the Mark V, you substitute a pair of fixed Hispanos for the turret, add the new radar and Bob's Your Uncle!
The Bristol Fighter was very successful in the Great War. The concept performed well with Hawker two-seat fighters in the thirties. Boulton & Paul manufactured two-seat Hawkers under licence during the thirties. The idea of a two-seat fighter which resembled the Hawker Hurricane seemed like a great idea at the time. Keith Park commanded 11 Group during the BoB. He'd been a Bristol Fighter ace during the Great War, and expected better from the Defiant. If Defiants were used in 12 Group instead of 11 Group, they'd have gone up against unescorted bombers as they'd originally been designed to do.
I visited the RAF Museum in Hendon yesterday.
They've got a Beaufighter, a Beaufort and a Blenheim.
Nice.
Reminds me of that captured Spitfire Mk V which was fitted with a DB601 (mounted in the 109G) and outperformed both the original Mk V and the 109G.
The Merlin was a good engine, but it wasn't above all things.
The Me 109G had DB 605. The F had the 601 N.
@@MothaLuva Of course the 605; something has been messed up between my brain and my keyboard ...
The 601N was already mounted on 109E-7
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Yes,,,
Well it was a 35L engine to the Spiffy's 27, sooo.... yeah, that WAS a thing until regular shipments of good American AvGas showed up.
T'was similar with the Meteor & Meteorite subvariants for ground vehicles; the Meteor was apparently great in the A39 Tortoise prototypes (the heaviest UK wartime AFV to reach pre-production), yet fared poorly in the postwar Conqueror Tank, despite the latter being lighter.
Great engine all roubd though, with examples of the Meteor lasting in vehicle service into the mid' 00's.
(when the Royal Navy retired the Centurion BARV)
I'd be interested in a video on early air intercept radars.
5:00 The Defiant was actually the most successful night fighter of the winter of 1940-41.
Good one Ed! Beautiful aircraft.
Beaufighters just don't look right with merlin engines.
I suppose you could build a plastic model of a NF Mk. V by switching the radial engines for a couple of Lancaster engines and sticking on a Defiant gun turret. There you go. A project for rainy days.
Is it just me, or does this particular model also has an extended dorsal fin stretching from the rear canopy all the way to the tail? I don't recall seeing this on regular Beaus
@@Parocha The dorsal fin was a standard directional stability fix for more area ahead of the wing.
The Merlin engines moved the propellers significantly further forward increasing the engine moment arm on failure.
@@Parocha Early Beau's didn't have it (MK I - II), MK VI through to MK X did.
Alan W Hall made a Beau Mk II as one of his projects for Airfix Magazine in the 1960s. He kit bashed many aircraft using mainly Airfix kits. Defiant bits on a Frog Skua to make a Roc, he knocked out a project each month for the magazine.
Always great content. Both the rare airplanes and current military issues. Keep up the great work 👍
Smashing video, and yes, I'd love an video just about the development of AI radar sets either just in WWII or even right up to the present day if that's within your capacity!
Bristol beaufighter had the same engine problem Dutch aircraft manufactures had . Engines that where not available due to export embargos .
Great story. How about a video demonstrating those early radars, gun sights, and bomb sights? How did the crews read the displays? I met a vet who flew Beaus, Mosquitos, and Black Widows in the AAF over Italy. He said the Beau was a tough airplane but with a very sluggish rate of climb. According to him, the Mosquito and P61 were equivalent in effectiveness. The radar on the P61 was very accurate and capable for both air intercept and night attack on ground targets. He never managed an air-to-air kill but did blow up a lot of trains.
What is a P61??
@@mitty76 Northrop P-61 Black Widow. US made twin boom night fighter with 2 Pratt & Whitney R-2800 18 cyl radials.
SCR-720, AKA Air Intercept (AI) Mk 10, Best Night Fighter Radar of the war by a country mile. Fitted to both the P-61 and a lot of the later mark Mosquitos night fighters. One major difference between the SCR-720 and its British Counterparts (AI Mk VII/VIII/IX) was it was a lot easier to operate.
@@MothaLuva And it flew two years after the DH-98.
the aussies loved the beaufighter and the japanese were scared of it
It's pretty weird how people think a switch from radial engines to inline engines is just that easy, Kurt Tank's crowning achievement was switching a radial engine for an inline engine and it came with a ton of revisions and failures, heck, even his original radial engine with aerodynamic cowling was a lemon.
It's just not that easy after you've designed your plane around a type of engine.
speaking of nightfighters, the p-61 would be an excellent subject for one of your characteristic deep dives. there's quite a few good pieces of reading material on it, and I find it to be one of the most unique planes of the war that actually saw service.
To be fair the "Swing" problem was most likely an unpreparedness for the opposite handed prop rotation of the Merlin's. Same problem occurred in Spitfires models fitted with RR Griffons, unfamiliar pilots occasionally forgot which rudder to pre-emptively apply when unleashing the Griffon. Funny how most sources place the Merlin XX output fairly close to the Bristol Hercules. I reckon the Beau pilots had grown too comfortable with the sewing machine quietness of the Hercules and just simply got annoyed at the drone of the V-12's.
Swing is worse with the COG way behind the main gear, one would imagine that the long Merlins would bring the COG forward a bit?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Hadn't thought of that. Didn't know the Beau had an aft COG problem either, or was that the turret weight causing that?
Actually that makes sense, the Merlins are 100kg lighter than the Hercules. Even with the cooling system added the Merlins' probably don't even up the weight difference, and on top of that the turret in the rear 😗.
It didn’t have an aft COG, the gear was _a bit_ forward so that a minor yaw that was not immediately corrected by the pilot, caused the tyres to make _a larger_ side force *forward* of the COG making the yaw even bigger. The yaw had positive feedback and could quickly become uncontrollable. This is one of the nasty drawbacks of having a tail wheel configuration, with a nose gear plane the COG is in front of the main gear so a yaw generates a tyres side force *behind* the COG which opposes the direction of the yaw and the plane easily rolls straight down the runway. Nose gear is not as sturdy, grass airfields were more common in those days.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Yeh actually now that you mention it I have seen a Boeing Stearman and a T-6 seemingly whirl around in roll outs for no apparent reason, although that could have been uneven braking issues.
Brilliant video, articles on the NF.Mk.V are rare to come by, was planning to build a model of this unique Beau, thks Ed, great work!
On the positive side, the cabin heat was 'probably' less lethal, as the Beaufighter had a history of adding engine generated Carbon Monoxide to the cabin heat from one of the Hercules engines. Or did Bristols duct exhaust fumes from the Merlins too?
As a kid, oh so many decades ago, I read "Night Fighter" by C. F. Rawnsley & Robert Wright. I learned to love the Beaufighter, but never heard of this Frankenstein Mk. V. Sometimes Brit boffins best leave well enough alone. Thanks Ed for another great video.
Well, the Yanks gave us the Mustang because their tests showed it to be crap, and so did ours.
Then some boffin thought _"what if we put a Merlin engine in it ?"_
@@massimookissed1023 Mm. Not quite. The Mustang was built for Britain initially; the USAAF evaluated the fourth and tenth production Mustang Is as XP-51s. The original Allison powered Mustang was a dog at higher altitudes, but brilliant on the deck, hence their use for tactical recon. The two stage Merlin transformed it into an excellent all round fighter. But it was never "crap"...and Britain had it first, because they had ordered it. Incidentally the first of the two XP-51s, AAF serial 41-038, survives in the EAA museum in Wisconsin.
Beaverbrooke ordered the Spitfire office to shut-down after his son, a test pilot, flew the Beaufighter, & said it was all Britain needed. *Rare to survive a ditching in a Beau - all the weight's at the front.
Just to add a touch of positivity about our allies; my father was a grenadier signaller at forward observation points. He said that the British artillery scared him as they were accurate to 1/4 mile whereas the Americans were able to fire accurately to 50 yards. Which they did in Cassino when a tank was heard in a house and was immobilised by knocking it onto its side. Of course a lot of this is due to the difference between old tired equipment and brand new.
@@babaganoush6106 - I'd need convincing about that, but to put a dampener on the tale, the US are trigger-happy on the 'mission fulfilment' blue-on-blue like the Brits aren't: 'American Luftwaffe'. Not much old & tried Brit equipment by the time Casino was screwed-up. & then there's the Norden bomb-sight 'pickle barrel' Aesop fable. *Try 'The Guns of War' by George Blackburn, brilliant book (2 books in 1).
This is the same Beaverbrook who is 1939-40 was masterminding the creation of Castle Bromwich for producing Spitfires, right?
@@babaganoush6106 The USA based its command and control for artillery on that of the UK due to both its accuracy and rapidity. When XXX Corps finally got into range of radios in Arnhem (mostly the radios worked - don't believe the movie, the issue was more range and the different networks) the forward observers with the paras were able to direct the guns onto individual tanks attacking the paras. Guns firing from about five miles away. It's very possible that the British units in Italy in that area had worn out guns compared to the US artillery, though.
@@gitfoad8032 ok well you have your mind made up. I just recounted what my father said no probs.
One thing I've never understood about the Beaufighter is why the DAP Beaufort (i.e. the Australian-built version) used the Bristol Hercules engine. The DAP Beaufort used the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp build by GM Holden.
My Dad was RAAF ground staff. Had a strong preference for P&W over Bristol engines. He would agree with you.
You left out 🇦🇺 Australia
That opening picture of the Beau with half a wing is quite something. Assumming that happened in the air and not on the ground. It has always impressed me that the same engine was used in the cavernous Bristol Freighter. Fitted to a much smaller plane they must have been quite lively. A question - the photo at the 3.26 minute mark appears to show a Beau in flight with a raised fillet ahead of the dorsal fin, similar to a P51D mustang. It doesn’t turn up in any other photo, and Ed doesn’t mention it. But might have been tried on one if the Merlin’s caused lateral stability issues
The raised fillet or dorsal fin was used on the last major production variant, the Beaufighter T.F.X. This aircraft passed through several important modification stages without any change in its Mark number. One of these changes was the addition of a large dorsal fin and an increase in elevator area to improve longitudinal stability.
In the early days of nightfighting, the Beaufighter had far more space than the Bleinheim to accommodate the AI radar. I read that its strong forward fuselage saved many a crew who survived while the rest of the 'plane had disintegrated. It lasted a long time. I recall that the last flight was from Seletar...must have been about 1960 or just after.
There's a glimpse of a Beaufighter target-tug in the 1958 film "Ice Cold In Alex" whose location-filming was done in Libya.
They did try to bring in a 'sports Beaufighter' with a skimmed fuselage but it went nowhere. Then was the Beaubomber, leading to the Buckingham and Buckmaster, and the Brigand which sometimes shot itself down. Bristol went through a rough patch after the Beaufighter.
Ladies. Love. Ed. Nash.
Great video, but the the short clip of the B-25s really made me think "Oi! Thats not a sheep! Thats a wolf in Sheeps clothing, that is!"
Good spot ;)
The beau turned out to be the A10 warthog of its day and was a decent twin engined fighter. It was amazingly versatile and with the Hercules engines very reliable.
My grandfather loved flying beaus plane in the Battle of Britain, North Africa and Italy.
The Beau has to be the fastest looking slow plane.
More powerful engines than a mosquito - and a smooth dolphin-like shape.
What was the problem?
Yes strange ,similar to blenheim guess fat planes dont go fast, compared to mossie very fat wings
My Dad was WW2 aircrew. He said when a Beaufighter ditched it was notorious for immediately sinking nose-first all the way down due to the forward weight of the guns and engines.
Had the concept involved an American style ball gunner on the bottom of the airplane, with either a pair of American .50's or adapted to 20mm cannons, I could see this idea working better. Not enough to make it worth pursuing, especially with new Radars coming into service, but still, better than the product was irl.
Beuafighter really didn't like the Merlin. NF Mk II had some very nasty vices like going into an unrecoverable spin if it lost an engine. The Hercules powered NF Mk I was a bit of a handful as well, the Aircraft had marginal stability in yaw, was a handful to fly on one engine and an engine failure on take off was normally followed by a fatal crash. The Mk II was even worse in those regards. The Stability issue was fixed with 12 degree dihedral on the Tailplanes and a 20% bigger fin on the Mark VI.
Anyone else only getting this in 720p at best?
Fantastic channel.
Thanks Ed for the good video, and also the one earlier that was in response to a question i asked you, I find it weird that the beaufighter switched to Merlin’s. For a start , early Halifax bombers were powered by Merlin’s , and I think it was from the mark 3 variant that it was later switch to radials , also some avro lancaster bombers had radial engines installed in them as their was a shortage of suitable Merlin’s (my guess the types being used for heavy bombers). The one thing that I am also aware of the that the Merlin conversion was relatively simple for the beaufighter as it used the similar engine attachments to the avro lancaster , I think.
The larger side area of the Merlin made the stability issue of the Beaufighter even worse, which was only improved in the Hercules variants by the twelve degrees of tailplane dihedral .
The main types of aircraft-engines were incorporated into "power eggs" that made them easy to install/remove. The Germans had the same idea (see "Kraftei")
@@ericadams3428 And a 20% bigger Tailfin in area.
The Beaufighter got the Merlin first. 4 power eggs designed for the Beaufighter ended up replacing 2 Vultures on the Manchester (with a bigger wing).
Ludicrous when you think about it, really, expensive machines to kill fellow man?
Mr Nash: are the Reid and Sigrist R.S.1 and the R.S.3/R.S.4 "Bobsleigh" obscure enough, even as the "Bobsleigh" is still existing at the Newark Air Museum?
I understand that while the RR Merlin powered Beaufighter was indeed considered generally inferior to Bristol Hercules varients flight testing did reveal a slight improvement in pilot visibility, this due to the in-line engine's reduced height. Another disadvantage of the Merlin NF Beaufighter was that in night fighting combat often took place at very close range and concern was expressed that debris from enemy aircraft might be ingested into the Merlin engine's radiator caused damage.
Ah...this plain looks so nice...logic.....👌🙂
Probably not the best of enething......but realy good in everithing👍
This was the A-1 Skyraider or A-10 (Jug 2?) of World War II. The Beaufighter was the big, bad, older brother of the Mossie. I liked what the Aussie's did....kept the four 20mm in the nose but then four .50 cals in the wings. A few hardpoints for extra fuel, rockets, bombs....yeah!
No wonder this plane is Greg's most underrated aircraft of WWII.
Bristol Blenheims were also used as night fighters. They had a three man crew including a gunner. The Blenheim was too slow. I suppose its radar was relatively primitive. The gunner only had one or two guns.
The Mk.IF and IVF were equipped with a belly pack mounting 4x .303 as well.
Even so, the choice for the Blenheim had more to do with the AI sets being rather bulky and power hungry & being the only longer range fighter operationally available.
Fighter conversions were introduced pretty early actually - 600 Sqn RAuxAF being first in 1938 - but as with the bomber versions, they suffered heavy losses over France and the Low Countries.
@@whtalt92 I forgot about the belly pack. It did not look very aërodynamic. I knew the Blenheim bomber crews had a torrid time, having read Blenheim Summer, which was a well written book. Poor buggers!
Two rhetorical questions, was there any aircraft that wasn't either adapted from a Merlin power plant, or to a different power plant after having a Merlin? And how many aircraft could have benefitted from PACKARD Merlins being fitted? I know an old Mustang crew chief who told me their first scrounging priorities was to get a set of ENGLISH spark plugs (legend had it that every mustang flown over (through Canada) had a can of coffee in the storage compartment).
02:26 who wants to hazard a guess at what that mechanics words were at this point of the overhaul...... EDIT: Seems the Bristol Beaufighter became the Bristol Bastard for a short time.
Regarding the standard Beaufighter, I wonder what that glass blister just behind the cockpit is for. Not the navigator's perspex blister, but another just behind the pilot. I suppose it was for the navigator to look through if the pilot needed another pair of eyes, but the navigator would not be able to read his charts. That blister looks like it would slow the Beaufighter down a bit.
Given the Mosquito's performance, one could be forgiven for thinkimg this would work better.
at least a Step in the right direction (Guns n RADAR) much better then the HAVOC MkII Turbinlite.
It seems to me those four turret machine guns firing forward would immediately wipe out the _pilot's night vision._
Whispering death...
Yeah with the hercules
All this could have been avoided if the RAF had just done the obvious and license built the Heinkel He 219.
A eulogy for this little marriage: The good ideas fairy strikes again.
Interesting. I have often wondered why the Beaufighter was so much slower than the Mosquito. They were about the same weight and size but the Mosquito was about 60 mph faster. I thought it might be something to do with the engines, but apparently not.
The mosquito's empty weight was nearly 500kg lighter than the beaufighter's, and the former was way more aerodinamic than the latter.
And the RAAF too. 30 squadron.
Inline engine = good
should be added to war thunder
G'day,
A lot of those "Beaufighters" in the early Clips were B-25 Mitchells, and a Douglas Boston was strafing Lae, too.
Just(ifiably ?) sayin',
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
'WHY?' .. Use 4x .30-cal?!! Really? 2 of .50 cal. would result in a lower, smaller, less-drag Turret, and the Guns would Hit Harder, not in 'lead-weight on-target'. but in Actual Damage Done... Were the Brits that DAFT?
At that point in the war, the US had no 50 calibers to spare to give to Britain. They asked and were told "no". It wasn't until much later in the war that some late models Spits had 2 Hispanos and 2 Brownings in the E wing and the Canadian built Mark X Lancs had a Martin twin 50 upper turret.
"E type
Structurally unchanged from the C wing, the outer machine gun ports were eliminated, although the outer machine gun bays were retained and their access doors were devoid of empty cartridge case ports and cartridge case deflectors. The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits;
2 × 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds-per-gun (rpg) in the outer bays combined with 2 × .50 cal Browning M2 machine guns, with 250 rpg in the inner bays. With of the relocation of the Hispano to the outer gun bay the blisters covering the feed motors were moved outboard on the gun bay doors.
or
4 × 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rpg (this configuration was rarely fitted.)
The 20 mm Hispano cannon were moved outboard and a more effective .50 calibre Browning .50 cal M2/AN heavy machine gun with 250 rpg was added to the inner gun-bay replacing the outer Browning .303s. The first trial installation of the installation (modification 1029) was made in BS118, a Mark XI in November 1943. This armament later became standard for all Spitfire Mk XIVs used by 2 TAF as fighters.[6] The improved armament was more effective for both air-to-air engagements and air-to-ground attacks.
Yep.
.
The Beaufighter Mk II's tendency to "swing on takeoff" is a bit of a myth - If you think about it, why would an aircraft with less engine power swing more? - It's usually the other way around, the more engine power, the more tendency to swing. - In his book "The Merlin in Perspective" (published by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust in 1983) Alec Harvey -Bailey provides the answer. He interviewed Athol McIntyre, a Beaufighter pilot about this issue. The problem was that the Merlin rotated in the opposite direction to the Hercules, which meant the Merlin-powered Beaus swung in the opposite direction, which caught out pilots used to, or trained on, the Hercules-powered ones. Precisely because the Merlin XX produced less power than the Hercules at low altitude it took longer to build up speed on the take-off run, so the airflow over the rudder was less effective at counteracting the swing in the early part of the takeoff. It just needed different handling. Apparently, pilots who were posted onto Beaufighter Mk II squadrons with no previous experience of Beaus had few issues with the swing characteristics, the complaints all came from pilots who had previous experience of Hercules powered ones. The Merlin XX did produce more power than the Hercules at high altitude, having a much more effective supercharger, but the Beaufighter with its thick wings (a legacy of its development from the Beaufort) did not have the aerodynamics to fully take advantage of that, unlike the thin-winged Mosquito.
The reason for the change to Merlins was because the Bristol works were badly damaged in an air raid. The Beaufighter was considered an essential type so they tried Merlins which were in full production in various locations. Bristol engine works were soon back in production and so they were quickly changed back to Hercules engines. Merlins proved to be a disaster in a few aircraft including the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley and the Halifax Mk1, great engine of course but they didn't work on everything, especially on slower aircraft where they suffered from overheating.