It’s time for another episode of /k/ Planes! This time, we’ll be looking at the bombers of the Royal Air Force.
As one of the world’s first air forces, the British Royal Air Force would have a long and influential career in bomber development. Getting its start with the Royal Flying Corps in WW1, early doctrine centered on the use of light bombers for tactical duties. However, by the time the RFC became the RAF in 1918, the utility of multi-engined strategic bombers had been realized. Through the interwar period, the RAF would come to operate a wide variety of bombers, holding onto the concept of light bombers far longer than many other nations (most of which who shifted the role off to fighter-bombers, heavy fighters, and attack aircraft). As a new war loomed, the RAF would procure a new generation of heavy bombers, giving them one of the most potent bombing forces in the world. While tactical bombing was passed off to American-built medium bombers and even fighters, the RAF’s heavy bombers - all flying at night due to heavy losses experienced in daylight raids - would be a devastating force. Unfortunately, the RAF bomber force rapidly declined postwar. Only a single generation of jet bombers would take shape in the postwar period, with the aircraft being rapidly outpaced by Soviet air defenses and the development of ballistic missiles. Unlike the US or USSR, the British lacked the funds to keep a massive nuclear deterrent of both missiles and bombers active, so the RAF’s bomber force gave way to the Royal Navy’s ICBMs and a new generation of tactical strike aircraft.
>>30155680
The Royal Aircraft Factory’s B.E.2c biplane would be the first domestically produced aircraft to serve as a bomber with the RFC. First flown in 1912, the B.E.2 was designed as a general-purpose aircraft. Large numbers were sent to France with the British Expeditionary Force in 1914, though these were primarily early variants that were rapidly replaced once more modern aircraft became available. By the end of 1914, the B.E.2c would begin reaching frontline units, providing the RFC with a robust and reliable aircraft to perform operations. The B.E.2c was a simple two-seat tractor biplane that was generally stable and easy to fly, making it a prime choice for combat roles. Initially, the B.E.2c was used for reconnaissance, carrying a camera off the side of the fuselage to be operated by the observer. However, it would gradually take on bomber roles as well.
>>30155687
Though the B.E.2c would prove capable of carrying bombs, it was hardly a practical arrangement. To operate as a bomber, the aircraft had to fly without its observer, and endurance was limited. Unfortunately, the modest performance of the B.E.2c was quickly found to be a liability after the appearance of the first German fighters. Though the B.E.2c could be fitted with a defensive gun, the placement of the observer ahead of the pilot and under the wing limited its usefulness, and, unsurprisingly, losses mounted. Despite the heavy losses to German fighters, the B.E.2c persisted in frontline roles. The arrival of new fighters would allow the B.E.2 to fly in safer skies, and the newer B.E.2e variant promised to address some of the design’s shortcomings. This resurgence was short-lived, however. A new generation of German fighters arrived over the front in the Spring of 1917, leading to the highest losses yet experienced by B.E.2 crews. Though plans had called for the R.E.8 and F.K.8 to replace the B.E.2 on the front by early 1917, crews suffered in the obsolete aircraft until the middle of the year.
>>30155698
One of the first bomber aircraft to operate with the Royal Flying Corps would be a pre-war design from the French manufacturer Farman. The MF.11 was a simple two-man sesquiplane pusher design, powered by a 100hp Renault engine and fitted with a single machinegun in the forward cockpit. Originally designed for reconnaissance, it would occasionally mount a small payload of eighteen 16lb bombs on underwing racks. In the first years of the war, the MF.11 saw considerable use, with an RNAS MF.11 making the first bombing raid of the war on December 21, 1914. Though the MF.11 was quickly made obsolete and withdrawn from the Western Front in 1915, it continued to serve on in tertiary theaters. 13 RFC squadrons would fly the MF.11, operating them over the Dardanelles, Africa, and Middle East. In these theaters, the MF.11 would persist until 1916, though, with its modest payload, their bombing missions were unsurprisingly not too decisive.
>>30155706
In 1915, Martinsyde had developed a large single-engined tractor aircraft intended to serve as a long-ranged fighter and scout. Though it carried only a single pilot, it had an unusual armament scheme, with a Lewis gun mounted firing forward on the upper wing and a fixed rear-facing Lewis gun aft of the cockpit. The G.100 would first fly in 1915, but by the time it was introduced in 1916 it was determined to be too large and unwieldy to serve as a fighter. Instead, the aircraft entered service in mid 1916 as a bomber. In the bomber role, it performed reasonably well. It could carry up to 260lb of bombs or cameras for reconnaissance, and, with a long range and endurance, it was fairly successful in both of these roles. However, production was limited to just 270 aircraft, so service was limited. They flew only in France and the Middle East, and only one squadron would be fully equipped with the type. Service was brief, and by the end of 1917 the G.100 had left service.
>>30155714
In 1915, Short began work on a long-ranged land-based aircraft for the Admiralty. Developed from the successful Type 184 seaplane, the Bomber would incorporate the fuselage of the 184 with larger wings developed from the Type 166. As originally designed, the crew of two sat in tandem with the observer sitting ahead of the pilot so as to allow him to operate a gun mounted on the upper wing. However, later production aircraft would use a more practical layout with the pilot sitting further forward with the gunner operating a Lewis gun mounted on a Scarff ring. Designed primarily for endurance, the Bomber’s payload was modest at just eight 112lb bombs. Initial testing in 1915 revealed the Bomber was unable to carry the originally specified payload, so Short extended the wings by 12ft. Orders for 80 aircraft were placed, with the first Bombers entering service with the RNAS in late 1916. Though the Bomber would see most of its use by the RNAS, small numbers were also operated by the RFC. The RNAS would make several cross-channel raids into Belgium with the Bomber, but the RFC’s Bombers seem to have had considerable less use. Ultimately, both services would retire the Bomber by mid 1917, as it was determined to be underpowered and vastly outperformed by the Handley Page Type O.
>>30155723
In 1915, the Royal Aircraft Factory produced an improved variant of their R.E.5 spotter. Designated R.E.7, it was intended to be a larger machine capable of carrying a useful combat payload. The R.E.7 was similar in design to most other two-seater tractor biplanes, with crew in tandem open cockpits and a single machinegun provided for defense. Racks were placed under the wings, allowing the bomber to carry a single 336lb bomb or up to 324lb of smaller bombs. The R.E.7 began testing in 1915 and was in France by 1916. Original plans called for the R.E.7 to serve as an escort for other aircraft, but the poor field of fire of the gun limited its usefulness in that role. However, it did prove an effective bomber for some time. Unfortunately, by mid 1916, the R.E.7’s brief peak had ended and the aircraft’s losses were already mounting. The bomber’s low speed and flight ceiling left it vulnerable, and, as losses rose, the R.E.7 was withdrawn from combat roles by the end of 1916.
>>30155730
The preeminent British bomber of the war would have its origins in late 1914, when the Admiralty began looking into developing a long-range bomber capable of hitting the German High Seas Fleet base at Kiel. Handley Page proposed a large landplane to meet the requirements under the internal designation Type O/100. The Type O/100 was to be a massive biplane powered by two 150hp Sunbeam engines with a payload of six 100lb bombs. The design was approved for full development in early 1915, though the design was revised to mount more powerful Rolls Royce Eagle engines. The design that took shape by the end of the year was surprisingly modern, with sleek, streamlined nacelles, a massive sesquiplane wing, and propellers that rotated in opposite directions to avoid adverse torque effects. As originally designed, it had an enclosed cockpit with just a single gun installed for defense. Instead, the bomber would rely on heavy armor to protect its crew.
>>30155738
The Type O/100 flew for the first time in December 1915, but testing quickly revealed numerous control and vibrational problems. A second prototype, flying in April 1916, revised the design with an open cockpit and longer nose that added a gunner’s position, as well as reduced armor. Vibrational and stability problems persisted, however, forcing the evolution of the design through two more prototypes. The ultimate design would feature a total of four defensive gun positions in nose, waist, and ventral positions, uprated Eagle engines, enlarged fuel tanks, and the elimination of all armor. More notably, it carried a mechanical bombsight, making it one of the first bombers to do so.
>>30155744
The first Type O/100s reached RNAS service at the end of 1916. Their first combat sorties came in March of the next year, where they were used against targets in Belgium. They started with daylight raids, but after heavy losses to enemy fighters, RNAS Type Os transitioned to night bombing. The success of the type in RNAS service caught the attention of the RFC, who procured the type for themselves as well. The arrival of the new Type O/400 with uprated engines and an improved payload capacity provided the RNAS and RFC with the most potent Allied bombers of the war. 10 RAF squadrons would come to fly the Type O/400, making it into service just in time to be thrown into action against the German Spring 1918 Offensive. The Type Os also were committed to the strategic bombing effort of the Independent Air Force in the final months of the war. Unfortunately, despite the Type O’s capabilities, its postwar career was brief. The RAF decided to standardize the bomber inventory around the Vickers Vimy at the end of the war, so by the end of 1919 all Type Os had been retired.
>>30155750
Armstrong Whitworth’s first dedicated bomber aircraft, the F.K.8, would be a single-engined reconnaissance bomber developed as a replacement for the B.E.2c and F.K.3 reconnaissance aircraft. The F.K.8 was a sturdy design powered by a 160hp Beardmore water-cooled engine and fitted with a single machinegun for defense. The crew of two sat in separate cockpits, each fitted with controls, and racks for up to 260lb of bombs were fitted. The prototype F.K.8 first flew in May 1916, ultimately receiving a modest production order for 50 aircraft. Production aircraft added a single Vickers gun synchronized to fire through the propeller. However, numerous teething problems were found. The first aircraft delivered to France were often fitted with French interrupter gears owing to flaws in the Armstrong Whitworth system, and the weak undercarriage was regularly replaced in the field with more robust systems from other aircraft.
>>30155755
The F.K.8 would grow to be a popular aircraft, with orders ballooning to over 1,500. They would go on to serve in France, Macedonia, and Palestine, where they proved more popular than the Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 they were developed alongside. Though primarily used for reconnaissance, they did see significant use as light bombers. Unusually, though configured with controls like many trainers, the F.K.8 remained purely a combat aircraft through the end of the war. The RFC planned to replace both the F.K.8 and R.E.8 with a variant of the Bristol Fighter, but that variant never materialized and the F.K.8 persisted to the end of the war. However, the postwar drawdown would see the F.K.8 rapidly phased out of service. Many squadrons were withdrawn before the end of 1918, and the last operational F.K.8 squadron - 150 Squadron - was disbanded in September 1918.
>>30155760
In 1915, the Royal Aircraft Factory began work on a successor to the B.E.2 under the designation R.E.8. The R.E.8 was another two-man tractor biplane design like most light bombers. While it generally retained most design elements of later B.E.2s, it mounted a much more powerful engine, vastly improving performance. The R.E.8 also made use of an improved crew layout, which put the observer/gunner behind the pilot, and, with the added power afforded by the new engine, the R.E.8 could carry a synchronized gun and a considerably larger payload. The first prototype flew in June 1916, with a second prototype sent to France the next month for service trails. With service trails going well, the type was rushed into production.
>>30155764
The first R.E.8s reached frontline units in France in November 1916. Unfortunately, the R.E.8 soon gained itself a reputation for being difficult to fly. It had a higher landing speed than the B.E.2s it replaced, which led to many accidents during transitions to the new type, and the aircraft gave almost no warning of stall, which cost the lives of several crews. Nevertheless, the R.E.8 was performing well with experienced crews, so production continued. The R.E.8’s debut would be less than auspicious. Making its operational debut in April 1917, their first operations coincided with what was known as “Bloody April,” where all RFC units suffered painfully high losses. Loss rates would drop as training improved an air superiority was regained, but the R.E.8 would never shake its unfortunate reputation it gained.
>>30155769
Though the R.E.8 was never too popular with crews, it did prove to be an effective aircraft. 18 RFC squadrons were flying the R.E.8 by 1917, becoming the mainstay of the RFC’s reconnaissance and light bomber force. Despite underwhelming performance, they managed to rack up an impressive score of victories, with 3 Squadron alone credited with 50 victories in 12 months of operations. Though the RFC planned to replace the R.E.8 with a variant of the Bristol Fighter by the end of the war, these plans fell through. Instead, one more operational squadron joined the R.E.8 fleet in 1918, sticking around until the end of the war. Despite its fairly good career in the war, however, it was quick to leave service after the Armistice. Now considered obsolete and surplus to requirements, R.E.8s were rapidly retired after the end of the war.
>>30155771
In 1916, Airco opted to produce a private venture design pitched to the War Ministry as a long-range bomber for hitting German industrial targets. Designed by Geoffrey de Havilland, who leveraged on experience working with the Royal Aircraft Factory, the DH.3 was a conventional two-bay biplane fitted with two 120hp Beardmore engines in a pusher arrangement between the wings. The bomber carried a crew of three, complete with two Lewis guns for defense and provisions for up to 680lb of payload. The first prototype, completed in 1916, was followed up by the DH.3A, which mounted 160hp engines. Unfortunately, the DH.3 would fall victim to biases within the War Ministry. The War Ministry saw no use in the strategic bombing mission the DH.3 was designed for, and any hopes for the type being ordered for tactical duties were dashed by the feeling among the War Ministry that twin-engined bombers were impractical.
>>30155777
Parallel to the development of the ill-fated DH.3, Airco also had de Havilland working on a conventional single-engined bomber under the internal designation DH.4. At a glance, the DH.4 was unremarkable, being a conventional two-seat tractor biplane designed around a 160hp Beardmore engine. However, during development, the 200hp Beardmore B.H.P engine became available just as the prototype for the new aircraft was completed, so the DH.4 would be flown with the newer, more powerful engine instead. Taking flight in August 1916, the DH.4 performed respectably, demonstrating a good top speed and climb rate while being able to carry up to three machineguns (one synchronized, two defensive) and an external payload of up to 460lb of bombs. A second prototype, mounting the even more powerful Rolls-Royce Eagle, soon followed the first aircraft and went on to form the basis of the production design.
>>30155785
Unfortunately, though the DH.4 had been ordered into production, it would be hampered by a shortage of Eagle engines. To get the bombers to the front in a timely manner, Airco looked at reverting back to the original B.H.P engine before settling on three engines - the Royal Aircraft Factory RAF3A, Siddeley Puma, and 260hp Fiat. While these powerplants would allow the DH.4 to reach service, none of the powerplants offered anywhere near the performance of the Eagle. 55 Squadron would be the first to convert to the DH.4 in January 1917, deploying to France in March of that year. The DH.4’s combat debut came that April over Arras, where the type distinguished itself. Though its modest numbers hardly made a decisive impact, 55 Squadron was notably spared the carnage inflicted on the rest of the RFC aircraft participating in the battle. Thanks to its excellent speed and climb rate, the DH.4 was largely able to evade interception in these early operations.
>>30155789
DH.4 numbers gradually grew through 1917, peaking at the end of the year with six squadrons flying with the RFC and several more with the RNAS. The bomber grew to distinguish itself in combat, consistently showing itself to be agile enough to operate without fighter escort. Flaws were found in the design, however, mostly in the crew arrangement that placed the crew far from eachother in separate cockpits, making communication difficult. Though the DH.4 had proven itself in 1917, the development of the DH.9 caused the RFC to start drawing down the bomber by early 1918. Production lines switched over to the more promising DH.9, while engine shortages on the front gradually forced operational squadrons to stand down. Nevertheless, the DH.4 would persist thanks to the disappointing performance of the DH.9. Though the Liberty-engined DH.9A would solve the problems of the DH.9, it came late enough in the war that the DH.4 would never be completely retired before the Armistice. In fact, 55 Squadron would even be deployed as part of the Independent Air Force in June 1918 to perform daylight strategic raids into Germany, ending the war as the only day-bomber squadron in the IAF that didn’t have to stand down due to attrition. The last major use of the RFC’s DH.4s came after the Armistice, where the bombers were used as liaison aircraft for the Paris Peace Talks.
>>30155797
Though in its early career it had served as a fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, the F.E.2b would live out the end of the war as a night bomber. The two-man pusher-engined fighter had long since lost the advantage it held in the days of the Fokker Scourge, but the aircraft was hardly useless, so the RFC decided to repurpose it for night bombing. Capable of carrying up to 517lb of bombs, the F.E.2 would find new life in the night bomber role. The first night raid was conducted in November 1916, and in February of the next year the first specialist squadron was formed. Though such raids were purely tactical ventures, it became a popular practice. 860 F.E.2s were either built as or converted to the night bomber standard, and a total of eight squadrons would come to fly the night bomber variants. By the end of the war, F.E.2bs were even flying strategic missions with the Independent Air Force.
>>30155805
Following the success of the DH.4, de Havilland went to work on creating an updated version addressing the flaws of the design. Designated DH.9, the new aircraft retained the wings and tail of the DH.4, but revised the fuselage and engine. A new crew layout put the crew close together and placed the fuel tank away from the crew, and the promising new BHP/Galloway Adriatic engine was selected to keep the DH.9 competitive. The design caught the attention of the RFC very early on. Owing to the excellent projected performance of the type and ease of converting production lines of existing DH.4s to the new bomber, the RFC placed an order for nearly 5,000 DH.9s in mid 1917 before the bomber had even flown.
>>30155825
Unfortunately, when the DH.9 did finally fly in July 1917, it ran into major problems. The engine the bomber was designed around - originally rated at 300hp - was unreliable and ultimately de-rated to 230hp. The drop in power drastically cut performance, so much so that the DH.9 was actually outperformed by the very aircraft it was to replace. Nevertheless, orders were already being filled, so Airco scrambled to find adequate replacement engines. Deliveries to frontline units began in November 1917, with the DH.9 seeing its first combat in March of the next year. Unsurprisingly, the aircraft’s service was disastrous. Despite derating the engine for increased reliability, the DH.9 suffered from continuing engine failures, and its inadequate performance saw further aircraft lost to enemy action.
>>30155835
Despite a disastrous debut over Europe, the DH.9 would perform better in other theaters. 13 squadrons were kept at home (compared to nine in France) for antisubmarine patrols, and several others were deployed to the Middle East, where their long range made them useful in the clearer skies of the region. Ultimately, despite the disastrous debut of the DH.9, the production run was never cut. 3,204 were delivered by the Armistice, and by the time production had finally been halted by postwar drawdowns, 4,091 DH.9s had been built. However, the massive drawdown at the end of the war meant that the sub-par bomber was no longer necessary, so the DH.9 fleet was rapidly retired. Most of the last 800 DH.9s produced rolled straight from the factory to storage, and by July 1919, the last DH.9s had been struck from the RAF inventory.
>>30155840
In 1917, Vickers began work on a new bomber to meet an RFC requirement for a twin-engined night bomber capable of hitting targets in Germany. Design work went quickly, with the bomber receiving a contract for three prototypes in August 1917 as the Vimy. The Vimy was an overall unremarkable bomber for the time, powered by two Hispano-Suiza 8 engines between the wings and fitted with Lewis guns in nose and dorsal positions for defense. Taking flight in November 1918, the bomber performed well enough to receive orders totaling 776 aircraft by war’s end. However, Vickers ran into supply difficulties with the new engine, delaying production while alternative powerplants were examined. Ultimately, variants were developed with the BHP Puma, Liberty, and Rolls-Royce Eagle engines, but by the time this was settled, the war was almost over.
>>30155852
Ultimately, only three Vimys had been delivered to the RAF by the end of the war. At the end of the war, orders were slashed, with only the Eagle-powered Vimy orders remaining. A total of 239 Vimys would be built, with the bomber finally reaching operational service in July 1919. Fortunately, despite a late debut, the Vimy managed to be selected as the RAF’s standard bomber of the immediate postwar period. 11 squadrons would come to fly the Vimy, with deployments concentrated in the Middle East and Britain. They began to leave frontline roles in 1925, when they were replaced by the Vickers Virginia. However, in reserve and training units, the Vimy stuck around well into the next decade, with the final training aircraft not leaving service until 1938.
>>30155858
Though Airco’s first twin-engined bomber was rejected by the War Ministry, the onset of the German bombing campaign against England saw a sudden reversal of policy. In August 1917, the Air Board hastily ordered production of three new Airco bomber prototypes based off of the DH.3 but fitted with more powerful engines. By October, the design had taken shape as the DH.10, which boasted a similar appearance, but made use of the 230hp Siddeley Puma engine. First flying in March 1918, the bomber demonstrated poor performance. Owing to these issues, de Havilland conducted a radical redesign. The 360hp Rolls Royce Eagle engine mounted in a tractor configuration was substituted, finally meeting specifications. Unfortunately, the Eagle was already in use by countless other designs, so the bomber was designed once more to use the ubiquitous 400hp Liberty 12 engine from America. Following successful evaluation of this final design, orders for 1,291 DH.10s were placed.
>>30155871
Unfortunately, the production delays would prevent the DH.10 from seeing any significant service. The first DH.10s were delivered to France only in September 1918, and the first and only combat sortie came the day before the Armistice. Following the Armistice, orders were slashed, and production ended with a little over 250 DH.10s built. Though many would go into squadron service, their career would be brief. 120 Squadron served out its career ferrying mail from Britain to the British occupation zone in the Rhineland, and 216 Squadron flew Cairo-to-Baghdad mail routes. The only squadron to actually see any combat use would be 97/60 Squadron, which supported ground troops in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. Most DH.10s were retired and sold off by the end of 1922.
>>30155877
As Airco scrambled to find a suitable engine for the struggling DH.9, America had entered the war, opening up the possibility of using the 400hp Liberty engine. Airco themselves were occupied with design work on the DH.10, so the project was passed off to Westland. Westland reworked the design to accommodate the larger engine, test flying a DH.4 with the Liberty in October 1917. However, it took time for adequate supplies of Liberty engines to reach Britain, so, when the first DH.9A prototype flew in March 1918, it was actually fitted with a Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII - a powerplant that had previously been rejected due to shortages of the type. Apart from the new engine, the DH.9A also incorporated several improvements to the airframe. The wingspan was increased by 12%, while the structure of the fuselage was refined to strengthen it. Testing of the DH.9A went well, and orders totaling 2,250 aircraft would be placed.
I can feel the education entering my brain.
>>30155888
The DH.9A reached service in July 1918 with 110 Squadron, which deployed to France at the end of August, where it served as a strategic bomber with the Independent Air Force. The first combat mission came in September 1918, where the bombers hit a German airfield. By the end of the war, a total of four squadrons would be flying the DH.9A, while 885 DH.9As had been completed. Unfortunately, despite significantly improved performance over the DH.9, the DH.9As still suffered heavy losses on their daylight raids. In the two months they operated over Germany, they suffered the loss of 17 aircraft to enemy action and a further 28 in accidents.
>>30155894
Though the end of the war saw production of most aircraft cut, the DH.9A would have 1,730 of the originally ordered 2,250 filled following the Armistice. The DH.9A would grow to be the RAF’s standard light bomber of the early interwar period, flying with 24 squadrons to 1931. Their first major deployment came in 1919, when they were deployed to Russia in support of the White Army around Crimea in the Russian Civil War. Five squadrons were also deployed to the Middle East, where they were used to suppress rebels in the occupied former Ottoman territories. Though the DH.9A was gradually eclipsed by other light bombers, it remained a popular machine due to its reliability. As they were replaced in frontline units by more modern types, they were withdrawn to domestic squadrons before finally being shifted to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as the first aircraft of the force. There, they remained in service until 1931.
>>30155906
In 1917, the British Air Board set out requirements for a long-range bomber with a longer range than the Handley Page Type O already in service while carrying a 3,000lb payload. With the most experience with heavy bombers, Handley Page unsurprisingly won the competition with their V/1500 design. The V/1500 carried over many elements of the Type O - particularly the fuselage - but it had much larger wings and four engines in push-pull nacelles. It would carry a crew of up to nine, with defensive guns in nose, dorsal, and tail positions. Payload was up to 7,500lb of bombs carried in an internal bay. The first V/1500 took flight in May 1918, and very quickly orders were placed for a total of 210 bombers.
>>30155916
Though the first V/1500s reached their units in October 1918, their first mission wasn’t scheduled until November 8. Plans called for the bombers to hit Berlin before flying on to Prague (the Austrians had surrendered by then) to refuel and rearm, allowing them to hit Dusseldorf on the return flight. Unfortunately, the mission would never be flown. A series of engine changes delayed the mission until November 11, and, as the bombers were about to take off, they were halted due to the Armistice being declared. Because of the end of the war, production was cut to just 60 aircraft. Though the bomber would be the largest Entente aircraft to see service in the war, the V/1500’s operational use was fairly disappointing. The only actual combat use of the V/1500 came in the Third Anglo-Afghan War, where a single bomber hit the palace at Kabul with four 51kg bombs. There were plans to use the fleet to break several records, including making the first transatlantic flight, but these plans never panned out. In the end, the modest V/1500 fleet would be replaced by the considerably smaller Vickers Vimy.
>>30155925
With the establishment of the Independent Air Force, Bristol was commissioned to create a new long-range bomber capable of hitting cities deep behind the front lines. Contracted as the Braemar, the new bomber was a large four-engined triplane with internal bomb bays for up to six 250lb bombs. Original plans called for the engines to be carried in the fuselage and geared out to propellers in the wings, but this was abandoned in favor of a far less complex push-pull mounting for the four engines in the wings. The first prototype Braemar flew in August 1918, powered by four 230hp Siddeley Puma engines. After showing generally good performance, a second prototype was built with minor improvements to the fuselage and more powerful Liberty engines. Unfortunately, this second prototype didn’t fly until early 1919, by which time the war was already over. Though the Braemar was promising, the postwar drawdown led to the cancellation of the development program.
>>30155986
In 1918, the Air Ministry decided to begin development of a replacement for the DH.10 medium bomber before it had even entered service. Owing to the promising development of the new ABC Dragonfly radial engine, Type IV and VI specifications issued for the new bomber would require designers to make use of the new powerplant. The specifications saw a fair amount of interest, with Sopwith, Airco, Avro, and Boulton Paul all submitting proposals for relatively modest biplane bombers. In parallel, specifications for a night bomber were released with similar requirements, to which Nieuport responded. Unfortunately, the whole program would fall apart for a number of reasons. The end of the First World War saw the RAF reevaluate their needs, leading to the decision that the Vickers Vimy could meet RAF requirements in the immediate postwar period. Thus, most contracts were cancelled soon after the Armistice, and, though all competitors still did fly prototypes in hopes of attracting a production order, the complete failure of the ABC Dragonfly led to the abandonment of all the bombers.
>>30155995
For the new bomber requirements, Avro developed an aircraft out of their failed Type 523 anti-zeppelin aircraft evaluated by the Admiralty. The Manchester, as it became known, shared the general layout used by most bombers of the time, with a three-man crew protected by two machineguns in nose and dorsal positions and engines mounted on either side of the fuselage. Original plans called for the Manchester to mount the ABC Dragonfly engine as per specifications, while payload was to be 880lb of bombs in an internal bay. Unfortunately, sluggish development of the Dragonfly engine meant that the first Manchester to fly would actually mount 300hp Siddeley Puma engines. Testing began in December 1918, and it wasn’t until a year later that a prototype was flying with the Dragonfly engines. However, the postwar drawdown eliminated the need for the new bomber, and, as the Dragonfly engine proved to be a failure, Avro abandoned development mid-testing. All prototypes, including a third aircraft yet to mount any engines, were scrapped.
>>30156002
Airco’s proposal to meet the new bomber requirements would be another design from de Havilland. The DH.11 shared the layout of Airco’s previous twin-engined bombers, with an internal bomb bay and crew of three, but it made use of a deeper fuselage that spanned the entire interplane gap. Powered by two ABC Dragonfly engines as per specifications, the DH.11 was to carry a payload of up to 1,000lb of bombs. While defensive armament remained the same as Airco’s earlier bombers - just two machineguns - their field of fire was considerably improved by the new fuselage. Unfortunately, when the ABC Dragonfly proved to be a failure in 1918, work was temporarily suspended. Airco tried to rework the design with less powerful and heavier Siddeley Puma engines, but ultimately settled on the unreliable and underpowered Dragonfly. The DH.11 would finally fly for the first time in January 1919, demonstrating poor stability and handling. Testing continued for a short period until a structural failure forced the aircraft to be sent back to the factory for repairs. Unfortunately, as the DH.11 was undergoing repairs, the whole program was cancelled due to postwar budget cuts.
>>30156015
One of two triplane bomber design submitted would be Sopwith’s Cobham. The Cobham was another all-wood three-man design, differing from the other proposals submitted primarily in the extra wing. An internal bomb bay carried up to three 250lb bombs, while two Lewis guns were mounted in dorsal and nose positions for defense. Three prototypes were ordered. The first prototype was completed in December 1918, but because the Dragonfly wasn’t available yet, Siddeley Puma engines were substituted. With the new engines, the Cobham made its maiden flight in April 1919. Flight testing continued into 1920, with further prototypes mounting uprated Puma engines and newly arrived Dragonfly engines. However, the Dragonfly proved heavier than expected, forcing a major redesign of the wing structure. Ultimately, testing didn’t last long. The two Dragonfly-powered prototypes were scrapped when Dragonfly development halted in September 1920, and the final prototype would cease testing in late January 1921.
>>30156022
Boulton Paul’s contender, the P.7 Bourges, was a fairly unremarkable all-wood design. Defensive armament was two Lewis guns in nose and dorsal positions, while the aircraft was manned by a crew of three. The bomb bay was split into three compartments by structural members, creating three separate cells that had a total capacity of 900lb. Three prototypes were ordered by the Air Ministry. Unfortunately, delays in development of the originally specified Dragonfly engine meant that Boulton Paul would be forced to substitute the far less powerful Bentley BR2 rotary engine for the first prototype. The Bourges would first fly in June 1919, with Dragonfly engines being fitted the next month. The Bourges did demonstrate excellent performance with the new engines, reportedly being able to perform a loop. The excellent performance was apparently enough to warrant further development. A second prototype was fitted with a gull wing to improve the gunners’ field of fire, and in 1920 a third prototype was built. Though the Dragonfly engine had since proved a failure, the Bourge would continue to fly, this time powered by 450hp Napier Lion engines. Unfortunately, while the Bourges continued to prove successful, the RAF had since abandoned the requirement for the new bomber. The prototypes would serve on as test aircraft at the Royal Aircraft Establishment until 1924, but no production order was ever placed.
>>30156035
The second triplane design submitted to the new specifications was the Nieuport London. Designed to meet the night bomber requirements, the London was the most unique of the Dragonfly-engined bomber designs. Consisting primarily of wood, the bomber featured two-bay unstaggered wings with ailerons fitted to every wing. Payload was heavy, with internal bays providing for a capacity of nine 250lb bombs, while, because the bomber was to operate solely at night, defensive armament was limited to just two Lewis guns in a nose position. Six prototypes were ordered, though four were cancelled in December 1918 with the end of the war. Delays in development of the Dragonfly engine meant that the London wouldn’t fly until April 1920. Despite the delays, the London generally seemed promising, showing good handling and performance despite a rudimentary structure. Though any hopes of the design serving as a bomber were dashed by the dropping of the requirement by the RAF, Nieuport had plans to convert the design to an airliner. Unfortunately, those plans would never materialize, as Nieuport and General closed in August 1920.
>>30156045
After securing patents for various elements of aircraft structure, the woodworking company Tarrant Ltd hired Walter Barling of the Royal Aircraft Factory to develop a long-range heavy bomber for the company. Original plans called for the bomber to be a large biplane powered by four Armstrong Siddeley Tiger engines in tandem pairs. However, when it became clear that the engines were delayed, the aircraft was completely redesigned. Six Napier Lions were mounted, and a third wing was added, turning the aircraft into a triplane. The fuselage itself was a finely streamlined monocoque structure with a capacity of six crew and up to 9,000lb of cargo. However, it had no bomb bay, with payload of 4,600lb instead supposed to be carried under the bottom wing. The resulting aircraft was massive - it came in at a loaded weight of 20 tons. Though the end of the war put an end to the bomber’s prospects, work continued with the aircraft serving as a transport. Ultimately, the Tabor began testing in May 1919. During what would have been its first flight, the upper two engines caused the aircraft to nose-over on takeoff, killing the two pilots and injuring all aboard. The crash marked the end of the program, and Tarrant would never again make an aircraft.
>>30156055
As the end of the First World War neared, the Air Ministry issued requirements for a medium bomber to replace the DH.4 and DH.9. Though Airco was no more, de Havilland continued to design aircraft, so unsurprisingly it would be de Havilland’s DH.14 that would receive a contract for prototypes. The Okapi was a scaled-up version of de Havilland’s earlier single-engined bombers, retaining its two man crew but making use of a more powerful Rolls Royce Condor engine. Though armament remained identical to the bombers it was to replace, the larger design meant that the DH.14 could accommodate its payload in an internal bomb bay. Unfortunately, by the time the DH.14 finally flew, the war had ended and the RAF was reluctant to accept the bomber. Ultimately, the RAF would only accept two of the originally ordered three prototypes, with the third hastily converted to serve as a mailplane. The postwar drawdown meant that the Okapi would see no production, and its career was limited to a high-profile record attempt flight in private hands.
>>30156064
In response to a new Air Ministry requirement for a day bomber, Siddeley-Deasy produced the firm’s only bomber - the Sinai. The Sinai was a fairly conventional twin-engined biplane bomber, standing out mostly in the large nacelles the engines were placed in. These wing nacelles extended well aft of the wing, holding a position for a gunner. The bomber also made use of an experimental new powerplant - the Siddeley Tiger - which would end up dooming the project. The Tiger had seen little testing before being selected as the powerplant for the Sinai, and frequent issues with the engine meant that fight testing of the bomber would be delayed until June 1921. By then, the need for such a bomber had long since evaporated, so once the Sinai started showing structural issues in October 1921, it was retired.
>>30156071
In 1920, the Air Ministry began the process of modernizing the postwar inventory with a new set of requirements for a single engined bomber. The new bomber, which was to be powered by the Rolls Royce Condor engine, was to have a range of 500 miles and payload of 2,000lb with the capacity to carry a single 1,800 SN bomb (though this would change to four 500lb bombs externally or eight 250lb bombs internally). In addition, the bomber was to be able to operate in both day and night bomber roles. Only Avro and de Havilland would submit designs for the new requirements. Ultimately, the results were underwhelming. Though Avro would be declared winner, the Air Ministry quickly decided to abandon the concept of a single-engined night bomber, so Avro’s winning design never saw much use.
>>30156094
Avro’s contender to the new requirements, the Aldershot, was a mixed-construction biplane. The Aldershot featured a deep fuselage, allowing the aircraft to accommodate both a bombardier’s station and an internal bomb bay. The pilot and navigator/bombardier sat side by side under the wing trailing edge, with a cabin behind them in the fuselage for bomb-aiming and access to a ventral gun position. Behind that, a gunner sat in an open position. The Aldershot first flew in October 1921, flying off against the de Havilland Derby late the next year. It proved to be a superior aircraft, both in that it met specifications by having an internal weapons bay and by being considerably lighter thanks to its mixed construction. An order for 15 Aldershots was placed in early 1923, with the aircraft entering service with 99 Squadron in April 1924. Unfortunately, the Aldershot’s career was brief. After a year of training and exercises, primarily at night, the Air Ministry changed its policy, shifting away from the use of single-engined heavy bombers. The Aldershot was phased out, and the sole squadron operating the type shifted over to the Handley Page Hyderabad in early 1926.
>>30155852
First aeroplane to ever cross the Atlantic, Alcock and Brown.
>>30156112
De Havilland’s design, contracted as the Derby, was a conventional all-wood biplane with a crew of three. A pilot was placed just under the leading edge of the wing, while an observer/gunner was placed aft of the wing. Buried in the fuselage between them, a navigator/bombardier station was installed for the third crewman. Though specifications called for the bomber to be capable of carrying some payloads internally, the Derby had no bomb bay. Two prototypes were built, the first of which flew in October 1922. Unfortunately for de Havilland, the Derby was vastly outperformed by the Avro Aldershot it competed against. Not only did the Aldershot have an internal weapons bay, but its mixed construction also left it 800lb lighter than the Derby. Thus, no production of the Derby was ordered.
>>30156127
In 1920, Vickers began work on a successor to the Vimy that was then serving as the primary bomber of the RAF. Heavily derived from the Vimy, the resulting Virginia was an overall refinement of the bomber. The nose gunner’s position was lowered to improve the pilot’s view, and the wings and fuselage were enlarged. The prototype was fitted with two Napier Lion engines, and, though it was deleted on production aircraft, a gunner position was added on top of the upper wing. The design caught the attention of the RAF, who ordered several prototypes. The first of these prototypes took flight in November 1922. Results were hardly promising, with the Virginia demonstrating mediocre performance, but nevertheless it received a sizeable order for over 100 aircraft.
>>30156139
The Virginia would enter service in 1924. Though performance was never really exceptional, the type persisted until almost the outbreak of war in frontline units owing to the constant progressive improvements to the design. Later marks added a sweep to the wings, and the final variant even transitioned to an all-metal construction. Thanks to these constant upgrades, it wouldn’t be until the Heyford entered service in 1934 that the Virginia lost its title as the most numerous bomber in RAF service. Even then, the Heyford never replaced the Virginia, instead supplementing their numbers. Only in 1938, with the arrival of Britain’s first generation of modern monoplane bombers did the Virginia finally begin to leave service. As Virginias were phased out of frontline roles, they were shifted off to experimental and training duties. Some were used in experiments with midair refueling, while others served as parachute trainers. Thanks to this, the Virginia would remain in RAF service until late 1941.
>>30155680
Thank you OP, for this awesome thread
It's easier to read a wall like that, than search whole internet for history
Thank you!
>>30155680
>As one of the world’s first air forces
Pretty sure the RAF is the oldest?
>>30156154
In the early ‘20s, the RAF was in search of a replacement for the DH.9A. Fairey was selected to produce a new light bomber, with contracts for three prototypes of what would be known as the Fawn placed. The Fawn was a conventional single-engined bomber powered by a Napier Lion, with the only unique feature of the design being the fuel tanks mounted atop the upper wing. Flight testing began in March 1923. Though the Air Ministry ended up ordering a total of 75 aircraft, the Fawn was generally a failure. When it entered service in 1924, it was found that it was actually no faster than the DH.9A it was to replace. Visibility was also poor, and ultimately only three of the originally planned seven squadrons were equipped with the Fawn. Meanwhile, the DH.9A continued to serve alongside it until both were replaced in 1926 by the Hawker Horsley and Fairey Fox.
>>30156175
At the end of the First World War, Bristol proposed a large bomber concept with engines buried in the fuselage and geared out to propellers in the wings. The concept caught the attention of the Air Ministry, who decided to commission Parnall and Boulton Paul to create smaller-scale demonstrators. Parnall’s demonstrator, the Possum, was a three-man triplane design fitted with a single engine in the fuselage. Gunners were placed behind the wings and in the nose, but, being primarily an experimental aircraft, no provisions for carrying bombs were made. The single engine was geared out to a propeller in either middle wing, with the propellers spinning in opposite directions. Testing began in June 1923, and the next year it was passed on to the Royal Aircraft Establishment. A second prototype was built in 1925, with both being tested extensively. Unfortunately, though both prototypes seem to have performed without any major issues, the Air Ministry went no further with the concept.
>>30156172
Not entirely sure, really. I know the Armee de l'Air predates the RFC by a couple years (1909 vs 1912), though the RAF might have been the first completely independent air force.
>>30156195
In 1922, Boulton Paul was contracted to develop a twin-engined medium bomber known as the Bugle. Drawing heavily on the Bolton and Bourges twin-engined aircraft, the Bugle made use of two Jupiter engines mounted between the wings. A deep, angular fuselage carried a crew of four, including gunners in nose and dorsal positions,and an external payload of up to 690 lb of bombs was to be carried. The first Bugle would fly in June 1923, followed by a second prototype later that year. Three more were built in 1924, fitted with shorter wings, and in 1925 all began operational evaluation tests. Two final aircraft were ordered in early 1924, differing from the others by their use of Napier Lion engines. Unfortunately, though operational evaluations went without incident, no further orders came due to funding cuts.
>>30156203
Though the Vickers Vimy would become the standard bomber for the RAF in the immediate postwar period, by the early ‘20s its age was showing. Thus, the Air Ministry issued requirements for a two-engined bomber to replace it in night bomber roles. Handley Page would respond with a derivative of their W.8 airliner, which was contracted as the Hyderabad. The Hyderabad would be a four-man machine fitted with three machineguns for defense in nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. Power was to come from two Napier Lion engines in the wings, and, seemingly regressing from the bombers of the First World War, the Hyderabad would carry its payload of 1,100lb of bombs externally. Though most of the design was generally unremarkable, the bomber was one of the first large aircraft to be fitted with Handley Page’s leading edge slats.
>>30156214
The Hyderabad would fly for the first time in October 1923. Testing took over a year, but by the end of 1925 the Hyderabad had entered squadron service. With this, the Hyderabad became the last all-wood heavy bomber to enter RAF service. Unfortunately, deliveries went slowly and operational accidents were high. It took until 1928 for the second squadron to form, and the two reserve squadrons to fly the type would later be re-equipped with the all-metal Hinaidi instead. Ultimately, production halted with less than 50 built, and the bombers were out of service by 1933 without ever seeing operational use.
>>30156223
Parallel to Parnall’s Possum demonstrator, Boulton Paul was contracted to develop the Bodmin, a larger demonstrator for a similar concept. The Bodmin was a large twin-engined biplane, with two Napier Lion engines placed in tandem in an engine room in the fuselage. Geared out from the fuselage, the engines drove two propellers between the wings with driveshafts going through a streamlined fairing with the radiators on their leading edge. Gunner positions were placed in the nose and behind the wings, and provisions were made for a dedicated engineer to be carried in the engine room. The first of two Bodmins would fly in early 1924. Testing found minor issues relating to driveshafts and cooling the engines, but overall the design was workable. Though the undercarriage would fail on the first prototype during testing, the second would keep flying, allowing trials to be completed. Ultimately, though the Bodmin proved the concept to be sound, no further development of the concept was undertaken.
>>30156232
In response to a 1922 specification for a long-ranged land-based torpedo bomber, Avro was contracted to develop the Ava. The Ava originated as a large biplane powered by a Napier Cub engine, but this was rejected, prompting Avro to rework the basic design into a twin-engined machine powered by two Rolls Royce Condors. The Ava was designed around a fuselage capable of carrying a 21-inch torpedo, with a secondary capability to carry an equivalent load of bombs. A crew of five, consisting of two pilots sitting side-by-side and gunners in nose, dorsal, and retractable ventral positions was accommodated with a large enclosed cabin. The Ava would first fly in 1924, with the first prototype being all-wood in construction. Unfortunately, over the course of testing, the Air Ministry dropped the requirement. Avro continued work on an all-metal second prototype, which flew in 1927, in hopes that it would be ordered by the Air Ministry to meet a new heavy bomber requirement. However, it was unsuccessful, leading to the abandonment of the project.
>>30156240
In 1921, the Air Ministry had issued specifications to Blackburn for a coastal defense torpedo bomber. As Blackburn worked on a new design, the specification had been revised, calling for a long-range machine capable of deploying the new 21-inch torpedo. Blackburn would create a massive single-engined design using the new 1,000hp Napier Cub engine known as the Cubaroo. The Cubaroo carried a crew of four in a deep fuselage, with defensive guns placed in waist and midships positions. The bomber itself was of mixed construction, and, owing to its massive 88ft wingspan, it was configured with folding wings. The torpedo (or an equivalent load of bombs) would be carried externally under the centerline. The first Cubaroo prototype flew in mid 1924, showing good handling. It was submitted for evaluations later that year, only for it to be written off after the undercarriage collapsed in early 1925. The second prototype would be delivered later in 1925, but by then the Air Ministry had abandoned plans to develop a bomber to carry the 21-inch torpedo. Thus, the second prototype would live out its career as an engine testbed.
>>30156253
In August 1923, the Air Ministry issued new requirements for a two-seat light day and night bomber to be powered by the Rolls Royce Condor engine. Additionally, the specifications required an all-metal construction, 550lb payload, and 500 mile range. Hawker, Bristol, Handley Page, and Westland would respond with proposals. All four submitted designs were largely similar in layout, being tractor biplanes not unlike the ubiquitous light bombers of the First World War. Prototypes were produced and flown through 1925, but by the time comparative testing had begun, the RAF had decided against procuring more single-engined night bombers. Thus, the specifications were revised, dropping the night-bomber requirements and increasing the specified payload to allow the bomber to carry both conventional bombs and a torpedo. The new specifications ultimately disqualified most contenders, leaving only Hawker’s Horsley to be selected for production.
>>30156263
Handley Page’s Handcross would be the first proposal to take flight, flying in early December 1924. The Handcross was a wood-and-canvas design with unstaggered wing and slab-sided fuselage, giving it an outwardly unimpressive appearance. Payload was to be carried in a recessed position under the fuselage, while the rear gunner had a spacious position in the aft fuselage where he could move between a dorsal gun mount, fixed rear-firing machinegun, and a bombsight in the aircraft’s belly. Three prototypes were ordered, with all three aircraft being submitted to the RAF for testing in 1925. Testing led to several modifications, with the ventral gun position deleted due to the adverse draft it produced in the fuselage, fuel tanks relocated due to vibrational issues, and exhaust pipes modified to reduce flame dazzle. Despite the improvements, however, the Handcross failed to impress during competitive trials later that year. Though no production order was placed, the machines remained with the RAF for testing until 1928 for various purposes.
>>30156273
Despite the request that the submitted designs be of all-metal construction, Bristol’s Berkeley bomber would be the only submitted design to actually follow those guidelines. With a metal-framed fabric-covered fuselage and duralumin wings, the Berkeley had the crew positions sitting far from eachother on either side of the wing. The observer manned the only machinegun on the aircraft in an open dorsal position, and a ventral bombsight position was placed low in the fuselage for the observer to use. The Berkeley would fly for the first time in March 1925, reaching the RAF for trials in May. The Berkeley was one of the larger machines submitted and was generally considered more suitable for the night bomber role, but the Air Ministry had since dropped plans to continue flying single-engined night bombers, so the advantage was negated. The Berkeley was not selected for production, and the final two prototypes ordered were passed directly to the Royal Aircraft Establishment for experimental testing. There, they lived out their careers primarily testing propellers until being retired in 1930.
>>30156291
Westland’s contender to the new bomber requirements, the Yeovil, was a smaller design of mixed construction. The Yeovil made use of staggered wings, and the crew positions were separated on either side of the wing. For defense, machineguns were provided in dorsal and ventral positions, and, harkening back to the First World War, a synchronised forward firing machinegun was also added. Three prototypes were ordered, all of which would fly by the end of 1925. Unfortunately, though the Yeovil demonstrated no glaring flaws during evaluations, the design was not suited to meet the recently revised specifications. As such, no production was ordered, and the three prototypes were passed on to research and experimental testing.
>>30156300
Hawker’s bomber proposal completely ignored the all-metal construction requirements, instead creating the wooden Horsley. The Horsley was a two-bay design fitted with a twin-Lewis gun mount in a dorsal position for defense, as well as a radio and ventral bombardier’s position in the aft fuselage. Unlike all other competitors, the design was fitted with dual controls. The Horsley would first fly in March 1925, with prototypes submitted for evaluation in May. Though specifications had since been revised, the Horsley proved more than capable of handling the sudden increase in payload, allowing it to be selected as the winner of the design competition. An initial order of ten all-wood Horsley Mk Is and 30 mixed-construction Mk IIs were ordered, with deliveries beginning in early 1927.
>>30156322
The first Horsleys entered service in September 1927, replacing the Fairey Fawn. The Horsley proved vastly superior to the Fawn in everything from payload to performance and agility, and overall it was a popular aircraft with crews. In 1928, the first torpedo-bomber squadron was formed, transferring to Singapore in 1930. There, it saw its only operational service, where the torpedo bombers flew conventional bombing missions against Burmese rebels. The Horsley’s career was ultimately fairly uneventful, with the last day bomber squadron phasing out their bombers in 1934 for Westland Wallaces and the final torpedo bomber squadron retiring the aircraft in 1935. Examples persisted as testbeds for several more years, but by 1938 the last Horsley was retired
>>30156330
Though none of Boulton Paul’s earlier projects had received production orders, the promise shown by the designs had prompted the Air Ministry to issue new specifications to the company in 1924 for an all-metal twin-engined medium bomber. Taking shape as the Sidestrand, the bomber was designed around two Napier Lion engines. It was fitted with guns in nose, dorsal, and ventral positions, and provisions for a payload of up to 1,050lb of bombs were made. The first Sidestrand flew in 1926, fitted with Bristol Jupiter rather than Napier Lion engines. 20 Sidestrands would be built, reaching the sole squadron to fly the type in 1928. They proved to be stable and maneuverable aircraft just like Boulton Paul’s earlier bombers, but they failed to attract further orders. They would live out their career without ever seeing combat. Four were converted to the Overstrand standard intended to replace the Sidestrand, while the remaining aircraft served on until 1936.
Even as the first Hyderabads were entering service, Handley Page had developed an improved variant to meet new Air Ministry specifications for the same role. Contracted as the Hinaidi, the prototype that would fly in March 1927 was actually converted from a Hyderabad. The original Hinaidi was little more than a Hyderabad fitted with more powerful Bristol Jupiter engines and a more racks for bombs, but, after the successful testing and service of seven aircraft converted to the new standard, Handley Page developed an all-metal variant that would go on to be make up the bulk of production. A total of 36 Hinaidis would be made or converted, with most entering service in 1929. Three squadrons would come to fly the bomber. Like the Hyderabad, their service was brief and uneventful, though several of their number would be converted to transports for colonial duties.
>>30156350
Though the Horsley would serve well for the time being, the Air Ministry was quick to begin looking for a replacement. In 1926, two parallel requirements were issued for a two-seat torpedo bomber and day bomber (23/25) and high-altitude light bomber (24/25) to replace the Horsley in its respective roles. Though these were two separate requirements, they were similar enough that two contenders - Handley Page and Blackburn - would develop a design to meet both simultaneously. Others were not so ambitious. Gloster, Hawker, and Vickers would develop designs to meet just the torpedo bomber requirements, while Westland would be the only other company to produce a design for the high-altitude bomber requirement.
>>30156358
Gloster would produce their contender to the two requirements, the Goring, fairly quickly. The Goring was a fairly conventional single-engined bomber design, with the most notable design element being the slight inverted-gull layout of the lower wing, which aimed to reduce the size of the landing gear. Considerable work was done to make the design adaptable to a variety of roles, with three easily interchangeable variants of the landing gear developed. The original gear had a simple single axle, though split-axle and twin-float landing gear was also developed for torpedo bombing duties. The Goring would be the first aircraft designed for these specifications to fly when it took flight in March 1927, but it wouldn’t be until the next year that the aircraft was submitted for testing, as Gloster was busy up-engining the aircraft. Unfortunately, the Goring fell short of specifications, so it was returned to Gloster in 1930. With Gloster, the Goring was converted to a seaplane and fitted with an even more powerful engine before serving out the remainder of its career as an engine testbed.
>>30156364
Westland’s contender to the high-altitude bomber requirements would be the Witch - a mixed-construction parasol monoplane. The Witch shared the layout of contemporary single-engined bombers, with a ventral bombardier’s position in the aft fuselage and single defensive machinegun in a dorsal position. A bomb bay separated the crew, providing space for a number of small bombs or a single 520lb bomb. Due to the planned high-altitude flight profile Westland planned to make use of the turbocharged Bristol Orion engine for the bomber. However, owing to development difficulties with the Orion, Westland would substitute the Jupiter engine the Orion was derived from for the prototype. Testing began in late January 1928, with generally good results. The Witch was seen as a fast, stable bombing platform, and generally it demonstrated good performance. However, structural deficiencies were found in the design, leading to the design being declared unsuitable for operational service.
>>30156371
The Blackburn Beagle would originally be designed to meet the high-altitude bomber specifications, only to be refocused on the torpedo bomber requirements. The Beagle was a mixed-construction design with a steel-tube fuselage and slightly swept, staggered wings. Unlike many of the aircraft it competed against, the crew were placed very close together, and the bombardier’s station was actually placed underneath the pilot. The landing gear, split to allow for the carriage of a torpedo under the centerline, was configured to also hold a large fuel tank for long-range reconnaissance duties. The Beagle would first fly in February 1928, though it wouldn’t be until mid 1929 that it began competitive trials. Ultimately, none of the aircraft were able to meet specified requirements, but the favorable performance and handling of the Beagle saw it pass on to further testing against the Vickers Vildebeest and Handley Page Hare. The Beagle was sent back to the factory to receive a more powerful engine, but by the time it returned to testing, the Vildebeest had already been declared winner. Having lost the competition, the sole Beagle would serve on as a test aircraft until 1933.
>>30156380
Hawker’s proposal to meet the two bomber requirements was the sleek but otherwise unremarkable Harrier. Fitted with two machineguns and designed around a payload of 1,000lb of bombs or a single torpedo, the Harrier was powered by a geared Bristol Jupiter engine. The Harrier first flew in February 1928, with the aircraft delivered for acceptance testing later that year. Unfortunately, testing went poorly. Though the Harrier had excellent handling, the geared engine left the Harrier underpowered and the design featured a lower payload than the Horsley it was to replace. Nevertheless, it was modified for torpedo testing, only for crews to find that the Harrier was unable to take off with a torpedo, crew, and full load of fuel. Thus, it was excluded from the final phase of the competition.
>>30156391
Handley Page’s contender to both requirements was a mixed-construction sesquiplane that would be contracted as the Hare. The Hare was a fairly compact design fitted with a forward firing and flexible rear firing gun for defense and provisions for a single 2,000lb torpedo to be carried under the centerline. Like previous Handley Page bombers, the Hare featured a bombardier’s position under the gunner’s position. The sole Hare prototype flew for the first time in February 1928, powered by a Gnome Rhone Jupiter engine owing to shortages of the planned Jupiter VIII. Unfortunately, testing revealed serious handling and vibrational issues. Handley Page alleviated these by lengthening the fuselage. Unfortunately, the Hare failed to win either competition it was entered in. Vickers ended up winning the torpedo bomber contract, while the high-altitude bomber program was dropped altogether.
>>30156401
The Vickers proposal to the torpedo bomber/light bomber requirements, the Vildebeest, was perhaps the least remarkable of all designs. With equal-sized unstaggered wings and an all-metal fuselage, the Vildebeest would be the last of the competing designs to fly when it took to the skies in April 1928. When submitted for testing, results were just as poor as all the competitors, with the Vildebeest failing to meet specifications. However, the type demonstrated favorable handling, securing it a place in a second round of evaluation. Vickers quickly reworked the aircraft with a more powerful Armstrong Siddeley Panther engine, which allowed it to beat out its competitors. Though vibrational issues plagued the new engine, forcing Vickers to revert back to a Jupiter variant, the production order was secured in 1931, making the Vildebeest the RAF’s new coastal torpedo bomber. In parallel, Vickers offered an Army Cooperation variant dubbed the Vincent, which also secured a production order.
>>30156429
The Vildebeest would enter service in October 1932, coming to fly with two torpedo bomber squadrons in Britain and two more in Singapore. The Vincent was put on lower priority, meaning that it wouldn’t enter service until the end of 1934. Nevertheless, it would see considerable use as well, with the aircraft flying with six general purpose squadrons in the Middle East and East Africa. 101 Vildebeests and 84 Vincents were still in RAF service when war broke out in 1939. In Britain, the Vildebeest served in coastal patrol and convoy escort roles until finally replaced by the Beaufort in 1940. Vincents were also on their way out in favor of more modern bombers, but they too saw considerable use in the Ethiopian campaign in 1940 and later during the uprising in Iraq. The last Vincents would serve on until 1943. The two Vildebeest squadrons in Singapore had yet to receive their replacements when Japan invaded at the end of 1941. They made desperate but futile attempts to stop the Japanese advance, suffering heavy losses despite fighter escort. At the end of January 1942, they were withdrawn to Java, and, in March 1942, the last Vildebeests were retired.
>>30156436
In 1926, the Air Ministry issued new specifications for a single-engined high-speed day bomber. Unlike many other specifications, high performance was the stress of the new program, with specifications calling for a top speed of 160mph. Hawker, Avro, and de Havilland were asked to submit tenders for the new specifications. Fairey, who had not been contacted, would protest this, and after some time they were allowed to submit a tender as well. In the end, the program was a smashing success. The winning Hawker Hart ended up being incredibly fast, performing so well that it was later developed into a fighter. Fairey, who had submitted their Fox, failed to win a larger production order, but still managed to gain enough attention for their design to secure a considerable export order.
>>30156444
Fairey’s contender dated back to a private venture project produced in 1925 as a replacement for their underwhelming Fawn bomber. As originally conceived, it was a simple composite construction biplane designed around the Curtiss D-12 liquid-cooled engine. First flying in early 1925, it demonstrated excellent performance and handling, but, because it used an American engine, it faced resistance among the Air Ministry. In the end, the Air Ministry would order just a squadron’s worth of aircraft. When the new light bomber specifications were issued in 1926, Fairey hoped to capitalize on this by reworking the Fox. Effectively becoming an all-new aircraft, the new Fox was an all-metal machine powered by the Rolls-Royce Kestrel. Unfortunately, this reworking took until 1929, by which time Hakwer’s Hart had been selected as the winner. In the end, only 28 Foxes would enter RAF service, with all aircraft refitted with Kestrel engines. There, they served without incident from 1926 until 1931, when they were replaced by the Hawker Hart.
>>30156490
shitting dick nipples forgot the pic
>>30156490
De Havilland would be the first to produce a contender to the new light bomber requirements with their Hound. Being all-wood in construction, it was powered by the Napier Lion. Because it failed to meet specifications for an all-metal construction, it was not contracted for prototypes. Nevertheless, de Havilland would continue work as a private venture, flying the prototype in November 1926. It was submitted to the RAF for evaluations in January 1928, but it would be rejected owing to its wooden construction. After its rejection, de Havilland took back the aircraft, using it to set a world speed record in its class.
>>30156504
Hawker would also produce a sleek Kestrel-powered aircraft under the designation Hart. With a metal structure, it made use of a steel-tube fuselage and all-metal wings. A prone bombardier’s position was added in the underside of the fuselage, and provisions for up to 520lb of bombs were installed. The first Hart would fly in June 1928, demonstrating a top speed of 176 mph and good handling. Ultimately, the Hart would be the winning design of the competition, thanks to its excellent performance and ease of maintenance. The Hart would be ordered into production, with the first examples reaching service in early 1930. They replaced the older Hawker Horsley and Fairey Fox. The Hart made its combat debut in the 1935 Abyssinia Crisis, and it saw extensive use in British India. Though it proved a popular export aircraft, it ended up seeing little actual combat use because it was obsolete by the time war broke out. However, Rhodesian Harts would see use in the opening stages of the East African campaign in WW2. Despite its fairly uneventful career, the Hart was far from an unsuccessful aircraft. It saw countless variants developed and extensive export service, and only with the arrival of modern monoplanes was it finally phased out.
>>30156515
Avro would propose the Antelope, an all-metal single-bay biplane powered by the Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Fitted with one forward-firing machinegun and one for defense, the Antelope had a capacity of two 250lb bombs. The Antelope first flew in July 1928, generally performing well. With a top speed of 173 mph, it more than met performance specifications. However, low-speed handling and spin characteristics were poor, and the machine was difficult to service. Thus, the Air Ministry selected the competing Hart as the winning design.
>>30156522
At the end of the ‘20s, the Air Ministry began the process of replacing the Vickers Virginias that were the RAF’s primary night bomber at the time. Under the specification B.19/27, the Air Ministry requested a twin-engined aircraft with a payload of over 1,500lb, range of 920 miles and cruise speed of 115mph. The requirements would see proposals come in from Handley Page, Fairey, and Vickers, all of whom produced very unique designs. Though the primary winner of the competition was Handley Page’s Heyford biplane, the B.19/27 competition was unique in that it resulted in both the RAF’s first monoplane heavy bomber and last biplane heavy bomber.
>>30156537
The first Vickers proposal, the Vanox, actually predated the Air Ministry requirements, as it was developed as a private venture. Three proposals had been issued to the Air Ministry after the specifications were released - two biplanes differing primarily in engine arrangement and a monoplane - with a Bristol Mercury-engined biplane being contracted for prototypes as the Vanox. The Vanox would go on to be the most conventional of all designs submitted to the new requirements. Though it featured spatted landing gear and considerable streamlining, the Vanox mostly resembled a slightly refined version of the old biplane bombers it was to replace. Before the Vanox took flight in November 1929, the contract was modified to allow Vickers to use the Rolls Royce Kestrel in place of the Mercury. Unfortunately for Vickers, testing went poorly. The Vanox was unstable, difficult to fly, and prone to flexing issues. A series of modifications were made over the following years to alleviate the problems, but by the time the last round of changes finally fixed the worst of the issues in early 1933, the Fairey Hendon and Handley Page Heyford had both been ordered into production. Thus, the bomber was passed on to the Royal Aircraft Establishment for experimental work.
>>30156546
Though Handley Page’s Heyford was also a biplane, they took a far more radical approach to their design. The Heyford’s aluminum monocoque fuselage was mounted on the upper wing to improve the field of fire for the gunners, while the spatted landing gear was placed on the lower wing. Defensive gunners were placed in nose, dorsal, and retractable ventral positions, and the bomb bay was placed in a thickened center wing section. Power was provided by two Rolls Royce Kestrel engines hung under the upper wing. The Heyford first flew in June 1930, entering trials later that year. Though the bomber had its peculiarities, such as the difficulty the crew had entering and exiting the high-mounted fuselage, it generally performed well. Crews liked the excellent visibility from the cockpits, while the location of the bomb bay meant that ground crews could mount bombs while the engines were running. The Heyford ended up winning the production contract, beating out the competing Vickers and Fairey designs.
>>30156560
>>30156560
The first Heyfords entered service in late 1933. As the RAF expanded, an order for 70 more Heyfords was placed in 1936. With nine squadrons flying the Heyford by the end of 1936, the bomber formed a major part of the RAF’s night bomber force. The Heyford would live out its career flying constant exercises, doing everything from flying mock attacks against France to testing Britain’s nascent early warning radar network. Despite the massive expansion of the Heyford force in 1936, the RAF was quick to replace the bomber. In 1937, the Heyford already began phasing out for the Whitley and Wellesley bombers. The last Heyfords had completely left frontline service by mid 1939. Some examples persisted in secondary roles as gunnery trainers and target tugs, but by 1941 the last Heyfords had been retired.
>>30156573
Fairey would propose the only monoplane bomber for the new requirements in the form of the Hendon. The Hendon was a unique mix of modern layout with archaic features, being of steel tube and fabric skin construction and featuring fixed landing gear, but also incorporating a low-wing cantilever monoplane layout that would become standard for most bombers to come. The Hendon featured a crew of five, with defensive gunners placed in nose, dorsal, and tail positions and a bomb bay along the centerline for over 1,600lb of bombs. The Hendon was first flown in November 1930, originally powered by two Bristol Jupiters. After it was damaged in a crash in March 1931, the Hendon was rebuilt with Kestrel engines. Though it failed to win the larger production order given to the Heyford, the Hendon still performed well enough to receive a production order for 14 aircraft. The first squadron would only begin to equip the Hendon in 1936, with a further order for 60 bombers cancelled owing to the development of the next generation of bombers. The sole squadron flying the Hendon saw little use before phasing out their bombers in 1938 for the more modern Vickers Wellington.
>>30156579
Though Vickers already had a contender to the new bomber requirements in the form of the Vanox, they would produce a second design to meet both the same bomber requirements and the parallel C.16/28 transport requirements. The Type 163 was similar in layout to the Vanox, sharing the same slightly swept wings, boxy fuselage, and spatted landing gear, but it made us of four (rather than two) Kestrel engines in paired mountings. Defensive armament was fairly light, with only two guns mounted in nose and tail positions, but payload was massively expanded to a total capacity of twelve 250lb bombs or ten fully-equipped troops. The Type 163 would take flight in January 1931. Unfortunately, the Type 163 failed to meet either requirement, and thus it was abandoned.
>>30156594
When the Air Ministry issued specifications for a night bomber to replace the Vickers Virginia, de Havilland responded with the DH.72, a scaled-up version of their successful Hercules airliner. The DH.72 was a three-engined machine with a fuselage mounted low on the bottom wing. The lower wing held a Bristol Jupiter engine on either side of the fuselage, and mounted on the center of the upper wing was the third Jupiter. A crew of five was carried in the deep fuselage, but the payload of 2,500lb of bombs was to be carried externally. Perhaps most unusually for de Havilland, the DH.72 was to use duralumin wings. This element would end up greatly delaying the project. It took three years to build the sole prototype, with the DH.72 not flying until July 1931. It was submitted for RAF evaluation later that year, but it ended up being rejected along with the competing Boulton Paul P.32.
>>30156602
The only competitor to de Havilland’s DH.72 night bomber was the Boulton Paul P.32. Overall, the P.32 resembled a more refined version of de Havilland’s bomber, with the same layout but a sleeker fuselage and recessed positions for the bombs. The deep fuselage provided space for a navigator’s table and bombardier’s station, as well as a passageway back to a tail gun. Though Boulton Paul had more experience with metal aircraft, their design was also greatly delayed by a series of design changes made at the request of the Air Ministry. Thus, the P.32 didn’t fly until October 1931. It joined the DH.72 for evaluations later that year, but unfortunately the Air Ministry ended up dropping the requirement altogether, meaning that none of the designs would be ordered into production.
>>30156612
In 1928, the Air Ministry issued specifications for a new bomber-transport, calling for an aircraft capable of carrying 30 troops over 1,200 miles. Gloster responded with the RC.33, a four-engined biplane with a sleek enclosed fuselage. The metal-structured wings featured a minor sweep, and the lower wing was given an inverted-gull layout so that the spars did not pass through the fuselage. Four Rolls Royce Kestrel engines were mounted in push-pull nacelles between the wings to drive the machine. The sleek metal fuselage featured an enclosed cockpit and open gunner positions in the nose and tail. Apart from the passenger capacity, the TC.33 was fitted with racks for up to 3,600lb of bombs. Testing began in early 1932, showing good performance but suffering from flutter on the control surfaces. Unfortunately, though it performed well in the air, it struggled to get off the ground at a full load. Because of the issues the aircraft had taking off in the comparatively favorable conditions it was tested in, the Air Ministry feared the TC.33 would be unable to fulfill its duties in the hot and high regions it would likely be operating in. Thus, it was deemed unfit for duties and not ordered into production.
>>30156619
The H.P.43’s origins can be traced back to 1928, when Imperial Airways issued a request for a three-engined airliner. Though the design that Handley Page produced - the H.P.43 - failed to attract any orders, it found new life when the Air Ministry issued specifications later that year for a dual-purpose bomber/transport to replace the Handley Page Hinaidi and Vickers Victoria. Handley Page reworked their design for the new requirements, giving it a new fuselage but retaining the old wings. The H.P.43 was a large sesquiplane fitted with two Bristol Pegasus engines on the lower wing and one on the upper wing. The large slab-sided fuselage was intended to accommodate up to 30 troops, though provisions for converting the aircraft to carry bombs were also made. Defensive armament was fairly light, being just a single Lewis gun in nose and tail positions. The H.P.43 flew for the first time in June 1932, with poor results. It was poorly received by pilots, who found performance lacking and the controls to be heavy. Even without those issues, it seemed that monoplanes were soon going to take over the market for both bombers and transports, meaning that the H.P.43 was obsolete. Handley Page worked to adapt the design as a monoplane, but the H.P.43 as it flew in 1932 would never enter service.
>>30156630
Owing to the relative success of the Sidestand medium bomber, Boulton Paul created the Overstrand as a general upgrade to the design in the early ‘30s. Because of the high speeds the Sidestrand operated at, the open positions were uncomfortable for crews, so Boulton Paul enclosed the crew compartment. A powered nose turret was added, and, though the dorsal and ventral positions remained open, they were shielded to improve crew comfort. New Bristol Pegasus engines were also added, and the fuselage was strengthened, bringing total payload up to 1,500lb. The first Overstrand would fly in 1933, generally proving to be an improvement over the Sidestrand. Four Overstrands were converted from operational Sidestrands, and an order for 24 new-production machines was placed. The Overstrand replaced the sole operational Sidestrand squadron in 1934, but their service was brief and uneventful. They were replaced by Bristol Blenheims in 1938, and those that remained in service when war broke out in 1939 were shifted off to gunnery training.
>>30156641
By 1932, the Napier Lion engines used on the Vickers Victoria transports were beginning to show their obsolescence. The RAF wanted to upgrade the aircraft with the more powerful Bristol Pegasus engine, but the decision was made to perform a more substantial reworking to keep the transports competitive. Under the new designation Valentia, the transports were re-engined and had their airframes strengthened, allowing them to carry heavier payloads. First flying in 1934, 54 would be converted from Victorias, while a further 28 were built new. Though they were still first and foremost a transport, part of the conversion entailed the addition of underwing racks for up to 2,200lb of bombs. Given that the Valentias were deployed to Iraq, India, and Persia, the bombing capabilities would prove very useful. They were used as bombers to suppress rebels in the years leading up to the Second World War, and, due to a shortage of bombers in Egypt, Valentias were also used for night bombing operations against Italian Libya in 1940. In South African hands, the Valentia also saw use as a bomber in the brief East African campaign.
>>30156646
By the early ‘30s, the RAF was looking for a general purpose bomber capable of replacing the Vickers Vincent and several other aircraft for colonial duties. The new bomber was to have a focus on durability, as it was to be operating from unprepared airstrips in remote regions like Aden and Malaya, and it would have to meet a variety of roles, as it was replacing not only the torpedo-bomber Vincent, but the aging army cooperation aircraft like the Fairey Gordon and Westland Wapiti. Because of the projected rough operating conditions, the Air Ministry preferred air-cooled engines for simplicity of maintenance.The requirements saw nearly every major manufacturer submit a proposal, with designs coming in from Bristol, Blackburn, Fairey, Handley Page, Hawker, Parnall, Vickers, and Westland. Though most designs were fairly unremarkable biplanes, the winner would be the uniquely modern Vickers Wellesley monoplane.
>>30156655
Westland would submit a high-winged monoplane under the designation PV.7. The PV.7 was a tall all-metal monoplane fitted with Handley Page slats to improve low-speed handling. Powered by a Bristol Pegasus engine, the PV.7 would be able to carry a single torpedo under the centerline or a pair of 500lb bombs under the wings. The PV.7 would fly for the first time in October 1933, well before any of the competitors. After some minor modifications in response to initial testing (most notable being enclosing the cockpit) it was passed onto the RAF for further testing. Initial testing by the RAF was encouraging, and in mid 1934, Westland’s test pilot began flying the aircraft again to examine its behavior with different centers of gravity. During one of these test flights, unfortunately, the unusual loading caused the failure of one of the wings. Though the pilot escaped, the PV.7 was lost. The RAF meanwhile refused to pay for a second aircraft on the grounds that it was a civilian pilot that caused the loss of the aircraft, and Westland lacked the funds to replace it. Thus, they were forced to withdraw from the competition before the selection process had begun.
>>30156661
Armstrong Whitworth would produce a private venture biplane - the A.W.19 - for the new requirements. Unlike other designs, the A.W.19 had provisions for a crew of three to be carried comfortably, with a windowed navigator’s cabin placed in the center of the deep fuselage. The pilot and observer sat high in open cockpits, though the observer’s position was fitted with a sliding canopy that could be closed when the gun was not in use. Power came from an 810hp Armstrong Siddeley Tiger engine enclosed in a cowling. Testing began in late February 1934. The A.W.19 would perform well, but it suffered from cooling issues with the engine. Though the bomber featured some novel elements, they were not enough to win it a production contract. Thus, the A.W.19 returned to the manufacturer, serving out its career as an engine testbed for Armstrong Whitworth.
>>30156667
Fairey would submit a private venture design for the new Air Ministry requirements, known only by the specification issued by the government. Fairey had initially submitted both the biplane G.4/31 and a parallel monoplane design, with the monoplane receiving a contract for prototypes. However, when Fairey ran into difficulties with the monoplane, the contract was shifted over to the biplane. The G.4/31 was a simple two-man biplane powered by an Armstrong Siddeley Tiger engine and designed to carry single 1,500lb torpedo or equivalent payload of bombs. First flying in March 1934, it would be refined before being submitted to the Air Ministry the next year. Unfortunately for Fairey, the G.4/31 failed to win a production order, first losing out to Vickers’ Type 253 and then again being overshadowed when another Vickers design was awarded the production contract.
>>30156680
The first Vickers proposal submitted to the new requirements was a fairly unremarkable biplane given the internal designation Type 253. The Type 253 outwardly looked like any other two-seat light bomber, with conventional biplane wings and fixed undercarriage. However, it made use of a novel new construction system developed by Vickers engineers. This new system, known as geodetic construction, would make use of a weaving frame of metal members in the fuselage, resulting in a highly efficient structure. The Type 253 would receive a contract for a single prototype from the Air Ministry, flying for the first time in August 1934. It was submitted for acceptance trials after some minor improvements, where it generally performed well. In fact, the Type 253 initially won the competition, receiving a production order for 150 aircraft. However, in June 1935, the decision was reversed after testing of a parallel monoplane design Vickers had submitted as a private venture - the Wellesley. The Wellesley offered considerably better performance, prompting the Air Ministry to cancel the order for the Type 253 and instead order the Wellesley into production.
>>30156689
Handley Page would one of the two monoplanes to receive a contract for prototypes. The H.P.47 would be a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a semi-monocoque all-metal construction. The wing itself was decidedly modern, fitted with leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps. The crew of two sat in tandem in a streamlined cockpit, and space was made behind the cockpit to carry up to three passengers or two stretchers. In addition, owing to the torpedo bomber requirements, the H.P.47 was capable of carrying a substantial payload under the centerline of the aircraft. The H.P.47 would fly for the first time in November 1934. Initial tests saw minor changes made, such as the installment of spats for the landing gear, a Townend ring, and a more powerful engine. It was then submitted for acceptance tests, where it flew off against competitors. Unfortunately, the H.P.47 demonstrated stability issues, and ultimately was not selected for production.
>>30156697
Blackburn initially had no interest in the new requirements, only submitting a contender once the Air Ministry extended specifications to call for torpedo bombing. Receiving the internal designation B-7, the new bomber was heavily derived from their earlier Shark torpedo bomber. The folding wings of the Shark were eliminated, and the wings were enlarged to improve payload capacity. The watertight semi-monocoque fuselage of the Shark was retained, as was the split undercarriage necessary for torpedo bombing. Even the engine was retained. In effect, the B-7 was little more than a de-navalization of the Shark. Testing began in in late November 1934 with the aircraft submitted for trials in May of the next year. Unfortunately, the B-7 failed to win any favor, so it was scrapped at the end of the competition.
>>30156708
Hawker would submit a private-venture design based off of their Hart/Hind two-seat fighter. Heavily derived from the Hind, the P.V.4 made significant changes to accommodate the dive bombing and air-cooled engines requirements. A Bristol Pegasus radial engine replaced the water-cooled inline of the Hart, and, although payload remained the same at just 570lb of bombs, the structure was reinforced to support dive-bombing. The P.V.4 took flight in December 1934, entering trials the next year after receiving a more powerful engine. In trials, it proved to be the only competitor capable of dive-bombing, but, because of the single-axle undercarriage, it failed to meet torpedo-bombing requirements. Ultimately, the dive-bombing requirement was dropped entirely, leaving the P.V.4 with little utility. The sole prototype was passed on to Bristol for engine testing, and later that decade it was evaluated by the Finnish Air Force, who was in search of a new dive bomber. However, it failed to gain a production order, and was ultimately retired in 1939.
>>30156716
Parnall would produce another nameless biplane proposal for the Air Ministry requirements. Overall, the bomber was unremarkable. With a metal-tube and fabric-skin construction, the bomber was designed around the torpedo bombing requirements and fitted with a gull wing to provide a good field of view for the crew. It would be the last of the original contenders to fly, taking flight in 1935. It would not be delivered for evaluation until early 1936 owing to a number of problems revealed in the design that required significant modifications, by which time the competition had already ended and a winner had been selected. The sole prototype flew on in armament trials until 1937, when it was damaged in a crash and subsequently scrapped.
>>30156725
Though Vickers had already received a contract for their Type 253 monoplane, they would also develop a considerably more advanced monoplane contender as a private venture. The new monoplane made use of the same geodetic construction as the Type 253, and it made use of a long, high aspect-ratio wing, streamlined fuselage, and retractable landing gear. First flying in June 1935, it was submitted to the Air Ministry after the original round of selection had already concluded. Though the new bomber was designed for a pure bomber role rather than the multirole requirements of the specification, it offered far better performance than any of the other competitors. Thus, the Air Ministry rewrote specifications around it, cancelled the order for the Vickers Type 253 that had originally won the production contract, and placed a sizeable order for the new bomber under the service name Wellesley.
>>30156732
>pic
>>30156732
The Wellesley would enter service in April 1937, coming to fly with six squadrons in the UK and six more abroad. Three were modified for long-range flights, setting a distance record in 1938 when they flew nonstop from Egypt to Darwin, Australia - a record that still stands for single-engined piston aircraft. Though the Wellesley was impressive when it first flew, however, it was rapidly made obsolete, and by the outbreak of war in Europe, most squadrons were phasing the bomber out of service. However, when Italy entered the war in 1940, Wellesleys in Africa and the Middle East were called into action. Their first bombing mission came the day after the Italian entry into the war, hitting targets in Ethiopia. The bombers proved to be incredibly vulnerable to Italian fighters due to a lack of available escort, but losses remained low enough for the bomber to continue operations through the end of the campaign. With the end of the combat in East Africa, the Wellesleys shifted over to maritime reconnaissance in the Red Sea, where they remained until being retired in September 1942.
>>30156748
In 1934, the Daily Mail newspaper challenged the British aviation industry to develop a high-speed transport to compete with aircraft like the He 70 coming out of Germany at the time. Bristol responded, repurposing another design they were working on to produce the Type 142. First flying in April 1935, the Type 142 was a sleek twin-engined monoplane that proved to be faster than any fighter then in service. Unsurprisingly, this caught the attention of the Air Ministry, who wrote specifications around a militarized version. Bristol quickly adapted the design, moving the wing up to accommodate a bomb bay. The new bomber had a crew of three, with a pilot and bombardier in a stepless canopy and a gunner in a dorsal turret. Armament consisted of a single forward firing machinegun and two in the dorsal turret and a 1,000lb payload capacity. The new bomber, now known as the Blenheim, was ordered directly from the drawing board, with deliveries starting in March 1937.
>>30156757
Though the Blenheim Mk I was a capable aircraft, the stepless canopy was found to make flying the plane difficult, so it was quickly replaced by the Mk III, which featured a conventional nose. It quickly caught the attention of several foreign powers like Finland, who placed small orders, while the RAF began phasing it into most light and medium-bomber squadrons. Unfortunately, though the Blenheim had unparalleled performance when it first entered service, it soon lost this advantage. Rapidly advancing aircraft technology outpaced the bomber, and, as more equipment was added to the design, it became weighed down. By the outbreak of war, the Blenheim was no longer fast enough to evade enemy fighters, and, with its modest armament, it was unable to protect itself.
>>30156762
The Blenheim was among the first aircraft called into action when Britain entered the war in 1939. Deployed to France with the British Expeditionary Force, they served as reconnaissance aircraft and bombers. It would fly the RAF’s first wartime sortie on September 3 with a reconnaissance flight over Wilhelmshaven, and later they would also fly the RAF’s first bombing mission. Like the Fairey Battle, early service was already starting to demonstrate the type’s vulnerability, but it wasn’t until the Battle of France kicked off that the Blenheim really started to suffer. Though they were not thrown into missions as suicidal as those assigned to the Battle, the Blenheim still suffered heavy losses over France. However, unlike the Battle, the Blenheim was kept in service even after the Battle of France came to an end.
>>30156767
Once withdrawn across the Channel, Blenheims continued to strike at enemy forces. Heavy losses in daylight raids would cause the RAF to shift all bomber missions to night raids, where the Blenheim fared better. Once the Battle of Britain began, the Blenheim was thrown into action on daring cross-Channel raids, hitting German airfields in France around the clock to keep pressure on enemy aircrews. Unsurprisingly, these raids saw the Blenheims suffer heavy losses, with many missions leading to the loss of all aircraft involved. Some Blenheims were also used for long-range strategic reconnaissance, but those missions were soon abandoned as the bomber proved too slow and vulnerable. Several Blenheims were converted to serve as night fighters as well, taking a more active role in the defense of Britain in the Fall of 1940. Raids into Europe continued through 1941, but losses continued to mount while newer variants were proving incapable of keeping the bomber competitive. By 1942, the Blenheim began being replaced, with the last bombing mission over Europe flown in August.
>>30156769
Though the Blenheim was phased out of service in Britain, it took longer for those in tertiary theaters to be replaced. Many remained in use in the Mediterranean, where the reduced threat from enemy fighters allowed them to excel. Long-range reconnaissance sorties were frequently flown from Egypt and Malta, and in North Africa, the Blenheim would continue to serve as a bomber. In the Far East, the Blenheim also saw considerable use, particularly in the Burma campaign, where they made several daring raids on IJA airfields in Thailand early in the campaign. Unfortunately, they soon ran into the same shortcomings that cost them so many aircraft over Europe, and, by the end of 1942, the Blenheim had generally been phased out of RAF service.
>>30156773
When the Air Ministry issued specifications for a new monoplane bomber-transport, Armstrong Whitworth responded with a new low-winged monoplane designated A.W.23. The A.W.23 was a twin-engined machine with a long, boxy fuselage capable of accommodating up to 24 troops or 2,000lb of bombs internally. Though the fuselage was a fabric-covered steel tube frame, the wing was made of a novel new construction that was extremely strong. Taking flight in early June 1935, the A.W.23 was delayed for testing owing to reliability problems with its engines. Thus, by the time it was submitted to the Air Ministry, Bristol’s competing Bombay had already been selected as the winning design. Fortunately, the A.W.23 was not a complete waste, with Armstrong Whitworth reworking the desgin into the Whitley bomber.
>>30156783
In response to an Air Ministry specification for a bomber-transport to replace the Vickers Valentia with a monoplane, Bristol produced a design that would be contracted as the Bombay. Designed around a requirement for a capacity of 24 troops, the Bombay was a shoulder-winged all-metal monoplane with fixed landing gear. As a transport, the Bombay would have a capacity of 24 troops and a crew of three - a pilot, navigator/bombardier, and radio operator/nose gunner. For bombing, eight 250lb bombs could be fitted under the fuselage and an extra crewman would be added to man the tail turret. The Bombay flew for the first time in June 1935, driven by two Pegasus engines. Testing went well, and an order for 80 was placed with uprated engines, variable-pitch propellers, and no wheel spats.
>>30156794
Unfortunately, due to the complex structure of the Bombay’s wing, the first production aircraft wasn’t delivered until September 1939. By then, it was obsolete as a bomber, so it was primarily flown as a transport. They were used to support the British Expeditionary Force in France, though the bulk of the force was sent to the Middle East. When Italy entered the war, Bombays were pressed into service as night bombers in North Africa, with the normal load of 250lb bombs supplemented by crewmen throwing bombs out the aircraft by hand. These night raids were fairly long range, with the bombers hitting targets as far away as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Italian Somaliland. However, their career was bombers was brief, and they were shifted back to transport roles once adequate numbers of Wellingtons made it to the theater. The remainder of their career was marked by high-profile transport missions. They regularly saw use evacuating wounded and ferrying men in the Mediterranean, and five were used in the inaugural mission of the SAS in late 1941. Missions continued into 1944, with the Bombay ferrying wounded out of Sicily and Italy before they were finally withdrawn at the end of the year.
>>30156802
In 1933, the Air Ministry issued Specification P.27/32 for a two-seat single-engine monoplane bomber with a range of 1,000 miles and payload of 1,000lb of bombs. Intended to replace the Hart and Hind fighter-bombers, the specification was also intended to preserve the RAF’s long-range bombing capabilities in the event heavier machines were banned at the Geneva disarmament conference. Fairey submitted several designs, with their winner emerging as a low-wing monoplane with a semi-monocoque structure. Powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin, the new bomber looked more like a fighter. A crew of three was carried in a long greenhouse canopy, and a ventral bombardier’s position was added. A bomb bay provided space for four 250lb bombs supplemented by racks under the wings for two more. Defensive armament was light, however, with just a single .303 machinegun in the starboard wing and a single flexible gun in the rear cockpit.
>>30156811
Taking flight in March 1936, the Battle did meet the specifications, but by then it was badly out of date. Nevertheless, the rapid push for rearmament secured a massive order for the new bomber. 155 had been ordered in 1935 before the first prototype even flew, and these orders ballooned as war loomed. The first Battles reached operational squadrons in 1937, and by the outbreak of war in 1939 ten bomber squadrons were flying the Battle. These ten squadrons were deployed to France in September 1939, but their use was limited. They primarily flew reconnaissance missions over Germany, with no real bombing missions ordered just yet. On one of these flights, a Battle downed a Bf 109, marking the first RAF kill of the war. However, many were lost to enemy fighters, foreshadowing the catastrophic performance to come.
>>30156817
Though the Battle was already showing its issues, the gravity of the problem wouldn’t become clear until Germany invaded France in 1940. On May 10, 1940, the first day of the Battle of France, 32 Battles sortied to attack advancing enemy troops, suffering the loss of 13 of their own. The next day, seven of eight were lost, and an entire formation of five attacking bridges on the Albert Canal were downed. An emphasis on low-level attacks was clearly proving untenable, with the Battle incapable of flying such missions in the face of enemy aircraft and ground fire. Missions transitioned to medium altitudes, where the situation briefly improved, but this change was short-lived. On May 14, the 63 remaining Battles in France were sortied against bridges, only to be intercepted and suffer the loss of 35 of their own.
>>30156825
High losses persisted through the end of the Battle of France, with the beaten Battle squadrons finally being withdrawn to Britain on June 15. The Battle squadrons were briefly reorganized and thrown back into cross-Channel nighttime raids, but their career was short-lived, and they were replaced by Vickers Wellingtons by the end of 1940. Three squadrons of Battles were shifted off to Coastal Command, who flew them as patrol aircraft over the North Sea and Atlantic as late as 1941. However, most would live out their lives as training aircraft. The last combat use of the Battle came in 1942, where the South Africans flew the type in North Africa before being replaced by more modern types.
>>30156857
New thread because there's not enough space for the rest of them:
>>30156873
bump for reading
TY for thread OP.
back from page 7
Anyone have suggestions for new threads?
