PMN1
31st May 2009, 22:04
RAF Bomber Command and its Aircraft 1936-1940, James Goulding and Philip Moyes
'Further assessment of high-altitude bombers led to the issue of Specification B.35/37 for the design of two bombers, one to operate at 25,000ft and the other above 40,000ft. Both types were to have a pressure cabin and were to be four-engined. It was suggested that the power plant be the high-altitude Merlin with two-stage superchargers and that the aircraft also have a tricycle undercarriage. The aircraft were to be armed with 20mm cannon, with four firing to the rear, and two more firing forward. It was proposed that the ’25,000ft’ aircraft be developed form the Stirling and the ’40,000ft’ type from one of the P.13/36 bombers – preferably the Halifax.
Although project work was done on these aeroplanes, they were not developed – probably because both the B.12/36 and P.13/35 bombers’ wings were of low aspect ratio, due to the span restriction of up to 100ft.'
Why did this pressurisation and high altitude requirement disappear from the B.1/39 Standard Bomber Project?
What kind of project work was done by which companies and did any of it have any relevance to the later Avro 684 Stratospheric Lancaster?
'Further assessment of high-altitude bombers led to the issue of Specification B.35/37 for the design of two bombers, one to operate at 25,000ft and the other above 40,000ft. Both types were to have a pressure cabin and were to be four-engined. It was suggested that the power plant be the high-altitude Merlin with two-stage superchargers and that the aircraft also have a tricycle undercarriage. The aircraft were to be armed with 20mm cannon, with four firing to the rear, and two more firing forward. It was proposed that the ’25,000ft’ aircraft be developed form the Stirling and the ’40,000ft’ type from one of the P.13/36 bombers – preferably the Halifax.
Although project work was done on these aeroplanes, they were not developed – probably because both the B.12/36 and P.13/35 bombers’ wings were of low aspect ratio, due to the span restriction of up to 100ft.'
Why did this pressurisation and high altitude requirement disappear from the B.1/39 Standard Bomber Project?
What kind of project work was done by which companies and did any of it have any relevance to the later Avro 684 Stratospheric Lancaster?