Beau's with Merlin's.

A pair of engines hotly pursued by some historic signatures? 😀

Their names inside the nose panel, lovely idea. When it flies again they will be leading the way as they did often enough in their hey day.

Sadly Phil, many already have. 🙁 I doubt many old Beau pilots and navs will get to see one go again, but you may be interested to know that Skysport made a point of getting all the old Beau boys who came to visit the aeroplane to sign the inside of the restored nose panel. The intention was then to have this panel fitted as the final piece of the aeroplane, and therefore when the aeroplane finally goes again, these old chaps (some of who have already passed away) will be flying with her.

Lovely gesture.

Still for all it’s fault’s, If they can get a Beaufighter flying again, with any type engine’s, It would be a great flying tribute to many in Oz and the U.K. to see that again before all the old boy’s all pass on, that battled on with this beast and the enemy.

Sadly Phil, many already have. 🙁 I doubt many old Beau pilots and navs will get to see one go again, but you may be interested to know that Skysport made a point of getting all the old Beau boys who came to visit the aeroplane to sign the inside of the restored nose panel. The intention was then to have this panel fitted as the final piece of the aeroplane, and therefore when the aeroplane finally goes again, these old chaps (some of who have already passed away) will be flying with her.

Not quiet the same word’s Mike, but I was just now about to post something very similiar to what you have.

The right tool for the job at that time, a very good weapon’s delivery platform,(we didn’t have much else better in Oz I think)

Still for all it’s fault’s, If they can get a Beaufighter flying again, with any type engine’s, It would be a great flying tribute to many in Oz and the U.K. to see that again before all the old boy’s all pass on, that battled on with this beast and the enemy.

And a good pilot that can master the beast, well enough to be displayed, in say only basic fly past’s, nothing to fancy, that should be safe enough.

I get the impression that it was very much a case of it being a useful tool for the job but, like any aircraft, was more than willing to bite fools and the unwary.

The site I took the above from also gives a link to an original Beaufighter pilots manual, which is obviously of interest.

http://www.burrowes.org/FamilyTree/E.F.G.Burrowes_LogBook/extras/Beaufighter-Manual/

Some of the most relevent passages:

Part II – Handling

40 (iii) Any slight tendency to swing to starboard can easily be checked by leading slightly with the starboard throttle until the rudder becomes effective.

43 9(ii) Stability – directional and lateral stability are satisfactory. Fore and aft stability – at high speed the aircraft is comfortably stable and at cruising speed it is just stable. At the slower speeds eg on the climb and approach, it is slightly unstable. However gliding with the engine off (wheels and flaps both up and down) it is just stable. Although stable in level flight, cloud or night fighting is not advisable as handling becomes difficult below 180 mph IAS.

It also notes that the machines without the dihedral tailplane are “considerably” unstable fore and aft under all conditions of flight.

With regard to the tendency to understatement in such publications of the time, the impression is of a machine that needs attention to fly and will bite given a chance, but not the brute that sometimes seems to be depicted.

It seems that the subject of Beaufighter handling is by no means a closed book! The overall impression I get is of a powerful beast that is tricky to handle on the ground and in marginal situations, that needs attention to fly accurately. In this, it is hardly unusual amongst its peers – the Hurricane also needs constant retrimming and even a relatively benign type such as the Balliol was known to torque roll if given too much power too quickly which could catch out the unwary, especially at low altitude or in the circuit.

As in most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

From www.burmabeaufighters.com:

On Flying Beaufighters

Opinions differed about flying Beaufighters and whether they were difficult to handle or not. Bingham (1994, pp.67—69) gives the impression that they were easy. Most tyros thought they were fearsome. The pilots of 177 generally thought they were marvellous aircraft but not to be taken lightly at any time, not just when landing or taking off. This view was held by Mike Hunt (S/L, DSO and Bar, DFC) and George Nottage (W/C, DSO, AFC) who were far from being tyros.

Bingham (ibid.) writes:
A lot of nonsense has been written over the years about the take-off swing of the Beaufighter, which was in fact no worse than that of the Mosquito, and could easily be held. It is obvious that any aircraft whose CG (centre of gravity) is well behind the main wheels, with two powerful engines forward, is a natural for moving from the straight and narrow as soon as the engines are opened up. This fault on the Beaufighter was easily corrected by some differential throttle control when opening up, maintaining the aircraft in the forward direction until the rudder ‘bit’ and full rudder control was gained — then moving the throttles to the gate and the Beau accelerated like a scalded cat.

On the other hand, Sutherland Brown (1992) wrote:
Flying Beaus was no piece of cake: their reputation for being hard to handle was deserved. The great torque generated by the powerful engines, connected to large three-bladed propellers winding up forward of the fuselage, tended to create wild swings on take-off. Also the high wing-loading dropped you out of the sky like a brick on landing. Furthermore in the air there was no hands-off flying because Beaufighters were relatively unstable: they needed constant trimming and had no auto pilots.
On the positive side these planes were otherwise nice to handle, responsive, silent on approach, powerful and fast at sea level. They were very rugged and had remarkably well-planned, roomy cockpits with unexcelled visibility. Instrument layout was logical and relatively uncluttered. The engines were trouble free, seldom overheated on the ground in the tropics and kept on producing even with severe damage from enemy action.

On 177 Squadron the pilots were involved in long-distance flights at the limits of the aircraft’s endurance so they cruised at high boost and low revolutions to save fuel — commonly flying at 180 knots except on target, when under fire or during evasive action when they might go though the throttle gate for short periods and might exceed 260 knots (300 mph) at sea level (see Appendix 2, Handling of Beaufighters and Performance).

The squadron pilots were not a demonstrative bunch and rarely beat up the field after a ‘good show’, possibly because they were nearly out of gas. So little did they perform egotistic manoeuvres that a Dakota squadron sharing Feni with them did not think they were fighter pilots on ops. Occasionally someone would blast over the mess or briefing room at about 20 feet which would certainly startle all inside. Whatever the origin of the sobriquet ‘Whispering Death’, it certainly was true that with such an approach one heard nothing on the ground until one nearly soiled one’s trousers with surprise. A few pilots barrel-rolled Beaus, but not near the deck because none of the observers liked it. A manoeuvre pilots did like was steep turns along the deck in humid conditions (most of the time) when the wingtip vortexes created vapour trails and a strong whistling sound to external observers.

The pilots also liked having a bulletproof windscreen, considering they were frequently diving at an enemy who was firing at them. However the plane-sloped surface of the windscreen was not designed for tropical downpours, when it became opaque with sheet flow. Pilots were saved flying along the deck under such conditions by opening the vent windows at the sides through which, with the neck of a giraffe, one got a small glimpse of reality.

The ruggedness of the plane’s construction was another thing Beau pilots all liked and to which many owed their lives. The photos of Beaus with trees in their wings, or missing wingtips, large holes in the airframe and engines, crashes and belly landings in which most of the crew survived made them all believers. They might have been scared white at OTU, flying clapped-out Beau Is at night but, once experience was gained on these remarkable aircraft, they flew the later Marks with bravura and confidence.

From what I have read, and been told by an old dude who had flown some Oz beau’s, while I was looking at the one here complete I think(is it JDK), in Melbourne a few year’s back.

I’m presuming that’s a question? 😀 Yes, there’s a complete Beaufighter 21 at Morrabbin, which was the last ‘active’ Beau as its engines were run until the 80s I believe. The museum, I understand, won’t swap or exchange the engines or other parts of the aircraft as it’s an essentially complete aircraft ‘as built’ and as a historical document not to be ‘split’ – a point of view I concur with. (Details here: http://www.aarg.com.au/Beaufighter.htm)

I’m far from a Beau expert, but there’s no arguing that the type was a handful to fly. The story is that the Merlin IIs were ‘worse’ than the radial versions, but one has to allow some of that is the common habit of ‘giving a dog a bad name’ for what was a dead end development of the type. I believe (but I could be wrong) that TFC have looked into Merlin power for their machine, but rejected it – obvious to consider, reasons for rejection I don’t know. The Mozzie’s swing on take off could have condemmed the type if it hadn’t been so useful – in which case we could be speculating about that wooden aeroplane that never did much.

sadly the woman director of East Fortune put paid to one such case by mothballing one that was brought over from South Africa to be restored…in favour of CONCORDE!!! Typical from a woman that hardly knows a Kittyhawk from a Duck (Or Goose for that matter)… to make matters worse a widower whose husband flew such a plane donated all her pension to see it restored only for it to go into storage..AAArrrrggghh!!!!

I really don’t know that the gender of the Museum director has anything to do with anything, Soapbox. As MikeJ said, the East Fortune collection has a ‘no fly’ policy. I think their handling of recent events could do with improvement, but let’s keep the comments appropriate. I presume you have your curatorial degree? What is worth considering is that a) the Beau will be rebuilt (one day!) and b) the recent shenanigans at the collection have spotlit some of the less acceptable practices that should result in a better performance in the future. Not only that, but Radar Archive will keep ’em honest! 😀

There IS an alternative (so chiz to M Thatcher) and it was built in Aus and here’s a pic, stolen from this thread http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2032 on the Air Warfare Forum. It’s:

The second completely Australian-built Bristol Beaufighter. A19-2, was experimentally fitted with two Wright R-2600 Double Cyclone motors and had extended motor nacelles.

Now THAT’S a sight I’d like to see from the Westgate bridge when I drive across it…

If on the other hand what one has to start with is a bare-bones basic airframe and what one wants to end up with is a representative Beau on static display, by all means, lay hold of a couple Lanc (or York, or CASA 2-111, or…) “power eggs” and resurrect the extinct Mk.II Beau for museum exhibit.

Not completely extinct… the cockpit and forward fuselage section at RAF Museum Hendon is a II, although the identity is unknown.

I’m relaying what’s said in the Bristol book although I believe I’ve seen it elsewhere too.
My understanding is the propellor disc, and presumably point of thrust, is much further forward, relative to the undercarriage and control surfaces, making the normal swing even worse.

I think it certainly contributes but whether it is the main reason….. The Mossie had a very similar engine configuration and also swung quite badly, but not so much that it was considered “poor”. The engines in the Beau obviously look a lot further forward, but that’s partly due to the snub nose of the design, if you look at relative position to the centre section there’s not a huge degree of difference…

So maybe there are other reasons as well – the Mossie’s tail fin is narrower and taller, so maybe the Beau’s tail unit did not become effective so quickly? It’s a complicated subject and one I don’t pretend to have more than a passing understanding of, but it’s a fact that handling is an amalgam of interelated effects.

I’m relaying what’s said in the Bristol book although I believe I’ve seen it elsewhere too.
My understanding is the propellor disc, and presumably point of thrust, is much further forward, relative to the undercarriage and control surfaces, making the normal swing even worse.

I seem to recall that John Cunningham joined a Beau nightfighter outfit where morale was low after a number of accidents which had given rise to the notion that the type was a pilot killer.

One of Cunningham’s first actions, with one of the flight commanders standing behind him was to take an aircraft out for a circuit, chop one engine during the take off run, stagger round the circuit on one and land it. Pretty sure this incident was related in the book Night Figther by Cunninghams nav, “Jimmy” Rawnsley, but stand ready to be corrected!

From my admittedly second hand knowledge, it seems that the (Hercules powered) aircraft was certainly not for novices, but its reputation for poor handling is not entirely deserved.

I’m not sure, DHFan, that the length of the engines was the reason for the swing, at least not all of it (admittedly the engines were a long way forward so the turning moment would have been greater) After all, even a stubby little fellow like a Pitts Special will swing quite violently on applying power on the ground if you’re a bit ham fisted with it! Obviously the forces on an airframe are complicated but swing is largely a function of power and torque. Most piston types swing – the gyroscopic precession effect tries to roll the aircraft however on the ground the undercarriage prevents the roll, but in doing so puts more weight on one side than the other causing more drag which together with the yawing moment creates the tendency to swing.

Looking through the Putnam again, it says the Beaufighter II was slightly tail-heavy. That’s confused me.

It also says the Griffon plan was the Air Ministry’s idea, not Bristol’s.

The swing on the Merlin powered versions was even worse, caused by the long engines.

Bristol Aircraft since whenever has the empty weights of the I and II as being the same. Seems unlikely to me. I would have thought the Merlin installation would be a fair bit heavier, and further forwards, needing tail weight to bring the CG back in limits.

If it was worse than the Hercules ones then it must have been almost uncontrolable.
Stormbird, I’m sorry to have to inform you that the P-38 engines rotated outwards which is fine when they are both running properly but exagerates the problem if one quits.
As to the point of fitting Griffons, the Merlin problems would still exist i.e. heavy liquid cooled engine putting the weight further forward, associated plumbing, radiators, etc.

P.S Great Picture Old Eagle mate!!!!

Anyone else have any Merlin Beaufighter Picture’s to share with us.

A flying Beaufighter

From what I have read, and been told by an old dude who had flown some Oz beau’s, while I was looking at the one here complete I think(is it JDK), in Melbourne a few year’s back.

He told me they could be a real hand full, and very unforgiving for the novice pilot(many accident’s,mostly take off and landing), but had some real nasty thing’s it could pull on you under certain condition’s as well, so hand’s on at all time’s, even after you thought you had mastered the beast..

But he did stress the point, they were very tough, had o.k speed and range, and could lift a heavy load and pack a mighty punch, which he said was all that really mattered at that time(did not mention meeting single engine Jap aircraft :rolleyes: ).

I think last thing he said was, the Beau was a cross-bred mongrel aircraft knock together, and never did have all it’s kink’s fixed, but did the job o.k. in the end.

My Grandfather was a RAAF Erk, up north in WW2, and worked at C.A.C. Fisherman’s bend in Melbourne, as well a quiet a few other airbase’s aswell, so my uncle tell’s me.

He loved the Beau’s, but he told me he alway’s knew they would all be scraped after the war, because they really were not much chop, but did the job.

O.k, Merlin Beau’s took longer on the take off run, which was not liked at all, but was faster at 25,000 ft, it’s handling was just as bad as the radial version, more so because it was under powered.

The underpowered bit was because it did not get it’s Griffon’s, so with them, I would say thing’s would have improved there, in that respect.

The handling was another matter, never really sorted, but they did try.

To start with, I think 2 Griffon’s rotating inward’s I think, toward’s each other(like on the P-38), would help thing’s a bit with swing.

I understand some of the handling was because of how the propeller vortex’s, acted on the control’s surface’s, and general plane design had fault’s.

Let’s fix as many of the fault’s the Beau’s have(like the 262’s), fly one with Griffon’s if possible, make it as safe as we can.

That about all we can do, and I am still damn sure, it must be faster then waiting for some Cent radial’s to be re-built, and it never happen’s 🙁 .

MY TWO BOB’S WORTH!!! 😀 😀 😀

The swing on the Merlin powered versions was even worse, caused by the long engines.

Bristol Aircraft since whenever has the empty weights of the I and II as being the same. Seems unlikely to me. I would have thought the Merlin installation would be a fair bit heavier, and further forwards, needing tail weight to bring the CG back in limits.

Whispering Death is just a myth, the Japanese never called it such !!!

The Merlin Beaufighter MkII was not liked by it’s crews who preferred the Hercules version’s, I’m lead to believe that it had some pretty poor handling characteristics.

The Hercules engined ones were by no means viceless. Aparently they had a horrendous swing on take off, just the opposite way to the Merlin engined ones.

merlin a/c

Hi,
first thoughts, on under powered/ bad merlin a/c

merlin wellington
battle
henley
whitley
defiant (?)

any others ?

cheers
jerry