Assistance required to identify this aircraft

[QUOTE=Tom131;2356744]It was a most excellent evening; well worth attending. I found it difficult to fault the general sentiment of Mr Baughen’s talk, though I must confess I did think some of his assertions were perhaps a little naïve.

Hi
A bit late, (I’m very new to this social media business!) but thanks for all those nice comments about the November RAeS Cosford talk. (I had no idea my little Fairey teaser had sparked such interest!)
I know it’s a long time ago, so you’ve probably completely forgotten the talk, but I’d be very interested in which bits of the argument you thought were weak or debatable. It’s always hard to get honest feedback at the time. Quite naturally, nobody wants to have anything bad to say about a talk when the speaker has driven 200 miles to get there! But it would be very useful to know where I need to tighten up the argument or perhaps delete something in future talks.
Honest, I won’t be angry or upset! I’m just interested!

Thanks
His book came out about a year ago and is one of a series he is working on, I believe. Sounds like one to add to the Christmas list.
The mantra that ‘the bomber will always get through’ was played out throughout the 20s and on into the early 30s, by which time the advocates of the fighter were beginning to be heard and gain support, from Dowding for example. CAS Ellington was one of several who backed the theory that bombers attacking in formation would best be countered by fighters engaging them in formation, which implied turrets or other form of traversing guns.

Spot on.That’s the gist of the lecture.

Thanks
His book came out about a year ago and is one of a series he is working on, I believe. Sounds like one to add to the Christmas list.
The mantra that ‘the bomber will always get through’ was played out throughout the 20s and on into the early 30s, by which time the advocates of the fighter were beginning to be heard and gain support, from Dowding for example. CAS Ellington was one of several who backed the theory that bombers attacking in formation would best be countered by fighters engaging them in formation, which implied turrets or other form of traversing guns.

I would not expect anything to be published from the talk, but I do know Greg has published a book “The Rise of the Bomber” (which was the title of the talk). So apologies as I’m condensing from memory an hour’s talk which is condensed from a 300 page book. The subtitle could be”..and its effect on fighter design”.

The basic premise was that between the wars, a major belief of the Air Ministry was that the bomber was the future of warfare. It would, when operated by the RAF, cause devastation from above. To defend ourselves from those poised against us,we needed to stop the hoards of enemy bombers. As they were thought to be slow, there wasn’t perceived by those in high places to be a pressing need for air superiority fighters, but instead for heavy fighters, a bit faster than the bombers, which could fly alongside and destroy them with powerful canons. This led to the spec above (and others), ideas to use bombers as defensive gun platforms, ideas to develop other heavy twin engined fighters (which eventually appeared as the Beaufighter and, a lot lighter, the Whirlwind, and as a single engined bomber destroyer, the Defiant. Day and night weren’t treated separately.

Definitely interesting stuff, he’s a very engaging speaker. I emphasise that I’m just reporting what he said and I’m not qualified to pursue any arguments. I know he’s done the talk elsewhere, so will doubtless repeat it. I would recommend it, whether or not you agree with him.

Ah, the specification described as ‘too vague and impractical as to not warrant serious consideration’ by the Air Ministry’s own committee, although as it had been championed by Ellington, then Chief of the Air Staff, it continued to live on for a short while.
What was the main subject of the talk and will anything from it be published?

Well Tom, I hope you enjoyed the talk. I certainly did.

Greg Baughen revealed the mystery fighter to be the Fairey design to specification F22/33 which called for a nose and dorsal turret. Boulton Paul also produced a design, but neither was built as the spec called for a top speed of around 250mph and then Fairey produced their P4/34 bomber which achieved 300mph, meaning the fighter would be easily outrun by newer technology. The design was canned from a negative held at the FAA Museum.

If anybody thinks the concept a little challenging, an earlier one called for 2 gun stations, both being occupied by pilots. The one who had the best shot would fire while the other one flew. What could possibly go wrong.

It was a most excellent evening; well worth attending. I found it difficult to fault the general sentiment of Mr Baughen’s talk, though I must confess I did think some of his assertions were perhaps a little naïve. I was, however, hugely disappointed at some of the disparaging comments made by certain members of the audience during the q & a. Whilst open debate on such subjects ought to be encouraged, I couldn’t help but think that some of the points raised seemed to show a distinct ignorance of the subject matter and gave me the strong impression that some of those in attendance just wanted to hear the sound of their own voices. I cannot help but recall that well loved phase: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.

Well Tom, I hope you enjoyed the talk. I certainly did.

Greg Baughen revealed the mystery fighter to be the Fairey design to specification F22/33 which called for a nose and dorsal turret. Boulton Paul also produced a design, but neither was built as the spec called for a top speed of around 250mph and then Fairey produced their P4/34 bomber which achieved 300mph, meaning the fighter would be easily outrun by newer technology. The design was scanned from a negative held at the FAA Museum.

If anybody thinks the concept a little challenging, an earlier one called for 2 gun stations, both being occupied by pilots. The one who had the best shot would fire while the other one flew. What could possibly go wrong.

The plot thickens. I am actually based at Cosford and will be attending the above mentioned talk with the afore mentioned boss. The dots would appear to join up rather well.

Great, can’t wait to hear more

By a remarkable co-incidence, I saw that image on Friday too and was a bit stumped. The person who showed it me says it is from a talk on bombers (though it might not be a bomber) which aviation historian Greg Baughen is giving this Thursday (7.00, 17.11.16) to Royal Aeronatical Society Birmingham Wolverhampton & Cosford at the RAF Museum (Cold War Hangar) Cosford. I understand visitors can attend. I’m looking forward to finding out and will post then if the answer is still outstanding.

Air Enthusiast Quarterly 43 has an excellent, and long, article on unbuilt AW projects but adds nothing to the AW34 story above what has been said here. It did, however, prove to be the source of the comment that AW had commenced construction.
Air International July 91 has an article on the BP Defiant that includes info on other turret fighter projects.
Unless you have been passed a ‘ringer’ the drawing appears to be of a previously unseen type.

That is not outside of the realms of possibility.

🙂 So he’s been doodling in his spare time to wind you up.

Errr… a little awkward that; I’m afraid I don’t know where it came from. The above image was handed to me, on a sheet of A4, on Friday afternoon, by my boss – “A bit of a challenge for you” he said. No doubt he’ll come across this at some point and realise that I couldn’t fathom it for myself. I think it may have come to him via a friend at RAeS, but I’m not 100% on that.

I’ll be able to check both tomorrow. What was the source of the drawing you posted?

Thanks both of you for the info; the AW34 is looking like a strong contender. A little bit of googling reveals that some info on this type may be available in the following publications: Air Enthusiast Quarterly 43 & Air International Magazine, Jul, 1991. Would anyone happen to have copies? It might be that one of them contains an image.

If it is an AW design then, yes, it would be the AW34. Do you think it is? I’m unsure given the dorsal turret which was not in the spec.
You’re probably correct that the AW34 was not started, I read ‘under development’ and extrapolated too far

That would be the A.W. 34, powered by a pair of Armstrong Siddeley Terrier engines.
That was a development of the A.W. 33 design based on the F.22/33 specification. Powered by a pair of Armstrong Siddeley Double Genet Major engines, it had a projected top speed of 255 mph…(which is probably why it was not proceeded with).

No mention of construction work is mentioned in Tapper’s Armstrong Whitworth book.

Specification F.5/33 called for a fighter with a front-mounted turret and Armstrong-Whitworth are said to have commenced construction of a prototype prior to the requirement being cancelled. This drawing has a kind-of AW vibe about it