Jump to content

Wellington Torpedo Bombers.


Sydhuey

Recommended Posts

I am trying to find pictures of Wellingtons with 2 torpedoes fitted, did they run the centre bomb door or was that removed, I have a copy of the Wellington bomb load diagram that was on an earlier thread which shows the 2 x torpedoes attached to a bomb carrier beam and what looks like no centre dividers or bomb doors. I have nothing in any of my books and the net doesn't show much , best is a nose turretless Mk 1c getting 2 x torpedoes wheeled under it but little aircraft detail. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some confusing info out there. The 4+ book has the 2 torpedo in the beam carrier as you say, but The Wellington Bomber by Chas Bowyer says they were vertical pairs ( I presume in the central bay? ) The turret was removed to save weight and improve pilot vision.

 

http://Capture_zpsywko0aba.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to picture how a torpedo can be carried on a heavy carrier (mounted itself on the bomb bay roof), and then have another torpedo mounted below it.  How is the weight of this lower torpedo to be carried to the aircraft structure?  The body of the first/upper torpedo is not strong enough to take such a load, so it would have to be diverted somehow requiring significant extra structure.  Further, the bombbay of the Wellington is shallow, like all other designs of the period, only being required to take the standard width of the 2000lb SAP bomb, a long slender weapon.  I think it likelier that the author has misunderstood the side-by-side mounting described elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very useful.  Narrowness isn't a problem, given the diameter of the weapons, and from that view it doesn't seem that depth would be either (for two).  There might be some initial doubt about the width of the Monoplane Air Tail, but as Wellingtons did drop torpedoes they clearly did manage it.  It would be interesting to see an equivalent view with the tail in place - remembering that the Hampden carried the torpedo semi-exposed with the tail outside the airframe.

 

However, I'm still unclear how the (1600lb) weight of the lower torpedo was transferred to the aircraft.  There would also appear to be a problem with sequential dropping, and possibly problems should the lower one hang-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a matter of the speed and height at which it is dropped.  Swordfishes and Albacores (and Vildebeestes) were slow and low, but the torpedo wasn't stable at the higher speeds of later types.  The Wellington wasn't significantly slower than a Hampden.  I also think that a tail is visible attached to the torpedo in the lower photo, although not to the one in the top.  The tails were kept out of, or censored from, many wartime photos, which doesn't help us now.

 

X-posting: that's a very interesting belly shape, suggesting to me that the tail was carried externally rather like on the Hampden.  It doesn't look as though it would fit in the cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to remember the context of the info I provided. Early torpedo installations were very much local solutions to a tactical need I.e. A long range torpedo plane. I believe MAT tail wasn't even trailed until later in 1942 so they wouldn't have got to the Med until much later.

 

 

Edited by Gomtuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the MAT was trialled before then, as it can be seen on Beauforts.  It was certainly in use by the Italians and the Japanese before then, and by the US with its box tail which had a similar effect.  The point about it was that without the MAT or similar device the torpedoes wouldn't drop properly at release speeds of the later aircraft and would either dive or break up on impact.  This was not something only discovered in 1942.  We are not talking about local solutions but a generic problem that was studied prewar at the various national research establishments.  (Which is often where things were worked out that were later credited to the men in the field, if only for the sake of a better story.)

 

However that may be, there remains the problem of physically carrying the second torpedo in a single cell of the Wellington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice! So the torpedoes were loaded into the outboard bays and not stacked in the central bay. It still leaves the question about the air tail fitting. I didn't see any in the torpedo loading sequence but it looked like there was one in one of the dropping scenes. In the sequence where it first shows the target ship, at least one, if not two of the Wellys show the cut-away rear bomb-bay doors, like in the IWM picture I posted.

 

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guy's that gives me a good start, I will go with the latter outboard fitting, and the centre Bombay doors shut, looks like small cut outs for the props to clear the doors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some more digging and found another reference. I would say the vertical stack of torpedoes in the other book was a rushed mod in situ with no aerofoils because I have found another reference to torpedoes jumping out of the water and even skipping over ships when they didn't enter at the correct angle.  The outer bay mod came after as the official mod with the beam carrier and torpedo airfoils and the cutout in the bomb bay to accommodate the airfoils.

 

Capture_zpsrrsbrtv7.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There remains no explanation for how two torpedoes can be carried vertically. 

 

The torpedo is capable of being carried on the standard heavy duty carrier which is (or can be) fitted in the Wellington, as required by the 2000lb SAP bomb in the original specification, or indeed the air-launched mine also seen in the film.  The only problem is the width of the MAT, hence the cutaway rear doors.

 

It's worth adding that this sight, supposedly developed in Egypt, is the same as that carried on the FAA's Swordfish and Albacore.  (As an aside, is it visible in photos of the Hampdens?)  Despite the known proficiency, and ingenuity, of the Alexandrian MUs I'm left suspecting that these accounts are written after the event by people who are filling gaps in their direct knowledge with something that they think sounds sensible.  Maybe I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, but I suspect that the aircraft were delivered in this form.   It would be interesting to know the production details of the individual aircraft, and the details of any trials (if any) carried out in the UK. 

 

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional information from the 4+ book and from the first three issues of the magazine Profile. Both show drawings for the fit of two torpedoes, in the outer bays.  The 4+ drawings have the torpedoes mounted at a nose-down angle, with much of the bodies outside the lower contour of the aircraft (bomb doors closed)  The more detailed drawings in Profile V1N3 show the Mk.XII 18inch torpedoes mounted slightly higher, but still protruding over a considerable length aft of the nose.  They are carried slightly staggered, with the tails shown (sketchily), on the "Wellington 2000lb Store Beam, with modifications."  The drawings are from "Drawing 24922, Sheet 1, dated 5th January 1941.  This is one year before the equipment of 38 Sq.

 

Just to be awkward, the magazine also has a drawing of the single carriage, but although still described as the Mk.XII there are differences in the mounting, and the weapon appears to be both longer and fatter, and lacks the tail.  This is also described as being the Mk.XII 18 inch torpedo, and is taken from the same drawing, same sheet, same date, but Issue A.  One of these has to be wrong.

 

There may have been more in late issues of the magazine: there is nothing I can find in the text regarding the torpedo fit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book mentions it, in passing, presumably having seen it quoted earlier, but does not show it in the diagrams of the possible store variations.  What is lacking is any explanation of how it is physically possible to do so.  There are three problem areas,

 

1. How is the weight of the lower torpedo passed to the aircraft structure?  i.e. what is it hung on?  The upper torpedo wasn't designed to take the stresses.  There is no Vickers Type Number associated with any of the torpedo fits, suggesting that the basic structure was not modified in any significant way.

 

2. The total weight comfortably exceeds the capability of the 2000lb beam.  If you look at the way the 4000lb bomb was carried, Vickers Type Number 423, you'll see that it requires a near-complete redesign of the three bays and a new carrier structure to take this weight.

 

3.  The diagrams for carriage of both the single torpedo and the side-by-side carriage, although differing, both show the weapon protruding beyond the lines of the bombbay.  This does not leave enough depth for a second weapon without fouling the ground. .  

 

Separately, what remains unexplained is that the film shows the bomb bay doors closing around the torpedoes.  Perhaps the suggestion that the torpedo droppers had a deeper belly is right, although I don't recall it ever being mentioned.  I think that it would have been.  Perhaps (nore likely?) the diagrams were provisional and a superior method was found that permitted the full enclosure of the torpedo body at the expense of an exposed tail?  It is possible that more was said in later issues of Planes, but I don't have those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...