Jump to content

1/72nd Valom Bristol Type 130 Bombay MkI


Recommended Posts

Bristol Type 130 Bombay MkI, L5813 BJ-P, RAF No 271 Squadron, Doncaster, May 1940

 

51308017657_167ffb752b_b.jpg

 

The Bombay was designed to fulfil a role as troop or cargo carrier, but also to be operational as long-range bomber. The Air Ministry created a specification for such an aircraft, C.26/31, to find a replacement for the venerable Vickers Valentia - a design that dated back to the end of the First World War. Three companies produced prototypes to meet the specification and which took part in trials. The Armstrong Whitworth AW.23, which would evolve into the Whitley bomber, Handley Page HP.51, which became the Harrow, and Bristol’s Type 130.

 

The Type 130 was chosen, and in March 1933 Bristol was awarded a contract to build one prototype. Frank Barnwell, chief designer, decided to use a multi-spar cantilever wing. Filton had been working on perfecting this wing structure after wing distortion on an earlier prototype, the Type 95 Bagshot heavy fighter.

 

The Type 130 used an all-metal wing design, with a large box spar with seven I-section auxiliary spars joined by ribs running the whole length of the stressed-skin covered wing. A high-wing design with two Bristol Pegasus radial engines also featured an oval section monocoque stressed-skin fuselage structure. The prototype first flew from Filton in June 1935. It was the largest aircraft to be produced by the company to that point. Official trials recommended some improvements. By 1937, the aircraft had been christened Bombay, and a contract for 80 was signed. Eventually, this was revised to 50 aircraft, to the revised specification 47/36.

 

Bombay MkI aircraft had hydraulically-controlled machine gun positions in nose and tail, covered with fixed clear turrets. The front turret included the bomb sight, with a bomb aimer’s panel below the turret. Various sources say an internal bomb load could be carried, but I’ve not seen any evidence of bomb bay doors on the fuselage. I assume, therefore, the bomb load of eight 250lb bombs was always intended to be carried externally beneath the fuselage.

 

When the Bombay was ordered into production, Bristol was preoccupied with the Blenheim bomber. At the time, the need for the Bombay wasn’t seen as urgent, but the realisation that the RAF did not have any comparable aircraft to Germany’s Ju52/3m bomber-transport, the Type 130 became part of the RAF’s expansion programme. Building was entrusted to Short Brothers and Harland in Belfast.

 

51309764515_5bbcb0ab95_b.jpg

 

51308017612_85755bf3a0_b.jpg

 

51308957858_4f601753a0_b.jpg

 

51308758341_bce8680ba4_b.jpg

 

The Bombay entered service, as intended, with three squadrons in the Middle East. Some aircraft were retained in the UK, and at the start of May 1940, No 1680 Flight was reformed as No 217 Squadron at RAF Doncaster. It was a transport squadron, comprising a motley collection of impressed civilian airliners and near-obsolete operational machines.

 

No 217 Squadron’s earliest task was supporting RAF operational squadrons in France, and L5813 BJ-P was performing just that role on 11 May. Flown by Flying Officer Frederick McGevor DFM, with second pilot Sergeant Williams, and AC2 Holdsworth, L5813 was carrying 14 passengers, mainly attached to No 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron flying Hawker Hurricanes from Bétheniville airbase, Marne, France.

 

On final approach, it was seen the Bombay’s nose came up. McGevor regained control and decided to go around for another landing attempt. The same thing occurred, but this time the aircraft stalled and crashed into a field short of the airbase. Four of the passengers were killed. The aircraft was written off. Some discussion among pilot friends about this incident seems to point to the aircraft being poorly trimmed for the landing. It seems not unreasonable to assume that FO McGevor may not have been completely familiar with the Bombay’s flight characteristics, but that is conjecture on my part.

 

The Valom kit is one of a range of unusual 1930s transport types. I have their De Havilland Albatross and Handley Page Sparrow in my stash. I decided the Bombay would make an ideal entry in the Bristol Aircraft Company group build. I have to admit this is the first Valom I’ve tackled, so I made a point of searching on Britmodeller for others who have been there before me. Once I felt happy with the kit’s idiosyncracies I gathered what references I could and made a start.

 

For a short-run kit, I was actually pleasantly surprised. I found nothing that a competent styrene mangler couldn’t cope with. With hindsight, perhaps I ought to have made a better fist of attaching the main undercarriage, but for all it looks awkward and flimsy it’s actually quite sturdy. Some parts I remade in brass wire, such as the tailwheel oleo fork and the antenna masts. The pitot tube, a PE part in the kit, was substituted for a spare Airfix Blenheim part, and I used spare gun barrels from my Bits Box to replace the rather poor moulded parts in the kit.

 

The kit transfers were slightly out of register. I decided this would be an ideal time to acquire a Silhouette Cameo cutter and learn how to make my own markings and paint stencils. I was quite pleased at how things turned out, for a first attempt, and it's a technique I shall employ a lot more now I have the equipment. I also read around on the subject of camouflage and markings, and made some choices based on what I think these aircraft actually looked like in the spring of 1940. Spoiler: it’s not what Valom think they looked like! The camouflage colours were Humbrol and Revell Aqua acrylics, brush painted. Markings were airbrushed using various enamel colours. The aircraft serials, W/T markings and the walkway markings on the top of the wings came from the kit transfers.

 

The WIP thread can be found here:

 

  • Like 42
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post, Heather. I enjoyed your writing, which was totally necessary as I knew next to nothing about this aircraft. It's a nice looking build too and good to see a background in your photographs. I wasn't surprised to read that you are a railway modeller.

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...