Vickers Wellesley Torpedo Bomber Color and Gear Question

[Tweener]

I'm not sure why, even knowing that one of the requirements of the (absurd) G4/31 specification was the ability to do so, but the Vickers Wellesley K7740 was used for torpedo dropping tests at Gosport towards the start of the war. 
 

As you can see, this was one of the later machines of the first production batch, as determined by the extended canopy and additional windows in the center of the fuselage. To my eye, at least, it also looks like the engine cowl may be a slightly different size than those on standard bombers.

From the photo, I'm assuming that the plane is still finished in the DE/DG/Black scheme other Wellesley's dressed in, and that would make sense given the lack of need to repaint it for trials, but I also believe I remember a @tonyot build of an ASW Wellesley in a different scheme. Any suspicions / confirmations?

Lastly, does anyone know much about the torpedo mounting itself? I would assume that it was fitted to the centerline, but that might obscure the sighting hatch used by the bomb-aimer, though I suppose aiming a torpedo from a top-down perspective wouldn't make the most sense either. G4/31 did call for dive bombing and torpedo bombing, but I don't at least believe they were meant to be done at the same time!

Thanks all,

Tweener

[Graham Boak]

I'm not sure why the spec was absurd: it was to replace the General Duties Vincent/Vildebeeste, the latter being a torpedo bomber.   That the Wellesley actually went into production as a strategic bomber is largely because of the need to build up Bomber Command on somewhat more modern types (who cares what happens overseas), and I suggest that this over-ruled the more obvious notion that the Wellesley was perhaps not the ideal design to meet the original specification.  Better performing than its biplane predecessor, true, but that could have been achieved at rather less span. 

[Tweener]

16 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I'm not sure why the spec was absurd: it was to replace the General Duties Vincent/Vildebeeste, the latter being a torpedo bomber.   That the Wellesley actually went into production as a strategic bomber is largely because of the need to build up Bomber Command on somewhat more modern types (who cares what happens overseas), and I suggest that this over-ruled the more obvious notion that the Wellesley was perhaps not the ideal design to meet the original specification.  Better performing than its biplane predecessor, true, but that could have been achieved at rather less span. 

My understanding is that at first, the idea was to replace Wapiti and Gordon, and the need to replace the Vincent / Vildebeeste was added later. That meant that the winning design was meant to perform light Level Bombing, Low-Angle Dive Bombing, Artillery Spotting / Army Cooperation, Casualty Evacuation, Recon & Mapping, and eventually Torpedo Bombing. As for the 74 & 1/3 foot wing, I'd have to imagine the same objectives could've been fulfilled with 65. The only benefit I can see gained from the span was a service ceiling 40% higher than the Wellington, but I don't imagine Army Coop etc was often carried out from 25,000 feet!

[Graham Boak]

This makes the design inappropriate rather that the specification absurd (for 1931), if wide-ranging.  The Vincent and Vildebeeste were, after all, the same aircraft doing the same range of jobs.  If mainly in a low-threat environment.  One possibility is that the torpedo-bombing called for a large wing area to cope with the load-lifting and take-off requirement.   Flaps would have helped there.  It does seem more like a chance for Wallis to show off his structure rather than a serious attempt to meet the original requirement.  Which must have been looking old-fashioned by the time the aircraft flew.  Fortunately it was a pretty good aircraft - in a low-threat environment.  Not unique in that.

[Tweener]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

This makes the design inappropriate rather that the specification absurd (for 1931), if wide-ranging.  The Vincent and Vildebeeste were, after all, the same aircraft doing the same range of jobs.  If mainly in a low-threat environment.  One possibility is that the torpedo-bombing called for a large wing area to cope with the load-lifting and take-off requirement.   Flaps would have helped there.  It does seem more like a chance for Wallis to show off his structure rather than a serious attempt to meet the original requirement.  Which must have been looking old-fashioned by the time the aircraft flew.  Fortunately it was a pretty good aircraft - in a low-threat environment.  Not unique in that.

It's important to remember too that when G4/31 was issued, there wasn't yet any reason to believe another World War was so close to starting, and the general state of the RAF even without the penny-pinching of the depression wasn't great. The way I see it, the spec would be understandable in the absence of dive-bombing and torpedo bombing. Perhaps it just makes me think of the RLM wanting a dive-bombing capability out of the 177. 🤣


As for the wing - the design was largely finalized before the requirement for torpedo bombing was added, presumably to cater towards long range / high endurance for the recon and policing duties the planes would have been meant to spend the most time doing. The original Vickers entry, after all, was a somewhat more conservative and immensely more ugly biplane, the 253. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Tweener

[dogsbody]

The only photo that I've ever seen of a Wellesley doing a torpedo drop:

 

 

 

 

It's from Profile Publication # 256: https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Aircraft-Profiles/Britain/Between-Wars/Vickers-Wellesley-Variants

 

 

 

Chris

[Welkin]

18 hours ago, Tweener said:

I don't imagine Army Coop etc was often carried out from 25,000 feet!

Torpedo dropping from 25,000 feet would probably have been quite interesting!

[tonyot]

You were asking about my `coastal' Wellesley,..... here is the build,..... it was used for Anti Sub patrols over the Med;

 

Cheers

         Tony