Warbird Information Exchange

I'm sure it flew has good has it looked

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

It looks like the half-breed love child of a Vickers Wellington and a B-25.

Compared to a few of their carrier planes this one's almost lovely.

After the Soviets received some, they said, "Please send no more, send C-47s instead"....that says a whole lot for it!

An old aviation saying I once heard:

If it's ugly, it's British.

If it's wierd, it's French.

If it's ugly AND wierd, it's Russian!


SN

Although the Albermarle wasn't very good in its intended role of medium bomber as say the B-25 (and personally I can't see much difference in the designs' layout or size or engine power) it did come into its own as a heavy glider tug and paratroop transport. Perhaps the reason the Soviets asked for no more to be sent (and this is purely my opinion) was because of the Hercules engines and their inability to keep them serviceable, whereas there was probably a much freer flow of parts and information about the P&W R-1830s in the C-47.

Perhaps another reason was that the Albermarle had the capacity to only carry about ten or eleven paratroops where the C-47 could carry at least twice as many somewhat further. I think this is one design which like our indigenous Boomerang was not real good in its intended role, (interceptor) but found a few roles at which it excelled, ground attack, medium range recon and short range spotting for the artillery. My own feeling is that the Albermarle was a much maligned aeroplane which eventually found a useful niche and did it well, unlike the Blackburn Botha which didn't seem to do anything very well except perhaps crashing at every opportunity.

regards,
Ross.

My personal favorite ugly airplane is the Barracuda. Yummy!

It does have a few noticeable features for a Brit WW2 area design.
- Nose wheel
- Hybrid metal / wood construction

I believe that metal to be steel rather than conventional aluminium.

PeterA

The Albermarle words escape me as to my thoughts as to how frickin ugly this example of a flying machine is, at least to me. ...given that, now the question? Are there any surviving eggzamples in any British or Soviet aviation museums? Can't recall ever seeing an Albermarle before.

Apparently there were no survivors as specified at the link below.
http://www.raf38group.org/presentation

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Yup, old steel tube frame technology covered with wood ply I think.

Actually, I don't think it looks that bad. At least the designers had some French Curves in their toolbox, unlike, say, for instance the P-51D.

It was a design intended to use 'non-strategic materials', hence the wood and steel construction and a lamentable performance as a result. Having specified and got a dog of an aeroplane, they had to find something to do with it, hence the tugging job.

If the Mosquito hadn't existed, the non-strategic material idea would be regarded as an utter dud, despite some nice designs (Bell XP-77) which were no real use. The Mosquito rather excepts from that rule.

There are no survivors. Like the Saro Lerwick and Blackburn Botha, that is perhaps best, except to go in a chamber of designers' horrors as a 'don't do this' lesson!

Lerwick:


Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saro_Lerwick

Botha:



Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Botha

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James, you are right on the Brittish side. However the Russians where the exception to this.

Most AC made extensive use of wood in their construction. This was mandated by specification directives and it was afterall the best available strategic material for Russia.

Good points, Michel.

I'm not sure the Russian had 'strategic' and 'non-strategic' materials though - they had 'this works, when can we have 50,000 and the designer's in a salt mine if it breaks'. Seriously though, I don't think the Russians were as dismissive of wood as a primary material. Other than that, yes, whatever substitution worked.

In the case of the Albermarle, using steel rather than lighter alternatives was either stupid, or a dramatic misreading of the pre-war belief in the bomber's advantage over fighters.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Weren't some fuselage frames from several Albermarles found in a quarry back in the 60's/70's? Whatever happened to them, and are there any photos?

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com