beaufighter load out

Generally, it seems to be either, but not both at the same time.

Dave

thanks. there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer but both add a lot of drag and weight.

It can, but it would never get off the ground. :) Operationally it's one or the other, which is why they operated in packs in the anti-shipping role. Having said that, I'm probably never going to do another 1.32 rocket or torpedo prop fighter, who's gonna know anyway, and it does look aggressive with both. Chek

well, i would know and if i'm not accurate, i'll give me hell. we need to please us? as zappa said, who am us, anyway? i didn't know about the pack thing, it makes sense.

Sorry, but the definitive answer is Max Take Off Weight, which is definitely either or, NOT both. I don't have the figures to hand, but did check several years ago when I made mine. Chek

no sweat, i'll do one of each. they did leave the rails on all the time?

I believe that the Mk X could carry either but not both. Typically when on strike mission part of the group would have been armed with rockets while the remainder carried torpedoes.

It is perfectly possible for a torpedo carrying beaufighter to have the rocket racks but they would not have been loaded. As such on one mission an aircraft may have carried a torpedo whilst on the next the same aircraft might have been armed with rockets.

Cheers,

Nigel

Right. Apart from the weight issue, there would also be a problem tactically. The rockets were generally fired from a shallow dive; the torpedo had to be dropped flying low and level. Since the idea was to saturate AA defenses, there would also be some Beaus armed only with their cannon to wipe out the AA gunners and draw fire, and everything was to hit the target vessels in very quick succession, generally in the sequence: cannon, rockets, torpedos.

Mark Schynert

ok, so i have a torpedo and empty racks. the red and black torpedo just looks too cool.

It wouldn't make much sense especially as there is always fuel economy and unnecessary drag factors that become more important when flying out to sea.

Richard.

Max landing weight, too. Got reminded of that one recently...just because you sortie doesn't mean you always find something to shoot at.

Those rails wouldn't be much of a drag factor...and I would think the key would be how fast you needed to re-arm and turn the aircraft around. Ops-tempo...and knowing that your airfield may be bombarded at any moment...

Just because an aircraft went out with a torpedo might not mean it may have been immediately retasked once it returned (if it returned...). With the rails in place all the armorers would need to do is slide the rockets on - not upload rails and then rockets.

since both kits had torpedos and empty rails on the box art, i'll stick with that.

It's probably worth noting that squadrons tended to specialise in either torpedo (e.g. 489 RNZAF ) or rockets (e.g. 455 RAAF)- I guess that the pilots needed different training. So it's pretty unlikely that the same plane carried both rockets and torps (even at different times) while on the strnegth of the same squadron

Aidrian

so you think it was rails or shackles and not both?

Yes

No evidence of rails on 489's machines, shackles don't seem to be visible on

Aidrian

'k, thanks.

in article WutQc.21202669$ snipped-for-privacy@news.easynews.com, e at snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote on 5/8/04 17:45:

Beaufighter At War ( Chaz Bowyer) shows at least 3 phots of Beaus carrying both torpedo shackles and RP rails. pages 81, 102/103, 111(top) and possable

then i will leave the rails on the torp'd version i built. thanks.