The MOST unremarkable of aircraft: The Bristol Buckingham

Another one of those oddities from the lost pages of history. In this video I take a look at the Bristol Buckingham bomber. The Buckingham origins can be traced back to 1939 when Bristol suggested to the Air Ministry to create a medium bomber version of the Bristol Beaufighter. After a few redesigns and changing requirements, the Bristol Type 163 Buckingham was born. It would bear very little resemblance to the Beaufighter. Powered by Bristol Centaurus engines, the Buckingham was able to carry 4,000lbs of bombs and was quite heavily armed for a medium bomber. However, by the time it was ready for service in 1944, the Buckingham was already obsolete. The de Havilland Mosquito was by then in service and could carry the 4,000lbs of faster. Of the 65 Buckingham bombers produced none would see service, all being kept in storage before being converted to transports. A further 54 were produced as transports, however the transport variant saw very little service as it could only carry four passengers. Hence, the Buckingham was one of those unremarkable aircraft with quite an unremarkable history.
Links:
Purchase your official Tomato Eins merchandise here: www.tomatoeins.com.au/s/shop
Follow me on my other channel: @jdairadventure
Disclaimer: All comments that are not from Tomato Eins in the comment section are not opinions of Tomato Eins.
Follow Tomato Eins of Instagram: / tomato_eins
Enjoy and be sure to like and subscribe for more!✈
Sources:
Aviastar: www.aviastar.org/air/england/b...
BAE Systems: www.baesystems.com/en/heritag...
History of War: www.historyofwar.org/articles/...
Military Factory: www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...
Wikipedia**: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...
** I don't like to use Wikipedia but sometimes with these rare aircraft there is not many sources. However, I always check the references to ensure that the article is creditable.
#ww2aircraft #ww2 #aviationhistory #aircraft #britishhistory #bristol #royalairforce #aviation

[@GARDENER42]

Remember; the Beaufighter originated form the Beaufort, which was designed as a torpedo bomber but more often used as a medium bomber...

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Bristol seems to have thing about developing medium bombers then 🙂

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

So it's a bomber, based on a heavy fighter, based on a medium bomber, based on another medium bomber.

[@wbertie2604]

Yep. Assuming you count Blenheims as mediums.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

You could say Bristol had a thing for medium bombers.

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

@@wbertie2604 I think for interwar, they should count. A light back then was usually a single-engine plane. Although they are counted as a light on the internet, so I'm probably just wrong

[@wbertie2604]

@@user-do5zk6jh1k there's a long and very informative PhD thesis from the 1990s from one of the London universities that goes through the 1930s strategic positions and associated specifications and for a period, light bombers were going to be REQUIRED to be single-engined due to treaty, hence the Fairey Battle, which conceivably might have been the heaviest bomber allowed. But as far as I can tell, the Blenheim was seen as a light bomber in 1935, although it would have been a medium five years earlier. By circa 1932 more than 1000 but less than 4000lb load was a medium for the RAF (Wellington, etc.). By 1936, the cut off point was 8000lb (Manchester), but I'm not sure what the lower point was

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

@@wbertie2604 I'm seeing that the Wellesley (2000 lbs) is a medium and the Battle (1500 lbs) is a light, so maybe the cap is at 1500.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The following manufacturers also put forward designs to fulfil specification B.7/40 Armstrong-Whitworth, Hawker and Westland. Armstrong-Whitworth found they couldn't meet all of the requirements. Hawker provided a design based on the Henley close support bomber. Whilst Westland suggested a Delanne type powered by a single Bristol Centaurus with 4 guns in a rear turret and 4 more in the rear wing (2 each side).

[@AntiqueAirshow]

That is very interesting. I was aware of the Armstrong-Whitworth design and that it couldn't meet all the requirements. None of my sources discussed the other though. Thanks for the additional info 👍✈️

[@johnjephcote7636]

Then there were the Buckmasters and the Brigands; the latter seeing service post-watr in ground attack roles. I did see the last Brigand. It was retained for various testing purposes and it flew over my house. I recognised it instantly.

[@welshparamedic]

I knew a John Jephcote, must be related to you as It's not a common name!

[@wbertie2604]

The Brigand had a few issues, like the dive brakes and an ability for firing the guns causing it to crash. Having done so well 1917-42, Bristol went through a really rough patch in terms of aircraft design in the late 1940s. Great engines and turrets (if overshadowed by Fraser Nash), just not great aircraft. By the time the Buckingham appeared, the RAF could have purchased A-26s, and whilst that had some issues with lateral visibility from the cockpit, it was a better option.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

They look quite similar to the Buckingham. That would have been interesting to see. I hope to carry the Brigand in the not too near future

[@johnjephcote7636]

@@welshparamedic How strange!...I never use that first (official)name. The surname is highly localised, in Warwickshire.

[@mikemontgomery2654]

Nice looking aircraft. Never heard of it, until this video.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It is. It would have been interesting to see in combat with such a heavy armament. There is very little on this aircraft

[@chriskappert1365]

It was to little to late , the Mosquito and Beaufighter more than proved themselves .

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Yes agree. By the time it came around the war had moved on.

[@RogbodgeVideo]

A number of Buckingham transports, which retained the gun armament, were used by the main characters in the Convict Commandos stories. In one story, an example was even fitted with a tail hook, and landed on an aircraft carrier!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Nice that is very cool 👍✈️

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Great video, never heard of this aircraft before. thanks.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@ianbell5611]

Thank you. Great video. At first glance this plane looks similar to the Lockheed Hudson on display in the foyer of the Canberra airport. Cheers

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️ It does a little. Even got a bit of Boston or B-25 to it as well

[@geoffreymee7671]

Great to see you are making aviation films Tomato. Enjoyed this one. I've subscribed. Looking forward to you stable of films.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️ I hope you enjoy the others. I tend to focus on little known aircraft, particularly Australian and British. Usually there is some Australian link in there somewhere. I'll admit some of my early work isn't of the best quality. Anyway thanks for the sub and enjoy 👍✈️

[@lambastepirate]

Great vid thanks.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

I wonder just how much the Buckingham took after the earlier taildragger variant of the Bristol Type 155 which was designed to meet the requirements of B.9/38 for a medium bomber capable of carrying 1,000lb of bombs over an operational range of 1,500 miles (later increased to 4,000lb over 2,000 miles) at 302mph using two Bristol Hercules engines. This specification called for the use of non-strategic alloys (in other words wood and steel tubes) long before de Havilland came along with his Mosquito. The Air Ministry approached Bristol, Armstrong-Whitworth and de Havilland but the latter refused to submit any designs. The Arrmstong-Whitworth AW.41 was selected over the Type 155 and became the Albemarle.

[@wbertie2604]

1000lb over 1500 miles and 4000lb over 2000 miles are such very different requirements. No wonder manufacturers had issues with designs.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@wbertie2604 after digging a bit deeper. There were 2 mock-up conferences with Bristol's being on 15/6/1938 and AW's on 22/6/1938. After this B.9/38 was withdrawn and replaced by B.17/38 fir the Type 155 and B.18/38 for the AW.41. These new specifications were issued due to a policy changes in regard to medium bombers. It was just after the issuance of the new specifications Bristol dropped out citing workload with the Blenheim, Beaufort and the new Beaufighter.

[@wbertie2604]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 great stuff. I still stand by my statement that if you've just spent three to six months doing work on 1000&1500, it'd be a pain to have to then immediately bin it for such very different requirements and you might be muttering something about the Air Ministry making up its mind under your breath...

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@wbertie2604 it's no worse than having your design rejected. There was a lot of data coming in from places like Spain.

[@wbertie2604]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes. It was a time of rapid change.

[@wbertie2604]

The nose guns were originally intended to be on a partially moveable mounting, sighted by the pilot somehow. In reality it was fixed, before being deleted entirely.

[@wbertie2604]

P.S. as such, it had a Bristol turret designation which may go and look up. Bristol had a compatible twin 50 calibre top turret it could have offered, and twin 50 in nose and a single 50 in the ventral position would have been more effective.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

That is quite interesting. I didn't know that. I found researching this aircraft quite diffcult due to lack of available resources on it.

[@wbertie2604]

@@AntiqueAirshow if you can find a copy of the big book of British turrets (it's out of print, but I'm lucky enough to have a copy) it has details and photos of the nose and ventral turrets, including the complaints about the latter, plus the top turret (which wasn't intended to be unique to the Buckingham) and the closely related twin 50 version. I'll grab it off the shelf and add the actual name of the book!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@wbertie2604 Thanks for the recommendation, I'll take a look. Sounds a very intriguing book👍✈

[@wbertie2604]

@@AntiqueAirshow I'll try to remember to give you the exact title!

[@gregbolitho9775]

Not bad, heard about the Buckinghams, but I didn't know all that. thanks.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

👍✈️

[@MrDino1953]

There once was an aircraft called Buckingham, Which specialised in resources and sucking ‘em…

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Haha yep right on 👍✈️

[@matthewmoore5698]

It part of the beaufighter clan I think they were using the jet by the time they got round to it

[@lanagro]

No mention of the Buckmaster?

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I know it quite a late reply. But no, instead I made a whole new video about it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3TQqoKlobOqntU

[@majorbloodnok6659]

Still, it was a nice looking aircraft...

[@AntiqueAirshow]

👍✈️

[@HarborLockRoad]

Bristol Buckingham, sounds like a member of Fleetwood Mac! 😂

[@hawkertyphoon4537]

Not an ugly Beast! From the Front (4:09) it even looks cute, and Boston-esque. Put some Rockets under its wings and a 75mm Cannon in the nose :-) for Maximum Fun

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I agree. Even has a hint of Beaufighter to it when looking at it from a side on position (an aircraft I'm quite fond of). I would be intrigued to see it with rockets.

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

The butt of a B-25

[@AMD7027]

You know if you haven’t reached production until spring ‘44, it is really going to have to be revolutionary….and this clearly wasn’t and should have been killed before production wasted the materials in producing these

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I agree. By then they had quite a stable of good aircraft. In many ways this is one of the most unremarkable aircraft in history

[@CrusaderSports250]

in hindsight you may be correct, but at the time it had the big plus of range, ideal in the Pacific theatre, it wasnt the fault of the aircraft that it never got there,, when it first flew it was more than caparble, unfortunately it once again shows the weakness of the procurement process where something gets left in development due to constant changes. had the Mosquito not proved itself then its history may have been vastly different, as I said we have the huge benefit of hindsight, so we have to be very careful in our criticism..

[@williamroberts1819]

Mike's monitor please.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

👍✈️

[@williamroberts1819]

@@AntiqueAirshow Miles

[@ezrabrooks12]

Good Video/Info.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️

[@MrDino1953]

It seems to me that so many British aircraft looked and performed more or less the same as each other. Very few of them were truly innovative or successful.

[@RetroGamesCollector]

🤦‍♂️

[@wbertie2604]

In several instances, they were designed to the same specification, with one as the primary, one as the secondary, with both going into production in case one hit issues. The one that probably stands out is the Stirling as it didn't live up to expectations as a bomber and so the performance wasn't so different to the Halifax and Lancaster, even though they were designed to different requirements.

[@johnbird-bv8gw]

@@wbertie2604 the main problem for british design was the air ministry

[@chamberpot969]

Looks like an Me 110 but chubbier.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It does. Also much more heavily armed

[@None-zc5vg]

To me, the plane looks ill-proportioned.

[@gregchijoff9959]

Zelensky will take them all!