Blackburn Beverley (now with more pics!)

[Scott Rose]

British Paras board a Blackburn Beverley via the rear loading stairs, 1959.
Source: british-eevee

Last edited by Scott Rose on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Spelling and description errors

[quemerford]

They'd be paratroopers from one of the army Parachute Regiment's Brigades: not RAF.

[M-62A]

That should be spelt Beverley - as is the Yorkshire town the aircraft was named after.
M-62A

[JohnB]

An odd aircraft.
Note that because of the high wing it has fixed gear...rare for a large four engine type.

I saw the one on display at the RAF Museum, Hendon which has since been scrapped, leaving only one survivor at a privately owned museum.

[C VEICH]

They probably could make use of a parachute if they fell off the top of the ladder!

[quemerford]

The Beverley was in essence the XC-120 Pack Plane but without the detachable part. The paras are entering the top 'passenger' level, while the lower level was for cargo and jumping from!

[Invader26]

The performance of the Beverley was such that it could carry a tank to the end of the runway or a load of ping pong balls around the world!

[Scott Rose]

More pics added...

I don't know why but I find this aircraft very interesting

[CAPFlyer]

Because it is. The Bev was the RAF's version of the C-123 "Old Shaky" and was used by the RAF all over the world, flying many airmen and soldiers from the Island to places all over the Empire.

[JohnB]

Because it is. The Bev was the RAF's version of the C-123 "Old Shaky"....

"Old Shaky" was the C-124, aka the Globemaster...actually, the Globemaster II.
The C-123 was the Fairchild Provider.

While the two aircraft filled broadly similar roles or missions, the
C-124 was in a completely different class, technically.

Douglas C-124.......Blackburn Beverley
Empty weight:
101,165.......79,234
Gross weight:
194,500.......135,000
Range:
4035 (with 26375 lbs of cargo).......1300 miles
Max Speed:
271.......238
Cruise speed:
230.......173

Really no comparison.



Data from: U.S. Military Aircraft Since 1909 and Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918.

[CAPFlyer]

John, thanks for fixing my designation error. That's what I get for not proof reading before posting.

Also, I know the C-124 is significantly larger and more capable, but as you said, they fulfilled the same role for their countries. The Brits didn't have anything bigger until the massive Short Belfasts came online years later, much as the C-124 was replaced itself by the C-133. While the Brits had a much more far-flung Empire, they had many connections and land along the way to the far reaches, so having an airplane with a shorter range per leg wasn't an issue. For the US, having to cross one ocean or another meant we had to build bigger and longer ranged aircraft. Two solutions for the same issue - supplying and supporting the troops.

[JohnB]

To be sure, the Brits had different requirements, they could hop-scotch their way to the Far East, India and Australia, so that accounted for some of the choices when writing requirements.

Their main personnel transport in the 50s was the H.P. Hastings, a large four engine type and anachronistic tail-dragger based on the wartime Halifax bomber.
Smaller transports included the Vickers Valetta, which unbelievably had soars cutting through the cabin, again pretty old-school for the 50s.

The one area they did excel was the Argosy, a four engine twin boom turboprop..probably a bit more capable than the C-119. But by the time it was in widespread service, the C-130 had arrived and must have outperformed it as the Brita were early Hercules customers. Oddly, most civil customers for The Argosy were U.S. freight firms with DoD LOGAIR contracts....so in a way the U.S.military was a prime customer of the type.

The Belfast, like the C-133 was bought in modest numbers and remained in civil use after its military retirement. Unlike the C-133, I believe it was used as a troop transport. I haven't read the C-133 book and don't know why it wasn't used as a personnel transport...either it's safety concerns or with the C-141 on the drawing board it wasn't needed in that role.

Also, the RAF bought examples of UK airline types for personnel transport to overseas bases, notably the Brittania 4 engine turboprop and Andover twin-turboprop (which differed from civil variants by having a rear loading ramp) and of course the Comet.

My father flew '124s so I have a strong interest in the type. I have his Dash-1 and a large 1/72 metal desk model of it. I would have loved to fly in one, but I missed it by about a decade. But I did get to fly in '130s and '141s...a decent, but not as romantic, substitute.

[Rick65]

The Beverley looks like it would have offered good rough and short field performance.
Was this the case?
If so another point of differentiation from the C-124?

[quemerford]

The Beverley looks like it would have offered good rough and short field performance.
Was this the case?
If so another point of differentiation from the C-124?

Not sure on its performance, but the Beverley was used on some VERY rough strips in the Middle East: in fact I suspect a lot of these weren't really strips at all.

[JohnB]

You're correct, I have seen photos of the Beverly on some unpaved strips in the middle east. What's not appreciated by many is the RAF was fighting insurgents in places like Aden in the 50s.

I don't believe it was designed for extreme STOL operations, but rather it could use the unprepared strips because of its size, weight and configuration (high wing, fixed gear)...so it was. And there was the fact that the RAF didn't have anything better at the time so it had to be used.

It comes across like a medium airlifted pressed into service in a strategic or long range role.

Crews used to joke about the 124's speed, or lack thereof (the flight deck didn't have a clock, just a calendar) but the Beverly was even slower. At least RAF crews enroute to Singapore or Hong Kong had plenty of refueling stops in exotic locales to pass the time, unlike 124 crews heading across the Pacific from Travis, McChord or Larson. Their flights must have been extremely tedious with only stops at Hickam and Wake Island to enliven it.