1935-42: Alternative fighters for the RAF allies

[KiwiBiggles]

Well the choices might open up if Bristol avoids the love affair with sleeve valves with (crudely speaking) a double row Mercury and a double row Pegasus. Thus a 1,700bhp and a 2,200bhp radial. Double rowing 4 valve headed motor can't be worse than developing sleeve valves.

I understand that the reason Roy Fedden persisted with sleeve valves was that he couldn't find a way to make a two-row radial with four valves. I can't remember the source for this, but I would note that all the poppet-valve two-row radials had only two valves.

 

[tomo pauk]

Seems like the Mercury was having one push-rod per cylinder, that 'pushed' the 4 valves via rocker arm. All shafts were in front of cylinders - the second row of cylinders can be served via push-rods 'emerging' from behind the aft row of cylinders?

The decision to go in that direction should be made a bit earlier than 1935?
50 liter engines do have a certain flair The Mercury was making 900 HP for take of on early 100 oct fuel even with single stage S/C geared for high altitudes. 1800 HP for take off in 1939 in a Double, plus how much with S/C having also low gear? Also, 1600 HP at 15000 ft.
A proper engine for Typhoon/Fulmar/Barracuda.

 

[yulzari]

Did Alfa Romeo not do a double row Pegasus but with 2 valve heads?

My mistake. The Alfa Romeo 135 produced about 1,600bhp on 87 octane and over 1,900bhp on 100 octane.

 

[wuzak]

I wouldn't fancy flying one of those against a Bf 109 E.

The A&AEE's February 1939 report on the type gives a long list of problems which needed fixing. A substitute Spitfire it most definitely was not.

Cheers

Steve

I realise it would be no replacement for a Spitfire, but the premise of the thread was alternative fighters not using the Merlin, Griffon, etc.

None of these will be Spitfire alternatives. Probably not even Hurricane alternatives.

 

[Shortround6]

None of these will be Spitfire alternatives. Probably not even Hurricane alternatives.

And if they are not even Hurricane alternatives at what point do they cease to be a viable fighter plane and just become a training device for the Luftwaffe pilots to gain experience on?

targets paid for and flown/fueled by somebody other than the Germans.

Turret fighter powered by not a Merlin

Granted any plane can be dangerous, at least one Anson shot down (or claimed) several Bf 109s but nobody in the RAF was running around trying to use Ansons as fighter planes

And I repeat, most companies had no spare development capacity for extra projects. The Bristol and Gloster monoplane fighters were both over year late as it was. Bristol had to cancel the Type 159 bomber

which did make it to mock up stage in 1940 in order to work on more pressing needs (Beaufighter?)
The Supermarine bomber was canceled so Supermarine could concentrate on the Spitfire and there were others.

Granted the British did build a few 'clangers'* but there is no reason to wish more on them.

*British Slang....a blunder; faux pas.

 

[tomo pauk]

The turret fighter with no Merlin, as well as with Merlin, should have 2 engines. Leaves enough of power to have also forward firing guns, thus giving more options for pilots actually engaging enemy A/C.
Alternatively, a fighter with 2 engines provides an early possibility to have 12 .303s installed, or 4 cannons.
A Hurricane alternative with 200-210 sq ft of not too thick wing and with ~800 HP* (at altitude) would come in close. Before people start pointing out that UK have had plenty of Hurricanes, we might recall that UK was buying in the USA the Buffalo, Mohawk, Cyclone-Martlets (plus P-40 and Lightning, as better aircraft), even negotiating the Re.2000 in Italy.

* edit: or ~900, with Pegasus

 

[yulzari]

What we do know is that Glosters could churn out lots of Gladiators IOTL. All with Mercury engines. Is there was a way in which they could have done a better fighter instead? In the same time scale and with the same engine and x6 .303 (as Gladiators ultimately carried) it would have been in service in 1937-40+. Probably not in France and UK as the Spitfires and Hurricanes would be reserved there, but as a better fighter in the Middle and Far East and one that could be available in numbers in the Far East in 1941 as Hurricane use was extended to the Middle East. In addition use by the FAA for fleet cover. The model in my mind is more Fokker DXXI than Gloster F5/34.

On a different tack; what is that mock up in front of the Bristol Type 159 mock up above?

 

[merlin]

The Gloster 'unnamed monoplane' has come up before, and no doubt will come up again. I like it, it handled well with the cockpit design gave good all round view for the pilot, and I believe it had a good climb rate.
I think the original spec was for a Colonial fighter - so with the radial engine might have been better suited.
On the one hand the max speed was comparable - but on the other there would be questions about the fuel tank, and added weight of self-sealing and armour.
There could have been engine options - from the Tauras to the P W 1930 and to the GR 14N would have increased the hp to more the 1000 region.
Granted, it doesn't give you an aircraft that'll have a long production run - but then again it should do better IMHO than the Gladiator, Buffalo or Mohawk.

How, well the first flight needs to be much earlier!!

Secondly, (I'm going to keep Gloster busy) is the Gloster twin - in OTL the test flights were again too late. But by making the earlier (turret) design a back up four the 4 x 20mm canon spec i.e, 2 cannon + MGs and no turret, gives scope to fly earlier, get into production, and into service. With this aircraft there was more potential for better engines - it was bigger than the Whirlwind. I don't see it doing away the need for the Beaufighter, but little need for the Blenheim 1F, or the Havoc,

Turret Fighter? No do without!

 

[nuuumannn]

On a different tack; what is that mock up in front of the Bristol Type 159 mock up above?

Bristol Type 162, tentatively named Beaumont, of which a drawing has yet to surface.

The Bristol 159 was designed to B.1/39, the Ideal Bomber specification, to which Avro designed the Type 680, a four engined Manchester derivative. The spec was discontinued in June 1940 and was re-examined in 1944.

Gloster was bought by Hawker in 1934, with Gauntlet production in full swing and Gladiator work continuing. Gloster began production of Hurricanes in 1938 at Brockworth to a contract for 500, Brockworth also receiving a contract to build 350 Hawker Henleys, later reduced to 200 in 1938. At Brockworth, continued production of Hurri I and IIs spanned from 1938 through to 1941. Not really much space to build anything else once contracts for Hurricanes start arriving in 1938. Gloster twin F.9/37, originally F.34/35, was promising, but powered by either two Taurus or Peregrines; not much future with either, besides, had it been put into production, what would Gloster not build in order to accommodate it? From late 37 - 38 on it was committed already to Gladiator production and was about to receive contracts to build Hurricanes, in the scheme of things more important in the long run. The Gloster twin also couldn't match the Mosquito in terms of performance and with the Beaufighter also, it really was going nowhere.

Turret fighter is a non-starter with anything other than a Merlin because of weight and performance issues. The Defiant was slow enough in 1939. Other engines considered for F9/35 include two AW Terriers for the Armstrong Whitworth design, single Perseus for the Bristol 147, then Hercules for the 147a, single Hercules for the Fairey design, with Hawker, BP, Supermarine and Vickers choosing the Merlin. Turret production kept Defiants out of service until late 1939, although development based on the French de Boysson turret was extensive and led to almost every turret BP subsequently developed. Obviously turret fighters are not a great idea in hindsight, but before the war the power operated turret promised great things; the Air Ministry couldn't have known that it wasn't going to work so well in a fighter in 1936 - 37.

 

[merlin]

Gloster was bought by Hawker in 1934, with Gauntlet production in full swing and Gladiator work continuing. Gloster began production of Hurricanes in 1938 at Brockworth to a contract for 500, Brockworth also receiving a contract to build 350 Hawker Henleys, later reduced to 200 in 1938. At Brockworth, continued production of Hurri I and IIs spanned from 1938 through to 1941. Not really much space to build anything else once contracts for Hurricanes start arriving in 1938. Gloster twin F.9/37, originally F.34/35, was promising, but powered by either two Taurus or Peregrines; not much future with either, besides, had it been put into production, what would Gloster not build in order to accommodate it? From late 37 - 38 on it was committed already to Gladiator production and was about to receive contracts to build Hurricanes, in the scheme of things more important in the long run. The Gloster twin also couldn't match the Mosquito in terms of performance and with the Beaufighter also, it really was going nowhere.

On the other hand - prototype flies in late '1936, performs well, receives RAF order, on public display at the 1937 Hendon Air Display - which attracts a lot of foreign interest - an follow up orders from Finland Sweden (who reduced their Gladiator order), then in '38 Poland already having the Mercury in license production also ordered it! Hawker, looked elsewhere for extra production - was able to wrest the Austin Shadow Factory from Battle production.
Yes, the Gloster F.9/37 was powered by Taurus - but even with the de-rated one achieved 332 mph at 15,200 ft. - a lot more than a Blenheim 1F. Moreover, as I said in my original post it was bigger than the Whirlwind, so could cope with a bigger engine, witness the next version the Reaper with two Merlins - which the Ministry thought highly of; fortunately that NF version didn't go ahead!
Nevertheless, the 'twin' could have served a useful role in 1940/41 and IMO a valid 'alternative' as per the OP's request.

 

[tomo pauk]

I very much agree with your timeline, bar the 'fortunately that NF version didn't go ahead' part.
The Reaper with Merlins would be head and shoulders above night fighter Beaufighter. It would have had easier time to survive in daylight when enemy can throw fighters in. And at least as good as NF Mossie; with no NF duty to do, more Mossies would be produced as bombers.

 

[merlin]

I very much agree with your timeline, bar the 'fortunately that NF version didn't go ahead' part.
The Reaper with Merlins would be head and shoulders above night fighter Beaufighter. It would have had easier time to survive in daylight when enemy can throw fighters in. And at least as good as NF Mossie; with no NF duty to do, more Mossies would be produced as bombers.

Thanks for the comment appreciate that - two problems with the Reaper in the OTL, it would be too late with estimated production service entry, and less time and space for Meteor.
Though, with an earlier flight of the twin as per my earlier comment, we get a smaller number of Blenheim 1F NFs - just used for training, the twin is in two versions, one for day - and a two-seat (perhaps rear-facing R/O) for night-work. This then may lead to the Reaper as an improved replacement.

 

[tomo pauk]

Don't know about the jet running too late either. Eg. task Westland to design the jet fighter (instead of designing the Welkin), and/or Supermarine for same job (no Spiteful), plus task Bristol to make a jet bomber (no Buckingham and it's derivatives).

 

[merlin]

Don't know about the jet running too late either. Eg. task Westland to design the jet fighter (instead of designing the Welkin), and/or Supermarine for same job (no Spiteful), plus task Bristol to make a jet bomber (no Buckingham and it's derivatives).

There was a proposal - for a Jet Whirlwind - replacing the piston for jet, think that though would have a short range! But could have been a valid quick test aircraft - depending on the engine size.

 

[Shortround6]

This kind of goes back to the point about available engineers, draftsmen and other workers. The landing accident took first prototype out of operation for 9 months. By the time the 2nd prototype was flying and the 1st repaired it was the Summer of 1940 and lots of things git put on hold. In the Fall/Winter of 1940 they estimated it would be two years before a large number of Gloster Reapers would be in service and by that time they would be obsolete ( of course they never expected the Typhoon/Sabre would take so long to sort out.)

 

[Shortround6]

Don't know about the jet running too late either. Eg. task Westland to design the jet fighter (instead of designing the Welkin), and/or Supermarine for same job (no Spiteful), plus task Bristol to make a jet bomber (no Buckingham and it's derivatives).

Spiteful wing isn't worked on until the end of 1942, contracts for prototypes weren't place until spring of 1943, about the time the first Meteor flew. First Spiteful prototype doesn't fly until the summer of 1944. Less than 4 weeks before Meteor I is cleared for service use.
Trying to design jet bombers in 1940-42 is pretty much a waste of time. Engines are low powered and thirsty. By 1943-44 the engines are still thirsty but at least they make enough power to start making a bomber practical. Redesigning from 6-8 engines down to 2-4 is a waste of effort.

 

[tomo pauk]

Never said: let Supermarine start the design of a jet fighter in the time they started Spiteful. I was thinking along these lines: instead of Gloster, invite other people to design a jet aircraft. With Supermarine building a jet fighter, the historic Spiteful is not built.
Alternatively to these proposals, let De Havilland design the Vampire around 2, rather than around 1 engine.

The Arado jet bomber started out with two engines, and 4-engined variant was also flying before ww2 ended. Do the vice-versa for the British jet bomber - two engines per each of two 'double gondolas', switch to 2 single engines once those are available. Granted, not much of the radius will be squeezed up from early jet bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

For the British you run into the centrifugal vs axial flow question.

The Arado went from a pair of 760mm dia, 740kg engines to four 690mm dia, 624kg engines.

British are using 1046-1092mm dia engines (power jets, Welland, Derwent) that weigh under 445kg OR the 1270mm dia, 680kg Goblin.

British have a lot more problems with frontal area with multiple engines. Waiting for even the Derwent V which went into the Meteor III/IV doubles the thrust (depending on starting engine) for no increase in diameter and about a 25% increase in weight.
Using two Goblin engines calls for a rather large aircraft. As much to carry the fuel as to hold the engines. A Meteor carried 300imp gallons an was promptly fitted with a 105imp gallon belly tank.
A Vampire MK 5 held 330imp gallons of fuel plus two 100imp gal drop tanks and had a range of 590 miles at 350mph at sea level. At 30,000ft the range could stretch to 1145 miles.

In 1941-43 the British were much more interested in bombing Germany than bombing the Belgian coast. The Germans could use Belgium, Holland and France both for forward bases and as a buffer zone from British attacks. They may not have liked the British bombing factories in the occupied countries but that was preferable to having them bomb the homeland.

American jet escort fighter of the time.

Bell XP-83 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Held 1150 US gallons (plus two 250 us gal drop tanks) to feed a pair of Allison J-33 engines (Developed from Halford H-1, sort of a parallel DH Goblin/ghost).

 

[Shortround6]

Never said: let Supermarine start the design of a jet fighter in the time they started Spiteful. I was thinking along these lines: instead of Gloster, invite other people to design a jet aircraft. With Supermarine building a jet fighter, the historic Spiteful is not built.

Supermarine was criticized for not developing the Spiteful fast enough. First Spiteful prototype/s used modified Spitfire fuselages with the new wing. New wing was latter used on the Supermarine Attacker.

Empty weight: 8,434 lb (3,826 kg) Gross weight: 12,211 lb (5,539 kg)

Used a 5000lb thrust Nene engine. 1257mm dia, 725kg.

Ordered in 1944, first flew in 1946 even using the Spiteful wing (and landing gear? Beefed up?)

 

[Shortround6]

Early Jet bombers for the Americans.

XB-43 cobbled together from XB-42 Mixmaster parts and using J-35 axial engines. took two years to get in the air. In part due to 7 month delay after an engine exploded during ground running.

North American B-45. four 4,000lb thrust J-35 axial engines, first flown March 17, 1947.

Convair XB-46 also four 4,000lb thrust J-35 axial engines, first flown April 2, 1947

Martin XB-48, Six 4,000lb thrust J-35 engines, maiden flight on June 22, 1947. and a comment from Joe Baughers website. "The first XB-48 went through no less than 14 engines during its first 44 flights"

First British jet bomber designed as such. Not engine test bed.

Work had started in WW II on a plane with two axial flow engines (Metropolitan-Vickers) in the fuselage. The Avons were only about 970mm in diameter and gave 6000lbs thrust on the prototypes. One Prototype was fitted with 5,000lb Nene's in case of trouble with the Avons.

as a idea of what might have been possible earlier.

four 3,5-3,600lb thrust Derwent engines

Avro Canada C.102 passenger plane. Avro Canada C102 Jetliner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1250 mile range was with 2352 imp gallons of fuel.

Now scale these back to the 2,000lb thrust (or less) engines of 1942-44.