1935-42: Alternative fighters for the RAF allies

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For Australia, if Wacketts advice had been followed, instead of procrastinating for over a year with the Taurus, which never materialized, they should have opted for the Twin Wasp engine from the beginning when Wackett persuaded the government to embark on the production of first line aircraft, beginning with the Wirraway and then the Beaufort. Boomerang was the obvious choice, an adaptation of the already produced wirraway and simply needing the higher rated engine. once the decision was made to home produce the twin Wasp, things moved very quickly. three already existing railway service buildings were converted in 1940, followed by six moere shadow factories, and eventually using over 600 small workshops for component manufacture

Australia was never going to make as huge difference to the aircraft situation, but if they had shown enough courage to go it alone, as they eventually did anyway, they could have produced about 200 Boomerangs in 1940 and about 300 in 1941. They could have produced about 50 Beauforts in 1940, and about 150 in 1941. Enough to give the Japanese more an a little scare
 
Thanks for that.

A few comments:

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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, twinned axials would be too much here. Guess the Vampire should stay with Goblin, it was a rather smaller machine than Meteor, something along P-40 vs. P-38 size comparison.


The British were interested in night bombing, an escort fighter was not their game at the time. The jet fighters were pursued as a 'next generation' of fighters, to replace Spitfire and future Typhoon/Tornado, in role of (short range) interceptors.

Supermarine was criticized for not developing the Spiteful fast enough.
Click to expand...

Start the jet fighter program there after BoB, don't wait another 2 years.
 

I think you are missing the point (easy to do, I do tend to off on tangents

Gloster started work on the Meteor in 1940, by early 1941 a contract was placed for 12 prototypes to handle the variety of jet engines under development. DH built the Vampire to specification E.6/41.
How much quicker do you want?

Meteor was a twin engine aircraft because, like the He 280 and the Me 262, no single engine offered enough thrust at the time work started to give the desired performance.

Supermarine had given the Air Ministry fits in 1938/39 getting the Spitfire in production and working with the shadow factories. Several other Supermarine project proposals had been turned down because the Air Ministry didn't think Supermarine could deliver on time. Then the British really wind up in a bind. The Hurricane runs into the wall as far as development goes. It needs the Merlin XX just to get close to the performance of a Spitfire I or II. The Vulture/Sabre/Centaurus are all running late or coming apart in mid-air (or both) so the BIG Hawker fighter that was supposed to replace both the Hurricane and Spitfire is just trickling into service and causing a host of problems. Let's not forget that the TWO most produced Spitfires (the MK V and the MK IX) were BOTH hasty improvisations because Supermarine either hadn't completed work on the more thorough updates or couldn't convert the production lines in a timely fashion or a bit of both.
As another indication of Supermarine's ability (or lack of) to handle multiple programs lets remember that the idea of a Griffon powered Spitfire was first brought up in Dec of 1939 in a company Brochure. It took until the end of Nov 1941 to get a flying example and it took another year to start delivering 'production versions' which used MK VC and MK VIII airframes. Building 55 or so MK XII Spitfires with Griffon engines and the same fuel tanks as a MK I Spitfire sure doesn't look like good planning, The last 45 got the wing tanks of the MK VIII.
Having Supermarine trying to design a jet fighter at this time either means a looong drawn out design development period and/or delays in newer Spitfire models.

Joseph Smith and crew did an amazing job in constantly updating/upgrading the Spitfire beyond what the Air Ministry though possible but they were spread thin as it was.

You had brought up the jet bombers, I was trying to show you that at the time the power needed for an allied bomber required more engines than for a German bomber because the allies had to fly further (carry more fuel) than the Arado 234.
An Arado 234B with 2 Jumo engines carried 825 imp gallons of fuel inside and if carrying a 3300lb bomb load it's 'range' was 684 miles. Clean it was 1013 miles.
The larger diameter Allied engine available during and just after the war are going to hurt performance compared to the narrower German engines. The J-35 Axial engine used in the American bombers was 953mm dia and weighed 1100kg. Off course one engine was offering the thrust of two if the early engines.
 
Sorry for not stating it in a more precise manner - the Supermarine will start their jet fighter just after BoB, not that I'm suggesting the whole British jet program was a latte affair. Supermarine was a par of Vickers, hopefully some designer manpower can be shifted from their programs?
 
If they could have shifted manpower from Vickers why didn't they in order to sort out some of the Spitfire variants quicker?

Vickers was working on Wellingtons, The Warwick (which used Wellington outer wings and Wellington fuselage with extra sections and was pretty much a back burner aircraft due to not having engines available), the 432 high altitude fighter (rejected in favor of the Welkin) and the Windsor Heavy bomber. The last three didn't wind up amounting to anything but I am not sure I want to see a geodetic structure jet either
Late in war they were working on the Viking transport.
 
Last edited:

The 432 was a stressed skin design. So Vickers could do other than geodetic designs.
 
Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with having their main factory bombed to destruction, and many workers killed, could it?
And the V was not a hasty improvisation, but a Mark which made immediate use of the Merlin 45 when it came available.
All of which was dictated by the lack of suitable high-altitude Griffon engines
Building 55 or so MK XII Spitfires with Griffon engines and the same fuel tanks as a MK I Spitfire sure doesn't look like good planning, The last 45 got the wing tanks of the MK VIII.
Click to expand...
As always, Supermarine did as they were told, and production of the XII was dictated by the Air Ministry, due to a lack of low-level Merlins, so a new Mark, with low-altitude Griffons, had to be rushed into service, to combat the low-level Fw190 attacks. There were only ever meant to be 100 airframes, that was all, and none of them ever got wing tanks.
Having Supermarine trying to design a jet fighter at this time either means a looong drawn out design development period and/or delays in newer Spitfire models.
Click to expand...
They were still given the order for the "Jet Propelled Fighter Aircraft Based on "Spiteful" in January 1945, so somebody believed they could do it.
Joseph Smith and crew did an amazing job in constantly updating/upgrading the Spitfire beyond what the Air Ministry though possible but they were spread thin as it was.
Click to expand...
It was the other way round; the Air Ministry asked, Supermarine responded, then, if satisfied, the Air Ministry gave them an order.
Many of you seem incapable of grasping this simple fact; the companies did as they were told. Camm, Smith, Barnes Wallis, and all the others could have as many ideas as they liked, but, without an Air Ministry go-ahead, they were still-born.
 
Edgar Brooks said:
Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with having their main factory bombed to destruction, and many workers killed, could it?
Click to expand...

Factory/s were bombed in Sept of 1940? Could very well have had an impact on the MK V situation in the winter of 1940/spring of 1941. Becomes a bit thinner of excuse in late 1941/early 1942 with the MK IX.
Spitfire MK III was flying with a Merlin XX, had retracting tailwheel and internal bullet proof windscreen among other changes. Air Ministry decided that the Hurricane would get all the Merlin XX engines that went into fighters (Bomber Command got the bulk of Merlin XX engines). Air Ministry takes short cut of sticking Merlin 45s into essentially MK I/II airframes.

Air Ministry thought it would take around a year to get the MK VII and MK VIII into production once the two stage Merlin became available. Design work had started before the MK IX. MK IX went into service much earlier by using MK V airframes. Later MK IXs slowly acquired some of the features of the MK VIII.


And the V was not a hasty improvisation, but a Mark which made immediate use of the Merlin 45 when it came available.
Click to expand...

Kind of addressed above. By using the MK I II airframe type the MK Vs were stuck with some of the less desirabel features of the older planes that had been designed out of the MK III (Windscreen change being good for about 6mph?)

All of which was dictated by the lack of suitable high-altitude Griffon engines
Click to expand...

Sort of everybody had a hand in this one but if anybody at the factory was serious about a Griffon powered Spitfire from 1939 to 1942 it seems that some sort of extra fuel capacity should have been figured in. Feeding an engine with 25-30% more airflow than the Merlin (at the same intake pressures) was going to take more fuel regardless of what altitude they were going to operate at. Or did the Air Ministry micro manage things to that extent? instead of telling manufacturer what they wanted for endurance or range and letting the manufacturer figure out how much fuel they needed they told them what size fuel tank to put in and then demanded a certain amount of endurance or range?


I stand corrected on the wing tanks but somebody stuffed it up on the fuel capacity, as above. Griffon was going suck down 42 gallons an hour at 2000rpm and -4 lb boost. At 2400rpm and +6lbs weak mixture it sucked down 74-75 imp gallons an hour.

Merlin 45 used 31 imp gallons an hour at 2000rpm and -4 lb boost (granted it made less power) and at 2650rpm and 7lbs boost rich mixture it used only 67 imp gallons an hour. Endurance/range with Griffon and original fuel capacity (even if they did have to change the upper and lower tanks to fit the engine in ?) was going to be lacking.

They were still given the order for the "Jet Propelled Fighter Aircraft Based on "Spiteful" in January 1945, so somebody believed they could do it.
Click to expand...

Different times, pressure was off in someways, and on in others. Germany was finished in Jan 1945, it was just a matter of time. The Brabazon committee was almost 2 years old, Planning for post war Aircraft needed to be started. Or almost 2nd generation jets if you will. Governments often liked to spread contracts around to ensure future competition. If Supermarine was to stay a viable company/bidder on future projects they needed design experience with jets. Back in 1942-43-44 Supermarine needed to concentrate on improving the Spitfire, in part to cover the Air Ministries butt. The Typhoon and Sabre failing to come up to expectations.


Air Ministry thought the Typhoon and Sabre would replace the Spitfire. As they slipped in timing and performance you are right, the Air Ministry asked for new models of the Spitfire to tide them over until the Typhoon/Sabre got straightened out. Supermarine responded (and sometimes anticipated) and the Air Ministry gave orders. Napier never got a high altitude Version of the Sabre into production. RR got both high altitude Merlins and Griffons into production.
Air Ministry solicited ideas. Companies pitched their ideas. Air Ministry sorted them out, evaluated them and place orders. Part of the sorting was trying to estimate which companies could actually get a proposed paper aircraft into production in a timely fashion. Best idea in the world might be no good if it took a company 4 years from paper to production while their competitors 2nd best idea was only going to take 3 years (what would the enemy come up with in 3 years vs 4 years?).
 
Shortround6 said:
Factory/s were bombed in Sept of 1940? Could very well have had an impact on the MK V situation in the winter of 1940/spring of 1941. Becomes a bit thinner of excuse in late 1941/early 1942 with the MK IX.
Click to expand...
Not sure why an excuse is needed, when the first conversion was test-flown 27-9-41 (and the engine was only test-run in the spring of 1941.) The 60-series was designed for a high-altitude Wellington, and it was Hives, of Rolls-Royce, who suggested using it in the Spitfire. (It was also Rolls-Royce who did many of the early conversions - 285 in all.)
And that was because the airframe needed minimal work, retaining the original dimensions; fitting the Merlin XX caused the fuselage to be lengthened by 4", and caused ground stability problems, needing the u/c to be raked forward.
Kind of addressed above. By using the MK I II airframe type the MK Vs were stuck with some of the less desirabel features of the older planes that had been designed out of the MK III (Windscreen change being good for about 6mph?)
Click to expand...
Internal-armoured windscreen, plus blown hood, went into production 26-4-41.
Sort of everybody had a hand in this one but if anybody at the factory was serious about a Griffon powered Spitfire from 1939 to 1942 it seems that some sort of extra fuel capacity should have been figured in.
Click to expand...
If you check, you'll find the VII, VIII, XIV all had extra internal fuel. It's also a bit late to start considering a bigger engine, and different service usages, three years after the prototype's first flight.
Silly question; I'm sorry, but the Air Ministry specified the flight duration, and left it to the manufacturer to work out how much fuel would be needed, and where it should go. It's only possible to fit extra items into an airframe if it doesn't compromise the structural integrity; Farnborough found this out when they examined the IXs, converted in the U.S. They were deemed unsafe for combat.
All very nice and super-technical, but not a lot of use if the manufacturing company can't produce the engines needed. The XII was a stop-gap, using an engine for which there would be no further use in Fighter Command. A "make-do" was better than no aircraft at all (and it came in very useful against the V1.)
 
Last edited:
There seems to be an astonishing amount of clicking of fingers and voila! Things are gonna happen, in this thread. Firstly, Merlin, stopping Gladiator production and building the Gloster Twin isn't going to happen overnight. Those built were hand built prototypes only. Getting the type fit for production, as with any aircraft design takes time, particularly if a production line with an existing type is to draw that to a close and build an entirely new aircraft. By the time all that happened, the Gloster Twin in its first incarnation would have been obsolete as it entered service. As I stated earlier, the Mosquito and Beaufighter did the tasks it would have been built for. Replacing the Blenheim with it? When was this decision going to be made? late 1939? During the Battle of Britain, when what was needed was single seat fighter production? Also, why did the Blenheim need replacing before the war started? It was considered at the time to be a modern front line aircraft and had only been in service a few years. Hindsight is wonderful.

As for the Griffon engine, The reason behind not getting Griffons into service aircraft any earlier than what traditionally happened was not because the Air Ministry didn't have the foresight, but because the Griffon suffered developmental issues at Rolls-Royce. I recommend reading about the issues in British Piston Aero Engines, by Lumsden and Rolls-Royce, the Pursuit of Excellence by Harvey-Bailey and Evans. Firstly, the Griffon was resurrected in 1939 from the first incarnation of th engine based on th "R' as technical exercise, for an FAA requirement. The first production Griffons, fitted with single stage two-speed superchargers went into Fairey Fireflies, with Griffon IIIs going into the Spitfire XII as a stop gap because of the increase in performance offered by the fitting of a Griffon to the Spitfire IV DP845.

Alec Harvey Bailey on the Griffon: "The Griffon layout worked well, except for a few failures of a larger spur gear in the cam drive train. No faults were found in the gears and there were no signs of overloading, but as a gear it did not look right. The teeth were very narrow and because of its diameter it became known as 'the bacon slicer'. The problem was cured by doubling the width of the gear."

"All Griffons had opposite rotation from the Merlin with a different firing order and can be identified by the ragged growl of the exhaust, rather than the familiar snarl of the Merlin. The biggest diffference from the Merlin was in pistons and top joints. The Griffon was liable to piston seizures at short life, usually in end cylinders, but was quite reliable within a 0.005 in undersize piston. There were many internal arguments over this and at one stage there was a reversion to full size pistons but with relieved spigots on the end cylinder liners. This again produced a run of piston seisures on production and flight test, the reduced diameter piston becoming the final standard fit."

"The engine also had a tendency to top joint deterioration on the exhaust side of the block, which could be kept at bay on fighter operations by periodically retightening the exhaust side head to skirt studs. Griffon 57s were fitted with wide flange liners to combat this trouble. One can only conclude that it was the bigger bore that made the Griffon more sensitive to these troubles."

Jeffrey Quill wrote extensively about testing DP845 in his book Spitfire a test pilot's story and its worth reading to get an understanding of what was going on at the time. He regarded it as his favourite aircraft. There was also the story of a test flight he was to give flying a Spitfire as a datum alongside a Typhoon and a recently captured Fw 190 (MP499 - Arnim Faber's aircraft) in front of an audience at Farnborough.

""The Spitfire was to be a sort of datum pacemaker – a 'Mr Average Contemporary Fighter' – and its job would be to come in last, the real excitement of the proceedings being by how much it would be beaten by the Fw 190 and the Typhoon, and which of these two bright stars would beat the other and by how much. Outside on the tarmac at Worthy Down stood the inoffensive-looking but highly potent DP845. Nobody had said what sort of Spitfire I sould bring. Just a Spitfire. I rang up Joe Smith. 'Joe', I said, 'about this thing at Farnborough. I reckon if I take DP845 I will beat the pair of them. Will that upset any applecarts?'
'You bet it will,' he said. 'Take it.'

After this demo, getting the Griffon into Spitfires happened pretty swiftly and led to the XII, but with two-speed, two-stage Merlin supercharger tech being applied to the Griffon led to the XIV, both of which were stop-gaps, although the XIV proved to be a remarkable success. These things didn't happen overnight. XIIs were V and VIII airframes, and XIVs were VIII, then new build airframes, so things went pretty quickly once the engines were available.
 
Quote: "Firstly, Merlin, stopping Gladiator production and building the Gloster Twin isn't going to happen overnight. Those built were hand built prototypes only. Getting the type fit for production, as with any aircraft design takes time, particularly if a production line with an existing type is to draw that to a close and build an entirely new aircraft. By the time all that happened, the Gloster Twin in its first incarnation would have been obsolete as it entered service. As I stated earlier, the Mosquito and Beaufighter did the tasks it would have been built for. Replacing the Blenheim with it? When was this decision going to be made? late 1939? During the Battle of Britain, when what was needed was single seat fighter production? Also, why did the Blenheim need replacing before the war started? It was considered at the time to be a modern front line aircraft and had only been in service a few years. Hindsight is wonderful"

Yes hindsight is wonderful, but then that's what the OP's question is all about.
Presumably, an aircraft designer would some idea how and where the 'design' will be produced - hardly any point in putting forward the design proposal in the first place! I imagine they new they wouldn't be making biplanes forever.

Last order for the Gauntlet was for 100 Sept. 1935, for the Gladiator first 23 in July 1935, a further 180 ordered in Sept. 1935 - with production continuing till April 1940 (Owen Thetford). Two curiosities there - both aircraft ordered at the same time, and despite all the orders for Hurricanes Henleys - still making Gladiators!

I've previously posted scenarios whereby both aircraft could be available earlier e,g. monoplane = earlier flight, gets RAF order and export orders(perhaps some of which want the mono instead of the Glad), and the 'twin' - Gloster invited to rework the earlier turret design (deleting it) as a back up to F.37/35. Hence, in that guise - and with less changes in the spec as per OTL - prototype flies much earlier - in service in 39, order for Blenheim conversions reduced maybe late '38 (please note it's the Blenheim 1F - I'm referring to - replacing the Blenheim Bomber is for a different thread!). Moreover, I don't see that the Beaufighter Mosquito programmes are affected by this.

Granted some this may need more work - but IMHO the plausibility factor is high enough.
 

This is priceless
 
Merlin, I get that a fantasy timeline is just that, but things don't just materialise as if they were at a click of the fingers, even in fantasy world, realistic times for construction etc are still valid, otherwise, we'd have jet fighters fighting the Great War. My point is that production lines don't just bring a type to a halt then build another. These things take more time than is often recognised and would the Gloster Twin be viable if production began in late 1939/1940? Would it have been worth it in the end? Sure, stopping Gladiator production sooner would have been advantageous, but if I were the men at Hawker I'd still put more Hurricanes on that production line. You also have to remember that going from the Gladiator and its type of construction to the Gloster Twin would also have taken time, less time than getting Hurricanes on the line because it was already in production and its construction was closer to the Gladiator than the Gloster Twin. There were also concerns at the time whether the Gloster work force was capable of mass producing an advanced twin engined fighter, like Westlands' and the Whirlwind was way behind schedule for that very reason.

I figure that with the Gloster Twin's first flight in April 1939, you probably couldn't realistically expect the first one off the production line until late 1939, if not early 1940 or later, that is, if production is agreed on before the prototype first flies. This means working up to suitability for service use throughout the Battle of Britain and perhaps entry into service by the end of the battle or the end of the year - realistically. By this stage, Beaufighter night fighters are in service and the Mosquito production orders are being mulled over, despite the prototype having flown on 25 November 1940.

Another thing about it you have to remember was that it was a single seat fighter, with technology the way it was, making a night fighter out of it would have entailed re-instating the second seat, which was removed from the concept in 1938 - more reconfiguration before production. So, realistically, is it worth it having another under-performing twin that is about to be superceded by types in the pipeline and already in service? Another question to ask is, is it a versatile airframe? Could it do the jobs the Beaufighter and Mosquito do as well? Granted, you're right, it's plauseable, but was it worth it? I doubt it. They made the right decision not to build it and to press on with the Beaufighter, despite the problems with the Hercules and its troubled entry into service as a night fighter.
 
Last edited:
Provided the timing is right:
I don't see why the Merlinized Gloster twin would be any worse than Beaufighter (any engine). The size is considerably smaller (wing area 386 sq ft vs. 503 sq ft), neither had much of a thin wing, so with same engines the Gloster would be a better performer than the Beufighter. On Peregrines, the Gloster was as fast as Beaufighter with Merlin XX. Even with 2nd best Taurus engines, it was as fast as Beaufighter with Hercules engines.
Where the another crew member will be seated, the Gloster have had cannons (plus armament in the front of the aircraft) that were canted up to fire a bit upwards (20 deg?). Relocate those cannons under fuselage, so the second crew member can be seated behind the pilot.
 
The Gloster's problem came down to timing. After the first prototype crashed (bad landing?) it took 9 months to rebuild. 2nd prototype didn't fly until 7 months after the Beaufighter. Beaufighter used essentially Beaufort wings (and tail?) so a lot was already done in regards to putting it into production.
Redoing the F.9/37 to take Merlins probably could have been done but would have delayed the project by months. Remember in the fall of 1940 (Nov?) the Air Ministry thought they could NOT get a useful number of F.9/37 aircraft (powered by Merlins ?) until the fall of 1942.

We know now that the Beaufighte'rs performance estimates were a "little" optimistic. So was the date of introduction of the Hercules in large quantities.

At a minimum a change in "timing" for the F.9/37 would have involves the 2nd prototype being powered by Merlins and flying in the Spring of 1940. Maybe you get production planes in the Spring of 1941?
 
At a minimum a change in "timing" for the F.9/37 would have involves the 2nd prototype being powered by Merlins and flying in the Spring of 1940. Maybe you get production planes in the Spring of 1941?
Click to expand...

This is the crux of it really. When is it going to be available in whatever form and would it still be current? Fitting Merlins required a bit more engineering before production could commence and realistically that was the only viable option. Westland were advised that their production order for 200 Peregrine engined Whirlwinds was to be cut back and Rolls announced that it would only be building sufficient numbers of engines to meet the revised number of airframes, then that was it. Gloster's production line had to go from building early to mid Twenties technology biplanes to building late 30s monoplanes and twin engined ones at that. When a production order for Whirlwinds was granted, Petter promised the Air Ministry the first aircraft in nine months. It wasn't completed for 17 months and I reckon that Gloster would be the same.

Tomo, the second crew member's station was originally in the fuselage, like the Beaufighter. Again, remember that redesigning the nose to fit another crewmember takes time and would require yet more delay in getting it into production. Yes, the Gloster was faster than the Beaufighter, but then it was smaller too. The Beaufighter was a very versatile airframe and could carry a sizeable load, I doubt the Gloster would have been able to match it. The Reaper was a much more promising aircraft design, but by then, even it had been superceded by the Mosquito.
 
Maybe you've misunderstood me - the Gloster twin featured not just the nose armament, but also the cannons in the fuselage. Those guns, located aft the pilot, were canted upwards (20 deg?; the nose guns were also canted - picture) to fire above the pilot - not unlike the Schraege musik. In order to fit another crew member, those guns need to be relocated; the nose guns remain on their spot.
The Gloster twin was smaller than Beaufighter, but it was not too small an aircraft. Wing was of greater area than those on P-38, let alone on the P-47, and were also thicker (at least when looking at them). Both US aircraft were capable to lift several thousand pounds of ordnance weight, plus plenty of fuel inside, along with heavy gun ammo weight. The P-38F was tested with two 2000 lb torpedos on 2x1325 HP for take off. What the Gloster twin would not offer are the wing guns, a fair trade off for better performance potential.
 
The rear fuselage guns might have been an interesting idea, but personally I'm dubious at how they would work in practise - the noise for instance would be horrendous.

I'll stick to my earlier idea - of a back-up to the 4 x 20mm cannon aircraft spec., this with two in the nose plus 0.303" MGs, the aircraft is thinner than the Beau so I se the NF version as having the R/O siting back-to-back with the pilot.

Granted a twin mono is different to s/s biplanes - however it was a conventional design unlike the 'advanced' Whirlwind - fuselage was thinner than the engine cowling - no wonder it took so long with trying to fit everything into such a cramped space.

Yes, tomo pauk - I suspect it could carry bombs. So with a more influential Army Co-operation Command do we get some bright spark ask "Can it carry bombs?"
 
merlin said:
Yes, tomo pauk - I suspect it could carry bombs. So with a more influential Army Co-operation Command do we get some bright spark ask "Can it carry bombs?"
Click to expand...

And "bright spark" is told (up until the Battle of France) that the Lysander can do the bombing job and how the He** is the Gloster twin supposed to pick up messages with a hook

Gloster, as designed, doesn't carry an a large amount of fuel (better than the Whirlwind) and we start getting into the light prototype,even with low power engines, vs a fully equipped service aircraft.

Converting bombers or big fighters like the Beaufighter to night fighters was easy was there was plenty of room to bolt stuff in. Smaller fighters take a bit more planning. Please note that the Defiant didn't get radar until the fall of 1941.

The Gloster might have been very useful if real development had started earlier. Like several other British planes it came too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
8K
Shortround6
S
P
Meet the alternative Wasp Major: R-4290/4570
Replies
4
Views
203
peceed
P
Alternative airborne guns 2.0
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
3K
MikeMeech
M
T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
Menu
Log in
Register