1935-42: Alternative fighters for the RAF allies

The Gloster might have been very useful if real development had started earlier. Like several other British planes it came too late.

Click to expand...

That's it, and if you start messing with the design as it existed in the prototypes, there's more time taken up before production can begin. What Gloster should have done is produce the Reaper with Merlins earlier, which would have been a great machine, but again, the problems of production come into it; how long would it take before the thing gets into service with an inexperienced workforce building them having transitioned from building Gladiators? Another thing, too. I doubt the Gloster could carry a torpedo. This is where the Beaufighter's flexibility makes it stand above the Gloster; it was a multirole fighter.

Please note that the Defiant didn't get radar until the fall of 1941.

Click to expand...

And even then it only made one intercept with the radar. It wasn't a satisfactory mating in the cockpit also. The first British AI sets were troublesome and there were lots of failures of sets when Beaufighters took them into service.

Shortround6 said:

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 . (Quote)

I think the operative word was 'influential' where for example the Army Co-op wasn't a component of AASF but the other way around - but then again maybe that's another thread!


(Quote) The Gloster might have been very useful if real development had started earlier. Like several other British planes it came too late.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but then that's the whole point, it didn't happen OTL, with different circumstances it could have happened earlier. Moreover - no where have I suggested it does away with the Beaufighter, so why the question of it carrying a torpedo come into it ... ?

Has anybody got any other ideas as per the OP request?

A problem with these "what ifs" is how much can you change?

Add non-existing factories for example?

In the first post "We don't know when or if the 20 mm cannons will be available, so plan accordingly. RAF will need: a fighter with very heavy firepower; a 'turret fighter'; a 'colonial fighter', plus the 'normal' fighters. IOW - several designs.
Job starts in 1935, plenty of time to design start producing."

Heavy firepower without the 20mm means lots of .303 guns. The VIckers .5 MG is a non-starter and so is the American .50 Browning at this point. UNLESS you change one or both guns from what they were historically and come up with a new factory for them.
Colonial fighters were just a bad idea. Sounds good at first hearing but goes flat real quick. They won't cost that much less than 'real' fighters and just complicate the supply situation and give you 2nd class aircraft.

Also " If/when the newer engines are available in numbers, the 'second generation' might be up-engined, but don't bet the farm on the exact date - would be good not to too tightly tailor the airframe with current engine."

British fell into two holes when it came to engines. They never came up with a real substitute for the Mercury/Pegasus (Taurus crapped out) and their 1937-38 crop of 2000hp engines all failed to come in anywhere near on time.
This pretty much means you have a choice of old Mercury/Pegasus engines or Merlin or Hercules engines until some time in 1942 (less said about 1940/41 Vultures and 1941 Sabres the better) or even until 1943/44.
Please remember that Fairey doesn't have an engine "factory" and neither does Alvis. They have small shops that can make prototypes.

nuuumannn said:

That's it, and if you start messing with the design as it existed in the prototypes, there's more time taken up before production can begin. What Gloster should have done is produce the Reaper with Merlins earlier, which would have been a great machine, but again, the problems of production come into it; how long would it take before the thing gets into service with an inexperienced workforce building them having transitioned from building Gladiators?

Click to expand...

Westland's work force transitioned to build the mostly-metal Lysander and all metal Whirlwind. Bristol's work force moved from Blenheim to full-metal Beaufort.

Another thing, too. I doubt the Gloster could carry a torpedo. This is where the Beaufighter's flexibility makes it stand above the Gloster; it was a multirole fighter.
...

Click to expand...

How much of an aircraft is needed to lug one 1600 lb torpedo around? The P-38 carried two 2000 lb torpedoes for tests. Same for CAC Woomera.
The Beaufighter was indeed a multi-role fighter, good in some tasks and not so good in some other tasks. It stands above the Gloster because of the fact that it was produced and used in ww2.

Westland's work force transitioned to build the mostly-metal Lysander and all metal Whirlwind. Bristol's work force moved from Blenheim to full-metal Beaufort.

Click to expand...

Blenheim was full metal except control surfaces as well and production ran simultaneously. Whirlwind delays were notorious. As I mentioned earlier, Petter promised nine months for production, it actually took seventeen. Let's not forget the numerous technical problems the prototypes suffered. Expecting Gloster's production line to transition between biplanes and advanced twin all metal aircraft without lengthy delays is unrealistic.

Merlin, the torpedo question was that with the Beaufighter, you have one airframe that can be used as a night fighter, a heavy day fighter and ground attack type and an anti-shipping strike aircraft. Surely you can see the benefits in that rather than putting another type into production to do the same job as a couple of those, and there's not always the guarantee it's going to be as effective or as current when it goes into service? Add the Mosquito and you have two aircraft that are vastly more versatile than the Gloster.

Like I said earlier, I agree that it was certainly impressive, and in the context of fantasy time line, yep, probably would have been a good alternative, but then in reality, the Beaufighter was better and the right choice, despite its problems. I also agree with what Shortround says; even in an ATL, you still have to play by specifics.

How much of an aircraft is needed to lug one 1600 lb torpedo around? The P-38 carried two 2000 lb torpedoes for tests. Same for CAC Woomera.

Click to expand...

You don't need much of a plane to "lug one 1600 lb torpedo around" if you don't care how far you are going to lug it.

I have seen one source that says the Gloster twin held 190 imp gallons of fuel. The Beaufighter carried 376 gallons normal (wing root tanks) and could carry 550gal max (outer wing tanks, NOT to be confused with the long range tanks that replace the wing machineguns.) One source says a late model Beaufighter could carry a torpedo 1400 miles without using the long range tanks.

nuuumannn :

You're at it again in your last post - Could read again my last post - or explain why you think I would prefer the Gloster twin to the Beaufighter, (but replace the Blenheim 1f the Havoc)and the Mosquito didn't enter service till May 1942.

Yep, have and my answer is still the same, and yep, I'm at it again...

yulzari said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a more conservative approach than Gloster's F.5/34 design, maybe even something that kept as much in common with the Gladiator as possible. If it was practical, developing a plane that retained nearly all of the Gladiator's fuselage design, but replaced the wing and landing gear with a more modern retractable wheel monoplane configuration and modified the engine mounting to accept the somewhat larger Pegasus, and you might have something interesting there.

Armament wise, you could retain the fuselage guns, possibly make provisions for Vickers .50 cal guns too, but there was no export market for those and the Air Minstery seemed uninterested as well. Provisions for wing cannons would be interesting too, though. Not just Hispanos but Oerlikon guns too. (particularly the ligher FFF cannons or FFL -not much heavier but well worth the added velocity -ballistics closer to the .50 cal vickers or .303 ) Oerlikon guns were open on the export market, so that would make sense. (given they were all drum fed at that time, provisions for either the Hispano or Oerlikon guns would make sense too, and given the latter were smaller and lighter, it'd be the Hispano that would be the biggest challenge for working in -plus the heavier recoil causing more wing swinging/twisting and vibrations and related jams -the FFF would be least problematic on all accounts)



All that said, it might have been more practical to modify the Hurricane to accept different engines, be it the pegasus or possibly a broader array of alternatives. (historically, the Hercules was proposed, but that was in a much later context than this thread's premise)
The advantages of a Gladiator derived monopolane would be production and repair commonality with that existing type. (that and, for whatever reasons, the Finnish had higher regard for the Gladiator in service than their Hurricane Is) Better cockpit visibility would have been a plus for the Gladiator cockpit/canopy too. (without the biplane wing in the way)



And on the note of Jet fighter production. One other option might have been actually giving De Havilland priority and official backing for the Vampire and Goblin (maybe even arranging collaboration with Rolls Royce to speed up development and production rather than focusing on Power Jet's designs).

pbehn said:

For the life of me I cannot understand why work was not done earlier on putting cannons into the Hurricane instead of the Spitfire, the wing had space for it and if Bader's Big Wing had cannons even 1 per wing taking on unescorted bombers things would have been different.

The Hurricane wasnt a great aircraft in 1939/40 but it did have the great strength of being easy to produce and repair, the UK may have been short of pilots, Merlins and Spitfires they would never be short of Hurricanes

Click to expand...

Same here. The Hurrican's stiffer, thicker wings should have much better fit the hispanos and had fewer problems with jamming due to vibrations and being mounted with the drums on their sides.

Apparently there were some tests but there's not much info, so I'm unsure on this.
Spitfire Mk.IB - Axis History Forum (discussion there seems to have mixed info)

Same here. The Hurrican's stiffer, thicker wings should have much better fit the hispanos and had fewer problems with jamming due to vibrations and being mounted with the drums on their sides.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. Problems arose with gun feed issues and Spitfires in service that were fitted with them had the same problems. To begin with, you have to remember that the British didn't have much choice other than modifying the Hisso. Besides, most of the decisions for armament for fighters like the Hurri and Gloster Twin were made before the opportunity arose to examine downed enemy aircraft shot down with .303 ammunition. There was a lot that the British, and indeed Germans, Americans, Russians, Japanese did a lot different once the shooting started. Before the war, there just wasn't enough info about things and so the need wasn't always appreciated. Its worth examining the specs for pre-war cannon fighters for the RAF and drawing conclusions on what the status quo was in terms of thought behind it. Like Edgar Brooks said in the Whirlwind thread, the Spit and Hurri with cannon were considered and rejected for the proposal to which the Whirlwind was eventually built.

Most references I've seen for the Hurricane still list it as having cannon drums installed on their side (or a few cases where bulky underwing pods were used) but nothing in line with the bulged wing surface like the Bf 109E implemented for its MG-FF drums. (sure, the Hispano drums were bigger, but so was the hurricane's wing by a good margin)

There were 3 different Oerlikon guns which used different length cartridge cases 70-72mm cartridge length (not including projectile) 101mm cartridge length and 110mm cartridge length. The British bought the largest one for Anti-aircraft use. This may have been the one tested/trialed or proposed for some of these early aircraft cannon schemes.
Trouble with the Oerlikon gun, as least the big version used by the British was that it fired slower than the Hispano and required greased ammunition which lead to failures at high altitudes. The Hispano wound up needing greased ammo also but not in initial trials. Oerlikon may have been harder to design a belt feed for, Germans and Japanese both managed it but not until after the British got belt feeds going for the Hispano.

Either of these guns with the drum on top was going to give problems.

Ah ... I see now, I'd forgotten the Bf-109E mounted the cannon drums sideways as well.

I hadn't realized the Hispano ended up relying on greased ammo in British usage. I know US practice resorted to that to partially compensate for the reliability issues of the M1 and M2 Hispano, but not details about the British using such.

And on belt feed, the Oerlikon cannon might not have been more difficult to convert so much as the British just taking more interest in the Hispano. (given they were working with the largest, heaviest, slowest firing of the Oerlikon FF family, the FFS, there really were only modest advantages in weight and recoil over the Hispano anyway -the FFF and especially FFL had more interesting trade-offs, but the British hadn't opted for either of those)

parsifal said:

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

Click to expand...

Perhaps, instead of going for the Wirraway - a militarised version of the trainer - Wacket's fact finding mission recommends the Gloster f.5/34 - but uses the P W 1830 engine for it! The Boomerang, doesn't get developed - the Gloster fighter (can't think of a name the Aussies would give it) - would INHO give a better account of itself than other OTL aircraft against the Japanese 1941/42. Perhaps too the armament gets changed to 4 x 0.5" Browning's!

Shortround6: Quote "Please remember that Fairey doesn't have an engine "factory" and neither does Alvis. They have small shops that can make prototypes" Quote

From Freeman's biography p.335 "Radial engines to the Gnome-Rhone designs, made under license by Alvis, were rejected because they were overweight and underpowered, so Alvis eventually filled their expensive new factory with sub-contract and repair work on Bristol and Rolls Royce engines."

Curious the comment on the GR engines- maybe a case of NIH

merlin said:

Curious the comment on the GR engines- maybe a case of NIH

Click to expand...

Or maybe the GR engines just weren't that good?

Wilkinson 1941 edition gives as weight of 1475lbs for a Pelides, a diameter of 52in and power ratings of 1060hp at 2150rpm for take-off and 1060hp at 2150rpm at 5000ft. Engine has the classic GR flaw of no center bearing on the crankshaft so increase RPM or boost is rather doubtful. Cylinder bore and stroke were the same as a Hercules. BTW the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger had the same flaw and that is what doomed it in the pre-war build up.

According to Lumsden the Alvis engine "works" eventually comprised no fewer than 21 locations and employed 3,160 people.

How big or what the capacity of the "expensive new factory" was in 1938/39 is a bit unknown. The 1938 Jane's says that the "new" Alvis factory could produce "Aero-motors to the total of 15,000hp per week".

That was actually a fairly common term at the time. It not only sounds impressive but somewhat equalizes the production of small and large engines or 9 cylinder, 14 cylinder and 18 cylinder engines. Work hours or number of shifts not stated.

In Jan 1938 P W built around 43,000hp worth of engines per week and this is before the big ramp up or factory expansions.

merlin said:

Perhaps, instead of going for the Wirraway - a militarised version of the trainer - Wacket's fact finding mission recommends the Gloster f.5/34 - but uses the P W 1830 engine for it! The Boomerang, doesn't get developed - the Gloster fighter (can't think of a name the Aussies would give it) - would INHO give a better account of itself than other OTL aircraft against the Japanese 1941/42. Perhaps too the armament gets changed to 4 x 0.5" Browning's!

Click to expand...

Neat idea ... still not a great altitude performer with the single-stage R-1830s they were using, but probably a lot better/earlier than the Boomerang.
Though on that end of things, a license-built F2A would have been interesting. (assuming Brewster's management didn't screw up the documentation, it might have ended up better off than their own manufacturing) Plus already engineered to be carrier capable. (had the British acquired examples not been de-navalized in production, they might have been accepted by the FAA -would have been nice to have a comparison of that vs their Martlets)

Not quite in line with the original premise of this topic, but given its age and initial positioning as an export aircraft, I wonder if securing a license for the P-36 in the UK would have been possible. Particularly in the context of fitting it with British engines. The Mercury and Pegasus would have been interesting enough in the early/short term, but experimenting with fitting the Merlin indepdendely of Curtiss's own experiments with the XP-37 and XP-40 could have been very useful. (with better long term development potential than the Hurricane using the same engines)

Then again, just exploiting existing British designs might have been more useful, unless they could have gotten a license from Curtiss very early on. (The Hawk and Hurricane were contemporary designs, Spitfire slightly later, and the likes of Bulton Paul's Defiant a bit later, with Gloster's F.5/34 proposal later still -of those, the Bulton Paul airframe might have been close to as useful/versatile as the P-40 if parallel development as a single-seat fighter had started earlier)