1936-1941: your best RAF

[tomo pauk]

Using technology of the era, equip & train the RAF as good as possible to defend far-flung corners of the Empire. The 'technology of the era' qualifier means production & usage of piston engines that were either in production in the UK historically, or can be easily acquired via buying them outright, or via a company in the UK that buys a licence for engine type; gun types that we know work in the day (= no Gatlings from the 1960s, no revolver cannons) as well as bombs and possibly rockets; materials, fuels and airfoils of the day (that will suffice here); same for radio and radar types.
Bombers, fighters, recons, transports and trainers are needed. No jet engines.
Gear needs to be adoptable for series production, adaptability of an aircraft design for other role or two is a plus, but not a must.

Note: Army 'airforce' and FAA are not the topic here.

 

[Zipper730]

Do you mean what you'd have flying in 1936, or "starting in 1936, you set the following in motion"? That said, I would figure one thing would be produce something better than the Fairey Battle.

BTW: Regarding jet-engines, Frank Whittle's research progressed at the rate it did because it was underfunded -- if it was better funded, it would have come online faster.

 

[tomo pauk]

Do you mean what you'd have flying in 1936, or "starting in 1936, you set the following in motion"? That said, I would figure one thing would be produce something better than the Fairey Battle.

BTW: Regarding jet-engines, Frank Whittle's research progressed at the rate it did because it was underfunded -- if it was better funded, it would have come online faster.

Start the motion in 1936.
Jets - stil a 'no'

 

[tomo pauk]

Keepers:
-Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington; Merlin, Hercules, Pegasus.
Still going to need them, but probably/certainly not in historical quantities, unless can be modified so they can be of better usability:
-Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Battle; Mercury.
Not that needed, or something much better can be made by 'original' companies, or we're simply better without them:
-Botha, Defiant, Whitley, Beaufort; Taurus, Tiger, Dagger, Peregrine
We don't have it, but can make and use it:
-A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Numbers.....it's about the numbers of good aircraft and available pilots.

Start Hurricane production at CC&F in Canada a year earlier (The first Canadian-built Hurricane first flew in January 1940). Start earlier so that Canada's Hurricanes can first fly in 1938 and roll off the line in Jan 1939. Ship these by rail to Vancouver and ferry them to Singapore, ANZ, North Africa, etc. The Indian-Pacific Ocean route is entirely safe (minus the occasional German raider), so make use of this. Get someone in Canada to license-build the Merlin - there are plenty of engine shops and probably much of the Empire's aluminum located in Canada. Get CAC in Australia to produce fighter and strike aircraft asap. But not local designs, instead get them to make Beauforts or Hampdens, perhaps another Hurricane line.

Japan will be rattled if there are 500 Hurricanes in Malaya by summer 1941.

 

[herman1rg]

A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG.

Develop the DH Mosquito earlier and those bases are all covered.

 

[Kevin J]

Keepers:
-Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington; Merlin, Hercules, Pegasus.
Still going to need them, but probably/certainly not in historical quantities, unless can be modified so they can be of better usability:
-Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Battle; Mercury.
Not that needed, or something much better can be made by 'original' companies, or we're simply better without them:
-Botha, Defiant, Whitley, Beaufort; Taurus, Tiger, Dagger, Peregrine
We don't have it, but can make and use it:
-A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG.

The Defiant made a useful interim night fighter.
What do you replace the Whitley with? My suggestion the AW 23 bomber transport from which it was derived would have been useful. The RAF totally lacked transports in the Far East. The Whitley had excellent range and was a useful maritime reconnaissance aircraft.
The Beaufort served till war's end in the Pacific theatre using twin wasp engines so I'd keep it.

 

[Kevin J]

Numbers.....it's about the numbers of good aircraft and available pilots.

Start Hurricane production at CC&F in Canada a year earlier (The first Canadian-built Hurricane first flew in January 1940). Start earlier so that Canada's Hurricanes can first fly in 1938 and roll off the line in Jan 1939. Ship these by rail to Vancouver and ferry them to Singapore, ANZ, North Africa, etc. The Indian-Pacific Ocean route is entirely safe (minus the occasional German raider), so make use of this. Get someone in Canada to license-build the Merlin - there are plenty of engine shops and probably much of the Empire's aluminum located in Canada. Get CAC in Australia to produce fighter and strike aircraft asap. But not local designs, instead get them to make Beauforts or Hampdens, perhaps another Hurricane line.

Japan will be rattled if there are 500 Hurricanes in Malaya by summer 1941.

There were plenty of spare Hurricanes, unfortunately we sent 3000 of them to the USSR.

 

[tomo pauk]

A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG.

Develop the DH Mosquito earlier and those bases are all covered.

That, pretty much.
OTOH, under a 'cannon-armed fighter', I was thinking on Spitfire and Hurricane getting a pair of cannons each. French 20 mm cannon is too late for early British needs, so shop at Oerlikon, and make a deal for a belt-fed version. Either FFL or FFS will do, even the FFL with a lighter & faster shell; UK historically used the FFS as AA weapon.
Heavy MG might come as Vickers product, or a licence from Browning, or from FN derivative of Browning.

The Defiant made a useful interim night fighter.
What do you replace the Whitley with? My suggestion the AW 23 bomber transport from which it was derived would have been useful. The RAF totally lacked transports in the Far East. The Whitley had excellent range and was a useful maritime reconnaissance aircraft.
The Beaufort served till war's end in the Pacific theatre using twin wasp engines so I'd keep it.

Defiant's night kills are as hidden as hen's teeth, so I'd rather have a good twin, so something by De Havilland or Bristol.
Instead of Whitley, have A-W make a 4-engined bomber with Pegasus engines. This is what they did historically: Ensign (originally with A-S Tiger engines, later re-engined with Wright Cylcones).
Usage of Beauforts with Twin Wasps was very small by the RAF. Beaufort production and usage beyond 1941 is both not scope of this thread, and far away from best choices Allies had.

 

[Kevin J]

That, pretty much.
OTOH, under a 'cannon-armed fighter', I was thinking on Spitfire and Hurricane getting a pair of cannons each. French 20 mm cannon is too late for early British needs, so shop at Oerlikon, and make a deal for a belt-fed version. Either FFL or FFS will do, even the FFL with a lighter & faster shell; UK historically used the FFS as AA weapon.
Heavy MG might come as Vickers product, or a licence from Browning, or from FN derivative of Browning.



Defiant's night kills are as hidden as hen's teeth, so I'd rather have a good twin, so something by De Havilland or Bristol.
Instead of Whitley, have A-W make a 4-engined bomber with Pegasus engines. This is what they did historically: Ensign (originally with A-S Tiger engines, later re-engined with Wright Cylcones).
Usage of Beauforts with Twin Wasps was very small by the RAF. Beaufort production and usage beyond 1941 is both not scope of this thread, and far away from best choices Allies had.

The AW Ensign idea is interesting, but it has a very slow speed, much like the Short Stirling.

 

[tomo pauk]

The AW Ensign idea is interesting, but it has a very slow speed, much like the Short Stirling.

Slowness was to be expected - the Cyclone version (G102A) used was 1-speed supercharged type, with S/C gearing set at 6.35:1 so it will give max possible power at low altitude. Low altitude = low speed. For comparison, the Cyclones used on Martlets and Buffaloes, plus a lot of lated SBDs and C-47s were with 2-speed S/C gearing, the high gear went up to 10.04:1, thus providing far better altitude power.
Bristol Pegasus was offered with a 2-speed S/C by 1938, if not earlier. I certainly don't expect for 'my' 4-engined bomber to go beyond 250 mph in such configuration, but it should easily beat the Whitley in payload, or bombload-vs-range category.

 

[Shortround6]

Start the motion in 1936.
Jets - stil a 'no'

Well, I see this is going like a lot of similar threads go.

However, how much foreknowledge are we supposed to have?
Even if we don't have the blueprints for the RR Derwent in our satchel when we show up in 1936 do we KNOW that the war will start on Sept 1st 1939?
Or maybe it will start in the summer of 1938? or the summer of 1940?

any of those 3 variations will affect equipement/production and numbers of squadrons available in every command in the RAF. Not to mention such details as how many army support aircraft do you need with an army in 1938 being between 1/4 to 1/2 the size it would be in Sept 1939 let alone how big it would be in 1940.

The British bought a lot of what we now consider to be junk in 1936-38 but that junk trained pilots, mechanics and fitters/riggers that, in turn, helped train the much bigger RAF of the mid to late war years.

Please allow plenty of time for improvements. British purchased the land and broke ground for the British Hispano factory in 1938 after negotiating the deal. The first British cannon was officially fired in Jan 1939 by the Duke of Gloucester at the official opening of the factory. If you are going to beat that timeline you are going to very busy in 1936.

Also note that in 1936 only Shorts had built anything like a modern 4 engine aircraft.

 

[Kevin J]

Slowness was to be expected - the Cyclone version (G102A) used was 1-speed supercharged type, with S/C gearing set at 6.35:1 so it will give max possible power at low altitude. Low altitude = low speed. For comparison, the Cyclones used on Martlets and Buffaloes, plus a lot of lated SBDs and C-47s were with 2-speed S/C gearing, the high gear went up to 10.04:1, thus providing far better altitude power.
Bristol Pegasus was offered with a 2-speed S/C by 1938, if not earlier. I certainly don't expect for 'my' 4-engined bomber to go beyond 250 mph in such configuration, but it should easily beat the Whitley in payload, or bombload-vs-range category.

Empty weight is similar to the Stirling I which did 210 mph, but overall dimensions are larger. It has less powerful engines. I doubt if you'll get 210 mph out of it once you've added military equipment like turrets. I'd still insist more bomber transports would be more useful, and the introduction of the Bristol Freighter during, not after the war.

 

[Shortround6]

Keepers:
-Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington; Merlin, Hercules, Pegasus.
Still going to need them, but probably/certainly not in historical quantities, unless can be modified so they can be of better usability:
-Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Battle; Mercury.
Not that needed, or something much better can be made by 'original' companies, or we're simply better without them:
-Botha, Defiant, Whitley, Beaufort; Taurus, Tiger, Dagger, Peregrine
We don't have it, but can make and use it:
-A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG.

Well,
Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington; Merlin, Hercules, Pegasus.......Agreed

-Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Battle; Mercury.

The Hampden might be suspect,
The Beaufighter is needed in greater numbers, not less.
The Blenheim can be improved, more for survivability than increased target effect (although more later).
If you don't build the Battle in near historic numbers you have to build some sort of crew trainer in near identical numbers to the Battles you don't build.
Mercury is one of your best engines in the late 30s, granted it has limited potential but be careful when you drop it it (if ever)

-Botha, Defiant, Whitley, Beaufort; Taurus, Tiger, Dagger, Peregrine

Botha, no argument, did more damage to the British than a couple of squadrons of German fighters did zero damage to the Germans.
Defiant, well, you are going to need to build some sort of target tugs
Whitley, a bit hard to get rid of. Until you can get 4 engine bombers available in numbers it is your best bomb truck, even if painfully slow.
Beaufort, might depend on what you can get for alternative engines.
Taurus, in serious need of a mercy killing.
Tiger, any good engineer in 1936-37 should have been able to look a the two bearing crankshaft and said "so long"!
Dagger, another dog that won't hunt. Of course without the Dagger, Napier turns into a boat engine company and won't be able to inflict the Sabre on the AIr Ministry and Treasury.
Peregrine, surely you are joking what are we going to power the Whirlwinds with

A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG

Well, when introduced the Blenheim was the fastest bomber of it's time (but then so was the Hawker Hart when it was introduced)
DIve bomber, as a heretic I will ask why? Just because the Germans have one doesn't mean the British need one. The RAF sure didn't even if the FAA did. But the numbers are rather small.
Rangy fighter(s). more could have been done, especially if better propellers fitted sooner, but don't expect great things until the two stage Merlin shows up.
Fighter bomber, a neglected aircraft despite many WW I fighters being able to do light bombing, If they could do it with a 130hp engine why couldn't 800-1000hp fighters?
Cuts way down on the need for those dive bombers too

Cannon armed fighter? Whirlwind, problem solved
Heavy machine gun needs to adopted almost as soon as the .303 Browning? You also need a factory that didn't exist for production. I do think the British would have been well served by a gun comparable to the Japanese Ho-103 ( as much for putting in power turrets as for fixed guns) but I don't know who would have made it.

More later.

 

[Kevin J]

Well,
Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington; Merlin, Hercules, Pegasus.......Agreed

-Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Battle; Mercury.

The Hampden might be suspect,
The Beaufighter is needed in greater numbers, not less.
The Blenheim can be improved, more for survivability than increased target effect (although more later).
If you don't build the Battle in near historic numbers you have to build some sort of crew trainer in near identical numbers to the Battles you don't build.
Mercury is one of your best engines in the late 30s, granted it has limited potential but be careful when you drop it it (if ever)

-Botha, Defiant, Whitley, Beaufort; Taurus, Tiger, Dagger, Peregrine

Botha, no argument, did more damage to the British than a couple of squadrons of German fighters did zero damage to the Germans.
Defiant, well, you are going to need to build some sort of target tugs
Whitley, a bit hard to get rid of. Until you can get 4 engine bombers available in numbers it is your best bomb truck, even if painfully slow.
Beaufort, might depend on what you can get for alternative engines.
Taurus, in serious need of a mercy killing.
Tiger, any good engineer in 1936-37 should have been able to look a the two bearing crankshaft and said "so long"!
Dagger, another dog that won't hunt. Of course without the Dagger, Napier turns into a boat engine company and won't be able to inflict the Sabre on the AIr Ministry and Treasury.
Peregrine, surely you are joking what are we going to power the Whirlwinds with

A really fast bomber; dive bomber; rangy fighter(s); fighter-bomber; cannon-armed fighter early on, in good numbers, early on (1939); heavy MG

Well, when introduced the Blenheim was the fastest bomber of it's time (but then so was the Hawker Hart when it was introduced)
DIve bomber, as a heretic I will ask why? Just because the Germans have one doesn't mean the British need one. The RAF sure didn't even if the FAA did. But the numbers are rather small.
Rangy fighter(s). more could have been done, especially if better propellers fitted sooner, but don't expect great things until the two stage Merlin shows up.
Fighter bomber, a neglected aircraft despite many WW I fighters being able to do light bombing, If they could do it with a 130hp engine why couldn't 800-1000hp fighters?
Cuts way down on the need for those dive bombers too

Cannon armed fighter? Whirlwind, problem solved
Heavy machine gun needs to adopted almost as soon as the .303 Browning? You also need a factory that didn't exist for production. I do think the British would have been well served by a gun comparable to the Japanese Ho-103 ( as much for putting in power turrets as for fixed guns) but I don't know who would have made it.

More later.

mark felton bridge busters - YouTube
Watch these, if you think the HP Hampden was useless then these documentaries will make you think again.

 

[Shortround6]

The Hampden wasn't useless, it is more like a duplication of effort.

Using the same engines as the Wellington it carried a similar payload over similar distances at similar speeds. Not identical but most of the time there wasn't a big difference. Like another 12-15 mph over the Wellington wasn't enough to give it any better survivability.
Many of it's crews performed valiantly but how many times did it actually do something that another plane could not do?

 

[tomo pauk]

Empty weight is similar to the Stirling I which did 210 mph, but overall dimensions are larger. It has less powerful engines. I doubt if you'll get 210 mph out of it once you've added military equipment like turrets. I'd still insist more bomber transports would be more useful, and the introduction of the Bristol Freighter during, not after the war.

I'm not sure where from the 210 mph speed figure popped up for the Stirling I there, seems like it was good for 280 mph? Granted, it was supposed to cruise at 200 mph.
I have nothing against bomber-transports.

...
The Hampden might be suspect,
The Beaufighter is needed in greater numbers, not less.
The Blenheim can be improved, more for survivability than increased target effect (although more later).
If you don't build the Battle in near historic numbers you have to build some sort of crew trainer in near identical numbers to the Battles you don't build.
Mercury is one of your best engines in the late 30s, granted it has limited potential but be careful when you drop it it (if ever)

Mercury with a 2-speed S/C might've come in handy? Ditto for improvement of supercharger.
As-is, Hampden was able to carry up to 5 times as much as Blenheim, so it is not close to being suspect. Granted, both Wellington and Hampden will nedd fighter escort during the night, no great discovery there.
I'd certainly keep Battle under 1000 pcs produced, that's about half of historical production.

Whitley, a bit hard to get rid of. Until you can get 4 engine bombers available in numbers it is your best bomb truck, even if painfully slow.
Beaufort, might depend on what you can get for alternative engines.

Hampden can carry up to 5000 lbs of ordnance, one option was 1 torpedo + 2x500 lb bombs. Make more Hampdens (say, at Bristol) - no need for Beaufort, no need for Taurus to be designed and whatnot, no need to import Twin Wasps. We've also killed Hereford = more Hampdens.
There are several reasons why I'm trying for A-W to make a 4-engined bomber in late 1930s:
increase the payload vs. Whitley; A-W designed a 4-engined working monoplane in late 1930s; Whitley represented perhaps 15% of british 'medium bombers' produced in 1939-41; the engine-out situation is far less dangerous vs. 2-engined A/C, especially vs. early ~160 examples of Whitley that were powered by Tiger.

DIve bomber, as a heretic I will ask why? Just because the Germans have one doesn't mean the British need one. The RAF sure didn't even if the FAA did. But the numbers are rather small.
Rangy fighter(s). more could have been done, especially if better propellers fitted sooner, but don't expect great things until the two stage Merlin shows up.
Fighter bomber, a neglected aircraft despite many WW I fighters being able to do light bombing, If they could do it with a 130hp engine why couldn't 800-1000hp fighters?
Cuts way down on the need for those dive bombers too

I don't expect that a rangy fighter will have radius of more than 400 miles on technology of the day vs. 1st line opponent, unless we opt for two Merlin set-up to bost that radius figure ( British can afford much better the 2-engined fighters than Germans). That kind of radius allows them to cover whole Ruhr, and then some, from Kent & East Anglia, and better part of Germany/Austria/Bohemia if escorts can also be based in France.
I agree that a viable fighter-bomber very much reduces a need for a tactical dive bomber.

Cannon armed fighter? Whirlwind, problem solved
Heavy machine gun needs to adopted almost as soon as the .303 Browning? You also need a factory that didn't exist for production. I do think the British would have been well served by a gun comparable to the Japanese Ho-103 ( as much for putting in power turrets as for fixed guns) but I don't know who would have made it.

A Spitfire or Hurricane with 2 cannons is also a cannon-armed fighter
Who will produce the HMG? Vickers has tooling for their HMG types already, granted the factory will be needed to expand. I was mostly thinking of installing the HMG where cannon cannot fit, like gun turrets & trainable mounts.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
However, how much foreknowledge are we supposed to have?
Even if we don't have the blueprints for the RR Derwent in our satchel when we show up in 1936 do we KNOW that the war will start on Sept 1st 1939?
Or maybe it will start in the summer of 1938? or the summer of 1940?

any of those 3 variations will affect equipement/production and numbers of squadrons available in every command in the RAF. Not to mention such details as how many army support aircraft do you need with an army in 1938 being between 1/4 to 1/2 the size it would be in Sept 1939 let alone how big it would be in 1940.

This is why I've listed more than one type of aircraft and engine - to cover the eventualities. Hurricane will work great in 1938-39, it can still be decent in 1940, and by 1941 it need to be replaced by something more capable (Spitfire in this case). Or - go with Blenheims and Battles, continue with Hampdens and Wellingtons, while having a 4-engined and fast 2-engied designs in pipeline. Same with engines - okay, Merlin and Hercules are most powerful types, that still does not mean we kill Pegasus and Mercury in 1938.

Please allow plenty of time for improvements. British purchased the land and broke ground for the British Hispano factory in 1938 after negotiating the deal. The first British cannon was officially fired in Jan 1939 by the Duke of Gloucester at the official opening of the factory. If you are going to beat that timeline you are going to very busy in 1936.

This is why I've said 'shop at Oerlikon'. They can sell actual cannons (so there is someting to install at aircraft and test it out), as well as licences already in 1936 - by what time the Hispano cannon was still undergoing tests in France.

Also note that in 1936 only Shorts had built anything like a modern 4 engine aircraft.

Of course. A-W gotten a contract for Ensign in 1934, though.

 

[Kevin J]

IIRC the Stirling I as first delivered in 1940 only did 210 mph. You'd have to check that on thehistoryofwar site.

 

[Kevin J]

The Hampden wasn't useless, it is more like a duplication of effort.

Using the same engines as the Wellington it carried a similar payload over similar distances at similar speeds. Not identical but most of the time there wasn't a big difference. Like another 12-15 mph over the Wellington wasn't enough to give it any better survivability.
Many of it's crews performed valiantly but how many times did it actually do something that another plane could not do?

The Hampden was more manoeuvrable than the Wellington, and you could put it into a dive, to dive bomb for greater accuracy. Again, watch Mark Felton, the Bridge Busters on YouTube.