1940: ideal fighter for the RAF

tomo pauk · May 23, 2013

Since were in the Hurricane and Spitfire mood - how should the ideal fighter for the RAF in 1940 look, whose development might commence some time in 1935/36? Usual requirements apply (performance, maneuverability, punch, pilot protection, suitability for mass production and deployment, ...). You can propose both single and twin engined planes. This tine on I don't require the escort radius of so many hundred miles for the SE fighter, the fuel tankage can be in the ballpark with Spit Hurri (85-95 gals in 1940 IIRC).
If your answer is historical Hurricane or Spitfire (for SE fighters), consider it already acknowledged

Of course, historical engines, armament, airfoil etc. are required for proposals.

DonL · May 23, 2013

That's pretty easy a Spitfire and a redesigned Whirlwind (if possible) with Merlin engines.

The Whirwind was even better with Peregrines 1940 as fighter bomber as the Hurricane 1941 and 1942 ever was.

Greyman · May 23, 2013

There are a lot of points during the creation of the Whirlwind and Peregrine in which the British 'zigged' when they should have 'zagged'. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a few Squadrons could have been ready for the Battle of Britain.

I think these would have been very, very bad news for the Kampfgeschwader.

Balljoint · May 23, 2013

DonL said:
a redesigned Whirlwind (if possible) with Merlin engines.

The Whirwind was even better with Peregrines 1940 as fighter bomber as the Hurricane 1941 and 1942 ever was.

The Merlin would be a stretch, or a serious aircraft redesign. Logistics aside, bringing the Peregrine up to Merlin supercharger level –a bit more power and a lot more altitude- would have done the job.

tomo pauk · May 23, 2013

C'mon people; cannons, + 370-380 mph, + good/great roll rate etc? Feasible with single Merlin III, aerodynamics and construction techniques of the era? Maybe a pusher, or a P-39 lookalike?

Greyman · May 23, 2013

Balljoint said:
... bringing the Peregrine up to Merlin supercharger level –a bit more power and a lot more altitude- would have done the job.

I think it was already there, in comparison to the Merlin engine available during the Battle of Britain (Merlin III). Though the XX and XLV started leaving it behind, of course (above 18,000 feet).

Glider · May 23, 2013

If you want something apart from the Hurrie and the Spit, the Gloster F5/34 with a more powerful engine such as the Tarus to allow for the extra weight that would be added for armour sealing tanks etc would be more than capable of looking after itself.
As a back up go with the Miles M20 with retracting wheels, it managed 333mph with fixed what it would do with retracting landing gear I can only guess at but probably would add to the performance.
As for weapons. The 20mm if reliable if not give them 6 x 0.5in, that would be more than enough for the German aircraft of 1940.

Not a fan of twin engine fighters for mixing with daylight fighters

tomo pauk · May 23, 2013

+1 on that, Greyman, the two-speed variants were actually more powerful at any altitude.

Italian take on 'Merlin Whirlwind' theme would be the IMAM Ro.58 - almost 380 mph, on second hand DB-601s, with 3 cannons and a rear gun, while having place for second crew member. Here.

altsym · May 23, 2013

Hawker Fury... oh wait...

buffnut453 · May 23, 2013

Glider said:
The 20mm if reliable if not give them 6 x 0.5in, that would be more than enough for the German aircraft of 1940.

Sorry but going to bang on about this yet again. The 50cal was not a reliable weapon in pretty much any fighter installation until the latter half of 1942. Wildcat, P-40, P-51, Buffalo all had major problems with 50cals simply not working when they were needed (ie in combat). Putting that weapon into combat in 1940 would probably have resulted in the RAF losing the Battle of Britain.

Glider · May 23, 2013

buffnut453 said:
Sorry but going to bang on about this yet again. The 50cal was not a reliable weapon in pretty much any fighter installation until the latter half of 1942. Wildcat, P-40, P-51, Buffalo all had major problems with 50cals simply not working when they were needed (ie in combat). Putting that weapon into combat in 1940 would probably have resulted in the RAF losing the Battle of Britain.

Then the 8 x 303 with a little more ammo will do fine

vinnye · May 23, 2013

Why not 12 x 303's - the Hurricane II A series 2 had this starting in October 1940.

Juha · May 23, 2013

buffnut453 said:
Sorry but going to bang on about this yet again. The 50cal was not a reliable weapon in pretty much any fighter installation until the latter half of 1942. Wildcat, P-40, P-51, Buffalo all had major problems with 50cals simply not working when they were needed (ie in combat). Putting that weapon into combat in 1940 would probably have resulted in the RAF losing the Battle of Britain.

I cannot recall any significant problems with .5 hmgs in Brewster B-239s in summer 41.

Juha

Juha · May 23, 2013

Spit with C-wing

Juha

Juha · May 23, 2013

Glider said:
If you want something apart from the Hurrie and the Spit, the Gloster F5/34 with a more powerful engine such as the Tarus to allow for the extra weight that would be added for armour sealing tanks etc would be more than capable of looking after itself.
As a back up go with the Miles M20 with retracting wheels, it managed 333mph with fixed what it would do with retracting landing gear I can only guess at but probably would add to the performance.
As for weapons. The 20mm if reliable if not give them 6 x 0.5in, that would be more than enough for the German aircraft of 1940.

Not a fan of twin engine fighters for mixing with daylight fighters

Now Taurus was so unreliable in 1940 that SE planes powered by it would have been grounded much of the time.

Juha

Greyman · May 23, 2013

vinnye said:
Why not 12 x 303's - the Hurricane II A series 2 had this starting in October 1940.

Heh, Martin-Baker had a 12 x .303 nose pack for the Whirlwind in case the Hispanos couldn't be worked out.

tomo pauk said:
+1 on that, Greyman, the two-speed variants were actually more powerful at any altitude.

Did up a quick comparison from A&AEE tests:

pinsog · May 23, 2013

What about a Whirlwind with radial engines since the inline engines didn't work out?

tomo pauk · May 23, 2013

Engine - Merlin, in versions as they become historically available
Wing - two-spar, area cca 200 sq ft, leading edge radiators, 2 weapon bays at each side, each capable to hold either a cannon or two LMGs, generous ailerons, Fowler flaps
Fuel - between pilot and engine, 90-100 imp gals
Undercarriage: fully covered when retracted, main wheels retracting between spars
Canopy: as on Whirlwind

buffnut453 · May 23, 2013

Juha said:
I cannot recall any significant problems with .5 hmgs in Brewster B-239s in summer 41.

But the Commonwealth B339Es and USMC F2A-3s did in late-41 thru mid-42. Insufficiently powerful solenoids was a key problem, meaning that the gun jammed after the first burst. It would not surprise me to learn that the enterprising Finnish groundcrew found their own solution to gun problems, just as they did with the oil problems in the Wright Cyclone engine.

davebender · May 23, 2013

Spitfire was an excellent short range fighter aircraft. Just follow historical development path.

RAF requires a complimentary long range fighter aircraft. Why not a Merlin powered Mustang? Mustang airframe was designed and built for a British contract so IMO it qualifies as a British aircraft. Saves Britain the trouble of trying to build a Spitfire writ large with twice as much internal fuel capacity.

1940: ideal fighter for the RAF

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman 1st Class

Captain

Captain

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Captain

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads