1940: ideal fighter for the RAF

[Glider]

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

Juha

Fair point, put in the Pratt Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp for the extra power.

 

[wuzak]

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.

What if the Whirlwind was designed around the Merlin from the start?

Then there would be no need to cancel it!

 

[merlin]

Single-engine alternatives:

Gloster F.5/34 -although the prototype had a 840 hp Mercury engine, later versions - 905 hp (in the Blenheim IV) shouldn't be a problem, or the Perseus, even better the US R-1830, all it needed to happen IMHO was something to bring the 1st flight earlier!

Boulton-Paul P.88a (Hercules) powered 4 x 20mm cannon fighter, narrowly missed prototype build, if the Treasury came up with the money then who knows ...

Boulton-Paul Defiant - single seat version, to have the best chance, it needs the Merlin XX, I think first flight can be made earlier than OTL, but whether it's enough .... !?

Twin-engines:

Gloster F.9/37 - an earlier version proposed as a turret fighter, could have been used as a stop-gap for the cannon fighter spec, with two in the nose plus MGs, and forgetting the turret, that brings the date forward. It's slightly bigger than the Whirlwind, so easy to adapt to bigger engines, and makes a better fighter to have around than the Blenheim 1F !!

 

[RCAFson]

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 think the Vickers .5" was worth pursuing. It had much better ballistics than the .303 browning, and had a fair AP capability as well.

 

[Dogwalker]

Is difficult to find ideal replacements for aircrafts that historically did so well.
However, a Spitfire more suited for mass-production and with a better rear visibility, even at the cost of sacrificing a little in terms of performance, could have done even better (especially cause there could have been more in line at the beginning of BoB), and a re-engined whirlwind could have been a great heavy/escort fighter.

 

[tomo pauk]

Something I've thinkered some time ago:

 

[davebender]

Plausible but why bother when Mustang airframe is already available?

 

[wuzak]

Plausible but why bother when Mustang airframe is already available?

Mustang airframe is not exactly available in 1940 Dave.

 

[Shortround6]

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

Fowler flaps are not "free". They weigh more than split flaps, they cost more to build and install, they require a bit more maintenance.

Fully covered undercarriage has the same drawbacks. you need actuators or linkages from existing actuators. (early Spits used hand cranked under carriage). More "fiddly" bits to install and maintain.

Canopy may have been great for vision, not so good for speed?

Not all "full vision" canopies were created equal in regards to drag.

While I am one of the people who believe the Spitfire was NOT as hard to make as some people claim the more moving bits and pieces you add ( or the more directions you make them move in) the more expensive/time consuming to build the end product will be and the harder it will be to keep it going long term.

 

[vinnye]

Here are some drawings of a "twin Spitfire" ;
THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF: Siamese Supermarine- The Twin Spitfire | Hush-Kit

 

[tomo pauk]

No such thing as a free lunch - applies as everywhere.
The Fowler flaps would allow the plane to easier take off and land from/at rain-soaked grass runaways, and the plane can out-turn another similar enemy plane that has no such things. Better flap system allows for a wing that is tailored more for speed, rather than for good low-speed handling So we have more planes pilots that survived day 1 and every further one, and we are able to put more planes in the air even if the airbase is not clinically clear.
Yak-1 have had fully covered U/C, so it should not be too hard for British to insist at that.
Canopy is a trade-off, no questions about that.
British already have an easy to build fighter prior 1940s (Hurricane, maybe Spitfire); the next one, a more complicated, but also a far better performer should give them the edge. All while saving on far more precious asset - trained manpower.

I cannot agree more about your assessment that British Commonwealth (not only them, of course) have had sometimes paid in blood for fielding obsolescent military hardware

 

[tomo pauk]

Further on the subject: the RAF was fielding the BP Defiant, certainly not that cheap/simple as Hurricane, or either Spitfire, with it's turret, greater overall dimensions weight. It was also feturing fully enclosed main U/C. One of the planes with enclosed U/C were the Macchi fighters, too.

As for planes with high speed achieved on modest power: Yak-3, He-100, P-51 51A.
Yak-3 received the wing of smaller area thickness than it's predecessor, Yak-1, along with oil coolers relocated in wings. Canopy was also shallower, and the weight was also reduced. From another web site:

Profile of wing - standard Yak type Clark YH with relative thickness of 14% at root 7% at wing end. For comparison, Yak-1, Yak-7 Yak-9 have 15% at root 8% at wing end.

Small thin wing should it have it's drawbacks (from here):

But it demanded careful handling at low speeds, stalling speed was high and the Yak-3 tended to drop a wing during the landing approach unless speed was kept up

Solvable by better flap system?

He-100 featured also the wing of modest area, and it was fast, even with 'classic' cooling. About P-51, well, much is already written.

 

[davebender]

Neither is a twin Spitfire. However I'll hazard a guess the Mustang airframe will be production ready long before a twin Spit.

 

[tomo pauk]

No major hurdles should've been in front of the Twin Spit to take part in BoB, unlike the Twin Mustang.

 

[davebender]

No major hurdles should've been in front of the Twin Spit to take part in BoB

You mean besides the shortage of aluminum for aircraft production in Britain?

A twin Hurricane might be more likely as it uses no scarce resources.

 

[wuzak]

You mean besides the shortage of aluminum for aircraft production in Britain?

That is easy solved. Stop building Hampdens, Blenheims, Defiants, Battles, etc.

Oh, and haven't you ben shown before that there wasn't a shortage of aluminium in Britain?

 

[pattle]

The RAF discovered during the Battle of Britain that they needed to get in closer to the German bombers to shoot them down and that even then they needed heavier armament than 303's. The introduction of better ammunition helped this situation and it was also noted that the Hurricane could achieve better results than the Spitfire because its guns were grouped closer together nearer it's fuselage making its firepower more concentrated. Ideally an aircraft with a large battery of cannon in its nose would have been best against the German bombers but being as the RAF couldn't get their hands on anything like the Whirlwind soon enough they had a go at putting cannon in their existing aircraft but could only mount them on their sides to begin with which caused them to jam.

 

[yulzari]

You mean besides the shortage of aluminum for aircraft production in Britain?

Actually there was no shortage of aluminium in Britain during the war. At least in the sense that it limited war production. Collecting pots and pans etc. was a propaganda exercise in involving the population.
Even the Mosquito, part of whose raison d'etre was non strateigic materials, relied on imported South American balsa wood and Canadian birch plywood.

 

[Aozora]

Two designs which might have been useful from Bristol:

37' wingspan, 25' 3" long. I like the Hercules radial engine, clear view cockpit and wide undercarriage, plus it might have been possible to incorporate two Hispanos and mg into the wings, rather than suspending them underneath. Looks as though the fuel tanks (?) are located in the centre-section, under the cockpit but no idea of size or projected range. I'm also wondering whether the rear fuselage could have been a bit longer.

similar dimensions; Taurus engines a drawback unless they could be properly developed. (From Buttler British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950, pages 34-35.)

 

[Glider]

some really interesting information is being shown here and I would just like to thank everyone. I had never heard of some of it