Alternative night fighters for the air forces/services, 1939-45

[yulzari]

Unless it was the RAF itself decided their Blenheims weren't cutting it, and until they could field enough Beaufighter night fighters, those intended for the FAA took a lower priority.

Then they would need to find some other bombers which could double up for the unescorted long range reconnaissance task being done by the Maryland. The Beaufighter would be ideal………

 

[Glider]

Does my sentence end there?

Nope, but the rest of it doesn't change the view I put one jot. If you have the best available plane at the earliest opportunity then it is hard to put an alternative forward.

As far as I can see the vast majority of the suggestions involve aircraft that were either later, or were tried and found not up to snuff.

 

[tomo pauk]

As far as I can see the vast majority of the suggestions involve aircraft that were either later, or were tried and found not up to snuff.

When the big and 2-seat Westland Whirlwind was tested, or the Supermarine Type 305? A Ta-154 made from metal, not wood? A 2-seat F6F, or DB-7 with V-1710?

 

[pbehn]

Two things I never understood about single engined night fighters, how do you look at any sort of CRT "scope" without affecting your night vision and why didnt the Hurricane and others get fitted with a Malcolm hood or similar?

 

[Glider]

When the big and 2-seat Westland Whirlwind was tested, or the Supermarine Type 305? A Ta-154 made from metal, not wood? A 2-seat F6F, or DB-7 with V-1710?

The big and 2 seat Whirlwind didn't fly and the Whirlwind that did fly was roughly equal in timeline to the Beaufighter, so the bigger, whirlwind would have been later.
The 305 I know little about apart from it having a four gun turret which inevitable would have added weight and aerodynamic penalties
A Ta154 was years later, a change to metal would have slowed development down even more and quite likely impacted performance. The AI equipment had a massive impact on its performance as it was
2 seat F6F would have been later and probably wouldn't have matched the Mosquito for range or performance. There is a reason they developed a single seat NF version.
DB7 with V-1710 still would have had the aerodynamic issues o being such a big aircraft, would have lacked the performance, would have added many months to the development cycle, lacked agility and probably lacked the range.

 

[chris ballance]

What about Fokker G.I night fighters for Finland? Supplied before the German invasion or after, maybe built under license in Finland...

 

[Glider]

To slow and of course, they didn't have a radar

 

[chris ballance]

To slow and of course, they didn't have a radar

To slow against the Russians bombing Helsinki? Also did the airframe preclude more powerful engines or German airborne radar?

 

[Glider]

To slow against the Russians bombing Helsinki? Also did the airframe preclude more powerful engines or German airborne radar?

They didn't have a high max speed and whilst it was designed for different engine options you would have to make a substantial change to impact performance. We are discussing night fighters and for that you need a radar and even if it did exist would have added weight and that would impact performance

 

[Shortround6]

DB7 with V-1710 still would have had the aerodynamic issues o being such a big aircraft, would have lacked the performance, would have added many months to the development cycle, lacked agility and probably lacked the range.

The US army was ordering the R-2600 powered versions in 1939.
Only the French and British (left over French aircraft?) got the R-1830s. And the French had R-2600 versions on order when France fell.
Because the US allowed France and Britain to jump places in the delivery Que (nobody was shooting at the Americans,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet) the early history of the A-20 is a little convoluted.
But the US never ordered a R-1830 powered version. The two versions were almost developed in parallel. This makes it a little hard to believe the US would have gone for a V-1710 powered version, with or without turbo. They had ordered the turbo R-2600 version but the engine did not play well with others. And this was the first DB-7 variant the US army ordered.
The Army had ordered 63 A-20s (with turbo-chargers) and 14 A-20A (without) on May 20th 1939 using 1939 funds. Ordered on the same day were another 109 A-20As using 1940 funds. The A-20A first flew on Sept 6th 1940 while the first A-20 with turbo (and only one) few in Dec 1940.
The first French contract was placed on March 6th 1939. Douglas managed to get the first French aircraft rolled out the door on Aug 16th 1939.
French were complaining about the lateral stability of the airplane at low speeds or flying on one engine even with the R-1830s so work in the big fin/rudder may have started then. French also bitched about the landing speed at 88mph instead of the contract 81mph specification.

Granted the turbo R-2600 was so troublesome that only one was built and the the rest of the contract planes were given two speed mechanically supercharged R-2600.
For the US it isn't a question of replacing the R-1830 with an Allison. It is replacing the non-turbo R-2600 with a turbo Allison. Fall of 1940 the -39 (P-40E engine) was flying in prototypes and the P-38s were being ordered with the -27/29 engines offering 1150hp from sea level to 25,000ft but no emergency power. These engines are going to be hundreds of HP lower than the R-2600s until you get into the high teens.
The R-2600 will offer 1260hp at sea level max continuous up through 1360hp at 7000ft and then drop to 1135hp at 15,000ft. The Allison was offering 1000hp at max continuous power from seal level on up.
Now maybe in 1942 you may want to look at the Allison again for 1943 production but the Allison isn't offering much of anything in the early years.

 

[tomo pauk]

The big and 2 seat Whirlwind didn't fly and the Whirlwind that did fly was roughly equal in timeline to the Beaufighter, so the bigger, whirlwind would have been later.
The 305 I know little about apart from it having a four gun turret which inevitable would have added weight and aerodynamic penalties
A Ta154 was years later, a change to metal would have slowed development down even more and quite likely impacted performance. The AI equipment had a massive impact on its performance as it was
2 seat F6F would have been later and probably wouldn't have matched the Mosquito for range or performance. There is a reason they developed a single seat NF version.
DB7 with V-1710 still would have had the aerodynamic issues o being such a big aircraft, would have lacked the performance, would have added many months to the development cycle, lacked agility and probably lacked the range.

You comment was "either later, or were tried and found not up to snuff". Neither the big Whirly, nor the turretles Type 305 have any bearing on that. Same goes with metal Ta 154, that will be far better performance than the Bf 109 or Ju 88, or the BMW-powered He 219.
Mosquito NF was not much of a carrier-vessel bird, unlike the F6F. American production of Mosquitoes was non-existing. DB-7 with V-1710s is as big as Mosquito. There is the whole cavity of the bomb bay to put the fuel tanks there, like the A-20 series did, as well as more in the wings.

 

[Shortround6]

For the British the time scale should be based off the development of radar. Which is a pretty soft, squishy point in time. Yes the British put radar into Blenheims in the summer of 1940,
yes they shot down a German plane using radar in the summer of 1940, it took months before a radar equipped night fight shot down a 2nd plane and it took until about March until it came close to being a regular occurrence.
Again based off of British experience there were 4 things that had to happen for radar equipped night fighters to be effective. none of them are the performance of the aircraft.
And none of them are the performance of the actual radar.
1. You need GCI (Ground Control of Interception). Ground radar network and control stations that allow the ground controllers to direct the fighters to the target (early AI radar had miserable range).
2. You need IFF. This is so the ground controllers can tell the good blips on the screens from the bad blips. Otherwise every body is just flying in circles while the bad guys escape. Also cuts down on Blue on Blue incidents.
3. a system of radar beacons (first placed in southern England) about the time of AI VI to help the night fighters navigate back to base. Flying at night was bad enough in 1940-41 without trying to land at a strange airfield at night because you are lost and can't find your own.
4. the development of VHF radio with it's much clearer transmission instead of the up to then standard static and distortion of HF radio.

It took the British the fall and winter of 1940-41 to get all of this working in a smooth system.

Now we can discuss the fighters
In Sept of 1940 the British had about 6 squadrons of Blenheim's and 3 (?) of Defiants. give or take a few week(s?) About 1/3 of the Blenheims had AI III. A few had AI II. The Defiants had none. Over the fall and winter the Beaufighters were replacing the Blenheim's and the Blenheim's were phased out by early spring (?).

Painting planes black and flying them around at night without AI was an exercise in futilely as they found out. It may have given the illusion of doing something but the "night fighters" lost more aircraft and crewmen than they ever cost the enemy. At least until the NFs got IFF and better radios so the Ground controllers had at least some chance of putting the NFs without radar into the same area of the sky as the raiders.

The Blenheim was about the minimum standard for a radar equipped night fighter. It had light armament (4-5 .303s) it had no BP glass or armor for the pilot when approaching the target. It was slow. The supposed 285-292 speed disappeared pretty quickly in service. The flat black paint? the IFF aerials? the radar aerials? The drag of the gun pack?
combination? I don't know but it was slow in comparison to the escaping German bombers. The Beaufighter was a huge improvement. Even with the drum feed cannon.
Now in the winter of 1940-41 the British don't have enough radar ( radar production was being split between NFs and Coastal Command) and the fact that the radar sets were constantly being revamped.

Now go through the British possibles with an eye to when and what improvement they bring. There were over 300 Blenheim fighters built/converted and only a small fraction ever got radar, It is not enough that they "show up". They have to have superior performance to the Blenheim without having any problems of their own (less range/endurance, higher landing speed, worse vision) and so on. Everything is a trade off, Beaufighter was harder to land than a Blenheim but offered better performance and much better firepower.

 

[Shortround6]

For the USAAF, 1941-42: the DB-7 airframe, powered by either the V-1710, or the 2-stage R-1830 as it becomes available.
(the Havoc I was supposed to do 322 mph at 15200 ft, engine being the 1-stage supercharged R-1830 that gave 1000 HP at 12000 ft without ram effect).

What it could provide is a year+- or earlier service entry - the 1st P-70 seem to be delivered in April of 1942. So it checks the 'earlier available' box.
It should also be a much more maneuverable bird, with 2000-3000 lb less weight.

The R-2600 powered A-20s were available in the spring of 1941. It is simply changing the priorities for delivery. granted they were not being make in large numbers.
El Segundo built 270 planes prior to the Jan 1941 and non after that (although they did provide parts for other plants, like fuselages)
Boeing made about 270(?)
Santa Monica made about 873 by the end of 1941.
Long Beach made 1 in 1941 (would make over 990 in 1942)

The early R-2600 powered planes are rated at 335-350mph depending on model, altitude and exact engine. Throw in black paint, Radar aerials, flame dampening exhaust and IFF (?) and they would be some what slower, but in 1941-42 they are the best bet.

I don't know if the US was spending time on getting the Turbo to work or what the problem was. They were already shipping A-20s to the Soviet union in 1941.
If the US had really wanted a few squadrons of nightfighters in 1941 I don't think it would have been a problem, The problem in 1941 was getting the radar outfit.
Which version of the British radar are they going to let you copy in spring of 1941?

 

[Glider]

You comment was "either later, or were tried and found not up to snuff". Neither the big Whirly, nor the turretles Type 305 have any bearing on that. Same goes with metal Ta 154, that will be far better performance than the Bf 109 or Ju 88, or the BMW-powered He 219.
Mosquito NF was not much of a carrier-vessel bird, unlike the F6F. American production of Mosquitoes was non-existing. DB-7 with V-1710s is as big as Mosquito. There is the whole cavity of the bomb bay to put the fuel tanks there, like the A-20 series did, as well as more in the wings.

I think that my comments do have a bearing.
The Big Whirlwind, the 305 would have been a lot later than the Beaufighter, with no guarantee of an improved performance. The 305 would have had an impact on the development of the Spitfire as there are only so many people and resources to allocate to jobs.

No one is pretending that the Mossie or Beau would have been a carrier NF, but its interesting that the USA didn't think of using an F6 NF in Europe.

TA154 may well have had a better performance than the German fighters but there is no guarantee that it would have been better than the Mossie plus of course it is years later than the Mossie NF.

DB7 with a V-1710 is the stuff of fantasies. Development time would have been longer. There is no guarantee that performance would have been better (the Beaufighter with Merlins is proof of that). The DB7 is a lot bigger than the Mossie and it's drag considerably higher not just due to its extra size but the materials it was made from. Plus of course the DB7 was tried as a NF and failed.

 

[Shortround6]

The advantage of an A-20 night fighter is that it could have been ready at the end of 1941 or beginning of 1942.
The question is where do you put it?
They had 59 P-70s built during the summer of 1942 but they were using them as trainers.
the P-70A showed up in 1943.

The only P-70s to see combat were over Guadalcanal in early 1943 and over New Guinea a bit later.

It was here that they were found lacking, Had they been used in late mid-late 1942 they might have faired a bit better. The Japanese aircraft might have been lower performing in the second 1/2 of 1942 instead of early/mid 1943.
The P-70s kept the original 1940 engines.
Without an engine change they naturally fell behind.

The Mosquito either got a bunch of new engines or higher boost ratings to keep it closer to what was needed, Sticking the engines from a B-25 into the A-20/P-70 may have helped (done on the last batches) as you may get a few thousand feet more altitude. Maybe a little selective weight trimming?

 

[tomo pauk]

The Big Whirlwind, the 305 would have been a lot later than the Beaufighter, with no guarantee of an improved performance. The 305 would have had an impact on the development of the Spitfire as there are only so many people and resources to allocate to jobs.

Big Whirlwind needs to be made instead of the original Whirly, not as a follow-up.
Supermarine can not design the Sea Otter if they embark on the Type 305, and have B-P make it, since adoption of the Type 305 removes the Deafiant.

TA154 may well have had a better performance than the German fighters but there is no guarantee that it would have been better than the Mossie plus of course it is years later than the Mossie NF.

Look at it from the German perspective.

DB7 with a V-1710 is the stuff of fantasies. Development time would have been longer. There is no guarantee that performance would have been better (the Beaufighter with Merlins is proof of that). The DB7 is a lot bigger than the Mossie and it's drag considerably higher not just due to its extra size but the materials it was made from. Plus of course the DB7 was tried as a NF and failed.

DB7 was tried as a NF, or A-20/P-70/DB-7B was tried as a NF? Difference was 3000 lbs between R-1830-powered types vs. the R-2600-powered ones.
If the DB7 with V-1710 is the stuff of fantasies, same goes for P-36 becaming P-40.
This is a what-if, nobody will guarantee anything. Even the guarantees of people making the aircraft were many times proven to be faulty.

 

[Shortround6]

Difference was 3000 lbs between R-1830-powered types vs. the R-2600-powered ones.
If the DB7 with V-1710 is the stuff of fantasies, same goes for P-36 becaming P-40.

the thing is the R-2600 DB-7 was a reality with numerous orders starting in 1939.

Let me see if I can sort through it.

French 1st DB-7 contract.
March 6th 1939. 100 aircraft.
P & W R-1830 engines single speed supercharger 1050 hp for T-O and 900hp at normal power. 325 gallons fuel, normal gross weight 15,030lbs, max overload 19,040lbs
French 2nd DB-7 contract.
October 14th 1939 170 aircraft..................like the first contract.
French 2nd DB-7 contract addendum.
Oct 20th 1939 100 DB-7A aircraft, upgrades
After the first 30 planes of the170 plane order engines are to changed to P & W R-1830s with two speed superchargers 1000hp at 14,500ft instead of 900hp at 12,000ft.
two month delay in supply of the the new engines.
French DB-7A (or DB-71)
the upgraded aircraft from the October 20th 1939 contract,
engines are to be changed to Wright R-2600s of 1600hp T-O and 1350 at normal cruise. Max fuel stays at 325 gallons but "normal" fuel is dropped to 205 gallons. Normal gross
weight is 16,700lbs(?). These planes are to be built after the US A-20s and A-20As. After the British take over a number of details are changed. Max gross weight go up.
British DB-7B contract
Talks began Dec 1939
Contract signed 20th of Feb 1940, 150 DB-7Bs
Engines are the same Wright R-2600s used in the French DB-7As, British are using the 400 gallon fuel tank set up as the US A-20s. Max gross (not normal gross) goes to 19,00lbs
French DB-7C contract
May 18th 1940 return to the P & W R-1830s with two speed superchargers. Boeing is brought in as 2nd source. Boeing it to build 240 aircraft and Douglas is to build 240 aircraft.
British assume all contracts on July 8th 1940. British amend the contracts to use R-2600 engines, no metal was even cut for R-1830 powered planes.
Dutch DB-7C
small number of the ex-French aircraft (cycled though the British and then through lend leas) were sent to the Dutch East Indies. and some of those wound up in Australia.

US A-20s & A-20As, as mentioned earlier contracts date to May of 1939 for aircraft with R-2600 engines.
A-20Bs were the 999 aircraft built at the Long Beach factory. Using R-2600 engines.

I won't bother to list anymore as all of the later models used R-2600 engines and there was no real change until the very last versions.
For most of 1940 and 41 using Allison V-1710s would have been a retrograde step. Only the French had wanted the R-1830s and the British and US only ordered the R-2600 versions
the R-2600 used in the A-20 was stuck in time with no real upgrades but the Allison doesn't begin to catch up until late 1942 and early 1943. It doesn't pass the R-2600 unless you use a turbo or a 2 stage supercharger in mid to late 1943.

 

[tomo pauk]

It doesn't pass the R-2600 unless you use a turbo or a 2 stage supercharger in mid to late 1943.

Some NFs based on the full-weight A-20:
- powered by R-2800s 'B' series
- powered by turbocharged V-1710s
- powered by the 2-stage V-1710s

Germany:
- jet-propelled all-metal Ta-154
- jet-propelled He 219

Further for the USA:
- AAF actually gets the Grumman P-65, but as a 2-seater radar-outfitted bird
- P-47 Doublebolt, with a self-sealing blister tank of ~100 gals to restore the fuel capacity lost due to addition of the front cockpit
- similar, but based on P-47N, no s-s blister tank needed now
Both P-47 versions will need the sheet metal cover for the turbo exhaust.
- SBD powered by 2-stage R-1820 or R-1830, for early days of Pacific war

 

[Shortround6]

Some NFs based on the full-weight A-20:
- powered by R-2800s 'B' series
- powered by turbocharged V-1710s
- powered by the 2-stage V-1710s

For the first. From Joe Baugher's web site.
"In the original Invader prototype contract, it had been specified that one of the two examples ordered was to be completed as a night fighter. This aircraft was given the designation XA-26A-DE, and was assigned the serial number 41-19505. The XA-26A had a crew of two--pilot and radar-operator/gunner. The nose was equipped with a centimetric MIT AI-4 radar. The armament was completely different from the bomber or attack versions. There were four forward-firing 20-mm cannon housed inside a ventral tray underneath the forward bomb bay, with their ammunition boxes carried inside the bay. There was one remotely-controlled dorsal turret with four 0.50-in machine guns. For intruder missions, up to 2000 pounds of ordnance could be carried in the rear bomb bay.
Although the flight trials were successful, the XA-26A was never put into production, since the Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter which had already been put into production had a similar performance and was deemed to be adequate to meet the USAAF's needs."

Now the contract for the 2 prototype XA-26s was placed on June 2 1941.
Spending time dinking with an R-2800 powered A-20 means time not spent working on the A-26.
There are some issues with stuffing R-2800s into an A-20.
One of them is that A-20s used propellers 11ft 3 in diameter and the props cleared the fuselage by 9in.
Yes you can use 4 blade props on the R-2800s and/or get props with newer style prop blade (wider cord) but each has a few problems. BTW the props on the F7F were 13ft 2in.
Ventura's used small diameter props but they didn't have the best performance at altitude, also had issues with vibration due to the close spacing of the prop tips and fuselage.

 

[tomo pauk]

Spending time dinking with an R-2800 powered A-20 means time not spent working on the A-26.

I'm okay with the night-fighter version of the A-26 being cancelled instead.
I'm even eyeing the P-61 project all together...

There are some issues with stuffing R-2800s into an A-20.
One of them is that A-20s used propellers 11ft 3 in diameter and the props cleared the fuselage by 9in.
Yes you can use 4 blade props on the R-2800s and/or get props with newer style prop blade (wider cord) but each has a few problems. BTW the props on the F7F were 13ft 2in.

11 ft 3 in +2x9 in = 12 ft 9 in max prop diameter by that data. Use of 12 ft 2 in propellers from P-47 leaves 7/2= 3.5 in clearance vs. fuselage. To be extra safe, use a wider blade 12 ft dia unit (4.5in clearance)?

Granted, a bespoke fighter with R-2800s would've been the best. Nothing complicated - no turret, no twin boom etc.
The P-65/F7F was also with a thinner wing and a more slender fuselage than the A-20 - making it easier to go fast and climb well.