Alternative RAF Battle of Britain Aircraft

[The Basket]

Not much but I do believe that the Spitfire and Hurricane was the best the RAF could have fielded with 303s in this time frame. They were the best we could have hoped for.

And Dowding had to fight for that!

A dead monkey would have been a better alternative than Lee Mallory.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Once monocoque and semi-monocoque(spit was semi as were most AC) construction matured its production costs were lower than that of skinned frames. Not a great deal of the hurri was fabric ither, its wings were all metal, only the rear fuselage was fabric.

The Spitfire NEVER cost less than the Hurricane, both man hours and production costs came down on both aircraft as the war progressed and when more of them were built but the fact remains that the Spit costs more. - and what do you mean by "skinned frames"?

BTW - The "Fabric" on the Hurricane ran the length of the rear fuselage - the front was metal, with a bunch of panels bolted to the tube structure which was easier to build than the Spitfire's all metal fuselage. The wings were conventionally built. The control surfaces were fabric as well.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Westland Whirlwind?

 

[renrich]

I would have speeded up the delivery of the F4F3. In it's early version without self sealing tanks, it would have had a lot more endurance than either British fighter and it had a very high rate of climb, over 3000 feet per minute at SL. The 4-50s with 400 rounds each would have been deadly against German bombers and fighters.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Westland Whirlwind?

Great low level aircraft, I think it was rushed into production and never had the opportunity to mature.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Great low level aircraft, I think it was rushed into production and never had the opportunity to mature.

I think it might have been a british P-38 if it had been further developed.

 

[renrich]

People keep bringing up the Whirlwind. I remember during the war I saw pictures of it and thought it was really a handsome and aggresive looking AC and the four cannon really sounded good also. If the old saying that "if an airplane looks right it should be right" were true it would have been a world beater.

 

[BombTaxi]

The Whirlwind was ultimately killed off by the developmental problems that plagued the RR Peregrine powerplant. The airframe was designed around the engines to such an extent that it proved impractical to change to another powerplant, thus limiting the types deployment to two squadrons. I don't think it would ever have been a contender in the P-38 class.

A much better alternative would have been the Taurus-engined Gloster F9/37 'Reaper'. This first flew in April '39, acheived 360mph on two Bristol Taurus T-S(a)s (1060hp each), and was actually considered to be superior to the Beaufighter. However, Glosters workload, especially with developmental work on jet fighters, meant the Reaper could not have entered service until 1942 at the earliest, and the project was scrapped in favour of the Beau. Gloster had also proposed a nightfighter variant with AI radar and a four-gun turret like that of the Defiant, before work was halted.

 

[renrich]

I have often wondered how a country that could manage to come up with radar, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, the Dreadnought in 1904, aircraft carriers, steam catapults, mirror landing systems, etc. could be so misguided as to come up with the BP Defiant?

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi renrich

The last 60+ years people (both with and without the required knowledge) dispute about the ideal weapons of WWII: the is 20/20 hindsight there too. Yet, the interwar designers planers had to make do without the benefits we have now. Methinks that they were doing miracles.

 

[BombTaxi]

I have often wondered how a country that could manage to come up with radar, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, the Dreadnought in 1904, aircraft carriers, steam catapults, mirror landing systems, etc. could be so misguided as to come up with the BP Defiant?

For every great invention this country has produced, we have at least one stupid one. You can add the Blackburn Roc, Skua and Botha to your list, and HMS Dreadnought can be offset with the entire battlecruiser fiasco, as well as HMS Thunderer, HMS Captain, and all the other Victorian monstrosities that sank, blew up, or otherwise failed to stay afloat due to poor design or foolish employment. It's the British way - we invent a lot, but we can never promise it will be any use

 

[Glider]

For every great invention this country has produced, we have at least one stupid one. You can add the Blackburn Roc, Skua and Botha to your list, and HMS Dreadnought can be offset with the entire battlecruiser fiasco, as well as HMS Thunderer, HMS Captain, and all the other Victorian monstrosities that sank, blew up, or otherwise failed to stay afloat due to poor design or foolish employment. It's the British way - we invent a lot, but we can never promise it will be any use

Have to agree with this with the exception of the Skua, it was quite a decent divebomber for its time.

 

[renrich]

IMO, there was not any thing wrong with BC concept except the admirals thought since they had BB guns they should be in the battle line. Used properly like at the Falklands or as scouts for the battle line, they were a valid concept. They certainly put paid to the armored cruiser. With the Defiant, I still don't understand why they would even put pilots in them when they had Hurris and Spits with empty cockpits.

 

[BombTaxi]

The Defiant actually had a limited novelty value, with 109 drivers mistaking it for a Hurri and swooping down behind it. This lasted less than a month before the 109 pilots got wise and the Defiants were moved to nightfighting for their own safety. They were reasonably successful in that field, then were displaced to target-towing duties. In that respect, they were more successful than their naval counterpart, the Roc.

 

[renrich]

BT, in Peter Townsend's book, there were still Defiants being used late in the BOB and they got slaughtered.

 

[BombTaxi]

Hmm, thought they shifted them over to NF roles fairly quickly I shall stand corrected then

I think the Defiant was the product of one of the many misguided theories of air warfare floating about in the interwar years. The zerstorer was another that immediately springs to mind.

 

[HellToupee]

I don't know why they didn't produce a turret less defiant, apparntly without the turret it was as fast as the spitfire, with its wide landing gear it could have been made into the FAAs carrier fighter.

 

[Glider]

I have always wondered why they didn't convert them into a GA aircraft. Take out the heavy turret, leave a back gunner and use the weight for some forward firing guns protection and a bombload.
Result, a GA aircraft something the RAF didn't have with a close to 300mph top speed and decent agility.

 

[merlin]

I don't know why they didn't produce a turret less defiant, apparntly without the turret it was as fast as the spitfire, with its wide landing gear it could have been made into the FAAs carrier fighter.

Indeed, there was a proposal by Boulton Paul to use the jigs and tools to produce a single-seat version - which I previously mentioned. Why didn't they go ahead with it - false pride maybe!

 

[merlin]

I have always wondered why they didn't convert them into a GA aircraft. Take out the heavy turret, leave a back gunner and use the weight for some forward firing guns protection and a bombload.
Result, a GA aircraft something the RAF didn't have with a close to 300mph top speed and decent agility.

Sounds more like the Mk ll Hawker Henley to me! The follow on version, with the more powerful Merlin XX engine, a bigger bomb-load and forward firing machine guns canon!