Best British WW2 Prototypes Pt 2

Discussion in 'Polls' started by merlin, Aug 4, 2008.

?

Best British WW2 Prototype Pt 2

  1. Gloster G.39

    15.4%
  2. Boulton Paul P.94

    30.8%
  3. Miles M.39

    15.4%
  4. Vickers Warwick Mk III

    15.4%
  5. Hawker Henley Dive-Bomber

    15.4%
  6. Gloster F.5/34

    7.7%
  1. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    As a follow on from the other thread on British prototypes, I thought I'd try a different list:

    1. Gloster G.39 twin-engineed fighter
    2. Boulton Paul P.94 single-seat defiant.
    3. Miles M.39 (Libellula).
    4. Vickers Warwick Mk III (High altitude Bomber)
    5. Hawker Henley Dive-Bomber
    6. Gloster F.5/34 single-engineed fighter.

    All of the above did fly, though the Miles was via a scale model. The Henley, was of course ordered - but only as a target tug.
    I think a case could be made for ordering any/all or them! It will be interesting to see the comments.
     
  2. bigZ

    bigZ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    How about the Miles M20?
     
  3. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Oh, I don't know!
     
  4. The Basket

    The Basket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Defiant was said to be a very nice flying machine and without the turret could have been the British Il-2.

    Or something like a long range heavy fighter. But it wasn't needed. There is a good reason why aircraft don't make it.

    Sometimes.
     
  5. TL Blade

    TL Blade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Nuneaton
    I won't to point out that the Vickers Warwick was not a prototype and many where built and used as a transport. 22 Raf Squadron had Warwicks
     
  6. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    True the Vickers Warwick was produced - to Spec B.1/35, originally intended to have two Vulture engines - but in the event had either P W Double Wasp or Centaurus engines. However the time of the twin engined 'heavy' bomber had passed, and therefore other uses were found for those produced.

    BUT the poll states Warwick Mk III, which was a four-engined high-altitude bomber aircraft. Or at least it might have been if the specification hadn't kept changing.
    The spec's max speed uti 345 mph at 31,000', service ceiling uti 38,500' bomb load of 8,000 lbs.
    The Warwick Mk III Span 117', length 76' 1" wing area 1,245 sq ft., max weight 52,500 lbs., max speed 366 mph at 31,000'.
    However, after re-reading I find 'egg-on-face' I was wrong, toe earlier Wellington twin high-altitude, and later four engined Windsor aircraft prototypes flew, but not the Warwick Mk III - sorry.

    Interesting the voting, yet we seem to have more votes, than comments??
     
  7. eddie_brunette

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer, Musician
    Location:
    Nelspruit, Mpumalanga
    What about de havilland Hornet?

    edd
     
  8. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    What about it.

    The 'Poll' is about British prototypes, that did not get a production contract, i.e. which one deserved a better life - combat history.

    The de Haviland Hornet on the other hand was an excellent aircraft that gave the RAF excellent service - "the last Hornets in first-line service were those of No 45 Squadron: they were finally supplanted by Vampire jet fighter-bombers in june 1955".

    Interesting the votes, strange nothing for the Gloster G.39 - considering how the Fw 187 has many fans (they IMO comparable aircraft). I will regard the votes for the Warwick Mk III as for a ' four-engineed high-altitude bomber' after my error.

    Further comments votes please.
     
  9. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I thought the Vickers Warwick Mk.III was the transport version.
     
  10. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    To quote British Secret Projects: Fighters Bombers by Tony Butler p.118.

    The Wellington MkV was an experimental variant of Vickers' successful medium bomber fitted with a pressure cabin and, as the development work on it matured in late 1940, the Air Staff became interested in a cmparable version of the Warwick. Draft proposals from Vickers were prepared and discussed at the Minbistry and on 9th Jan. 1941 lord Beaverbrook wrote 'High altitude bombers are to be developed intensively. .... Detailed proposals were submitted to the Ministry in May and during the initial stages the project was known as the Warwick Mk III. The fuselage was very similar to the Mk V Wellington but the standard Warwick wings were replaced by an elliptal wing and four Merlin LX engines with ducted wing radiators.

    The transport version was the standard Warwick which was not up to the standard required for bomber duties - so question 'what can we do with them' - transport, and air-sea rescue.
     
  11. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It might be good to mention that the G.39 is the Gloster F.9/37 project.


    Hvvent voted yet, but I'm kind of tied between the G.39, F.5/34, and the P.94.
     
  12. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Yes, by all means, thank you for mentioning it.

    Oddly enough perhaps, I haven't voted either - they all have their merits, and having the RAF chose one, doesn't stop them also chosing another, as they are not competitive designs.
     
  13. KrazyKraut

    KrazyKraut Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What would the P.94 have done what the Spit didn't already cover?
     
  14. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It could have developed into a long range strike-fighter and fighter bomber, a replacement for the Hurricane as as the RAF's attack plane and available much earlier than the Typhoon. (and with longer range)

    The G.39 would have been better in every way IMO than the Beaufighter and capable in F vs F combat as well.


    The F.5/34 project showed exceptional performance considering its modest powerplant (and suprisingly large wing area) and IMO had a lot of development potential.
     
  15. Venganza

    Venganza Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Terra
    How about the Martin-Baker M.B.5? By all accounts an excellent airplane.
     
  16. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It came too late to really be useful, the Mustang had made it effectively unnecessary.
     
  17. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Personally, I see the P.94 has being a much more effective use of the airframe, than the turret fighter concept of the Defiant as used. I seem to remember reading that Dowding didn't want the Defiant, but others e.g. Sholto Douglas insisted.
    It would complement the Spitfire - with a comparable speed, though the manoeuvreability would probably be less.
    Its adoption would probably allow the Hurricane to be used earlier, more as a fighter bomber.
     
  18. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    I think that was featured on an early British Prototypes Poll
     
  19. KrazyKraut

    KrazyKraut Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Certainly, but a third fighter designed for the same engine just doesn't seem very sensible to me (in the medium to long run). Especially since it seems that the Spitfire was better in about every aspect. Better to let the whole thing die altogether and concentrate on what already worked.
     
  20. Burmese Bandit

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    And with my vote the Gloster gets its first vote...

    Why does no one vote for this very well designed machine? It's a shame.
     
Loading...

Share This Page