British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I appreciate the exhaustive Spitfire debate, but the OP was looking for a British possible escort fighter - so we have to consider at what point the RAF (bomber command, perhaps?) realized that there would be a need for an escort.

So then determining that point of realization, what was a viable option?

If it was early on, Hurricanes and Spitfires were in short supply. Do we stop and try and reconfigure these much needed fighters or do we look to Westland's Whirlind or Boulton Paul's P.94 as a solution? Both of which won't interrupt current fighter production.

And regarding early bomber operations: before the Lancaster, there was the Stirling, by the way.
 
The OP is quite clear in not using foreign fighters nor the Spitfire.

The Whirlwind airframe can squeeze a little more fuel in but Petter built it around being the minimum practical airframe for two engines and four cannon so it would only be a small increase and rely on drop tanks for a somewhat feasible range, which come with assorted caveats.

Given a 1939 start then ask Petter for a slightly bigger new airframe Whirlwind with Merlin's and fuel capacity added to the requirement. This would be in time for the build up of the four engined strategic bombers and in quantity service in 1943. In some service in 1942 to trial small long range raids.

Looking at it laterally, an alternative might be to by pass the escort fighter need by going down the Mosquito type road and building fast small bombers who can raid point targets in daylight accurately and not need an escort. However, that would drive the Germans to the jet fighter sooner. Or tiptoeing further down the limb do alternate history, the RAF goes all in on the jet engine in 1939 for the high speed bombers. Range becomes the bomber's problem then rather than the fighters.
 
yulzari said:
The OP is quite clear in not using foreign fighters nor the Spitfire.
Click to expand...

LR Daffy, with some cheating, like the canopy from 1943 on a fighter needed in 1939-41.
Anyway - fuselage of the Defiant, 1-seat now, cockpit moved a bit aft so the fuel tank can be installed between the firewall and cockpit. Cooling system relocated in beard position. A pair of cannons is depicted, the .303s will be there in 39-41. Hopefully, and on same engine type, we can get the speed to be in-between the Hurricane and Spitfire, so the 109E does not enjoy the 35+- mph speed advantage like it was the case with Hurricane. Add drop tanks of your favorite flavor.

 
SaparotRob said:
I can't resist thinking that, with only a few tweaks, the Defiant could have been great too.
It really was a clever bit of aeronautical engineering.
Click to expand...
I've thought the opposite, but not to the Defiant's detriment. There's no need for clever aeronautical engineering - a single seat Defiant would be an all metal, wide undercarriage, medium range fighter using a proven Merlin engine - and with external tanks could have been our escort fighter. There's nothing innovative or experimental in a single seat Defiant - and that's what's so annoying, that a single seat Defiant was entirely plausible to enter service in 1939. As it was, the British would not field a wide track, all-metal single seat fighter until the Hawker Typhoon entered regular frontline service in late 1942.

 
Last edited:
Does anybody know the airfoil/s used on the Defiant?

It appears to be in the 18-19% area trying to scale a photo of one undergoing restoration.

It is from Wiki and it can be blown up to much higher resolution.

Fuel tanks are in the wing and in the MK II there were auxiliary tanks in the outer wings. Not really a problem as the plan is to move the cockpit back and use the existing cockpit area for fuel storage so sticking guns and ammo where the existing fuel is probably isn't a problem. Yanking the turret more than makes up for the guns in the wings unless you go crazy.

The problem is getting the plane to do the promised speed or close too it. The MK II was about 20mph slower than a MK IIA Hurricane with the same engine.
Yes the turret will be gone, the radar aerials will be gone and that flat black paint will be gone. However the engine/coolant installation was bit lacking on the MK II

Maybe they could use a "chin" radiator like on the P-40F???
The problem is not to just match the Hurricane IIA but beat it by 10-15mph and you still aren't up to the speed estimated.
The Defiant II did not reach it's anticipated speed, some of the blame was put on the radiator/oil cooler/air intake.

Now even with the turret gone you are going to have an 8,000lb airplane if you have 150-160 imp gallons of fuel when combat starts (used drop tanks to arrive) so you are going to climb more like a P-40F than even a Hurricane II or perhaps it would split the difference. If that is good enough performance in 1941 go for it.

I suspect but can't prove that the wing is going to be part of the problem.
 
I have a bit hazy recollection reading somewhere decades ago that during the day the Beufighter would have been in trouble even against the Bf 110.
 
Clayton Magnet said:
I feel like an escort Beaufighter would play out like the Bf110, where the supposed escort fighter eventually needed its own escorts
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement. The Beaufighter is a completely different bird - too inherently big and bulky for this particular role, though it remained a servicble night fighter and a superlative low level strike aircraft.

Ignoring the interminable Spitfire lover/detractors arguing over its potential, for me the P94, Whirlwind and/or Miles M20 are the most obvious candidates for an early war British long range bomber escort given their size, manoeuvrability and scope for potentially 'relatively' (and I used that term extremely advisedly!) simple development toward the requirement.

(... ignoring of course that there were few long range daylight raids requiring escorting because, at that point of the war, there were no viable long range strategic bomber capable of operating in daylight in contested airspace in RAF squadron service... )
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
I suspect but can't prove that the wing is going to be part of the problem.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that observation. Wing was neither thin nor of the small area, barely smaller than on the Hurricane.

Shortround6 said:
Maybe they could use a "chin" radiator like on the P-40F???
Click to expand...

That is my cunning plan

Shortround6 said:
The Defiant II did not reach it's anticipated speed, some of the blame was put on the radiator/oil cooler/air intake.
Click to expand...

Apart from the obvious culprit - turret - we can note the draggy exhausts (as it was in vogue with British fighters in 1939-42), carb was as it was, radiator was sticking out in the slipstream like on the Hurricane, 1st XP-40, Typhoon prototype - not good. Oil cooler is a separate unit, again no great shakes there. Add the draggy wing, and there is one sedate fighter.

The more I read about the British fighters trying to steal the march on Spitfire, the more I admire the job Supermarine did.
 
Juha3 said:
I have a bit hazy recollection reading somewhere decades ago that during the day the Beufighter would have been in trouble even against the Bf 110.
Click to expand...
Scenario dependent, but I should think, broadly, yes. It was considered a match for a JU88s and did well against them of the Bay of Biscay I believe, as well as transports and bombers out over the med or behind enemy lines over the desert, but again, the Beaufighter is flying with the wing designed for the Beaufort. That's perfectly adequate as well for lining up a moonlight shot on an HE111 or scrapping with a medium bomber, but its asking lot against a purpose designed fighter.

I've recently read my way through Beaufighters by Jack Coleman, Beaufighter Night Fighter Aces by McAuley and Whispering Death by Lee Heide. None of these first person accounts ascribe good manoeuvrability to the Beau. They all praise its reliability, solid ruggedness, stability and strength of construction, armament, excellent forward view, acceleration and - for the strike models - speed low down. 'Mixing it' definitely isn't! In fact, the various mods made to improve its handing (dihedral tailplane and later fin-fillet) actually decreased its already truck-like manoeuvrability even further.
 
ThomasP said:
The Pilot's Notes for the Beaufighter II & VI both say that intentional spins and acrobatics are not permitted, along with the warning that care must be taken in turns as it is easy to overstress the airframe.
Click to expand...
Acrobatics?!

I think it was just about capable of a roly-poly, but much more would be pushing things.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Stirling would like to have a word...
Click to expand...
Lol. Labouring away 15,000 ft, trying to getup to its lofty theoretical maximum ceiling of 17k ft in broad daylight, most would be too full of holes from 88mm flak to say too much, I suspect

... added to which, there were also only three squadrons in operational service by the end of '41, so our gobby Stirling and his small bunch of mates are making a bold claim to be a viable strategic day bomber force!

Pipe down young Mr Short!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

BAR 2.0 - how light might it went?
Replies
14
Views
833
tomo pauk
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
A
What does the IJN look like if war delayed six months?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Shinpachi
A
British Aerial Ordnance Exotica
Replies
2
Views
862
Shortround6
S
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register