de Havilland DH88 Comet as long range reconnaissance aircraft

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

W

wuzak

Captain
8,312
2,835
Jun 5, 2011
Hobart Tasmania
Often in the past the DH88 Comet has been discussed as a possible early twin engine, monoplane fighter for the RAF.

However, changing the DH88 into a useful fighter aircraft would likely lead to a complete redesign.

But could the Comet be converted to be a useful long range reconnaissance plane? It already had the range, nearly 3,000miles.

It would need higher power engines, but you couldn't jump from the Gipsy 6 to a Merlin, or even a Kestrel without major mods.

Perhaps supercharging the Gipsy 6? The Gipsy 6 was developed into the Gipsy Queen, the later models of which were supercharged for about 50% more power.

The addition of constant speed propellers would also aid performance, which would have occurred around 1940, I would guess.

Even with an uprated engine and constant speed prop, I doubt it would have worked particularly well in Europe.

But maybe in the PTO, where distances were long it could have proved useful.
 
Great idea for a thread- any excuse to post a photo of the most beautiful aircraft in the world (IMHO)

Gotta admit I'm getting withdrawal symptoms from not getting my annual "fix" of seeing the Comet in flight at Shuttleworth.

However, I'll now put on my "contrarian" hat for a while and point out some disadvantages of the basic Comet for the role you envisage.
1. Almost no forward view and very restricted view down means you only really see landmarks when you've gone over them - Making it virtually impossible to line up with your photographic target on a first pass.
2. Restricted space in the fuselage for camera equipment (unless you start stripping out fuel tanks or making them smaller).
3. No radio, no radio direction-finding aids, no oxygen equipment and no place to put them if you did fit them (again, unless you started revising the fuel layout).
4. Incredibly challenging aircraft to fly, even harder to land, certainly beyond the average young RAF pilot in 1935-1940. The RAF did end up getting the Comet G-ACSS (re-serialled K5084) - but promptly crashed it...

5. No performance at altitude. Also a "killer" feature was the propensity for ice to build up under the wing at altitude. - If not noticed in time (and you couldn't see it from the cockpit, being under the wings) the ailerons would lock solid - Almost killed the great pilot Air Commodore AE Clouston when flying over the Alps.
6. From a navigators point of view, the Comet was a very difficult aircraft to work in for the sort of long distances it flew. Very cramped, restricted view of the ground, no astrodome, no radio direction finding. Its one saving grace was its huge range which meant that if you did get lost you could stooge around until you found somewhere to land and ask directions - Not an option in wartime! It was very much a "sunny weather" aircraft. You wouldn't want to be flying one in cloud or overcast for very long.

Of course you could fix all these problems - bigger engines, move the cockpit to the front, bigger fuselage to accommodate radio equipment etc etc... But wouldn't you'd in essence be designing the Mosquito?

Alternative Scenario.

Instead, let's do a real flight of fancy to make use of the Comet with almost no changes. Got a big dollop of hindsight? Tongue firmly in cheek? Got your time-machine ready? - Let's go...

After the England-Australia race the British Government surreptitiously buys up three of the Comets (maybe even buys a couple more) and sets up a clandestine spy-plane unit disguised as an air-charter/flying school company, with some of the best pilots in the Empire on its payroll. Every summer from 1935 to 1939, on days where the weather forecast is good they fly off in their pale blue Comets with not-quite-legal very small serial numbers in a low-contrast colour and fly around Europe. With a camera squeezed between the rear pilot's legs, they take pictures of harbours and airfields in both Germany and the neutral countries. The camera is so arranged that it can easily be jettisoned into the sea if the aircraft has to make an unexpected landing in foreign lands. As the defences of Germany improve their focus moves to the Baltic and Scandinavian coastline. Their work is, of course, closely linked with that of Sidney Cotton - Wikipedia The Comets also do trips to the Med, operating out of Malta, where unexplained lapses of navigation take them over all the Italian naval bases in Italy and North Africa. Similarly, excursions to Cairo and Khartoum result in flights to the Italian bases in East Africa. When the War with Germany starts in September 1939 the Comets find themselves based in Malta and Cairo (amazing how an air charter company gets around isn't it?) continuing its "Work". - When Italy declares war in June 1940 the Comets find themselves a new home in Singapore. Their shocking history of navigation errors finds them overflying military bases in Thailand, French indo-china and even as far away as China and Korea.

There, I feel I've rather over-reached myself

STRANGE FACT: A.E. Clouston says that in 1938 he was offered a million pounds to use his Comet in an attempt to kill Hitler. - The plan was to drop a bomb from the Comet on a parade in Berlin. - Full Story in an article in the October 1954 edition of the Royal Air Force Flying Review.


Airfix Comet done as the blunter-nosed prototype.
 
We need to send them to Rabaul also for a quick trip up to Kwajalein and back, it's only 900 miles each way. I just love your idea. Its going to need its speed increased to about 280 mph for that run to avoid the defending A5M's. For the Hong Kong to Taiwan and Hainan runs we'll need one of Sydney Cotton's, cleaned up, souped up Blenheim I's as they're faster than the Ki-27 and the distances are shorter. I think some overflights of FIC are needed to.
 
Last edited:
Excellent write up, Dinger. Yes, any excuse to post pictures of it. The last time I was at a Shuttleworth airshow, two years ago, the Comet remained inside, which was a shame, but it still looks good even among the usual hangar detritus.

Comet I

Comet II


Clouston, a New Zealander born half an hour's drive from where I live, mentions the episode in his autobiography The Dangerous Skies.
 
Good idea.
D-H produced aircraft that were between okay and excellent (this excludes jets), so this might've been a good addition the the Allied cause.
 

Wn't they be lining up from miles out?


Dinger said:
2. Restricted space in the fuselage for camera equipment (unless you start stripping out fuel tanks or making them smaller).
Click to expand...

The original Spitfire PRs had cameras mounted in the wings, inside blisters.

Spitfire PR Type C

You could make the fuel tanks in the nose smaller and compensate with wing tip tanks or drop tanks, which would only be needed for longer range trips.


Dinger said:
3. No radio, no radio direction-finding aids, no oxygen equipment and no place to put them if you did fit them (again, unless you started revising the fuel layout).
Click to expand...

See above.



Hence changing to supercharged Gipsy Queens. Get a boost in power and performance at altitude.

An anti-icing system would have to be installed.



No astrodome? How convenient that it had a glass canopy.

RDF - That was point 3.


Dinger said:
Of course you could fix all these problems - bigger engines, move the cockpit to the front, bigger fuselage to accommodate radio equipment etc etc... But wouldn't you'd in essence be designing the Mosquito?
Click to expand...

As I said in the OP, there is little chance of putting in larger engines. The best you can do is put in higher performance engines.

And since you wouldn't be adding a bomb bay, no you wouldn't be designing the Mosquito.
 
wuzak said:
As I said in the OP, there is little chance of putting in larger engines. The best you can do is put in higher performance engines.
Click to expand...


weight of a Gypsy six engine as used in the DH 88 (or close) 462lbs.
weight of a Gypsy Queen 50/51 560lbs
Weight of a Gypsy Queen 70 698lbs.

Weight of a DH 12 engine 1058lbs

the performance of the Queen 50 (or it's ancestor) was 270hp at 7,000ft full power (5 min?) The Queen MK IV shows up in 1941 (?) and is renamed the Queen 50 in 1944.

You are going to need a heavier, better prop than the DH 88 used.

as for putting fuel (or much of anything else) in the wing goes.


Not a whole lot of room in the wing without a major redesign.
 
SaparotRob said:
Dinger's alternative scenario would make for some great cinema or a mini series. No joke. Copy-write it now before some troll steals it. I'm as serious as a heart attack.
Click to expand...
Looks like a job for Elstree Studios. A new 'Carry On' film where a bunch of plucky British heroes, and heroines of course, get lost in the Pacific, and accidentally on purpose, photograph the Japanese fleet at Kwajalein, then continue on to American Samoa to warn the Americans of an impending attack on Pearl Harbour. So 'Carry on Filming'. Some liberties may need to be taken with historical facts.
 
Hi W wuzak and Dinger ,
I don´t think a recce Comet would have been feasible, because it was a highly specialised long-distance racing aircraft, developed in an incredibly short time. Thus, I think it was highly unrefined. More development time might have resulted in a more universal design. IMO the conversion of the Spitfire from short-range interceptor to long range recce aircraft only was possible because it was designed for the weight of the armament which was substituted by cameras and fuel. Same applies for the Mosquito as a light bomber gone recce aircraft / heavy fighter / night fighter.
The Comet did not have such provisions. You could have sacrificed range (fuel tanks) for photographic equipment but then it would not have been a long range aircraft anymore.
I guess De Havilland drew heavily on the experiences with the DH.88 when designing the DH.91 Albatross which had the load carrying capacity for more fuel and equipment, so it could have done what wuzak suggested about the DH.88 .
This could be underpinned by the similarities between the DH.91 and the Republic XF-12 Rainbow, a dedicated long-range recce aircraft which appeard too late to see service.

About the DH.88 being skittish: In his classic "The Flight of the Mew Gull" Alex Henshaw decribes how he air raced his Mew against the DH.88. His verdict on the DH.88 was that it needed utmost attention on take off and landing. Make no mistake: I think the DH.88 is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built and I got some large 3-views of it pinned to my wall for a good reason.
 
Last edited:
SaparotRob said:
Dinger's alternative scenario would make for some great cinema or a mini series. No joke. Copy-write it now before some troll steals it. I'm as serious as a heart attack.
Click to expand...

Cheers! Interesting idea! - With the "cover story" of an air charter/ flying school, a DH Dragon Rapide or two on the books and a few Tiger Moths or Blackburn B2s you'd have a lot of scope for sub-plots involving all kinds of figures from the 1930s. Who might book a flight or hire a plane from them? - Winston Churchill? Josephine Baker? Noel Coward? George Formby? The Lindburghs? Who might book a flying lesson with them? A young JFK? There is scope for all kinds of storylines, the Abdication, Amelia Earhart's disappearance, the Venlo incident. The list is endless. - Something for me to do in Lockdown perhaps!
 
I've read a bunch of action/adventure series (Clive Cussler's books for example.) that are no where near as plausible. And the DH.88 is even flashier than an Incom T-65 IMHO....and what are the Japanese building under that HUGE structure in that naval yard?
 
Anyone who hasn't seen a DH88 close-up often does not appreciate just how small it was. It's really cramped and those wings are very thin. Here is the Shuttleworth comet with a Hurricane and Spitfire.



Of course - compared with some aircraft the DH88 appears quite large... Here's Alex Henshaw's Mew Gull with it.

In its day in 1934, it must have seemed quite revolutionary compared with the biplane bombers then in service... (fisheye lens makes the Comet look bigger than it is).

But within just a few years its performance would be eclipsed by new types. Don't forget it was a DC2 that came second in the England-Australia race, beating the other two Comets in the race. There is a really good interview with Stewart Waring about the difficulties of flying the Comet in the November 1994 edition of "Pilot" magazine; very illuminating. The other brilliant reference is David Ogilvy's book "DH88 de Havilland's Racing Comets". - In an appendix at the back, it reproduces de Havilland's "Notes for Pilots". Well worth a look, particularly with regard to the engine management - essentially fly at full throttle as much as possible!

Could DH have supercharged the Queen and bought it to production in time for it to be used in the war? It only really came "on-stream" in 1946. Even if they did, would anyone fancy taking their chances in even a "boosted" DH88 flying at (maybe?) 250-270mph against German defences with radar, Bf109s and Me110s? - Maybe against CR32s and CR42s without radar warning it might have been useful - But if you were given a choice between flying a Blenheim or a "boosted" DH88, with your life on the line, which one would you choose?

And just think of all those potential wives without husbands, kids without dads, not because of any enemy action, but simply because it was such a difficult aircraft to fly and land.

Don't get me wrong. I think there might have been the potential to make use of the DH88 airframe as a stop-gap for the RAF in the late 1930s. - But play to its strengths, not its weaknesses. - Its strengths are its long range and its high cruising speed (for the day). Before the advent of radar, these might indeed have given it the ability to penetrate some areas for photo-recce and even "pin-prick" raids to act as feints for the major bombing raids. But you've got to give the crew a better forward view, a radio and DF finding and provide space in the fuselage for the cameras (those DH88 wings are simply too thin for cameras, even with "blisters". Give the crew individual sliding canopies so that the navigator/second pilot can use a sextant without getting the refraction experienced through a normal canopy. Get it in service in 1936 and give 2 or 3 squadrons experience of operating a modern monoplane before converting to Blenheims in 1939. They can then be used as trainers or in small numbers against the Italians in 1940-1. If the supercharged Queens come through in time maybe consider using them. But I would hope they were all out of first-line service by early 1941.


Something like this - Exactly the same engines, wings, tail with a revised front fuselage with a bit of a ME210/410 vibe about it. The cockpit replaces the fuel tank in the nose - but of course, the weight does not change in flight so the weight in the cockpit would have to be balanced by similar static weight in the tail - Cameras? - radio, oxygen eqpt. - Meaning the fuel is concentrated in the middle of the fuselage in either one large tank or a couple of closely coupled tanks. This is assuming that both crew members share flying duties. If the second crew-member was a dedicated navigator the configuration could be changed so that he sat facing backward. Maybe even have a Vickers K gun, but any big increase in weight would need to be resisted - The available horse-power just would not support any increase in weight - so armour would not be an option. - Maybe, just maybe, a single small 250 lb bomb could be taken, or 4 cooper bombs. - But its never going to be anything more than a "nuisance" bomber. If the Mosquito could be considered a potential killer because of its ability to transmit Malaria, this is going to be no more than a de Havilland "Midge".


One thing that should be stressed - De Havilland avoided doing work for the RAF and Air Ministry. It preferred the civil marketplace, a policy that had been a resounding success, making them the most successful British aircraft company of the time. It had its fingers burnt too many times by tendering for Air Ministry contracts. When it did tender again, with the Don trainer, it was badly burnt again. It was only the declaration of war and the question of the Albatross airliner being converted into a bomber being raised in the Houses of Parliament itself, that prompted de Havilland to begin the design project that led to the Mosquito. - So it is extremely unlikely that de Havilland would have readily considered any military applications of the DH88 Comet themselves.
 
I remember reading about a Lockheed Electra was equipped and used for photo-reconnaissance over Europe, including Germany, in the run-up to WW2.

Realistically, I think this makes far more sense than using a rare racing aircraft (unless one wants to have someone sponsor some air races in the area). In this vein, one would have the Lockheed Model 10 (Electra), 12 (Electra Junior), 14 (Super Electra), Boeing 247, Douglas DC-2 and DC-3, Savoia-Marchetti SM.83, and others. I think the use of the SM.83 would be especially ironic.
 

Yes indeed, it was used by Sidney Cotton (see link above). - The cameras were hidden inside the aircraft and could be operated remotely. But he operated it on cleared flights into Germany. There was always the threat that some nosy German customs official would discover them. - I'm talking about clandestine overflights. The DH88 had a huge range, so it could cover a wide area. It could maintain a high cruising speed of 212 mph (its drag curve was such that its top speed was its cruising speed!) - In 1935-36-37, before Radar, and with Heinkel 51 fighters with a top speed of 210mph. It could have provided a very hard aircraft to intercept - Especially in a low-visibility camouflage and with the low noise of its small engines it might not be noticed at all at 12,000 feet. Even if you restrict it to just the coastline and harbours of the North Sea, Heligoland, Kiel Canal and Baltic you'd get valuable information.

Of course with the advent of the Bf109 and Radar, everything would change as far as flights over Germany. - But it would still be viable against the Italians in the Med and East Africa until the start of the war against them in June 1940. - The lack of radio would even be an advantage - You can't respond to requests to land if you can't hear them!

Over neutral countries as well - Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Greece it could get some valuable pictures. - I'm talking here about a "baseline" collection of photos of Europe 1935-38. - Once you've got your "baseline" then any future military fortifications and installations can be more easily picked out from what was there before. - Any expansion of factories, roads or railways also stands out when you overlay them on your baseline. Maybe even use it over allied France? What would they have given for a complete set of photos of the Normandy coast in 1938 to compare with a set taken in May 1944 to see where changes had been made?

You're helping me write the mini-series here!!!!
 
For my 'Carry on Filming' script I think Sydney Cotton's cleaned up, souped up Blenheim I with extra fuel in its bomb bay and 296 mph top speed plus extra fuel in the bomb bay would be better for spying on FIC and the Japanese in the Pacific. If you can carry 1500 lbs of bombs the you can carry an extra 200 IMG of fuel.
 

For this pre-war phase I, a nicely appointed executive transport would be good, especially if it's associated with a slightly dotty dilettante formerly in the Duke of Windsor's entourage. Perhaps she left after a scandal involving one of the duchess's ladies-in-waiting.
 
Dinger said:
Anyone who hasn't seen a DH88 close-up often does not appreciate just how small it was. It's really cramped and those wings are very thin. Here is the Shuttleworth comet with a Hurricane and Spitfire.
Click to expand...

Good work on the photo, Dinger; it puts the size of the Comet into perspective.

On the subject of this thread though, using the Comet's construction techniques to build a multi-role machine capable of exceeding the kinds of performance talked about here, served de Havilland well enough, and its aircraft based on the Comet was a formidable warplane in itself, which could be construed as a tip of the hat to the original design.

Mosquito Day 2012
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

De Havilland DH93 Don upgrade
Replies
3
Views
711
Shortround6
S
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
marathag
Questions about B-29 operational range, VVS, VVS intercept capability if Operation Unthinkable happen.
17 18 19
Replies
367
Views
12K
EwenS
E
A
Jet Lancaster range?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
6K
Elvis
Protecting the Long-Range Bombers
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
7K
Peter Gunn
Menu
Log in
Register