Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You don't need a laminar flow wing though, just one that's significantly lower drag than what Hawker used. Making it thinner would be the main consideration, but short of laminar flow airfoils there were still other NACA airfoils to use with lower drag (and lower lift) for potential better compromise in drag relative to internal stores capacity. Bell used the 0015 airfoil for the root of the P-39, that has zero chamber (symmetrical cross section) with less lift than the 2215 section used by the P-40 and more strength and internal capacity than the Spitfire's 2213.2. Unlike the Spit and P-40, the P-39 changed airfoils in the outboard portion of the wing, tapering to a 23009 at the tip. (the same high-lift 23000 series airfoil used on the Fw 190 and USN fighters as well as the Lockheed transports and the root of the P-38)I really don't think they could have done anything much earlier, given the amount of other work they had on. Hawker first began investigating a laminar-flow wing for the Typhoon in March 1940, which is pretty much the same time that North American started talking about the NA-73 (later P-51).
Westland and Supermarine were both among the exceptions (ironically dropping back to a thick wing with the Welkin). Gloster went thin when working with jets and the F.5/34 was at least slightly thinner at the root and thinning out more dramatically at the tip than the Typhoon. (2218 to 2209 vs 2219 to 2213)The Typhoon's wing wasn't just a drawback at high altitude. It was a drawback at all altitudes. Unfortunately the boffins at the RAE were giving everybody bad information about drag and thick wings in the late 30s. Few, if any, British companies had their own wind tunnels. British also had some feild performance requirements (landing and take-off) that favored high lift (thick) wings. A few companies didn't believe the RAE and went their own way.
Hence why I suggested one of 322 ft area. The Hurricane and Typhoon also managed well above average wing aspect ratios in part due to the thick airfoil, but that lift/drag advantage only holds useful for take-off and low-speed cruise performance.In 1937-40 a thin wing Typhoon might have meant a big wing Typhoon to keep the landing speed and take-off run down.
If RAF have a reliable 24 cylinder engine in mass production prior to 1944 it's likely to power more then just the Tempest.
Most of the listed problems were with the airframe or control linkage mechanisms used in the given aircraft, not the engine and some of them were problems shared (to some extent) by the merlin itself. From what I understand, the main reason the Peregrine was dropped wasn't because of development troubles, it was because splitting production between Merlins and ANY other engine would severely compromise total engine output and cost MORE merlins than Peregrines (or Kestrels for that matter) than you'd get. And since production was canceled, further development was pointless. The fact the Whirlwind was the ONLY plane in production relying on the Peregrine also helped.Doersn't much matter what thge problems were. They couldn't solce them in a reasinable time so the engine was withdrawn from service along with the Whirlwind. So my question still stands, why on earth would they base a new engine on one that ws being withdrawn due to protracted development problems?
Answer is obnvious. They wouldn't and didn't, even in a what-if.
This itself is interesting. Coupled engine units have their own sets of problems but did work rather successfully several times and seems like a faster and safer bet than adopting the X arrangement. Dealing with the inboard exhaust tends to be a consistent problem there, and if nothing else you loose around half the exhaust thrust and gain some weight for added exhaust manifold ducting.This "what if" also seems to be proposing a double Peregrine instead of the Vulture which would put the timing 3-4 years before the Peregrine was withdrawn from service. Which happened to be well after the Vulture was withdrawn from service.
Which it would have; according to Rolls-Royce, continuing with the Peregrine would have cost two Merlins for each Peregrine.So again, continued peregrine production was only a bad idea if it cost merlins ....