It's May 1939 and Canadian Car and Foundry, instead of the Hurricane, what's your pick?

ThomasP · Sep 19, 2020

I suggested the Swordfish rather than the Albacore due to the fact that it was already a proven aircraft. In the early part of the time frame we are talking about (mid-1939) the Albacore was still under development, production just getting started in mid- to late-1939, with service introduction to its first unit in March of 1940. Since time is of importance in this scenario I figured the Swordfish would allow the smoothest transfer of responsibility for manufacture?

Admiral Beez · Sep 19, 2020

How about the Hawker Henley or Defiant? The Defiant intrigues me for the variants that could be possible.

Folding wings for FAA

Single seater...

CAS bomber with higher hp Merlin, keep the turret, put 20mm cannons in the wings, add some bombs.

Shortround6 · Sep 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
CAS bomber with higher hp Merlin, keep the turret, put 20mm cannons in the wings, add some bombs.

Hmmm, put the 20mm cannon where the fuel tanks are, add bombs to a plane that is already almost 2000lbs heavier than a Hurricane and has a slightly smaller wing?

Going to need one heck of Merlin to pull that one off.

Best thing you can do with Defiant.

Target tug.

jetcal1 · Sep 23, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Yes, I imagine that's why it was chosen. However, what other options could Britain have considered sending to CC&F?We'll need an engine.

Centaurus

Admiral Beez · Sep 23, 2020

jetcal1 said:
Centaurus

That's essentially a postwar engine. We're looking for something for CC&F to begin producing in 1938. The Bristol Hercules hasn't begun production yet, so the Centaurus is out.

Admiral Beez · Sep 23, 2020

ThomasP said:
What if they tooled up for Swordfish production - it would (I think) be relatively easy for CC&F to gear up for.

Not a bad idea, and perhaps this can give Fairey time to focus on the Barracuda and skip the Albacore entirely.

jetcal1 · Sep 24, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
That's essentially a postwar engine. We're looking for something for CC&F to begin producing in 1938. The Bristol Hercules hasn't begun production yet, so the Centaurus is out.

The Bristol Centaurus ran in 1938. Are you suggesting the Canadians couldn't concentrate on a singular airframe/engine program with full national resources?

RCAFson · Sep 25, 2020

jetcal1 said:
The Bristol Centaurus ran in 1938. Are you suggesting the Canadians couldn't concentrate on a singular airframe/engine program with full national resources?

CCF tooled up for the Hawker Hurricane and if Canada was going to build an aero-engine, it should have been the Merlin. CCF's Hurricane production was hampered by the lack of suitable engines until Packard got the V-1650 into quantity production.

nuuumannn · Sep 25, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
CAS bomber with higher hp Merlin, keep the turret, put 20mm cannons in the wings, add some bombs.

Aaaand, it's fuel load will go where?...

Shortround6 said:
Hmmm, put the 20mm cannon where the fuel tanks are, add bombs to a plane that is already almost 2000lbs heavier than a Hurricane and has a slightly smaller wing?

Have to agree. The RAF doesn't need more Defiants and they wouldn't be much use to the Canadians either. In 1939 there were rows and rows of turretless Defiants sitting outside the Boulton Paul factory because there were delays in getting the turret right and it wasn't until mid 1940 that the RAF had more than one operational squadron of the type. If Canada built them, they'd be purposeless; as night fighters they did good as a stop gap in the Blitz, but by the time the Canadians built enough, they would have been obsolescent. Besides, the RCAF has enough target tugs in the multitude of Battles it has lying around.

How about the Beaufighter? The RAF put its first order for it in mid 1939 around the same time as the first prototype had flown.

GrauGeist · Sep 25, 2020

The turretless Defiant was actually done under the name P.94 and while it had good performance, it was no better than the Hurricane, so it went no further than prototype and testing.

nuuumannn · Sep 25, 2020

GrauGeist said:
The turretless Defiant was actually done under the name P.94 and while it had good performance, it was no better than the Hurricane, so it went no further than prototype and testing.

Yup, the first prototype K8310 was used as the aerodynamic prototype and it was offered as a stop-gap in case of production of the Spitfire and Hurricane not meeting demand. The other alternative was the nifty looking Miles M.20. Problem with this single seat Defiant is that it requires some redesign because the weight of the turret would either have to be compensated for if the structure is to remain the same owing to CG issues and to relocate the armament and fuel, or structural redesign, both of which would have taken time on the drawing board by the designers, which ultimately would have meant that it would have been outclassed by the time it was being introduced into service. It's a novel idea, but the practicalities behind redesigning the Defiant would have been time consuming. The only real answer if this were to go ahead would have been to fit it with a Griffon in a bid to improve its performance.

jetcal1 · Sep 25, 2020

RCAFson said:
CCF tooled up for the Hawker Hurricane and if Canada was going to build an aero-engine, it should have been the Merlin. CCF's Hurricane production was hampered by the lack of suitable engines until Packard got the V-1650 into quantity production.

Which is really a shame as Canada had a butt-load of talented engineers at Pratt who had been up there for about 10 years or so by 1939 so a pool of engineers familiar with radial engines along with a repair facility capable of expansion staffed by experienced technicians was on hand and in existence.

Even license building a R3350 until the Centaurus came on line was a possibility. (After all, this is more or less an alternative universe thread.)

GrauGeist · Sep 25, 2020

nuuumannn said:
Yup, the first prototype K8310 was used as the aerodynamic prototype and it was offered as a stop-gap in case of production of the Spitfire and Hurricane not meeting demand. The other alternative was the nifty looking Miles M.20. Problem with this single seat Defiant is that it requires some redesign because the weight of the turret would either have to be compensated for if the structure is to remain the same owing to CG issues and to relocate the armament and fuel, or structural redesign, both of which would have taken time on the drawing board by the designers, which ultimately would have meant that it would have been outclassed by the time it was being introduced into service. It's a novel idea, but the practicalities behind redesigning the Defiant would have been time consuming. The only real answer if this were to go ahead would have been to fit it with a Griffon in a bid to improve its performance.

I beleive the photo posted earlier was the actual Defiant sans turret because it wasn't ready for trials - the P.94 had a slightly different upper deck and was proposed to carry in the wings, either twelve .303 MGs, or four 20mm cannon that could be depressed to a certain degree for level strafing of ground targets.
Since I am still without my computer or books, I am relying on an over-taxed memory, but I beleive Boulton-Paul built two P.94s for evaluation and testing.

nuuumannn · Sep 25, 2020

GrauGeist said:
I beleive the photo posted earlier was the actual Defiant sans turret because it wasn't ready for trials - the P.94 had a slightly different upper deck and was proposed to carry in the wings, either twelve .303 MGs, or four 20mm cannon that could be depressed to a certain degree for level strafing of ground targets.
Since I am still without my computer or books, I am relying on an over-taxed memory, but I beleive Boulton-Paul built two P.94s for evaluation and testing.

That photo is K8310, the prototype. No P.94s were built, but BP promised that the new type could be built on the Defiant production line, which certainly makes sense, but it still would have needed to undertake a bit of structural redesign, which would have delayed production. A more simpler variant that was essentially a four wing gunned Defiant was offered, which would have gone into production much faster, but again though, it involved removing the turret and relocating guns to the wings and fuel to the fuselage.

nuuumannn · Sep 25, 2020

I still think the Beaufighter is a good option here. Bristol proposed the design to the Air Ministry around the Munich Crisis and design work began in November 1938 - the specification to match Bristol's proposal was F.11/37 issued to Boulton Paul, but Bristol's design won out. The first prototype didn't fly until July 1939, but at that time a production order was given. If CCF received one at the same time, it's first Beaufighters would have been available off the production line from late 1940, exactly when demand for the type was increasing as Britain struggled with too few night fighters. Beaufighter night fighters certainly out-performed the RAF's night fighter du jour the Defiant, but there weren't enough serviceable examples at any given time and its radar was troublesome, not to mention training accidents, which wiped out aircraft and crew, so more Beaufighters from Canada would have definitely been welcome. As for equipping the RCAF, the Beaufighter was a hardy adaptable type that would have served the Canadians well.

fastmongrel · Sep 25, 2020

Become a shadow factory for Rolls Royce or Bristol and make engines. 50,000 Merlin's or Hercules would be very useful. P51Bs in 1942 with Canadian engines would be awesome.

Admiral Beez · Sep 25, 2020

jetcal1 said:
The Bristol Centaurus ran in 1938. Are you suggesting the Canadians couldn't concentrate on a singular airframe/engine program with full national resources?

We didn't make any engines. Merlins were shipped in from either RR or Packard. Radials from Bristol, Curtiss or P&W. If you're suggesting Centaurus for a 1939 Canadian-made aircraft you'll need to propose a plan to develop, produce and ship it.

Shortround6 · Sep 25, 2020

Some of this depends on tooling and parts.
There was some delay between the Bolingbroke I and Bolingbroke IV because the Bolingbroke IV was "americanized". That is to say it got some American instruments, American piping/fittings, and some parts were changed to suit standard American sizes of materials. A lot of the machine tools used in Canadian industry came from the US.
Let's remember that the British were still buying (or taking delivery) of German and Swiss machine tools in 1939.

As for the Hercules, just what was it's actual availability in 1939/40?
There was a reason for the Merlin powered Beaufighter and the Merlin powered Wellington.
The air ministery was worried about a shortfall in Hercules production. The Hercules was an unproven engine in 1939, what if was another Taurus?

Admiral Beez · Sep 25, 2020

fastmongrel said:
Become a shadow factory for Rolls Royce or Bristol and make engines. 50,000 Merlin's or Hercules would be very useful. P51Bs in 1942 with Canadian engines would be awesome.

CC&F is a fabrication and assembly operation, not an engine plant and thus won't have the forging, casting and finishing setup.

Given that Holden Australia was able to produce P&W engines for their Beauforts, I am surprised that no Canadian automotive firm was asked to make aero engines. I suppose having the giants of P&W and Curtiss literally down the road precludes this.

Shortround6 · Sep 25, 2020

fastmongrel said:
Become a shadow factory for Rolls Royce or Bristol and make engines. 50,000 Merlin's or Hercules would be very useful. P51Bs in 1942 with Canadian engines would be awesome.

Admiral Beez said:
We didn't make any engines. Merlins were shipped in from either RR or Packard. Radials from Bristol, Curtiss or P&W. If you're suggesting Centaurus for a 1939 Canadian-made aircraft you'll need to propose a plan to develop, produce and ship it.

I would agree with the Admiral on this one, Canada did a fantastic job of producing war material of all kinds during WW II but at some point you have to pick your priorities.

Is a Canadian built aircraft engine (even 5,000 of them and not 50,000) worth a truck factory or several thousand artillery pieces?

It also takes time to get the factories up and running, up in a literal sense as many of them were bare plots of ground before the war.

From: Canadian Production of War Materials - Historical Sheet - Second World War - History - Veterans Affairs Canada

"Canadian factory space for the production of aircraft increased from 500,000 square feet before the war to a high of 14,000,000 square feet at its peak during the war.

For example, the contract to produce 1,100 Mosquito fighter-bombers was awarded to De Havilland, but they only did the final assembly. General Motors made the fuselages, Massey Ferguson made the wings, Boeing made the tailplanes, the flaps were made by Canadian Power Boat Company, and the undercarriages were built by Otaco. Numerous other smaller companies were also involved in producing other parts for this aircraft as well. "

It takes time to put such an organization / supply chain together.

It's May 1939 and Canadian Car and Foundry, instead of the Hurricane, what's your pick?

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Major

Major

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Staff Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

1st Sergeant

Major

Major General

Major

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads