January 1936: build your RAF

parsifal · Mar 12, 2014

funny thing is that for lower speed fighters of the WWI era, a turretted fighter might have worked. Lowe speed will reduce the tracking problem and give the gunner more time to react to a closing fighter . I admit, it was probably never a great idea, but in 1935 it might at least have made a bit of sense, in 1940, it was a waste of money and time.

nuuumannn · Mar 12, 2014

Tomo, great information and reasoning; don't worry about the tone; not an issue for me. I essentially agree with everything you are saying. The problem is you are thinking ahead into the future using what you know happened in 1940 to base your reasoning on, which in 1936 the RAF could not have known; hence my statements in the first instance.

This includes about Hurricanes versus Defiants, smart logic, but of course the fact was that in 1936 the two roles were slightly exclusive to each other, defensive fighter and bomber destroyer. The turret fighter was to do one job and the single-seater another, although the theory behind the turret fighter was that they would, in formations of four, attack bombers and the single-seaters hang about waiting for stragglers to break off after attack. As for return fire, yeah, that could be expected as one of the hazards of war, but the advantage of the thinking behind the turret fighter was that it could slot into the bombers' blind spots, such as under their bellies - as Defiants actually did as night fighters - and fire their guns obliquely upwards, or other areas where return fire coverage was lacking. This is, of course the theory behind the idea, obviously, the reality by day was very different, but by night, the turret fighter idea did actually work because of the lack of aircraft in the air! Which says nothing for the environment the RAF planners were expecting when they drew the specification up!

Also, France was the big change to the British plans - it even caught the Germans by surprise, they did not expect to achieve what they did as quickly or as easily as they did. It changed everything.

Unarmed bomber; the idea was a good one and interested many, but was not really emphasised in the minds of the Air Staff for another year or so, so in 1936 we saw B.12/36 and P.13/36 released with turrets as standard. Some time between Volkert releasing his paper in 1937 and the Mosquito, the Air Staff decided that what they wanted was not an unarmed bomber, but a 'Speed Bomber' - some neddy actually stated this, might have been Liptrot - can't remember, but the turret was to be mated to a high speed bomber of small proportions (thus merging two separate lines of thought) and it was based on this that the objections to the DH.98 were raised. No one believed GdeH's figures and the fact that it did not have a turret concerned Sholto Douglas, so it was redrawn with a tail turret. The Air Staff made the two inclusive and attempted to merge the ideas into one. SR is right about this one.

As for the B.28, it wasn't built, and when I wrote produced - perhaps I confused you here - I meant that Blackburn offered the design to the Air Ministry, which approved it and requested a prototype, but a mock up was completed only. It was to be based on the Botha, but powered by Griffons. The concept was not new; the Airco D.H.4 was considered a high speed bomber/recon machine in WW1.

The thing about the Peregrine, SR, is that in 1936, it looked right. Yes, in hindsight everything you are saying is true, but in 1936 the RAF didn't have that foresight. Fighters (Gauntlets) were powered by 645 hp Mercury engines; the Peregrine at nearly 900 hp was considered a good size, compact engine - after the very successful Kestrel, its future looked bright. Thankfully the RAF had the foresight to see that the Merlin, applied in most things' specifications around the mid 1930s was the right size and had plenty of potential instead.

pbehn · Mar 13, 2014

Its a fair point that we post with hind sight so our opinions of what should have been done are coloured by what actually happened BUT ...what about some foresight.

Bearing in mind the attrition in WW1 why didn't anybody take steps to have the massive expansion in production of aircraft and pilot training before the conflict started. Why didnt they do sufficient practice with Front line bombers and fighters and determine that the bombers were effectively helpless. I read (I think in a history of bomber command) that they believed that the more fighters were put against the bombers then the more fighters would be shot down. This when they had Hampdens and Wellingtons. The Vic formation, the attack tactics nothing was suitable , surely with a bit or elementary "wargaming" attack against defence as even amateur football teams do would have yielded a lot of good info.

merlin · Mar 13, 2014

I don't think wqe should get 'hung-up' on the use of 'hindsight' - only that the changes you want to make have plausible reasons for happening instead of the original sequence.

nuuumannn · Mar 13, 2014

only that the changes you want to make have plausible reasons for happening instead of the original sequence.

This is very apt. But, like I stated with the turret fighter; no one could have predicted the fall of France again - hence hindsight. Like I said, it changed everything. You still have to apply a measure for timely thinking, like there's no way that in 1936 that anyone could have predicted the Fairey Battle or the Bristol 142 was going to be obsolescent four years later, or that we'd be at war within a few years at all.

Wargaming, it happened, but not in what we'd consider realistic scenarios. The big problem with the mid Thirties was that peace was a very believeable concept and only a few - a very few at the time feared that Britain might get sucked into war again, thinking the Nazis were bad. That year, the Germans held the XIth Olympiade in Berlin; it was the opening of the Third Reich to the world and the world's press were invited to examine how well the Nazis were doing since they had entered power, with displays of military might and exhibitions extolling the virtues of national socialism. This even extended to visits to Sachsenhausen concentration camp an hour by train from Berlin, which was known as the 'Model' camp, where the Germans showed those invited to view how well they treated their political prisoners - no 'Final Solution' or gas chambers yet.

If you look at aviation achievements in 1936, almost all the headlines are of airmen or aviatrixes flying record flights round the world - Amy Johnson, Jean Batten et al, also the growth of airlines, United employed female air hostesses on their new DSTs (DC-3s), Air France introduced modern four engined all metal airliners and new routes, Pan Am started a trans-pacific route from San Francisco to the Phillipines. On the military front, the news was more about new modern types, like Supermarine's new fighter prototype and of course, in international news the Fascist nations were bucking the trend by continuing a war in Abbysinnia and the Spanish Civil war was kicking off.

One of the biggest testing grounds for WW2 was the Spanish Civil War, but the Brits did not heed the warnings from that, preferring not to take part, at least officially.

merlin · Mar 14, 2014

to quote - nuuumannn

"This is very apt. But, like I stated with the turret fighter; no one could have predicted the fall of France again - hence hindsight. Like I said, it changed everything. You still have to apply a measure for timely thinking, like there's no way that in 1936 that anyone could have predicted the Fairey Battle or the Bristol 142 was going to be obsolescent four years later, or that we'd be at war within a few years at all".

I agree that no one could have predicted the Fall of France - not even Hitler expected that with the May '40 Campaign, yet if in WW1 the Germans avoided the forts of Verdun and went through Belgian, all the more likely to do so again in any future war. And with Belgian airbases available, they would be the greater potential for bomber raids to be escorted!! Granted not certain - but it seems plausible to theorise that at the time.

The Battle was an aircraft born out of the anticipated restrictions of the Geneva Disbarment Talks, in the event these didn't apply but the aircraft went ahead anyway, stretching it to stop it completely, but again seems plausible to call a halt to continued production at the Shadow factories e.g. Austin factory makes Hurricanes instead of Battles.

The Blenheim was a very good aircraft when it came out, but hampered by the Mercury engines - a crime to the crew who flew it in '42 that it was in service for so long, again options for earlier replacement!!

How about - in 1938 the Air Ministry in seeking an aircraft from non-strategic materials - went to de Havilland, Bristol, Armstrong Whitworth. Bristol dropped out, but the other two both had different ideas - prototypes were built - the Mosquito (earlier than OTL) was draw dropping brilliant, whilst the 'Albemarle' was disappointing - AW explained than performance was lost because of all the extra weight.
A standard construction model followed - which much improved the AM ordered which replaced the Blenheim.
This may be a 'late' replacement scenario for the Blenheim - an earlier on may be to order the Bristol to P.13/36

tomo pauk · Mar 14, 2014

nuuumannn said:
Tomo, great information and reasoning; don't worry about the tone; not an issue for me. I essentially agree with everything you are saying. The problem is you are thinking ahead into the future using what you know happened in 1940 to base your reasoning on, which in 1936 the RAF could not have known; hence my statements in the first instance.

Thanks for the kind words

This includes about Hurricanes versus Defiants, smart logic, but of course the fact was that in 1936 the two roles were slightly exclusive to each other, defensive fighter and bomber destroyer. The turret fighter was to do one job and the single-seater another, although the theory behind the turret fighter was that they would, in formations of four, attack bombers and the single-seaters hang about waiting for stragglers to break off after attack. As for return fire, yeah, that could be expected as one of the hazards of war, but the advantage of the thinking behind the turret fighter was that it could slot into the bombers' blind spots, such as under their bellies - as Defiants actually did as night fighters - and fire their guns obliquely upwards, or other areas where return fire coverage was lacking. This is, of course the theory behind the idea, obviously, the reality by day was very different, but by night, the turret fighter idea did actually work because of the lack of aircraft in the air! Which says nothing for the environment the RAF planners were expecting when they drew the specification up!

It was been stated several times in this forum, by he people I find knowledgeable about RAF's internal gearings in the 1930s, that both Hurricane and Spitfire were tasked with one major thing: defence of metropolitan UK. And so were Gladiatros before them. Germany was to be dealt with bombers. Army cooperation (cooperation??) was to receive bread crumbs, with Hectors and Lysanders.
Fortunately, the turret fighter proposal from Supermarine was not accepted, so they went with Spitfire in high gear.

Also, France was the big change to the British plans - it even caught the Germans by surprise, they did not expect to achieve what they did as quickly or as easily as they did. It changed everything.

Agreed.

Unarmed bomber; the idea was a good one and interested many, but was not really emphasised in the minds of the Air Staff for another year or so, so in 1936 we saw B.12/36 and P.13/36 released with turrets as standard. Some time between Volkert releasing his paper in 1937 and the Mosquito, the Air Staff decided that what they wanted was not an unarmed bomber, but a 'Speed Bomber' - some neddy actually stated this, might have been Liptrot - can't remember, but the turret was to be mated to a high speed bomber of small proportions (thus merging two separate lines of thought) and it was based on this that the objections to the DH.98 were raised. No one believed GdeH's figures and the fact that it did not have a turret concerned Sholto Douglas, so it was redrawn with a tail turret. The Air Staff made the two inclusive and attempted to merge the ideas into one. SR is right about this one.

Thanks for this.
I still maintain that a fast bomber would've been an asset for any air force. Thankfully, the Germans managed to slow the Ju-88 substantially down, and we might wonder just how good the B-26 would've been with a thinner wing and less guns gunners.

As for the B.28, it wasn't built, and when I wrote produced - perhaps I confused you here - I meant that Blackburn offered the design to the Air Ministry, which approved it and requested a prototype, but a mock up was completed only. It was to be based on the Botha, but powered by Griffons. The concept was not new; the Airco D.H.4 was considered a high speed bomber/recon machine in WW1.

Thanks for clarification. I guess Botha needed Griffons very badly

Shortround6 · Mar 14, 2014

tomo pauk said:
I still maintain that a fast bomber would've been an asset for any air force. Thankfully, the Germans managed to slow the Ju-88 substantially down, and we might wonder just how good the B-26 would've been with a thinner wing and less guns gunners.

You also have to consider the bombs and bomb loads they were considering 'effective' at the time.

and the often forgotten question of field length/type. Best bomber in the world doesn't do much good if there are only 2-3 airfields in the country that can operate it.

Budgets in the mid 1930s were small fractions of what they would be once the shooting started. while buying "new" aircraft with the requirement they operate from "old" airfields may seem short sighted, with the money available it was sometimes a question of buying 'limited' aircraft in 'limited' numbers OR expanding old airfields with larger runways and operating the "old" (literally, not just old designs) aircraft from them.

The "state" of the RAF in regards to bombers on Jan 1 1935 may be interesting;
1. Not one monoplane bomber was in service with the RAF. That is not one single aircraft, not type.
2. Of the heavy bombers in service, no design was under 5 years old and some were almost 12years old in design. These are "night" bombers.
3. There was only one day medium bomber squadron, and it's mix of aircraft were basically (in design) 8 years old.
4. NONE of the light bomber and general purpose (army co-operation?) squadrons had a design less than 6 years old.
5. Not a single British bomber in service could reach the nearest point in Germany from British soil, drop a 500lb bomb and return to Britain.

Some types of bombers that entered service in 1935/36

A slightly modernized 1926 design.

While a 1930/31 design it does not go into service (14 built) until late 1936

First operational RAF aircraft with retracting landing gear. Goes into service with first squadron in March of 1936.

The Blenheim while ordered "off the drawing board" to the tune of 150 aircraft and long lead items for 450 more 9 months before the the Hurricane is ordered into production, it does not go into service with the first squadron until March of 1937, beating the introduction of the Battle in May of 1937.

In 1936-38 the selection of suitable bombers is rather limited. Perhaps the British did not push the designers hard enough but in 1936-38 it was a question of building Battles, Blenheims and the like or building biplanes or building nothing to equip the "new" squadrons being formed.

While the "first" Wellington flew in June of 1936 the first "production" Wellington did not fly until Dec 1937 (with quite a number of changes). Again ordered "off the drawing board" back in 1935/36 with 180 aircraft in the first batch the first Service squadron gets their first aircraft in Oct 1938.

British have an engine problem. While the Armstrong Siddley Tiger engine provides at least fair service during the 30s (and is the first production engine with a 2 speed supercharger) it hits a development dead end at under 1000hp. The Bristol Mercury and Pegasus won't go much over 1000/1100hp HP even with 100 octane and the Hercules is running late. Merlin already has more airfames needing it than can be supplied at times. For some reason they do not try a 4 engine bomber with under 1000hp engines just to get something going ( guys in the treasury again?).

Bomber "theory" in the 1930s also vastley under estimated the size of the bombs that were needed to really damage large structures. Bomb loads comprising large numbers of "small" bombs of 100/110lb and 220/250lb sizes were often specified. This leads to a lot of designs having trouble being upgraded to large size (500lb and up) bombs in large numbers without a lot of work.

Fast bombers can be useful but they also have problems, like not real great range. The JU-88 was one example of this. Using the same or slightly better engines than the He 111 it carried a LOT less fuel in the wings. Now consider it could carry a few less bombs in the bomb bay ( He 111 could carry 32 50 Kg bombs compared to the JU-88s 28 ) Range of a JU-88A-1 with full internal bomb load was 620 miles at 217mph at 18,050ft. ( hardly a problem for any decent monoplane interceptor). It could make 1055 miles by using the forward bomb bay as fuel space but that cut the bomb load to a mere ten 50kg bombs ( 1/3 what the He 111 carried). While the fast bomber may very well suffer fewer losses per 1000 sorties, it may not look so good if you figure losses per 1000 tons of bomb dropped.
I would also be rather careful in comparing the speed records set by the JU-88V-5 to actual service speeds even if you leave of the ventral gondola.

tomo pauk · Mar 14, 2014

Excellent analysis, well worth reading.
Again, some comments:

British have an engine problem. While the Armstrong Siddley Tiger engine provides at least fair service during the 30s (and is the first production engine with a 2 speed supercharger) it hits a development dead end at under 1000hp. The Bristol Mercury and Pegasus won't go much over 1000/1100hp HP even with 100 octane and the Hercules is running late. Merlin already has more airfames needing it than can be supplied at times. For some reason they do not try a 4 engine bomber with under 1000hp engines just to get something going ( guys in the treasury again?).

IIRC the Pegasus, Tiger and Mercury were fulfilling the Bomber command needs by a large margin? The Battle can receive Pegasus, it will provide even more HP on take off, though the speed would not be something to brag around. Or, cancel the Battle all together after 700-800 examples built, that makes up for further 1300 Merlins before 1940 ends? Not developing the Exe and Peregrine gives more resources to develop and produce more Merlins. Not going for Defiant gives further 1000+ Merlins, part of wich can go for bombers' needs.

Bomber "theory" in the 1930s also vastley under estimated the size of the bombs that were needed to really damage large structures. Bomb loads comprising large numbers of "small" bombs of 100/110lb and 220/250lb sizes were often specified. This leads to a lot of designs having trouble being upgraded to large size (500lb and up) bombs in large numbers without a lot of work.

Going for a high wing aircraft, with uninterrupted bomb bay should help to retain flexibility re. bomb sizes? Eg. the Hampden (1st flight in 1936) has been able to carry, in a bomb bay, a magnetic mine weighting 2000 lbs, a far cry what the Ju-88 or He-111 were capable for.

Fast bombers can be useful but they also have problems, like not real great range. The JU-88 was one example of this. Using the same or slightly better engines than the He 111 it carried a LOT less fuel in the wings. Now consider it could carry a few less bombs in the bomb bay ( He 111 could carry 32 50 Kg bombs compared to the JU-88s 28 ) Range of a JU-88A-1 with full internal bomb load was 620 miles at 217mph at 18,050ft. ( hardly a problem for any decent monoplane interceptor). It could make 1055 miles by using the forward bomb bay as fuel space but that cut the bomb load to a mere ten 50kg bombs ( 1/3 what the He 111 carried). While the fast bomber may very well suffer fewer losses per 1000 sorties, it may not look so good if you figure losses per 1000 tons of bomb dropped.

We know that Ju-88's performance was compromised by modifying it to the dive bombing, and addition of crew members, guns gun positions and ammo. The aircraft was bigger than Mosquito, Pe-2 or A-20, and the speed will be lower than those. Some foresight will be needed re. internal fuel tanks.
The RAF can keep it's LR bombers, until the fast bomber is perfected.

I would also be rather careful in comparing the speed records set by the JU-88V-5 to actual service speeds even if you leave of the ventral gondola.

Ditto. I'd really love to see performance numbers conditions of the aircraft in the tests.

Shortround6 · Mar 14, 2014

IIRC the Pegasus, Tiger and Mercury were fulfilling the Bomber command needs by a large margin? The Battle can receive Pegasus, it will provide even more HP on take off, though the speed would not be something to brag around. Or, cancel the Battle all together after 700-800 examples built, that makes up for further 1300 Merlins before 1940 ends? Not developing the Exe and Peregrine gives more resources to develop and produce more Merlins. Not going for Defiant gives further 1000+ Merlins, part of wich can go for bombers' needs.

A Battle with a Pegasus engine would be even more useless than a standard Battle.

Vickers Wellesley bomber that went into service in April 1937 and went on to equip 6 Home squadrons before being shuffled off to the mid-east.

Five were modified for the long range record setting flight to Australia with longer, lower drag cowls. But even a Wellington/Hampden type cowl means a lot of drag.

Please remember that the Battle was never intended to be a tactical bomber or support aircraft. While the 2 speed Pegasus offers more power for take-off it offers around 150hp less at 15,500ft and has more drag. The 257mph top speed of the Battle at 15,000ft becomes???? Range drops to?????

Here is were the Battle fit into things.

Expansion Schemes

In 1934 they planned to add 41 1/2 new squadrons to the RAF by early 1939. The plan was constantly "updated and improved" with "proposed" front line strength in March 1939 rising from 1,544 aircraft in the July 1934 plan to 2,770 aircraft (still in March of 1939) in the Jan 1937 plan. At the Time of the Jan 1937 plan not a single squadron had received a single Battle, Blenheim or Wellesley bomber let alone Hurricane or Spitfire.

What do you equip these squadrons with? Granted the Plan/s fell behind schedule but waiting for better airframes to use the Merlin engines in means a whole lot of "pilots" running about over grassy fields with arms outstretched making vrooom, vrooom noises while mechanics and fitters dismantle and reassemble the the officer pilots Austin 7 cars

Going for a high wing aircraft, with uninterrupted bomb bay should help to retain flexibility re. bomb sizes? Eg. the Hampden (1st flight in 1936) has been able to carry, in a bomb bay, a magnetic mine weighting 2000 lbs, a far cry what the Ju-88 or He-111 were capable for.

In part because the requirement for the Hampden required it to carry a torpedo. Large, uninterrupted bomb bays impose a structural penalty. Take a few cardboard mailing tubes and cut a series of holes in them on one side, small and large or a number of small holes in one tube. How much bracing do you think you have to add to the one with largest, longest hole to get back the strength?

The Whitley and Stirling (in addition to the Battle) had bomb bays in the wings.

We know that Ju-88's performance was compromised by modifying it to the dive bombing, and addition of crew members, guns gun positions and ammo. The aircraft was bigger than Mosquito, Pe-2 or A-20, and the speed will be lower than those. Some foresight will be needed re. internal fuel tanks.

You need more than foresight, you need volume near the center of gravity, Thin airfoils on small wings means less volume in the wings for fuel tanks ( or some rather innovative construction?) and fuselage tanks need to be near the center of gravity just like the bomb load, or a fancy fuel management system (pilot/flight engineer switching tanks) to keep the airplane in trim. The last has been done but violates the KISS principal and WILL result in higher accidents/operational losses. (Private twin engine aircraft like Piper Aerostars with complicated fuel systems have higher accident rates than similar twins with simpler systems)

tomo pauk · Mar 14, 2014

Shortround6 said:
A Battle with a Pegasus engine would be even more useless than a standard Battle.
Vickers Wellesley bomber that went into service in April 1937 and went on to equip 6 Home squadrons before being shuffled off to the mid-east.

Five were modified for the long range record setting flight to Australia with longer, lower drag cowls. But even a Wellington/Hampden type cowl means a lot of drag.

You will remember what I've proposed to do with Battles. The Battles with a radial should hopefully be looking like, well, Battles with a radial (from airpages.ru):

Please remember that the Battle was never intended to be a tactical bomber or support aircraft. While the 2 speed Pegasus offers more power for take-off it offers around 150hp less at 15,500ft and has more drag. The 257mph top speed of the Battle at 15,000ft becomes???? Range drops to?????

I never claimed that Battle is intended to be a tactical bomber, like Ju-87 or Su-2. The performance figures will go down, no doubt about that.
The fast bomber with 2 Merlins will assume tasks that radial (or any) Battle is unfit for.

Here is were the Battle fit into things.

Expansion Schemes
In 1934 they planned to add 41 1/2 new squadrons to the RAF by early 1939. The plan was constantly "updated and improved" with "proposed" front line strength in March 1939 rising from 1,544 aircraft in the July 1934 plan to 2,770 aircraft (still in March of 1939) in the Jan 1937 plan. At the Time of the Jan 1937 plan not a single squadron had received a single Battle, Blenheim or Wellesley bomber let alone Hurricane or Spitfire.

What do you equip these squadrons with? Granted the Plan/s fell behind schedule but waiting for better airframes to use the Merlin engines in means a whole lot of "pilots" running about over grassy fields with arms outstretched making vrooom, vrooom noises while mechanics and fitters dismantle and reassemble the the officer pilots Austin 7 cars

Just by looking at the number of new designs slated for the RAF of late 1930s it is clear that RAF's fortunes were not wholy dependent on Battle alone. Wellington, Whitley, Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufort, Wellesley, two separate torpedo bombers. Then Anson, half combat half training plane. Plus fighters, four separate designs? Five, if we include Whirlwind.

In part because the requirement for the Hampden required it to carry a torpedo. Large, uninterrupted bomb bays impose a structural penalty. Take a few cardboard mailing tubes and cut a series of holes in them on one side, small and large or a number of small holes in one tube. How much bracing do you think you have to add to the one with largest, longest hole to get back the strength?

At any rate, Hampden managed to have a bomb bay without any great weight increase. Even if one has an intersected bomb bay, they need to make reinforcements. Big bomb bay will have less reinforcements, but each will be stronger to made up for lack of numbers.

The Whitley and Stirling (in addition to the Battle) had bomb bays in the wings.

Never loved those features

You need more than foresight, you need volume near the center of gravity, Thin airfoils on small wings means less volume in the wings for fuel tanks ( or some rather innovative construction?) and fuselage tanks need to be near the center of gravity just like the bomb load, or a fancy fuel management system (pilot/flight engineer switching tanks) to keep the airplane in trim. The last has been done but violates the KISS principal and WILL result in higher accidents/operational losses. (Private twin engine aircraft like Piper Aerostars with complicated fuel systems have higher accident rates than similar twins with simpler systems)

Mosquito was holding 536 imp gals in it's wings (644 US gallons), the wing being smaller and thinner than of Ju-88.

added: Ju-88A-4 and A-14 were carrying 1680 liters in wing tanks, or about 370 imp gals.

Shortround6 · Mar 14, 2014

tomo pauk said:
You will remember what I've proposed to do with Battles. The Battles with a radial should hopefully be looking like, well, Battles with a radial (from airpages.ru):

I believe that is a test mule for a Hercules. By the time you have any Hercules engines to spare about the last thing you want to do with them is stick them on a Battle.

The fast bomber with 2 Merlins will assume tasks that radial (or any) Battle is unfit for.

Click to expand...

The Battles did perform a great service to the RAF and the commonwealth as operational trainers. Perhaps too many were built but if you cut the numbers too much you just have to build more Ansons or (heaven forbid) Bothas

Just by looking at the number of new designs slated for the RAF of late 1930s it is clear that RAF's fortunes were not wholy dependent on Battle alone. Wellington, Whitley, Hampden, Blenheim, Beaufort, Wellesley, two separate torpedo bombers. Then Anson, half combat half training plane. Plus fighters, four separate designs? Five, if we include Whirlwind.

Click to expand...

Somewhat true but the timing is not quite the same. It takes until the end of 1938 to get two squadrons equipped with Hampdens. Due in large part with problems with the Taurus engines the First operational squadron doesn't get any Beauforts until Jan 1940. While the Whitley I started to reach it's first squadron in March 1937 it was with somewhat unreliable engines and production was slow. Later Tigers were better but the Merlin X really helped. 7 squadrons total were equipped with Whitley's at the start of the war . One reason the Blenheim was still in use in 1942 is not because the British really thought it was very good but because several of the aircraft that were supposed to replace it were failures. The fact that the Anson was still being used in combat squadrons is also a clue that the British did not have the numbers of 1st line combat aircraft they wanted.
Please look at the time form first flights (or from the flight of the 2nd prototype which was often the first "production" model and went straight to "official" tests rather than squadron service) to when a plane was actually 'trickled' into squadron service, I say 'trickled' because it often took several months for the 1st and 2nd squadrons to get a full compliment of aircraft. Battles served with 17 bomber squadrons at the outbreak of the war. They served with 4 Polish bomber squadrons during 1940 and with 7 training squadrons from Sept 1939 to Nov 1940. 739 Battles were sent to Canada for use as trainers and 364 went to Australia. Again I say perhaps too many were made but if you cut the numbers by around 1000 then you do have to come with at least 500-800 of something else and no, they can't be Tiger Moths

Never loved those features

Click to expand...

Well, they did allow the plane/s to carry a lot of 250lb bombs.

Mosquito was holding 536 imp gals in it's wings (644 US gallons), the wing being smaller and thinner than of Ju-88.

Click to expand...

yes and no, it carried 400 gallons in eight tanks in the wings between the fuselage and engines and outboard of the engines ( JU-88 carried 369 gal in four tanks?) while the Mosquito had a pair of 68 gallon tanks in the wing where it passed through the fuselage (or in the top of the bomb bay?)

tomo pauk · Mar 14, 2014

Shortround6 said:
I believe that is a test mule for a Hercules. By the time you have any Hercules engines to spare about the last thing you want to do with them is stick them on a Battle.

Nope, it's the Wright Cyclone on board.

The Battles did perform a great service to the RAF and the commonwealth as operational trainers. Perhaps too many were built but if you cut the numbers too much you just have to build more Ansons or (heaven forbid) Bothas

Agreed on all accounts.

Somewhat true but the timing is not quite the same. It takes until the end of 1938 to get two squadrons equipped with Hampdens. Due in large part with problems with the Taurus engines the First operational squadron doesn't get any Beauforts until Jan 1940. While the Whitley I started to reach it's first squadron in March 1937 it was with somewhat unreliable engines and production was slow. Later Tigers were better but the Merlin X really helped. 7 squadrons total were equipped with Whitley's at the start of the war . One reason the Blenheim was still in use in 1942 is not because the British really thought it was very good but because several of the aircraft that were supposed to replace it were failures. The fact that the Anson was still being used in combat squadrons is also a clue that the British did not have the numbers of 1st line combat aircraft they wanted.
Please look at the time form first flights (or from the flight of the 2nd prototype which was often the first "production" model and went straight to "official" tests rather than squadron service) to when a plane was actually 'trickled' into squadron service, I say 'trickled' because it often took several months for the 1st and 2nd squadrons to get a full compliment of aircraft. Battles served with 17 bomber squadrons at the outbreak of the war. They served with 4 Polish bomber squadrons during 1940 and with 7 training squadrons from Sept 1939 to Nov 1940. 739 Battles were sent to Canada for use as trainers and 364 went to Australia. Again I say perhaps too many were made but if you cut the numbers by around 1000 then you do have to come with at least 500-800 of something else and no, they can't be Tiger Moths

Thanks for the number of training Battles that went overseas for training, as well as for other data. 1100 Battles that really don't need Merlins, but can be equipped with something more in supply and less in demand.

Well, they did allow the plane/s to carry a lot of 250lb bombs.

Same thing would allow a decent bomb bay, if that feature is badly wanted/needed?

yes and no, it carried 400 gallons in eight tanks in the wings between the fuselage and engines and outboard of the engines ( JU-88 carried 369 gal in four tanks?) while the Mosquito had a pair of 68 gallon tanks in the wing where it passed through the fuselage (or in the top of the bomb bay?)

Thanks for correction. The fuselage tanks still allowed the Mosquito to carry full bomb load of 2000 lbs. With cookie aboard, the fuel was down to 500 imp gals, because of weight limit?

Shortround6 · Mar 14, 2014

tomo pauk said:
Thanks for the number of training Battles that went overseas for training, as well as for other data. 1100 Battles that really don't need Merlins, but can be equipped with something more in supply and less in demand.

They may not need Merlins but part of the idea of using only semi-obsolete aircraft ( instead of totally obsolete, like Hart biplanes) for "operational training" is that you are training both aircrew (air gunner/radio operators/ bomb aimers/navigators. etc) and to some extent ground crew. It might be nice for the engine mechanics to have few months working on some sort of Merlin before posting to a combat squadron flying Merlin powered aircraft.
And for British engines in 1938-40 you are pretty much limited to the Bristol Mercury and Pegasus for alternative engines. The Bristol Sleeve valves aren't around in any quantity and the ones that are working are in higher demand than the Merlin. The Tiger really doesn't bear thinking about and that leaves..............?
Mercury may be marginal in power and the Pegasus is being loaded into Hampdens, Wellingtons, Sunderlands, Swordfish and a few other odd aircraft.

tomo pauk · Mar 15, 2014

The overseas engine mechancics' crews will have to learn the Merlin's intricaties on Hurricanes.

Leaving the good old Battle aside for a moment, what about the 'other' engine makers designers? Whar should the Napier be working on from start of 1936? Armstrong Siddeley? Fairey? Bristol, apart Hercules?

Shortround6 · Mar 15, 2014

tomo pauk said:
Leaving the good old Battle aside for a moment, what about the 'other' engine makers designers? Whar should the Napier be working on from start of 1936? Armstrong Siddeley? Fairey? Bristol, apart Hercules?

Not all factories/companies were the same size.
Fairey, for example had no engine production capability. An experimental shop yes, the ability to make hundred engines a month of any type, no.
Armstrong Siddeley had a bunch of good trainer engines. The basis of the Tiger dates back to the end of WW I.
Bristol was stretched thin as it was, dumping the Taurus might have bought something, but a whole "new" engine?
The Sabre, with 20/20 hind sight was a complete waste of time and effort. Work started in late 1935 (just before your start date) and the engine only became reliable in squadron service in 1943?
7 years or more goes back to the A-S Deerhound, it usually took 3-5 years to go from drawing board to squadron use for engine with 5 years being more likely than 3. The R-2800 took around 2 years from first flight (not first run) to squadron use in the B-26.
Any engine you can dream up in 1936-37 is probably too late for the BoB even in small numbers so it's impact is going to come later in the war.

tomo pauk · Mar 15, 2014

Wasn't hard to agree on that

How much there is point in tweaking up the Rapier, or at least it's installation? Maybe Napier and Fairey can be 'persuaded' to join their forces into making a H-16 or H-24 engine(s), 40-50 L, with poppet valves? Griffon should fill the 1500 HP 'slot' initially? Canceling the Taurus, and maybe Perseus should bought some time for the Hercules?

Shortround6 · Mar 15, 2014

No point at all in playing with the Rapier, it's 1000hp was at 8,000ft. it didn't make any more power at 15,000ft than the Peregrine and juggling supercharger drive ratios isn't really going to buy you much over all.

The Fairey Monarch may have worked fairly well as it was but had some real problems trying to develop it for more power without a total redesign.
Trouble with the Perseus is that it is a sleeve valve Mercury, you can get a bit more power out of it but it is still a 1520 cu in (24.9 liter) air cooled engine. nothing you do to it will move into a different class of engine.

fastmongrel · Mar 15, 2014

Tell Bristol to give up any hope of selling anything to the RAF/FAA in the future other than Hercules and Pegasus and get them to give up on the dozen other engines they were messing with. Tell Armstrong Siddeley to root round in the spares box and find a decent set of bearings. Get a big Canadian company with production line experience to buy the rights to the PW R1830 with an option to build any future PW engines.

tomo pauk · Mar 15, 2014

In my grand scheme (TM), the Canadians will be starting producing the Merlins in 1938, or latest in 1939.

January 1936: build your RAF

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Senior Airman

Major

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

1st Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads