Most Useful Plane Not Produced

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

Just to combine thread subject matter a bit, get Blackburn to produce Joe Smith of Supermarine's Griffon engined Sea Spitfire of 1938 as the next Fleet Air Arm single-seat fighter, instead of bidding and winning a contract to build the Firebrand in 1940.

Traditionally, Smith proposed the idea to the Admiralty to expedite a carrier fighter version of the Spitty, but it didn't go ahead for two reasons. One, the Air Ministry intervened and wanted all Spitfire development to be for the RAF and two, the Admiralty asked Fairey to build it under licence, but Richard Fairey refused, so it didn't happen. Getting Blackburn to do it makes sense as it had capacity to do so and the FAA could have had a Seafire with a Griffon engine on its carriers in 1941.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Bristol Bombay (51 produced), Handley Page Harrow (100 produced) and top of list the one-off Armstrong Whitworth A.W.23.
Click to expand...

The thing is, these aircraft were all designed as bomber transports. They weren't the best bombers and they weren't the best transports. The Whitley essentially used the technology of the AW.23 and producing it was arguably a more sensible decision than building the AW.23. Building more Bristol Bombays could have helped Britain out of a transport capacity hole, but work has to be contracted out because Bristol is busy building Blenheims, Beauforts and then Beaufighters.

The Harrow was ground breaking in one respect; it was the first British bomber designed with power operated turrets (The BP Overstrand just had one and was essentially a modified Sidestrand). Handley Page designed the gun positions, which, although the entire turret did not revolve, the clear covers were fixed, the gun mounting within was designed by Nash and Thompson and moved electrically within the casing. But again, this was a bomber transport (designed by Gustav Lachmann, responsible for the Hampden) and building it might have meant not building enough bombers.
 

This is my thinking as well, no MkV or MkIX, just the MkIII, VIII and XIV, those models fix all the regular squadron issue Spits shortcomings.
 
The Spitfire is not a good place to start. Unless the warp prone frame and access panels can be addressed, along with the weak, narrow and bouncing undercarriage and short endurance I'd rather Smith or my favourite designer W.E.W. Petter be given a clean sheet to make a >330 mph, single seat, single engine, Merlin-powered, retractible undercarriage, all metal, long range, eight gun fighter bespoke for the FAA.

Absolutely stay away from Napier-powered ideas like the Firebrand or Typhoon.... just get the FAA a bespoke Merlin fighter as I describe above. I'd love to have seen what Petter would have done with such a spec. For the 1930s his streamlining on the Whirlwind was something else, though his postwar Wyvern wasn't very pretty.
 
Last edited:
Fw 190 with DB 603A engine for the Germans (despite the DB 603A not being that reliable in 1943).
 
Nice topic and interesting suggestions. To me, one aircraft stands out as a "lost opportunity" in the sense that it would have filled a critical void in that country's air forces and that is the Dornier-335. Typical of German administrative blunders, development was delayed numerous times due to changing desires and politics. Had the Do-335 been produced it would have created an effective counter to the DeHavilland Mosquito and created a gun platform that would have had significant survivability and firepower to attack allied bomber formations. On the other hand, it was expensive and resource intensive.

The other plane that comes to mind is the Martin-Baker 3 (or griffon powered MB-4) Rugged, heavily armed, easy to maintain, and cost effective to manufacture. It probably doesn't fill any significant void for the RAF, but seems like a lost opportunity all the same.
 

I love Do 335. But it does not meet this exercise precondition, since the first prototype was not available until September or October 1943. Please correct if I'm mistaken.
 
Dimlee said:
I love Do 335. But it does not meet this exercise precondition, since the first prototype was not available until September or October 1943. Please correct if I'm mistaken.
Click to expand...

Greetings Dimlee,

You are correct, however, I used the OP's "give or take" kind of liberally as well as the likelihood that the 335 would have been in the air earlier without German administrative indecisiveness. There was at least one stop work order, redesign for new purpose, then resumption that delayed the plane's development by a few months.

From the OP - Was available in prototype form by Jun '43 (give or take)

Thanks for keeping me honest - Kk
 
Admiral Beez said:
Why? Fw 190 was a superlative fighter with the BMW and Junkers engines. Does a DB-powered variant, likely entering service by late 1943 or early 1944 offer any advantages?
Click to expand...

By late 1943, the Fw 190s with BMW engines were 'just' about equal to the Spitfire VII/VIII/IX/XII, Typhoon and P-38, and inferior to the P-47s. Having the DB 603A in the nose instead buys them extra 20+ mph due to the lower drag of the engine, ~15% more power at altitude, and a better ram air intake, thus making them equal to the P-47, like the Fw 190D-9 offered (including the increase of the climb rate). The DB 603A used B4 fuel, the BMW 801D used C3.
Against the Jumo 213A, advantage of DB 603A is that later engine is in volume production by late 1943, unlike the former.
If the DB 603E is installed, that offers another useful increase of performance, especially at high altitudes, and this time also against the 190D-9.

FWIW: table.
 
I'm going to beg some leeway here on the production cap. Westland Whirlwind, 116 made, just above the 100 unit cap.

Had it been ready earlier for the Battle of Britain, the Whirlwind would have been fantastic at bomber interception. Initial BoB combat took place at altitudes where the Peregrine's HA deficiencies would not be an issue. Later the bombers moved to higher level but the Whirlwind should still be good against plodding bombers at 16,000 to 20,000 feet.
 
Last edited:
Here's another, Cyclone-powered British/CW produced Mohawks, as distinct from USAAC's P&W powered P-36 Hawks.

Curtiss P-36 Hawk - Wikipedia

"In April 1941, the British government of India ordered 48 Cyclone-powered Mohawk IVz (Hawk 75A) for the RIAF, to be built by Hindustan Aircraft. "

Get the Mohawk into produced in Canada, Australia and India. And most importantly match this with pilot training schemes so that these fighters have crews.
 

In my opinion the last thing the RAF needs in 1942 is another plane powered by the Sabre engine. excerpt from the report on the crash of the MB 3

"...engine failure due to a broken sleeve drive crank in the engine "

having a cost effective airframe with an outrageously expensive, troublesome engine doesn't gain you very much.
 


We have been over this. The "Order" for the 48 planes by Hindustan Aircraft, was, in large part due to the fact that a lot of parts and machinery had been evacuated from China.
A company had tried to set up an operation to assemble 55 Hawks in China (from kits) but the original factory had been bombed by the Japanese and after several moves the train/s with evacuated machinery and parts wound up in India.

So India (and the British) had the evacuated machinery/jigs/fixtures sitting in railcars in India along with a number of parts kits and perhaps even crated engines when this "order" was placed.
It was hardly an order placed with Curtiss in the US for parts and equipment to be shipped from the US or an order for Hindustan AIrcraft to build the planes from scratch using Curtiss supplied blue prints. As such it is hardly a model or situation that could be duplicated in another British commonwealth country.
Out of the initial 48 plane order only 8-10 planes were actually completed.
 

Definitely. But it fits the OP's "Missed Opportunity" criteria. I would modify the original statement though. The Curtiss company, given some foresight, could have recognized that there was a fairly significant chance of conflict in Europe involving the British Empire. Even if conflict doesn't occur, by the mid 1930's a clear ramp-up in arms production is occurring, the first steps of an arms race at the very least. Insert said foresight, and early on establish a division, relationship, or otherwise workaround US arms restrictions and set up CC&F as a production facility with jigs and turning out pre-production airframes. Grumman could also make this play given the pre-existing relationship with CC&F.

As I see it, it was a risk. But not a huge one, that there would be customers for these Canadian-built (and therefore not subject to US isolationist policy) warplanes. Either the Mohawk or Wildcat could have hit the ground running in Canadian production. It's just good business (in hindsight).

Edit: I am off-criteria a bit as Wildcat and Hawk were clearly 100+ example aircraft...
 
Three come to mind;
P-38K promised 450MPH and unmatched climb, but officials wouldn't let Lockheed shut down P-38 production for two weeks to retool for it;
P-61E with turbocharged engines from the P-61C would have had outstanding performance, range, and armament. Instead we got an unarmed photo-recon version;
A-38. It performed great but the R-3350 engines it used were needed for B-29s.
 

Attachments

  • Xp-38k.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 77
  • north-p61e.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 76
  • A-38_Grizzly.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 76
Curtiss had been selling planes to China and South America for years. Even sold a few planes to Turkey. The actual window of opportunity is small.
Up until 1938 the British were not going outside the Commonwealth for any military planes or even airliners for the major airlines.
The French placed their first order for Hawk 75s on May 17th 1938 after several months of talks/negotiations for 100 planes. The had also at some point in 1938 taken out on option for another 100 planes which was taken up on March 8th 1939. Some of these French planes were built at the same time as the US Armies P-36s and the Army was not happy, fearing that the French planes would delay their own deliveries.
The French had also ordered the equivalent (in monetary value) of 50 airframes as spare parts. The French would eventually have a total of 730 aircraft either delivered or on order.

The British actually ordered NO Hawk 75s themselves. All Mohawks in British service were the result of taking over other countries orders when the original country could no longer take delivery due to German conquest or in a few cases, of the British taking over a country that had taken delivery of Hawk fighters, Iran.

Given this lack of interest in the radial engine Hawks by the British it is a bit hard to imagine them setting up a commonwealth wide production scheme scheme based on the Hawk instead of the Hurricane. Especially as they would need to import each and every engine for such a scheme.
 
I'm not sure why you chose the June 1943 cutoff date, but a year later I'd have to say the F2G wins hands down. Goodyear was prepping to put it into production when Brewster mis-management forced the Navy to close the plant. Goodyear had to continue FG-1A and FG-1D production to makeup the production losses, and the F2G didn't get into production until the was was nearly over.

Cheers,



Dana
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
5
Views
232
Dr.Mabuse
D
P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
659
Greyman
G
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
599
Snautzer01
Amelia Earhart's plane
Replies
13
Views
2K
GrauGeist
W
Mass produced HS-123s
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
8K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register