Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not sure how high altitude it was intended to be, since neither the Sabre or Vulture were particularly high altitude engines at that time.
Also, the Tornado/Typhoon was designed to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire. That it did not replace the Spitfire is an indication of its failings.
Is or has anyone argued against the importance of the merlin? Rhetorical question that, you know the answer
In your scenario, there would/could have been...
No Swordfish (or a massively compromised one with a less developed engine). Highly likely no sinking of Bismark. No crippling of the Italian fleet at Taranto... and thousands of unsunk ships, and a lot of detected, deflected or unsunk subs too.... oh and no 'woolworth' carriers as there'd be nothing to fly off them - and a big loss of anti-sub capability for the convoys later in the war. No torpedo bomber at all until the arrival of the Avenger and/or the awful Barracuda if you'll allow that to slip through on the grounds that its powered by the holy Merlin.
In fact, a world without 'the crap' leaves the FAA with nothing in the early stages until the arrival of the Sea Hurricane. So, no Sea Gladiator, no Skua, No Albacore, and no Fulmar. Without the latter, you massively up the chances of Malta falling too, as it provided most of the aircover in the Mediterranean in the early years of war
No Wellington or Stirling or Hampden. So no early bomber campaign - apart from the most vulnerable of all of the early heavies, the Whitley, if you'll excuse it on the basis that it has merlin engines. So that puts back both the campaign and the development of technology and technique by at least two years. It also gives the Germans the opportunity to divert significant numbers of aircraft, manpower and munitions to other fronts for a critical couple of years. (The Vickers Wellington with Bristol Hercules engines was the *most* produced UK bomber in WW2 - 600 of the bombers in the Thousand Bomber raid on Cologne were Wellingtons...) Wellingtons and Hampdens were also very useful torpedo bombers later in the war. Again, the Wellingtons were critical in helping cutting Rommel's supplies across the med.
No unsung but vital early transports - no Harrow, no Bombay, no converted Stirlings or Halifaxes and no Albermarle. So no glider tugs for DDay either. Nowt to see until the DC3 starts to arrive in significant numbers.
Coastal command has to basically give up on tackling the subs and protecting convoys - no (or massively compromised) Sunderland, no Anson, no maritime Whitleys or Halifaxes... All they've got left is a handful of Hudsons and Catalinas and a thin dribble of Liberators arriving piecemeal later on. The impact on the Atlantic war is probably going to be critical. Hows Harris going to react for a request for Lancasters...
Post DDay, no developed Typhoon with the sabre issues largely cured. So thats a massive compromise to the fighter-bomber campaign. What are the RAF going to do instead? Labour on with totally obsolete Hurricanes? For all its strengths and the fact that it was used occasionally as a fighter bomber, the spit is neither long ranged or rugged enough to entirely suit these operations - neither was it successfully adapted to take 8 x 60lb rockets.... You also lose the Tempest, a useful late war fighter bomber, and also the most successful aircraft for intercepting the V1s...
No Blenheim and no Beaufighter, so there's no early development of AI and technique for the nightfighters beyond the Defiant and Havoc
Why was the 'obsolete' Hurricane being produced until 1944? Because it was not obsolete in the far east and Burma; its construction and performance suited the low tech, harsh and spartan environment there - besides which, there were not spare more advanced types to be had
.... I think I could carry on in this vein for sometime...
The fact was that Merlin production and development WAS prioritised - lots of other engines were side-lined or abandoned; Peregrine for RR, Taurus for Bristol etc. The same with scores of designs and prototype airframes too - not because they weren't promising, but because the Ministries at least had a strategy for production prioritisation. You also seen to be ignoring that the manufacturers you mention WERE subcontracted to produce components and parts for many other aircraft than their on types anyway.
Going b@lls out for spitfire and merlin production leaves a small island well protected from a by a mid-war pretty much non-existent German bomber force (that would only have operated by night anyway), but pretty much unable to conduct a global war in all theatres. It also ignores hindsight - no one realised how well the Spit was going to be able to cope with being continually updated and improved.
Anyhoo, thats my take.
Just because the RAF gets more Spitfires it doesn't mean every other plane is cancelled, Fairy is a good point in proving the total waste or resources most of the manufactures were guilty of, the swordfish replaced the plane built to replace it, how can you make a replacement plane worse than it's predecessor, my point about the Hurricane is also why make them, they were obsolete, Spit XII's would have been more useful until the Typhoon was sorted
Why make Hurricanes you say
It is low tech for manufacture and maintenance. Does not require stretch presses or close tolerance alloy tube manufacture or extruded sections for wing ribs or the proverbial hundred other problems that Spitfire manufacture had.
It is low man-hours for manufacture - the Spitfire man-hours were obscene. MkII on had pressed ribs - a few minutes to make each rib instead of the multiple hours that each Spitfire wing rib took.
Major structural repairs can be done without a large workshop full of fancy tooling and highly skilled metal workers
It does not break its back or bend its tailplane during high G manoeuvres like the Spitfire does
It can carry anti tank guns, etc
It can operate off rough and sodden airfields
It can carry a decent bomb load
It does not have the very unreliable and high maintenance Rotol prop
It has multi position flaps on the wings - not two position like the Spitfire - and that makes approach and landing at difficult aerodromes far far easier.
It is easy to maintain and repair as the whole belly and large side panels come off providing good clear access
Etc
Etc
Etc
And it could still do jobs that were needed and that the Spitfire could not.
There may have been problems with the early Spits. The elevators were overly sensitive (powerful) and precise control was difficult. This was noted in flight tests against a Hawk 75 and may have been noted earlier?Never heard of the Spitfire breaking its back maneuvering, nor bending its tail plane. Though neither would be unique to the Spitfire, if it were the case.
Going to the other extreme, Hawker Typhoons that carried 1000lb bombs instead of 500lb bombs very often had the larger tail plane of the Tempest fitted. Exactly why I don't know but it seems to have become universal for later Typhoons coming off the production lines and some earlier ones were refitted with the larger tail planes. The Typhoon required several modifications in order to be effective with two 1000lb bombs. It was more than beefing up the bomb racks from the two 500lb load standard.
I am not sure about the reasons why they got the larger tail planes.
I know they got them, I know (have read) that some older planes were refitted (at what level of maintenance I don't know).
Point is that that Typhoon was not really ready to go ground pounding in 1942/43 like it did in 1944.
A lot of planes needed tweaks to reach full potential.
HiSome quick research seems to confirm that the larger tail plane was fitted at the same time as the 4 blade prop.
The Devastators job at Midway was cannon fodder. The Swordfish could do that equally well. The bonus for the Swordfish is that British torpedoes actually worked so if by some remote chance a Swordfish was able to launch a torpedo it might do damage. As for the Avengers at Midway, 6 went out 5 came back and that one never flew again. 16 of 18 crew dead, no damage to the enemy. The Swordfish couldn't have done much worse .No one said the Swordfish was any of those things, it was the only aircraft suitable for it's environment and it was an environment it excelled in, but lets be honest, would you fight Midway, Coral Sea or Pearl Harbour with it, no.
The Devastators job at Midway was cannon fodder. The Swordfish could do that equally well. The bonus for the Swordfish is that British torpedoes actually worked so if by some remote chance a Swordfish was able to launch a torpedo it might do damage. As for the Avengers at Midway, 6 went out 5 came back and that one never flew again. 16 of 18 crew dead, no damage to the enemy. The Swordfish couldn't have done much worse .
I not saying the Swordfish would have done better than the Avenger, I am saying that any unescorted torpedo bomber was easy meat. In fact, the loss rate of all torpedo bombers in 1942 was horrendous, even with escorts. As for a comparison with the Devastator, from what I have been able to ascertain a torpedo laden Devastator actually cruised at a slower speed than a similarly laden Swordfish. The Devastator was a monoplane with the performance of a biplane. Even the much maligned Fairey Battle was a much faster aircraft.If an Avenger proved vulnerable under those conditions - what chance the Swordfish? The Grumman Avenger had twice the speed and much heavier defensive armament than the Swordfish, as well as a greater combat radius.
The elevator shape was changedThere may have been problems with the early Spits. The elevators were overly sensitive (powerful) and precise control was difficult. This was noted in flight tests against a Hawk 75 and may have been noted earlier?
It was also fixed fairly easily by installing a bob weight in the control circuit. This may not have been a 100% fix but it did go a long way in reducing over controlling. Later versions may have used something a bit different?
As for a comparison with the Devastator, from what I have been able to ascertain a torpedo laden Devastator actually cruised at a slower speed than a similarly laden Swordfish.
According to Eric Browns "Wings of the Navy" the Swordfish maximum cruise speed was 128 mph. Its econ cruise was 104 mph at 5,000 feet (with 1,500 lb bomb load)You may need to come up with a reference for that, sounds unlikely to me. One monoplane that the Swordfish biplane might be able to outrun would be the Fieseler Storch, or the L-4 Cub maybe?
I'm pretty sure you meant UN-aerodynamic, with that curious nose-down attitude.Note that the way the Devastator carried a torpedo was extremely aerodynamic.
Yes!I'm pretty sure you meant UN-aerodynamic, with that curious nose-down attitude.