Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They did it eventually when pushed to do it. Hawkers started production without an order because the air ministry didn't order it. Production was delayed by 6 months to build 200 Henleys. The Spitfire doesn't exist in the what if, so use the people doing Spitfires to build Hurricanes, same with Westland. As per my other post, in the late 30s many were acting as if war wasn't coming, Hawker were producing faster than the RAF could accept. It needs the RAF to massively up its game on pilot training.
I wasn't changing the tactics, Dowding didn't let his planes be caught on the ground and fighter airfields were very hard to find. Since from its design it was known to be a stop gap before better things came along, you need to produce more earlier.
What has Mitchell designed instead? His expertise and Schneider Trophy experience won't be left untapped. I suggest he skips the RAF and instead goes straight to the Seafire, but with the Seafang's wider undercarriage, perhaps without the Spitfire's elliptical wing.A what-if situation emerges where, for this or that reason, Spitfire as we know it never sees the light of the day.
Perhaps upon seeing the FAA's superlative fighter in 1939, Beaverbrook demands that Vickers makes some land-based Seafire/Seafangs for the RAF, with the first squadrons of Supermarine Spitefuls entering service for the BoB.Without the Spitfire, Britain would have been seriously under-equipped to have dealt with the Luftwaffe onslaught in 1940. Unless there was another single-seat fighter available instead.
Frank Whittle gets the nod earlier, Gloster's Meteor enters service in 1942.
Perhaps upon seeing the FAA's superlative fighter in 1939, Beaverbrook demands that Vickers makes some land-based Seafires for the RAF.
Over Mitchell's soon to be dead body, imo.Perhaps. Vickers has the Venom at the same time as Supermarine has the Spitfire. If there was no Spitfire, perhaps the Venom gets put into production?
True. But only, in the case of the Venom if the AM buys it.Vickers owns Supermarine. If McLean says Supermarine builds the Venom, Supermarine builds the Venom (or he gets them to build Mitchell and Smith's naval fighter...).
True. But only, in the case of the Venom if the AM buys it.
Grant, why not the Boulton Paul P.94?
It was found to be better in performance than the Hurricane and comparable to the Spitfire.
Since (historically) they already had the Spitfire in production, the P.94 went no further.
Now, since the Spitfire has been removed from the timeline in this scenario, the P.94 might have a shot?
And the fact that aircraft development was moving faster than production ability. By the time you delivered 600 of an aircraft type, it was likely superseded.Yes, it was the largest single order for an individual aircraft type. Aircraft during the Great War nominally had orders placed with individual firms, such as Sopwith tasking Beardmore with building Pups and Camels, but typical orders rarely exceeded 150 and were on average around 40 to 50 aircraft in each contract. The first mass order for Camels was 200 with the parent firm, following this, however, Camel production was spread over lots of different companies. The biggest orders were around 100 to 150. for example, in very early 1917, Beardmore was given two separate orders for 50 Camels each. Not long after, Sopwith placed contracts of 100 and 131 Ship's Camels with Clayton and Shuttleworth - the former, and Beardmore, the latter. In late 1917, for example, Ruston and Proctor were given a contract to build 6 Camels. These were delivered to the Aircraft Acceptance Parks throughout March, with the last arriving with an AAP in April 1918, this is after building 19 from an order placed in early 1917. Simultaneously, Portholme Aerodrome Ltd was given an order for 21 Camels.
Aircraft companies just didn't have the resources to handle such large orders since they were generally handcrafted at the time. The concepts of massed production lines and jigs simply didn't exist in the Great War.
With the Spitfire out, the P.94 is also the FAA's fastest route to an all metal single seat fighter. Wide undercarriage and easy placement of the wing fold. I like it.Grant, why not the Boulton Paul P.94?
It was found to be better in performance than the Hurricane and comparable to the Spitfire.
Try the Merlin on the Gloster F.5/34 (along with better U/C for next version). Talk with Fokker for the D.XXI with Merlin and retractable U/C
the P.94 is also the FAA's fastest route to an all metal single seat fighter.