Opportunities Missed

[Shortround6]

The engine for it (2 required) was a vastly over complicated set up that stood about zero chance of being developed regardless of the amount of time, money and engineers thrown at it.
Even the "simplified" version was at a level of complexity not even approached until the 1950s. And the 1950s engines didn't try to put an intercooler in between two multi stage compressor units.

 

[Graeme]

A-W Ensign made as a bomber instead as a transport...

Now that's an interesting thought Tomo.
What are your thoughts here - how would you do it?
I've read it had an appalling climb performance - something like 60 seconds to reach 500 ft.

From some angles - it does have a bomber look.

 

[Graeme]

They did arm the older Atalanta...

 

[tomo pauk]

Now that's an interesting thought Tomo.
What are your thoughts here - how would you do it?
I've read it had an appalling climb performance - something like 60 seconds to reach 500 ft.

The basic shape is spot-on.
Once the 1st prototype is revealed as under-powered (no wonder with engines chosen), bolt on the Pegasus engines, or, even better, the Merlins.

 

[Graeme]

Bomb-bay?
Turrets?

 

[tomo pauk]

Bomb-bay?
Turrets?

It is a high-wing aircraft, and big, so bomb bay can be big and unrestricted. Turrets as per Whitley.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which airplane(s) do you think should be considered as missed opportunities to either the nation that came up with the original or to aviation in general. Lets use the period 1930 to 1941 as a rough limit.

The folding wing, navalized Spitfire that Richard Fairey refused to make instead of the Fulmar.

In 1938 Air Marshal Sir William Welsh told Richard Fairey he wanted to order 500 Spitfires for naval use to be completed, ideally, by March 1940. Fairey didn't want to build someone else's aircraft and pushed for continuing the Fulmar, claiming that the latter program was too far along to change.

Someone needs to strongarm the future Sir Richard. The FAA can make do with Sea Gladiators, expedited Sea Hurricanes and Skuas until then.

 

[nuuumannn]

The basic shape is spot-on.

Hmm, I hate to be "that guy", but yeah, it looks like it might make a good bomber... but for the fact that the airframe requires complete internal and external redesign. I did a bit of thinking about this, as ya do and I came to the conclusion that you might as well start from scratch with an entirely new design.

The Ensign airframe requires a complete internal remake, everything needs to be redesigned. Where are you going to put the turrets? the nose and tail needs redesigning, the bomb bay needs to be incorporated below the wing box, and is it going to be below a false floor or just the open fuselage below the wing box, which requires extra internal strengthening? And what about the wings? The centre box spar the Ensign wing is designed around is five feet deep and although the rear half internally was metal, it's covered in fabric. The Whitley was the same. The tail has to be redesigned to incorporate a turret and perhaps the vertical fin has to disappear to become a twin tail, like the Whitley and the AW.23 before it.

Turrets require redesign on the structure to support them, as well as a beefing up of the hydraulic/electrical system to power them. I'd also put either Nash & Thompson or Boulton Paul turrets throughout (The Whitley had AW unpowered turrets to begin with then went to powered N & T in the tail first - the all-powered turret armament didn't appear until the Whitley V) except for N & T top turret prewar, because you'd end up with the nasty FN.7, which was slow to rotate, caused aerodynamic issues on existing types and was generally disliked by the gunners. The top turret fitted to the Lancaster doesn't make an appearance until later. As a result of this extra strengthening and weight and complexity, we are gonna need to beef up the undercarriage too, which will require extra work to the frame supporting them as well as the actuators required to lower and retract them, which means work on the nacelles and wing structure...

AW aircraft were very strong because the firm built box girder bridge structures that resembled aeroplanes, but the performance of which is impacted by the availability of engines, which sadly a Pegasus or such like is just not going to cut it. Merlins or Hercules' will have to suffice. The thing is, the timeline of our bomber Ensign determines a lot of what it is gonna be equipped with. Let's say it is done to B.12/36 (which produced the Stirling), then either Herc or Merlin, turret armament, probably N & T but with the 'orrible FN.7 mid upper turret. In order to build it, Whitley production is gonna have to take a back seat, which the Air Ministry, having ordered them won't be too happy about but not specifically a bad thing, as in real history, the Ensign development was curtailed by the Whitley design and production, which meant only a few were built and they were late in delivery.

So based on the redesign, establishing production lines, slowing Whitley production (because of manpower requirements, it'll take a lot more guys to build a four-engined bomber), perhaps even a new factory, big four-engined bombers take up a lot more space than twin-engined bombers to build, and trials etc, we are looking at an in-service date of around (optimistically) early to mid-1941, give or take a few months if the Stirling designed from scratch is a guide...

To be continued...

 

[nuuumannn]

AW actually produced a bomber to B.12/36 It looked remarkably like a four-engined Whitley, but its bombs were kept entirely in cells in the wings and fuselage, which added built-in obsolescence, with a total of 41 500 lb bombs and was to have a nose, tail and under turret, no top turret - didn't like that FN.7 either eh. It was to be powered by the Merlin or Vulture or the Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound.

 

[nuuumannn]

The folding wing, navalized Spitfire that Richard Fairey refused to make instead of the Fulmar.

Now that makes sense. And as an interim, get some Sea Hurricanes on a carrier deck sooner, and DON'T let the single-seat fighter design tender go to Blackburn!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Now that makes sense. And as an interim, get some Sea Hurricanes on a carrier deck sooner, and DON'T let the single-seat fighter design tender go to Blackburn!

Trouble with Sea Hurricanes is that they don't fit on many of the RN's carriers. Until HMS Indomitable enters service in 1941, after Courageous and Glorious are sunk the only fast carrier that can operate the Sea Hurricane is HMS Furious. Of course if we have an earlier Seafire instead of the Fulmar that might be moot.

 

[SaparotRob]

Drifting off a bit, I wonder how extensive a refit it would've been to increase the size of the remaining carriers lifts. That might get some more fighters at sea.

 

[GrauGeist]

Drifting off a bit, I wonder how extensive a refit it would've been to increase the size of the remaining carriers lifts. That might get some more fighters at sea.

The internal structure would have to completely redone between the hangar deck(s) and the flight deck.
Perhaps not as complex on USN carriers as it would be for RN carriers due to their integral armored flight deck.
It would also mean the carrier would be out of service while modifications were made and if the Navy is down on numbers of carriers due to battle attrition, it's not going to happen.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The internal structure would have to completely redone between the hangar deck(s) and the flight deck.
Perhaps not as complex on USN carriers as it would be for RN carriers due to their integral armored flight deck.
It would also mean the carrier would be out of service while modifications were made and if the Navy is down on numbers of carriers due to battle attrition, it's not going to happen.

Ark Royal would have been a big job, but well worth it if only to remove her double decker lifts where no aircraft could transit from the lower hangar to the flight deck. Furious, Eagle and Hermes would have been easier. Hermes already had her lifts enlarged in the the 1920s but they were still too narrow for non-folding monoplanes. Mind you the aft lift on Hermes may be as wide as possible already if you look at where it's located, essentially in the open sea.

 

[nuuumannn]

Trouble with Sea Hurricanes is that they don't fit on many of the RN's carriers.

Let's not forget that the Blackburn Skua, the fighter/dive bomber was ordered in 1935 and was quite a bit bigger than a Hurricane. Admirals first discussed the idea of a navalised Hurricane in 1937, preferring the idea to the Skua, which had yet to enter service and was believed by some admirals to be obsolescent before it had entered service.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's not forget that the Blackburn Skua, the fighter/dive bomber was ordered in 1935 and was quite a bit bigger than a Hurricane. Admirals first discussed the idea of a navalised Hurricane in 1937, preferring the idea to the Skua, which had yet to enter service and was believed by some admirals to be obsolescent before it had entered service.

It's the Sea Hurricane's lack of folding wings that excludes it from the narrow lift carriers. Skuas fit all ships. Though the Fulmar is too long for Hermes' lift, as the T shape prevents angled positioning on the lift. There was no attempt at a folding Hurricane so unlike the Seafire we can't really consider the former a lost opportunity.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's the Sea Hurricane's lack of folding wings that excludes it from the narrow lift carriers.

The Sea Hurricane as it was an expedient in 1940/41 yes, but presumably in an alternate reality, which we are discussing in this thread, the navalised Hurricane would be thought out as more than a simple rush job. Also, isn't it a bit shortsighted to think that the admiralty should discount a type it clearly showed an interest in because it couldn't fit on existing carriers? Wouldn't you think they would take that into account?

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Sea Hurricane as it was an expedient in 1940/41 yes, but presumably in an alternate reality, which we are discussing in this thread….

If we're including aircraft or mods that were never proposed or seriously considered as "lost opportunities" then we're opening a Pandora's Box of examples. Early support of Whittle with Sea Vampire entering service in 1943-44? But I don't think this thread is about fantasy, but instead covers rejected or delayed aircraft that present real lost opportunities to make an impactful difference. However it's not my house and if we want to go the fantasy route then fill your boots.

 

[nuuumannn]

However it's not my house and if we want to go the fantasy route then fill your boots.

Isn't that what a "Missed Opportunities" thread is about?

Again though, thinking about this logically, if the Admiralty asked Hawker to work on a navalised Hurricane in 1937, presumably there would be work to ensure the aircraft could fit on existing carriers and future ships entering service. Supermarine did the same with the first ideas for the Sea Spitfire that you mention, so why presume Hawker would not? After all, the mid-1930s was still peacetime and despite a build-up of arms construction, work progressed relatively leisurely on aircraft design and construction.

 

[GrauGeist]

If I'm not mistaken, they'd have to redesign the Hurricane's wing in order to have the ability to fold.
The early Hurricanes may have been able to overcome the weight penalty of the reinforced wing and hinging assembly, but the real question is how long would that take to transition from proof of concept to production?