Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What the heck is OTL and ATL?
Doesn't compute.
Merlin, based on your comment on the Defiant, I suspect you have little to say about it. The fact was that it was not being used in the role for which it was designed. Its failure was also down to tactics. It could have played a different part in the BoB had it been employed in the role for which it was designed - as a bomber destroyer and it was based in 13 Group in the north and Scotland, where LW bombers did not have single-seat fighter escort. This would also make RAF single-seat fighters based in the north available down south. The other problem with the Defiant was not just its low speed, but also its numbers, there weren't that many of them; only two squadrons, of which only one was active in more than one day's combat. As a nightfighter the Defiant performed admirably and became the RAF's night fighter of choice until the Beaufighters and Mossies entered service in suitable numbers in 1942.
But it puzzles me how it got into service, I presume no one thought of France falling.
...There was no way the P-36 was going to be ready in time for the BoB. The first French examples arrived in the UK in August 1940, but it took many months before they were made serviceable for RAF/SAAF squadron service, not until the very end of the year...
Other alternatives, if UK aero industry was freed to work on them:In OTL in the BoB the RAF had three single-engine fighters, the Hurricane, the Spitfire Defiant - the less said about the latter as possible.
Where possible the tactics were for the Spits to take on the 109s, but in practice it didn't always happen that way.
Any German 109 pilot that was shot down always insisted it was by a Spit - such was the low regard they held the Hurricane!
So, given that the Spit v 109 was a close call, they both had their advantages, and the Hurricane v 109 whilst the 109 was superior it didn't 'win' all the encounters! How would ATL aircraft cope?
Gloster f.5/34 - could depend on the engine fitted, but has the best cockpit canopy for all round vision, is said to be easy to fly, slower yes than the 109 but similar to the Hurricane; its problem maybe altitude performance!?
Boulton-Paul P.94 - plausible to get some in service, said to be almost as fast as the Spit., but would the length impair combat performance!?
Curtis P-36 - said to have done quite well in France, personally I'm not convinced - BoB combat was at higher altitude than in France.
Grumman Martlet - again plausible to get some in service, but dubious that this early (export) version could cope e.g. rate of climb!?
Boulton-Paul P.88a - could've been available, again depends what hp the Hercules engine it has goes up to. A big machine, robust, IMO likely to be a little faster than the Hurricane - and with those cannon once you get hit your down out!!?
Gloster F.9/37 - again could've been available with earlier PODs, granted it's a 'twin' but Blenheim 1Fs were in 109 range, the Gloster twin was much faster and said to handle well?
Westland Whirlwind - problems with manufacture and the engine, long take-off, nevertheless maybe some could've been available earlier, it was best at low to medium altitude!?
Others ?
I have posted this elsewhere, curious what everyone here thinks.
Other alternatives, if UK aero industry was freed to work on them:
The MB-2: Martin-Baker MB 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hawker Tornado: Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)
Hawker Typhoon: Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)
Gloster Gladiator: Gloster Gladiator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with uprated engine, CS prop and 6 x .303 MGs?)
Fairey Fulmar: Fairey Fulmar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with Merlin X or XII engine or better still, the RR Griffon?)
Fairey Fantome: Fairey Fantôme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gregor FDB-1: Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (with uprated engines?)
For an early Griffon you need R-R to keep developing the Buzzard/ "R" engine during the 30s which might have slowed down the Melrin. And sticking a 1400-1500hp engine (87-100 octane fuel not 100/130)in air-frame meant for a 2000hp engine may not get the results you want.
In Malta, the Gladiator was field modded with ex-Blenheim engines and props for an increase in performance showing that there was still unused potential in the design.Pick one direction or the other, higher performance or more fire power. Even with 100 octane (which will NOT change power at altitude) and a CS prop you won't really get both. Keep 4 guns and go for a bit of extra performance or add two more guns, ammo and equipment and use up a fair amount of the the performance.
The Fulmar was handicapped as an interceptor by the low altitude rated engines; a high altitude rated engine (even the Merlin III) will considerably boost high altitude performance allowing the Fulmar to act as a bomber killer, especially in areas out of reach by the 109 and a non-naval Fulmar will be somewhat lighter because there's no need for folding wings.The Merlin XII allowed the Spitfire II to hang on to Early Spitfire performance despite weight gains due to increased operational equipment. Don't expect much sticking it in a two seat aircraft. Merlin X will improve things at low altitude ( already pretty much covered by the 12lbs of boost) but only raises combat altitude over a Merlin III by around 1,000ft.
The Biplanes won't stop either the 109 or the 110. Lacking in speed and firepower. P&W was stopping production of the R-1535 and the R-1830 weighed several hundred pounds more, needed a bigger prop and still won't be fast enough.
Given that there's a lot less demand for the Merlin (sans Hurricane and Spitfire), I think RR would have more time for the Griffon. The Griffon IIB produced 1730/1490hp with 100 octane fuel, which should get the Tornado/Typhoon to Spit MK 1 levels of performance.
In Malta, the Gladiator was field modded with ex-Blenheim engines and props for an increase in performance showing that there was still unused potential in the design.
The Fulmar was handicapped as an interceptor by the low altitude rated engines; a high altitude rated engine (even the Merlin III) will considerably boost high altitude performance allowing the Fulmar to act as a bomber killer, especially in areas out of reach by the 109 and a non-naval Fulmar will be somewhat lighter because there's no need for folding wings.
Biplanes are much lighter (and cheaper) than monoplanes, meaning there can be more off them. They just have to hold the fort until the next generation of high speed monoplanes can be put into production. The Gladiator actually had a pretty good record against the 109 and 110, and an improved Gladiator or other biplane should do even better.
Single seat Battle?
Techinically meets timeframes and available. Fulmar is basically a Battle
Fulmar was based on Fairey's P.4/34 not on Battle.
Juha
True, but holding back pilots to assault an invasion had nothing to do with it. By August 1940 all the Fighter Command squadrons outside 11 and 12 Groups were undermanned and many were barely operational. They certainly weren't being held back against an invasion. .
My take on this has been formed by conversations with an ex BoB period RAF pilot. He was flying targets for anti aircraft guns. He, and all his (experienced) colleagues, applied to move to Fighter Command during the BoB but were told they were being held back to fly sorties against German ground forces were there to be an invasion.
Now, this could be internal politics in the RAF, but he felt sure it was exactly what was meant to happen. At the same time his unit was receiving the bomb racks back from central stores together with a stock of bombs ready for use in an invasion.