What was the best stop-gap fighter of WWII?

[parsifal]

I would nominate two aircraft....the Mosquito for the allies, and the Ju88 for the germans. The Mosquito started out as a private venture, to fulfil a rather nebulous specification for a high speed unarmed recon aircraft. It was rapidly adapted to a wide range of roles....including fighter, ASW patrol, fighter bomber, night fighter, Night Intruder, and bomber. None of these roles were envisaged at the start.

The Ju88 started out as a bomber, but was converted into many roles like the mosquito, including long rane day and night fighter, reconnaisae, anti-shipping, flying bomb.

All of these roles were stop gap. There were few a/c that could do these jobs better than these so-called 'stop gaps'

 

[claidemore]

Seems we need a definition of 'stop gap'.
a: A temporary substitute for something else
b: An improvised substitute for something lacking; a temporary expedient

Temporary expedient would seem to me to be the crucial defining element.

A conversion or adaptation may or may not be a stop gap. An adaptable design is just that, adaptable. The Typhoon was adapted into a ground attack aircraft, (as was the P47) but I would not consider either of them to be a stopgap. The MkIX Spitfire was a temporary fix until the Mk VIII came into production, but it was so good that it completely supplanted it in Northern Europe. That fits the definition of a stop gap perfectly, IMO.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

I'm going to have to agree with FlyboyJ (F4F, P-40). These two craft were already in service, and when used to there strong points, performed admirably. But you had to stay within their fighting limits to keep them on some what even terms.

 

[CobberKane]

So if there is any consensus it would seem to be that in order to qualify as a 'stop-gap' the fighter must have been rushed into service as a response to an immediate threat, with the expectation that it would hold the line until something better could be developed. I would maintain that the P-38 qualifies in the ETO at least but I'll concede I was being a bit mischievous in nominating Kelly Johnson's twin-tailed creation, knowing the abundance of contributors out there who would hear nothing against it. Seems the prospect that gets the most notice is the Spit IV; definitely a rushed response to a definable threat (the Fw190) and definitely successful beyond all expectation. Shall we declare a winner?

 

[Oreo]

Yes, but not the Spit IV. The Spit IX.

 

[Shortround6]

So if there is any consensus it would seem to be that in order to qualify as a 'stop-gap' the fighter must have been rushed into service as a response to an immediate threat, with the expectation that it would hold the line until something better could be developed. I would maintain that the P-38 qualifies in the ETO at least but I'll concede I was being a bit mischievous in nominating Kelly Johnson's twin-tailed creation, knowing the abundance of contributors out there who would hear nothing against it. Seems the prospect that gets the most notice is the Spit IV; definitely a rushed response to a definable threat (the Fw190) and definitely successful beyond all expectation. Shall we declare a winner?

I am not sure why you are being mischievous with the P-38 as it doesn't meet your version of the consensus. The P-38 may have had some problems but it was hardly designed, purchased, or deployed as a stop gap even in the ETO. The first P-38 groups in England became operational about 1 month before the first English conversion of a Merlin Mustang even flew and 2 months before the first flight of an American Merlin Mustang. It would be at least 15-16 months before the decision to use the Mustang over teh P-38 in the ETO as the escort fighter of choice would be made. That doesn't sound like the P-38 was a stop gap to me. On the other hand the P-40 was ordered with the express purpose of providing the USAAC with something to fly while the P-38 was put into production and numbers could be built.

 

[wuzak]

The Mosquito started out as a private venture, to fulfil a rather nebulous specification for a high speed unarmed recon aircraft.

Actually, it was designed from the start to be a bomber, carrying 4 x 250lb bombs.

It was recognised as potentially an excellent platform for PR work. The true PR stop-gaps were the types before PR Spits and Mossies became available in quantity.

It was rapidly adapted to a wide range of roles....including fighter, ASW patrol, fighter bomber, night fighter, Night Intruder, and bomber. None of these roles were envisaged at the start.

The Air Ministry requested a fighter prototype (the FII) which would lead to the NFs and FBs. Night intruders were mostly FBs, though sometimes NFs. ASW patrol - was anything actually desigend for that specifically?

 

[parsifal]

Actually, it was designed from the start to be a bomber, carrying 4 x 250lb bombs.

It was recognised as potentially an excellent platform for PR work. The true PR stop-gaps were the types before PR Spits and Mossies became available in quantity.

Actually, the preparation of Spec 1/40 was much more protracted than that, and as late as 1939, the RAF remained unconvinced of its role. the original specification was in 1936 and asked for a light bomber to carry 1000lbs of bombs at 260 mph. De havilland said he could exceed that, and produced his comet design. Air ministry were sceptical that an unarmed wooden aircraft had any role to play at all, and at one stage considered the Tiger moth to be a more useful a/c. By 1938, there was some grudging support for a design that could undertake PR work, but Dehavilland doggedly insisted that it be designed to carry bombs....in his words 'a useful bomb load a useful distance....


With the courageous support of one or two senior RAF officers, the design waas eventually accepted and the spec written around the aircraft. It is wrong to supose that the spec led to the aircraft, and it is wrong to suppose that the majority of the RAF Brass expectede very much from the design at all... it was vey much viewed as a desperate stop gap, something that might yield some use using non strategic materials mostly


"One month later, on 12 December 1939, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the details of the design and decide how it was to fit within the RAF's strategic aims. The AOC-in-C still would not accept an unarmed bomber, but insisted it would be suitable for reconnaissance missions with either F8 or F24 cameras. After representatives of the company, the Air Ministry and the RAF's operational commands had examined a full scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project finally received official backing. This was confirmed on 1 January 1940, when Air Marshal Freeman chaired another meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan, (Deputy of Aircraft Production) and John Connolly, who was Buchanan's chief of staff. Claiming the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world", de Havilland added "it must be useful". Freeman supported its production for RAF service and ordered a single prototype for an unarmed bomber variant to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (experimental designation for what became known as the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load.

The aircraft was to have a speed of 397 miles per hour (639 km/h) at 23,700 feet (7,200 m) and a cruising speed of 327 miles per hour (526 km/h) at 26,600 feet (8,100 m) with a range of 1,480 miles (2,380 km) at 24,900 feet (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,100 feet (9,800 m).

On 1 March 1940, Air Marshal Roderic Hill issued a contract under Specification B.1/40, for 50 bomber-reconnaissance variants of the DH.98: this contract included the prototype, which was given the factory serial E0234.[25][26] In May 1940, specification F.21/40 was issued, calling for a long-range fighter armed with four 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns in the nose, after which de Havilland were authorised to build a prototype of a fighter version of the DH.98. It was decided after some debate, that this prototype, given the serial number W4052, would carry Airborne Interception (AI) Mk.IV equipment as a day and night fighter. By June 1940, the DH.98 had been given the name "Mosquito". Having the fighter variant helped keep the Mosquito project alive because there was still plenty of criticism over the usefulness of an unarmed bomber within the government and Air Ministry, even after the first prototype had flown and shown its capabilities."

If that isnt a blueprint for a "stopgap' i dont know what is....

The Air Ministry requested a fighter prototype (the FII) which would lead to the NFs and FBs. Night intruders were mostly FBs, though sometimes NFs. ASW patrol - was anything actually desigend for that specifically?

Again, only after the company insisted that their design was capable of providing that role. it enabled the supporters of the project within the RAF procurement establishment to argue for the programs retention

As far as ASW role, no nothing was designed specifically (except for one jpanese design) but many of the ocean recon patrol aircraft like the Sunderland were more obvious choices. Most of the BC conversions were not as successfulas the mosie in the role, lacking the speed and the steady flight charaistics to sink or harass u-Boats as effectively as the mosquito. Mosquitoes could also operate over the biscay area (their main killing grounds for u-boats) with immunity from German LR fighters (Ju88s mostly) because of their speed and firepower advantages. Again all the hallmarks of what it is to be a stopgap

 

[Corpsman]

im probably going to sound so dumb but i think the P-47 was the best because they found it to be able to take alot of beating so the started fittign bombs to it and useing it as a dive bomber

 

[stona]

im probably going to sound so dumb but i think the P-47 was the best because they found it to be able to take alot of beating so the started fittign bombs to it and useing it as a dive bomber

None of the aircraft used by the Western allies for ground attack (Interdiction/CAS) were designed for the role. They were all makeshift "fighter bombers",rather than stop gaps.
Steve

 

[Corpsman]

None of the aircraft used by the Western allies for ground attack (Interdiction/CAS) were designed for the role. They were all makeshift "fighter bombers",rather than stop gaps.
Steve

well after the p-51 was brought in the p-47's main role was as a fighter bomber

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The fact remains that the instigator of this thread specified "stop-gap fighter," not fighter-bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

To many people the terms are inter-changeable.

However I am not at all in agreement that 'redundant' airplanes used in another role are "stop gaps". Redundant in the sense that were more than enough fighters around for air superiority duty so letting the extras have a go at beating up ground targets was not going to affect the AIR control battle much.

True stop gaps are things like the Miles M.20 fighter or the Miles M.24 Master Fighter "Proposed stop-gap fighter version of Master I with rear seat removed and six 0.303 Browning machine-guns in the wings."

Or sticking a pair of Hispano guns on a Lysander for ground (sea?) strafing in case of German invasion. Bristol Blenheim fighters (day or night).

Planes that never would have seen ( or been considered for ) service use if not for extenuating circumstances of the times.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Planes that never would have seen ( or been considered for ) service use if not for extenuating circumstances of the times.

Which brings us straight back to the Spitfire IX.

 

[CobberKane]

I am not sure why you are being mischievous with the P-38 as it doesn't meet your version of the consensus. The P-38 may have had some problems but it was hardly designed, purchased, or deployed as a stop gap even in the ETO. The first P-38 groups in England became operational about 1 month before the first English conversion of a Merlin Mustang even flew and 2 months before the first flight of an American Merlin Mustang. It would be at least 15-16 months before the decision to use the Mustang over teh P-38 in the ETO as the escort fighter of choice would be made. That doesn't sound like the P-38 was a stop gap to me. On the other hand the P-40 was ordered with the express purpose of providing the USAAC with something to fly while the P-38 was put into production and numbers could be built.

Ah the P-38, a bone of contention that just keeps on giving! I'll restate my reasons for nominating it as a stop-gap in the ETO.
1. The P 38 was thrown in to fill a role it was not intended for. The design brief for the Lightning did not call for an air superiority or escort fighter, but one having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude". That means bombers; you don't commit all the recourses required to bring a plane as complex as the P 38 into service to intercept the occasional high flying fighter.
2. In spite of the above roles being outside the intended use of the P 38, it was the only American fighter with even a hope of matching the 109 and 190 in Europe and it served (but not wonderfully) until something better came along – the P-51. Yes, sorry, the Mustang was better – even if you are prepared to draw a very long bow and assert that the 38 was a better performer in the air, the fact is that it took far more time and money to build and maintain a Lightning than a Mustang; a vital consideration in wartime. Prior to the Mustang this shortcoming was solved in a typically American manner – with mass-production know-how and bucket-loads of cash. Thank God the Brits weren't trying to keep up with attrition during the BoB with a plane like the P38! Only America could have done it.
One other thought; my understanding is u Kelly Johnson designed a twin engine fighter because the Allison engines performance at altitude (or lack thereof) meant that in order to meet the performance requirements, one would not be enough. Hypothetically, if Johnson had had access to an engine like the Rolls Royce Merlin when he was reading the design brief, would the twin engine lightning have ever come to fruition? I'm guessing not.

 

[stona]

well after the p-51 was brought in the p-47's main role was as a fighter bomber

The 56th FG,who kept their P-47s to the end,were still flying escorts and fighter sweeps in March/April 1945. There last escort mission was on 2 april '45 and their last fighter sweep on 10 April '45

The P-47,as the prefix "P" suggests,was first and foremost designed as a fighter (pursuit 'plane to those across the pond) and was like all other British and American fighters a makeshift fighter bomber.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Nice try.

Yes the P-38 was designed as a bomber interceptor and then "forced" into other roles. But then many other 1930s and early war fighters and interceptors were "forced" into other roles or, one might say, adapted to other roles.

I am not one to argue that the P-38 was better than the P-51, it wasn't. That does not mean the P-38 was a "stop gap". The P-38 never really got a fair shot at operating in the ETO. Being the premier US fighter of the time the operational P-38 groups were set to where the action was hottest. The First operational P-38 groups in Europe were sent to cover the North African invasion with just a few months. One american general claiming (campaigning for more P-38s for his command ?) that if the pacific got priority for the P-38 the NA Invasion would have to be postponed. After the North African campaign the P-38s cover the invasions of Sicily and Italy before building up back in England to help with the bomber offensive.

AS I mentioned and you did not answer, How is a plane a "stop gap" for another plane that does not exist when the first plane goes into service?

By that definition every aircraft is a stop gap for a later airplane in the same role. The Spitfire being a stop gap for the Meteor and Vampire?

AS to your last thought. It is part right. One engine was not enough to meet the performance specification. Kelly Johnson and crew thought that it would take a single 1500hp engine to meet the specification or two 1000 hp engines. This is in 1938. When does a 1500hp Merlin show up? And not a Merlin that offers 1500hp for take off but one that offers 1500hp at 20,000ft. You are correct, if Kelly Johnson had access to engines from the future the P-38 might have been designed very differently. But then many aircraft would have been designed differently if their designers had access to engines 4-5 years in the future.

 

[wuzak]

AS I mentioned and you did not answer, How is a plane a "stop gap" for another plane that does not exist when the first plane goes into service?

By that definition every aircraft is a stop gap for a later airplane in the same role. The Spitfire being a stop gap for the Meteor and Vampire?

I suppose the Hurricane could have been considered a stop-gap - plugging a hole until sufficient Spitfire production could be ramped up.

To me the stop gap aircraft would be one which fills a role while the aircraft intended for that role is developed. That is why, to me, the Mosquito could never be considered a stop gap - there weren't any aircraft being developed whose role the Mosquito took on.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes and no. The British had often purchased more than one fighter at a time. Hawker Fury and Gloster biplane series. Was one a stop gap for the other?

In 1937-39 I am not sure the British appreciated the limitations of the Hurricane. If they had they wouldn't have stuck that thick wing on the Typhoon. By the time the difference is realized they have too much invested in Hurricane production to stop. Giving the Hurricane the Merlin XX first is a real hint they knew it was falling behind and it might be considered that the MK II was a stop gap.

 

[stona]

I suppose the Hurricane could have been considered a stop-gap - plugging a hole until sufficient Spitfire production could be ramped up.

Surely not. It met a specification for a single engined fighter for the RAF and was intended to operate alogside the Spitfire,not to plug a gap until the Spitfire production could be increased. The performance gap between the Spitfire MkI and Hurricane MkI is not as great as the common assumption. In 1940 it was the preferred mount of several successful pilots.
Someone above has already made the point that the Hurricane was at the end of one line of aircraft technology and construction techniques and as such could not be developed in the way that the Spitfire,at the beginning of the next generation,could be. It was inevitable that the Hurricane would be superceded by the Spitfire and,eventually,other more "modern" designs.
There is only a five month difference between the first flight of the Hurricane (6/Nov/35) and the Spitfire (10/Mar/36). They are almost exact contemporaries.
Cheers
Steve