Which aircraft would you cancel?

Cancellatons:

British: Battle (etc) of course. Typhoon (the Spit XII was better). Tempest, unless it uses a Griffen engine, no Sabre.

US: Lots, but especially the P-40 as soon as the Mustang was available and Curtiss forced into making them.

Germany: Just about everything after '41 except the 262. Priorty being on improvements of exsting types and a (Typhoon to Tempest like) 109 upgrade with a new and bigger wing (and no draggy slats) longer fuselage, bulged hood (at least), fixed elevators and ailerons ..and a blasted rudder trimmer, drop the nose guns (for better visibilty) add a wider track u/c, 4 x 200mm cannons outside the prop in the now larger wings.
Kill the axial flow jet development to concentrate on the easier to make and superior, at the time, centrifugal design.

Most, if not all of those were argued by some at the tmes, but politics and inertia, intercompany rivalry, etc meant everyone making some really sub optimal decisions (especially the Germans who took bad decsion making to whole new levels).

stona said:

More bad news for the Halifax!
I was flicking through my copy of 'The Strategic Air War Against Germany 1939-1945' (as you do) looking for information on the real overall cost to the British economy of Bomber Command's effort, which incidentally is usually hugely exaggerated, and came across some more statistics comparing our bombers.
This time it is man power costs which are calculated for every 1,000 lb of bombs dropped. The calculations take into account not just aircraft production, but maintenance and air crew training.

Lancaster: 9.25 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped

Halifax: 27 man months/ 1000 lb bombs dropped

The Mosquito doesn't look so clever on this scale either: 16 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped.

Worse is the venerable Stirling: 38 man months/1000 lb bombs dropped.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

Were the figures for the mosquito purely for bombers on bombing missions. Mossies were used for many missions from PR to maritime strike, even those in bomber command were frequently used as target markers. Just saying.

LisaM said:

Germany: Just about everything after '41 except the 262. Priorty being on improvements of exsting types and a (Typhoon to Tempest like) 109 upgrade with a new and bigger wing (and no draggy slats) longer fuselage, bulged hood (at least), fixed elevators and ailerons ..and a blasted rudder trimmer, drop the nose guns (for better visibilty) add a wider track u/c, 4 x 200mm cannons outside the prop in the now larger wings.
Kill the axial flow jet development to concentrate on the easier to make and superior, at the time, centrifugal design.

Click to expand...

You are aware that the only combat jet that Germany possessed by the end of 1941, was the He280?

The Me262 wouldn't be ready for jet flight until summer of 1942, and even then, it was still in prototype stage and it would still be some time before certain adjustments had been made (most important: tricycle gear) and full airframe production would commence by the end on 1943.

LisaM said:

Kill the axial flow jet development to concentrate on the easier to make and superior, at the time, centrifugal design.

Click to expand...

Not sure that the centrifugal jet was intrinsically superior to the axial flow design during WW2.

The differences between resources and available materials between the countries would mask any advantages either had.

That said, the Metrovicks F2 had more thrust than the equivalent Whittle/Rover/Rolls-Royce jets, and as much, or more, than the de Havilland Goblin/Halford H1. The Metrovicks engine had issues with reliability, but mainly to do with the combustion chambers and turbine - the turbine being axial flow, the same as on the British centrifugal flow jets.

GrauGeist said:

You are aware that the only combat jet that Germany possessed by the end of 1941, was the He280?

The Me262 wouldn't be ready for jet flight until summer of 1942, and even then, it was still in prototype stage and it would still be some time before certain adjustments had been made (most important: tricycle gear) and full airframe production would commence by the end on 1943.

Click to expand...

Note I said "except the 262".

"The first test flights began on 18 April 1941, with the Me 262 V1 example"
"but since its intended BMW 003 turbojets were not ready for fitting, a conventional Junkers Jumo 210 engine was mounted in the V1 prototype's nose, driving a propeller"
"The V3 third prototype airframe, with the code PC+UC, became a true jet when it flew on 18 July 1942 "
Yep all taildraggers. It was the V5 that introduced a nose wheel.

The HS 280 was initialy in advance but their insistance of using thoir own, even more complicated, engines delayed it until it was cancelled. Might have been a contender/alternative IF the Germans had gone for a cetrifugal jet engine.
The decision to go for the more complex (at the time) axial flwo killed their jet hopes, in fact it took until the early 50s that the west, wth all their industrial might mastered the axial flow engine enough to match the centrifugal one.

The Mig-15 did not suffer one lttle bit by using its Nene based engine vs the US's in the Korean war after all.

LisaM said:

The HS 280 was initially in advance but their insistence of using their own, even more complicated, engines delayed it until it was cancelled. Might have been a contender/alternative IF the Germans had gone for a cetrifugal jet engine.

Click to expand...

The Heinkel HeS 8 was a centrifugal flow compressor gas turbine.

It also had a radial inflow turbine.

wuzak said:

Not sure that the centrifugal jet was intrinsically superior to the axial flow design during WW2.

The differences between resources and available materials between the countries would mask any advantages either had.

That said, the Metrovicks F2 had more thrust than the equivalent Whittle/Rover/Rolls-Royce jets, and as much, or more, than the de Havilland Goblin/Halford H1. The Metrovicks engine had issues with reliability, but mainly to do with the combustion chambers and turbine - the turbine being axial flow, the same as on the British centrifugal flow jets.

Click to expand...

The issue was what could you get into production faster and was reliable. Centrifugal engines leveraged off existing supercharger knowledge and production abilities. For example, the RR Nene was a 5,000lb thrust engine that was more reliable and far in advance of any axial flow ones of the time (late '44).

So from a design and production point of view it was about mastering everything after the compressor.
With an axial flow that part had to be worked out as well and read Stanley Hooker's account of what a sod that was.

Metrovick had their own problems: "However, the F.2 engine suffered from a number of problems that cast doubts on its reliability. These were primarily due to hot spots building up on the turbine bearing and combustion chamber."..... as did later prototypes. The trouble with developing a totally new technology.

LisaM said:

Note I said "except the 262".

"The first test flights began on 18 April 1941, with the Me 262 V1 example"
"but since its intended BMW 003 turbojets were not ready for fitting, a conventional Junkers Jumo 210 engine was mounted in the V1 prototype's nose, driving a propeller"
"The V3 third prototype airframe, with the code PC+UC, became a true jet when it flew on 18 July 1942 "
Yep all taildraggers. It was the V5 that introduced a nose wheel.

The HS 280 was initialy in advance but their insistance of using thoir own, even more complicated, engines delayed it until it was cancelled. Might have been a contender/alternative IF the Germans had gone for a cetrifugal jet engine.
The decision to go for the more complex (at the time) axial flwo killed their jet hopes, in fact it took until the early 50s that the west, wth all their industrial might mastered the axial flow engine enough to match the centrifugal one.

The Mig-15 did not suffer one lttle bit by using its Nene based engine vs the US's in the Korean war after all.

Click to expand...

But even *if* the RLM hadn't ignored the He280 and related engine development and backed it, and *if* the RLM had taken the Me262 seriously, there would still have been a gap in aircraft availability if all other Luftwaffe types were cancelled in 1941.

And the Fw190 remained potent to war's end as did the Bf109. Eliminating those two Luftwaffe workhorses would have left a vacuum. There are a great deal of "wunderwaffe" and dead-end projects I would certainly axe...

But then again, I saw the comment about eliminating the P-40 early on and "forcing" Curtiss to produce additional P-51s. The P-40 was a valuable stop-gap aircraft that bought the Allies time to develop the P-51, F6F, F4U, P-47 along with British types.

LisaM said:

Metrovick had their own problems: "However, the F.2 engine suffered from a number of problems that cast doubts on its reliability. These were primarily due to hot spots building up on the turbine bearing and combustion chamber."..... as did later prototypes. The trouble with developing a totally new technology.

Click to expand...

Except that those components were similar to those used on centrifugal flow gas turbines.

LisaM said:

Cancellatons:

Typhoon (the Spit XII was better). Tempest, unless it uses a Griffen engine, no Sabre.

Click to expand...

Had the Air Ministry actually gone ahead with cancelling the Typhoon, 2 TAF would not have been nearly as effective as it was between late 1943 and VE-Day; sure, the Spitfire XII was arguably a better fighter, but there was no way that it was a better fighter-bomber. No Spitfire could carry 1,000 lb bombs or 8 to 16 rockets, nor could it carry the same armour protection, or dive as fast. Overall, the Typhoon turned out to be a very efficient fighter-bomber and there was nothing else in the British armoury that could have taken its place. I would, however, argue that one mistake the British did make was to lumber the likes of the Typhoon and Mosquito with heavy, bulky rocket rails; by 1944 zero-length launchers had been proven in operational service and should have been made a priority.

Aozora said:

No Spitfire could carry 1,000 lb bombs or 8 to 16 rockets, nor could it carry the same armour protection, or dive as fast.

Click to expand...

Or strafe as well.
- more stable gun platform
- more ammunition
- better over-the-nose view

When would the P-40 be cancelled and what would replace the 700+ of them in the MTO in 1942/3?

When would the Typhoon be cancelled, it was in development for a long time, and what would replace it in a fighter-bomber role in 1944/45?

Any cancellations may result in a shortfall. My cancellation of the Halifax would result in less heavy bombers for Bomber Command over the next eighteen months, but those I did have would be better and more efficient. Harris wanted to cancel it and knew the figures.

I've never read of anyone in Fighter Command, 2nd TAF or the Air Ministry pushing for the cancellation of the Typhoon. Was it's cancellation ever discussed by those operating or expecting to operate it?

Cheers

Steve

For the n-th time - if we want the Curtiss to produce a real performer, they can get the grip (can they?) on production of the P-47G they have the contract. maybe, just maybe go with a 2-stage V-1710 on P-40 airframe when engine is available.
The SB2C Helldiver II is also a dubious thing, especially the Army version.
For Bell - no P-63, this is where the P-51 production should come in, with 2-stage V-1710 in order not to draw from Packard Merlin production.
B-26 was a problematic bird, perhaps go with B-25 modified to take R-2800 and produce it at Martin?
In lieu of the P-61 night fighter - unles going with turbo R-2800s, stick proper engines on the A-20 so it can perform at altitude. And/or modify the pod of the P-38 so bigger radar can be carried without interference with armament.

For the British, cancelling the Battle make sense after maybe 500 examples produced. No Defiant (sorry, nuumann), no Whirlwind (sorry Shortround6 and tomo pauk) unless it is designed around Merlins, no Welkin (produce more Spitfires instead), obviously no Botha and Albemarle (produce more Blenheims, Mosquitoes or/and Beaufighters), no Albacore (more Swordfishes) and Firefly (more Seafires, really introduce Sea Mosquito).

My hatchet job makes sure that ww2 hardware is far less interesting than historically

I've never read of anyone in Fighter Command, 2nd TAF or the Air Ministry pushing for the cancellation of the Typhoon. Was it's cancellation ever discussed by those operating or expecting to operate it?

Click to expand...

Im not aware of any serious discussions, but still,. it is fair to say that it suffered a protracted development, chiefly because of its engine. Moreover, it had more than its share of problems as a straight up fight, though it more than made up for that as a ground attack machine.

tomo pauk said:

For the British, cancelling the Battle make sense after maybe 500 examples produced. No Defiant (sorry, nuumann), no Whirlwind (sorry Shortround6 and tomo pauk) unless it is designed around Merlins, no Welkin (produce more Spitfires instead), obviously no Botha and Albemarle (produce more Blenheims, Mosquitoes or/and Beaufighters), no Albacore (more Swordfishes) and Firefly (more Seafires, really introduce Sea Mosquito).

Click to expand...

There were very good reasons for producing some of those aircraft at the time.

For example, If you thought that there might be German tanks on the beaches of southern England in 1940 you would want a cannon armed fighter which means the Whirlwind.

The Defiant's shortcomings were becoming evident as it entered service, but the tactical situation which sounded its death knell in 1940 wasn't anticipated by anybody.

Welkin production was very limited, less than 100 IIRC, and I can't imagine that it impacted Spitfire production adversely at that time.

The Botha was a terrible aircraft and though production was limited (I don't have the numbers to hand) I agree that a total run of zero would have been better.

The Albermarle was another horrible aircraft, but it did find some niche roles and would have to be replaced with something.

The Albacore should never have been ordered, but what alternative did their Lordships have? The Albacore was supposed to be an improvement on the Swordfish so why order more of an earlier type? The only alternative, unrealistic at the time, was to buy something from the Americans.

The Firefly wasn't so bad and did things a Seafire couldn't. The Seafire was really not a suitable aircraft for carrier operations, its range, accident and reliability rates were not good at all, something not lost on their Lordships. I wouldn't want more Seafires, they were nothing more than a stop gap and a reflection of the fact that the FAA didn't have any other competitive British built fighter capable of operating from her carriers.

Cheers

Steve

Even with France fighting on, some basic arythmetics are against Defiant when compared with Hurricane, let alone with Spitfire. It sports half of firepower, while needing twice the crew. It will be more expensive to produce, and less of a performer (not just speed but also the RoC), the performance was also needed for a good bomber destroyer.
Now that we're at it, can the Roc, but Skua makes sense as a dive bomber. An earlier Sea Hurricane perhaps, or more of them?
Welkin's production line still need to be purchased produced, and lines for limited production aircraft's tend to be expensive per that aircraft. better to expand the line for Spitfire at Westlans. Much more produced Spitfires also avoids the 'either better, or more Spitfires, but not both' mantra.
I've suggested the replacements for Albermarle Perhaps more Hampdens?

Alternative for the Albacore might be the navalized Battle, or trimmed down Henley, or, as historically, more Swordfishes. More Skuas for bombing. Ultimatively the Sea Mosquito, so no Barracuda.

There is no reason not to have the Seafire equivalent of the Spitfire XII or VIII. Heavier Griffon or 2-stage Merlin alleviates any problem with 29-gal rear fuselage tank the Spit V might encounter, stick the 90 gal drop tank and there is a rangy Seafire. Seafire proved it can be flown against LW and RA fighter oppositon, why wait until 1944 for a fighter that can't?
Plus, one can have those much earlier than the Firefly, a main benefit.
If the FAA wants the 2-seater fighter really bad, attach the better Merlin, or Griffon on the Fulmar, ; change LMGs for cannons. Available before the Firefly.

The Seafire was a terrible carrier aircraft. Its undercarriage broke if a rate of descent above 7'/sec was used during the landing, compare that with the 12'/sec designed as standard on all US carrier aircraft. It's deck landing speed was just 1.05 Vse, that's just 3 knots above the stall. American carrier aircraft were designed to land at 1.2 Vse, a much larger margin of error.

Just controlling the landing speed of a Seafire was tricky. It didn't like to slow down and was keen to accelerate, resulting in far too many landings at too high a speed and inevitable accidents. Another unwanted factor was the tendency of the aircraft to float on landing. If a perfect 3 point landing was not made the main wheels touched first, this pushed the nose up as the tail descended, this increased lift and the unfortunate pilot and his charge floated into the safety barrier, a very common cause of Seafire accidents.

This was compounded by the 'instability effect'. Spitfires and Seafires had a positive angle on the elevator for stable flight. When the pilot cut the power for a carrier landing and the slipstream speed reduced the extra lift generated by this feature also reduced. This caused the tail to fall, the main plane incidence to increase giving more lift, causing the 'float, float, prang' of a popular ditty of the time. Carrier aircraft are generally designed with a negative lift on the tail surfaces in a landing configuration. This means that the 'cut' produces a nose down pitch, if any.

Of course when a three point landing was made it was not how the aircraft had been designed to land on grass fields and a bending force passed up the undercarriage legs (which was not present when the legs were vertical in a grass field 'wheeler' landing) wrenching the undercarriage from its attachment points.

The Seafire's extremely sensitive elevator also caused problems in landing, particularly if a pilot had to make height adjustments late in the approach. The Seafire was particularly prone, specially when landing light, to be sensitive to any gust over the carriers round-down. It would get pushed up above the proper descent path and efforts to overcome this often led to crashes or damage to the air frame due to heavy landings.

Any landing, particularly the required, gentle, three point required for carrier operations was severely hampered by the pilot's inability to see anything over the nose. The air speed indicator was not accurate due to vibration and a poor scale (about one eighth of an inch represented 10 knots) and it was also set at ninety degrees to the pilot's vision as he looked for the deck. If it was raining the Seafire had no windscreen wiper.
Pilots generally stuck their head to port (making a curved approach) and were just able to see some of the carrier deck through the haze of the port exhaust.

The Seafire IX had a whole host of other problems associated with the increased power of the Griffon. These were only mitigated by the fitting of contra-rotating propellers on the 47.

Basically, what I'm arguing is that the Seafire was an awful carrier aircraft. It had never been designed for such a role and it showed. It was the only competitive fighter the British had which could be converted for carrier operation, so it was. Once in the air it became, almost, a Spitfire and there wasn't much wrong with that. It was the bits either side of being airborne that were the problem

Cheers

Steve

Thanks for the overview

I didn't proposed the 2-stage Griffon, that made some 500 HP more than 1-stage Griffon, so the power would be still manageable, and weight lower. There are still options of earlier/more/better Sea Hurricanes, plus the upgraded Fulmar to make things better in 1940-43, unlike the Firefly.

stona said:

When would the P-40 be cancelled and what would replace the 700+ of them in the MTO in 1942/3?

When would the Typhoon be cancelled, it was in development for a long time, and what would replace it in a fighter-bomber role in 1944/45?

Any cancellations may result in a shortfall. My cancellation of the Halifax would result in less heavy bombers for Bomber Command over the next eighteen months, but those I did have would be better and more efficient. Harris wanted to cancel it and knew the figures.

I've never read of anyone in Fighter Command, 2nd TAF or the Air Ministry pushing for the cancellation of the Typhoon. Was it's cancellation ever discussed by those operating or expecting to operate it?

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

Easy P-40 alternative in MTO 42/43? Spitfires.

Fighter Command was sitting uselessly on 70+ squadrons of them in the UK and fought against any single one being sent out of the country. The Desert Air force did not get a single one until after the Battle of El Alemein despite the slaughtering the Hurricane and P-40 pilots went through from the 109Fs and later 109Gs..... Sholoto Douglas and Leigh Mallory again...sigh...did those two ever do anything right?

No problems about using them as fighter bombers, Park in Malta had being doing that for ages already.... As did the 2 TAF later.

OldSkeptic?