- Thread starter
-
- #21
I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With hindsight the He177, Me163, He162, Me210 (before tooling, just wait for the 410), Ta-154, He-219, Ju288 (before it started tooling and its engine), and Ju290.
Using it as a research aircraft and refraining from mass production could have still made sense and fit a real-world timeline, though. That and a shift of emphasis towards jet powered derivatives of the airframe. (easier if Heinkel's class 1 engines hadn't been canceled and quite possibly a more practical -and earlier- design than the He 162)B-32 Dominator, eventually...
Apart from that...
Hinsight gives a false advice. It is really at decision time that this "what do you cancel" challenge should be thought about. Something like the Me-163 Komet is absolutely impossible to cancel, at decison-making time... Forget about later historical insight.
It may have made more sense for the Navy ... had Germany allowed a naval air arm, with or without carriers.The case could be made that an obvious battle winner like the Stuka could well have been cancelled, at decision time, forgetting later history : had it met a Lufwaffe-brand opposition, including flak. By mid-war dive-bombing was obsolete, because of AAA mainly. Well modern AAA was indeed pionneered by Lufwaffe's flak as early as 1940 (Fairey Battles, Bréguet 693s...), so the case could be made that Ju-87 was a weird choice right from the start... Add a strong 1940-brand opposition of swarms of Messerschmidtts on top...
The Ju 252 should have had higher development/production priority, but yes the 290 was a useful large transport.I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?
That, and even without Typhoon development I seriously wonder how well the old Hurricane fuselage would have coped with a new high speed/low drag wing. The rear fabric/stringer arrangement already allows for adaptation to a bubble canopy perhaps more easily than any contemporary fighter and the issues with flamability should have been addressed with metal stringers replacing the wood and aluminum skin or flame retardant dopant. (I'm not sure if the early hurricanes still used nitrocellulose dopants, but that would be a huge fire risk for sure)So rugged its tail broke off, it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns. It didn't even offer much range. Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V. It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.
P-40Q was a bit late in general and a bulged hooded canopy introduced earlier on probably would have been close to as good or better in some respects without going so far as to redesign the fuselage.I have to disagree with the "P-40Q couldn't add much" idea, but that's OK. It looks like none of us would do exactly the same thing. That's why the people in power at the time made all the difference ... they did what THEY thought was right.
For the UK So many where do you start,
Botha, Albacore, Fulmar, Roc, Sterling, Whitley, Warwick, Albemarle, Battle, Defiant, Lerwick, Sea Otter, Albecore
The scary thing is that they all entered production, there not prototypes, the waste of resources is huge
Ah, yes, that famous old saw, which is always trotted out when the Typhoon is mentioned. From 29-7-42 to 24-5-43, the Typhoon suffered 19 accidents, in 3 (only) of which the tail unit broke off, and 7 lost tailplanes, elevators or rudders. There were, in fact, more wing/wingtip failures than tail unit failures. By 1944, 1 failure every 7700 hours had gone out to 1 every 18000 hours, and it was decided that the cause was elevator flutter, largely caused by three-blade propellers.So rugged its tail broke off,.
It was also designed pre-war, before the Fw190 was even known about, and how could MG151/20s have been fitted into any British aircraft?it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns.
It was tried, with the Merlin XX in the Spitfire III, but it involved major airframe changes, which didn't apply to the Merlin 45-series.Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V.
Try telling that to the inhabitants of coastal towns, who regularly saw attacks by bomb-carrying 190s; it's easy to sit, safe at home, 70 years later, and pontificate solely about the aircraft, but the government/Air Ministry had the safety of the civilian population to think about.It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.
There was no "long range" Spitfire VIII.Think of the long range spitfire viii that might have been built as well.
No, it wasn't; two versions, with different engines, were cancelled, but the Air Ministry were continually pushing for the Sabre-powered variant.Interestingly it was cancelled, twice. Once was rescinded when the Fw 190 appeared.
And you might not, since you would have needed to persuade an obdurate Sidney Camm to produce somebody else's design. Also, by 1944, there was no shortage of Merlin-powered Spitfires, which is why so many IXs were given away to RussiaYou might have gotten two spitfires for every typhoon
So rugged its tail broke off, it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns. It didn't even offer much range. Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V. It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.
Think of the long range spitfire viii that might have been built as well.
Interestingly it was cancelled, twice. Once was rescinded when the Fw 190 appeared.
You might have gotten two spitfires for every typhoon.
... it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts ...
I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?
Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly.The trouble with lists like this is that there sometimes no good alternatives.
I don't think any one is really going to argue in favor of the Botha but what are you going to replace the Fulmar with?
You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.Please remember that the guy in the rear seat operated the radio gear (not just the radio) that allowed the plane to home in on a locator beacon on the carrier. It may be doubtful if any single seat fighter could have done that at the time.
Then let the Sterling have a redesign to increase its altitude and do without the Halifax. The RAF didn't need three four engine bombers.Sterling? Having the bad luck to have both production lines bombed by May of 1941 rather slowed production and service use.
I would suggest that you build more Wellingtons and add the Hampden to the list.Whitley had 9 squadrons in service in Sept of 1939. What else was ready? keep using biplanes until the Lancaster shows up?
I couldn't think of anything the Sea Otter could do that the Walrus couldn't so that is why it was on the list.The Sea Otter didn't waste much in resources. Sort of a Walrus MK III. Take an old Pegasus off the rear of the wings and stick a newer Mercury engine on the front, Make the bow a little more pointy. If you needed several hundred more planes than the existing Walruses anyway why not build a better version rather than build the 1933 Walrus in 1943-44.
Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly. You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.
Re. Sydney Camm not willing to produce other people aircraft - others did it, since the costumer wanted so. Mr. Camm was a designer anyway, not the owner of the conglomerate?
While the Komet wasn't as successful in it's intended role as they hoped, it actually did provide a great deal of research information in a realm of aviation that hadn't been achieved before....The Ta 154, Me 163 and He 177 stand out as a particular waste of resources.