Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 only problem with that theory is that the Air Ministry wanted the Typhoon, so the question's completely academic; yet again you're using 20:20 hindsight on an aircraft which was ordered 2.5 years before the war started. It was originally given 12 Browning .303" (hence the thick wing everyone decries) to enable it to shoot down the expected onslaught from heavily-armoured German bombers, with cannon following once the Hispano was being built and was acceptable.Very true if Hawkers refused to build what the Air Ministry wanted who were they going to build for.
The Hawker Group owned Hawker, Gloster, Armstrong-Siddeley and Avro (all bought by Tommy Sopwith, in fact,) their factories and the machine tools, and paid the workers' wages; the Air Ministry's only involvement was to issue contracts and provide Resident Technical Officers as overseers.Plus the shadow factories and the tools and workers in them didnt belong to Hawkers they simply ran them on Air Ministry contract.
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.
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.
I would suggest that you build more Wellingtons and add the Hampden to the list.
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.
On the P-40Q ... the major benefit over the P-51 would be suitability of the 2-stage allison. So it's more a matter of whether the P-63 or P-40Q is more useful, and ignoring the shortcomings of the P-63 tied directly to low emphasis on fuel capacity. (lots of empty space in the wings that might have been engineered for fuel tank age had that been a priority -ie had the design goals been similar to the P-51)We'll have to disagree on that one,Kool Kitty, but that's OK. If we agreed on everything, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.
The defiant? Remove the turret but retain a second crew position with the added electronics. Might have been closer to the Firefly in performance even with just the Merlin. (griffon power should have made it a more genuinely competitive fighter while still allowing the second seat if necessary -ie if not supplanted by more heavily automated equipment late war)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?
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.
Plus the Stirling is a better example of forced misguided development imposed by the Ministry rather than a design meriting foregone development. Not allowing the original, longer, thinner wing to be used wouldn't be that much different from not allowing the Manchester to be converted to the Lancaster or forcing a defensive armament on the Mossie.Sterling? Having the bad luck to have both production lines bombed by May of 1941 rather slowed production and service use.
If you're doing that, just go with a properly Navalized Sea Hurricane pre-war and stick with it until the Seafire can replace it. (or not ... given the potential advantages of deck handling and landing accidents in spite of the performance limits)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.
How does that compare with the Hurricane's early operational record?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.
The impression I've always gotten was that it was the Hurricane II and various multi-engine bombers (and the Beaufighter) getting priority for the Merlin XX that prevented the Spitfire III from entering production.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.
But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?The Typhoon was a lot faster than the 190 at low altitude which is what counts for a GA role and it carried a greater variety of weapons. Re the guns when operating as a GA aircraft the FW190 normally only carried 2 x 20mm and to cap it all the Typhoon was continually up armoured. As a GA fighter the Typhoon didn't have to apologise to anyone.
More BMW 801 powered Ju 88s would be better ... the value of 605 powered Fw 190s has been disputed before at least without C3 or WM/50. (dubious replies regarding whether weight and drag reduction would be enough to make a DB-605A powered 190 competitive -or more useful than a 109G)Ideally the He177 would have replaced the Fw200, but it had serious issues that we are not presupposing would be fixed, so simply getting rid of it and using the engines and materials to make more Ju88s would be better (DB605 engined Ju88s....what would that be like?).
I don't believe the RN ever ordered the Buffalo ... they did trial the version purchased/repossessed by the RAF, but those were all de-navalized. A proper, carrier capable Buffalo Mk.I may have been far more useful on RN carriers than it was historically in the middle east. (possibly a better performer than the Martlet)Cancel the order for the Buffalo and martlet I , concentrate on the Fulmar. At least it was ready shot down 114 enemy a/c for the loss of three, and operated from carriers from Day1. Those US imports whilst having greater potential later in the war (at least for the Martlet) could not operate from a carrier, leaked fuel everywhere, had limited multi role capability (a must in the early war for the RN after losing 1/3 of its carrier forces.
I'm not sure the Defiant is that worth being written off, but development limited to turretless operation would be the focus for sure. The larger, thicker wing of the Defiant may have been more suitable for cannons than the hurricane while still having overall drag characteristics better than the Hurricane and possibly better than the spitfire considering the weight and wing area. Maybe a better candidate for fighter-bomber conversion than the Hurricane (especially with the Griffon), but the hurricane still had advantages in manufacturing infrastructure that kept it in production so long historically.I agree that Battle should be cancelled, but maybe after 500 produced examples; what should Fairey build instead? The Spitfire produced by Boulton Paul instead of the Defiant should make sense - same powerplant, twice the firepower, half the crew, lower drag and weight for better performance, no turret means cheaper faster production, can carry cannons unlike the Defiant.
Gloster was also a Hawkwer-owned by that point, so there were obviously non-Hawker designs being developed/produced ... though I suppose still ones owned by them. (ie the Gloster F.5/34 and F.9/37 projects might not have conflicted so much -actually, as a multirole interceptor and fighter-bomber, and with only the Merlin and Hercules available, the Gloster twin might have been a better development path than the Typhoon as well, had the ministry showed interest)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?
Hence my suggestion that it simply shouldn't have entered mass production. Investing more in adapting the airframe to alternate powerplants would have been much more useful. (while the rocket engine development was useful in its own right and good for pushing the high speed limits of the airframe)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.
Quick estimates - mostly based on data from over at the great WWII Aircraft Performance website.
It's not pixel-perfect to the data but the idea is there:
View attachment 293076
The faster Typhoon is post upgrades: sliding hood, whip aerial, new exhausts, cannon fairings, etc.
374 mph at sea level on just 2200 bhp? That cannot be linked to any aircraft from A&AEE trials.
The two serials speed checked at Boscombe Down (R7700 and R8762) never came close to going that fast at rooftop height, and in both cases the high speed was found to be less than 400 mph. Well below the figures advertised by the makers.
Late build Typhoons were slower on average than previous models. The added racks, rails and other external bits to carry bombs, rockets, and drop tanks also produced more wind resistance.
Tests at Gloster on a repaired aircraft with a whip aerial and sliding hood fitted have given the following level speeds corrected on the basis of A. A.E.E. Res.170.
M.S. M.P.A 398 m.p.h. at 8,800ft
The Hurricane had more than 3 years of peace in which to iron out any problems. The (Browning-armed) Typhoon prototype first flew in March 1940; the (cannon-armed) second prototype first flew 15-5-41, with the first aircraft delivered in June, and the first Squadron formed in early September. some might think that was a little rushed.How does that compare with the Hurricane's early operational record?)
The (now cannon-armed) Hurricane desperately needed upgrading in 1940, the Spitfire II was faster than the Mk.I, and the Merlin 45 was available in early 1941, in plenty of time for the Mk.V and the expected resumption of the Battle of Britain. The Merlin 45 would also fit into the same airframe as the I/II, while the XX needed changes to the engine compartment and u/c geometry (also later introduced on the Vc.)The impression I've always gotten was that it was the Hurricane II and various multi-engine bombers (and the Beaufighter) getting priority for the Merlin XX that prevented the Spitfire III from entering production.
4" longer nose on the III, and a 9" longer nose on the IX, and the conversion to the Mk.IX was as a result of the appearance of the Fw190, which wasn't around when the Mk.V (which could cope with the 109F) appeared.Surely, the modifications needed for the XX series were less than the 60/70 series, let alone Griffon, both of which were adapted and pressed into service as soon as possible.
Wasn't faster than the Spitfire IX at combat altitude, though, was it?And, granted, not available until 1942, but the Allison engined Mustang was faster at low altitudes as well.
Might have is guesswork, not history.(P-39 was available sooner though and may have outpaced the Typhoon at low alt with overboost -or once WEP was officially cleared)
.In any case, single-seat defiant derivatives may have had enough merits to not simply throw them away in favor of Spitfire production
Two engines, where one would do, never sat well with the Ministry.the Gloster twin might have been a better development path than the Typhoon as well, had the ministry showed interest)
It didn't; the Merlin XX was as big an engine as it could take. The Hurricane was also a deathtrap for pilots, if the wing tanks were holed, since the cockpit's open framework drew the flames straight in, and onto them.And all that said, I still think the Hurricane itself may have had more development potential
would that not also apply to FW adversaries. Wasnt the first employment of the typhoon to hunt down FW hit and run raids across the channel..
After solving the bugs was this assignment not successfully carried out.
I suspect yet another example of over critical anti-british sentiment rising yet again.
Care to share with the rest of us you national background or technological preefernces and expertise, along with your references for the above statement
You mean besides the Spitfire?Could a Rolls-Royce Griffon powered aircraft have performed these tasks with less fuss?
You mean besides the Spitfire?
To be honest I don't know, but I thought the Mk III maxed at 385 which would be less than the Typhoon but am more than happy to be updated on this as its an area I am not sure of. However no SPit matched the Typhoon as a GA aircraft and cannot see that changing.But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?
There doesn't seem to be a lot between the P51A and the Typhoon, but the P39 didn't come close to the Typhoon. I know of one test which gave the P51a a remarkable speed but that was factory fresh with specially sanded finish. With normal wear it seems to have a speed of approx. 370 at about 4 to 5000 ft. The Typhoon seems to have similar performance.And, granted, not available until 1942, but the Allison engined Mustang was faster at low altitudes as well. (P-39 was available sooner though and may have outpaced the Typhoon at low alt with overboost -or once WEP was officially cleared)
First and foremost I do believe that the GA role is the issue for the Typhoon. It had limitations as a fighter but it was the RAF's main GA aircraft. Understandably A lot is made of the A36 as an attack aircraft but I always have one question in the back of my mind and that is, if it was as good as its cracked up to be, why didn't they carry on building them? presumably there was a reason.Ground attack/FB ability is a separate issue, but possibly one the Mustang could have fared very well in as well. (it managed well enough employed for GA as the A-36