The British P-38
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
NothingNow
Banned
Issue a specification for a high-speed (325mph+) twin engined multi-role aircraft, to used as a torpedo-bomber, long range fighter, and photo reconnaissance aircraft. It should have a combat range in excess of 1500 miles, and a fixed armament of cannons and machine guns, To be ready for production by March 1940. Aircraft should not be tailored to a specific engine, and preferably not rely on too many strategic materials.
usertron2020
Donor
You had me going with that title. If the RAF had gotten the P-38 in the proper format they wanted...
Do as the Japanese did and get that long range... by designing a plane then stripping off all the armor.
Why? Because Zeros are cool (and at least as Britain we can actually get the materials to make sealing fuel tanks). Because i could probably save a bit of money by purchasing single engined planes, which would make the airforce happy. And because it seemed like a good idea at the time in 1937.
And to get a bit meta, i wanna see what happens. ^_^
Why? Because Zeros are cool (and at least as Britain we can actually get the materials to make sealing fuel tanks). Because i could probably save a bit of money by purchasing single engined planes, which would make the airforce happy. And because it seemed like a good idea at the time in 1937.
And to get a bit meta, i wanna see what happens. ^_^
It will have the name "The Short Sturgeon" and will be ready in 1946 and be one of the finest twin-engined target tugs of that era produced in the UK.
No, what you seem to be describing is the Beaufighter, NothingNow--though the strategic material thing sounds like the Mosquito.
The problem with the wooden aircraft is the limitations in pulling G's.
You would also want to avoid the dead end that Westland Whirlwind was. While a striking aircraft, it was too small and too closely built to allow any development by being stretched or modified. The innards were so tightly packed that it was a maintenance nightmare. The landing speed also was too high to allow the Whirlwind to use many airfields.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Sure. All you need are a few things.
Step 1) A massive national pilot training program to fill in the gaps when all those pilots are getting killed for lack of armor (and I assume self-sealing fuel tanks).
Step 2) An acceptance by Parliament to pay for all this.
Step 3) Replace the entire leadership of the Air Ministry (and later Ministry of Aircraft Production).
Step 4) Get Skippy the Alien Space Bat
to give personality transplants to Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, and every member of their cabinets to push this idea through the House.Step 5) A deal to license-manufacture the Zero from the Japanese (and this before the Japanese can get the design to work for themselves) since they'll need the Superduraluminum alloy technology from Mitsubishi to make the aircraft work in combat without the wings coming off. Which happened enough (in power dives) as it was.
Step 6) Call Skippy again to do his magic on the Japanese warlords to go along with step 5. Tell Skippy to do his mojo on all of Japan's army officers while he's at it to keep them from going assassination happy.
NothingNow
Banned
I know. That's what I intended. I wanted something in between the three, but available quickly. A Beaufighter with a pair of Napier Sabres or Griffons, and belt-fed cannons could probably do the trick, even if visibility would suffer pretty severely compared to Hercules engined models.
I'm not sure if the combination of torpedo-bomber and heavy fighter is such a good one in the late '30s. A torpedo-bomber requires a long fuselage for the long torpedo, while a heavy fighter ideally would have a shorter fuselage and be somewhat smaller overall.
AFAIK that's one of the reason why the early war aircraft combining the divebomber/torpedobomber role in one weren't very good at either.
Your heavy fighter/torpedobomber might suffer the same fate.
Wouldn't heavy fighter/light bomber/PR be plenty of roles for one airframe (to start with)?
AFAIK that's one of the reason why the early war aircraft combining the divebomber/torpedobomber role in one weren't very good at either.
Your heavy fighter/torpedobomber might suffer the same fate.
Wouldn't heavy fighter/light bomber/PR be plenty of roles for one airframe (to start with)?
I don't think you can really get ALL the roles in one airframe; the Beaufighter was probably the best 'multi-role' option of the period, but it isnt a very good fighter.
However if we look at a fighter which has a heavy cannon armament plus can carry some bombs for a ground attack role, it looks more feasable.
What have we got in 1937?
The Peregrine Whirlwind doesnt have the range (for a twin-engine, it had remarkably short legs). Since the spec requires a bigger airframe to hold more petrol, the logical decision is to do the Merlin Whirlwind (the extra power more than compensates for the bigger, heavier airframe). In fact, assuming they still try and keep the airframe as small and sleek as possible, it would be an overpowered little bastard
The Gloster Reaper. Seemed to be a good design (the early flight reports were favourable). Let down in OTL by lack of priority and those Taurus engines. Build it with Hercules or Merlin (properly streamlining the hercules in place of those stupid 'power egg' theories in the AM) and you have a contender. Should be big enough to handle the fuel needed
DeHavilland Hornet - too soon, they havent even got the Mosquito past the AM barriers yet.
Supermarine 327. Real problem is the necessity for Supermarine to concentrate on the Spitfire, but if they ditch the high altitude bomber..?
6 cannons (which would be quite tasty in ground attack!) and well over 400mph with Merlins. No idea how it would perform, but it came from a good home.
Any of those 3 should be able to take some bombs to act as a f-b. Don't think a torpedo fit is likely. But use these with some beaufighters and you've covered most tasks below medium bomber (for which you have the Mosquito
Two of those 3 aircraft were being built anyway (to a bit different spec), so no huge issues finding the resources. I think you'd have to ditch the Supermarine high altitude bomber to get the 327 designed though.
However if we look at a fighter which has a heavy cannon armament plus can carry some bombs for a ground attack role, it looks more feasable.
What have we got in 1937?
The Peregrine Whirlwind doesnt have the range (for a twin-engine, it had remarkably short legs). Since the spec requires a bigger airframe to hold more petrol, the logical decision is to do the Merlin Whirlwind (the extra power more than compensates for the bigger, heavier airframe). In fact, assuming they still try and keep the airframe as small and sleek as possible, it would be an overpowered little bastard
The Gloster Reaper. Seemed to be a good design (the early flight reports were favourable). Let down in OTL by lack of priority and those Taurus engines. Build it with Hercules or Merlin (properly streamlining the hercules in place of those stupid 'power egg' theories in the AM) and you have a contender. Should be big enough to handle the fuel needed
DeHavilland Hornet - too soon, they havent even got the Mosquito past the AM barriers yet.
Supermarine 327. Real problem is the necessity for Supermarine to concentrate on the Spitfire, but if they ditch the high altitude bomber..?
6 cannons (which would be quite tasty in ground attack!) and well over 400mph with Merlins. No idea how it would perform, but it came from a good home.
Any of those 3 should be able to take some bombs to act as a f-b. Don't think a torpedo fit is likely. But use these with some beaufighters and you've covered most tasks below medium bomber (for which you have the Mosquito
Two of those 3 aircraft were being built anyway (to a bit different spec), so no huge issues finding the resources. I think you'd have to ditch the Supermarine high altitude bomber to get the 327 designed though.
While the Beaufighter was called a fighter, it was slow. It used the wings of a slow torpedo bomber, and had assymetrical(sic) machine guns in the wings which slewed the aim when fired. The torpedo bomber had a landing light on one side and it was way too much trouble to remove and relocate. Fuel tanks were wisely installed instead of the guns, to increase range.
The Gloster F9/37 had a wing which was similar to the Beau, in that it was thick as a brick. Thirty mph slower than the Whirlwind on Peregrine engines, it only achieved it's speed by having a very tight fuselage, which would be destroyed by outfitting a conventional armament package underbelly. Over-the-nose visibility was superb, since there was nothing in front of the pilot, and I believe it might have made a good tank destroyer if armored and fitted with a Molins, underbelly. It would never make a fighter with wings that thick.
I did realize that the range on the Spitfire and Hurricane could be increased by adding additional fuel, but the only place to put it was where they put the guns, per PR Spits, which had lovely range. But then, they weren't fighters. Spits with 90gal drop tanks used to blow a lot of tires.
The twin-engine Supermarines were paper designs with vastly over-estimated performance figures, drawn up by a designer who didn't achieve fame for any original designs. Many of the technical specifications are unknown since the designs don't seem to be serious proposals. If they were, they wouldn't have made drawings where the cannons fire through the propellors.
I love Hornets too, which is why my proposals #1&3 are a Whirlwind and a Welkin with Hornet wings. I've also drawn a twin-jet Hornet, because I'm capricious.
Turning everything into a Torpedo bomber was the navy's fault. Aircraft development takes a while, and while they're waiting, they like adding options. The mighty Firebrand and the homely Sturgeon, both flawed designs anyway, suffered further indignities by trying to do everything in one.
Doesn't anyone like Barnes Wallis' Vickers 432? It has the grooviest wing planform.
The Gloster F9/37 had a wing which was similar to the Beau, in that it was thick as a brick. Thirty mph slower than the Whirlwind on Peregrine engines, it only achieved it's speed by having a very tight fuselage, which would be destroyed by outfitting a conventional armament package underbelly. Over-the-nose visibility was superb, since there was nothing in front of the pilot, and I believe it might have made a good tank destroyer if armored and fitted with a Molins, underbelly. It would never make a fighter with wings that thick.
I did realize that the range on the Spitfire and Hurricane could be increased by adding additional fuel, but the only place to put it was where they put the guns, per PR Spits, which had lovely range. But then, they weren't fighters. Spits with 90gal drop tanks used to blow a lot of tires.
The twin-engine Supermarines were paper designs with vastly over-estimated performance figures, drawn up by a designer who didn't achieve fame for any original designs. Many of the technical specifications are unknown since the designs don't seem to be serious proposals. If they were, they wouldn't have made drawings where the cannons fire through the propellors.
I love Hornets too, which is why my proposals #1&3 are a Whirlwind and a Welkin with Hornet wings. I've also drawn a twin-jet Hornet, because I'm capricious.
Turning everything into a Torpedo bomber was the navy's fault. Aircraft development takes a while, and while they're waiting, they like adding options. The mighty Firebrand and the homely Sturgeon, both flawed designs anyway, suffered further indignities by trying to do everything in one.
Doesn't anyone like Barnes Wallis' Vickers 432? It has the grooviest wing planform.
You could licence the Fokker G1. Even in it's Dutch configuration it's got a fair turn of speed, replace the Mercury with a more modern engine and you could be looking at a real winner. Mind you convincing the Air Ministry to buy from Fokker could be a bit of a challenge.
What do you mean 'in the proper format they wanted' As I remember it they were the ones that specified that the 'handed' engines and the turbosuperchargers not be included.
These changes were what made the Lightning I a crappy plane
This really is beginning to sound like an impossible task unless you have intervention from alien space bats or some sort of time traveler with foresight.
Not that the UK was alone in having issues in creating twin engine fighters. My favorite example of failure, a plane that belongs up there in the pantheon of bad design--if not above--with the Welkin and the 432, was the Bell YFM-1. This plane was weirdness with wings. Apparently, the YFM1 was a horror according to test pilot Eric Schilling.
Of course, to offset this, the US also had the success that was the P-38. Despite being designed as an interceptor, the P-38 was able to fulfill a number of roles quite effectively.
The Germans had the Me-110, but this was sort of a mixed blessing. It really was not a classic fighter, as the P-38 was, but more of a bomber destroyer. The FW 187 seems closer but it may have had the issues of an overly small fuselage that would limit development, as did the Whirlwind.
The problem is with all the attempts at twin engined fighters is that no one was really certain as to what they wanted in a twin engined fighter. Fortunately, for Lockheed, the P-38 was a superbly versatile airframe that was able to move beyond the role of interceptor.
This might be seen as similar to adopting the Douglas A-20 to the task with a bit more redesign for the A-20 than in our timeline.
So the hero The Foresight War would require a large bit of foresight to make it practical.
I imagine that they would have also handled poorly. The Mustang, a more advanced design, was supposed to be tricky with full tanks.
The look nice. Still, Supermarine/Vickers was strained enough trying to improve the Spitfire particularly after the FW-190 owned the earlier Marks. So had they been produced, they not only would not have lived up to claims, they would have hindered the Spitfire program, allowing the FW-190 to maintain its dominance over the RAF even longer.
Of course, the Hornet is a wonderful aircraft. The problem is that it required years of experience with the Mosquito and years development to reach to reach fruition.
The Sturgeon was the greatest UK target tug of 1946 or so.
For wretched airplanes, the Vickers 432 rivaled Westland's attempt to do something with the dead end that was the Whirlwind, aka the Welkin. It is hard to say which was more egregious as both the Vickers 432 and the Westland Welkin were so awful. The Vickers 432 was so awful that it gives one pause to consider whether Wallis' stratosphere bomber would have been a total boondoggle if pursued.
Not that the UK was alone in having issues in creating twin engine fighters. My favorite example of failure, a plane that belongs up there in the pantheon of bad design--if not above--with the Welkin and the 432, was the Bell YFM-1. This plane was weirdness with wings. Apparently, the YFM1 was a horror according to test pilot Eric Schilling.
Of course, to offset this, the US also had the success that was the P-38. Despite being designed as an interceptor, the P-38 was able to fulfill a number of roles quite effectively.
The Germans had the Me-110, but this was sort of a mixed blessing. It really was not a classic fighter, as the P-38 was, but more of a bomber destroyer. The FW 187 seems closer but it may have had the issues of an overly small fuselage that would limit development, as did the Whirlwind.
The problem is with all the attempts at twin engined fighters is that no one was really certain as to what they wanted in a twin engined fighter. Fortunately, for Lockheed, the P-38 was a superbly versatile airframe that was able to move beyond the role of interceptor.
Last edited:
totally agree there.
Just give it fitting armament, so instead of 7.9mm guns, give it 0.5' brownings or 20mm guns, maybe droptanks and they should be all set (fokker originally wanted 2 23mm madsen MG's on board now that would have been cool if that would have been combined with 6 0.50's).
Last edited: