Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Could the RAF, if supporting Whittle early, have built a force of a few hundred jet bombers by the end of 1941?
PC: WW2 British jet bombers
- Thread starter Grand Admiral Thrawn
- Start date
No, because it wouldnt have made sense. First generation jets were very short legged, and a bomber needs a large combat radius.
It's probably possible to get the engines built and attached to airframes, but as Dathi has pointed out the need for range is going to make this problematic. You might get a couple added to a piston-engine bomber, to add some extra speed over the target or more thrust for takeoffs. It might be less of an issue for medium bombers though... Canberra by 1943? 
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Thanks for the info from both of you; I was curious if Bomber Command could have gone this route, as the ultimate (from 1930's-mid 40's) "the bomber gets thru."
I tend to think that if they were a supplement it would be less about speed over target that pushing altitude some more, but that has some potential as well.
The thought that has real potential to me is a jet Mosquito (though it does have shades of Hitler's Schnellbomber).
The thought that has real potential to me is a jet Mosquito (though it does have shades of Hitler's Schnellbomber).
That was my first thought too, but the difference between that and a Canberra - in concept - isn't all that huge. The Mosquito is also quite small; would it have enough fuel capacity to get a useful range on jets?
No
because on Technical problem:
This had take until 1941 until the first prototype take off. do to technical problem on centrifugal compressor design.
RAF jet bomber would had fly 1700 km for bombing Berlin, using a experimental new technology nobody know how it react on long terms.
The Germans Luftwaffe learned this the hard way, allot of Pilots died because the german jet-engine just stop working in mid air...
A jet tactical bomber, for battlefield support, is a different sort of deal than a long-range international bomber of course. The Germans tried that and had mixed success--as weapons I believe they were pretty terrifying for Allied troops to face. But they had the reliability problems, they were being built late in the war the Germans were losing on limited and declining resources; as often as not advancing allied lines would capture the factories. And there was the problem of fueling them.
For the Allies, specifically the British, most of these liabilities would not matter nearly as much. The British approach to jet engines was less theoretically efficient but more durable, reliable, and cheaper to make. Performance wouldn't be as good but still impressive. And the Western Allies wouldn't need such a tactical bomber until relatively late in the war, when they were advancing on European continental positions, in Italy and then France. That gives the British industries plenty of time to refine the prototypes into something practical. Then, advancing, the Western Allies had reliable fuel supplies and maintenance support in general.
So I do think the British might have done something with such a plane. I'm not so sure the British war effort could afford to take the gamble though, surely something else would have been scanted to divert resources to the effort. Probably Americans would have taken over the project and done it more slowly, given less US experience with jet engines. And maybe we'd have gotten sidetracked with more ambitious, German-type engines instead of just accepting the limits of the British type engines.
For the Allies, specifically the British, most of these liabilities would not matter nearly as much. The British approach to jet engines was less theoretically efficient but more durable, reliable, and cheaper to make. Performance wouldn't be as good but still impressive. And the Western Allies wouldn't need such a tactical bomber until relatively late in the war, when they were advancing on European continental positions, in Italy and then France. That gives the British industries plenty of time to refine the prototypes into something practical. Then, advancing, the Western Allies had reliable fuel supplies and maintenance support in general.
So I do think the British might have done something with such a plane. I'm not so sure the British war effort could afford to take the gamble though, surely something else would have been scanted to divert resources to the effort. Probably Americans would have taken over the project and done it more slowly, given less US experience with jet engines. And maybe we'd have gotten sidetracked with more ambitious, German-type engines instead of just accepting the limits of the British type engines.
The Allies went pretty much with 'tried and tested' approach to deploying weapon systems to the battlefield in WW2. They had no pressing need to produce miracle, war winning weapons the Germans sought after. They were confident in the equipment they fielded and it was serving them well enough. Certainly, had the Germans deployed a jet fighter that would make bombing Germany unsustainable, I am certain it would perhaps make sense for the Allies to go down the jet bomber alley and develop and field a working long range bomber.
According to wikipedia, the Canberra was designed in 1945, and initial order placed in Jan 1946, so it didn't miss by much.
The Canberra missed out on the Korean War, despite being put on "super priority", whatever that means.
The Rolls-Royce Welland, which powered the Meteor, passed a 25-hour test in 1942 and required overhaul after 180 hours. The German versions didn't last as long (10-20 hours before overhaul), I think due to problems with metallurgy and lack of suitable materials.
So yes, the British engines seem to be able to run for the required amount of time.