Change a plane

Some things said in the alternate British jet thread started a thought. How could you make a plane that was not a success and with a tweak that WAS available to its manufacturer turn it into one that should have been a success.

For example the Boulton Paul Defiant is now considered a failure. It seems obvious now that it should have had forward firing guns as well as its turret. It could (and I stress could) have been as successful as the Bristol Fighter in WW1 (that was the idea in the first place!). Or when it was obvious that the turret concept wasn't working use the jigs to build another 8 gun (or 4 cannon) fighter. I should point out that Boulton Paul suggested both of these and the men from the ministry said no.

Put new engines onto the Whirlwind once it was obvious that the Peregrine was never going to be developed properly is another. However the Merlin would require a major redesign did no one consider the Hercules? If the Whilwind had been a success no need for the Fighter version of the Mosquito and the Typhoon is consigned to the pile of so nearlies.

Any other suggestions?

the Russian/Soviet Sh-Tandem:



An unusual design (the 'upside down' elevators allowed a much wider rotation for the rear turret). A lightweight ground attack/Fighter-bomber from the late 1930s. It carried 4x7.62mm machine guns foward to strafe, plus one in the rear turret and 2x 200kg bombs. Internal politics prevented it's adoption, but it would have filled a role not unlike Us carrier planes that could work as fighters and bombers. This was more along the lines of 'bomber that can dogfight in a pinch' rather than 'old fighter pressed into ground-support'

One of my pet WI's Take the Hawker Henley, give it Hurricane wings with 8mg and issue it to the RAF as a dedicated ground attack/dive bomber in 1939. The change in hardware is simple, the change in doctrine within the RAF,darn near impossible.

Lindseyman said:

did no one consider the Hercules?

Any other suggestions?

Click to expand...

Roy Fedden suggested the Hercules engines for the Whirlwind. The cannon fighter would have also found benefit from a broader chord wing, similar to the FW Falke, but Petter didn't think in those terms until Canberra.

Fedder also made suggestions which fomented the foundation of Rotol, which provided variable-pitch propellers for fighter aircraft.

I don't see any problem with the Hurricane fighter in 1940, but Sir Sydney Camm seems to have failed to realize that the Hurri's thick wing was not conducive to high speed vs the Spit. His replacement for the Hurri was the Tornado/Vulture and Typhoon/Sabre. The Vulture failed to urge the Tornado over 400 mph, and failed as a bomber engine from overcooked crank bearings, but the aircraft was then fitted with Centaurus, for testing only, because the engine wasn't "in the running" in the minds of the Ministry. The Centaurus was gleefully overlooked as Ministry officials pondered the potential wonders of the Sabre. Bristol engineers were seconded to Sabre development and the big radial languished. It too had some development difficulties. Meanwhile, the Typhoon proved to be unsuitable in the fighter role because it was shaped like a brick, and shock waves whacked the tail off at high mach numbers. It was promoted as a ground pounder, and called tough, because it exuded the appearence of tough. It wasn't. The slightest damage to oil and coolant system plumbing cause a catastrophic fire. The same role could have been filled by a Centaurus/Tornado with some redirected priorities. It would have similar performance, without the carbon monoxide fumes which forced pilots to wear oxygen masks at all times. It would have been smoother and quieter, a condition more conducive to concentrating on war-like things. And, for all that, the Centaurus weighed the same, and had good aerodynamics, once the forward facing exhaust business was corrected. Copying the Spitfire wing, but with inward gear retraction, was to wait until the Typhoon dilemma forced the advent of the Tempest, again with Sabre engine. Why so long? While the Tempest was reputed to have no equals in performance, Pierre Clostermann wasn't called upon to fly them just for fun. He was called upon because there was a shortage of pilots who died in action, flying Tempest. Same Sabre engine, bursting into flame on a whim. The Tempest II, with Centaurus, was, of course, post-war, and the Napier Sabre engine was relegated to the scrap piles, since pilots no longer were supposed to die for their country. The Fury development was a refinement of the Tempest II, and the Sea Fury was to feature in a much later war, where it was too late and long in the tooth to be a star.

That's just one case. I'm out of tea.

Gloster Reaper with more reliable engines.

Miles M.20.

de Havilland somehow manages to build what became the Hawker Siddeley Trident to the original, larger specification, which was even closer to the Boeing 727. Because of this, the aircraft comes to the market before he 727 does and is more competitive, and so is able to pick up many operators which IOTL opted for the 727.

Even better, somehow prevent Hunting from merging into BAC, and what became the BAC One-Eleven can be marketed alongside the Trident in cooperation with de Havilland or Hawker Siddeley, which makes each type more attractive to operators of the other; for example, American Airlines, which bought the BAC One-Eleven and considered the Trident, could buy both instead of buying the larger 727 which better fit their requirements.

The Blackburn Firebrand. instead of struggling with the Sabre they reengine it with a Merlin,Griffon or Hercules. Gets into service when it should have done in 1942. Now whether its a wartime success?

Fairey Battle/Fulmar/Barracuda powered by Fairey P24 Monarch engine. These Fairey designs were all designed to enable them to take their own engine, and became dogwaste with Merlins. In the 1920s, Fairey made the mistake of building a superior aircraft, the Fox, using the superlative Curtiss D-12 engine, for which they obtained a license. It was the Air Ministry's intention to steal it and have Rolls Royce duplicate the technology, spawning the Kestrel. Subsequently, the Air ministry ignored any mention of Fairey engines in future plans. The P24 potential was thus lost out of doctrinal spite. It would have made a good alternative for a maritime patrol aircraft engine had Lerwick and Blackburn B20 fleshed out a little better.

A Shorts S29, as originaly designed with the 114ft wingspan married to 4 number fairey Monarch engines, initially rated at 1800hp in 1939 rising to 2000hp plus with 100 octain fuel in 1940. Used princeply by coastal command in long range maritime patrol. Late in 1940 fitted with ASV radar.

The F-14 gets the Pratt & Whitney F401-P400 turbofan engines in the mid-1970s leading to the the F-14B and F-14C entering service in the mid and late 1970s respectively.

The gloster Meteor should have been tested in 1943 but did not enter testing until 1944 and into service in late 1944 / early 1945. Due to engine problems. Now if whittle had the backing that the NAZIS gave the German aircraft manufacturers we could see the Meteor in service by mid 1940.

Aircraft - TSR2
Tweak - Government that are not knobs!!

The TRS2 was never going to get off the drawing board at worst and past the prototype at best.It is like us buying the F22 never going to happen. The meteor with swept wings now that would be a plane armed with it,s four 20 mm hispano cannon and eight rockets under the wings god help the Germans.

AlexZach said:

Aircraft - TSR2
Tweak - Government that are not knobs!!

Click to expand...

Tweak needs to be that the RAF wants it and not the F-111. Government gave the RAF what it wanted.

The Lockheed TriStar could have done very well against the DC-10 if Rolls-Royce had been able to keep RB211 development on schedule, either through avoiding bankruptcy or getting enough government funds to develop their primary product. If not for engine development timetables slipping the TriStar would have beaten the DC-10 to market with its continental model and have had an international model on offer before the end of the decade. The TriStar was also a far more developed aircraft compared to the DC-10, which combined with Lockheed's strong financial position and engineering would likely have resulted in a TriStar MD-11 analogue being developed earlier, perhaps even securing orders from Asian and Canadian passenger airlines that often fly polar routes. Even today a trijet could fill an important niche with polar operators, because twinjets operate under very stringent requirements there. If an ETOPS aircraft can't meet the requirement the route either can't be flown or a quadjet must be found, which obviously places a very high lower boundary on the types of routes that can be flown.

sonofpegasus said:

A Shorts S29, as originaly designed with the 114ft wingspan married to 4 number fairey Monarch engines, initially rated at 1800hp in 1939 rising to 2000hp plus with 100 octain fuel in 1940. Used princeply by coastal command in long range maritime patrol. Late in 1940 fitted with ASV radar.

Click to expand...

No, I'd go for the Short "G" Class S.26 - just as the Sunderland was the military version of the S.23 an Empire flying boat, the S.26 was intended to be a trans-Atlantic flying boat. As per OTL only the civil ones were used a minor military look.
With a span of 134 feet and a range of 3,200 miles - would have made an impact on the Atlantic U-boat gap.

gloster meteor mk3 said:

The TRS2 was never going to get off the drawing board at worst and past the prototype at best.It is like us buying the F22 never going to happen. The meteor with swept wings now that would be a plane armed with it,s four 20 mm hispano cannon and eight rockets under the wings god help the Germans.

Click to expand...

That's a big call since a prototype TSR2 actually flew many times and some 19 planes were in various stages of pre-production when the axe fell.

Delta Force said:

The Lockheed TriStar could have done very well against the DC-10 if Rolls-Royce had been able to keep RB211 development on schedule, either through avoiding bankruptcy or getting enough government funds to develop their primary product. If not for engine development timetables slipping the TriStar would have beaten the DC-10 to market with its continental model and have had an international model on offer before the end of the decade. The TriStar was also a far more developed aircraft compared to the DC-10, which combined with Lockheed's strong financial position and engineering would likely have resulted in a TriStar MD-11 analogue being developed earlier, perhaps even securing orders from Asian and Canadian passenger airlines that often fly polar routes. Even today a trijet could fill an important niche with polar operators, because twinjets operate under very stringent requirements there. If an ETOPS aircraft can't meet the requirement the route either can't be flown or a quadjet must be found, which obviously places a very high lower boundary on the types of routes that can be flown.

Click to expand...

How easily could the tail engine on the TriStar be replaced with a PW4000 or an RR Trent compared to the MD-11, though? The S-duct makes that somewhat more difficult than on-wing engines or the "straight through" trijet layout McDonnell Douglas opted for. Plus, ETOPS would likely still happen eventually, and I'm sure someone is going to knock it out of the park eventually with a big twin, as Boeing did with the 777 and Airbus did with the A330. And Lockheed doesn't have a family of products to sell and has been out of the airliner business for a few years at this point, which hurts them.

Still, I agree that with less development pains, the TriStar could probably do better. Just playing devil's advocate a bit.

The Boulton Paul Defiant could have been far more successful had the pilot been given the sights and training to use the turret guns locked forward in a no deflection firing mode. He was given a firing button for the turret guns when locked forward but never given the tools to use it usefully.

Thus the Defiant could both use trainable turret fire for defence and sustained bomber fire as well as forward firing fixed guns when needed.

Ok, TSR2, go with it but as a Buccaneer variant, one of the advanced proposals, so that way it ends up doable and as a result perhaps we even see CVA01 continued with and supersonic Buccy ends up in use instead of Phantom....