1930s Air Ministry surprise sanity options

perfectgeneral · Feb 16, 2017

I know the Whale Has Wings and sequels (now available in paperback) but this is such a rich vein of underperformance that many other scenarios could be tried.

Mid-1935

Vickers Venom
The ministry feel that this airframe could try a larger power plant (say the lightened Mercury IX). Is all that semi fillet volume behind the cockpit needed? It creates a quirky shape that is harder to mass produce, reduces lines of sight to the rear and adds more weight and drag.

Gloster F.5/34
Almost the perfect replacement for the Gladiator. Again can we see a version with a larger power plant and perhaps one with clipped wings to fit all naval aviation deck lifts currently in use?

Hawker Henley
We'd like to see a naval version of this dive bomber. With dive brakes, automatic pull-out and dive-bombing sights. Can you use the sea adaptions on a Hurricane for a naval cannon fighter?

My initial suggestions here might be barking up the wrong tree or you might have some to add. I'd also like the explore the cancellation options I touched on with an early stop to Gladiator orders (maybe transfer over to the follow on design when approved).

http://airfoiltools.com/images/airfoil/supermarine371i-il_l.png

Maximum thickness:chord ratio 13% at 40% of chord.

Maximum thickness:chord ratio 8.4% at 50% of chord

jsb · Feb 16, 2017

What about,
Developing the R as the Griffon rather than the Merlin?

Why bother with 303 Browning? If the tank regiment can have a none 303 MGs why cant the air force! Save time and just use the US gun 30 cal or even better go for the .5 version from the start, then go to a Ho-5 style 20 × 110?

Some more active political interference in RAF procurement say a disarmament treaty against bomber numbers (or even a unilateral offer)? So buying more Hurricanes and coastal command types pre war?

perfectgeneral · Feb 16, 2017

You could keep the Merlin and still develop the Griffon sooner by stopping the Exe etc.

Maybe I should have put this thread in ASB given the sanity idea.

A Ho-5 style 20mm development of a Browning .5 is not lengthening the round to 110mm as that would be a much longer action. Although the result would be more successful than the Ho-5 given the better metallurgy available to the Brits.

perfectgeneral · Feb 16, 2017

Can we have outward opening wheels on all aircraft? The wider wheel track can only help stability on landing and take off.

wietze · Feb 16, 2017

perfectgeneral said:
A Ho-5 style 20mm development of a Browning .5 is not lengthening the round to 110mm as that would be a much longer action. Although the result would be more successful than the Ho-5 given the better metallurgy available to the Brits.

the british were already using the oerlikon 20x110mm round, in both the Oerlikon later also in the Polsten gun

perfectgeneral · Feb 16, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezin_B-20
This was such a light and useful auto-canon. I don't know how they made it so light. It does show that a 55lb gun is possible.

Lets keep the Stirling wingspan at 120ft.

PMN1 · Feb 16, 2017

jsb said:
Some more active political interference in RAF procurement say a disarmament treaty against bomber numbers (or even a unilateral offer)? So buying more Hurricanes and coastal command types pre war?

Coastal Command types with a large bay for a large number of A/S bombs.........

fastmongrel · Feb 16, 2017

perfectgeneral said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezin_B-20
This was such a light and useful auto-canon. I don't know how they made it so light. It does show that a 55lb gun is possible.

Check out the design date you wont get a 55lb 20mm with 30s tech

Just Leo · Feb 16, 2017

perfectgeneral said:
Vickers Venom
The ministry feel that this airframe could try a larger power plant (say the lightened Mercury IX). Is all that semi fillet volume behind the cockpit needed? It creates a quirky shape that is harder to mass produce, reduces lines of sight to the rear and adds more weight and drag.

The Venom was very small and had a very small engine and a very small fuel tank, no guns, no self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, and a simple wing such as an airplane would have if built by a home builder in his garage. The only alternative engine in class would be the Gnome-Rhone 14M, French, maybe built by Alvis, maybe not. The turtledeck, that semi fillet volume, contains a structure to prevent the pilot from having a broken neck if the aircraft rolls over, and adds lateral stability and helps hold up the rudder, which would have to be larger without the turtledeck.

perfectgeneral said:
Gloster F.5/34
Almost the perfect replacement for the Gladiator. Again can we see a version with a larger power plant and perhaps one with clipped wings to fit all naval aviation deck lifts currently in use?

Prime AH aircraft, has all been said before. It should have been built instead of the Glad, not replaced it.

perfectgeneral said:
Hawker Henley
We'd like to see a naval version of this dive bomber. With dive brakes, automatic pull-out and dive-bombing sights. Can you use the sea adaptions on a Hurricane for a naval cannon fighter?

We'd like to see a land-plane version of this as well as a proper Sea Hurricane.

jsb said:
What about,
Developing the R as the Griffon rather than the Merlin?

How about developing the Merlin and Griffon side by side? Farm off development of the Peregrine to Alvis, who are going to be screwed anyway, and help the poor orphan Whirlwind.

perfectgeneral said:
You could keep the Merlin and still develop the Griffon sooner by stopping the Exe etc.

The Exe engine was tested in a Fairey Battle, and it was faster, and quite reliable. A road not taken.

PMN1 said:
Coastal Command types with a large bay for a large number of A/S bombs.........

How about A/S bombs that sink U-boats? Development took a while.

perfectgeneral said:
http://airfoiltools.com/images/airfoil/supermarine371i-il_l.png

Maximum thickness:chord ratio 13% at 40% of chord.

Maximum thickness:chord ratio 8.4% at 50% of chord

What's the reason?

tomo pauk · Feb 16, 2017

perfectgeneral said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezin_B-20
This was such a light and useful auto-canon. I don't know how they made it so light. It does show that a 55lb gun is possible.
...

fastmongrel said:
Check out the design date you wont get a 55lb 20mm with 30s tech

There was a 20mm cannon of 55 lbs with 1930s tech - the Oerlikon FF.
Plenty of weight can be saved if your cannon fires at 500-600 m/s instead of 780-880 m/s, or fires a 90-95 g shell instead of 130-140 g one.

As for what AM can do differently...I've thought you'd never ask

1st - stuff to cancel: RR Exe, Vulture, Peregrine, Bristol Taurus. I'm not sure that Napier Dagger adds anything to the RAF capability to wage war. Next - Botha (saves ~1100 engines that Bristol must not produce), Defiant (saves 1000+ Merlins), after 1st 200-300 pieces cancel the Battle (another almost 2000 Merlins). Lysander?
2nd - what to produce instead? RR obviously produces more Merlins (the more, the merrier), plus can start Griffon earlier. Bristol - even greater push with Hercules. Napier - don't go crazy at any cost, perhaps make a no-nonsense 40L V12, with poppet valves? Bristol airplane division, and Hawker with them, might start actually reading NACA papers on airfoils and high-lift devices. RR, Bristol and Napier might take note on injection- and non-icing-carbs and advantages of some exahaust systems vs. another systems. More resources devoted to the Coastal Command. Accept DH proposal for gun-less bomber when it is 1st made. No Peregrines might mean Westland designs Whirlwind around Merlins. Instead of Defiants - more Spitfires.

I've probably missed something, but anyway

Moglwi · Feb 16, 2017

Build a wind tunnel if the RN has a water tank for testing ship hulls the RAF can have a wind tunnel

fastmongrel · Feb 16, 2017

Moglwi said:
Build a wind tunnel if the RN has a water tank for testing ship hulls the RAF can have a wind tunnel

Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough had wind tunnels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-Britain-s-earliest-aircraft-developed.html

Just Leo · Feb 16, 2017

fastmongrel said:
Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough had wind tunnels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-Britain-s-earliest-aircraft-developed.html

They supplied Sir Sydney Camm with incorrect data, meaning the Hurricane didn't get a Tempest wing.

sonofpegasus · Feb 17, 2017

This all depends on when the POD is!
To Change the thinking of the AM means a change of the entire ethos of air warfare in the 1920's and 30's (ie. the 'bomber will always get through' and the fear of the "Knockout Blow").
One possible game changer is if in early 1936 the RAF and the AM are actually convinced by the early development of RDF (Radar) that a viable defence against daylight bombing is not only inevitable but renders all extant bomber designs obsolete. In that case then their might be the possibility of change to new aircraft specifications and a curtailment of some extant designs.
In this case then the butterfly's can take off in swarms.
If you can grt Bristol's to sort out the Taurus to reliably produce 1200hp by late 1938 then their at lots of potential butterfly's as well

perfectgeneral · Feb 17, 2017

Just Leo said:
What's the reason?

Well the only reason could be a high speed wind tunnel for the Royal Aircraft Establishment. That leads to research that shows less drag from such wings.

perfectgeneral · Feb 17, 2017

sonofpegasus said:
This all depends on when the POD is!
To Change the thinking of the AM means a change of the entire ethos of air warfare in the 1920's and 30's (ie. the 'bomber will always get through' and the fear of the "Knockout Blow").
One possible game changer is if in early 1936 the RAF and the AM are actually convinced by the early development of RDF (Radar) that a viable defence against daylight bombing is not only inevitable but renders all extant bomber designs obsolete. In that case then their might be the possibility of change to new aircraft specifications and a curtailment of some extant designs.
In this case then the butterfly's can take off in swarms.
If you can grt Bristol's to sort out the Taurus to reliably produce 1200hp by late 1938 then their at lots of potential butterfly's as well

An early radar out of the blue lights a rocket under the Ministry alright. Interception is about climb and speed. The race is on and aerodynamics becomes more of a pressing issue. A supersonic wind tunnel is commissioned. Priorities on purchasing change. That sort of thing.

NOMISYRRUC · Feb 17, 2017

sonofpegasus said:
This all depends on when the POD is!

To Change the thinking of the AM means a change of the entire ethos of air warfare in the 1920's and 30's (ie. the 'bomber will always get through' and the fear of the "Knockout Blow").
One possible game changer is if in early 1936 the RAF and the AM are actually convinced by the early development of RDF (Radar) that a viable defence against daylight bombing is not only inevitable but renders all extant bomber designs obsolete. In that case then their might be the possibility of change to new aircraft specifications and a curtailment of some extant designs.

IIRC King George V of all people had the idea for radar in 1931 when he attended a lecture about asdic. He thought if that could be done with sound waves underwater it could be done with radio waves in the air.

Meanwhile in the same year the Royal Navy's Signal School thought of a 50cm radar, but development didn't begin until the second half of the 1930s. If it had been started earlier then the RAF might have had 50cm AI radars in service when the Battle of Britain started and Anti-Aircraft Command might have had 50cm GL and SLC radars in large scale service instead of the 1.5 metre AI and GL sets that were in service in small numbers.

perfectgeneral · Feb 17, 2017

fastmongrel said:
Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough had wind tunnels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-Britain-s-earliest-aircraft-developed.html

I heard they didn't have a decent high speed (supersonic) wind tunnel. I know that the Hurricane wasn't supersonic, but going faster highlights the small problems you get at lower speeds. Also aircraft go faster than top speed in a dive ("do not exceed" speed).

perfectgeneral · Feb 17, 2017

NOMISYRRUC said:
IIRC King George V of all people had the idea for radar in 1931 when he attended a lecture about asdic. He thought if that could be done with sound waves underwater it could be done with radio waves in the air.

Meanwhile in the same year the Royal Navy's Signal School thought of a 50cm radar, but development didn't begin until the second half of the 1930s. If it had been started earlier then the RAF might have had 50cm AI radars in service when the Battle of Britain started and Anti-Aircraft Command might have had 50cm GL and SLC radars in large scale service instead of the 1.5 metre AI and GL sets that were in service in small numbers.

"KGV's death ray Zaps the Air Ministry" would be a nice start. If he ever got to hear of the Signal School work he might be a royal patron to continue research and development. Perhaps establishing/endowing/bequeathing a Royal Radar Research Establishment in his will? This would free up budget from both RN and RAf that overlapped some in their efforts. Money for a supersonic wind tunnel? Ministry vacuum valve factory? Earlier adaption of the 20mm cannon to be belt fed?

NOMISYRRUC · Feb 17, 2017

To reduce the number of engines I thought of the Air Ministry arranging for Siddeley to take over Cosmos Engineering effectively creating Bristol Siddeley about 40 years earlier and for Rolls Royce to acquire Napier in about 1930.

In the latter case I thought that would prevent the Napier Rapier, Dagger and Sabre because they competed with RR engines in the same classes and allow the RR (Napier) Ltd to concentrate on the diesel engines it developed from the Junkers Jumo 204 and 205. I thought that at least we would get the Deltic 5 years earlier.