1930s Air Ministry surprise sanity options

[perfectgeneral]

The 13.2 mm makes plenty of sense, and it was available early enough, from a friendly country - thus licence production is no problem.

It is a smaller leap (is 66% of full size) to a 20mm Browning from this calibre too. Although the Boys 13.9mm (69.5%) round is something the British have tools for already. A Boys-Browning heavy machine gun might even remain useful against land targets for longer. Either way a barrel and chamber calibre upgrade to 20mm is on it's way, once developed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The problem there - is Whittle, his view was the conventional aero-engine makers had a vested interest in not making his engines a success, hence he didn't want anything to do with R-R., preferring Rover - because of their turbine work.

I also half remember from reading that Jet Pioneers book that Whittle and Hives didn't get on. IIRC he was a socialist and wanted the government to nationalise the aircraft and aero engine industries, which IIRC Hives was dead against. Ironically HMG let Rolls Royce remain privately owned until 1971 but nationalised Power Jets.

IIRC he didn't get on with Griffith either and he was working for Rolls Royce by then. Is there any truth in the suggestion that one of the reasons why the Air Ministry rejected Whittle's proposals that Griffith had recently had his own proposal for a gas turbine engine turned down? IIRC from the British official history of the design and development weapons that the Air Ministry had to stop its work on compressors for gas turbines for lack of money about a year before Whittle made his first proposal.

 

[perfectgeneral]

As you no doubt know, Shorts were told to shorten the wings of the Stirling to 100ft. This won't happen to a four engine airliner. So you could get some idea from the original prototype of the Stirling for what a Shorts airliner might start from. A wingspan of 120ft-136ft?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part 1 of FAA Wank. Some Background Information
The Fleet Air Arm 1923-39 IOTL
Squadrons and Flights 1923-39

On 1st April 1923 The RAF's 6 naval co-operation squadrons (Nos. 3, 203, 205, 210, 230 and 267) were disbanded and replaced by 12 flights numbered in the series 400-499 as follows:

• Nos. 401 and 402 (Fleet Fighter) Flights from No. 203 Squadron
• Nos. 420, 421 and 422 (Fleet Spotter) Flights from No. 3 Squadron
• Nos. 440, 441 and 442 (Fleet Reconnaissance) Flights from No. 205 Squadron
• Nos. 460 and 461 (Fleet Torpedo) Flights from No. 210 Squadron
• Nos. 480 and 481 (Coastal Reconnaissance) Flights from Nos. 230 and 267 Squadrons. They became Nos. 201 and 202 (C.R.) Squadrons on 01.01.29 but their I.E. was still 4 aircraft each

A year later the RAF's naval co-operation force was renamed the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force.

Between 1923 and 31st March 1933 the number of carrier aircraft grew from 60 in 10 flights to 162 in 27 flights as follows:

• Nos. 401 to 409 (Fleet Fighter) Flights - Total 9
• Nos. 440 to 450 (Fleet Spotter Reconnaissance) Flights - Total 11
• Nos. 460 to 466 (Fleet Torpedo) Flights - Total 7

The next day the force was reorganised into 12 aircraft carrier squadrons with 9 to 12 aircraft numbered in the series 800-899 and 6 catapult flights with 6 aircraft each retaining their old numbers. The number of aircraft was exactly the same so that some of the aircraft carrier squadrons were at half strength. They consisted of:

• Nos. 800 to 803 (Fleet Fighter) Squadrons
• Nos. 810 to 812 (Fleet Torpedo) Squadrons
• Nos. 820 to 824 (Fleet Spotter Reconnaissance) Squadrons

There was no change by the end of March 1934, but the original 1934-35 Air Estimates included the formation of 2 flights that brought 2 of the aircraft carrier squadrons up to date. No 825 (FSR) Squadron was formed by renumbering 824 Squadron on 08/10/34 and exactly one year later a new No. 824 (FSR) Squadron was formed. The introduction of the Blackburn Shark and Fairey Swordfish resulted in the FSR and FT squadrons being re-designated Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance (TSR) squadrons. No. 813 (TSR) Squadron was formed on 18/01/37 and No. 814 (TSR) Squadron was formed on 01/12/38.

Thus when the Admiralty took control of the Fleet Air Arm in May 1939 it inherited 15 squadrons (4 FF and 11 TSR) with an Initial Equipment of 174 aircraft. The first thing it did was to disband Nos. 801, 811 and 822 Squadrons which were used to form 2 training squadrons (Nos. 767 and 769). However, new Nos. 811 and 822 Squadrons were formed by September 1939 along with No. 818 (TSR) Squadron by September 1939. Thus the Naval Aviation to give it its new official name had 15 squadrons (3 FF and 12 TSR at the outbreak of World War II with an Initial Equipment of 174 aircraft. It wasn't 15 squadrons of 12 for a total of 180 because Eagle could only take 18 Swordfish so her TSR squadrons (Nos. 813 and 824) had 9 aircraft each instead of the normal 12.

Meanwhile a seventh catapult flight was formed on 30/08/35 bringing that force up to a theoretical strength of 42 aircraft. Then on 15/07/36 the catapults were organised into 11 flights as follows:

• No. 701 for the 1st Battle Squadron
• No. 702 for the 2nd Battle Squadron
• No. 705 for the Battlecruiser Squadron
• No. 711 for the 1st Cruiser Squadron
• No. 712 for the 2nd Cruiser Squadron
• No. 713 for the 3rd Cruiser Squadron
• No. 714 for the 4th Cruiser Squadron
• No. 715 for the 5th Cruiser Squadron
• No. 716 for the 6th Cruiser Squadron
• No. 718 for the 8th Cruiser Squadron
• No. 720 for the NZ Division

There were no Nos. 717 and 719 Flights because there was no 7th Cruiser Squadron and no 9th Cruiser Squadron. Nos. 702 and 720 Flights were brand new units, but the rest were formed by re-numbering, splitting and merging the 7 existing flights. The number of aircraft in each flight varied according to the capacity of the ships in the squadron they were attached to. In addition to these flights there was also No. 710 Flight operating 6 Walrus amphibians from HMS Albatross.

In addition to the aircraft carrier squadrons and catapult flights the Admiralty took over a number of second-line flying units from the Air Ministry, which were formed into squadrons in the series 750-799. In September 1939 they consisted of:

• Nos. 750 to 752, forming No. 1 Observers School
• Nos. 753 and 754, forming No. 2 Observers School
• Nos. 755 and 757 (Telegraphist Air Gunner Training) Squadrons, forming No. 1 Air Gunners School
• No. 758 (Telegraphist Air Gunner Training) Squadrons forming No. 2 Air Gunners School
• No. 765 (Seaplane Squadron and Pool) Squadron, which was the operational training unit for the catapult flights
• No. 767 (Deck Landing Training) Squadron, which was the O.T.U. for the TSR squadrons
• No. 769 (Fighter Deck Landing Training) Squadron, which was the O.T.U. for the FF squadrons
• No. 771 (Fleet Requirements Unit) Squadron

My research on this is incomplete, but it looks as if 5 TAG training squadrons (Nos. 755 to 759) should have been formed. Originally 2 deck landing training squadrons (Nos. 767 and 768) were to have been formed to train the TSR aircrew, but a single larger squadron was formed instead.

Expansion Schemes

Scheme A of 1934 provided for an increase to 213 aircraft in 16½ squadrons by 31/03/39, but at 12 aircraft per squadron 213 aircraft is the equivalent of 17¾ squadrons. I think this was to increase the existing force of 126 aircraft carrier and 36 catapult aircraft (total 162) to 171 aircraft carrier and 42 catapult aircraft. Scheme C of 1935 did not improve upon that, but Scheme F of 1936 increased the total to 312 aircraft in the equivalent of 26 squadrons by 31/03/39 and 504 aircraft on 31/03/42. None of the later expansion schemes provided for any further increases, but that could have been because the later schemes were after the Inskip Award.

Also the reports of the Cabinet's Defence Requirements Committee (D.R.C.) often called for a larger expansion of the FAA than was actually sanctioned. E.g. the first D.R.C. Report called for an increase of the RAF in the Far East and FAA, but the subsequent Expansion Scheme A provided for only modest expansions of both, but for a much bigger expansion of the Air Defence of Great Britain (later Bomber and Fighter Commands) than the Report reccomended.

Actual Strength When World War II Broke Out

All the sources I have give the actual strengths of the FAA in September as between 230 and 235 in the aircraft carrier squadrons and catapult flights, which was three quarters of the strength it should have had six months earlier. The source I am going to use here said 231 aircraft comprising 162 in the 15 aircraft carrier squadrons and 69 in the catapult flights.

There were 3 Fleet Fighter squadrons with 33 aircraft between them consisting of 21 Skuas aboard Ark Royal and 12 Sea Gladiators aboard Glorious. There should have been 24 fighters aboard Ark Royal instead of 21. I don't know if the 3 missing aircraft were ashore or simply didn't exist. Earlier on IOTL the Fleet Fighter squadrons had a mixed establishment of 9 Hawker Nimrods (navalised Furies) and 3 Ospreys (navalised Demons). The 3 missing aircraft could have been Blackburn Rocs ashore.

There were 12 Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance squadrons with 129 Swordfish aircraft instead of the 135 that I was expecting. That was because 2 of the 4 squadrons on Ark Royal had 9 aircraft instead of the usual 12. I don't know if that was because the 6 missing aircraft were ashore or because they did not exist.

If the 9 missing aircraft are added to the 162 the total increases to 171, which is exactly the same as the number of carrier aircraft that I think was planned under Scheme A.

The capacity of the 7 aircraft carriers was 246 machines, but only 162 (or 171) existed, a deficiency of about one third. However, if Furious (30 aircraft) serving as deck landing carrier with no aircraft embarked and Argus (18 aircraft) serving as the Queen Bee depot ship with no aircraft embarked are removed the total reduces the capacity to 198 machines with 162 (or 171) aircraft available reducing the deficiency to about 20% (or 15%). Another way of looking at is if Ark Royal is deducted the capacity of the 6 remaining ships was 174 aircraft or what was provided under Scheme A.

It looks to me that when Ark Royal was ordered in 1934 someone slipped up and forgot to order the aircraft and provide the personnel for its air group!

The catapult flights had a grand total of 69 aircraft comprising 8 Fairey Seafox floatplanes, 48 Walrus amphibians and 13 Swordfish fitted with floats. This is 27 more than the number that I think was planned under Scheme A and there might have been more aircraft ashore that weren't included in the source.

If the 162 carrier and 69 catapult aircraft are added to the 9 carrier aircraft I think should be there, but weren't mentioned in the source, the grand total is 240 aircraft. If the capacity of Ark Royal is added to that the total is 312 aircraft or the number of aircraft that should have existed on 31st March 1939 under Scheme F. So it looks as if that expansion scheme provided 243 carrier and 69 catapult aircraft.

 

[perfectgeneral]

It looks to me that when Ark Royal was ordered in 1934 someone slipped up and forgot to order the aircraft and provide the personnel for its air group!

Might an order of five other such aircraft carriers jog their memory? Indeed, might this prompt the Inskip award sooner? The FAA would need to be a sizeable force to meet the needs of all these. If you are going to overhaul the FAA, this would be the time (1931-1934).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've just noticed some mistakes in Post 164, but I won't be able to correct them for a few hours.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Might an order of five other such aircraft carriers jog their memory? Indeed, might this prompt the Inskip award sooner? The FAA would need to be a sizeable force to meet the needs of all these. If you are going to overhaul the FAA, this would be the time.

I haven't got that far yet. It took a long time to pull the information together for post 164 and then write it. I would be having a long lie down in a darkened room if I wasn't going out soon.

 

[Just Leo]

And when they are ready to go into production give the job to Rolls Royce instead of Rover.

Another one for @Just Leo. How much time did that blunder waste? Personally I doubt that avoiding the Rover interlude of about 2 years would automatically advance the entry of the Welland and Derwent into service by 2 years. However, I do think that a year is reasonable and that will bring the other RR engines based on Whittle's work forward by one year too.

Rover didn't seamlessly dive into turbine development, since they were busy with many things, including playing with Bristol engines that some people want early. Rolls Royce, at one point, begged to drop some engines from its product line, in order to concentrate on what they considered the best choices, mostly the Merlin, and the FWs are coming, so the Griffon needs a push. Just as early Hercules engines were waiting for breakthrough discoveries in production techniques and metallurgy, which, in my way of thinking, don't take easily to rushing, Rolls Royce jet development was anticipating word from Henry Wiggins and William Jessop, the metallurgy boys from Birmingham and Sheffield, on something new. You not only have to get everything going earlier, you have to get myriad breakthroughs coming in earlier.

Roy Fedden had said that the war would be won with piston engines. My opinion is that he was correct, in that the Gloster Meteor F.8 was post-war. Funny thing is that suitable airframes weren't available by the time of the next war, except for those from the US and USSR.

 

[Just Leo]

As you no doubt know, Shorts were told to shorten the wings of the Stirling to 100ft. This won't happen to a four engine airliner. So you could get some idea from the original prototype of the Stirling for what a Shorts airliner might start from. A wingspan of 120ft-136ft?

The Sunderland wingspan was 113 feet, Lancaster, 102, Halifax, 104. The problem was that the fuselage was 17 feet too long. The Stirling had to possess better small field capability not imposed on Manchester and Halifax, which were intended for catapult launch, which they forgot to implement.

 

[perfectgeneral]

The Sunderland wingspan was 113 feet, Lancaster, 102, Halifax, 104. The problem was that the fuselage was 17 feet too long. The Stirling had to possess better small field capability not imposed on Manchester and Halifax, which were intended for catapult launch, which they forgot to implement.

Not intended for a level playing field?

 

[Just Leo]

Not intended for a level playing field?

The playing field was regulation, but only one was required to clear the goal post.

 

[Driftless]

I realize this opens an engineering can-o-worms, but what happens to the Stirling's performance if it's built proportionately? Either the wingspan extended, or the length cut down? (I realize it's not as simple as that - no trip out to the garage with a sawz-all or duct tape)

 

[tomo pauk]

It is a smaller leap (is 66% of full size) to a 20mm Browning from this calibre too. Although the Boys 13.9mm (69.5%) round is something the British have tools for already. A Boys-Browning heavy machine gun might even remain useful against land targets for longer. Either way a barrel and chamber calibre upgrade to 20mm is on it's way, once developed.

IMO - the opportunities and limitations of the installation of particular weapon are very important thing. The high power 20mm, on late 1930s/early ww2 aircraft, has severe limitations as a turreted or hand-operated gun, while the .30-ish ammo can be defeated by BP glass and light armor.
The 0.50-ish HMGs can be tucked within the wings, so they represent a smaller drag penalty - the 2 x Hispano II cannons' protruding barrels & bulges were deemed to slow Spitfire V by some 7-8 mph. The heavy & powerful Hispano II was also with such the ammo, so the weight quickly climb up. Granted, no problem if one has 1500-1700-2000 HP, but the BoB fighters of 1000-1300 HP might find the drag and RoC penalty a bit too big.

Perhaps an interesting thing might be the British adoption of the Oerlikon FF, with suitable improvements as the time progresses (bigger drum of 90 rds, belt feed etc?).

 

[merlin]

I realize this opens an engineering can-o-worms, but what happens to the Stirling's performance if it's built proportionately? Either the wingspan extended, or the length cut down? (I realize it's not as simple as that - no trip out to the garage with a sawz-all or duct tape)

Oh that's easy, don't build it. It wasn't the initial favourite, if the AM turns down Supermarine's lobbying (want them to concentrate on sorting out production of the Spitfire), and stick to the Vickers and Bolton-Paul designs. But then, the complexities of the geodetic system complicate matters for sub-contracting the Vickers design - leaving it to Bolton-Paul. B-P having more experience in dealing with the AM - object to any change in the plans to make it a bomber/transport by lengthening the fuselage. The only change - which improves performance, is the substitution of Merlins for the Kestrels in the design.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Given that the elliptical wings were chosen for the Spitfire to fit in the machine guns, why keep the hard to manufacture odd shape for the bomber? You can get the same even load distribution from a tapered wing with a twist in it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I realize this opens an engineering can-o-worms, but what happens to the Stirling's performance if it's built proportionately? Either the wingspan extended, or the length cut down? (I realize it's not as simple as that - no trip out to the garage with a sawz-all or duct tape)

I think the best thing to do with the 2,400-odd Stirlings that were built is put planing bottoms on them, paint out Stirling and paint on Sunderland.

Then cancel the orders for the 600-odd Catalinas and buy 600 Liberators although one Catalina probably doesn't equal one Liberator in money, man hours and materials.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Might an order of five other such aircraft carriers jog their memory? Indeed, might this prompt the Inskip award sooner? The FAA would need to be a sizeable force to meet the needs of all these. If you are going to overhaul the FAA, this would be the time (1931-1934).

I was making what is known scientifically as a joke.

The aircraft had probably been ordered (but because the suppliers were still working up to meet the sudden and large increase in demand) hadn't been built yet.

 

[perfectgeneral]

I was making what is known scientifically as a joke.

The aircraft had probably been ordered, but because the suppliers were still working up to meet the sudden and large increase in demand, hadn't been built yet.

Yes, I get that, but won't an even bigger increase in demand accelerate the response? I find it ironical that I'm calling on the great invisible hand to get something right for a change.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes, I get that, but won't an even bigger increase in demand accelerate the response? I find it ironical that I'm calling on the great invisible hand to get something right for a change.

I'm not sure yet. In the short term there will be more industrial capacity because the FAA was built up to a greater size before 1934-ish. The downside is that there will be even greater demand on the arms industry afterwards.

I haven't sat down with my A4 pad yet, but I think the situation in September 1939 will be that there were 432 first-line carrier aircraft in 36 squadrons of 12 because the expansion programme begun in 1930 for completion in 1939 was for 6 full-strength air groups for the 6 Dreadnought class aircraft carriers. However, in 1936 when the tonnage quota was abolished and the RN didn't have to scrap the Follies (all fitted with full-length flight decks in the 1920s ITTL) there wasn't enough industrial capacity to provide 12 extra squadrons for them by the end of 1939. There are also financial controls. IIRC the services initially wanted to spend £1,650 on rearmament 1937-42 (not exact amounts or dates) but the Treasury said it could only raise £1,500 million (exact amount) over that period.

Therefore the available aircraft would fill 75% of the available capacity. That would still be an improvement on OTL when it was about 66% and there would be an absolute increase over OTL from 162 to 432 or over 250% plus they were better aircraft, but the better aircraft will be in Part 3. The next part will be the growth in the FAA IOTL.

 

[Just Leo]

Given that the elliptical wings were chosen for the Spitfire to fit in the machine guns, why keep the hard to manufacture odd shape for the bomber? You can get the same even load distribution from a tapered wing with a twist in it.

Which bomber are you talking about? The Spitfire wing did have a twist in it.