I totally agree that the 20mm cannon was a better choice as a bullet but the Hispano was not designed for the mounting that the RAF wanted so it came with a modification list to be determined whereas the large Browning HMG came fit to install. The 13.2 calibre gave a touch more HE and is no problem in a new licence production and the ROF was already being worked on and FN lightened the parts to get the rate well up. The 20mm was a risk that delayed it such that even Typhoons were coming out with 12 x .303 guns. The 13.2 could have been in Hurricanes and Spitfires from the beginning. Never mind the bombers.
1930s Air Ministry surprise sanity options
- Thread starter perfectgeneral
- Start date
The Supermarine four engine bomber (and the twin engine fighter designs come to think of it).
It never actually got a wing, but there were two designs, one with symmetrical taper, and one with leading edge taper. The twins did have elliptical planforms of no function, and inflated performance estimates.
I thought I'd seen a wooden model with an elliptical wing. If it hasn't, then that answers my concern. Thanks.
Well if you are not worried about the bombers than why build interceptors?
Relying on a machine gun round was also a risk as bombers were getting faster and better protected year on year - hence why the Germans are toting 30 mm cannon on their fighters by the end of the war - Militaries are conservative beasts and resist change were ever possible - hence the 12 gun installations as a back up even though nit would not have been as effective as 4 20mm - the British also insisted on the Wildcat's weapon fit being increased from 4 to 6x .50 cal gun fighter even though this impacted its performance because its expected prey in European waters was 2 or 3 engined bombers and 4 engined MPAs such as the Condor.
Impact doesn't mean to change, alter or effect, it means to hit with great force therefore six 0.50 cal machine guns impact an enemy aircraft with 50% greater force than four guns of the same calibre. I couldn't resist that one. Sorry!
Twelve .303 machine guns might not have been as effective as four 20mm cannon, but I remember reading in Douglas Bader's Spitfire and Hurricane that the impact of the twelve machine gun Hurricane was like a circular saw.
As we're trying to get more power out of the Merlin by 1940 can the original Air Ministry specification for the Hurricane be for twelve machine guns instead of eight? That way the 30-odd Hurricane squadrons in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain can effectively be Mk IIBs and IMPACT the Luftwaffe with 50% greater force without any increase in their own losses.
Last edited:
The RAF didn't set up an effective air sea rescue service until it lost several squadrons worth of fighter pilots through drowning during the Battle of Britain. Please can the sane Air Ministry start organising one in 1934.
I don't know about "several" British patents; Whittle took out just one, which he did indeed allow to lapse for lack of some sum on the order of 30 pounds to renew it--no other agency was sufficiently interested yet to pay for it!
Regarding others "snapping" it up though...it would have made sense if the Germans simply stole Whittle's ideas, which after all would be in legal public domain once he let the patent lapse.
However, Whittle met with Ohain after the war, and became quite satisfied that the German innovator had not himself read or heard of Whittle's patent. (Whether other Germans involved in developing jet turbine engines may have heard of the British invention, I do not know, but anyway Whittle personally exonerated Ohain. Their shared story was that Britons and Germans hit on the same idea independently at roughly the same time, though Whittle clearly had priority in retrospect.
Meanwhile there are other players, farther to the east and farther to the west, to suggest might have "snapped" up Whittle's work but again, the evidence seems to point toward independent development.
My major source on all this is Bill Gunston's The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines, 3rd Edition (Patrick Stephens Limited, 2002).
To the east, Gunston at any rate gives much credit to the work of Soviet engineer Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyul'ka who appears to have worked independently of either the Briton or the German. Indisputably the USSR benefited from the practically free gift of the Nene design in postwar years, but it would be quite wrong to assume Soviet jet engines were completely foreign in origin, though of course they appropriated German work alongside the Nene. But had all foreign sources been denied them they were inventing their own engines. To the west, no Americans developed any working turbojet models until they were given them by the desperate British, but on the other hand airframe designers at Lockheed were so confident that some sort of working jet engine would be coming along shortly they already had designs for a jet plane (lacking an actual jet engine yet) in hand before this.
The idea of the turbojet was generally "in the air" as the Second World War approached, then, and the only snapping up done was done by the British government's poor relations with Whittle, and free gifts of specific designs to both USA and USSR.
The Germans in particular might have done well to copy Whittle instead of pursuing their own independent course, for one decision undertaken in Britain--to focus on centrifugal compressors rather than the theoretically more advanced and greater potential axial compressor--was of great practical value in the war years, since the state of the art of metallurgy and turbine fabrication had to advance considerably to realize the advantage of the latter over the former in practice. In practice, given WWII period metallurgy, the centrifugal compressor could hold its own against then-practical axials, and proved to be more robust and reliable. With Germans suffering from lack of reliable access to many strategic materials, it may have served them far better to focus on centrifugal compressors. They didn't, which is pretty good confirmation of Ohain's claim to have worked independently of Whittle.
In the context of a WI about a more rational Air Ministry, much if not all of Whittle's work might have been undertaken earlier, but as someone noted above, the cutting edge of performance would have to wait on a succession of inventions in materials engineering.
So even if Whittler's patent is renewed, there's a limit on just how far jet development can be expedited compared to OTL?
Did Rolls Royce's sale of a handful of Kestrel engines to Germany in the middle of the 1930s help the German aero engine industry just as much as the sale of some jet engines to the USSR after World War II helped the Soviet aero engine industry?
UK get something for the Kestrels, namely the He 70, that was used as the engine test bed at RR. Here is what R.J. Mitchell stated in the letter to Heinkel:
In addition to this, we recently investigated the effect that installing certain new British fighter engines would have on the He 70, We were dismayed to find that your new aircraft, despite its larger measurements, is appreciably faster than our fighters. It is indeed a triumph.
Germany could've bought the I-F Asso engines from Italy, or Curtiss Conqueror, even the HS 12Y from France, Italy or Czechoslovakia (they bought 240mm howitzers from the Czechs), so not having Kestrels makes no road block for them. Unlike with jet engines, where UK is probably the best bet.
In addition to this, we recently investigated the effect that installing certain new British fighter engines would have on the He 70, We were dismayed to find that your new aircraft, despite its larger measurements, is appreciably faster than our fighters. It is indeed a triumph.
Germany could've bought the I-F Asso engines from Italy, or Curtiss Conqueror, even the HS 12Y from France, Italy or Czechoslovakia (they bought 240mm howitzers from the Czechs), so not having Kestrels makes no road block for them. Unlike with jet engines, where UK is probably the best bet.
I agree. The, "If we don't sell it to them, somebody else will," argument was used to justify the Kestrel sale at the time.
I made a mistake in that. When I looked at my spreadsheet of FAA squadrons I noticed two facts that I had not noticed before. These are the aircraft carriers in September 1939 and their air groups:
- Ark Royal in the Home Fleet with 63 aircraft embarked in 6 squadrons. They were: No. 800 (9 Skuas and 3 Rocs); No 803 (9 Skuas); No. 810 (12 Swordfish); No. 818 (9 Swordfish); No. 820 (12 Swordfish); and No. 821 (9 Swordfish);
- Courageous in the Channel Force with 24 aircraft embarked in 2 squadrons, Nos. 811 and 822, both with 12 Swordfish
- Hermes in the Channel Force with 9 aircraft embarked in one squadron, No. 814 with 9 Swordfish.
- Glorious on the Mediterranean Fleet with 48 aircraft embarked in 4 squadrons. They were: No 802 (12 Sea Gladiators); and Nos. 812, 823 and 825 (each 12 Swordfish);
- Eagle on the China Station with 18 aircraft aboard in 2 squadrons. They were Nos. 813 and 824, both with 9 Swordfish. Note that Eagle did not receive a flight of 3 Sea Gladiators until after the Battle of Calabria;
- Furious at Rosyth with no aircraft embarked because she was serving as the training carrier. She became an operation aircraft carrier soon afterwards to take the place of the sunken Courageous.
- Argus, location unknown, but no aircraft were embarked because she was operating as a depot ship for De Havilland Queen Bee target drones. However, it looks as if she soon took the place of Furious as training carrier when that ship took the place of Courageous.
When I said 'Never mind the bombers' I was referring to the British bombers mounting 13.2mm HMGs in their turrets as well as the fighters having them. The reference is that it gives us 1939/41 fighters with guns that can defeat Luftwaffe armour and the benefits to RAF bombers are also present.
I plumped for three pipes as there was a lot of trunking to port to reach the edge of the deck area. The scissor lifts on the centreline fore and aft of the hanger will probably need up rating for heavier aircraft. This is the only good use I can see for the orphan calibre heavy cruisers. At present their capacity is for a fully armed Stringbag with 18 aircraft aboard in 2 squadrons. They will be hunting raiders in the Atlantic Ocean. I have a big question mark over when such a refit could have been applied across the class from the OTL experiment taken further.
Last edited:
Could the Belgian Browning be increased in calibre up to 13.9mm Boys?
Hmm - let's stick 6 x 13,2mm on the Spitfire III and create a 390 mph fighter that not just increases LW losses, but also saves on both fighters (important) and pilots (much more important)?
Yes I know....I was um just testing you.........
No that's a fair one - but I would argue that the Air Council plugs for an unarmed fast 2 engine bomber that is essentially too fast to be intercepted and only needs a crew of 2....possible wooden framed
And I still think that Cannon on fighters outweighs any benefit of a standard weapon system when we consider the numbers being built and would give greater value for the effort given
As an interim weapon I would exchange this proposed 13.2mm weapon @ a 4 for 8 or even 6 for 8 ratio over the Vickers Browning .303 - do we know what the weight would be of this weapon?
That's a great Drawing - best I've seen of a refitted Hawkins - well done and thanks for sharing (the 4 Hawkins Cruisers refitted as sub 10K Ton 'Commerce Protection Carriers' is a darling of mine that often gets murdered by the harsh killer that is hard cold reality - damn its eyes)
I would expect at least 3 converted of the 4 survivors prior to the 1930 LNT (I seem to recall that sub 10K Carriers did not count towards the limit?) in order to have 1 in the Indian Ocean and one in the Atlantic and one in 'ordinary'.
In 1939 - everything else being equal and in an attempt to 'keeping it real' they might have a mix of 'older' Aircraft type on board such as the Baffin and Shark given the vessels 'secondary role' with the Swordfish equipping the Fleet carrier strike squadrons (until production can allow for the older aircrafts replacement).
Bader never entered combat with a Hurricane IIB that I know of, but rather, three Hurricane Is in BoB. He subsequently flew a Spitfire Va as Wing Commander, over the continent, leading the Vbs of everyone else, since he equated the HS-404 as a bomber destroyer weapon not suitable for fighter combat. The Va retained the eight mgs. Funny thing is that it is suspected that his tail was blown off by friendly fire from one of those Vbs with the cannons on his final mission, and his Spitfire came to earth in pieces. His leg was found, but not his aircraft.
The 12-gun IIB armament added 426 pounds to the 8-gun IIA weight, cutting 200 ft/min from the climb rate, but not affecting ultimate level speed. The 4 cannon IIC added an additional 75 pounds to this weight, and the protruding barrels cut 6 mph speed and an added 170 feet/min. climb. It should be noted, however, that the Merlin XX imparted little speed increase, while increasing the Hurri's load carrying capability considerably. It was this factor that lent credence to the Hurri-bomber concept, not readily identified in the Hurricane Is.
Here's the relevant section
So I take it back, because it wasn't his opinion, but the opinion he received from others.
According to the Hawker Hurricane - "Defender Of The Empire" website Produced By : Colin James Pratt-Hooson:
- The clean take-off run to clear 50 feet was also increased from 350 yards to 400 yards in comparison to the Mk I;
- The landing run using brakes increased from 205 to 225 yards. The stalling speed increased from 72-80 mph to 75-85mph;
- The wing loading increased from 25.9 to 28.9 pounds per square feet;
- The power loading decreased slightly from 6.47 to 6.22 pounds per horse power
- The service load increased from 1,415 to 1,850lbs;
- The fully loaded weight increased from 6,666 to 7,440lbs.
- The service ceiling increased from 36,000 to 40,000 feet;
- The time to 20,000 feet was reduced from 9.0 to 7.5 minutes;
- The maximum rate of climb increased from 2,520 feet per minute to 2,950;
- The maximum speed increased from 330 mph at 17,500 feet to 340 mph at 21,500 feet.
I'm far from an expert on the Battle of Britain, but I think that the improved time to height and service ceiling would help considerably by enabling them to intercept the enemy at greater altitudes. IIRC the Hurricane Mk I was about 30 mph slower than the Bf 109E. The Mk II is only 10 mph faster, but it does reduce the Hurricane's disadvantage in speed with the Bf 109E by one third.