Miles M.20 produced at CC&F for RAF/FAA instead of Hurricane

[MatthewB]

IOTL, the Miles M.20 was a Second World War fighter developed by Miles Aircraft in 1940. Designed as a simple and quick-to-build 'emergency fighter' alternative to the Royal Air Force's Spitfires and Hurricanes should their production get disrupted by bombing. In the event, due to dispersal of manufacturing, the Luftwaffe's bombing of the Spitfire and Hurricane factories did not seriously affect production, and so the M.20 proved unnecessary and was cancelled.

Let’s get the Miles M.20 produced at CC&F in Fort William in Canada and into RAF and later FAA service (Specification N.1/41 for a FAA shipboard fighter, equipped with an arrestor hook and catapult launch points). Bereft of retracting undercarriage and hydraulics, made of wood, the Miles M.20 should be just the ticket for quick tooling up and production at CC&F. Hydraulics aside, the engine and internals are just as complicated as others of course.

Here’s a photo of the throttle quadrant on a Miles trainer. Being that they used standard Miles parts for the fighter this is what they would have used.

Some good pics and info here https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?attachmentid=7528661&d=1422788434

 

[Ian_W]

The most obvious problem is the Hurricane starts being built in 1937, and the Miles M20 starts being built in 1940.

I'd therefore suggest Canadian nationalism - something like the Ross Rifle vs SMLE

I dunno, maybe a Canadian factory for the Miles Magister, and then Canada refits it for M20s ?

 

[MatthewB]

Some pics of the Miles Master production line....

 

[MatthewB]

The most obvious problem is the Hurricane starts being built in 1937, and the Miles M20 starts being built in 1940.

I'd therefore suggest Canadian nationalism - something like the Ross Rifle vs SMLE

I dunno, maybe a Canadian factory for the Miles Magister, and then Canada refits it for M20s ?

True, we need to get the minds at Miles (and CC&F) onto the fighter concept earlier so to preempt the Hurricane order. My vision is for Britain to see the need for a quick to build Empire Fighter, to be produced or assembled by CC&F (Canada), CAC (Australia) and eventually HAL (India). Hopefully we can get some crated to the Far East instead of the Buffaloes.

The folding wing FAA version would be made in one place I assume, and its very long range, robust fixed wheel undercarriage, high speed (vs. Fulmar, Gladiator) and heavy 8 gun armament would be welcomed by the fleet.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

A Miles Kestrel fighter version with either a licence built Merlin or as it's to be built in Canada an Allison engine of appropriate horse power. Production to begin in 1939 along with Master trainers for the Empire Air Training Scheme. The Aim is to provide the R.C.A.F with a Canadian built fighter.

 

[MatthewB]

A Miles Kestrel fighter version with either a licence built Merlin or as it's to be built in Canada an Allison engine of appropriate horse power.

The Miles Master used both in-line and radial engines (RR Kestrel, Bristol Mercury, and P&W Twin Master) perhaps the M.20 can also make due of whatever engines are available. Allisons may be easier to procure for CC&F, though the Hurricanes got their Merlins shipped in from the UK.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If I was making the choice to build this as Canada's fight, presumably as a way to show independence from Britain then I want all of it built in Canada. Ideally I'd want the Merlin engine but the home design office is thousands of miles across a sea potentially full of hostile Uboats, so a US designed engine is arguably the better option. To save redesigning the whole front fuselage an in line engine would be preferred so the Allison from the Curtis P 40 is the only real option. The question is can I get them to set up a Canadian factory (and bypass those annoying neutrality laws) or do I have to buy them from the US with gold or dollars.

 

[MatthewB]

The question is can I get them to set up a Canadian factory (and bypass those annoying neutrality laws) or do I have to buy them from the US with gold or dollars.

Pratt & Whitney Canada was already a going concern by the early 1930s. Meanwhile the Allison Engine Company has been owned by General Motors since 1929, the latter of which has been producing engines and cars in Canada since the 1910s. So, I think we have a premise for skirting any neutrality laws.

 

[WILDGEESE]

Some pics of the Miles Master production line....

Apologies beforehand . . . but NO!!!!!!!

Going on what pilots always say . . . "If it looks right . . . It'll fly right"

This one looks like a right dogs dinner.

If they try to get this into production it'll end up the same way as the French Aircraft Industry . . . too complicated, too mediocre . . . and let's buy from the USA instead.

Just imagine the BoB with Hawk 75's and P-40's instead of the Hurricane.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

 

[riggerrob]

ATL Circa 1937, the RCAF decide that their locally-built Fleet Fawn and Finch biplane trainers are approaching obsolescence and opt for an all-monoplane fleet for the looming conflict.

DHC is invited to submit a closed cockpit version of the Moth Minor monoplane, but home office drags their feet about providing drawings and tooling.
Meanwhile, Miles offers a Master with a Mohawk canopy and wins the production contract. Later production Masters sport Ranger or Menasco in-line engines.
Magister production soon follows with Allison engines, though a few American-made radials were trialed.
Longer American neutrality does help this Canada-wank as long as American automotive factories are still willing to sell “automotive engine components” to their Canadian subsidiaries.

As for which Canadian factories actually build these Miles airplanes ..... Canadian Car and Foundry, Fairchild of Canada, Fleet, Noordyn and dozens of furniture factories all have production capacity eager for work in 1937.

OTL Remember that Fleet ended up “managing” Victory Aircraft’s Lancaster production.

ATL When invasion looms, several Miles engineers decamp to Canada with M.20 drawings. The RCAF opts for a fixed-gear version needing rapid conversion to skis. Naval versions sport stout landing gear with both the tail wheel and arrestor hook swinging up and disappearing into the tail cone. Mark IIs get wings that fold at mid-span .... barely narrow enough for RN elevators. Miles Mariner Mark III get quad 20mm cannons and better-streamlined radiators.
RCNVR Pilots revel in their new Miles M.20 naval fighters, looping around everything in the FAA inventory. RCNVR Mariners suffer surprisingly few landing-on accidents.
After a few flubbed attempts, the RN refuses to convert any more RCN pilots to Sea Hurricanes or Sea Fires because they broke too many British-built airplanes. “Silly colonials learned too many bad habits flying their silly wooden airplanes! harrumpf!”
Wooden Miles Mariners only last a year or so on deck, but that is long enough to chase off Condors and much of the Japanese inventory.

 

[sonofpegasus]

One thing to remember is that when the FAA did test the Miles M.20 as a potential fleet fighter it was found to have flying characteristics that made it completely unsuitable for carrier operations! The Primary test pilot was a certain 'Winkle' Brown and if he says that it is not going to work then it probably won't.

 

[weasel_airlift]

Going on what pilots always say . . . "If it looks right . . . It'll fly right"

You know, I was also thinking that this aircraft looks...off somehow.

Here's a better picture, though. Reminds me of an early Typhoon

 

[MatthewB]

One thing to remember is that when the FAA did test the Miles M.20 as a potential fleet fighter it was found to have flying characteristics that made it completely unsuitable for carrier operations! The Primary test pilot was a certain 'Winkle' Brown and if he says that it is not going to work then it probably won't.

If the Seafire can get past Brown, we can assess and adjust the Miles’ design to address any shortcomings.

 

[sonofpegasus]

That is the case in part, whilst Jeffery Quill and 'Winkle" Brown proved the viability of the Spitfire in FAA service, the latter pilot absolutely disqualified the existing Miles M.20 fighter as a carrier borne aircraft.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If the Seafire can get past Brown, we can assess and adjust the Miles’ design to address any shortcomings.

Put the Master wings back on it for a start.

 

[MatthewB]

That is the case in part, whilst Jeffery Quill and 'Winkle" Brown proved the viability of the Spitfire in FAA service, the latter pilot absolutely disqualified the existing Miles M.20 fighter as a carrier borne aircraft.

I wonder what made the Miles M.20 unsuitable relative to the suitable Seafire? The Seafire was known to have terrible low drag handling and bounced about the deck before wrecking itself under thin and fragile undercarriage - just how worse was the Miles? I have to assume the M.20 had poor low-speed handling or a high landing/takeoff speed. Maybe it was due to the Miles' wooden construction being torn apart.

Googling 'Winkle' Brown and the Miles M.20 doesn't give any hint of being "absolutely disqualified", but instead gets the following results:

https://www.historynet.com/incredible-winkle-brown.htm
"Assigned to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough to assess the Miles M.20 fighter as a prospective naval combat aircraft. He judged it “not as manoeuvrable” as the Martlet."

https://tinyurl.com/y34oxhvq
"It was a surprisingly nippy aircraft, but not as maneuverable as the Martlet, nor had it the excellent deck handling characteristics of the latter."

We also need to note that Brown tested the M.20 in January 1942, by which time the FAA was receiving its first Martlets. Also, on the Seafire, Brown had a record 2,407 deck landings with only one crash when a hook broke, suggesting that Brown had uncannily excellent talents for carrier landings. His assessment of the Seafire might have been it can be landed just fine (in his hands).

I'm suggesting the land-based M.20 is in production overseas before 1939, so any naval variant would be available earlier, especially a non-folding variant for the Outrageous class, Eagle and Hermes.

 

[sloreck]

Exactly what contemporary Axis/Japanese fighters would such an aircraft with fixed landing gear be competitive with in 1940?

 

[TonyA]

Exactly what contemporary Axis/Japanese fighters would such an aircraft with fixed landing gear be competitive with in 1940?

Took the words out of my mouth...seems adequate for Atlantic duty against snoopers beyond LBA fighter range, but against Japan? Better to point out that in 1940, IJA/IJN were not a concern...yet.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Exactly what contemporary Axis/Japanese fighters would such an aircraft with fixed landing gear be competitive with in 1940?

Mitsubishi A5M Claude, Nakajima ki-27 Nate, Fiat CR42, Fiat G-50, Macchi 200 and BF 109E.

 

[sloreck]

As stated no war with Japan in 1940, and other than in North Africa, you won't be seeing the Italian fighters. I do wonder about the Miles vs Me - and one problem with the Miles is that it won't be able to absorb a lot of hits from large caliber machine guns or cannon, a problem with most Japanese fighters.