Alternate Aircraft of Nations
- Thread starter Count of Crisco
- Start date
The Fleet Air Arm would be the largest customer for this aircraft as its performance in close to the Hurricane but doesn't take aircraft from fighter command. It would do fine in the Mediterranean campaign through to the end of 1941. Also as it's built in the Commonwealth Britain can pay in Sterling rather than scarce dollars.
Last edited:
I could maybe See it being used in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America under the 1960s? Hell they used the DC-3 until the 70s
Very true
And even in that scenario the B-17 and the B 24 had ridiculously short lives
I was being a bit conservative on my projected performance of the aircraft. The original, bi-plane version, with a 700 hp radial flew at 261 mph, 30 mph faster than the Goblin which it is based. I always thought it would compliment the Fulmar and as you say it would be built in the Commonwealth.
There are DC-3 still in service to this day in certain niche applications and I always wondered if it wouldnt be justified to try and manufacture modernized new ones. As the saying goes: "You can only replace a DC-3 with a DC-3".
In contrast to the Ju 188 the DC-3 has the advantage of being extremly good at its job, the 188 is not really a great bomber in the post-war context and COIN is a much more limited area. If you go by events of OTL with germany loosing the war you will also run into supply issues as @Gokbay pointed out.
There short post-war career can be very easily explained by a total lack of purpose after the war: Both are conventional strategic bombers of rather short range compared to the B-29 (and in general much less modern) which is just not something anybody that could afford a fleet of such an aircraft had any need for in the 50s and 60s. Converting them to transports also makes little sense in a world thats awash in surplus transport planes at the same time.
Driftless
Donor
Some of the WW2 era planes that had "legs" long into the post war era, were seaplanes. Some have been used as island or lake hopping commercial carriers, and some of the larger craft have had long and distinguished service as fire-fighters for remote forest and mountain areas. Some of those planes have been whittled away by accumulated stress on air frames or outright accidents.
And then there's the DC-3, that kept going and going and going... and a few are still at work!
Also the USAAF/USAF view of bombing post WW2 was completely myopic toward A-bomb delivery. Only the B-29 was ready to fill that role, so all other bombers were viewed as scrap. After all, now that they had “the bomb”, why would they ever want/need to deliver conventional explosives?🤔
ric350
Driftless
Donor
And they hashed and re-hashed that whole conventional vs A-bomb thing over the decades since. We've got nuke bombers lugging conventional loads and the B-52 soldiering on, due in part to its adaptability.
Macchi M.18 of the Spanish Air Force in Puerto Rico c.1932.
The Spanish Air Force purchased 30 from Italy in the 1920’s and they were the staple naval patrol craft of the Spanish Military for 20 years. 20 saw service on the seaplane tender Dédalo until she was decommissioned in 1934, the rest would see service in Spains colonies of Puerto Rico, Equatorial Guinea, and the Canary Islands. M.18’s would remain in service during Spains neutrality in the 2nd Great War, conducting patrols and protecting Spains waters before finally being retired in the late 1940’s.
It all depends on need and availability. India had a need and they had B-24s available so scoured the dumps of ex-lend-lease aircraft and came up with two dozen used B-24s to use them as maritime recce machines, which they did until the late 1960s, finally replacing them with Il-38 May.
The Czechs and the Spanish kept building Bf-109 for several years, I suppose they could buy spare parts from one of those, but is not a long term good idea...
Note that Spain had to swicth the engine of the Bf-109, because they couldn't get the original DB605 engine.
Huh, true, they switched to Merlins for both their Bf-109 and their He-111...
Have y'all seen the video of the P63 crashing into the B-17 over the weekend in texas
I always thought that the Sukhoi SU 25 Could have been far more successful in the export market if it was 1.5 Mach capable had some degree of air to air capability
What if Soviets Designed an aircraft That was a mix of F5E freedom fighter / kfir and A-10
Essentially engines that are powerful enough to give decent low to medium altitude Performance Yet at the same time wings that are big enough to carry a variety of air to ground munitions
Think ot a F5E plus ( The improvement mostly in air to ground capability) or F16 minus ( Mostly inferior performance avionics and range)
What if Soviets Designed an aircraft That was a mix of F5E freedom fighter / kfir and A-10
Essentially engines that are powerful enough to give decent low to medium altitude Performance Yet at the same time wings that are big enough to carry a variety of air to ground munitions
Think ot a F5E plus ( The improvement mostly in air to ground capability) or F16 minus ( Mostly inferior performance avionics and range)
Last edited:
Are you sure you mean the SU-25 "Frogfoot"? That thing is a pure ground attack bird in the same vein as the A-10, has basically zero air-to-air ability and a max speed below Mach 0.8.
Su-17 family? Those were pretty fast, and were carrying reasonable bomb load. The MiG-27 was also there.
If one does not like swept wings, the Su-17 with the kinked wings from Su-15TM should work. Will loose some of short-field capability, though. The non-swept wings should be better in having more racks for different stores.