AHC: Peerless Air Ministry
- Thread starter perfectgeneral
- Start date
Note that in the above I haven't included the 4 auxiliary squadrons that were transferred to Coastal Command in 1938-39 and equipped with Ansons. These were added in Expansion Scheme L of 1938, which also changed the 32 T.B. aircraft in 2 squadrons (16 aircraft each) and 126 G.R. aircraft in 7 squadrons (18 aircraft each) to 189 T.B.G.R. aircraft in 9 squadrons (21 aircraft each). However, the number of squadrons and aircraft in the overseas squadrons remained unchanged.
This table shows the actual strength of the Maritime RAF at 31st March 1934. The next column is the strength recommended by the First Report of the Defence Requirements Committee and the subsequent columns are the strengths approved by the Cabinet in Expansion Schemes A, C, F, L and M.
T.D. stands for Trade Defence.
At 31st March 1934 No. 202 (Coastal Reconnaissance) Squadron at Malta was equipped with 12 Fairey IIIF seaplanes instead of the normal 4 flying boats. This is why there were 7 squadrons with 36 flying boats instead of 7 with 28.
T.D. stands for Trade Defence.
At 31st March 1934 No. 202 (Coastal Reconnaissance) Squadron at Malta was equipped with 12 Fairey IIIF seaplanes instead of the normal 4 flying boats. This is why there were 7 squadrons with 36 flying boats instead of 7 with 28.
@NOMISYRRUC
I'm dismayed that the threadmark system doesn't support other categories yet. I'd like to put these spread sheets in an Addenda/Appendices category or the nearest appropriate. They show some subtle improvements and the overall requirement met by OTL capacity. A big change in Ground-based Recce. Ansons freed up for the empire/home training scheme or just not ordered?
Little Fish, Big Fish and Sharks
I understand the concerns about more engine companies and more engines. Yet there were engine companies outside the big two with capacity to develop/build something good. Perhaps a license built G&R or P&W clone or something along the lines that the big two had to put on ice. With the right deal a company could pick up the development that was neglected. In partnership. A stage towards a possible merger if this proves fruitful. I'm not suggesting that Fairey continue their attempts to get into the engine business.
RR and Bristol are not the only options and it seems that small piston inline V-12s and sleeve valve radials are not the only lines of enquiry. Napier and de Havilland Engines could be building on the Merlin work to develop an earlier Griffon, with confidential advice from Hives (lead). Alvis and Siddeley could be working on a double row poppet engines using confidential advice from Feddon (lead). Both the big companies are not big enough to compete with Wright, Allison and Pratt & Whitney. Even pre-war, mergers make sense. The Bristol Brothers will have to get a non-voting (retirement) shareholding, ofc. Every other aero-engine developer would be set upon the huge tasks in Power Jets.
It might seem like gypsy teacup reading to group all research and development into these three baskets, but it would make sense given the international market. Expertise was too poorly supported in this diffuse state. There were those in the industry that were pretty frustrated by these little kingdoms within the Empire. The Air Ministry failed to impose on a clearly restricted market for the national economic and strategic good. A bit of machine tool modernisation carrot could limit the stick required.
This could be a poor conjecture and I welcome counter-propositions and critique.
I'm dismayed that the threadmark system doesn't support other categories yet. I'd like to put these spread sheets in an Addenda/Appendices category or the nearest appropriate. They show some subtle improvements and the overall requirement met by OTL capacity. A big change in Ground-based Recce. Ansons freed up for the empire/home training scheme or just not ordered?
____~____
Little Fish, Big Fish and Sharks
I understand the concerns about more engine companies and more engines. Yet there were engine companies outside the big two with capacity to develop/build something good. Perhaps a license built G&R or P&W clone or something along the lines that the big two had to put on ice. With the right deal a company could pick up the development that was neglected. In partnership. A stage towards a possible merger if this proves fruitful. I'm not suggesting that Fairey continue their attempts to get into the engine business.
RR and Bristol are not the only options and it seems that small piston inline V-12s and sleeve valve radials are not the only lines of enquiry. Napier and de Havilland Engines could be building on the Merlin work to develop an earlier Griffon, with confidential advice from Hives (lead). Alvis and Siddeley could be working on a double row poppet engines using confidential advice from Feddon (lead). Both the big companies are not big enough to compete with Wright, Allison and Pratt & Whitney. Even pre-war, mergers make sense. The Bristol Brothers will have to get a non-voting (retirement) shareholding, ofc. Every other aero-engine developer would be set upon the huge tasks in Power Jets.
It might seem like gypsy teacup reading to group all research and development into these three baskets, but it would make sense given the international market. Expertise was too poorly supported in this diffuse state. There were those in the industry that were pretty frustrated by these little kingdoms within the Empire. The Air Ministry failed to impose on a clearly restricted market for the national economic and strategic good. A bit of machine tool modernisation carrot could limit the stick required.
This could be a poor conjecture and I welcome counter-propositions and critique.
Last edited:
IMVHO one of the big problems is the 'Locust Years' from the armistice until the final realisation that there was no viable option but rearmament in about 1935.
Maintaining a larger aircraft industrial base and a vibrant development of capability under those conditions is nigh on impossible. The AM in it's own way did it's best nurture and maintain the capacity and once the financial restraints were removed started to do things in a rush. Whilst ordering strait of the drawing board got aircraft onto the flight line earlier it unfortunately did not help to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Maintaining a larger aircraft industrial base and a vibrant development of capability under those conditions is nigh on impossible. The AM in it's own way did it's best nurture and maintain the capacity and once the financial restraints were removed started to do things in a rush. Whilst ordering strait of the drawing board got aircraft onto the flight line earlier it unfortunately did not help to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Some of that "off the board" work could be delayed in development while companies restructure, expand, retool and refocus. The new minister starts in 1935 at a pivotal time in rearmament. Perhaps a few lemons in training capacity might be acceptable as they will wear out and/or be replaced soon enough. Some of the Shadow Factories were "booked" for particular aircraft long before the realistic capacity to build anything was there. Making these type commitments irreversible showed a dangerous inflexibility.
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_first_flown_in_1934
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_first_flown_in_1935
Handley Page "Harrow" - expelled - off the drawing board, into testing a model, then a prototype.
Vickers Wellesley - further testing with a larger (double the Pegasus) engine required
Wind tunnel tests on the Hurricane?
Martin-Baker show a lot of talent from very few resources. Press for merger.
Bristol Blenheim - specify a mid wing for the bomb bay and nose browning MGs, but further armament to await review of turret research.
I'm not seeing anything here ready to order. Could DH88 (Comet) be a precursor to a twin Merlin/Mercury heavy fighter or light bomber?
Gloster Gladiator - The Hurricane, DH88 and Blenheim show that monoplanes will out class this. Make it a fully enclosed monoplane, like we did with the Wellesley. Invite Bristol to tender a new Type.133 or improvement on that prototype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_first_flown_in_1935
Handley Page "Harrow" - expelled - off the drawing board, into testing a model, then a prototype.
Vickers Wellesley - further testing with a larger (double the Pegasus) engine required
Wind tunnel tests on the Hurricane?
Martin-Baker show a lot of talent from very few resources. Press for merger.
Bristol Blenheim - specify a mid wing for the bomb bay and nose browning MGs, but further armament to await review of turret research.
I'm not seeing anything here ready to order. Could DH88 (Comet) be a precursor to a twin Merlin/Mercury heavy fighter or light bomber?
Gloster Gladiator - The Hurricane, DH88 and Blenheim show that monoplanes will out class this. Make it a fully enclosed monoplane, like we did with the Wellesley. Invite Bristol to tender a new Type.133 or improvement on that prototype.
What kind of accident investigation/grounding/safety system should the Air Ministry impose in peace and in war? Can production target/contract be met with aircraft that fail a safety certification? Could Emergency Operational Requirements override these safety testing/inspection/review issues?
Last edited:
Very good question and I have no knowledge of pre-war provision. Post war when the Comets started falling out of the sky the authorities went to great lengths to investigate and pursue answers to the problems and at that time Farnborough were possibly the best in the world at such forensic engineering investigation.
There was never the legal power for the government to force mergers in the aero engine industry and marked political reluctance to be seen to look for such power.
However, had the Air Ministry made it clear that they would limit purchases to single engine types for each role and place thus fewer but larger orders for the preferred ones then the industry would have to scramble to merge into a few firms with the finance, design resources and production resources to meet these forthcoming orders. Dangling a few honours around as consolation prizes might get it past some of the more obstinate players and is a traditional use of the honours system. The two obvious principal cores being Rolls Royce and Bristol.
However, had the Air Ministry made it clear that they would limit purchases to single engine types for each role and place thus fewer but larger orders for the preferred ones then the industry would have to scramble to merge into a few firms with the finance, design resources and production resources to meet these forthcoming orders. Dangling a few honours around as consolation prizes might get it past some of the more obstinate players and is a traditional use of the honours system. The two obvious principal cores being Rolls Royce and Bristol.
Last edited:
Question on the G-class flying boats
This is what wiki has to say on the passengers/range
it was designed with the capability of crossing the Atlantic without refuelling, and was intended to form the backbone of Imperial Airways' Empire services. The plan was for the first aircraft to make long range runs, the second would operate medium length (2,000 miles) flights with a dozen passengers, and the third would make short range (1,000 miles) trips with 24 passengers. It could fly 6,000 miles unburdened, or 150 passengers for a "short hop".
What was the actual long range run and with how many passengers?
What range was the 'short hop'?
This is what wiki has to say on the passengers/range
it was designed with the capability of crossing the Atlantic without refuelling, and was intended to form the backbone of Imperial Airways' Empire services. The plan was for the first aircraft to make long range runs, the second would operate medium length (2,000 miles) flights with a dozen passengers, and the third would make short range (1,000 miles) trips with 24 passengers. It could fly 6,000 miles unburdened, or 150 passengers for a "short hop".
What was the actual long range run and with how many passengers?
What range was the 'short hop'?
Find the Short Hop distance D
Using F=Ma
F: Force
M: Mass (in passengers)
a: Acceleration (by fuel)
With W=Fd
W: Work
d: Distance
You get a rough idea that there is a proportionate trade off between passengers and distance, but you must allow for the constant mass of the aircraft. Even an empty aircraft can't travel around the world non-stop.
W is proportional to M(pass)+M(craft) all by distance
W~0+Mc x 6000
W~(24Mp + Mc) x 1000
6000Mc ~ 24000Mp +1000Mc
5000Mc ~ 24000Mp
Mc ~ 4.8Mp
W ~ 4.8Mp x 6000 or 28800Mp
W ~ (150Mp + 4.8Mp) x D
Or something like that.
So about 28800/154.8 = Dist = 186 miles
(although my mathematics is a bit seat of my pants, so I'd check with a responsible adult)
Using F=Ma
F: Force
M: Mass (in passengers)
a: Acceleration (by fuel)
With W=Fd
W: Work
d: Distance
You get a rough idea that there is a proportionate trade off between passengers and distance, but you must allow for the constant mass of the aircraft. Even an empty aircraft can't travel around the world non-stop.
W is proportional to M(pass)+M(craft) all by distance
W~0+Mc x 6000
W~(24Mp + Mc) x 1000
6000Mc ~ 24000Mp +1000Mc
5000Mc ~ 24000Mp
Mc ~ 4.8Mp
W ~ 4.8Mp x 6000 or 28800Mp
W ~ (150Mp + 4.8Mp) x D
Or something like that.
So about 28800/154.8 = Dist = 186 miles
(although my mathematics is a bit seat of my pants, so I'd check with a responsible adult)
@PMN1 As usual we are assuming all passengers and the aircraft are frictionless spheres in a Euclidean space.
marathag
Banned
Another way is to figure is each passenger, call that 160 pounds for an average, and a gallon of AvGas at sealevel is around 6 pounds, that worth 4000 gallons, if that craft could carry that much fuel, along with what the max takeoff weight is.
Then get the Specific Fuel Consumption burn rate(lbs/(HP*H) for those engines at cruise, should be around .33 or so, and the speed and HP
They you get in the basic area for range, but there are many more variables, but is 'close enough' for our purposes here
The chrysalis forms pt1
Part Three, 0.1 The chrysalis forms.
1937 started with some disturbing news in that Folland the chief designer of the Gloster aircraft company was leaving. This left questions over both the Gladiator and the F4/34 aircraft that Sir Phillip considered needed settling hence a meeting with the boards of Gloster and their parent company Hawker aircraft was arranged as a priority. RR seemed to be making progress with the Merlin but the news from Bristol’s was not encouraging in that both their new sleeve valve twin row engines, the Taurus and the Hercules were having problems with overheating. Alvis had preproduction Pelides running and were approach readiness for their AM 50 hour Test. Elsewhere Vauxaul at Luton had expressed an interest in building the HS Y12 engine in a new shadow factory. After having been introduced to the work of Whittle at Power jets, Whittle a serving officer in the RAF is working on Jet propulsion in his graduate year at Cambridge, Sir Phillip had agreed some temporary funding on the proof of concept engine. Meanwhile a write up on the proposed engine has been sent to the RAE for evaluation.
With Follond setting up his own aircraft factory at Hamble in Hampshire Sir Arthur Dowding has approached Folland to design a single seat naval fighter based on the F5/35 design but to be powered by the more powerful Alvis Pelides engine. Any objections from Hawker/Gloster that they own the design will be overridden on the bases that as this aircraft has folding wings and therefore doe not have the single continuous main spar from wing tip to wing tip of the Gloster aircraft and it is therefore a distinct and different design.
The first formal meeting of the CSSAO (Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Offence) had proved to be more offensive than scientific with the C in C of Bomber Command Air Chief Marshal Sir John Steel being seemly disdainful that scientists could in any way contribute to the art of air warfare. Both Tizard and Sir Phillip were a little dismayed at this and could only hope that things would improve with time. Though Sir Phillip conceded that he might have to push the CAS for a change at the head of Bomber command. This was not the only problem with the committees, professor Lindemann had almost wrecked CSSAD resulting in multiple resignations forcing Sir Phillip to disband the committee and reforming it with Professor Appleton in place of Lindemann. Professor Lindeman had only been on the CSSAD Committee at the insistence of Winston Churchill. Sir Phillip could see further problems being caused by Churchill and Lindemann continuing to press their personal agendas and knew he would have to guard his back and possibly take action if the situation continued to deteriorate.
Sir Phillip had been much impressed by the young scientist Edward “Taffy”Bowen, who at Bawdsey Manor the previous September had almost single handedly been responsible for rescuing the demonstration exercise of the prototype CH radar system from complete failure when he dashed to Orfordness and restarted the original transmitter. Shortly after this the first airborne receiver working on 6.8m meter wave length had been air tested and ‘Taffy” was hoping that his team working on Airborne Interception RDF would soon have a working prototype.
Meanwhile there had been much debate within the CSSAD and at Bawdsey it’s self as to whether it was better to have both the transmitter and receiver in the night fighter or simply have the receiver only in the night fighter but using ground based transmitters. One advantage of the later system was that it was achievable now, as had been proven by the tests carried out using an RAF Heyford fitted with a proto type receiver and the new 6.8meter transmitter on the Red tower at Bawdsey Manor.
This system would necessitate always having a transmitter or transmitters behind the pursuing night fighter. “Taffy” Bowen had already achieved a detection range of 8 to 10 miles and was certain that a detection range of 20 miles was practical.
Watson Watt was not convinced and wished to solely pursue the research and development of a wholly airborne system. When this was discussed at the CSSAD meeting in early 1937 Sir Phillip requested that “Taffy” Bowen attended and he gave a presentation on his team’s progress and the pros and cons of developing each system, Pros were that the 6.5meter ground transmitter was working and a flyable receiver existed that could be worked on to make it lighter and smaller for installation in a two seat fighter. The biggest con and that highlighted by Watson Watt was that to obtain an accurate rage to the target aircraft the pursuing fighter had to be directly between it and the transmitter. “Taffy’ Bowen countered that if there were sufficient ground stations a pursuing fighter could always select one that was behind it. He also reiterated that the fully airborne system was probably at least two years from being developed to an operational standard whereas the receiver only system could be probably ready by the time the CH system was operational.
To Sir Phillips question was to whether the adoption of the receiver only system as an interim development would enable experience with operating RDF guided night fighters to be gained without delaying the whole system. Having had reassurance from both Watson Watt and “Taffy” Bowen that they would ensure that the airborne receiver only system that was now nick named RDF 1.5 (the Chain Home system was known as RDF 1) would not delay the research and development of the fully Airborne system known as RDF 2.
Sir Phillip with the agreement of the CAS authorized work to continue on both systems.
Now the problem was to find a suitable fighter aircraft for use as a two seat RDF equipped night fighter.
1937 started with some disturbing news in that Folland the chief designer of the Gloster aircraft company was leaving. This left questions over both the Gladiator and the F4/34 aircraft that Sir Phillip considered needed settling hence a meeting with the boards of Gloster and their parent company Hawker aircraft was arranged as a priority. RR seemed to be making progress with the Merlin but the news from Bristol’s was not encouraging in that both their new sleeve valve twin row engines, the Taurus and the Hercules were having problems with overheating. Alvis had preproduction Pelides running and were approach readiness for their AM 50 hour Test. Elsewhere Vauxaul at Luton had expressed an interest in building the HS Y12 engine in a new shadow factory. After having been introduced to the work of Whittle at Power jets, Whittle a serving officer in the RAF is working on Jet propulsion in his graduate year at Cambridge, Sir Phillip had agreed some temporary funding on the proof of concept engine. Meanwhile a write up on the proposed engine has been sent to the RAE for evaluation.
With Follond setting up his own aircraft factory at Hamble in Hampshire Sir Arthur Dowding has approached Folland to design a single seat naval fighter based on the F5/35 design but to be powered by the more powerful Alvis Pelides engine. Any objections from Hawker/Gloster that they own the design will be overridden on the bases that as this aircraft has folding wings and therefore doe not have the single continuous main spar from wing tip to wing tip of the Gloster aircraft and it is therefore a distinct and different design.
The first formal meeting of the CSSAO (Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Offence) had proved to be more offensive than scientific with the C in C of Bomber Command Air Chief Marshal Sir John Steel being seemly disdainful that scientists could in any way contribute to the art of air warfare. Both Tizard and Sir Phillip were a little dismayed at this and could only hope that things would improve with time. Though Sir Phillip conceded that he might have to push the CAS for a change at the head of Bomber command. This was not the only problem with the committees, professor Lindemann had almost wrecked CSSAD resulting in multiple resignations forcing Sir Phillip to disband the committee and reforming it with Professor Appleton in place of Lindemann. Professor Lindeman had only been on the CSSAD Committee at the insistence of Winston Churchill. Sir Phillip could see further problems being caused by Churchill and Lindemann continuing to press their personal agendas and knew he would have to guard his back and possibly take action if the situation continued to deteriorate.
Sir Phillip had been much impressed by the young scientist Edward “Taffy”Bowen, who at Bawdsey Manor the previous September had almost single handedly been responsible for rescuing the demonstration exercise of the prototype CH radar system from complete failure when he dashed to Orfordness and restarted the original transmitter. Shortly after this the first airborne receiver working on 6.8m meter wave length had been air tested and ‘Taffy” was hoping that his team working on Airborne Interception RDF would soon have a working prototype.
Meanwhile there had been much debate within the CSSAD and at Bawdsey it’s self as to whether it was better to have both the transmitter and receiver in the night fighter or simply have the receiver only in the night fighter but using ground based transmitters. One advantage of the later system was that it was achievable now, as had been proven by the tests carried out using an RAF Heyford fitted with a proto type receiver and the new 6.8meter transmitter on the Red tower at Bawdsey Manor.
This system would necessitate always having a transmitter or transmitters behind the pursuing night fighter. “Taffy” Bowen had already achieved a detection range of 8 to 10 miles and was certain that a detection range of 20 miles was practical.
Watson Watt was not convinced and wished to solely pursue the research and development of a wholly airborne system. When this was discussed at the CSSAD meeting in early 1937 Sir Phillip requested that “Taffy” Bowen attended and he gave a presentation on his team’s progress and the pros and cons of developing each system, Pros were that the 6.5meter ground transmitter was working and a flyable receiver existed that could be worked on to make it lighter and smaller for installation in a two seat fighter. The biggest con and that highlighted by Watson Watt was that to obtain an accurate rage to the target aircraft the pursuing fighter had to be directly between it and the transmitter. “Taffy’ Bowen countered that if there were sufficient ground stations a pursuing fighter could always select one that was behind it. He also reiterated that the fully airborne system was probably at least two years from being developed to an operational standard whereas the receiver only system could be probably ready by the time the CH system was operational.
To Sir Phillips question was to whether the adoption of the receiver only system as an interim development would enable experience with operating RDF guided night fighters to be gained without delaying the whole system. Having had reassurance from both Watson Watt and “Taffy” Bowen that they would ensure that the airborne receiver only system that was now nick named RDF 1.5 (the Chain Home system was known as RDF 1) would not delay the research and development of the fully Airborne system known as RDF 2.
Sir Phillip with the agreement of the CAS authorized work to continue on both systems.
Now the problem was to find a suitable fighter aircraft for use as a two seat RDF equipped night fighter.
I have split up Part three into sections as it was becoming unwieldy. Feed back, criticism and idea's are more than welcome. Section 02 of part three will be posted as soon as possible but I an wrestling with a couple of time line quirks to keep it plausible.
So far so good! Seems the RN is going to get a decent fighter with the F5.34 which is very much a darling of folks here and from what I recall is often compared to the Zero in terms of its performance and if it gets a supercharged Alvis Pelides engine in it then its performance should be more than enough.
A question, first, how much of a pain in the arse was Professor Lindermann? In the Reap the Whirlwind story he's an utterly unlikable man and here he's happily causing drama in the name of his bloated ego, was he really that bad?
And second question, was the radar devlopment for AI radar done this way in OTL? Initially going off a ground based transmitter and airborn reciver or did they try going for a airborn combo first? By doing the split transmitter/reciver you will probably save weight and space and as you said, its ready now so its something for sure.
A question, first, how much of a pain in the arse was Professor Lindermann? In the Reap the Whirlwind story he's an utterly unlikable man and here he's happily causing drama in the name of his bloated ego, was he really that bad?
And second question, was the radar devlopment for AI radar done this way in OTL? Initially going off a ground based transmitter and airborn reciver or did they try going for a airborn combo first? By doing the split transmitter/reciver you will probably save weight and space and as you said, its ready now so its something for sure.
Professor Lindemann Yes that bad R.A. Butler had this to say about the then Viscount Cherwell 'That sharp-witted, sharp-tongued, pertinacious and more than slightly conspiratorial character who has long been Churchill's closet friend and confidant.' Which puts it far better than I ever could.
RDF as OTL 'Taffy" Bowen later wrote that RDF 1.5 was a missed opportunity, even if it never became operationally effective it would have given the RAF 1 to 2 years earlier operational experience of the practicalities of night time radar aided night fighter operations.
RDF as OTL 'Taffy" Bowen later wrote that RDF 1.5 was a missed opportunity, even if it never became operationally effective it would have given the RAF 1 to 2 years earlier operational experience of the practicalities of night time radar aided night fighter operations.
From ‘Britain’s’ Shield: radar and the Defeat of the Luftwaffe’ by David Zimmerman
In the middle of 1936 Eddie Bowen suggested there was no reason for the transmitter to be in the aircraft, instead the airborne receiver would utilise radio pulses from a transmitter on the ground. Bowen dubbed this radar RDF 1½, because the Chain radar was known as RDF1 and the complete aircraft mounted system RDF2.
Testing of this hybrid commended in the autumn of 1936 using a Heyford bomber. On its first flight the radar detected an aircraft at between 8 and 10 miles distant. Bowen argued that RDF 1½ worked so well that it should be adopted, rather than wait for the development of a complete airborne radar system. Watson-Watt overruled him, citing difficulties in getting accurate range measurements unless the fighter was directly between the transmitter and an enemy bomber.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/gloster-f-5-34.327139/
Indeed. Nothing else shows the gaps in Air Ministry requirements better. Although the prototype has it's flaws, as touched on in that thread.