AHC: create the WAllied long range fighter force

Several candidates so far:
-Spitfire VIII/IX, but with extra fuel behind the pilot
-early F4U plumbed for drop tanks
-P-38 as per OTL
-Mustang with Merlin XX/45/V-1650-1 and drop tanks

Also Worth considering:
-P-47 with drop tanks under wings
-Mustang X (RR conversion of Mustang I featuring a 2-stage Merlin) + drop tanks (mentioned at Sbiper's timeline)
-Typhoon with extra fuel?
 

Driftless

Donor
I will put in the obligatory commercial for the land-based version of the Grumman Skyrocket: the XP-50. Shift the focus from developing the plane for carrier ops to land-base, and you would have had a capable aircraft with some range. With Grumman's focus on Wildcats & Hellcat's, somebody else probably has to do most of the air-frame building.
 
WI if Hawker hedged its bets and test flew a Typhoon prototype powered by a Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine?

OTL These 2,000 hp. engines flew plenty of combat missions in: P-47 Thunderbolt, Grumman Hellcats, Corsairs, A-29 Invaders, B-36 Marauder bombers, etc. R2800 engines proved eminently reliable continuing in civilian airliners well after the war.

By 1990, military-surplus Hawker Sea Furies (grandson of Typhoon) were popular with the warbird crowd and Reno Air Racers, but original Bristol Centaurus engines were mostly worn out.
Racers retrofitted R-2800, R-3350 and R-4360 engines to Sea Fury airframes. R-2800 is prized for its reliability in airliners and warbirds.
R3350 engines proved problematic during WW2 (e.g. engine fires in early B-29 bombers). Post-war R-3350 helped Lockheed Constellations earn the reputation as "the best tri-motor flying the North Atlantic route.) Ha! Ha!

R4360 only powered military transports (e.g. C-119 Flying Boxcar) but was too maintenance-intensive to be profitable for civilian airlines.

R-3350 and R-4360 are limited to Eea Fury racers.
Sea Furies with American radial engines are easy to identify by their 4-bladed propellers versus original Centaurus engines with 5-bladed propellers.

I wonder how difficult it would have been to bolt an American radial engine onto an early Typhoon?
 
Last edited:
Several candidates so far:
-Spitfire VIII/IX, but with extra fuel behind the pilot
-early F4U plumbed for drop tanks
-P-38 as per OTL
-Mustang with Merlin XX/45/V-1650-1 and drop tanks

Also Worth considering:
-P-47 with drop tanks under wings
-Mustang X (RR conversion of Mustang I featuring a 2-stage Merlin) + drop tanks (mentioned at Sbiper's timeline)
-Typhoon with extra fuel?
Hanging drop tanks on the P-47 and P-38 is basically what they did OTL. The Thunderbolt did not arrive in Egland until Jan. 1943 so you could have Republic start increasing the range of the fighter earlier.
-The P-38 never came to dominate over German fighters like it did with the Japanese Zero. All of it's problems may not be fixed in less than a year.
-The Typhoon was good at low altitudes. You have to make it a high altitude fighter.
 
Several candidates so far:
-Spitfire VIII/IX, but with extra fuel behind the pilot
-early F4U plumbed for drop tanks
-P-38 as per OTL
-Mustang with Merlin XX/45/V-1650-1 and drop tanks

Also Worth considering:
-P-47 with drop tanks under wings
-Mustang X (RR conversion of Mustang I featuring a 2-stage Merlin) + drop tanks (mentioned at Sbiper's timeline)
-Typhoon with extra fuel?

Bit of a shotgunner myself, like the 1st five options as a combo, with the understanding that:
1) Long range Spit doesn't get in the way of regular Spit and Seafire
2) OK, like the P-48 moniker, too
3) 38 get some TTL type love with earlier fixes of problems, but still remains mostly an over-water warfare option
4) This 'stang does not delay by much the eventual OTL version
5) Shouldn't need a drop tank to fall on you to get them approved earlier

The various proposals for additional production lines for P-38 and P-48 seem viable. The drop tank controversy seems a lot like the Torpedo debacle and the mystery of how anyone could screw up the HS404 the way the US did. Elicited a great deal of head shaking over the years...
 
Question:
If you make the VIII Fighter Command a long range escort Force will you keep it's fighters in England? OTL part of the problem was that fighters were sent to North Africa.
 
I want to throw out a wild card:
What about an extended range F6F Hellcat? Hellcats are cheaper to build. It is a NAVY fighter but doesn't have the Marine stigma attached to it as far as Marshall is concerned. Just thinking outside the box.
 
The Mosquito was a fine Night-fighter, Reecee/photo platform, and intruder, but it was not, in any way, shape or form, a suitable platform to provide daylight escort. Single seat fighters would have torn it to bits (and did, when it was used in the roles I just mentioned, and caught in daytime). It was an excellent aircraft, but it was not an air superiority fighter.

I'd almost agree, but remember in the summer of 1943 the top speed of the Bf 109G was around 386 mph and the Fw 190A fell off dramatically in performance at the cruising altitude of the B-17 and B-24, and the Mosquito by 1943 had a top speed at altitude of just over 400 mph. It may not be a perfect plane but its range would allow really long range escorts until the first P-51B/C's arrived in early 1944.
 
I want to throw out a wild card:
What about an extended range F6F Hellcat? Hellcats are cheaper to build. It is a NAVY fighter but doesn't have the Marine stigma attached to it as far as Marshall is concerned. Just thinking outside the box.

Hellcat won't be dominant in the ETO, IMO.
 
The Hellcat is too slow for Europe, max speed of 391mph for the -5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a Grumman-wank I asked what aerodynamic improvements would allow a Super-Hellcat to exceed 400 knots?
Keep the original engine, landing gear, 20mm guns, etc., but "tweet" the rest of the airframe to reduce drag.

Tighter engine cowling?
Spinner?
Internal cooling fan (ala. FW-190)?
Malcolm hood?
Semi-bubble canopy (copied from FW-190)?
Move carburetor and oil cooler intakes to wing roots where they blur into fillets?
Laminar wing?
Reduced weight?
Suggestions?
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a Grumman-wank I asked what aerodynamic improvements would allow a Super-Hellcat to exceed 400 knots?
Keep the original engine, landing gear, 20mm guns, etc., but "tweet" the rest of the airframe to reduce drag.

Tighter engine cowling?
Spinner?
Internal cooling fan (ala. FW-190)?
Malcolm hood?
Semi-bubble canopy (copied from FW-190)?
Move carburetor and oil cooler intakes to wing roots where they blur into fillets?
Laminar wing?
Reduced weight?
Suggestions?

That gets an F8F. It's the size of a Wildcat (but heavier) and had the R2800.
F8F top speed of 388kn @ 28k ft
Three tanks gets a combat radius of 635miles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F8F_Bearcat


(eta- the 388kn/440+mph is from the post war F8F-2 w slightly more powerful R2800, a wartime R2800 would get 421mph)
 
This has been an informative TL.
Particular like the long-range spitfire for s simple technical change. However, instability sounds quite bad in an aircraft..
Anyone have a Notion on how this would have inpacted performance? Only available to veterans?
Not good for combat I guess, but how much of the fuel would be spent on take off, getting to altitude (6000 m's) and getting to the bombers?
Finally, all the piston engine aircraft has a good space behind the pilot. Would this kind of solution work with any aircraft?
 
Top