AHC: make de Havilland A/C more important in ww2

Idea is that we have that company making plausible products from mid-1930s to mid-1940s, that will help the Allied war effort. Since the company was not known for under-performing A/C, I think they can do it in the alternate history. People are encouraged to look beyond Mossie, Hornet and Venom where possible.
 
One option might be the Albatros pressed into the marine patrol role. Produce, say, another 200 of those between 1939 and '41. The 4-engined layout will make engine-out situations less dangerous both for the crew and A/C above North Atlantic.
In 1940, intoduce the Albatros with a little bigger wing and Mercury engines to improve weight carrying capability. Produce another 300 from 1941 to 1944.
 
Have them persist with the rather excellent DH.77 monoplane fighter - which OTL lost out to the Hawker Fury (the biplane) - instead of abandoning military aircraft development in 1930 (following the loss to Hawkers) - addresses the lower power issue with an earlier incorporation of the Halfords Dagger Engine and in 1933 present the 'establishment' with a slightly larger version of the DH.77 but with an engine developing over twice the power.

This basically keeps them in the military game during the 30s

Another idea that could run concurrently is that - following pressure from HMG De Havilland merges with another company - such as Gloster's (who had designed the DH.77) and together they continually improve through innovation etc their monoplane fighter design to the point where they can compete with Vickers/Supermarine and Hawkers in the late 30s

Subsequant development includes early jet fighters....

In addition De Havillands civilian aircraft such as the Albatross form both a core of early war Long range Transport and LRMP aircraft as well as the obvious Mossie design they also produce a larger 4 engine 'mossie' that like the Mossie uses a Ply wooden construction to produce a 'for its time' very fast heavy bomber that was later adapted to carry Barnes wallis's 'earth quake' bomb.
 
Have them persist with the rather excellent DH.77 monoplane fighter - which OTL lost out to the Hawker Fury (the biplane) - instead of abandoning military aircraft development in 1930 (following the loss to Hawkers) - addresses the lower power issue with an earlier incorporation of the Halfords Dagger Engine and in 1933 present the 'establishment' with a slightly larger version of the DH.77 but with an engine developing over twice the power.

This basically keeps them in the military game during the 30s

Another idea that could run concurrently is that - following pressure from HMG De Havilland merges with another company - such as Gloster's (who had designed the DH.77) and together they continually improve through innovation etc their monoplane fighter design to the point where they can compete with Vickers/Supermarine and Hawkers in the late 30s

Subsequant development includes early jet fighters....

Excellent idea, the more refined, more powerful and a bit bigger DH.77. Unfortunately, the Dagger was 1st run in 1934.
So, maybe smething like this: In 1933-34, Gloster and DH came out with a 640 HP Kestrel-powered cantilever-monoplane, chin radiator, it sports non-retractable U/C as the Gladiator did. Closed cockpit. RAF accepts it, it is named Gladiator Mk.1 (doh). Four MGs, 260 mph. Production starts in 1935, DH for RAF, Gloster for abroad. Bought by RAF, Yugoslavia, Norway, Portugal, Spain.
The Mk.2 sports the 750 HP Dagger, Mk.3 is with 745 HP Kestrel. Costumers, whether for both or for one version, are RAF, Yugoslavia (plus licence production), Greece. 275 mph, Dagger version a bit slower.
Mk.4: from that mark on, the ALT Gladiator sports retractable U/C. 290 mph for the Mk.5, exported to Belgium, Greece, Finland and Norway. Yugoslavia - license production.

Mk.5 is with re-designed internals, improvements and strengthening (applies for subsequent types). RR Merlin III, 8 MGs, radiators in front of the wings, 100 imp gals of fuel. 350 mph as prototype, 360 mph with better exhausts. Initially (1939-40) only for RAF, DH production.
Mk.6 - similar to the Mk.5, but with Dagger of 1000 HP, 320 mph, Gloster production.
A knock-on effect is that Yugoslavia, Greece and Norway can got Hurricane easier and in greater numbers than per OTL. FAA can get Sea Hurricane earlier.
(more later)

In addition De Havillands civilian aircraft such as the Albatross form both a core of early war Long range Transport and LRMP aircraft as well as the obvious Mossie design they also produce a larger 4 engine 'mossie' that like the Mossie uses a Ply wooden construction to produce a 'for its time' very fast heavy bomber that was later adapted to carry Barnes wallis's 'earth quake' bomb.

Hmm - a 'big Albatros' with Merlins, high wing, 4-5 crew members?

How do we avoid the strange aversion to the Griffon Engine?

This is alternate history site, I'm sure that we can find use for excellent engines here :)
 
Two instant ideas, one is that de Havilland build a big sister to the DH 88 in 1936 with twin Kestral engines and a 3/4 20mm cannon armament to fulfil the AM specification for a cannon fighter, this would need to be a PV aircraft but de Havilland seemed to have no aversion to perusing a good idea on their own bat. The other tis to push the Flamingo a bit and have it the prototype fly in May 1937 instead of December 1938 (in other words swap the Albatross and the Flamingo dates around) then do an Lockheed Electra /Hudson type development to produce a Coastal Command patrol aircraft (purchased instead of the Hudsons OTL) Have it built in numbers by Blackburn instead of the Botha and you really have a win-win situation. as to the Flamingo, such a pretty aircraft, would it not have been better off with twin engines of around 800 HP than four engines of a totally unproven type? A couple of Taurus engines when sorted might have turned the Albatross into a preeminent long range transport/patrol aircraft.
 

Driftless

Donor
Another alternative role for the Dh.88... with it's great range, use it as a long range reconnaissance aircraft - at 2500+ miles, the Comet outranged it's contemporaries. However, in the mid-thirties, did anyone in charge of requirements and purse realize that would be a useful attribute later on?
 
Ah, the DH.88 - if there was ever a gorgeous aircraft, that was it. How about something that looks like it, but has one engine in the nose, and guns in the wings? Even the size fits, wing & fuselage were a bit smaller than on the Spitfire, and wing was thin for smaller drag.
This option again leaves UK with surplus Hurricanes to play with. We might also see Spitfire III in production, since the Merlin XX is not necessary to move Hurricane close to Bf 109E performance.
 
Ah, the DH.88 - if there was ever a gorgeous aircraft, that was it. How about something that looks like it, but has one engine in the nose, and guns in the wings? Even the size fits, wing & fuselage were a bit smaller than on the Spitfire, and wing was thin for smaller drag.
This option again leaves UK with surplus Hurricanes to play with. We might also see Spitfire III in production, since the Merlin XX is not necessary to move Hurricane close to Bf 109E performance.
I like this idea. Using the basic layout and design fo the DH.88 as the basis for a single-engine fighter. The whole thing, really, would need to be reworked to be an effective fighter but the basic layout seems sound. The wing is ridiculous, with a 9.11 Aspect Ratio by my calculation (total span^2/total area) which is good for highspeed and high altitude work. The airfoil (RAF 34) leaves something to be desired, though, with apparent instability at high angles of attack and low speed--the types of conditions it is likely to face as a fighter. So, take the planform, clip the tips--a 44 ft span seems excessive for this A/C and you can still get a good A.R. with shortened wings--but update the airfoil. It is one of the most beautiful planes of that, or any, era and I think its general design is a good candidate for a fighter.
 
...
The airfoil (RAF 34) leaves something to be desired, though, with apparent instability at high angles of attack and low speed--the types of conditions it is likely to face as a fighter. So, take the planform, clip the tips--a 44 ft span seems excessive for this A/C and you can still get a good A.R. with shortened wings--but update the airfoil. It is one of the most beautiful planes of that, or any, era and I think its general design is a good candidate for a fighter.

I agree that aspect ratio need to be smaller, it will improve rate of roll for the starters. With regard to the airfoil - DH went with RAF 34 for the Mosquito, but then, granted, I'm no expert on airfoils.
 

Deleted member 1487

Idea is that we have that company making plausible products from mid-1930s to mid-1940s, that will help the Allied war effort. Since the company was not known for under-performing A/C, I think they can do it in the alternate history. People are encouraged to look beyond Mossie, Hornet and Venom where possible.
Anyway we could get DH involved in the Beaufighter design or at least get the Mossie ready before the Beau so that it supplants it completely?
 
I'm no expert on airfoils.
Neither am I. I was just basing that on the Airfoil performance graphs for the RAF 34. I think as long as they aren't trying to pull AoA of > +10 at low speeds (at or near stall) then they will be fine...so, no steep "flares" on landing and the like. If they can decrease the span and broaden the chord to say an A.R. of around 6 or 7 (which is still on the higher end for a fighter) while maintaining a good wing loading I think the RAF 34 will work fine. As you pointed out, they made it work on the Mossie and they are a hullva lot more clever than I.
 

Driftless

Donor
Anyway we could get DH involved in the Beaufighter design or at least get the Mossie ready before the Beau so that it supplants it completely?

There's some gaps there, I think.
* The Mosquito's plywood surfaces didn't deal well with humidity and especially tropical humidity.
*One of the Beaufighter's many good uses was for maritime attack, so use in high humidity/rain was important.
* I think..... one of the origins with the Beaufighter coming into service was being able to use the production tools, assembly lines, and whatnots from the Beaufort - with a new fuselage. That got the Beaufighters in serivce relatively quickly, but as they were pretty respectable in multiple roles, locked the format in place with a less than optimal airfoil. No doubt the Beaufighter could have used a different wing, but I'm not sure how to get there under the circumstances.
 
All these ideas shouldnt impact on DeHavillands most important product the Tiger Moth trainer. No point having shiny new aircraft if the RAF has no pilots.
 
* The Mosquito's plywood surfaces didn't deal well with humidity and especially tropical humidity.

The Mossie didnt have Plywood surfaces, the fuselage and wings were covered in shrink resistant Madapolan cotton cloth then painted with Dope then several coats of red Celullose paint and finished with a coat of Aluminium paint. The problems in Asia were in only one small batch of Mossies built by Dehavilland that was traced to undertrained staff not following the strict construction guidelines. I have read different versions of the tale but it seems that two or three aircraft crashed three more had to be struck off charge and another 12 or 20 had to be repaired and have a wing panel replaced. It wasnt the wood that had the problem it was the Casein resin glue that was affected by Mildew, production from 1943 used Aerolite Formaldehyde resin instead. Mossies and Hornets served in Asia till the mid 1950s with zero problems caused by humidity.
 

Deleted member 1487

There's some gaps there, I think.
* The Mosquito's plywood surfaces didn't deal well with humidity and especially tropical humidity.
*One of the Beaufighter's many good uses was for maritime attack, so use in high humidity/rain was important.
* I think..... one of the origins with the Beaufighter coming into service was being able to use the production tools, assembly lines, and whatnots from the Beaufort - with a new fuselage. That got the Beaufighters in serivce relatively quickly, but as they were pretty respectable in multiple roles, locked the format in place with a less than optimal airfoil. No doubt the Beaufighter could have used a different wing, but I'm not sure how to get there under the circumstances.
It wasn't an issue with the design, from what I've read they identified production and maintenance issues that created the tropical climate issues.
The Mosquito was used in naval attack.

The production commonality withe Beaufort sounds plausible. Perhaps DH gets some prewar interest that butterflies the Beaufort?
 
All these ideas shouldnt impact on DeHavillands most important product the Tiger Moth trainer. No point having shiny new aircraft if the RAF has no pilots.

RAF should be a bit more realistic with what they want from trainers - no point in the Don trainer being the size of P-47, with 1/4th of the power. Keep the size close to the DH.88, one Gipsy King of 500+ HP and there is a trainer.

Anyway we could get DH involved in the Beaufighter design or at least get the Mossie ready before the Beau so that it supplants it completely?

De Havilland has racing pedigree with monoplanes in 1930s, and all-together sleek & performing aircraft in 1930s-40s, Bristol doesn't. Thus my drive for DH as a likely candidate for producing better military A/C.
With that said - Bristol will need to make a good, hard look at then-current NACA and the Aeronautical Research Comitee papers before designing a wing for fast A/C. I'd try to have Hercules installed on the Henley to make torpedo bomber and night fighter from those. Plus Hercules on the Mosquito for long range/high payload/high performance work.
 
There's some gaps there, I think.
* The Mosquito's plywood surfaces didn't deal well with humidity and especially tropical humidity.
*One of the Beaufighter's many good uses was for maritime attack, so use in high humidity/rain was important.
* I think..... one of the origins with the Beaufighter coming into service was being able to use the production tools, assembly lines, and whatnots from the Beaufort - with a new fuselage. That got the Beaufighters in service relatively quickly, but as they were pretty respectable in multiple roles, locked the format in place with a less than optimal airfoil. No doubt the Beaufighter could have used a different wing, but I'm not sure how to get there under the circumstances.

Humidity caused issues after a long period - and given that aircraft in WW2 had there expected service life in the 10s of hours - the Mighty Lancaster had just 44 combat flying hours before it would be expected to have an overhaul - and after no more than 10 times that assuming it survives it is likely to be withdrawn and replaced with a new airframe.

Also while it was not designed for tropical environments it did serve in it.
 
can anyone slow motion the posted clip from 32 seconds in? In real time it looks like another mosquito flies into the cannon fire from the filming aircraft and possibly crashes just beyond the target ship. Even if the Mosquito did survive I would be very surprised if it was undamaged. This is the first time I have looked closely at this particular clip and it really struck me how many of the attacking aircraft crossed each others line of fire in just a few seconds! I do not want to derail this thread but I thought it was worth asking the question.
 
Top