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

Driftless

Donor
tis to push the Flamingo a bit a

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.

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?

I stand corrected on the Mossie's durability. :cool:
 
The 2-engined fighter by DH.
POD being the response to the specification F.4 from 1940, that calls for a hi-alt fighter. In order to speed up the design & development phase, DH uses wing & tail of the Mosquito (that is by now in cloing phase of design) as a base for new fighter. The fuselage is new, smaller, with cockpit for 1 almost at nose. Four cannons are at the belly, ammo above them, 300 imp gals of fuel. Authorised by the AM in Feb 1941, 1st prototype, powered by Merlin 60 engines, gets airborne for the 1st time by March 1942. Makes 400 mph at 30000 ft, ceiling 45000 ft, and it is ordered into production with Merlin 61s. More power = more speed, 420 mph at 28000 ft. The 'normal altitude' version, without pressurized cockpit, clipped wings, two drop tank facility and Merlin 63s and 66s is also ordered. 1st squadron is declared operational by March 1943.
What nobody expected is that new fighter, called Hornet, out-paces, out-climbs and out-ranges anything the RAF, USAF or LW have in inventory. Nobody, except people at DH.
 
If there is one thing you'll learn on the internet, never criticize the Mosquito.

The Mosquito has many faults. Its too beautiful, too fast, range is too long, it carried too many weapons and its too beautiful. The RAF really should have ordered more Blackburn Bothas and Fairey Barracudas just to balance out the Mosquitos all round averageness. :p
 
Could the DH.88 airframe accept twin Gipsy Kings?

Would the Gipsy King make a good tank engine, OZ mocked up a quad Gipsy.
 
Could the DH.88 airframe accept twin Gipsy Kings?

Never say never :)
Jokes aside - the 'King weighted more than two 'Sixes, ie. more than 1000 lbs for 525 HP. Not much of supercharging either, rated altitude was 7500 ft (for 425 HP). Bristol Mercury, at lighter weight, gave 890 HP at 6000 ft (low-alt versions), or 840 at 15000 ft (hi-alt types). All for 87 oct fuel. Stick the Mercury on the nose of DH 88, just 1 crew member in a bit elevated cockpit, clip the wings, 6 Brownings, borrow the U/C from Gladiator or new Fury, and there is a fighter? Or, install the Kestrel/Peregrine?

Gipsy engines have had roots in Renault engines from ww1. In twenty years they were overtaken by technology.

Would the Gipsy King make a good tank engine, OZ mocked up a quad Gipsy.

Now that is a good idea - Gipsy King as tank engine.
 
Engine access on a Sherman and you could go in through the deck hatches as well
m4a1engine.jpg


Access on a Centurion. The driver or fitter needed long arms with 2 elbows and any tools dropped in the bay stayed there till engine out time in a workshop
Engine-SVN.jpg
 
To continue with ALT Hornet. Obvoius variants will include fighter bomber (can use 1-stage Merlins and still do 400 mph clean), with fuselage rack for torpedo or a bigger bomb, LR fighter, night fighter & LR recon (leaves more Mosquitoes as for bombing versions), Sea Hornet. Versions with uprated Merlins (63, 66, 70s) for a bit improved speed, say 430 mph from mid-1943 on.
 
Air cooled inlines all seemed to be very heavy for the power and very long. The King was longer than a single stage Merlin.

Gipsy engines were already by early 1930s old tech, comparable with Liberty of the BMW and DB engines of ww1. That will mean heavy weight for modest power. We can take a look at the newer development (1st run 1927), the I-F Delta, that was fully supercharged and offered 750 CV at 13100 ft while weighting 1100 lbs, or about as much as the 'King, that was making perhaps 300 HP at that altitude.
(later Deltas were uprated to 840 CV, with 2-speed S/C in development)

Due to the length of a strait 12 both the crank shaft and the crank case have to be heavier than in the shorter V12

Not sure that I understand you, the 'King was a V12.
 
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.
I still have my Gloster spreadsheet open from the work I was doing on the Greek air force thread. Here is Gloster production for 1920-39
1920 158
1921 52
1922 45
1923 38
1924 79
1925 52
1926 58
1927 72
1928 13
1929 55
1930 11
1931 3
1932 0
1933 2
1934 11
1935 141
1936 210
1937 265
1938 169
1939 524​

With De Havilland behind it instead of Hawker would the TTL Gloster F.5/34 (G.38) flown a lot earlier than late 1937 and have been made of wood? The G.38, Spitfire and Hurricane all had their origins in Specification F.5/34 but the prototype Hurricane flew in late 1935 and the prototype Spitfire in early 1936.

If the D.H.-Gloster combo had got their prototype flying by the end of 1935 and with a Merlin engine I can see the Air Ministry ordering 310 G.38s from Gloster instead of 310 Spitfires because Gloster had been building aircraft in larger numbers than Supermarine and was therefore more likely to deliver the aircraft on time. I can also see more of the TTL version of the G.38 being built instead of all 746 production Gladiators, 200 Gloster built Henleys and 2,750 Gloster built Hurricanes. The Castle Bromwich factory would be built to manufacture G.38s instead of Spitfires.
 
...
With De Havilland behind it instead of Hawker would the TTL Gloster F.5/34 (G.38) flown a lot earlier than late 1937 and have been made of wood? The G.38, Spitfire and Hurricane all had their origins in Specification F.5/34 but the prototype Hurricane flew in late 1935 and the prototype Spitfire in early 1936.

If the D.H.-Gloster combo had got their prototype flying by the end of 1935 and with a Merlin engine I can see the Air Ministry ordering 310 G.38s from Gloster instead of 310 Spitfires because Gloster had been building aircraft in larger numbers than Supermarine and was therefore more likely to deliver the aircraft on time. I can also see more of the TTL version of the G.38 being built instead of all 746 production Gladiators, 200 Gloster built Henleys and 2,750 Gloster built Hurricanes. The Castle Bromwich factory would be built to manufacture G.38s instead of Spitfires.

Hopefully, DH will choose a more sleek airfoil than the hopeless NACA 2218 for the 'G.38', and, with Merlin in the nose, enable the UK to out-perform the Bf 109, while out-producing Germany and Italy combined (as per OTL).
 
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.
According to the Wikipaedia entry the DH.77 had a 300hp Napier Rapier engine.

Would the Bristol Mercury fit the bill for the engine of double the power? I ask because another of the DH.77s rivals was the Gloster SS.18 which eventually went into production as the Gauntlet with a Mercury engine producing 645hp. ITTL do you think that a Mercury powered "Super" DH.77 Mk 1 built by Gloster instead of the Gauntlet is the most likely outcome?

The next step would be a "Super" DH.77 Mk 2 with a more powerful Mercury, 4 machine guns instead of 2 and an enclosed cockpit instead of the Gladiator. Though if possible they would jump straight to the Spitfire/Hurricane rival.
 
...
The next step would be a "Super" DH.77 Mk 2 with a more powerful Mercury, 4 machine guns instead of 2 and an enclosed cockpit instead of the Gladiator. Though if possible they would jump straight to the Spitfire/Hurricane rival.
Mk.1 - fixed U/C, Mercury, 2 MGs.
Mk.2 - retractable U/C, uprated Mercury, closed canopy, 4 MGs. Also bought by FAA instead of the OTL Sea Gladiator.
Mk.3 - strengthened airframe, Merlin III (= take a page from Italians), 8 MGs.
 
Top