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

As we have Gloster acquired by De Havilland in the early 1930s instead of Hawker could the ALT Hornet being discussed have been built instead of the OTL Gloster F.9/37 (G.39) or be proposed to meet Specification F.37/35 which IOTL resulted in the Westland Whirlwind?

The Air Ministry also issued some specifications for twin engine fighters earlier in the 1930s which Gloster submitted designs to as well. A prototype was ordered to at least one of them, but it was cancelled.
 
The 'super DH.77', or maybe 'monoplane Gladiator' buys to the RAF something along the Japanese A5M or Ki-27, but with extra 100 HP at altitude.

As we have Gloster acquired by De Havilland in the early 1930s instead of Hawker could the ALT Hornet being discussed have been built instead of the OTL Gloster F.9/37 (G.39) or be proposed to meet Specification F.37/35 which IOTL resulted in the Westland Whirlwind?
The Air Ministry also issued some specifications for twin engine fighters earlier in the 1930s which Gloster submitted designs to as well. A prototype was ordered to at least one of them, but it was cancelled.

Anything works, just don't choose a wrong RR :)
 
OTL were the Peregrine for the Whirlwind and the Peregrine and Taurus for the Gloster F.9/37 chosen by the manufacturer or the Air Ministry?

Probably by the manufacturer. On the Gloster it will be easier to retrofit lighter Peregrines instead of the Taurus.
 
Gipsy engines were already by early 1930s old tech, comparable with Liberty of the BMW and DB engines of ww1

The original Gipsy series of engines werent the latest design by 1933 but they werent comparable to the Liberty you are maybe thinking of the ADC Cirrus series of engines that were basically a WWI Renault V8 cut down to one bank of four cylinders. The original upright Gipsy was a new design in 1926 but they still arent the engines we are talking about. The engines in use from the early thirties were the vastly improved 4 cylinder inverted Gypsy Major and the six cylinder inverted Gypsy Six (known as the Gipsy Queen in the RAF). The Major and the Queen were still being manufactured in the 1950s.
 
The original Gipsy series of engines werent the latest design by 1933 but they werent comparable to the Liberty you are maybe thinking of the ADC Cirrus series of engines that were basically a WWI Renault V8 cut down to one bank of four cylinders. The original upright Gipsy was a new design in 1926 but they still arent the engines we are talking about. The engines in use from the early thirties were the vastly improved 4 cylinder inverted Gypsy Major and the six cylinder inverted Gypsy Six (known as the Gipsy Queen in the RAF). The Major and the Queen were still being manufactured in the 1950s.

Thank you for flling me out about the origins.
However - there is a world of difference when someone designs a 'civilian', naturaly-aspirated, 2 valves per cylinder in-line engine in his free time, vs. a major company designing a supercharged V12 military engine with 4 valves per cylinders, using latest metalurgy and aerodynamic science. So yes, the Gipsy Major and Gipsy Six might be considered as improvement over the previous DH, ADC and Renault engines, but they can't be compared with Kestrel/Buzzard/Merlin lines, nor with DB 601, Jumo 211 or V-1710.

BTW - it looks like there was no problem in turning the Gipsy from upright to inverted, and engine still worked well. Perhaps turn the Gipsy Twelve back to up-right layout and use it as a tank engine?
 
Last edited:
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.
I think we need to get a Sea Mosquito, or Hornet, ASAP, well before the first carrier landing in March 44.
Perhaps sub-contracting the work to Fairey, also to help get around the RR Griffon issues, which was originally an FAA request, and to enable skipping the Barracuda altogether.

Since there actually was a Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33 & TR Mk 37 with folding wings and arrestor hook, its perfectly possible. And since a Mosquito's overall dimensions are no greater than a Grumman Avenger, hard to believe but true, it's a viable alternative. And a better choice being faster, longer ranged, and more heavily armed. That most Mosquito Marks are faster than an F-6F may upset some posters?
It could also replace the entire Fulmar and Firefly line, again outperforming them, and would be a salve to the 2-seat Naval Fighter fetish.
(The Sea Hornet NF 21 carried an observer)

The Sea Mossie was originally derived from the FB Mk IV, which was capable of dogfighting with FW-190's, but there is no reason why that has to be the only variant. A version dropping a 4000lb bomb on Tirpitz is probably implausible, could Fairey-Youngman Flaps be fitted to a Mosquito?
And in the absence of such what sort of angle could a Mossie achieve Glide-Bombing.
 
No Mosquito could dogfight with any single engine fighters and particularly not a 190. The wings would probably come off if the pilot tried.
Well there was an incident on 15 Jan 45 when a squadron of Mosquitoes was jumped by 30 Fw-190 of JG-5, and 5 were shot down.
5 Mossies were also lost, 2 to Flak whilst conducting a successful anti-shipping strike.
 
I think we need to get a Sea Mosquito, or Hornet, ASAP, well before the first carrier landing in March 44.
Perhaps sub-contracting the work to Fairey, also to help get around the RR Griffon issues, which was originally an FAA request, and to enable skipping the Barracuda altogether.

A win-win situation :)

Since there actually was a Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33 & TR Mk 37 with folding wings and arrestor hook, its perfectly possible. And since a Mosquito's overall dimensions are no greater than a Grumman Avenger, hard to believe but true, it's a viable alternative. And a better choice being faster, longer ranged, and more heavily armed. That most Mosquito Marks are faster than an F-6F may upset some posters?
It could also replace the entire Fulmar and Firefly line, again outperforming them, and would be a salve to the 2-seat Naval Fighter fetish.
(The Sea Hornet NF 21 carried an observer)

Unlike the F6F, Mossie and Hornet were at the top of the game when it is about streamlining and power to weight ratio, so no wonder they were as fast, or faster (some of the versions with 2-stage engines). I'm all for an early Sea Mossie/Sea Hornet pruchased instead of the Firefly and Barracuda. That probably means no Firebrand, again a win-win.

The Sea Mossie was originally derived from the FB Mk IV, which was capable of dogfighting with FW-190's, but there is no reason why that has to be the only variant. A version dropping a 4000lb bomb on Tirpitz is probably implausible, could Fairey-Youngman Flaps be fitted to a Mosquito?
And in the absence of such what sort of angle could a Mossie achieve Glide-Bombing.

DH does not need to wait until the F-Y flaps are developed. Just take a peek on the Lockheed Hudson, and copy the Fowler flaps from those. Now that we're there, find a way to get couple of hundred of the American 1600 lb AP bombs, and then go kill Tirpitz.
Mossie was with G limit set at 6 - excellent for a bomber, but not enough for dogfight. Major weight saving is needed to up the G limit.
 
Well there was an incident on 15 Jan 45 when a squadron of Mosquitoes was jumped by 30 Fw-190 of JG-5, and 5 were shot down.
5 Mossies were also lost, 2 to Flak whilst conducting a successful anti-shipping strike.

Didn't say the Mossie couldn't shoot down a 190 it just couldn't dogfight with arguably the best LW dogfighter of the war. The 190 could pull G till the pilot was unconscious. The Mossie was iirc safe to +4 G and the wings would suffer damage at +6G.
 
Why use the US AP bomb, was there a problem with the RAF 2,000lb AP bomb.
The Air Ministry were buggers for playing around with the mix of bombs being produced often sticking with useless weapons and ignoring what the tactical and Bomber command forces wanted which created shortages of useful ordinance at the worst times.
 
The 1600lb AP was used by the Royal Navy against Tirpitz. I think they did about as much damage as dropping 1600lbs of dimes would have done.

Operatoin Tungsten in general and British 1600 lb AP bombs in particular were too late, too few, and mis-used. Instead in early 1944, the attack need to be made in early 1943. The 1600 lb AP bombs were just introduced in winter of 1943/44. Only 7 Barracudas took off with those bombs, that were dropped from too low altitude.
My scenario would've unfolded earlier as noted, with at least 30 aircraft carrying 1600 lb AP bombs (don't wait for British type, use US type, plus another 30 A/C carrying HE bombs) dropped from 7000-8000 ft.
 
I'm thinking this leads to a Hurricane competitor (Wasp?), which loses to Hawker, being wood... Then, as war nears, AM looks again at the Wasp, & this butterflies the Spit.:eek:

Wood construction suggests it could be built in Canada, SAfr, & India (maybe Kenya, Uganda, & Rhodesia, too), using local workers (furniture & piano manufacturers) & local materials. This might start prewar...& suggests a need for more Merlins sooner--which also implies licence production in Canada & Oz, maybe SAfr & India, too.
 
Wood construction suggests it could be built in Canada, SAfr, & India (maybe Kenya, Uganda, & Rhodesia, too), using local workers (furniture & piano manufacturers) & local materials.

from the wiki
Duramold is a composite material process developed by Virginius E. Clark. Birch plies are impregnated with phenolic resin, such as Haskelite and laminated together in a mold under heat (280 °F, 138 °C) and pressure for use as a lightweight structural material.[1] Similar to plywood, Duramold and other lightweight composite materials were considered critical during periods of material shortage in World War II, replacing scarce materials like aluminum alloys and steel.[2][3]


The material has some advantages over metal in strength, construction technique, and weight. A cylinder made of duramold is 80% stronger than a cylinder made of aluminum.[4] There are over 17 varieties of Duramold, using various quantities of birch or poplar wood, with as many as seven plies.[5] The Duramold process has also been used to make radomes for aircraft as well as missile bodies.[6]


The Fairchild Aircraft Corporation patented the process, designing and constructing the AT-21, (NX/NC19131) as the first aircraft made using the Duramold process.[7] Several aircraft used Duramold in parts of their structure but the largest aircraft manufactured with the process is the Hughes H-4 Hercules, which was almost completely built with Duramold in very large sections.[8] Hughes Aircraft had purchased rights to the process for this use.

The Duramold and Haskelite process was first developed in 1937, followed by Gene Vidal's Weldwood and later the Aeromold process produced by the Timm Aircraft Company. The aeromold process differs in that it is baked at a low 100 °F at cutting and forming, and 180 °F for fusing together sections after the resins are added
640px-Timm_N2T_at_NAM.jpg

The Timm S-160 (or Timm PT-160K) was a conventional tandem open-cockpit monoplane trainer first flown on the 22 May 1940 by test pilot Vance Breese. It was powered by a Kinner R-5 radial engine and was a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. It had an unusual feature in that the airframe structure was made from resin impregnated and molded plywood, creating a composite material stronger and lighter than plywood. This process was patented as the Nuyon process and marketed as the aeromold process.[2] The S-160 received the first approval for a plastic-wood construction, (ATC #747), on 28 August 1941.[3]


Mass production is at hand, no skilled workforce needed after the initial molds and curing bays are done
 
The material has some advantages over metal in strength, construction technique, and weight.
Don't tell me, tell the Air Ministry.;) (Then again, we know they're clueless, so maybe that's a waste of effort.:openedeyewink:)
Mass production is at hand, no skilled workforce needed after the initial molds and curing bays are done
That's good to know (all of it, which I didn't). Thx. (Now if only the bureaucrats in Procurement hadn't been so dim...:rolleyes:)

Edit: As I think about it, this may be the process I read about: steam-bending wood to form monocoque fuselage halves.
 
Last edited:
Top