AHC: Peerless Air Ministry

[perfectgeneral]

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.

You really have a comprehensive answer coming here. I'd have to find the full remit of the department to find an area you aren't taking into account. Very well done...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1917/51/pdfs/ukpga_19170051_en.pdf

(3) On the establishment of the Air Council, the Air Board constituted under the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall cease to exist, and all the powers, duties, rights, liabilities, and property of that Board shall be transferred to the Air Council, but nothing in this subsection shall affect any orders, instructions, or other instruments issued by the Air Board, and all such instruments shall have effect as if issued by the Air Council.

(4) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, transfer from the Admiralty, or from the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department, to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council such property, rights, and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council, as the case may be.

So an agreement can be made to transfer the FAA without legislation and rubber stamped by the Privy Council. Air assets and infrastructure can be signed across in the same way. However the Act is a one way street. A corresponding ability to transfer FROM the Air Council should be amended into the act. This would enable the three branches to cooperate and restructure as they see appropriate without any further legislation.
A Statutory Instrument should do it. They are bullshit fuel for a dictatorship.

Wiki "Air Ministry":

The ordering procedure used I.T.P. (Intention to Proceed) contract papers; these specified a maximum fixed price, which could (after investigation) be less. But when Lord Nuffield got the I.T.P. contract papers for a Wolseley radial aero engine, which would have required re-orientation of their offices with an army of chartered accountants, he decided to deal only with the War Office and the Admiralty, not the Air Ministry. So the aero engine project was abandoned in 1936, see Airspeed. Nevil Shute Norway wrote that the loss of such a technically advanced engine was a great loss to Britain as well as Airspeed, and blamed the over-cautious high civil servants of the Air Ministry. When he had asked Lord Nuffield to retain the engine, Nuffield said: I tell you, Norway ... I sent that I.T.P. thing back to them, and I told them they could put it where the monkey put the nuts! [19]

Much as we shouldn't quote wikipedia, this make a good point of debate rather than fact. It lends to their argument to say that the Wolseley was advanced, but how good was it really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseley_Aries +Scorpio, Leo and Libra.

This might be the engine for the F5/34 "Vantage". If it is to have a name, I think it should recognise a strength of the design: the view from the cockpit.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Part 3. 02 The chrysalis forms.

As 1937 progressed there were a number of prototypes due to fly and Sir Phillip was concerned about what he saw as unnecessary delays. Glosters were building the Mark 1 Gladiator which was due to enter service in February 1937 and the Hawker Hurricane was due to enter squadron service by late 1937 despite the delay caused by the problems with the Merlin and the decision to wait until the Merlin II was available. Sir Phillip in discussions with the CAS was concerned that introducing the Gladiator Mk2 in late 1937 was a waste of Glosters design and development potential that should be going into getting the F5/34 and other prototypes finished for flight testing. When pushed by Sir Phillip, Hawker’s and Gloster aircraft confirmed that the first flight of the first F5/34 protype could probably be advance at least four months if such measures were taken and the second prototype with the Alvis Pelides would be ready no more than eight weeks later depending on the delivery of a flight ready engine. Stopping work on the Gladiator Mk2 would also advance the possible date for the commencement of Henley and /or Hurricane production at the Hucclecote factory by several months.

The Hawker Henley and the Fairey design to P4/34 were the cause of much angst at the AM. These two aircraft seemed to have become side-lined or redundant since the adoption of the Fairey battle which was not that dissimilar. There were those in the AM who thought the Fairey P4/34 aircraft should be shelved so that the company could concentrate on producing the Battle and completing other design projects. As for the Henley it was being proposed that 200 of them should be built at Gloster’s as target tugs.

Sir Phillip had been in intense discussion with the CAS and the CnC of Bomber Command on just how useful and survivable light day bombers might be with the advent of new faster and better armed fighters. For bombing in day light for Army support operations every indication was that as smaller more agile aircraft that could dive bomb would be better in both accuracy and survivability than a larger Aircraft. Sir Phillip proposed that trials with the Henley and the Fairey P4/34 and the New Blackburn Skua should be carried out as soon as possible after March when the Henely was scheduled for its first flight. These trials would include the new Blenheim bomber which was due to enter service soon.

Negotiations for the licence for the Hisspano 20mm cannon were in an advanced stage and the finance was in place so the ROF could set up a production line. The acquisition of a belt feed system for the gun was taking a little time to finalise but was proceeding. ROF was tasked with having some test guns ready as early in 1938 as possible and were machining two sets of four dummy guns of the correct weight for installation trials on aircraft.

With The Alvis Pelides engines ready for trials the pressure was on for it’s smaller cousin the Maeonides to be readied for testing as well. This engine was a 18 cylinder twin row radial Bore-4.8 inches, Stroke- 4.4 inches of 23.6 litres, dry weight around 1200 pounds and a power of 1000hp. It’s most important statistic was it’s diameters off only 41 inches. Also being worked on was the Alcides, being a powerful supercharged 18-cylinder two-row radial engine, with a power output of 1,650 / 1,725 hp (1,230 / 1,286 kW). 5.75 in × 7.09 in (146 mm × 180 mm) (bore x stroke), 54.24 Litres. The problem for Alvis was they could not bring three new engines to fruition at the same time and would need to priorities. The AM were in a dilemma as the Maoenides could act as a replacement for the Bristol Taurus and the Alcides could do like wise for the Bristol Hercules, whilst the Pelides being the most advanced development wise of the Alvis engines sat firmly in the middle.

Once again a pragmatic stance was taken with effort being concentrated on getting the Pelides flying and ready for production whilst learning lessons pertinent to both other engines to speed their development.

At this time the AM had engaged Charles Benjamin Redrup as am engine design consultant after the cessation of engine development by the Bristol Buss company in late 1936 had left him a free agent. His remit From Sir Phillip was to review all the engine designs submitted to the AM and evaluate them. His first two candidate were the trio from Alvis and Fairey’s new H 24 monarch engine. Redrup’s initial assessment of the Fairey Monarch design was that whilst the integral cast air passage ways were very clever and helped provide a light and stiff block he was concerned that an orifice of under 2.5x2 inches feeding air to each pair of cylinders with two right angle bends on the head of each cylinder would choke the engine and cause undue turbulence of the air supplied to the cylinders. Redrup noted that adding just 0.5 inches to each dimension of the air supply channels would increase its area by 50%. It was recommend that the RAE carried out some tests on air flow through the proposed configuration of the Monarch engine to investigate any adverse effects on air supply and pressure and that Fairey’s be asked to look at the possibility of designing a larger and smoother air flow system.

 

[perfectgeneral]

diameters off only 41 inches

An extra s and f have sneaked in here, also "Buss" and "Hisspano" have an extra.

That is a compact engine. It could turn the Whirlwind into a good ground attack aircraft, with a longer tail boom and some cockpit armour.

I love the Fairey p.24 Monarch and take back all I said about their engines.
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P152543.pdf
A US assessment in Aug 1941 felt that three more years development to production would be required. The Air Ministry should sponsor more development engines to rapidly increase running and flight hours. This may require extra test beds and aircraft (2x Henley, 2x P4/34 and 2x Skua plus 1x Blenhiem for twin mount testing).
The Fairey Prince, an H16 engine, also contraprop, was available earlier. How about boring this out to 5.75inches from 5.25in? Extra displacement (now 2492.9cu in), a squarer swept volume and the standard piston. Something like 1846hp (Engine displacement = bore X bore X stroke X 0.7854 X number of cylinders). A squarer swept volume means less heated surface (and weight of metal) for the volume. Better for flow of combustion gases, heat into the engine and power to weight ratio. A bigger bore means more than a bigger stroke or more cylinders.

https://alvisarchive.com/aero-engines/

The decision by Alvis in 1935 to enter the realm of aero engine manufacture was bold, considering that it had no experience in this field of engineering.

Oh.

Such was their enthusiasm and confidence in the venture that a modern new factory was built on land the company already owned adjacent to the existing car factory in Coventry. The new premises were of the most advanced design in the country at the time, in respect of facilitisation, providing a high degree of independence from subcontracting by incorporating most of the manufacturing process requirements under one roof. Complimenting a large engine development test bed acoustically designed in conjunction with The National Physical Laboratory, were machine shops where each machine was self-powered dispensing with the overhead pulley and belt drives that characterised production plants of that time. Incorporated also were a pattern shop and a foundry smelting steel, iron and aluminium. Metallurgical, physical and chemical laboratories, and x-ray cells. Electro-plating shops, a coppersmiths, furnace heat treatment department, functional testing rigs and a toolroom producing all the necessary jigs and fixtures. In fact everything to ensure controlled, quality production.

What you have here is the perfect shadow factory. For the Wolsley aero-engines that L@rd Nuffield refuses to build? Could the programmes have been merged into a joint project to gain development mass? Out of Huffield's hair with the administrative demands. Alvis takes the very similar developing engines under their wing. The Aries had a diameter of 41.25 inches. A double Libra version could offer 800hp pretty early on from a ~ 1400lb engine (single row was 390hp from 725lb). Nuffield had already sunk £200,000 into developing these engines by 1936 when the project was halted. The Leonides is a bit heavier and more powerful, but there could be staff and ideas they can use. It wouldn't hurt to have each group look at their rivals work within a partnership. Maybe have Alvis buy out Wolseley Aero-Engines from Nuffield. He clearly doesn't enjoy the business. That would boost manufacturing capacity and development staff. Maybe get an 18 cylinder double "Leo" running pronto. One row engines for trainers and cruising duration, two row engines for combat speed. Parts commonality will help both production lines. Coventry and Birmingham.

Can we try the Fairey independent contraprop idea for back to back radials? Both a 2x9 cylinder Leo Major and 2x18 cylinder Double Leo Major version? Contraprop is great for equalizing torque at low speeds (deck take off and landing say) and independent coaxial engines gives you redundancy in a package small enough to fit a deck lift.

Air Ministry draughtsmen. A team/pool of 200+ technical drawing experts able to swoop in to any company to speed/copy final manufacture drawings.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Notes

1. I haven't included No. 24 (Communications) Squadron.
2. I haven't included Nos 15 and 22 (Bomber) Squadrons because they were attached to the A&AEE and only existed on a skeleton basis.
3. Nos. 35 and 207 (Bomber) Squadrons in the ADGB command were emergency squadrons assigned to the air component of the expeditionary force.
4. The half-squadron of bomber-transports was the bomber-transport flight in India.
5. No. 209 (Coastal Reconnaissance) Squadron in the Coastal Area had 3 Blackburn Iris/Perth flying boats. CR squadrons normally had 4 flying boats.
6. No. 202 (Coastal Reconnaissance) Squadron in RAF Mediterranean (Malta) had 12 Fairey IIIF seaplane. CR squadrons normally had 4 flying boats.
7. On 31st March 1933 the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force had 27 flights of 6 aircraft or the equivalent of 13 1/2 squadrons. On 1st April 1933 they were reorganised into 12 squadrons and 6 flights. However, they were still the equivalent of 13 1/2 squadrons of 12 aircraft because some of the 12 new squadrons were understrength.
8. 2 of the 4 fleet fighter squadrons had 6 aircraft instead of 12.
9. 2 of the 5 fleet spotter reconnaissance squadrons had 9 aircraft each instead of 12
10. The 6 catapult flights were the equivalent of 3 squadrons

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is the aircraft they were equipped with. IIRC it came from the Air Force List of late 1933/January 1934, but there should not have been any significant changes between then and the end of March 1934.

 

[perfectgeneral]

@NOMISYRRUC
I'm surprised that there are 59 aircraft in the RAF that could have been classed as FAA (torpedo bombers and flying boats).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC
I'm surprised that there are 59 aircraft in the RAF that could have been classed as FAA (torpedo bombers and flying boats).

Out of interest, why are you surprised?

And it's really 47 because 12 of the 59 were Fairey IIIF seaplanes in No. 202 Squadron at Malta. It didn't become a flying boat squadron until May 1935 when it received Scapas.

 

[steamboy]

So looking at this the RAF seems to be looking at getting either a land based Skua or a proper dive bomber version of the Henley to act as the army's ground support aircraft instead of the Battle. At the time of introduction the Blenheim's a good plane (and a handsome one too!) but might we see some changes with the engines in light of the development we're seeing here? If you can eke another 10 - 15 mph out of the Blenheim that'll be good for it and its crews (300mph is probably too much to ask for it but 280 ish would be an improvement).

Cancelling the Gladiator is a very good thing, perhaps shove the MkI onto the export market (*eyes Norway and Finland for this plane*, its something better than nothing after all) and if this helps get the F.34/36 into service (We need a name for it as all these bloody numbers get confusing!) then this is a good thing, especially if its being thrown at the FAA to give them a decent fighter (although there will probably be a numbers problem with production having to be seriously cranked up as well as recruitment to overcome the FAA's constant pilot/plane shortages that blighted it at the start of the war).

And speaking of the FAA, perhaps someone should suggest not using vital fleet elements in dangerous anti-submarine work...

 

[sonofpegasus]

The FAA under Arthur Dowding is another ATL!

 

[sonofpegasus]

Interlude, Egos, Scientists, Committees and Cliques.

Soon after taking up his post Sir Phillip had been faced with a crisis that had taxed all his political skills and Powers of Persuasion. By late 1935 the work of the CSSAD otherwise known as the ‘Tizzard’ committee was being completely disrupted by the intervention of Professor Lindemann who had been added to the committee at the insistence of Churchill. Unfortunately as Churchill had been granted a place on the influenceual IDC (Imperial Defence Committee) sub committee on Air-Defence he was able to push for this appointment over any objections by Sir Phillips predecessor. Prime Minister Antony Baldwin was really upset and concerned by the amount of confidential information that was being leaked to Churchill and used against the Government and to try and quieten him had added him to the IDC. With all the members (P.M.S. Blackett, Served in the RN as an engineering officer in WW1 now professor of Physics at Birkbeck college. A.V.Hill, Served in the Royal Artillery in WW1, sound ranging expert, Physiologist, noble Prize winner and Member of Parliament for Cambridge University. H.E. Wimperis was the first Director of Scientific Research at the Air Ministry) sending in letters of resignation form CSSAD at the same time Sir Phillip had no option but to take action.

Sir Phillip reconvened the Committee without Lindemann (an Oxford man) replaced with Professor Appleton (another Cambridge man). At a meeting with the Prime Minister, in an attempt to keep the peace it was agreed to add Lindermann to the CSSAO which was then being formed. This meant that Sir Phillip could not pursued H.E.Wimpreris to serve on this committee which was a pity as he had designed the ‘course setting bomb sight’ used by the RAF and therefore had real knowledge on the technical problems involved. Though Sir Philip could mitigate that particular negative by asking Wimpreris to work with FAA on developing a dedicated dive bombing site for the Skua. Churchills support for the King in the crisis caused by the King’s love for Wallace Simpson had caused Baldwin serous problems and drove a further wedge between the two making it even harder for Sir Phillip to keep Churchill on side.

To this end Sir Phillip did succeed on getting the Prime ministers tacit approval for the Claredon Laboratories in Oxford to work on fundamental research to air defence. Principaly on the Photo electric cell in the application to proximity fuses for both rockets and shells. It just so happens that Lindemann was not only in charge of the Claredon laboratories but he is also a partner in the countries major producer of photo electric cells, as well as being with Churchill a supporter of rockets in the AA role. This funding enabled Professor Lindemann not only to keep the London brothers Heinz and Fritz working at Oxford but also to retain Francis Simon and Nicholas Kurti well. These Jewish scientists were doing fundamental on semi conductors and nuclear physics and their retention in the UK was advocated by Ernest Rutherord, despite being a Cambridge man and head of a rival laboratory. Sir Phillip suggested that a young scientists RV Jones working at the Claredon laboratories was transferred to the Royal aircraft establishment at Farnborough to carry out research there which was agreed by Lindemann as quid co pro for the scientific funding. By these machinations Sir Phillip hoped to keep the peace in the scientific community divided by the rivalry between the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge and the Claredon in Oxford.

 

[perfectgeneral]

I'm keen on Professor Lindemann being put in his own field and left to graze. I do worry that photo sensing proximity will result in cloud detonated shells and rockets. Sharp edges of shadow are key, I feel. Hard to detect a shadow of approaching an aircraft among the natural light, especially at night. Perhaps an illuminating upward specific frequency beam would help? frequency matched spotlights?

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/fro...r-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/3
Swinton did pretty well on force size, responding to events quicker than most. Any room for improvement by Sir Phillip?

 

[steamboy]

Excellent stuff as always and wait..the Skua didn't have a dive bombing sight, even though it was a dive bomber!?

 

[sonofpegasus]

Perfectgeneral, Yes the rise of Lindemann is a bet noir with me as well. The use of photo cells in AA war heads will come home to roost for the Prof if I can work a believable out come. Killing him of ITTL would be too simple and trite. The countries and government's attitude to harbouring Jewish refugees at thus time does not exactly read as one of open arms and willingness. Thank you for the link that will help. Retaining, gaining and using such brilliant minds driven from their own nations will ITTL have potential for real Butterflies.

as far as I am aware the Skua's bomb sight was no different from those used at the end of WW1. Though someone might know differently so please post any info.

The next update will be hopefully back to aircraft!

 

[perfectgeneral]

Skua's bomb sight was no different from those used at the end of WW1

TLAR* guidance.
A wire hoop or two?
The mark one eyeball.
*=That Looks About Right

Funny that we shall probably be more short on pilots with Mk1 equipment than the aircraft. All those cheap make-work trainers are vital to a successful air force.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Since when was a Fairey Battle a cheap make-work? In 1939/40 make-work yes, cheap not IMHO

 

[perfectgeneral]

Since when was a Fairey Battle a cheap make-work? In 1939/40 make-work yes, cheap not IMHO

I'm thinking more of the biplanes and Miles monoplanes.

Master. Magister, Mentor, etc.

 

[sonofpegasus]

I agree Tiger Moths rule OK. Having the Kestrel/master a year early helps too especially as ITTL the Kestrel will be a dedicated advanced fighter trainer.

 

[perfectgeneral]

I agree Tiger Moths rule OK. Having the Kestrel/master a year early helps too especially as ITTL the Kestrel will be a dedicated advanced fighter trainer.

It's a sweet looking aircraft. A bit cramped in the back. I can see why the Master was preferred for dual control, but for building up solo time and formation/aerobatic flying? Have the RAF compared their formation with other air forces?

 

[sonofpegasus]

Part 3. 03 The chrysalis forms.

The first design and specification review of 1937 took place in at the AM at the end of February. Sir Phillip new this was going to be a major event as a number of projects were at a critical decision stage and other projects had obvious problems. In anticipation of this Sir Phillip had a number of briefing paper prepared both from within the AM and from his independent advisors. He opened the meeting by reminding the assembled company that no less than 6 new aircraft types were due to fly in the next six months and that no less than four new types would be in service at the end of the year and four new types would proposed to be ordered into production within that time before their respective prototypes had flown.

Sir Phillip started by summing up the progress of the two medium day bombers ordered from specification B.9/32. Firstly the Handley Page H.P.Hampden, final design conference 15/9/36 at which all equipment for night bombing was added to the requirement. Prototype K4240 due at Martlesham for trials this September. An order for 100 aircraft has already been placed for an earliest introduction to service in mid 1938. The Vickers type271 Wellington, final design approved in late 1935, prototype K4049 first flight on 15 June 1936. Order for 180 aircraft placed in August 1936. The first production aircraft is not expected until late summer or early autumn. Next he went on specification B4/34, this resulted in a prototype ordered from Armstrong Whitworth known as the A.W.38 Whitley. Despite benefitting from the design and prototype construction undertaken to specification C26/31 the prototype K4568 was not flown until 17th of march 1936, with an order for 80 aircraft in August 1935. A second prototype K4587 was flown on the 24th of March to a revised specification with more powerful engines. The first of the Mark I aircraft are already being delivered but production will be changed after 34 aircraft to the revised MkII to complete the balance of the contact. One of these aircraft will be constructed as a protype MkIII aircraft to specification 20/36 slated to enter production by August next year.

Currently it is taking five to six years to get a bomber from specification to squadron service despite placing orders before a flying protype is available, Sir Philip stated that this was not justifiable and the delays were unacceptable, though he accepted that the rapid technological advance in the last five years were a fundamental cause he reiterated that the system was to slow.

Next for review was the specification B1.34 The Hadley page proposal has been withdrawn and the Vickers Type 284 Warwick was ordered to contract no. 441973/35 with two RR vulture engines on 7/10/35. Due to major design changes a mock up was ordered 14/3/36. Work is progressing slowly on a prototype K8178 and a first flight is scheduled for mid to late 1938 depending on engine availability. At the request of AM Sir Phillip Joubert de la Ferte a second prototype L9704 has been ordered this week to be fitted with two Fairey Monarch H24 engines and Maritime Patrol equipment. First flight of this aircraft will follow as quickly as possible after the first protype.

Next on the agender specification 10/36 for a Torpedo/Reconnaissance bomber land plane. Two aircraft have been ordered off the drawing board to fulfil this requirement. Firstly, an order for 78 Bristol Beauforts with Bristol with Perseus VI engines and secondly 248 Blackburn B-26 Botha I aircraft again powered by the Perseus VI engine developing 840hp at take of. Due to changes in the specification since the placing of orders both design teams have expressed concerns that the aircraft are overweight and under powered. The provision of more powerful engines will exacerbate the weight problems and both designs will need to be reviewed. This is especially the case with the B-26 Prototype which is actually schedule to be the first production aircraft. Bristol’s progress on these aircraft will need to be monitored carefully to avoid delays and mitigate the design risk.

Next on the agenda were the Heavy and Medium Bomber specifications, B,12/36 and P16/36 respectively. Prior to the meeting there had been much discussion of the limits put on these designs regarding wing span and take off runs. Also the use of catapult or trolley launching to achieve overload take off wights to increase range and bomb loads would have a detrimental effect on structural weight thereby having a negative effect on the performance in normal load configuration. Concern had been expressed that the wing span of aircraft was being artificially limited (as seen also in specification B.1/34) this was seen to be an attempt to limit the all up weight which along with the weight added by the assisted take off requirement was seen to be compromising the design unnecessarily. Also limiting the length of take off run thereby necessitating expensive development of catapult or trolley launch systems seemed a false economy.

Sir Phillip quoted the AMRD, as stating that “Aerodromes should be made larger, the size of the aerodromes was a limiting factor in the development of better aircraft. We were handicapping ourselves in a way no other nation would allow itself to be handi-capped’.

Using money to purchases larger airfields and therefore expanding the capabilities of the large bomber aircraft was recommend.

Turning to Short’s initial response to the B13/36 specification which was the S29 using basically the same wing platform as the Sunderland flying boat then under development. This wing had a span of more than 100ft. Using an existing wing design would save time on both the wing and the production jigs. Sir Arthur recommended keeping the large un-restricted bomb bay even of the torpedo dropping requirement was discontinued as it would assist in minelaying and other task requiring large bombs. Additionally any requirement for assisted launch would be deleted to save weight with the money saved from not building of the catapult/trolley launch system being plowed into larger airfields. Sir Phillip apologized for the unintended pun.

The decision to rework the Hadley page design to P16/36 from a twin engine to a four engine design caused some heated debate. The use of four engines in the 1000/1500 Hp class was seen as less of an engineering risk than having another design reliant on the untired 2000Hp class engines.

It was noted that with so many protypes and trials aircraft due to arrive at Mastleon Heath both the staff and facilities at the test facility would need to be expanded.

Sir Arthur Dowding confirmed that the RN was placing a contract for Folland aircraft to design a naval fighter using the Alvis Pelides engine. This fighter design would be armed with 20mm cannons from outset. with work commencing in January 1937 Sir Arthur stated that the prototype Folland Naval Fighter should be flying in the first quarter of 1938.

At a private meeting Later Sir Hugh Dowding confirmed to both Sir Phillip and Sir Edward Ellington that the Biggen Hill experiments had demonstrated that it was possible and practical to use RDF to direct fighters to intercept attacking Bombers. Major-General E.B. Ashmore who was one of Sir Phillip’s “Council of Elders” had already confirmed as much. Tizard, Ashmore and Dowding all advocated that a version of the Biggen Hill experiments should be carried out for Night interception 1.5 at the earliest opportunity the hardware development permitted. Only then could the practical problems be addressed including the OR. For a radar equipped night fighter.

Discussions then centre on the events in the Spanish civil war. The involvement of both German and Italian forces and the bombing of Madrid were of great concern. It was agreed that as much information as possible must be garnered regarding the air operations being carried out by both sides.

 

[Some Bloke]

Does this air ministry part with its Napier Lions so the Army have a decent engine for tanks?