ALT Long range fighters for 1937-1941

Westland Whirlwind as built was not a long range aircraft it was an interceptor with much the same range as a Spitfire so it's going to need a lot of work to be a long range aircraft.

It was indeed a short-ranged interceptor.
I'd suggest that the cooling system is relocated into the 'beard' position under the spinners, thus the volume in the wing between nacelles and fuselage can have fuel tanks installed. A drop tank (tanks) is also needed.
cutaway
 
Some early 'compact twins' that might've fitted the role, some better than the others; nothing very fancy:
- 'pre-Whirlwind', powered by two Kestrel engines of 745 HP, armed with 8 .303s
- Mercury-powered 'pre-Whirlwind' (+ power, but also + drag vs. Kestrel power), 2x840 HP, again 8 .303s; both versions will need ~ 200 imp gals + drop tank facility for the long range work
- a F5F-lookalike, powered by two curent R-1830 engines, 4 .50s (US fighters of the day are lightly armed,); later up-engine with V-1710s
- press on with Fw 187 as-is, switch to Cezch-built HS 12Ys once available (Spring of 1939; easier to up-engine than with the heavier DB 601As, 20-25% better power above 4 km than Jumo 210G)
- IMAM Ro.57, but with two Isotta Fraschini Asso XI engines (less drag, better power above 4km) - a 'pre-Ro.58'; have I-F make the L.121 for a bit more power
- Potez 63 series with 'meaningful' engines, talk HS 12Y or G&R 14N

Why compact? For less drag and weight, thus for better speed, range and rate of climb.
Granted, not everyone will embrace the idea of pricy 2-engined fighters to be made in many hundreds, let alone thousands...
 

Driftless

Donor
- a F5F-lookalike, powered by two curent R-1830 engines, 4 .50s (US fighters of the day are lightly armed,); later up-engine with V-1710s

Go with the F5F derived XP-50, but farmed out to someone other than Grumman. They were plenty busy with US Navy work and didn't have time or the desire to divert too much engineering resource to sort out the F5F's teething troubles. The XP-50 could dispense with the carrier equipment (folding wings, hook, etc), which would lighten the plane some. Could the R-1830 be made with handed engines? Other than giving the mechanics and quartermasters headaches, the offsetting torque could be a tactical advantage, couldn't it?

That plane could have been a very useful bomber-killer, escort, and both ground and ship attack. Put it in the hands of both the USMC and USAAC in the Pacific and Europe

*edit* R-2600-10 engines were considered, but nothing physical was done with the idea (XP-65)
 
Last edited:
For the very late end of this time range, I wonder how the De Havilland Mosquito would have worked as a day fighter if the RAF had decided to trial it as a bomber escort or for use in North Africa? As far as I can tell there was never a single-seat variant of the Mossie or a day fighter variant, but the post-war De Havilland prop fighters were excellent, if overshadowed by the early jets.
 
For the very late end of this time range, I wonder how the De Havilland Mosquito would have worked as a day fighter if the RAF had decided to trial it as a bomber escort or for use in North Africa? As far as I can tell there was never a single-seat variant of the Mossie or a day fighter variant, but the post-war De Havilland prop fighters were excellent, if overshadowed by the early jets.

We probably don't need such a big amount of internal fuel (536 imp gals - 643 US gals - in the fixed internal tanks); not installing a few of the outboard self-sealing fuel tanks would probaby shave a few hundreds of pounds of empty weight. Clip the wings for better rate of roll. Only 8 .303s for the starters - should be keeping enemy fighters in the bay.

Speed on Merlin III will probably be in the ballpark with Bf 110C of the BoB vintage (330-340 mph); in 1941 with Merlin 45 it will restore it back to 350-360 mph. Retrofit a cockpit just for one person, or a tandem instead of side-a-side for lower drag?

Granted, even as-is the Mosquito is a bit too late for this thread.
 
We probably don't need such a big amount of internal fuel (536 imp gals - 643 US gals - in the fixed internal tanks); not installing a few of the outboard self-sealing fuel tanks would probaby shave a few hundreds of pounds of empty weight. Clip the wings for better rate of roll. Only 8 .303s for the starters - should be keeping enemy fighters in the bay.

Speed on Merlin III will probably be in the ballpark with Bf 110C of the BoB vintage (330-340 mph); in 1941 with Merlin 45 it will restore it back to 350-360 mph. Retrofit a cockpit just for one person, or a tandem instead of side-a-side for lower drag?

Granted, even as-is the Mosquito is a bit too late for this thread.
For an earlier option, De Havilland deciding to develop the DH 88 (with more powerful engines) into a military aircraft directly after the England-to-Australia race ended would be a good PoD to put a light bomber-heavy fighter type of aircraft into British service pre-war, though you won't get the capabilities of the Mossie without the Merlins and the specific wood construction (which postdates the DH 88).

Edit: Researching the Macperson-Robertson Air Race a little more has introduced me to the Bellanca 28-70, and its derivative the 28-90, originally built for the race then modified into a light bomber for use in the Spanish Civil War. The (illegal) effort to export them from the US was caught and those built mostly ended up serving with the Chinese Air Force. As befits its long-distance racing heritage it had high speed and long range; I could certainly see it being modified into a useful fighter-bomber in service with Spain or France had it made it to Spain early enough to see service in the civil war and spark further development.

In turn, that led me to the Northrop Gamma, another long-distance racer-turned-bomber, which saw service with a number of different countries during the war. No-one seems to have tried to turn the Gamma into a heavy fighter; I can't see any obvious reason why it couldn't serve in the role, though I doubt it would be fast or maneuverable enough to stand up to shorter-legged competitors. (Note that the most common military variant of the Gamma OTL- the A-17- sacrificed fuel space and hence range for bomb load: earlier models like the A-13 had much greater range, and I presume a fighter variant would or at least could likewise retain long range fairly easily).
 
Last edited:
For an earlier option, De Havilland deciding to develop the DH 88 (with more powerful engines) into a military aircraft directly after the England-to-Australia race ended would be a good PoD to put a light bomber-heavy fighter type of aircraft into British service pre-war, though you won't get the capabilities of the Mossie without the Merlins and the specific wood construction (which postdates the DH 88).

The DH 88 really looks the part. Very 'clean' looking, with reasonably thin wing (at least what can be estimated by Eyeball Mk1). Granted, the LR fighter made by D-H will share just the looks and layout, while being powered by 'proper' military engines, and sized accordingly.
 
For an earlier option, De Havilland deciding to develop the DH 88 (with more powerful engines) into a military aircraft directly after the England-to-Australia race ended would be a good PoD to put a light bomber-heavy fighter type of aircraft into British service pre-war, though you won't get the capabilities of the Mossie without the Merlins and the specific wood construction (which postdates the DH 88).
The DH 88 really looks the part. Very 'clean' looking, with reasonably thin wing (at least what can be estimated by Eyeball Mk1). Granted, the LR fighter made by D-H will share just the looks and layout, while being powered by 'proper' military engines, and sized accordingly.
Different construction though. The ply-balsa-ply construction of the Mosquito was first used on the DH Albatross which was designed in 1936, several years after the DH.88 flew. The Comet wings had two layers of planking laid diagonally with one being crosswise to the other (a similar method to that used in lifeboats) while the fuselage was mostly plywood over spruce longerons.

The Comet’s building techniques were not really suited to mass production. They could perhaps have been adapted but you would have lost a lot of its performance. The DH.88 had a specially tuned engine (high revs, high HP, relatively low time between overhauls), was smoothed with repeated paintings and rubbing downs, and had three different construction methods in the wings and two in the fuselage. A military adaptation would have to have been a quite different aircraft.
 

marathag

Banned
The Comet’s building techniques were not really suited to mass production
Across the ocean, Duraplast Process used by Fairchild could have been used for mass production, had Fairchild possessed a decent design worthy for War use.
Howard Hughes bought the rights for this, and later used it extensively in the Hercules/Spruce Goose. Not sure if this was for exclusive use, or not
 

Driftless

Donor
The laminated monocoque construction method was used pre-WW1 on a French Depurdussin racer and kinda-sorta on a wartime follow-on fighter. The Germans used a similar method on a LFG Roland fighter during the war. Was that a path that could have produced stronger lighter - longer ranged planes at an earlier date if more fully developed sooner?
 
The DH 88 really looks the part. Very 'clean' looking, with reasonably thin wing (at least what can be estimated by Eyeball Mk1). Granted, the LR fighter made by D-H will share just the looks and layout, while being powered by 'proper' military engines, and sized accordingly.
I have in the past speculated on a development of the Comet powered by late model RR Kestrel engines.
 

marathag

Banned
The laminated monocoque construction method was used pre-WW1 on a French Depurdussin racer and kinda-sorta on a wartime follow-on fighter. The Germans used a similar method on a LFG Roland fighter during the war. Was that a path that could have produced stronger lighter - longer ranged planes at an earlier date if more fully developed sooner?
Glues.
That was the big lapse.
Most Glue technology hadn't changed in hundreds(or thousands for some) years, even by the 1920s. All Animal based Glues were coming from guts, bone, blood and milk. , or plant starches. Casein was one of the better types, and like the others wasn't waterproof.
Phenol-Resorcinol-Formaldehyde glues wasn't in wide use till 1940s, but were around in the mid-late '30s
 
Glues.
That was the big lapse.
Most Glue technology hadn't changed in hundreds(or thousands for some) years, even by the 1920s. All Animal based Glues were coming from guts, bone, blood and milk. , or plant starches. Casein was one of the better types, and like the others wasn't waterproof.
Phenol-Resorcinol-Formaldehyde glues wasn't in wide use till 1940s, but were around in the mid-late '30s

Temperature set resins from vegetable oils were developed in the latter 19th Century & those had potential. But, the technical obstacles with thermosets restricted them to some simple to use construction materials. Not sure how practical a linoleum aircraft would have been.
 
Last edited:
All this discussion about wooden laminate airframe construction has led me to an interesting aircraft. and somewhat relevant to this thread:

The Hughes XF-11. Designed as a twin-engine fighter, intended to meet extremely ambitious performance goals including high speed, heavy armament, and long range. Development started in 1937, putting it well within the purview of this thread even though the aircraft only finished development in 1947(!), and in spite of the OTL program's many obvious flaws, I wonder if an alt-Hughes couldn't have produced something very interesting in time for the start of WW2.

After all, the Hughes Aircraft Company didn't lack the funding to develop an aircraft. If they had focused on the D-2 (to use its company designation) and managed the whole thing better I think they might have actually built an equivalent to the Lockheed P-38 but flying slightly earlier thanks to their slightly earlier start.

Managing it better would have required focusing in early on the role and specs they wanted, and abandoning some of the most ambitious elements that caused major delays (ironically given what brought it to my attention, I think the project would benefit from abandoning the wooden laminate airframe and simply sticking with aluminum, which American aircraft manufacturers already knew how to work with). Unfortunately, as with most of the other designs coming out of the Hughes Aircraft Corporation, the problems with the design were as much driven by Hughes' perfectionism as by any faults in the concepts.
 
The Germans could have selected the FW-187 rather than the disastrous Bf-110. Single seat FW-187's would've presented Fighter Command with a big problem in the Battle of Britain, being able to operate over almost all of mainland Britain.
 
Temperature set resins from vegetable oils were developed in the latter 19th Century & those had potential. But, the technical obstacles with thermosets restricted them to some simple to use construction materials. Not sure how practical a linoleum aircraft would have been.
Linoleum aircraft are great for carpet bombing!


Sorry, couldn't help myself...
 
Was the Bf110 inherently a bad design or could it have been a better fighter if executed better? It seems a common theme that aircraft in the period considered were good short ranged fighters or had decent range and were poor fighters. Extending range on the good fighters has a high price (zero) but could any of the twin engined ones be improved enough to make them adequate fighters? So reasonably competitive with a hurricane for example. Or is air warfare so reliant on small margins that nearly is nowhere near good enough?
 

Driftless

Donor
Was the Bf110 inherently a bad design or could it have been a better fighter if executed better? It seems a common theme that aircraft in the period considered were good short ranged fighters or had decent range and were poor fighters. Extending range on the good fighters has a high price (zero) but could any of the twin engined ones be improved enough to make them adequate fighters? So reasonably competitive with a hurricane for example. Or is air warfare so reliant on small margins that nearly is nowhere near good enough?

Good question. While it was too big, too heavy to mix it up with the much more nimble Spitfires and Hurricanes in the BoB, later on the 110 provided some real good service as a night fighter, in part from having sufficient size to be adaptable for changing radars and armaments. The Beaufighter probably makes a decent comparisson - not desirable as an escort, but the hammer-of-the-gods in other roles.

I think the Luftwaffe nabobs over-estimated it's capability early on, and learned hard lessons. The 109's short legs meant the 110 got used in ways that exposed its inherent weakness. With the Norwegians lacking both quantity and quality of modern fighters, the 110 was a useful hammer. Not so much over Southern England.

What if the Luftwaffe chiefs split the difference between the heavy 110 (4400kg empty and 6700kg combat) and the the FW-187 (as Belasarius notes above) at (3600kg empty and 5000 +/-kg combat load) The 187 had plenty of promise, but it's own long list of teething issues. Go with some design with range and adaptability, but a bit more nimble
 
Top