Alternate Aircraft of Nations

[Count of Crisco]

So in a TL I am working on I have a nation get a license to build the RR Merlin in early 1939, once the war in Europe breaks out on schedule they also get the license to build the Spitfire and a set of plans. Assuming this nation has modern factories and the workers skilled enough to build them how long would it take them to put the plane into large scale production?

Assuming the nation wants to make some changes, swapping over the original armament for four heavy machine guns, and two cannon, improve the landing gear, increase fuel capacity, and a few other odds and ends, how long would this delay the implementation of large scale production. Would having the team tasked with making these improvements work in the UK where they could have access to Spitfires during the time production is being tooled up in the home country speed the process up?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What country are looking at buying these licences? The one for the Merlin is fairly easy to do any country with a decent aircraft industry could probably build it but the Spitfire I have my doubts about. It was a very difficult aircraft to produce and was very nearly cancelled because of that. I don't see Britain diverting people to help foreigners build it while they had so many problems themselves unless it's a Commonwealth country.

 

[Mike D]

It couid be a lot harder than it sounds - you're basically trying to turn a Spitfire I (which is what I presume the licence is for) into something between a Spitfire V and a Spitfire IX but with the original Merlin engine of the Spit I.

It's not impossible but if you need to move things about in the wings (to accommodate the changes to the armament and the landing gear) and you're messing with the CofG (changing fuel tanking) you could be talking about a fairly extensive redesign and you might be talking a year or two by the time you've done the redesign, flown and perfected prototypes and got the factories and suppliers set up for your new Spitfire.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If anyone's going to licence a British Fighter in 1939 then they're likely to licence the Hurricane not the Spitfire it's easier to produce. If however anyone was to licence the Spitfire then it's most likely going to be the French, with Romania as a very distant second possibility.

 

[Count of Crisco]

What country are looking at buying these licences? The one for the Merlin is fairly easy to do any country with a decent aircraft industry could probably build it but the Spitfire I have my doubts about. It was a very difficult aircraft to produce and was very nearly cancelled because of that. I don't see Britain diverting people to help foreigners build it while they had so many problems themselves unless it's a Commonwealth country.

The nation has built Rolls engines in the past so the relationship is already there. The country is not a member of the commonwealth, but the British viewed getting them on side as a necessity.

As for the state of its domestic industry the nation has recently expanded its capabilities, and began production of several aircraft. But it lacks any suitable interceptor aircraft as the BF-109s it had previously flown are getting wore out by 1939 (they have been used heavily in combat already) and its own attempts to design such a plane have met with failure. The Spitefire was selected out of a desire to get the most advanced off the shelf model possible.

 

[Faralis]

I can see Canada & Australia building Spitfires, the second only if they got (probably by accident) how good the Japanese planes were before the war starts proper in the Pacific.

I can see no reason why Portugal would want them, they rather build or buy a few Hurricanes. But I could see a WWII starting on the Anschluss with Italy on the Allied side producing them...

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The nation has built Rolls engines in the past so the relationship is already there. The country is not a member of the commonwealth, but the British viewed getting them on side as a necessity.

As for the state of its domestic industry the nation has recently expanded its capabilities, and began production of several aircraft. But it lacks any suitable interceptor aircraft as the BF-109s it had previously flown are getting wore out by 1939 (they have been used heavily in combat already) and its own attempts to design such a plane have met with failure. The Spitefire was selected out of a desire to get the most advanced off the shelf model possible.

Romania then with the Spitfire as an alternative to, or partner of their own I.A.R. 80? Britain doesn't want Hitler to get all that oil.

 

[McPherson]

So in a TL I am working on I have a nation get a license to build the RR Merlin in early 1939, once the war in Europe breaks out on schedule they also get the license to build the Spitfire and a set of plans. Assuming this nation has modern factories and the workers skilled enough to build them how long would it take them to put the plane into large scale production?

Assuming the nation wants to make some changes, swapping over the original armament for four heavy machine guns, and two cannon, improve the landing gear, increase fuel capacity, and a few other odds and ends, how long would this delay the implementation of large scale production. Would having the team tasked with making these improvements work in the UK where they could have access to Spitfires during the time production is being tooled up in the home country speed the process up?

Canada... with US help about 1 and 1/2 years. Though I think they would actually opt for Beaufighters, and Mosquitos.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I agree - Canada

Rolls Royce was 'a bit precious' with regards to sharing its engine plans with other firms let alone other nations - but I could see an extension of the Shadow Scheme resulting in production of airframes earlier in Canada if not also the engine.

I cannot reasonably see anyone else building it as anyone else capable of building it - is building their own designs.

 

[naraic]

If a British someone in the early 30s decides that monoplanes are the plane of the future what would we see in an early generation of British monoplane fighters.

I know at this stage biplane had certain advantages but I wonder what a major nation would do with monoplanes and how big the spec difference would be.

 

[tomo pauk]

If a British someone in the early 30s decides that monoplanes are the plane of the future what would we see in an early generation of British monoplane fighters.

I know at this stage biplane had certain advantages but I wonder what a major nation would do with monoplanes and how big the spec difference would be.

Soviet Union was a major nation in 1930s. They were also making monoplanes, both fighters and bombers. Spec difference in 1934 was, in mph, 271 (I-16 with 640 HP Cyclone) - 230 (Gauntlet with 645 HP Mercury) = 41 mph.
The minor nation of USA in 1934 have had 275 mph P-30 fighter in service. Retractable U/C, closed canopy, turbocharger - standing by the Gloster Gauntlet it would probably looked like a distant future.

A major nation will do with monoplanes what they were already doing with biplanes - put them in the service.

 

[Count of Crisco]

Romania then with the Spitfire as an alternative to, or partner of their own I.A.R. 80? Britain doesn't want Hitler to get all that oil.

Its not a nation that exists currently. But the analogy is similar. The British did not want this state to side with the Axis as it has resources that could turn the tide, and its own capable military.

As some aviation backstory this nation began to expand its rather modest aircraft industry in the early to mid 30s, buying a load of British and German planes from 1935-38 and developing their own indigenous designs. Building their own radial and inline engines to go into these vehicles. However the interceptor and inline engine were failures and by 1939 they were desperate for a plane but did not have the time to start from scratch again. So they went shopping in Britain and Germany again, The Germans offered their Bf-109 which they had sold them previously, but were unwilling to allow them to be built domestically under license.

I would think Supermarine would not really be to happy with the idea either, but again the British government wants them onside for the war they are certain is coming. I would also think that the country could get production going on Spitfires even without the desired changes to the plane, but know that they would want them incorporated into the design as quickly as possible once they had been tested and designed.

 

[Count of Crisco]

What's an interwar aircraft that you think never got it's time to shine? Either because it was introduced to late to make a difference, was obsolete in WWII but would have done very well before then, or was hampered by poor engines or other tech.

If things had gone differently what planes would have become well renowned and regarded during the second world war?

 

[McPherson]

Douglass Devastator (weak engine). Continental Catalina (Wing design too draggy). Lockheed Electra (Bomber version).

 

[ArtosStark]

The Willoughby Delta projects

www.dingeraviation.net

The never-built Delta-9. The link gives a good rundown on the plane and its history, with an included "What if?". If Willoughby had not died in his prototype, and been able to develop his design in the US, or if he had developed it for service in the mid 30's, or if the MAP had not basically killed all British transport aircraft, it could have been a good (though unusual) passenger plane. The type could possibly have been well suited to adaptation to Jet engines as well.

 

[Some Bloke]

It comes from the contest that created the Gloucester F5/34. The Gloucester design just overshadowed it.

View attachment 629133

Gloster F.5/34 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34[

Aka the Gallant, the Gannet, or the Goshawk, although the latter usually has a Hercules engine on this site.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What's an interwar aircraft that you think never got it's time to shine? Either because it was introduced to late to make a difference, was obsolete in WWII but would have done very well before then, or was hampered by poor engines or other tech.

If things had gone differently what planes would have become well renowned and regarded during the second world war?

The Battle, had war come a year earlier it would have done well, had it mainly served in the Middle East it would have done well against the Italians, even in Malaya and Burma it would have done well until swamped by Oscars and Zeros as the Nates and Claudes that made up the bulk of the Japanese fighters weren't that good or well armed. If diverted to coastal work including torpedo attack it would have done well enough. It had no business over the Allied frontline in May 1940 during daylight hours.

 

[Driftless]

Martin B-10 of 1934? It was quicker than most fighters of the era and had some other more modern features for that mid 30's time. There were still a few on a few rosters in late 1941, by which time it was past the sell-by date.

 

[tomo pauk]

What's an interwar aircraft that you think never got it's time to shine? Either because it was introduced to late to make a difference, was obsolete in WWII but would have done very well before then, or was hampered by poor engines or other tech.

If things had gone differently what planes would have become well renowned and regarded during the second world war?

Blenheim, I-16 and SB bomber come to mind among the ones that became obsolete just as the ww2 started.
The Henley as a bomber.
Among the ones that were just late enough - Avia monoplane fighters, DB-powered Hurricane in Yugoslavia (DB 601 engine came with constant speed props and ejector exhausts, unlike the Merlin installation there).
French and Italian aircraft were the ones with obsolete engines. Polish fighters were badly outdated.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I think I'll add the Skua to the list of prewar aircraft that never got to shine. If things had been a little different then they could have raised hell against the Italians both at sea and in the desert. I also think they could have done well in Malaya until overwhelmed. Norway showed what they could do as a dive bomber but they never got the chance to repeat the performance.