Alternate History Combat Aircraft
- Thread starter S. Marlowski
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aircraft helicopter
German A6M Zero with BMW-801 engine.
I had to beef up the nose a bit to get the Beamer to fit.
Inspired by this thread-https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alt-day-fighters-for-luftwaffe-1937-45.536415/
I had to beef up the nose a bit to get the Beamer to fit.
Inspired by this thread-https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alt-day-fighters-for-luftwaffe-1937-45.536415/
Canadian Car & Foundry "Edmonton"
At the same time as the abortive FDB-1 biplane fighter was in development in 1938, Canadian Car & Foundry began work on an army cooperation and light attack aircraft. While it would use the same R-1535 engine as the FDB-1, it would be a much different design; a monoplane, with two engines, and a fuselage suspended between twin booms. Visibility was to be of paramount importance; large glass panels covered most of the front, top, and even part of the bottom of the aircraft.
Presenting their initial design to the RAF, CC&F hoped to make sales as the British rearmed. They were surprised when the RAF informed them that the need for an army cooperation aircraft was already filled by the Westland Lysander, and there was no need for the RAF to purchase the aircraft in quantity. However, they did recognize the basic merit of the design, and after some discussion it was decided to have CC&F produce the aircraft to supply the dominions, and as a means of gaining experience in aircraft development and construction.
The first prototype of the new aircraft, dubbed the "Edmonton", flew in January 1939. The Edmonton was not a small aircraft, with a wingspan of nearly 70 feet, and a length of nearly 42 feet. Despite this, it proved to be decently agile (in part thanks to its large wing), and capable of a top speed of 240 miles an hour. This gave it a significant speed advantage over the Grumman FF fighters in use by the RCAF, and was respectable compared to the FDB-1 also in development at CC&F (a fact which no doubt contributed to the demise of the latter project). The initial Edmonton I was armed with four .303 machine guns inboard of the wings, and a pair in a turret at the rear of the fuselage. In theory up to four 250 lb bombs could be carried, though with more than two performance was significantly decreased (even if the crew was reduced from the normal four to three).
(Some aviation historians have noted the similarities between the Edmonton and the Focke Wulf design that competed for the Luftwaffe contract won by the Ar 198. While the designs are quite similar in role and design, this seems to be mostly a case of convergent evolution, and the Edmonton was significantly larger than the Focke Wulf. In any case, the poor performance of the Ar 198 on the eastern front means the Canadians had the right idea, regardless of whether it was stolen from the Germans.)
By the outbreak of the war in September, the Edmonton was just about finished testing, and the initial batch of Edmonton I production aircraft was under construction. Only a few dozen were built before the switch over to the Edmonton II. The Edmonton II was the main land-based variant, and differed from the Edmonton I mostly in using more American-sourced components. The two tail guns were switched for a pair of American M1919 .30 caliber guns, while the forward firing guns were replaced with a pair of M2 heavy machine guns (which had the added benefit of improving performance against heavy targets). An uprated version of the R-1535 was also added, giving a few more horsepower.
The first deployment of the Edmonton was not as an observation aircraft, but actually as a fighter. With only a few outdated Grumman FF fighters to cover the eastern portion of the country, the RCAF was spread painfully thin in early 1940. Two squadrons of Edmonton I and IIs were pressed into service in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to intercept hostile aircraft; flying with only two crew the aircraft significantly outperformed their biplane counterparts. Of course, no German aircraft appeared over Canada, and they were soon replaced by Canadian-built Hurricanes. Four RCAF squadrons of land-based Edmontons would serve until 1944 doing maritime patrol in Canada (particularly over the Gulf of St. Lawrence). After being retired from this role, they would serve as utility and liaison aircraft with the RCAF (the main cabin could carry up to five passengers with no tail gunner on the plane, though not in great comfort). The last Edmonton II, a 'hack' aircraft for an RCAF squadron in Alberta, would not be sold off until 1954.
Though it performed no role in the Battle of France, the Edmonton did perform vital roles in other theaters early in the war. A squadron of SAAF Edmonton IIs fought in East Africa against the Italians; here it was not only valued as an observation aircraft, but also for its bombing capabilities. It was also able to outrun the Italian CR.32 that was the main fighter opposition in the area, though two were still shot down (in exchange for two Italian fighters downed by the tail gunners, and an Italian transport destroyed by the forward-firing guns). The Edmonton II was also used in North Africa, where two RAAF squadrons, in addition to the SAAF squadron, used the aircraft from 1941. Here it also served well as an observation aircraft, and performing bombing runs (particularly against softer units or lightly defended targets), though the Edmonton did much worse against fighters like the Bf 109 than it had against the CR.32.
The Edmonton had been conceived from the start as a float-capable aircraft; one prototype Edmonton I was modified with floats. Though it could not carry all but the lightest torpedoes, it was still felt to be useful for coastal observation, and dropping light bombs or depth charges. The first to seek this capability were actually the Dutch; Fokker purchased a production license for the Edmonton in early 1940, intending to assemble the aircraft at a factory to be built in Java and used in the Dutch East Indies. As a stopgap, a dozen float-based Edmontons were sold to the KNIL, being assigned the designation T.XI (in common with the Dutch-built aircraft). CC&F themselves used the development work done on the float-based version to create the Edmonton IV, which would become the main production version starting in early 1941.
Only 11 T.XIs would be built in Java by December 1941, when the Japanese invasion hit the DEI. The T.XIs were well built aircraft, and capable of withstanding numerous hits from the rifle caliber machine guns commonly used by Japanese fighters. However, in a desperate situation, with poor supply and overwhelming odds, the T.XI could do little. Most of them were destroyed at anchor or thrown away in desperate, piecemeal attacks; four would survive to escape to Darwin in May 1942, where one was promptly destroyed by a Japanese bombing raid. The last three would be integrated into one of the two Australian squadrons using the Edmonton IV. The Australian Edmonton IVs served mostly in the Solomon Islands and around New Guinea, performing reconnaissance and nuisance attacks against lightly defended concentrations of troops or supply barges. After the main offensives in the Solomons, the Australian Edmontons stayed in the area, performing various duties and harassing bypassed garrisons (such as on Rabaul) until the end of the war.
The Canadian Edmonton IVs, much like their land based brothers, served in the antisubmarine role. One of the most notable successes was the disabling of U-536 and its subsequent capture by RCN forces in September 1943. U-536 was engaged in a plot to free U-Boat commanders from prisoner of war camps in Canada; after escaping from the camps, the prisoners would travel hundreds of miles to rendezvous with U-536 in New Brunswick. However, the submarine was caught by an Edmonton on the surface while close inshore, and was bracketed by four 100 lb bombs dropped by the floatplane. With damaged ballast tanks and propellers, U-536 was unable to escape RCN ships waiting in ambush nearby. Despite an attempt to scuttle the boat by her commander, U-536 was captured in a massive intelligence and propaganda victory for the allies. (U-536, and the Edmonton IV that bombed her, are displayed together in Halifax at the Canadian Naval Museum). Edmontons would end up destroying five U-boats, the last being U-875, which was sunk off Newfoundland in December 1944 by a Mark 24 "mine" (one of the few torpedoes small enough to be carried by an Edmonton). After the war, the floatplane Edmontons were mostly retired, a few serving on as search and rescue or patrol aircraft until the late 1940s. The survivors were sold off to private owners, where the aircraft enjoyed a quite long career as a bushplane in the Canadian North, with a few lasting until the 1990s.
Göppingen Gö -11
An alternate design from a timeline where an interest in pusher/pull aircraft takes an earlier start with the Göppingen and Dornier companies.
I posted this plane over on the - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alt-day-fighters-for-luftwaffe-1937-45.536415/
The design has received some constructive critiques such as the nose is to long which I extended because I felt the plane would've been too heavy in the rear and would tip back on it's tail.
It was suggested that wheel on the bottom of the vertical stabilizer would be sufficient for a tail dragger design but I disagree.
Thoughts and suggestions would be welcomed.
An alternate design from a timeline where an interest in pusher/pull aircraft takes an earlier start with the Göppingen and Dornier companies.
I posted this plane over on the - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alt-day-fighters-for-luftwaffe-1937-45.536415/
The design has received some constructive critiques such as the nose is to long which I extended because I felt the plane would've been too heavy in the rear and would tip back on it's tail.
It was suggested that wheel on the bottom of the vertical stabilizer would be sufficient for a tail dragger design but I disagree.
Thoughts and suggestions would be welcomed.
Last edited:
Interesting design, I like it very much
I think the aft prop is a bit small though, and that's a problem with a push/pull tail-dragger design I'd think. The tail doesn't really need a wheel, it can just have a 'bump/skid' like the XB-42 did. You could always put the prop in FRONT of the tail, as I recall the Germans (and others) considered such designs
(Those "mad men" of the 20s/30s and 40s were such kooks )In addition the French had gone into the push/pull design for bombers and I can see that helping along other nations development efforts. I'd like to see more push/pull designs
Randy
You think I should try something like this Daimler Benz DB-609?Interesting design, I like it very much
You could always put the prop in FRONT of the tail, as I recall the Germans (and others) considered such designs
In addition the French had gone into the push/pull design for bombers and I can see that helping along other nations development efforts. I'd like to see more push/pull designs
Randy
Now that's thinking outside the box. 😎
I might play with this idea. Thanks for comments and suggestions.
I wouldn't want to try and bail out of that aircraft.
Also the torch forces on that must be a fucking bitch.
The Go-11 like the Dornier Do-335 would have ejection seat. The torch forces should be balanced out by contra-rotating props and the closeness of the props should also cancel out the porpoise-ing affect that troubled early versions of the Do-335.
I'm not saying the DB-609 would a great or even a decent plane in fact it would probably have a lot of bugs to iron out but in a timeline where jet engines came much later I could radical designs like the Geo-11 and Do-335 being experimented with in greater numbers and in various nations.
Messerschmitt/Daimler Benz MDB-609
In a timeline where Daimler Benz joined with Messerschmitt to develop their DB Jäger design (The RLM cancelled all work on the Me-262 believing the plane wouldn't be ready till after the war was won) while Daimler Benz focused on developing the DB609 engine in 1942.
Based on this OTL design
In a timeline where Daimler Benz joined with Messerschmitt to develop their DB Jäger design (The RLM cancelled all work on the Me-262 believing the plane wouldn't be ready till after the war was won) while Daimler Benz focused on developing the DB609 engine in 1942.
Based on this OTL design
Last edited:
Has there actually been a definite conclusion on the armament of the Do 335? I have seen various sources actually quote the cowling armament as the 15 mm version of the MG 151, usually arguing with a similiarity in ballistics with the 103 in the Nose.
Depending on when your contraption (which I love by the way!) will enter service you migh get some problems with the proposed armament: The 30 mm cannons are only available starting in 43. You might get away with accelerating their development or just fit another 151/20 in place of the 103.
Now this is an insane design! I think there where some experiments with comparable propeller mountings in ww1 but this is still super weird and I love it! The nose still looks a bit "propellery" even though you removed the actual propellers from there and it might be a bit short considering the prodigious size of the DB-609.
The addiditon of what I assume to be additional fuel "bulbs" to the wings is an interesting choice. On one hand you certainly need some place to store additional fuel considering your main hull will be full of extension shafts and other mechanisms for the drive train, but on the other hand your are gonne loose aerodynamic efficency and drastically decrease your rate of roll.
I've also read that the Do-335 was to be armed with the 15 mm version of the MG 151 above the cowling and in other sources that 20mm's were to be used, I can't say for sure which was used but most (but not all) sources say it was the 20mm 151.
As for the DB Jäger I totally agree it's a crazy design and I've always wanted to do something with it.
I'm proud to say that I think my alternate design is just as crazy as the OTL design.
And yeah it would probably need drop tanks for decent endurance.
I have always wondered why the DB-Jäger concept had the super weird propeller arangement. In the end the engine, while very long, is still a traditional nose mounted one and it should be easier to just mount the propellers in front instead of doing some weird extension shaft wizardry to mount them so far back. Are there any significant aerodynamic reasons for doing this?
There was of course 'something' to the design (other than "how weird can we make it look?"
) but off hand I don't recall the reasoning. Might have been for CP/CG purposes, or to keep the airflow over the fuselage 'smooth' right up until it hit the props, (similar concept to most of the "pusher" aircraft such as the XB-42) I'm just not finding it with a quick search. (Not that my work computer is 'helping' all that much atm )Randy
Inspired by this thread-https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/optimize-the-regia-marina-for-ww2.537181/
It was suggested that the Italians take a land based fighter and give it jettisonable floats for a long range fighter capable of escorting transport aircraft and cargo ships across the Mediterranean sea from Italy to Africa.
I took a Macchi C.2000 Saetta and gave it floats from a Aichi M6a1 Seiran, the floats are mounted in the same place that bombs or drop tanks would be attached to hard points.
The plane could take off on water and land next to ships for fuel when needed and jettison the floats if it encountered enemy aircraft.
After that I guess it could land on land if close enough or make a crash landing at sea I guess.
It was suggested that the Italians take a land based fighter and give it jettisonable floats for a long range fighter capable of escorting transport aircraft and cargo ships across the Mediterranean sea from Italy to Africa.
I took a Macchi C.2000 Saetta and gave it floats from a Aichi M6a1 Seiran, the floats are mounted in the same place that bombs or drop tanks would be attached to hard points.
The plane could take off on water and land next to ships for fuel when needed and jettison the floats if it encountered enemy aircraft.
After that I guess it could land on land if close enough or make a crash landing at sea I guess.
The idea was for an escort fighter, for Italian surprise attacks on Gibraltar and Alexandria, on the first day of Italy's war, not convoy escorts, lol.
The reason you need the floats is to land and refuel from your network of seaplane tenders, on the approach march to target.
If you meet land based fighters over Gib, you drop your floats, to eliminate their drag, and fight on even terms, those that survive the dogfight, you just land in Spain, get interned, and sit the rest of the war out. If over Alex, you bail out after the dogfight, and become a PoW.
Last edited:
Fiat CR.25 Float Plane
Also inspired by the "Optimize Regia Marina" thread.
A twin engine Italian float bomber plane, I'm not sure about this one, I think the floats should've been on the outer part of the wing opposite the engines not in between the engines.
What do you folks think?
Also inspired by the "Optimize Regia Marina" thread.
A twin engine Italian float bomber plane, I'm not sure about this one, I think the floats should've been on the outer part of the wing opposite the engines not in between the engines.
What do you folks think?
I know the Italiens cant be all that choosy with the potential options they have, but that sounds like a very quick way to loose a lof of both aircraft and trained pilots, two things the Italians dont really have an abundance of.
Edit: Im not entirely sure how long the ranges involves actually are, but could the Italians get by with some kind of "Zero style" long-range-fighter-with-additional-droptanks or is everything important too far away?
Last edited: