Alternative British Dakota

Thick wings do give more lift at lower speeds, and have better stall characteristics in exchange for the extra drag. Trade offs.

From what I have been able to find out on google the main reason for the very thick AW wings was the construction method with a patented Octagonal Aluminium single spar. It was light very strong and easy to build with the right jigs but its sheer diameter meant a very deep aeorfoil. The thick aerofoil also gave a good shortfield performance but that was a side effect of the construction method.
 
This is still my top pick, essentially a French DC-3 https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alternative-british-dakota.415119/#post-14665439

That is of course, assuming that Britain can't simply license-build the DC-3 like the Russians did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2

Heck, even the Japanese got a license to build it, why not the Brits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa/Nakajima_L2D

Well Airspeed had a licences for the DC-2......

Your problem is all the suggestions so far are...well..shite compared to the DC3.

It needs an earlier realisation that the UK aircraft are far behind the opposition.

Even the Fairey FC1 would be at a disadvantage with 4 engines compared to 2 on the DC-3.

The closest would be the De Havilland Flamingo....but it definately needs a better name.
 
s95jnWv.png
 
The trimotor looks the best bet to me. The twin engined option appears to only carry 16 passengers so is really too small to compete with the DC3. The four engined aircraft is obviously in a different class too the DC3 range wise so also shouldn't compete with it.
 
Well Airspeed had a licences for the DC-2......

Your problem is all the suggestions so far are...well..shite compared to the DC3.

It needs an earlier realisation that the UK aircraft are far behind the opposition.

Even the Fairey FC1 would be at a disadvantage with 4 engines compared to 2 on the DC-3.

The closest would be the De Havilland Flamingo....but it definately needs a better name.
Fortunately it looks as if Airspeed had licences on the DC-3 too.

According to the Putnams on Airspeed aircraft the firm concluded a licence agreement with Fokker in January 1935. It allowed Airspeed to build Fokker aircraft and sell them in the British Empire and also build and sell the Douglas DC-2 in Britain for which Fokker held a licence for Europe. It then gives a list of the Airspeed designations for the Fokker aircraft as follows:
A.S.16 Fokker F.XXII
A.S.17 Fokker D.XVII
A.S.18 a variant of the A.S.17
A.S.19 Fokker D.XIX
A.S.20 Fokker F.XXXVI
A.S.21 Fokker D.XX
A.S.22 Fokker C.X
A.S.23 Douglas DC-2​

However, it also says that a possible contract for 12 Douglas DC-3s for British Continental Airways in late 1936 had to be turned down because the firm was busy with other work. If that is correct the POD could be that Airspeed had a bigger factory or that it wasn't busy with other work.

Late 1936 is also around the time that 80 Bristol Bombays were ordered from Short & Harland. However, the first aircraft didn't fly until March 1939 and ended in June 1940 after only 50 of the 80 aircraft had been built. In addition to buying a handful of D.H.95 Flamingoes for the King's Flight and No. 24 Squadron the RAF also ordered 30 De Havilland D.H.95 Hertfordshires but only one was built and delivered in June 1940.

IMHO there is the opportunity for a swap. That is Airspeed accepts the order for 12 DC-3s from BCAW and the Air Ministry orders 110 Dakotas from Airspeed between 1936 and 1939 instead of the Bombays and Hertfordshires.

The above probably means that Airspeed built fewer Oxford twin-engine trainers. According to Putnams RAF Aircraft Since 1918 a total of 400 were delivered including 75 by De Havilland. A grand total of 8,586 Oxfords were built between November 1937 and July 1945 made up of 4,411 from Airspeed's Portsmouth factory, 550 by Airspeed at Christchurch, 1,515 by De Havilland, 750 by Standard and 1,356 by Percival.

I think the solution is to reduce the Oxford contracts placed with Airspeed and increase the number ordered from De Havilland. Space can be made by not ordering the 250 De Havilland Dons (only 50 build and only 30 of those delivered) and the 30 Hertfordshires. Short & Harland received an order to build Handley Page Herefords (Hampdens fitted with Napier Dagger engines) so the first solution would be to order 80 extra Hampdens in place of the Bombays. However, I think it would be better if Short & Harland had built 75 Sunderlands in place of the 50 Bombays and 100 Herefords that it built IOTL.
 
Last edited:
As long as the "less of something else" consists of unnecessary aircraft I'd be okay with that.
Then I nominate the Armstrong Whitworth Albermarle. According to the Putnams on RAF Aircraft Since 1918 it entered service with the RAF in November 1942 and 600 had been built when production ended in December 1944, but it only equipped 6 RAF squadrons. Four of these were glider-tug squadrons in No. 38 (Airborne Forces) Group and by 1943 there should be enough unwanted Whitleys and Stirlings (which were both used as glider tugs IOTL) in the aircraft storage units to fill the gap left by the Albermarle.

According to the same Putnams book over 1,900 Dakotas were supplied to the RAF, it entered service in March 1943 and equipped 27 RAF squadrons.

Therefore 600 down, 1,300 to go.
 
AFAIK the Avro York has yet to be mentioned. IOTL it was built to Specification C.1/42 and the prototype first flew in July 1942. It would be tight but Armstrong-Whitworth might be able to build 300 Yorks with Hercules engines in place of the 600 Albermarles. What makes it tight is that in OTL the first Albermarle squadron was formed in November 1942 which is only 4 months after the York prototype flew.

To make it fit better is it permissible to have the Avro P.13/36 built with 4 Merlins instead of 2 Vultures from the start or at least to have the change made a year earlier? In that situation Armstrong Whitworth would have stopped making Whitleys and started making Lancasters a year earlier. Furthermore is it permissible for the specification that produced the York to be brought forward by one year as well? Then there would be 16 months between the first flight of the prototype and the aircraft entering RAF service instead of the Albermarle. IOTL the first York prototype was fitted with Hercules engines to become the sole York Mk II and bringing the aircraft forward by a year also makes it easier to build 300 Yorks with Hercules engines in place of 600 Albermarles with Hercules engines.

Armstrong Whitworth stopped building Whitleys in 1943 and started building Lancasters so there may be scope for production economies due to the Lancaster and York having common wings. Plus Armstrong Whitworth built the 300 Lancaster Mk II that were fitted with Hercules engines.

The first Albermarle squadron was employed in the fast transport role, but the York (with Merlin engines) had a faster maximum speed 298mph v 265 mph and a faster cruising speed of 233mph v 170mph according to Putnams.
 
Top