Better British Aviation 1918-39

I decided to start this because I was hijacking the Hawker Henely thread and AFAIK we haven't had one on this subject for a while.

The POD is 11th November 1918 and I have deliberately called it Better British Aviation 1918-39 because it includes Naval Aviation, Civil Aviation and the British Aircraft Industry as well as the RAF.
  1. In the case of the RAF and FAA you can spend more money, but I would prefer the changes to be on things like improvements to airframes, engines, propellers, armament, radar and doctrine rather than increasing their size of the RAF and FAA.
  2. That is unless a plausible reason for HMG wanting to spend the money is provided along with a plausible reason for the British electorate to support it and a plausible source of the extra money can be given as well.
  3. As British Government spending on Civil Aviation 1919-34 was even more meagre than military and naval aviation you can spend several times more on that if desired.
  4. Changes to the company structure of the British Aircraft Industry are allowed.
  5. Changes to aviation in the British Empire and Commonwealth are also allowed if they are a result of the improvements in the UK.
 
I'd go for a slightly earlier POD. Have Sir William Weir, the Director of Aeronautical Supplies realise that Granville Bradshaw was being too evasive about the Dragonfly and NOT place all those orders for it!(11,500 engines having been ordered from 13 suppliers by June 1918). Then spend the money and time wasted on the Dragonfly used on other engines. It might not stop the carnage caused by the slashing of orders post Armistice but might help what survives have some more decent engines to use.
 
The British government should pay for the orders it placed and not bankrupt companies like Sopwith, that would certainly help a lot
 
WI RFC veterans buy up war surplus airplanes and offer quick trips across the English Channel or to Ireland.
As WW1 surplus airframes wear out, they are replaced by several generations of larger, faster airplanes that provide direct flights from Belfast to Berln.
Experience building air-ferries, then short-haul commuter planes, then medium-range airliners helps British manufacturers learn how to build long-range transports. During WW2, that experience helps build a better BomberCommand.

Meanwhile lessons-learned (building airliners) about retractable undercarriage, variable-pitch propellers, aluminum stressed-skin construction, etc. helps build faster fighter planes.
 
There was a somewhat more significant POD that occurred somewhat earlier when the RFC and RNAS ceased to exist. It was at this time that three armed services were formed which had to fight for fiscal survival, and competition rather than co-operation became the norm. At this point, the large strategic bomber which remained unproven, was somehow boosted in prominence and priority, from a RNAS adventure into the prime focus of the RAF, while fighters were deemed necessary for the defense of Britain only, and light day bombers, DH4s and Bristol Fighters, were found to be the practical means of dropping bombs on colonial villages and maintaining order in the Empire. Flying boats for coastal patrol remained as it was, and the RN's new plaything, the aircraft carrier were only given support grudgingly.

From the end of the Great War on, untold numbers of turning points occurred, each of unknown importance. I have discerned a few. None were detected or mandated by government schemes, but were, rather, the actions of individuals possessed of some brilliance, who were either nurtured begrudgingly, or suppressed with a vengeance.
 
Others will know the ins and outs of British aviation, I'll list some possible things that migh be improved/improvements:
- monoplanes ASAP. There is really no reason for the UK to introduce them later than other major countries. Eg. monoplane fighter before the P-26 or I-16, monoplane bomber before the Americans or Soviets do it etc.
-keep a close eye on various speed and altitude records and record's attempts, races, trophies. Diseminate the NACA and DVL reports when possible, as wide as possible. No reason not to introduce variable pitch props, thin wings, hi-lift devices, pressure carbs in a more wide scale and earlier
-metal aircraft are the way to go. Fairey produced 2000 of full-metal Battles, Boulton Paul produced 1000 Defiants, Bristol did how many Blenheims all before 1941 - there is no reason not to have alluminium-clad Hurricane from day one (coupled with thinner wing from point above, even if the base profile is the ancient Clark YH).
-between the wars, Bristol held several altitude records with aircraft that were powered by 2-stage supercharged engines. So please, Bristol, make 2-stage supercharged engines for the next war
-that leads us to: can you please make 2-row radials with poppet valves, so there is abundance of those before 1940? While also forgetting other engines with sleeve valves
- RR: V-12 liquid cooled engines are great stuff. That would mean no Exe and Vulture development, militarize the R engine instead. The Peregrine is not needed. Some cooperation from AM, RN and RAF is obviously needed
-arament: Vickers .50 is a very good weapon, try to speed it up, four will be needed in a fighter for the late 1930s . The next thing is 20mm cannon, and the very powerful but heavy Oerlikon FFS/Hispano 404 are not the only choices
-Napier: there is no need for the extreme RPM, small displacement engines. The H-16, 4 valves per cylinder, 30-35 liters engine, 1200-1400 HP for late 1930s on 87 oct fuel?
 
Give Whittle full backing in the late 20s, early 30s. Would be able to feild aircraft for both the RAF/FAA in WW2. After the war Britain should be an entire generation a head of anyone else.
 
Last edited:
One of the things I want to do is not have the Imperial Airship Scheme of 1924 and use the money to set up the Empire Air Mail Scheme 10 years earlier.

However, I have read that Barnes Wallis developed his geodetic construction method directly from the experience with the R.100. Therefore does no R.100 mean no Wellesley, Wellington, Warwick and Windsor? OTOH the R.100 wasn't the only airship built by Vickers. They also built the HMA No. 1 Mayfly, R.9 and the revolutionary R.80 so they might have learned enough from them.

Therefore with no Imperial Airship Scheme to divert them I want Barnes Wallis and Vickers might try applying what they had learned about airship structures to aircraft structures in 1924. I want the result to be:
  1. Build the Wellesley (with less powerful engines) in place of the Vincent and Wildebeest.
  2. Geodetic aircraft would also be built to Specifications B.19/27 (which produced the Fairey Hendon and Handley Page Heyford) and C.16/28 (which produced the biplane version of the HP.51, which was effectively the Harrow prototype).
  3. Then I want the knock on effect of that to be that the Wellington takes less time to develop making it possible to build an extra 250 in place of the 176 Wellesleys of OTL and the 74 Fairey Hendons ordered (but only 14 plus the prototype were built).
  4. The earlier availability of the Wellington would help with my plan to have it selected as the RAF's landplane GR aircraft. ITTL it would be ordered into production instead of the GR version of the Anson and the Blackburn Botha. The Anson would still be built as a trainer and communications aircraft. AFAIK Blackburn's Dumbarton factory was built with Government finance to build the Botha. Therefore ITTL HMG probably pays Vickers to build the Dumbarton factory to compliment the factories it built at Blackpool and Chester.
Is that feasible? Or do we need to have the R.100 to have the Wellesley and its successors?
 
Hmm - get someone from Vickers look what Lockheed is doing, no need for geodetic constrution techniques?
What if Vickers got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro VI instead of Beardmore, which built it as the Inflexible? Preferably a 4-engine version instead of the trimotor of OTL so it would not be as underpowered. Then Vickers incorporates the lessons learned into the prototypes built to B.19/27 and C.16/28, which in turn result in stressed-skin monoplanes being built instead of the OTL Vildbeest, Wellesley, Wellington and their successors.

Would it also have helped Supermarine learn how to mass produce the Spitfire if it had got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro IV flying boat, which IOTL was built by Beardmore as the Inverness?
 
Have the government abandon civil airships at the same time as military ones. The RAF had recognised them as a technological dead end and much of the same logic would apply to civil versions. Instead have them push land based aircraft as the best means of tying the Empire together through the rapid delivery of the mail and movement of people and troops. Have the Royal Aircraft Establishment acquire foreign built aircraft for testing and comparison against domestic types and ensure any government specifications aim to at least match the best the rest of the world offers. Don't order aircraft in drip and drabs but rather in larger numbers that give the Aircraft companies a strong incentive to compete against each other and avoid the practice of awarding contracts because it's that company's turn. If they can't produce the goods let them go under.
 
The R-100/R-101 adventure was a lesson to be learned, which wasn't learned. The Air Ministry incompetently built a disaster, while a private company built a functional vehicle. It cost a lot of money, and the memory became scrap.
 

Driftless

Donor
Any virtue in greater development of internal civil aviation within the colonies? Starting with smaller military surplus planes and pilots to help further economic growth where there's limited infrastructure. That type of aviation did exist - but might it have served the empire better if pushed more?
 
Last edited:
Have the British abandon their philosophy of fighters using radial engines and bombers using inline engines sooner. That philosophy was based on the idea that the light radial would be better for fighters that needed to be maneuverable, and more reliable liquid-cooled inlines were required for long-range bombers. Of course, as fighter speeds increased, the frontal area of inlines became more valuable in producing speed, while the increasing reliability of radials made them more valuable for bombers. However, the British still valued maneuverability over pure speed until the Fairey Fox embarrassed them with its ability to just fly past intercepting fighters, no matter how well they maneuvered. If they produced inline engined fighters earlier, they might end up with something like a streamlined Fokker D.XIII powered by a Napier Lion engine by 1923-1924. This aircraft could fly at 170 mph (very good for the time), and would be easy to adapt to later British inline engines.
 
What is possible in the field of heavier than air craft in the 1920's?

The first east-west crossing of the Atlantic Ocean was performed by R-34, a dirigible built by Billy Beardmore, July 1919. Tea was made on a metal plate welded to an engine exhaust manifold. There was one stowaway. The reverse trip was easier. It was Beardmore's experience in aluminum airship construction that led Adolph Rohrbach to pick Billy to build the Inflexible. Just another Flutterby.
 
What is possible in the field of heavier than air craft in the 1920's?
NACA published most of its new aerodynamic innovations like the airfoil classification system, the NACA cowling, and the pressurized wind tunnel designed by Max Munk for better designs. Junkers produced a whole line of all-metal aircraft, almost all of them ultimately based on the 1917 Junkers D.1 fighter and its system of a tubular framework with corrugated skin. Adolf Rohrbach also built a line of all-metal aircraft, almost all floatplanes, based on his Zeppelin-Staaken E4/20 design with more modern extruded frames and smooth skin. Towards the end of the decade, in 1927, the Lockheed Vega first flew, with its monocoque wooden structure and advanced aerodynamics giving it very high speed for the day, and in 1929, the Lockheed Sirius first flew, demonstrating similar performance in a single-seat aircraft. Both aircraft were designed by Jack Northrop and Gerard Vultee while they were engineers at Lockheed. At the end of the decade, in 1930, the Boeing Monomail and Northrop Alpha first flew. Both aircraft were all-metal, low-wing, streamlined mail planes, the Monomail having retractable landing gear, and the Alpha having multicellular stressed skin and rubber deicing boots, all novel if not revolutionary features at the time. Military aircraft tended to remain fabric and wooden biplanes, however.

In terms of engine design, the WWI designs were replaced gradually, at first by newer post-war radials based on the Bristol Jupiter, and then by radials based on the Pratt &Whitney Wasp, Wright Whirlwind, and Wright Cylone. Inline engines were gradually superseded by newer monobloc engines, first by the Curtiss D-12 in 1923, and then by engines inspired by it, including the Hispano-Suiza 12M and Rolls-Royce Kestrel. In 1929, the Rolls-Royce R (based on the Buzzard, which was in turn a scaled-up Kestrel) demonstrated the immense improvements that could be made to engines with improved alloys and other detail improvements. Other than that, general metallurgical and fuel octane improvements allowed more power out of existing engine designs. For example, the BMW VII, based on the BMW VI, in turn essentially 2 BMW IV banks attached to a common crankcase (and the BMW IV was in turn a scaled-up BMW IIIa from 1918), was offered in variants with compression ratios of 5.5:1, 6.0:1, and 7.3:1, showing the improvements that were possible to the basic BMW VI (compression ratio 5.5:1) with new alloys and techniques.
 
Transferred from the Hawker Henley thread, because it fits better here.
This means bringing the POD forward from 1936 to 1924, but...

What if Vickers got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro VI instead of Beardmore, which built it as the Inflexible? Preferably a 4-engine version instead of the tri-motor of OTL so it would not be as underpowered. Then Vickers incorporates the lessons learned into the prototypes built to B.19/27 and C.16/28, which in turn result in stressed-skin monoplanes being built instead of the OTL Vildbeest, Wellesley, Wellington and their successors.

Would it also have helped Supermarine learn how to mass produce the Spitfire if it had got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro IV flying boat, which IOTL was built by Beardmore as the Inverness?

The problem with the Spitfire construction is the wing leading edge which required machinery and sheet metal not readily available. Google "Dogfight- The Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf-109.

Building the Rohrbach designs didn't do Beardmore much good. They would have done better to hire Herbert Smith as chief designer, and a good business manager.

AFAIK the Rohrbach designs didn't do anybody any good.

However, I first heard of the Inverness and Inflexible in a Bill Gunston book called, Back to the Drawing Board - Aircraft That Flew But Did Not Take Off. IIRC he regarded the failure of these types as an important lost opportunity. IIRC from the book the Inflexible wing when tested at the A&AEE was incredibly strong, but the aircraft was too heavy and again IIRC Gunston blamed that on Beardmores "civil engineering" construction methods.

In the case of Supermarine building the Inverness I was hoping that the result would have been that the firm had been building stressed skin aircraft for some several years by 1936. But from what you have written that would not have solved the problem of making the wing's leading edge. Is that correct?

Yes.

And although the wing was considered incredibly strong, they still attached a hemp hauser as a lift strut for "security". I attempted to make a Beardmore timeline at one time, but I'm no good at business management, and neither was Beardmore, although he established a huge industry. Had he hired Herbert smith as a designer, and Roy Fedden and Cosmos engineering instead of Bristols, he might have been more black than red, but he still needed a business manager.

I wanted another firm to do it because I though they would do a better job than Beardmore or at least they could not do worse.

Vickers seemed to be the logical one because I thought it would do more for British aviation generally than having them do the R.100 and it would be a good way to prevent them inventing geodetic airframes. If giving the Inverness doesn't help Supermarine with the Spitfire then I would give it to Vickers too, because AFAIK Vickers was still designing flying boats because they hadn't bought Supermarine yet.

If not Vickers and Supermarine my second choices were Handley Page for the Inflexible because I want the result to be that the HP.42 and HP43 stressed skin monoplanes with fixed undercarriages and Short Brothers for the Inverness because I want the result to be that they built a family of stressed skin monoplanes instead of the Singapore family, i.e. the Calcutta, Rangoon, Kent and Singapore II/III.

Roy Fedden returned from a trip to the US with amazing pictures of Douglas aircraft production on their new transport. He remarked that he was treated with derision by British aircraft manufacturers who thought it was an elaborate movie prop.

Handley Page built a monocoque cantilever monoplane fighter for the US Navy in early '20s, but the undercart collapsed on heavy landing tests. It was the same undercart as the Fairey Flycatcher, but it was installed backwards. Nothing came of it but another timeline. It was perhaps a decade and a half ahead of time. Pity.

You aren't going to improve British aviation in the period by shuffling existing models around. It has to be a different government and different people doing different things, or doing things differently. The Whitley had an improper wing installation because the designer didn't know how to build flaps. When someone told him how, the wings were not changed back. The engines installed were crap, and known to be crap, and had been crap a decade before. All this was business as usual. That doesn't make the industry better.

Does that mean it's impossible for OTL to be changed?

Ah! Philosophy. OTL will never change. Our perception of OTL can. Some official records of OTL were sealed for up to 100 years. Some records are incomplete and forgotten.

But no, I was just wondering WHY it's changing and WHO is the driver behind the change, story-wise.

I didn't phrase it very well. What I meant was, "Is the history of interwar British aviation unalterable? What happened, happened because it was the only way it could have happened?"
 
Top