"As I can't think of any other admirals with names beginning with the letter A I'm going to call it the Aberdeen."
Wikipedia has list of 40, including Amherst, and no less than 4 Arbuthnot's.
The Avro 652-TTL might be called the Avro Fourteen because it was a 14-seater and was equivalent to the Lockheed 14 Super Electra. There will also be an Avro 652-TTL Mk 2 with a stretched fuselage for 18 passengers and possibly marketed as the Avro Eighteen, which was equivalent to the Lockheed 18 Lodestar. The Avro Eighteen would be built in place of the De Havilland Flamingo and its derivatives.Thinking a bit about aircraft development and roles. OTL's Anson had a replacement spec as a frontline aircraft in 1935. With Amerst's (?) improved speed and range, this type would probably not be completely obsolete as a maritime reconaisance aircraft by the start of the war, although almost certainly up for replacement. Maybe the Blackburn Botha is abandoned or never accepted.
I'd imagine a slightly different evolution of the Blenheim series of aircraft in response. With the Amherst as a passable maritime reconaiance/patrol aircraft, we might a specialised MPA derivative of the Blenheim mark IV (the Bristol Beaulieu?) entering service by the start of the war rather than just the Bolingbroke in the RCAF. The Amherst (?) would probably continue in the reconaisance role until the Blenheim series starts to predominate in the front line squadrons.
IIRC the Lockheed 18 had a Wright Cyclone developing 900hp and the Lockheed 18 had a Cyclone developing 1,200hp. The De Havilland Flamingo belatedly developed to compete with the Lockheed airliners IOTL had Bristol Perseus engines rated at 930hp. The Lockheed Hudson Mk 1 had Cyclone engines producing 1,100hp, but some later marks had P&W Twin Wasps developing 1,200hp.Just wondering what engine is chosen for the new Avro 14 and 18? I presume this Avro business will preclude the Lord Rothermere business.
ITTL there aren't going to be any Napier sleeve valve engines either or at least not as we know them because I'm planning to have the firm taken over by Rolls Royce in about 1930. The parent company is going to have its new subsidiary concentrate on its range of diesel engines, but mainly for marine and railway applications. However, the parent company might transfer the Exe and two-stroke engines out to Napier to allow Rolls Royce to concentrate on the Griffon, Merlin, Peregrine and Vulture.Wot? No Centaurus? :-D
The Sleeve valve, from what i've read, had greater thermal and volumetric efficiency than the poppet valve. Napier used sleeve valve with the Sabre, although that was initially unreliable. If Bristol doesn't go with sleeve valve radio, does this mean another company might? Perhaps instead of copying/adapting Gnome-Rhone engines that led to that led to the abortive Pilades, perhaps Alvis starts developing sleeve valve radials from the mid 30s?
I want there to be a Sea Cutlass or Sea Culverin in place of the Napier Sea Lion, but the Lion aero engine will probably be the last OTL Napier engine to be produced. Could the Napier Cutlass or Culverin have been converted into tank engines? I simply don't know. I should know, because I'm sure it's been discussed before.What happens to the older Napier designs like the Lion? Will we see diesel engines in tanks?
The other an answer is an engine in the 1,000 to 1,200 class that didn't exist IOTL or wasn't based on an OTL engine like the Pegasus.Just wondering what engine is chosen for the new Avro 14 and 18? I presume this Avro business will preclude the Lord Rothermere business.
I found an interesting statistic whilst doing some research for the next post, which is that while the British gave £85,000 in subsidy to their companies in 1921-22, the French gave £1,328,600 to theirs.To supplement Post 43 here is some information from Robin Higham's history of the British Overseas Airlines, which was my main source for Post 43.
The first figure is the Net Air Estimates for the financial year and the second is Vote 8 - Civil Aviation. The third figure is the amount I propose to spend ITTL. Note that the increase in spending is not quite what I proposed in Post 43. It is quadrupled from 1922-23 to 1936-37 and doubled in the other years.
I'm not sure if Vote 8 is the gross or net figure. Furthermore Higham's figures might not include supplementary estimates as I have not crosschecked them against my other source, which is the articles on the Air Estimates from Flight Magazine which can be downloaded from the Flight Archive website.
The spending from 1924 to 1931 may or may not include the cost of the Imperial Airship Scheme, which might have been in the vote for research and development.
The overall increase from 1919-20 to 1938-39 is nearly £30 million, but the Government should get some of that back through increased taxes collected from the aviation industry and indirectly from the expansion of commerce that the speeding up of the mails was intended to create.
1919-20 - £ 54,030,850 - nil - £2,000,000
1920-21 - £ 21,056,930 - £ 894,540 - £ 1,789,080
1921-22 - £ 18,411,000 - £ 880,000 - £ 1,760,000
1922-23 - £ 10,895,000 - £ 364,000 - £ 1,456,000
1923-24 - £ 12,011,000 - £ 287,000 - £ 1,148,000
1924-25 - £ 14,511,000 - £ 355,000 - £ 1,420,000
1925-26 - £ 15,513,000 - £ 357,000 - £ 1,428,000
1926-27 - £ 16,000,000 - £ 462,000 - £ 1,848,000
1927-28 - £ 15,500,000 - £ 464,000 - £ 1,856,000
1928-29 - £ 16,250,000 - £ 415,000 - £ 1,660,000
1929-30 - £ 16,200,000 - £ 450,000 - £ 1,800,000
1930-31 - £ 17,850,000 - £ 500,000 - £ 2,000,000
1931-32 - £ 18,100,000 - £ 470,000 - £ 1,880,000
1932-33 - £ 17,400,000 - £ 473,000 - £ 1,892,000
1933-34 - £ 17,426,000 - £ 490,000 - £ 1,960,000
1934-35 - £ 17,561,000 - £ 513,000 - £ 2,052,000
1935-36 - £ 20,650,000 - £ 595,000 - £ 2,380,000
1936-37 - £ 39,000,000 - £ 760,000 - £ 3,040,000
1937-38 - £ 56,500,000 - £ 2,315,000 - £ 4,630,000
1938-39 - £ 73,500,000 - £ 2,925,000 - £ 5,850,000
1939-40 - £ 66,561,000 - £ 4,787,000 - £ 9,574,000