I can't imagine this hasn't been done before, but what would the history of the next century or two have looked like had England come out victorious at the end of the Hundred Years' War?
It depends of what you mean by victory, eventually.
Are we talking English kings enforcing their claims to the French throne? Then it would be quite hard indeed in first place : it's, granted, not impossible as a realistic PoD (the only I can think of, tough) would be Henry V living on, while Charles VII and his son would timely dying at Bourges. It would make Henry the sole clear successor, as Louis d'Orléans (the next-in-line for what mattered loyalists), would have been hostage in England). It would make the Armagnac and Armagnac-sided nobility and elites, while holding a significant power and virtual independence south of Loire, headless and IMO acknowledging Lancaster's suzerainty as long it remains relatively symbolic.
Of course,
such situation would leave Burgundy with a large influence in Northern France, that would be directly detrimental to French interests, at this point Lancaster's interests : the Lancaster-Valois-Burgundy alliance was souple at best, and could entierly disappear if Lancasters wanted to affirm further their rights in France, of if Burgundy decided they could do without Lancasters or even claim the throne (with English rights, which were not really clear to begin with, being politically validated, it opens the can of worm with anyone close enough to the royal line to possibly have a go at it).
At this point, the Lancaster personal union would be a French led-union, as other said on thios board: would it be on demographical grounds only the difference between England ( 2,5 millions) and France (16 millions) let little doubt : the double-monarchy would be for England what act of Union was for Scotland, not to mention the economical disprency or the cultural domination 'favoured by what remains of Anglo-Norman features in England).
It's possible, tough, that the dominance of the French part wouldn't be obvious in the immediate aftermath (especially because of the troubles in Normandy and Brittany, which harboured a significant pro-Valois movement) and that the English nobility would fight their eventual geopolitical decline while Henry V would be more focused on macropolitics at least for a while (he did planned, for instance, a crusade to take place : I don't think it would be the case, but Henry saw big, and might overlook one way or another regional issues until it becomes a political hinderance).
Other than this PoD, I don't think it was really winnable for England, as in a complete conquest of the kingdom : HYW was a war of attrition which clearly favoured a wealthy France that benefited from more finely tuned fiscal and military resources than an England that was plagued by a Parliment that required the king to make fructuous campaign at little cost. In this respect HYW was only the continuation AND the culmination of the long fight between Plantagenets and Capetians since the late XIth century that saw the latter systematically winning eventually thanks to the aformentioned advantages (among others, the Plantagenet political puzzle barely held together to begin with until it was reduced to Guyenne)
It was the reason why most Plantagenêts (directs of Lancasters) rather searched something along independence from french suzerainty on the continent.
It's basically the core of the Treaty of Brétigny (where the super-Aquitaine was technically a proper holding of England, or rather the Prince of Wales),
what might have happened if Edward survived longer and what might have been attempted in the XVth century
if Thomas Lancaster became king instead of Henry V, creating a new Aquitain principalty benefiting from Armagnac-Bourguignon civil war.
The thing was that Valois never saw these treaties or concessions anything but temporary repsites, a way to gather their forces before taking these back : IOTL Charles V, after a time, just resumed to treat Aquitaine like it was still under his suzerainty (even if it was kinda not according Brétigny*), helping Gascon lords that complained about Edward's increasing fiscal pressure. With Plantagenet complaining, he basically answered that the treaty was never enforced, and declared war on Plantagenets for being bad vassals.
That's how much he cared for Brétigny, and highlightq the sophisticated, legalist and proto-machievallian Capetian geopolitical considerations.
*
Technically, the treaty was never applied, which gave Charles a casus belli about how Plantagenets didn't abided by it, because himself didn't.
TL;DR
It was possible, with a narrow window of opportunity in the 1420/1430's that Henry V could have benefitted from. It would have led to a French dominated-union (altough gradually so, and no without big political infighting) with a southern France possibly largely autonomous at first in a first time.
Apart from this, it simply wasn't winnable on the grounds of English total conquest.