Arguably, if the RAF was into standardisation rather than having aircraft from all British companies, Blenheim variants could have replaced the Battle and the Defiant before the war.
Hawker Hurricane thin wing
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
Arguably, if the RAF was into standardisation rather than having aircraft from all British companies, Blenheim variants could have replaced the Battle and the Defiant before the war.
How about a Hercules Hurricane?
http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/PROJECTS.HTM
scroll down a few posts
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,15512.0.html
http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/PROJECTS.HTM
scroll down a few posts
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,15512.0.html
From a very old file, an 18 cyl Hercules, with the FW-190-inspired modifications so that the fuselage sides are narrower and flatter. The lethargic up-rating in power in OTL Hercules with forward exhaust and manifold doesn't inspire me evermuch, and the fact that Beaufighters didn't seem to notice the difference mitigates against adding a round engine to the thread at this moment. It doesn't mean I haven't done it. It just means the thread doesn't need one right now.
The entire reason I play with this stuff is that so many people died in really crappy aircraft. While many scorn Japanese aircraft for being instant flaming fireboxes, the Blenheim takes a back seat to nobody. Although it was a major type at war's start, it lacked those nice things that make an aircraft survivable, and adding those things to the ultimate Bisley just made it slower. 19 were shot down by friendly fire, and only one crash landed, with survivors. Attempts to re-engine the Canadian Bolingbroke with up-rated Wright R-1820 was unsuccessful. While the Battle's story is sad but short, the Blenheim soldiered on far too long, suffering major losses upon encountering enemy forces. Bostons, Marylands and Mitchells fared better, but when there's only Blenheims, what can you do?
Driftless
Donor
I think you can make the case that you standardize on core "chassis" that get you the benefits of economies of scale, but that are adapatable to evolving conditions. The original design Blenheims & Beauforts "peaked" before they were really needed in wartime, but the adaptations that went into the Beaufighter soldiered on for years. The OTL Hurricane was still near the peak of the bell curve of it's useful life during the BoB, but was still highly adaptable, and fathered better planes to follow.
Here, you've adapted a critical part of the core chassis (the wing) to fit an evolving requirement. That change of wing gives the basic chassis a longer useful life and would have opened up a whole range of adaptability.
I don't know why, but it has dawned on me that Bristol designers, Barnwell and Frise, used data from the only government wind tunnel that baffled Mitchell and fooled Sir Sydney. Had the Beaufort wing reflected accurate data, more closely resembling the Mossie wing than masonry, things would have been highly different. The Hampden might also have improved. One pair of aircraft which might best illustrate the difference is the Gloster "Reaper" and Westland Whirlwind. The Gloster had the chubby wings, while Petter's Whirlys seem nice and slender, and their speeds differed by some 30 mph on the same pair of Peregrines.
I'm going to be stealing these ideas (belatedly) for the Mers el Kebir resolution (as the Monsoon fighter). You have been warned.
Driftless
Donor
How was the wind tunnel data skewed? It sounds as though it was enough off that critical decisions were made on bad data.
But did the RAF had any chance of getting a light/attack bomber that would have been able to face the twin challenges of Flak and Bf109s in May/June 1940?
The only way would probably have been to place large contracts with US builders, and concentrate on fighter production. And the OTL US attack bombers were late developers. The DB7 only flew in August 1939 and despite the Martin 167 being a bit earlier there would be little chances that the RAF could order them or anything better in the appropriate time frame to replace their OTL early war aircraft. And both US Bombers still had a long way to go until they reached maturity.
One US design that seems to have potential for use in the BoF was the Curtiss A18 Shrike II. The RAF could have bought the license and built it in light bomber (replacing the Battle) heavy fighter (replacing the Defiant) and later night fighter. But unless they were imported, there would be no extra manufacturing capability, and if imported they would have to be paid, meaning no free money for more Hurricanes.
Last edited:
The fault with the wind tunnel was either or both poor design, leading to turbulence, and bad math in calculating air density to scale. I only know of this problem in relation to the Spitfire/Hurricane, when Mitchell was told his design wasn't faster than the Hurri, and later, when Camm was told that it was. What effect it may have had on other designs is totally open to conjecture.
Certain aspects of armor plating and fuel tank protection were left to just after the last moment, and engines with the right power were somewhere down the pipe, making the Merlin the brightest light in a fairly dark sky. Certainly, Bristol's decision to debut the Aquila and Perseus first seems inappropriate in retrospect. Armstrong-Whitworth and Napier engines didn't make anyone's day either. The belief that turret-equipped bombers were able to provide self-defense, even though air gunners weren't trained is another move in the wrong direction. About all that could be realistically expected is a Merlin-powered fighter with a good wing.
It was a government-established research installation staffed with government-supplied experts. They knew, so they didn't have to think.
While I'm having no trouble incrementally re-developing the Hawker fighter line-up, I am in an ethical quandry over its effects on the war. Less so in the Med, but in Asia, there's hardly a reason that a thin wing will save Singapore and a couple of large ships, or Burma, although Japanese losses will increase. The silliness of Ceylon could only be plausibly improved by improving people, not aircraft. Anyway, Pat Pattle lives, due to the improved performance of the tropicalized Hurri I over enemy a/c. Malta is well defended, and relatively off the hook. Why couldn't Ceylon be like Malta? Why couldn't Singapore?
Didn't a F1 sportcar team (Ferrari) stop using there own wind tunnel recently (and use Toyotas one) as it was giving them totally wrong results ? If you can F*** it up in 2014 with a car speed one (for more than a year) then I'm not sure its fair to blame people in 1930s that much.
I think it all adds up saving/doing better early on just multiplies, If you win the Med before the IJN come south then you can just deal with them one at a time and therefore do much better at it.
JSB
It isn't a matter of blame. It is a matter where a mistake was made, the consequences of which reach far greater significance than an F1 title. The performance of a British fighter aircraft isn't the only factor in the war. The performance of all British aircraft isn't a pivotal factor in the war. It does become a significant factor in some cases, and is beyond significance to the men who piloted those aircraft in matters of not just victory or defeat, but life and death.
With regard to the ability of a fighter aircraft to win battles, the fighter is a tool, like a hammer. You can either hit your thumb or drive a nail. I'm trying to stick to just modifying the hammer. There are many other factors affecting the thumb's health.
I was just responding to your
I think with massively better (and more fighters) it will change significantly.
Even early on what happens if they get sent to recon over the Ardennes forest on 11 May ?
JSB
I just think very smart people working very hard can still get it wrong once you get to state of the art tech.
I think with massively better (and more fighters) it will change significantly.
Even early on what happens if they get sent to recon over the Ardennes forest on 11 May ?
JSB
The Hurricane is not massively better. It is improved over OTL, by having a superior wing, but in France, it's performance potential is still held back by having a Watts two-bladed fixed-pitch prop, pure glycol coolant, and a float carburetor, while the German Bf-109 has a VDM constant-speed 3 bladed prop, licensed from Hamilton-Standard, 50% coolant blend, and fuel injection. My only wankery is to slip in a couple cannons because they should have thought of it, but that's just me. Aircraft quantity is unchanged over OTL, because there's no reason for it. I wasn't aware that any fighters were sent on recce missions over the Ardennes in OTL so there's no reason otherwise. That wouldn't be butterflies. It would be wankery. And if they did do the mission, the report would take a couple days before action was taken.
Am I being to strict and ornery?
Just to wrap this up, Wnkle Brown found the deck performance of the Tornado lacking, and production was shifted of to fill RAF needs. The wing center section was redesigned and fitted with a revised undercarriage. With the same single-stage Griffon, the new a/c was dubbed Tempest, soon Tempest I after a new tail and stinger-type hook were installed. The revised Tempest became Tempest II, with two-stage Griffon. In Feb. 1943, the Centaurus was deemed ready for a shot, and first production entered service with the RN in Feb. 1944. They called the aircraft Fury.
