Miles M.20 produced at CC&F for RAF/FAA instead of Hurricane

OTL Remember that Eric “Winkle” Brown was comparing Miles M.20 against the best early war carrier fighter: Grumman Marlet/Wildcat.
Brown also praised M.20’s firepower and range as double that of either Hurricane or Spitfire and concluded that M.20 would have been a satisfactory stop-gap fighter during the Battle of Britain.

I suspect that fewer landing accidents would keep Miles M.20 serviceable far longer than fragile Hurricanes or Sea Fires.

By the third or fourth itteration, Miles would add softer oleo struts and retractable landing gear, closing the gap.

ATL Canadian-built Mike’s M.20 would probably be armed with Browning .50 caliber heavy machineguns “found laying on a railway siding beside CCF.”
 

MatthewB

Banned
Mitsubishi A5M Claude, Nakajima ki-27 Nate, Fiat CR40, Fiat G-50, Macchi 200 and BF 109E.
Peg, you had to have seen that coming. He's not asking because he wants to know, but so he can knock down whatever is put up as an example.

The Miles M.20 needs to be competitive with everything, wheels or no. And it is.
 
Unfortunately, my personal copy of 'Wings on my Sleeve' was borrowed and never returned but in that book Winkle Brown d3scribed the trials carried out.
IIRC the main problem with the M.20 was that it did not give the piolt any indication of approaching the stall and when it did stall it was vicious. Not god when Hanging on the prop trying to land on. Quill and Brown had a disagreement over the best way to land a Spitfire on a carrier. Brown would take a strait approach from Astern but crab the aircraft in so that he could spot the deck to the side of the nose. Quill developed a port turn curving approach to achieve the same effect. Quills method was deemed better for the average pilot and was adopted.
 
If I was making the choice to build this as Canada's fight, presumably as a way to show independence from Britain then I want all of it built in Canada.
Pratt & Whitney Canada was already a going concern by the early 1930s....So, I think we have a premise for skirting any neutrality laws.
ATL Circa 1937, the RCAF decide that their locally-built Fleet Fawn and Finch biplane trainers are approaching obsolescence and opt for an all-monoplane fleet for the looming conflict.....
It may not fit with the thread but why not just get them building the new Grumman monoplane fighter with a Twin Wasp to stay completely separate from GBs overworked rearmament. Feel free to inset something about it being more likley to be available due to losing to Brewster in USN trials.

To make it even more of a Wank why not start PYB production as well using the same engine for coastal command as after all the Atlantic naval war is more important for Canada....
 
Last edited:
You'd definitely want retractable gear as well. The Ki-27 and A5M needed lightness at all costs- they had extremely low wing loading for excellent handling, but weren't very fast, had no armour, and only 2x 7.7mm MG synchronized.

Here, you can afford the weight penalty.
 
That's why I think an operational M20 would have reverted to using the Masters wing, which would probably have solved the low speed handling issues as well.
 
@MatthewB : I was serious and not trolling. Yes I know against the light fixed gear Japanese fighters and similar Italian (bi- or mono-) this sort of aircraft would be an equal. My point was unless desperate why build something already obsolescent in 1940. Now if you have retractable gear and a better wing, that is a different story.
 
If you follow the same trainer to fighter route then you start with the North American Harvard and develop it into the Boomerang.
If you are willing to open the cheque book in 1937 I don't think you need to, would US not be very willing to accept an order for tools and license for almost anything from Canada? You have plenty of time to set up production, that will anyway be as fast if not faster than developing a fighter even from a trainer.
 

MatthewB

Banned
If you are willing to open the cheque book in 1937 I don't think you need to, would US not be very willing to accept an order for tools and license for almost anything from Canada? You have plenty of time to set up production, that will anyway be as fast if not faster than developing a fighter even from a trainer.
Ideally I’d like to have seen Canada buy tooling and licenses to make the Wildcat at CC&F. They started the Hurricane project in 1937, same year as the first flight of the Wildcat, so the timing is right.

Side note, Canada only ever produced two fixed-wing carrier aircraft.

Curtiss SBW Helldiver at CC&F, Fort William, ON




Grumman CS2F Tracker at de Havilland Canada, Malton, ON

 
Last edited:
Going back to the original post, I agree with Peg Leg Pom that with less pressure to produce an emergency fighter, Miles could/would go back to the Master wing with retractable undercarriage. Simple wooden construction and they already had the wing from the M.24 master fighter with six Brownings. Possibly with a Twin Wasp for power? So could end up looking like this...
upload_2019-6-4_15-39-23.png
 
Perhaps that, plus the cut-down rear fuselage with the bubble-top canopy (I'd imagine Britain would like to see Canada do some experimenting) and either a member of the Wasp family up front or an Allison V-12 if a suitable supercharger can be fabricated in Canada.

Also, could the Master wing take 4x HS. 404 cannon in the place of the 6 Brownings?
 
If you're aim is a carrier fighter, go with a radial up front. Air cooled so no worry about getting your radiator or coolant tank shot away over open ocean 200 miles away from the bird farm, it's more compact meaning it takes up less space in the hanger allowing you to either fit more aircraft in any given space or giving you more room to work on broken fighters. There's also the fact that in the late 30s, radials could provide more power than inline engines and do so more reliably. A huge consideration for a naval fighter
 
ATL with modern knowledge of stall characteristics, it would be fairly easy to tame M.20 stall characteristics with a few, simple stall strips glued to the inboard leading edge. Stall strips are sharp wedges that trip the airflow, making it easier to predict which part of the wing will stall first. They are a common post-production fix to ensure that wing roots stall first, preserving some aileron control partway into the stall.
 
Going back to the original post, I agree with Peg Leg Pom that with less pressure to produce an emergency fighter, Miles could/would go back to the Master wing with retractable undercarriage. Simple wooden construction and they already had the wing from the M.24 master fighter with six Brownings. Possibly with a Twin Wasp for power? So could end up looking like this...
View attachment 463616
Or if they opt for either an Allison or licenced Merlin.

upload_2019-6-4_17-45-59.png


upload_2019-6-5_0-28-44.png
 
Last edited:
If you're aim is a carrier fighter, go with a radial up front. Air cooled so no worry about getting your radiator or coolant tank shot away over open ocean 200 miles away from the bird farm, it's more compact meaning it takes up less space in the hanger allowing you to either fit more aircraft in any given space or giving you more room to work on broken fighters. There's also the fact that in the late 30s, radials could provide more power than inline engines and do so more reliably. A huge consideration for a naval fighter
Although it was primarily designed as a bomber engine, I wonder if there's any reason not to have a Pegasus powered fighter? Roughly comparable to the Wright Cyclone until about early 1941 (?) and although a litre smaller, does have four valve heads so may be scope for more than the 1010hp of the XXII with further development? Replaces* the Perseus [NOT Taurus] of the Skua and the same base engine as the Swordfish.

*Not "replaces", but with a radial engined Miles single seater, no need for the Skua as a fighter. (Although possibly retained as a divebomber?)
 
Last edited:
Although it was primarily designed as a bomber engine, I wonder if there's any reason not to have a Pegasus powered fighter? Roughly comparable to the Wright Cyclone until about early 1941 (?) and although a litre smaller, does have four valve heads so may be scope for more than the 1010hp of the XXII with further development? Replaces* the Taurus of the Skua and the same base engine as the Swordfish.

*Not "replaces", but with a radial engined Miles single seater, no need for the Skua as a fighter. (Although possibly retained as a divebomber?)
Idk. The FAA was a big believer in two seat fighters. Whereas the IJN and USN only used single seat fighters. Probably differences in the way their aviators were trained in navigation
 
The FAA was using Sea Gladiator single seat fighters up to early 1941. As an alternative to that it makes sense to use the Miles for point defence.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Idk. The FAA was a big believer in two seat fighters. Whereas the IJN and USN only used single seat fighters. Probably differences in the way their aviators were trained in navigation
Could the Miles Master serve as our two seat fighter? Have one two seater per flight, singles for the rest?
 
Top