No Spitfire

[Gingerdave]

Watching the new Spitfire documentary I was struck (again) by how early RJ Mitchell died. The prototype (K5054) flew on 5th March 1936 - Mitchell gave up work in early 1937 and died on 11th June that year.

He was first diagnosed with cancer in 1933. The Supermarine type 224, also designed by Mitchell, flew in 1934. It was rejected by the RAF, and Mitchell then went on to the Spitfire.

From wiki:

Many of the technical advances in the Spitfire had been made by others: the thin elliptical wings were designed by Canadian aerodynamicist Beverley Shenstone, and shared some similarities with the Heinkel He 70 Blitz; the under-wing radiators had been designed by the RAE, while monocoque construction had been first developed in the United States. Mitchell's genius was bringing it all together with his experience of high speed flight and the Type 224.​

So if Mitchell's cancer is more aggressive and he dies in 1934, that will likely put a stop to the Spitfire development. Maybe we'd need to remove Beverley Shenstone as well, but that's easy - he learned to glide and ski in the early 30's, so there's plenty of chances to break his neck.


So there's no Spitfire to go along with the Hurricane.

What does the RAF do?

Make do with the Hurricane?
Buy lots of Tomahawks?
Bring the Gloster F5/34 into production?
Or (heaven help them) this convinces the RAF to go for the Defiant?

 

[mandead]

Bear in mind the forgotten fact that it was the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire. Yes, the latter was a superior aircraft and probably made a difference, but it was never available in the numbers required to genuinely turn the tide. On top of that, RAF aircraft production was generally always higher than Luftwaffe aircraft production from that point on, and after Barbarossa the British are basically safe.

In short, all else being equal, I am not sure the non-emergence of the Spitfire would actually be that decisive; ultimately something else would have replaced the Hurricane.

 

[SsgtC]

With no Spitfire, at worst you get a slightly higher loss rate for the RAF in the BoB. You might also see an earlier adoption of the Mustang with a concurrent earlier engine swap from the Allison to the Merlin. Long term, you might see more use of the Mustang in RAF service before something like the Typhoon comes along as a replacement for both types.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Watching the new Spitfire documentary I was struck (again) by how early RJ Mitchell died. The prototype (K5054) flew on 5th March 1936 - Mitchell gave up work in early 1937 and died on 11th June that year.

He was first diagnosed with cancer in 1933. The Supermarine type 224, also designed by Mitchell, flew in 1934. It was rejected by the RAF, and Mitchell then went on to the Spitfire.

From wiki:

Many of the technical advances in the Spitfire had been made by others: the thin elliptical wings were designed by Canadian aerodynamicist Beverley Shenstone, and shared some similarities with the Heinkel He 70 Blitz; the under-wing radiators had been designed by the RAE, while monocoque construction had been first developed in the United States. Mitchell's genius was bringing it all together with his experience of high speed flight and the Type 224.​

So if Mitchell's cancer is more aggressive and he dies in 1934, that will likely put a stop to the Spitfire development. Maybe we'd need to remove Beverley Shenstone as well, but that's easy - he learned to glide and ski in the early 30's, so there's plenty of chances to break his neck.


So there's no Spitfire to go along with the Hurricane.

What does the RAF do?

Make do with the Hurricane?
Buy lots of Tomahawks?
Bring the Gloster F5/34 into production?
Or (heaven help them) this convinces the RAF to go for the Defiant?

In the short term 910 Hurricanes would be ordered in 1936 instead of 600 Hurricanes and 310 Spitfires with more Hurricanes being ordered in place of the additional Spitfire contracts placed up to 1939. ITTL the Castle Bromwich factory would have been built to manufacture Hurricanes instead of Spitfires. It might belong to Hawker Siddleley (like the Langley factory which IIRC was built to manufacture Hurricanes) instead of being a "shadow" factory. That might mean that production gets into its stride earlier.

The RAF should still with the Battle of Britain. However, Fighter Command is likely to find itself even more outclassed than it was IOTL when the Bf109F and Fw190 appeared because it will be flying the Hurricane Mk II instead of the Spitfire Mk V and there will be no Spitfire Mks VIII and IX in the pipeline.

IOTL the Hawker Typhoon which was intended to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire, but AFAIK it was a failure as an interceptor and the RAF was fortunate that the Spitfire had plenty of development potential.

ITTL the only aircraft that I can see filling the gap until the Tempest and Lend Lease Thunderbolts and Mustangs become available is the Westland Whirlwind. IOTL Westland built Spitfires and Seafires. ITTL we could see the firm building many more Whirlwinds.

 

[sendô]

More Hurricanes, as this was the plane that won The Battle of Britain, no the Spitfire, which was technically a better fighter but was available in too small numbers to be decisive.

 

[Derwit]

I think that the RAF had a clear strategy for its day fighters in the late 1930’s in part thanks to Downing being in charge of a Fighter Command for so long before the shooting started. This led to the specification for the future Spitfire and Hurricane being put out to tender in 1934. So if Supermarine’s design fell apart other manufacturers where about to have one of the competing designs chosen. I would expect this would have performance between the Spit and the Hurricane.

Alternatively they could just build more hurricanes as has been mentioned by others. One thing I’d like to add to this is that compared to the Spit the Hurricane was an easy plane to build so it would be easier to ramp up production so in the critical period in the summer of 1940 more fighters would be produced than OTL. This could also have positive implications for the Middle East and Far East getting more modernish Hurricane fighters sooner and in greater numbers than OTL.

I would also expect more development of the Hurricane sooner so better wings are going to come along sooner.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

The adoption of the Spitfire also led to the development of the Typhoon being de-prioritized- Beaverbrook's production scheme prioritized (IMO, wisely) mass production of the proven Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington and Whitley.

Had there been a more pressing need, the Typhoon and its thinner-winged successor, the Tempest, could have been brought into production somewhat earlier.

Another bottleneck with these though is that they're big birds and need correspondingly big engines- more resources would have to go into making the Napier Sabre workable earlier. Perhaps then, the Tempest is developed into the Fury/Sea Fury; the former was never ordered OTL and the latter was one of the very finest piston-engined carrier fighters.

 

[Ato]

Is it not unlikely that when the air ministry starts getting wind of things like the Me109, during its service in Spain might not issue a specification similar to F.37/34 for a higher performance monoplane fighter than the Hurricane? Any such fighter would come along later than the Hurricane. There were a lot of other aerospace companies in Britain during that era, and it is not inconceivable that with an opening someone like Miles, DeHallivand or Fairey might fill the gap.

 

[riggerrob]

OTL Hurricanes killed more Germans - during the Battle of Britain - because Hurricanes were tasked with attacking bombers while Spitfires were tangling with Me109s.
That was the strategy, too bad no one sent a copy - of the battle plan - to the Luftwaffe!!!!

Hurricane was easy to build because it was made of thousands of simple pieces bolted and riveted together. Increasing H. production would be easy with small component manufacture farmed out to hundreds of shadow factories.
Hurricane had plenty of development potential, starting with a thinner wing, 20mm canons, up-dated tail feathers, pitot engine intake, Meredith radiator, retractable tail wheel, metal skins on aft fuselage, Malcolm Hood or bubble canopy, etc. Most of those updates could be bolted or rivetted to earlier H. airframes.
Consider that the next generation of Hawker fighters (Typhoon and Tempest) were still built around tube centre fuselages. Sea Fury was the first Hawker fighter with a sheet aluminum fuselage centre section!

In comparison, Spitfire used new technology to press-form complex curves in wing leading edges. This required huge new presses and training a new class of sheet metal worker.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Is it not unlikely that when the air ministry starts getting wind of things like the Me109, during its service in Spain might not issue a specification similar to F.37/34 for a higher performance monoplane fighter than the Hurricane? Any such fighter would come along later than the Hurricane. There were a lot of other aerospace companies in Britain during that era, and it is not inconceivable that with an opening someone like Miles, DeHallivand or Fairey might fill the gap.

We sort of had that anyway IOTL with Spec. F.18/37 which produced the Typhoon and before that Spec. F37/35 which produced the Whirlwind.

The 910 Hurricanes and Spitfires ordered in 1936 IOTL were to have been delivered by 31st March 1939 (but in the orders weren't completed for another 6 months) and were to equip 21 squadrons of 14 aircraft (14 Hurricane and 7 Spitfire) in Fighter Command plus reserves.

Under the same plan 389 Hawker Hotspurs were to be built by Avro and delivered by 31st March 1939. They would equip 9 squadrons of 14 aircraft in Fighter Command plus reserves. However, as we know the Hotspur order was cancelled and its rival the Boulton Paul Defiant was ordered into production instead.

The orders for Hotspurs, Hurricanes and Spitfires were part of Scheme F, which was to provide Fighter Command with 420 fighters in 30 squadrons of 14 plus a substantial backing of reserve aircraft by 31st March 1939.

According to The British Aircraft Specifications File, Specification F.18/37 issued on 9th March 1938 was drafted to meet Operational Requirement OR.51 as a replacement for the Hurricane and Spitfire.

I don't know, but suspect, that the intention was for F.18/37 to have replaced the Hurricane and Spitfire by March 1942. That happens to have been the completion date for Scheme M which was approved by the Cabinet in the aftermath of the Munich Crisis. At that date Fighter Command was to have had 800 fighter aircraft in 50 squadrons of 16 aircraft. I suspect, but do not know, that all 50 squadrons were to have been equipped with the fighter built to Spec. F.18/37.

According to the Putnams Aircraft of the RAF since 1918 the heavy bomber programme of October 1938 was for 3,500 aircraft to be delivered by April 1942. They would consist of 500 Halifaxes, 1,500 Manchesters and 1,500 Stirlings. Under Scheme M Bomber Command was to have 1,360 aircraft in 85 squadrons of 16 aircraft. All 85 squadrons were to be equipped to the aircraft built to Specifications B.12/36 and P.13/36, i.e. the Halifax, Manchester and Stirling.

 

[Zen9]

Let's add in the Defiant here.
It's certainly possible to produce a fixed cannon version of this machine.

 

[1Big Rich]

Bear in mind the forgotten fact that it was the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire. Yes, the latter was a superior aircraft and probably made a difference, but it was never available in the numbers required to genuinely turn the tide. On top of that, RAF aircraft production was generally always higher than Luftwaffe aircraft production from that point on, and after Barbarossa the British are basically safe.

In short, all else being equal, I am not sure the non-emergence of the Spitfire would actually be that decisive; ultimately something else would have replaced the Hurricane.

Well said. I've long thought the Spit was a good plane with a great public relations connection in the BoB, while the Hurricane was mostly ignored while doing the heavy lifting!

Seriously, to answer the OP, I agree with those that said there will be more Hurricanes, more Hurricane development, as Derwit mentioned. I also think there will be more US fighters, in whatever form, possibly with a license build of the Mustang after the US enters the war. Maybe the Griffon will find its way into both the Hurricane and the Mustang.

There were a lot of other aerospace companies in Britain during that era, and it is not inconceivable that with an opening someone like Miles, DeHallivand or Fairey might fill the gap.

As an aside, absent a new-design stress-metal monoplane fighter, might the Beaufighter and/or a single-seat fighter Mosquito be in the offing to step into the 'no Spitfire' gap?

My initial thoughts,

 

[1Big Rich]

Let's add in the Defiant here.
It's certainly possible to produce a fixed cannon version of this machine.

Good point. A single-seat, canon armed Defiant would be a serviceable bomber killer...

 

[Zen9]

I'd also suggest that the Wyvern was not a bad concept, just let down by it's engines.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Let's add in the Defiant here. It's certainly possible to produce a fixed cannon version of this machine.

IIRC Boulton Paul did propose developments of the Defiant with Griffon or Sabre engines and IIRC up to six 20mm cannon. Some versions retained the turret and others had a position for an observer in its place.

IIRC the "Super Defiant" wasn't developed IOTL because the RAF already had the Beaufighter in service and the Mosquito was expected to be ready before the "Super Defiant".

I'm not a fan of the Defiant. I think that the Air Ministry should have ordered 389 Hurricanes from Avro in 1936 instead of the 389 Hotspurs. Furthermore I think the Air Ministry should have stuck to that plan instead of cancelling the Avro order and replacing it with orders for Defiants.

However, IIRC one thing that the Defiant had in its favour was that it was designed to be easy to produce.

 

[ivanotter]

What did the US have in the pot at that time?
P-39 was not a bad fighter
CAC Kangaroo
P-47 (maybe too late for BoB after all)

Others that could be lend-leased?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maybe the Griffon will find its way into both the Hurricane and the Mustang.

According to the Hawker Hurricane - Defender Of The Empire website Griffon-Hurricanes were studied.

http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/PROJECTS.HTM

 

[sdgottsch]

What did the US have in the pot at that time?
P-39 was not a bad fighter
CAC Kangaroo
P-47 (maybe too late for BoB after all)

Others that could be lend-leased?

P-36 would have been available and was a good fill-in (especially if they added 2 x .303's in each wing)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Bear in mind the forgotten fact that it was the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire. Yes, the latter was a superior aircraft and probably made a difference, but it was never available in the numbers required to genuinely turn the tide. On top of that, RAF aircraft production was generally always higher than Luftwaffe aircraft production from that point on, and after Barbarossa the British are basically safe.

In short, all else being equal, I am not sure the non-emergence of the Spitfire would actually be that decisive; ultimately something else would have replaced the Hurricane.

That's a bit too reductive; yes the Hurricane was the majority of the aircraft, but the Spit had such a reputation that it tended to draw off the German fighters to combat them, which gave the Hurricanes a much easier time going after the bombers. Without the Spits the Hurricanes suffer considerably worse casualties as their performance was substantially worse than that of the Bf109E even with the engine upgrade the Hurricane II had.

 

[ennobee]

Let's add in the Defiant here.
It's certainly possible to produce a fixed cannon version of this machine.

... Or just continue to use them while hammering out the best operating procedures. I recall reading that the first squadron that received the Defiant actually had a fair success with it over France. Being the first squadron they had the time to thoroughly familiarize themselves with its strong and weak points and develop strategies for its optimal use. Eventually enough input from the front would filter back into an improved mark II, but OTL, it got swept aside rather quickly after the first losses.

And as for the fighter versions: without a Spitfire there would still be a market for a high-performance fighter, probably even an RAF specification asking for one. With Vickers-Supermarine out of the picture, Boulton-Paul could easily use the experience gained with the Defiant as a bases for a smaller obe-seat super-fighter. So could Fairey with its Fulmar. It would be ni Spitfire, but it would close the gap until the next generation of Hawkers: Typhoon, Tempest and eventually Fury will come along.