What's the difference if FAA has better aircraft 1939 on?

The whole comparison issues is complicated

I think you hit the nail right there. Generalizing doesn't work. The British relied on skilled workers? The Lancaster was designed for unskilled workers. CBAF was designed for mass production, but only made 4 Spitfire models, and made more Spit Vs than I thought they should. Grumman made more Hellcats in just over 2 years than CBAF made Spits, but, the Hellcat was designed to be made, and the Spit was designed for speed.

We can't make a true comparison based on photos, articles and generalities. I once visited Bryce Canyon, and it looked amazing. I took photos, and videotape, and looked at professional picture book pictures, and it wasn't the same at all. I worked in an aircraft factory, and it's a big, complex place. I remember the smell of the upholstery shop and the smell of the alodine baths, but mostly, I remember the impact of the mighty drop hammers. Such things do not record for posterity, except in the mind. What it was like to work there doesn't get recorded at all. They still make aircraft there, and it's still Canadian, unlike CBAF which makes cars for the Indian company, Tata.

Ta ta.
 
The British reliance on skilled workers certainly reduced dramatically during the war, but it was definately the case pre-war.
I assume it was found to be efficient for the small numbers of planes made before WW2, where specialised machines weren't cheap, and had to be justified.
Of course in wartime its easier to build more machines than train skilled workers, and they can produce standard parts more quickly.
 
The British reliance on skilled workers certainly reduced dramatically during the war, but it was definately the case pre-war.

Manufacturing a Hurricane or a Spitfire required quite different skills. Wellingtons required skills different from anything else.
 
The British reliance on skilled workers certainly reduced dramatically during the war, but it was definately the case pre-war.
I assume it was found to be efficient for the small numbers of planes made before WW2, where specialised machines weren't cheap, and had to be justified.
Of course in wartime its easier to build more machines than train skilled workers, and they can produce standard parts more quickly.
Of course pre-1938 British aircraft weren't exactly being mass produced so the cost of purchasing expensive new machine tools to build the smallish numbers required was hard to justify.
 
Spreading production around the Dominions early would have been sensible, but prewar hard to justify to British voters with unemployed family members.
It's a lot easier to justify if the dominions were building for dominion armed services. That would have required defence spending above 2% of GDP in 1930-1937 in the dominions. Even if defence spending above 1% was a constant t you might have a hope.
 
I think it really depends on how aircraft are different values OTL. That and what other differences there are within the FAA (if any).
 
The obvious answer to problems with both FAA requirements conflicting with RAF and small scale production needed for at sea conflicting with mass production needed on land is to use specialist designs and specialist manufacturers for the RN.

In 1937 the FAA was building
  • Sea Gladiator for fleet defense
  • Skuas for Bombing/escort
  • Swordfish for torpedo/spot.

with no change in doctrine, you can imagine the RN Replacing these with
  • a Miles M2 - as good as a early Hurricane but cheaper and MUCH longer ranged
    (optimised for naval use by a folding wing.. easy with fixed undercart)
  • a navalised Fairey P3/34 ... basically a Fulmar but aimed at bomb capability.
    (BTW iOTL even the Fulmar had bombing specified but not achieved)
  • a Supermarine Type 322 .. optimied for torpedo and level bombing
    (However insist that the Supermarine design is polished and built by another company
    - say Westland who know STOL)
As a bonus ensure that the Air Ministry program to use non strategic material is enforced.
Basically wood is used as much as practical (Miles and Supermarine designs already qualify)

All these designs used Merlin engines in OTL and could be adapted to a "power pod" approach.
If the RN insisted on Radials a Hercules power pod would be fine.
 
Last edited:
Top