WI/AHC: Improved Manchester and no Lancaster?

A different take on this thread, as suggested by @NOMISYRRUC.

Thus, proposals for four engines are off limits.

One suggestion from that other thread, which I particularly like, is focus on Griffon rather than Vulture, leading to a twin-Griffon Manchester. That has so many interesting butterflies... :cool::cool::cool: Not least Griffon Spitfires in 1940 & Griffon Mustangs from the off.:cool::cool: (That, however, belongs in another thread...)

What, therefore, might Griffon engines do for the Manchester? What else might improve her? My own first thought was a genuine belly turret (not that preposterous retractable dustbin proposal), though a gun blister might do well. There have been proposals elsewhere for a bomber with no waist guns, which are interesting; might this have applied to an improved (Griffon or not) Manchester?

If you're repeating posts from the above-linked thread, I'll have no objections...so long as nobody suggests adding a wing plug or changing the name.;)
 
I wonder if a Griffon Manchester would end up filling the same role for the RAF as the B25 did for the USAAF? It's a bit of an odd duck being a little too powerful for a medium bomber but not quite powerful enough to be classed as a heavy bomber. It would probably be a good fit for secondary theatres such as Italy or Burma.
 
Stage 1: make it as light as possible; out of all of the guns just leave a pair of MGs to cover the aft hemisphere; remove a pair of tanks from the wings; don't go overboard with bomb load
2 - make a switch to Hercules VI engines ASAP (1670 HP down low, 1500 HP at 16000 ft vs. Vulture II with 1845 HP down low, 1710 HP at 15000 ft); Hercules installation is lighter, much due to not having liquid cooling system; Hercules VI was available from winter of 1941/42 on
3 - test the Sabre installation so it can be in service by 1943; in the meantime, do the deal with Americans for a supply of R-2800 engines as a back-up plan

This is for the OTL engines as available.
 
Sorry Banging my drum again, Just take a look at the Manchester from the PAM Time line. Two engines delivering 2200hp in 1939, the aircraft is flying and doing it's job. Combat lessons are learnt and the aircraft improved. " Proper Job" as they say.
 
Manchester was apparently underpowered with Vultures, it would be even more so with Griffons. Likely you're looking at the same US engines as used on the Warwick until the Centaurus is ready.
 
2 - make a switch to Hercules VI engines ASAP (1670 HP down low, 1500 HP at 16000 ft vs. Vulture II with 1845 HP down low, 1710 HP at 15000 ft); Hercules installation is lighter, much due to not having liquid cooling system; Hercules VI was available from winter of 1941/42 on
3 - test the Sabre installation so it can be in service by 1943; in the meantime, do the deal with Americans for a supply of R-2800 engines as a back-up plan
I'd avoid the Vulture as insufficiently reliable & powerful. (I have my doubts the Sabre would be available soon, either.) I'd suggest the R2600 as an option, tho, not least because it's also used by the OTL A-20s.

That said, I wouldn't rule out alternative engines not available OTL, because the Merlin isn't being used, here.

Come to that, there would also be greater availability of Merlins, wouldn't there? Enough to butterfly away Packard building them? Or enough to lead to Packard Griffons, instead? :cool:
 
I'd avoid the Vulture as insufficiently reliable & powerful. (I have my doubts the Sabre would be available soon, either.) I'd suggest the R2600 as an option, tho, not least because it's also used by the OTL A-20s.

That said, I wouldn't rule out alternative engines not available OTL, because the Merlin isn't being used, here.

Come to that, there would also be greater availability of Merlins, wouldn't there? Enough to butterfly away Packard building them? Or enough to lead to Packard Griffons, instead? :cool:

Sabre was 'available' in 1942 already, excellent choice if we want the RAF airmen dead. I've stipulated 1943 as the year for the Sabre Manchester, since by then the engine reliability was much improved. Obviously, the Vulture will have to go, unless we can force Armstrong-Siddeley, Napier and Bristol to come up with meaningful engines in the second half of 1930s so there is no such pressure on RR to make Merlins almost exclusively (that pulled the rug under Vulture, among other engines, per OTL).
R-2600 might be a good choice, the 2-speed supercharged 1700 HP versions. Quirk might be that 1850 HP R-2800 version predates the 1700 HP R-2600 version by a few months - so why not going with R-2800 presto?

Hopefully the Packard Merlin is not butterflied, but used on P-51s ASAP - don't wait until summer of 1943 for the V-1650-3, make them in 1942 with V-1650-1, so the Luftwaffe can be hit even harder in 1943.
 
Sabre was 'available' in 1942 already, excellent choice if we want the RAF airmen dead. I've stipulated 1943 as the year for the Sabre Manchester
I'm thinking that's a bit late for an operational *Mark II...

R-2600 might be a good choice, the 2-speed supercharged 1700 HP versions. Quirk might be that 1850 HP R-2800 version predates the 1700 HP R-2600 version by a few months - so why not going with R-2800 presto?
No objection from me. I'm suggesting the R2600 as an option, in addition, not instead (or instead, if the R2800 isn't available).

Hopefully the Packard Merlin is not butterflied, but used on P-51s ASAP - don't wait until summer of 1943 for the V-1650-3, make them in 1942 with V-1650-1, so the Luftwaffe can be hit even harder in 1943.
Amen.
 
I'm thinking that's a bit late for an operational *Mark II...
Is that the Manchester Mk II proposal of OTL that had 2 Napier Sabre engines rated at 2,100hp? (Source: Page 355 of Avro Aircraft since 1908 by A.J. Jackson.) The source says that one airframe was delivered to D. Napier & Son Ltd at Luton, but the scheme was abandoned before the engines were installed.

The same source says that there was a second Manchester Mk II that had 2 Bristol Centaurus engines rated at 2,520hp. It also says that this aircraft actually had the engines installed, but was not flown due to preoccupation with the more attractive Lancaster Mk III.
 
One suggestion from that other thread, which I particularly like, is focus on Griffon rather than Vulture, leading to a twin-Griffon Manchester. That has so many interesting butterflies... :cool::cool::cool: Not least Griffon Spitfires in 1940 & Griffon Mustangs from the off.:cool::cool: (That, however, belongs in another thread...)
And Griffon Typhoons (i.e. Hawker Tornadoes with Griffons instead of Vultures) and better FAA aircraft in the first half of the war and a a better Defiant and I believe there was a proposal for a Griffon powered Mosquito and there was even a proposal for a Hurricane with Griffon IIA engines. The list is long.
What, therefore, might Griffon engines do for the Manchester? What else might improve her? My own first thought was a genuine belly turret (not that preposterous retractable dustbin proposal), though a gun blister might do well. There have been proposals elsewhere for a bomber with no waist guns, which are interesting; might this have applied to an improved (Griffon or not) Manchester?
AIUI the only thing wrong with the Manchester Mk I and Mk IA were their unreliable engines. Therefore, the first thing that Griffon engines might do for the Manchester is reduce the number of accidents that were due to engine problems, that is provided the early Griffon engines of TTL are more reliable than the Vultures were IOTL.

After that it depends upon how soon more powerful Griffons arrive. The first Griffon Spitfires (Mk XII) had Griffons rated at 1,735hp which I'm guessing is what the ALT-Manchester Mk I will have. All the other marks had Griffons rated at 2,050hp. The most powerful Griffon that I know if are the ones fitted to the Shackleton Mk 2 that were rated at 2,450hp.

The Avro 683 (I'm trying to avoid the L-word) went into production with 4 Merlin XX engines rated at 1,280hp. Therefore, a Griffon Manchester that's as good as the OTL aircraft that cannot be named won't be built until the 2,450hp Griffon is available and that might not be until after 1945.
Thus, proposals for four engines are off limits.
What if the engines are 4 Bristol Centaurus, 4 P&W Double Wasps or 4 RR Griffons?;)
...so long as nobody suggests adding a wing plug
Not even if it's to increase the wingspan to 120 feet and the engines are 4 Griffon Mk 57A producing 2,450hp?;)
or changing the name.;)
Not even ones that start with "L" and end in "N" or start with "S" or end wtih "N"?;)

May we keep the name but change the type number? If we are I promise not to use 683, but I would like to use 694, 696 and 716. ;)
 
And Griffon Typhoons (i.e. Hawker Tornadoes with Griffons instead of Vultures) and better FAA aircraft in the first half of the war and a a better Defiant and I believe there was a proposal for a Griffon powered Mosquito and there was even a proposal for a Hurricane with Griffon IIA engines. The list is long.
Assuredly the list is long. (The 'phoon & Hurri are new ones on me.) That's not counting the prospect of more Griffons making derated Merlins more-readily available for tanks, nor, indeed, derated Griffons turning up there...
Is that the Manchester Mk II proposal of OTL that had 2 Napier Sabre engines rated at 2,100hp? (Source: Page 355 of Avro Aircraft since 1908 by A.J. Jackson.) The source says that one airframe was delivered to D. Napier & Son Ltd at Luton, but the scheme was abandoned before the engines were installed.

The same source says that there was a second Manchester Mk II that had 2 Bristol Centaurus engines rated at 2,520hp. It also says that this aircraft actually had the engines installed, but was not flown due to preoccupation with the more attractive Lancaster Mk III.
No, I imagined a notional Mark II, not an actual one. If an actual Centaurus Manchester could have appeared, and become the Mark II, that's more than okay with me. ;) (It's well down the list of ideas I'd had, which are all the obvious ones.:openedeyewink: )
AIUI the only thing wrong with the Manchester Mk I and Mk IA were their unreliable engines. Therefore, the first thing that Griffon engines might do for the Manchester is reduce the number of accidents that were due to engine problems, that is provided the early Griffon engines of TTL are more reliable than the Vultures were IOTL.

After that it depends upon how soon more powerful Griffons arrive. The first Griffon Spitfires (Mk XII) had Griffons rated at 1,735hp which I'm guessing is what the ALT-Manchester Mk I will have. All the other marks had Griffons rated at 2,050hp. The most powerful Griffon that I know if are the ones fitted to the Shackleton Mk 2 that were rated at 2,450hp.

The Avro 683 (I'm trying to avoid the L-word) went into production with 4 Merlin XX engines rated at 1,280hp. Therefore, a Griffon Manchester that's as good as the OTL aircraft that cannot be named won't be built until the 2,450hp Griffon is available and that might not be until after 1945.
I won't insist on the alt-Manchester having equal performance to the OTL Lanc, nor not being replaced by a new, better type--only that it not be merely two extra engines & a wing plug stuck on & given a new name. ;)
What if the engines are 4 Bristol Centaurus, 4 P&W Double Wasps or 4 RR Griffons?;)

Not even if it's to increase the wingspan to 120 feet and the engines are 4 Griffon Mk 57A producing 2,450hp?;)

Not even ones that start with "L" and end in "N" or start with "S" or end wtih "N"?;)

May we keep the name but change the type number? If we are I promise not to use 683, but I would like to use 694, 696 and 716. ;)
Sorry, all off-limits.;) So are six engines and added jet pods, at least until well into the '50s.:openedeyewink:

Now, if you're proposing a Type 683, 694, 696, or 716 that are, as noted, more completely differentfrom the Manc (if I may call her that;) ), if not clean sheet designs, I'll offer no objection. The name, given we're in an alt-TL, will probably not be the L-word in any case.;) And an AEW or marine patrol derivative will be so changed it, too, will merit both a new type number & a new name (as would, frex, the Boeing 307); if those happen to be, frex Type 696 & Shackleton, I won't gripe (tho, given the changes in type number succession {for lack of a better term}, I suspect it wouldn't be 696 anyhow).
A Griffon powered Manchester instead of the Vulture powered Manchester will inevitably lead to an earlier Lincoln with Griffons instead of Merlins and therefore an earlier Shackleton.
If said Lincoln is a clean sheet design, which it wasn't (AIUI) OTL, I'll offer no objection. Indeed, if TTL's *Lincoln is proposed as a four-engined replacement for the Manchester, which is (even at her best) deemed insufficient for the task, so be it.
 
Last edited:
(The 'phoon & Hurri are new ones on me.)
Two Hawker F.18/37 variants were planned. They were the Type "N" (for Napier) with Sabres named Typhoon and the Type "R" (for Rolls Royce) with Vultures named Tornado.

The Tornado made its first flight on 6th October 1939 and the second prototype flew on 5th December 1940. The first Typhoon prototype didn't fly until 24th February 1940. A third Tornado prototype was ordered in 1941 and flew on 23rd October 1941. This aircraft had a Bristol Centaurus engine and according to the source (Putnams Hawker Aircraft since 1920) was built largely from stock spares.

AIUI the Air Ministry ordered 1,000 Hawker F.18/37 fighters from at Avro's Woodford factory. The first 500 were to be Tornadoes and the rest undecided. The first Woodford built aircraft was completed and flown on 29th August 1941 but the contract was cancelled in September 1941.

I found the Griffon-Hurricane in this website.
One of several schemes submitted for the development of a four cannon Hurricane with a Rolls Royce Griffon IIA, 1939-41. Discontinued when the Typhoon entered production.
 
The Griffon Hurricane never left the drawing board as the wing spar impeded something on the engine. I can't remember what it was, but it was felt to be too difficult to proceed with.

AFAIK there wasn't a Griffon Typhoon proposal but the Tempest III was proposed with Griffon. Surviving drawings show it similar to the Tempest V but with a smaller radiator.

The Vulture was relatively reliable on the Tornado but the longer flights of the Manchester taxed the engine too much and thus reliability. One thing I've wanted to model for a good while is a Vulture Tempest.
 
AFAIK there wasn't a Griffon Typhoon proposal but the Tempest III was proposed with Griffon. Surviving drawings show it similar to the Tempest V but with a smaller radiator.
The appendix from Putnam's Hawker Aircraft since 1920 says that 2 Tempest Mk III prototypes were ordered to Specification F.11/41 and Contract No. 1986/C.23a. The aircraft were assigned the serials LA610 and LA614.

LA610 was eventually completed as F.2/43 Fury prototype with RR Griffon 85 engines and Rotol contra-props. LA614 was to have become the Tempest Mk IV prototype with Griffon 61 engine, but it was cancelled in 1943.

The first pair of Tempest prototypes (HM595 and HM599) were originally ordered as the Typhoon Mk II but had been renamed Tempest Mk V and Tempest Mk I respectively by the time they flew. So it can be argued that the Tempest Mk II with Centaurus engines was really the Typhoon Mk III and the Tempest Mk III & IV with Griffon engines were really the Typhoon Mk IV & V.
 
The Griffon Hurricane never left the drawing board as the wing spar impeded something on the engine. I can't remember what it was, but it was felt to be too difficult to proceed with.
I doubt that it would have been any faster than the later Hurricanes. So I think it would have been better to build Griffon powered Hawker Tornadoes instead of the later Hurricanes in a TTL where the Griffon was available soon enough and in greater numbers.
 
Last edited:
I doubt that it would have been any faster than the later Hurricanes. So I think it would have been better to build Griffon powered Hawker Tornadoes instead of the later Hurricanes in a TTL where the Griffon was available soon enough or in greater numbers.
So long as they can keep the tail plane from falling off in a dive.
 
One suggestion from that other thread, which I particularly like, is focus on Griffon rather than Vulture, leading to a twin-Griffon Manchester. That has so many interesting butterflies... :cool::cool::cool:
I case you've not worked it out yet, one of the "flutter of butterflies" is a Griffon-Warwick replacing the Wellington on the production lines at Blackpool, Chester and Weybridge at the end of 1940/beginning of 1941. IOTL the failure to find an suitable engine for the Warwick was only reason why the Wellington was built for as long as it was .
 
I case you've not worked it out yet, one of the "flutter of butterflies" is a Griffon-Warwick replacing the Wellington on the production lines at Blackpool, Chester and Weybridge at the end of 1940/beginning of 1941. IOTL the failure to find an suitable engine for the Warwick was only reason why the Wellington was built for as long as it was .

Big 2-engined bombers were being replaced by 4-engined bombers for good reasons.
 
Top