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.
)
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.
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.