WI: an early 2-engined fighter for RAF

[tomo pauk]

...since what is the AH.com without several alternate RAF threads dealing with gear and other stuff

'Early' meaning 'designed and produced in mid/late 1930s', say, as an insurance against possible deficiencies of 1-engined monoplanes. The perspective 2-engined job being a monoplane with retractable U/C. For the sake of discussion, usage of Merlins is discouraged for the new heavy fighter.
What might be the best bet, what engines (only historical stuff, including what might be realistically produced in the UK while being of foreign origin), weapons (again historical stuff preferred), layout?
We're looking for performance (speed, climb), firepower, possibility of quick development & production time.

 

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Just for clarification do you mean something other than a Westland Whirlwind which isn't screwed by naff engines etc?

 

[tomo pauk]

Just for clarification do you mean something other than a Westland Whirlwind which isn't screwed by naff engines etc?

Basically yes - I look for something that can be produced in many hundreds well before BoB.

 

[Draconis]

Mid/late 1930s? What about the various Westland and Bristol designs? As you noted there have been recent discussions about these planes.

Or how about some exotic pusher puller design ala Fokker 23? A British version with something other than Merlin engines.

 

[KACKO]

Mid/late 1930s? What about the various Westland and Bristol designs? As you noted there have been recent discussions about these planes.

Or how about some exotic pusher puller design ala Fokker 23? A British version will something other than Merlin engines.

Earlier Bristol Beufighter I would say.

 

[Draconis]

Basically yes - I look for something that can be produced in many hundreds well before BoB.

POD, some British lord holds major shares in Lockheed. They start producing P-38s for the RAF in late 1939. Using two Allison engines.

 

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Basically yes - I look for something that can be produced in many hundreds well before BoB.

Had the government geared up for rearmament earlier and provided better engines the Westland Whirlwind could have been a viable option and been built in greater numbers - but people with far better knowledge have dealt with that on other threads. I don't know how the competing designs the Bristol 153a, Supermarket 313 etc compare.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

...since what is the AH.com without several alternate RAF threads dealing with gear and other stuff

'Early' meaning 'designed and produced in mid/late 1930s', say, as an insurance against possible deficiencies of 1-engined monoplanes. The perspective 2-engined job being a monoplane with retractable U/C. For the sake of discussion, usage of Merlins is discouraged for the new heavy fighter.

What might be the best bet, what engines (only historical stuff, including what might be realistically produced in the UK while being of foreign origin), weapons (again historical stuff preferred), layout?

We're looking for performance (speed, climb), firepower, possibility of quick development & production time.

You haven't given an in service date, but I presume you want it to be in service by September 1939. To do that the Air Ministry will have to issue the specification at the same time as the Hurricane and Spitfire which IIRC was 1934. The first prototype would fly in late 1935 or early 1936 in time for bulk orders to be placed in 1936 as part of Expansion Scheme F, which corresponds with the Hurricane and Spitfire. Service entry would be late 1937 at the earliest and more likely 1938.

I want it to be powered by two Merlins, but as the OP says they are discouraged I'd use a pair of Bristol Mercuries or a pair of RR Kestrels. As I think the POD should be in 1934 the armament would probably be eight to twelve 0.303" machine guns and possibly more rounds per gun than the Hurricane and Spitfire.

 

[yulzari]

Not the RR Peregrine knocking already!. There was nothing wrong with the Peregrine. It was decided that developing it further would have been at the expense of the development on the Merlin. Nothing wrong with the base engine and with Peregrines it remained competitive into 1942. Sling on a couple of Mercuries/Perseus, use the radiator space in the inner wings for a larger fuel capacity, a 500 lb bomb rack under the fuselage and two 250 lb ones under the wings and you get a better 1,000 lb bomber than a Blenheim which can mix it with fighters and carry x4 20mm cannon. But that is not the OP. I could go with x8 or x12 .303 as was done IOTL.

 

[tomo pauk]

POD, some British lord holds major shares in Lockheed. They start producing P-38s for the RAF in late 1939. Using two Allison engines.

That would've meant that P-38 has a much faster time-table, as well as the V-1710.

...
I want it to be powered by two Merlins, but as the OP says they are discouraged I'd use a pair of Bristol Mercuries or a pair of RR Kestrels. As I think the POD should be in 1934 the armament would probably be eight to twelve 0.303" machine guns and possibly more rounds per gun than the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Yes, I'd also go with 12 .303s. The V12 version should probably start with Kestrel and then move on to Peregrines; the license-produced HS 12Y also makes sense to me. The radial option probably indeed means Mercury, then Taurus, and possibly Twin Wasp. Going on with air cooled option means that inner section of the wing is free for more fuel, or possibly 1-2 pairs of MGs + ammo.
A wildacrd - Napier Dagger, albeit it was not offering much of altitude power.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

...since what is the AH.com without several alternate RAF threads dealing with gear and other stuff

'Early' meaning 'designed and produced in mid/late 1930s', say, as an insurance against possible deficiencies of 1-engined monoplanes. The perspective 2-engined job being a monoplane with retractable U/C. For the sake of discussion, usage of Merlins is discouraged for the new heavy fighter.

What might be the best bet, what engines (only historical stuff, including what might be realistically produced in the UK while being of foreign origin), weapons (again historical stuff preferred), layout?

We're looking for performance (speed, climb), firepower, possibility of quick development & production time.

This does exactly what it says on the tin. Except that I've added F.9/35 which produced the single-engine Boulton Paul Defiant and Hawker Hotspur. Plus I think I've made a mistake with F.18/37 because most of these aircraft were single engine types.

Unfortunately I had to use Wikipaedia for the above because I don't have access to my copy of the Air Britain book on Air Ministry specifications at present.

IIRC Spec. F.5/33 and F.34/35 prototypes were ordered from Gloster and then cancelled and IIRC the work done on these led to the Gloster F.9/37 (G.39). Therefore my candidate is to build a Mercury or Kestrel powered Gloster G.39 to Spec. F.9/33. Gloster would build the prototype instead of the OTL F.5/34 prototypes and production would be instead of the later Gladiators, Henley and Gloster built Hurricanes,

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Airspeed had a licence to build Fokker's designs. Is a licence-built Fokker G.I permissible?

 

[Driftless]

Airspeed had a licence to build Fokker's designs. Is a licence-built Fokker G.I permissible?

It was designed to use Bristol Mercury VIII's. Bring it into British service by early 1939; with a push to increase engine horsepower - Pegasus? It would be pretty heavy to be a dogfighter, but it could serve in other roles: bomber-killer, nightfighter, CAS.

*edit* the Swedes ordered some to be used as dive bombers. Also, the G.1 had decent range, so maybe some use in the Med or Malaya?

 

[riggerrob]

Configure it like a Sea Hornet with the fuselage sitting on top of the wing, but engine nacelles hanging below. Low wing gives more flexibility for crew seating. This will improve pilot visibility while leaving plenty of space under the centre section for guns, bombs, fuel tanks and maybe even a torpedo.
Power it with Bristol Mercuries, but make the nacelles hang from a steel tube frame with aluminum or plywood fairings. This would make it easier to swap engines ala. Grumman Tracker.

 

[tomo pauk]

Airspeed had a licence to build Fokker's designs. Is a licence-built Fokker G.I permissible?

Time-wise, it looks permissible.
Pros: heavy firepower seems very much possible to install (thus justifying investment of two engines and big airframe), uses UK-made engines from the get-go.
Cons: big size, and thus reduction of performance; twin boom will probably be more expensive than a 'classic' twin.

The fighters similar to what is wanted here might include the Fw 187 (pretty fast on meagre power; Kestrel, let alone Peregrine or HS 12Y will mean much more power & performance) and XF5F (looked right, but those Cyclones are as big as Pegasus - drop in the Mercury). The timing is too late for the XF5F, even if it didn't featured nothing that could not be made in 1930s.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

How about a development of the De Havilland DH.88 Comet racer of 1934, a bit larger and powered by late model Rolls Royce Kestrels entering service alongside the Bristol Blenheim 1? 4 x .303mg & 1 x C.O.W. 37mm gun in the nose.

 

[merlin]

IIRC Spec. F.5/33 and F.34/35 prototypes were ordered from Gloster and then cancelled and IIRC the work done on these led to the Gloster F.9/35 (G.39).

I've said it before, and who knows I'll probably say it again. When the RAF is looking at a 4 x 20mm Cannon armed spec - that resulted OTL in the Whirlwind, That some bright spark remembers the earlier designs - hence Glosters are asked to submit one as a back-up with 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 0.303" MGs. Didn't take them long, even taken into account the comment about needing a raised canopy. The RAF liked it, and placed orders, came in single & two seat versions, enabled the RAF to reduce orders for the Blenheim 1F. Initial version probably had Mercury, later ones ??? I think late '39 early '40 is feasible.

 

[Astrodragon]

Gloster Reaper with twin Merlins and a bit more urgency should be attainable.

 

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

How did/would the Grumman 'Sky Rock' fit time and developmentaly? Could some sort of "Shared development, shared costs, share production" (Much like modern F-35) be possible?

Cheers!

 

[Ramontxo]

Ok, this is for the people that really knows. The traditional answer for a "Merlin" Whirlwind is the C.G. cuestions. So what about placing a Defiant turret to compensate? The additional weight would probably be (at last party) compensate by the increased engine power. But there. would be probably fuel/endurance cuestions. So places for fuel tanks should probably have to be found, with cross feeding valves and external drop tanks.
But this would have been a monster...