WI:Billy Beardmore doesn't go broke.

My timeline was waiting for positive feedback, which I still await..

William Beardmore and Company was a huge company in the Glasgow/Clydeside area based on steelworks for the ship-building industry, founded in 1886. It expanded into manufacturing armour plate, guns such as the BL-15, and dreadnoughts HMS Conqueror, Benbow, and Ramillies, as well as the aircraft carrier HMS Argus. The company also produced Sopwith aircraft under license, Pups and Camels designed by Herbert Smith. Some of these aircraft operated from the Beardmore-built aircraft carrier. Following the war, Herbert Smith was out of a job, as Sopwith declared bankrupcy.

In 1916, Beardmore brought on staff a business manager, Timothy Cratchit, an economist trained at the London School of Economics. Cratchit was instrumental in keeping Beardmore to a strict business plan that precluded a side excursion into the rail business, except where his steel business was concerned. Likewise, ship-building interests were sold off. Cratchit saw a great future in aviation, and urged Beardmore to hire Herbert Smith from the defunct Sopwith Company, and purchase Cosmos Engineering, which included all assets including the services of Roy Fedden, chief engineer, and Leonard Butler, his draftsman. Cratchit thought, and Beardmore agreed, that with the premier engine and aircraft designers in house, things looked pretty rosy.
 
While Cratchit kept business affairs regulated, and steered the company away from the motorcycle business, cars and taxis proved to be a problem, as Fedden encouraged the diversion. Meanwhile, Smith designed a fighter, the Bandit, employing a Jupiter engine, followed by a reconnaissance bomber, the Bandicoot, based on the Bandit. Both performed and sold well at home and abroad, and Jupiter sales supplied a substantial boost to company coffers.

The Brampton bomber, in 1927, was hailed worldwide for it's modern structure and design, while, in fact, it was an amalgam of previously forgotten leading edges of history, compiled by the Beardmore design staff. Fedden, more than most, enjoyed travelling and observing accomplishments and incorporating pieces into a whole. He was instrumental in promoting the construction of the Brant 10-seat airliner, using parts of the revolutionary bomber. While the bomber didn't sell as well as expected, the airliner sold very well, indeed, at home and abroad. It was presumed that the bomber's sales lagged because it was faster than most fighters of the era.

To address some issues, and respond to Ministry specifications, the Bushtit fighter was built employing a cantilever monoplane, stressed skin monocoque fuselage, retractable gear, enclosed canopy, and Fedden's Mercury engine. An engineer named George Dowty helped with the hydraulic gear and flaps. A Bendix-Stromberg pumper carburetor was an additional innovation.

In the proving stages, much was learned in the wind tunnel built in cooperation with the University of Glasgow and Alexander Thom. Fedden had toured the U.S. and found American educational institutions more suited to the needs of industry. He set about addressing the needs, and, as a result, the University of Glasgow received a boost in facilities as well as some guest lecturers from around the globe.
 
Ok so the timeline's started then, excellent.

So Britain's in the monoplane fighter game 2 years early then?
Correct me if I'm wrong but IOTL was that the Hurricane with its first flight in 1935?

If the first monoplane fighter has a radial engine how will this affect British design practices/prejudices for the rest of the decade?
How will this influence foreign designers?
 
Bristol's first monoplane fighter was flown in 1916, the M.1.C. Cantilever monoplanes developed in Germany during WW1. Dayton and Sperry-Verville racing monoplanes with retractable undercarriage developed in the '20s. The first modern fighter flew in 1933, in the Soviet Union, with a radial engine. There were many foreign designers interested in the products of Roy Fedden and Rolls Royce, but not that many took their design cues from cutting edge British designs like the Gladiator etc. The Hurricane could have flown earlier, but the Fury monoplane was originally designed for the Goshawk engine and required redesign for the Merlin.

British manufacturers will benefit from this timeline due to the absence of Aquila, Taurus, and Perseus engines. Mercury and Pegasus will remain, Hercules will be better developed, and the Orion 18 cylinder(bigger Hercules) will offer the equivalent of the P&W R-2800 at an earlier timeframe.
 
The Gloster Gladiator fails to attain production. The Hurricane, showing marginal superiority over the Bushtit, enters production for 600 copies, after which production is terminated, due to the Beardmore Bronco entering service, powered by the Orion engine. The Spitfire continues as before, but without the MkV becoming a major variant due to the superior performance of the Bronco at low and medium altitudes.
 
So either Supermarine or Hawker will have the job of designing a specialised High Altitude plane then?

The Hurricane has better performance than the Bushtit but the Spitfire's in the pipeline so only 600 Hurris get built in Britain. However, wouldn't the Hurricane also be easier to build and maintain than the Bushtit?

If so there may be a market for foreign buyers, or maybe earlier license production in Canada or even Australia to kickstart their aviation industry. Might we see a Boomerang with a Hercules or Orion engine?

With the RAF having lost interest in the Hurricane fairly early on how does this affect procurment for the fleet air arm?

I won't speculate on how this may affect the war just yet, although this could mean less demand for Merlin Aero-Engines...
 
Hawker wasn't involved in any high-altitude fighters at the time, but Stanley Hooker still worked at Rolls Royce as the creator of the sixty series Merlin. Keep in mind that the two-stage Merlin transformed the Spit, but couldn't make a silk purse out of the Hurricane, historically. Higher output Merlins improved their load-carrying abilities but did not significantly make them fast. They were delegated to the fighter-bomber category where they proved vulnerable to enemy fighters and ground fire.

The RN operated the Berzerker in the dive-bombing role and it carried offensive armament allowing it to serve in the fighter role. Powered by the Hercules engine, it had sufficient performance to battle the 110 without shame. The Bronco, once in service, was equal to any challenge.

The Merlin possessed outstanding volumetric efficiency which could not be matched by an air-cooled engine, meaning that it remained the choice to power the Mossie. A real WI would have been the RR Crecy, but that's another story.

02orionfighters.png
 
I'd imagine that the RN gets a bit of a rude shock when they encounter the Zero.

One tiny request, I don't suppose you could reverse the names of the Bezerker and Bronco, I think the better fighter deserves the cooler name:D.

Is the later RN fighter going to be TTL's answer to the Sea Fury?

With less need for Aero engines I was thinking of the possibility for an earlier introduction of the Meteor engine for tanks
(Let the Butterflies roam wild and free!)
 
I haven't actually arrived at 1942 yet, but it's supposed to be that the RN comes as a shock to the Zero, isn't it? Is the Zero redesigned for the Kasei engine?

Sometimes, the names of aircraft are arbitrarily chosen. The "Berzerker" name was chosen in a contest by Glasgow schoolchildren with a prize flight for the winner. The name "Bronco" was chosen by a Polish aircraft designer who cooperated in it's design. It's not as though it's up to me.

Answering to a 1947 fighter aircraft is beyond my scope, and somebody else's fiction.

The Napier Lion engine powered the British Power Boats 63 foot "Whaleback". The company was owned by Hubert Scott-Paine, who had once owned Supermarine. Now, they pick up pilots out of the water. With the success of the Beardmore Orion engine, the Napier Sabre engine can become stillborn, leaving factory space for production of Lion tank engines. Anything but Nuffield Libertys.

300px-HSL_164_with_RAF_Hurricane_off_Colombo_c1943.jpg
 
Top