WI: Hawker Henley as a viable combat aircraft?

[Just Leo]

In an ideal ATL please give the Skua to the RAF as a target tug, cancel the Roc before construction begins and instead give the FAA 200 heavy fighter bombers being, Henleys with Hurricane outer wings, Hotspurs instead of Roc (again Hurricane type outer wings) and then Hurricanes with the metal clad outer wings as built for the Henley. Now in 1939 you have the FAA with the best fleet defence fighter combination then extant! Oh, How one dreams!!

When Skuas flew off to attack Konigsberg, there were FAA Henleys on the base, for target towing. The Skuas didn't have the speed for target towing. They did have nice folding wings which, in this case, didn't matter. For them what cares, why Roc, and why Hotspur, as well as why Defiant?

 

[jsb]

ITTL there would be 16 Hurricane and 15 Spitfire squadrons. The deployment would be:

1. 7 Hurricane and 15 Spitfire squadrons in the Main Force of Fighter Command
2. 8 Hurricane squadrons in No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group
3. One Hurricane squadron in the Middle East.

Can you really add more Spits isn't it more likely to be more Hurricanes ?
Not to mention if you got for more roles for the Hurricane why not replace a lot of other types as well ?

How many of the Battles (2,185), Defiant (1,064), Gladiator (747) etc could have been Hurricanes ? (and ready for 39-40)

Say,
1. 18 Hurricane and 11 Spitfire squadrons Main Force of Fighter Command
2. 18 Hurricane squadrons in Advanced Air Striking Force
3. One Hurricane squadron in the Middle East.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The differences between the Hurri and the Spit were many. The most significant difference was the thin elliptical wing. Sir Sydney was told by the RAE that he had the best wing, according to scale wind tunnel testing, and he stuck with it through Tornado and Typhoon. The boffins then told him, in 1942, that it was all bollocks, and they figured wrong. He then designed the Tempest wing, somewhat Spit-like. Significantly, the Typhoon was all metal, and mostly monocoque, like the Spit. The Martin-Baker MB-5 still used a tube frame, with easily removed metal panels, and suffered no loss in efficiency or performance.

The Hotspur, steel-tubed, was perhaps somewhat superior to the Defiant, monocoque, but Hawker had Hurris to build.

The Fairey P.4/34 was the spitting image of the Fulmar, but was completely different, and the Fulmar was over 1000 kg heavier, being armed and naval. The Firefly was quite different , and the post-war Firefly quite different again. A naval Henley would suffer lost performance as did the Sea Hurricane, even without folding wings, which it would have to possess.

What Boulton-Paul proposed is unimportant, and not relevant, but a Henley did sport a Griffon engine with chin radiator, which goes to show.

Does that mean my post was utter bollocks then?

 

[Just Leo]

Does that mean my post was utter bollocks then?

I don't talk like that. Leo McKinstry,s book might be, but I haven't read it, unless I forgot. What I say is what I know, or part of it. Opinions vary. Had Camm got the correct data on his wings, it would be a WI, and I did it. Had Camm done all that he would have liked, Hurricanes wouldn't have been available in numbers. Spitfires weren't, and couldn't. There was even a brief interlude when the Belgians got some Hurris, because the RAF couldn't establish squadrons as fast as production. Or is it just me?

 

[tomo pauk]

Hurricane's wing was 19% 'thick' in the root, ie. thickness to chord ratio was 19:100 at wing root; similar was with Typhoon. Spitfire's was 13,2%, and typhoons was at 14.5%.
Neither Hurricane nor Typhoon used partiularly modern wing profiles, Clark YH and NACA 2200 series respectively. The Spitfire also used the 2200 series (ditto for P-36/40 for example), and Tempest got Hawker's own laminar flow wing design.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Can you really add more Spits isn't it more likely to be more Hurricanes ?

Westland did build Spitfires and Seafires eventually so it seemed better for Westland to build more Spitfires instead of the Lysander and Whirlwind than having them build Hurricanes and then go onto the OTL Spitfires and Seafires.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There was even a brief interlude when the Belgians got some Hurris, because the RAF couldn't establish squadrons as fast as production. Or is it just me?

They got 20 Hurricanes from the first RAF contract for 600 Hurricanes and SABCA was building Hurricanes under licence, but only 22 (IIRC) Hawker and SABCA built Hurricanes were available when the Germans invaded. IIRC Avions Fairey was building Fairey P.4/34s for the RBAF but only a few of them had been delivered before the German invaded as well.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Get the Vulture engine working and you've got sufficient power to pull more bombs than a Hurricane. Albeit an ugly one.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Mind you what all this ignores is that actual combat experience showed that the Battle replacement the RAF should have ordered wasn't the Fairey P.4/34 or the Henley but rather Hurricanes with bomb shackles and larger fuel tanks, but that's with 20/20 hindsight. It does beg the question though how would the Advanced Air Striking Force Battle squadrons have done if equipped with Hurribombers.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Get the Vulture engine working and you've got sufficient power to pull more bombs than a Hurricane. Albeit an ugly one.

That things got so much wrong with it it's not funny. They say if a plane looks right it flies right, that looks like a pilot would need to be suicidal just to start the engine.

 

[sonofpegasus]

With reference to my earlier post, Turret fighters such as the Defiant, Roc and the stillborn Hotspur were a darling of a certain faction within the AM. who thought that a high speed monoplane fighter could not bring sufficient fire power to bear on a defensive bomber formation to do significant damage without being shot down (this is the thinking that got the USAAF the Flying Fortress and the box formation). The AM solution was a squadron of turret fighters all attacking at once to concentrate fire power! fine in principle against unescorted bombers but as real world experience showed not a good idea if your opponent has single seat fighter escort. Therefore any line up of FAA aircraft in the period 1937/1940 would in all likely hood have a turret fighter. Hence my inclusion of the Hotspur (with forward firing wing guns) as a better option than the Roc, which was so slow most German bombers could simply fly away from it! The Logistical gains for the FAA in 1939/40 of three of their aircraft types sharing a very high commonality of parts is obvious as is the fact that if three of your aircraft types carry eight machine guns at around 300mph max speed then unescorted bombers are going to have a harder time getting to your carriers. Yes Sea fire in 1939 would be the best but there is no way that is going to happen, not only was Dowding at Fighter Command fighting to get every Spitfire he could there were still troglodytes in the AM who were trying to shut down Spitfire production in favour of more bombers!! History and hindsight shows us that a lot of the technical and tactical thinking of the AM in the late 30's was way of the mark, and the Henley was a result of that. As a 1939 version of what the Hurricane became two years later as the Hurribomber might not have change the course of the war but IMHO it might well have made a significant difference to the blitzkrieg in the summer of 1940.

 

[RLBH]

fine in principle against unescorted bombers but as real world experience showed not a good idea if your opponent has single seat fighter escort.

It was a brilliant plan, right up until the fall of France gave the Luftwaffe bases within escort range of the British Isles. If the Defiants had been sent to 13 Group, they might have had a better combat record blasting away at unescorted He 111s and Ju 88s.

 

[Admiral Beez]

With reference to my earlier post, Turret fighters such as the Defiant, Roc and the stillborn Hotspur were a darling of a certain faction within the AM. who thought that a high speed monoplane fighter could not bring sufficient fire power to bear on a defensive bomber formation to do significant damage without being shot down

Same logic on the Northrop P-61 Black Widow. It wasn't just a AM thing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

With reference to my earlier post, Turret fighters such as the Defiant, Roc and the stillborn Hotspur were a darling of a certain faction within the AM. who thought that a high speed monoplane fighter could not bring sufficient fire power to bear on a defensive bomber formation to do significant damage without being shot down (this is the thinking that got the USAAF the Flying Fortress and the box formation). The AM solution was a squadron of turret fighters all attacking at once to concentrate fire power! fine in principle against unescorted bombers but as real world experience showed not a good idea if your opponent has single seat fighter escort.

Back in 1936 everybody in the RAF (AFAIK) including Dowding expected the air threat to the UK to be from bombers based in Germany and possibly the Low Countries flying across the North Sea UNESCORTED. If anybody in 1936 had suggested the OTL Battle of France followed by the OTL Battle of Britain nearly everyone would have laughed at them as if it was the most stupid thing they had every heard because it was the 1930s equivalent of ASB.

Therefore in that context the Defiant and Hotspur (which was to have been build in large numbers by Avro) were a sensible idea.

However, when ordered in 1936 it was intended that the 5 Defiant squadrons that were planned were to be part of the Air Component of the British Expeditionary Force (ACBEF). To me that's exactly the worst way to use them.

 

[yulzari]

Get the Vulture engine working and you've got sufficient power to pull more bombs than a Hurricane. Albeit an ugly one.

A useful example to WIF ideas of throwing another engine onto an aeroplane. The weight of the Vulture threw the CoG so far forward that the radiator had to go under the bomb bay and the radiator (using the Meredith effect and an intake clearing laminar flow) had to be big enough to ensure adequate cooling as a test bed and not the minimum as a finished warplane. With all that weight and the fuel for a Vulture not a Merlin means that, with a warload added to it, the structure is on the limit for any violent manoeuvres. Now you need to beef up the airframe to use it in combat and you end up with a different aeroplane. It may give us some guide as to where one could develop the Hurricane if Belgium or Yugoslavia remained neutral and kept using their own Hurricane production lines and had to keep on developing Hurricanes. They were easier to make than monocoques once you had invested in the expensive special rolling tools for the spars etc. One begins to see why they made the brand new Tornado/Typhoon and not re engine the Hurricane.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Can you really add more Spits isn't it more likely to be more Hurricanes?

Not to mention if you got for more roles for the Hurricane why not replace a lot of other types as well?

How many of the Battles (2,185), Defiant (1,064), Gladiator (747) etc could have been Hurricanes ? (and ready for 39-40)

Say,

1. 18 Hurricane and 11 Spitfire squadrons Main Force of Fighter Command
2. 18 Hurricane squadrons in Advanced Air Striking Force
3. One Hurricane squadron in the Middle East.

Ok, but some of this requires spending more money...

Point of Departure 1936
Bombers

1. Between 1934 and 1939 the RAF's expansion plans for Bomber Command evolved from one of 20:20:30 heavy, medium and light bombers in Schemes A and C in 1934; to 20:50 heavy and medium in Scheme F of 1936 and finally all heavies in Scheme M of 1938. However, within that there were some anomalies. E.g. in 1936 the Battle was classed as a medium bomber and was to equip 26 of the 50 medium bomber squadrons in Scheme F.
2. What I want to do is build more Hampdens and Wellingtons instead of the Battle and Blenheim. When tested at the A&AEE in 1936 the Wellington prototype was faster than the Battle prototype. However, the Blenheim entered service in March 1937 and the Battle entered service in May 1937. The Hampden and Wellington entered service about 18 months later.
3. The alternative is to go back and redesign the Battle as a Twin Merlin aircraft after the original RR Griffon and Fairey engines were cancelled.
4. In the longer term I want to order the P.13/36 bombers with 4 Merlins from the start. That means more Lancasters in place of the Manchester. It might also mean that production of the AW Whitley is phased out sooner in favour of the Lancaster. It might also mean that Avro stops building Blenheims in favour of the Lancaster sooner.
5. Don't order 2 prototypes of the Supermarine B.12/36 so that the firm's design department can concentrate on improving the Spitfire.
6. Instead the Supermarine B.12/36 the OTL Vickers Warwick ordered to Specification B.1/35 is cancelled and replaced by a 4 Hercules version to Specification B.12/36 in its place.
7. IOTL some of the Stirlings were built by Austin, which went onto build Lancasters. I would also like Austin to build more Lancasters instead of the Stirling.

Fighters and Army Co-operation

1. Boulton Paul builds more Spitfires instead of the Defiant. Boulton Paul actually built the 136 production Blackburn Skuas so the build more Spitfires instead of that aircraft.
2. Gloster builds 200 extra Hurricanes instead of the 200 Henley's it built IOTL.
3. Westland builds more Spitfires instead of the Lysander and Whirlwind.
4. I'd love to have Gloster build more Hurricanes instead of the Gladiator. IOTL the first Gladiator squadron was formed in February 1937 only 10 months ahead of the first Hurricane squadron. The first aircraft powered by the Merlin to enter service was the Battle in May 1937 only 3 months behind the Gladiator and only 2 Gladiator squadrons had been formed by the end of April 1937. The first contract for the Gladiator was for 23 aircraft in July 1935 and the first bulk contract for 180 aircraft in September 1935. The contracts for 600 Hurricanes and 310 Spitfires were placed in June 1936.
5. With the POD of 1936 I reckon it would be possible to build the last 350 of the 550 Gladiators built for the RAF and FAA as Hurricanes.
6. If the practice of ordering aircraft off the drawing board instead of waiting for the prototype to be tested before placing production contracts had been introduced in 1935 instead of 1936 then a pre-production batch of 23 Hurricanes could have been ordered from Hawker Siddeley in July 1935 followed by a production contract for 180 in September 1935. These aircraft would be built in Hawker's factories and some of the Hart family aircraft that Hawker built IOTL would be transferred to Gloster. Then 347 Hurricanes would be built by Gloster instead of the last 347 RAF/FAA Gladiators of OTL.
7. About 200 Gladiators were built for export IOTL, I'm not sure that about 200 Hurricanes would have been sold in their place.
8. Following on from Point 6 the Air Ministry could have ordered a pre-production batch of Spitfires off the drawing board instead of the 17 Stranraer flying boats it ordered in August 1935. IOTL a second order for 6 Stranraers placed in May 1936 was cancelled so the Supermarine works could concentrate on building Spitfires.

Torpedo Bombers and General Reconnaissance

1. Don't order 21 Saro Lerwicks to Specification R.1/36. Instead production of the Supermarine Walrus is transferred to Saunders Roe sooner than it was IOTL to allow the Supermarine works to concentrate on building Spitfires and 21 extra Sunderlands are ordered from Short Brothers.
2. Instead of the 17 Supermarine Stranraers ordered in August 1935 and 6 ordered in May 1936 and additional 23 Londons from Saunders Roe. I would prefer more Sunderlands, but IOTL the Sunderland prototype flew after the first Stranraer was delivered.
3. Don't order the Blackburn Botha off the drawing board. Instead Blackburn builds a GR version of the Wellington whose prototype was already flying in 1936 so it was more likely that it would be delivered on time.
4. Don't order the Bristol Beaufort off the drawing board. Instead Bristol builds a TB version of the Hampden. As it was an adaptation of an aircraft that was already flying the TB Hampden like the GR Wellington was more likely to be delivered on time.

Transport Aircraft

1. IIRC Short and Harland built 50 Bristol Bombay bomber-transports out of 80 ordered and an order for 30 De Havilland Hertfordshire transports based on the DH95 Flamingo was cancelled at the outbreak of World War II.
2. However, Airspeed had a licence to build the DC-3 and sell it in the British Empire (less Canada) which it bought from Fokker, which in turn had bought it from Douglas.
3. ITTL I want the airlines and the RAF King's Flight to buy Airspeed built DC-3s instead of the Flamingo and the RAF to buy 110 DC-3s with a cargo door from Airspeed in place of the Bombay and Hertfordshire.

 

[Driftless]

O
Point of Departure 1936

1. About 200 Gladiators were built for export IOTL, I'm not sure that about 200 Hurricanes would have been sold in their place.

Hurricanes might have served the Norwegians better than the Gladiators on April 9, 1940; but that's a another story...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Hurricanes might have served the Norwegians better than the Gladiators on April 9, 1940; but that's a another story...

IIRC the 7 Gladiators that they were able to scramble gave the Luftwaffe a rather nasty surprise. If there had been 7 Hurricanes instead, that were faster and had double the armament the Luftwaffe would have received a bloody nose. Unfortunately that would still be insufficient to prevent Oslo from being captured.

However, IOTL the Norwegians had ordered 60 Curtiss Hawks. IIRC some had been delivered but were still in their delivery crates. ITTL there's a good chance that they British Government would have sold them 60 of the Hurricanes built instead of the Henley. One of the reasons why is that ITTL the British could deliver them quicker than Curtiss could deliver the Hawks. Had a small fraction of them, say 14, been serviceable on 9th April 1940 then it's more likely that the Norweigans could have held Oslo.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Hurricanes might have served the Norwegians better than the Gladiators on April 9, 1940; but that's a another story...

Another story is that in OTL the British Government gave Finland 25 Gauntlets, 30 Gladiators, 12 Hurricanes and 3 Lysanders from RAF stocks to help them in the Winter War against the USSR. ITTL that would work out as 25 Gauntlets and 45 Hurricanes from RAF stocks.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Correction...

581 Gladiators were ordered for the RAF in 5 contracts, but some of them were delivered directly to overseas customers. The 5 contracts were as follows.

23 to Contract 419392/36 - 1st RAF order
180 to Contract 442476/36 - 2nd RAF order
28 to Contract unknown - 3rd RAF order
50 to Contract unknown - 4th RAF order
300 to Contract 952950/38 5th RAF order - The last aircraft wasn't delivered until April 1940

165 Gladiators were built to direct export contracts as follows:

26 Latvia - Gladiator I ordered May-37 and delivered August-November 1937 by Sea
14 Lithuania - Gladiator I ordered May-37 and delivered October-November 1937 by Sea
6 Norway - Gladiator I ordered Jun-37 and delivered September-October 1937 by Air
37 Sweden - Gladiator I ordered Jun-37 and delivered 1937-38, but the method of delivery not stated
22 Belgium - Gladiator I ordered Jun-37 and delivered 1937-38 by Air
36 China- Gladiator I Oct-37 and delivered 1937-38 by Sea
4 Ireland - Gladiator I ordered Nov-37 and delivered 1938 by Air
2 Greece - Gladiator I ordered 1938, but the method of delivery not stated
18 Sweden - Gladiator II ordered 1938, but the method of delivery not stated

However, another 137 Gladiators built to Air Ministry contracts were also exported. These included:

6 ordered to Contract 773235/38 and delivered to Norway as Gladiator Mk II in 1939
15 ordered to Contract 773235/38 and delivered to Portugal as Gladiator II in 1939

Apart from 18 Gladiators transferred from RAF Middle East to the Royal Egyptian Air Force in March 1939 all the others were transferred after September 1939.