WI: Hawker Henley as a viable combat aircraft?

If we can wean Vickers off geodesic construction then they can build something that will then give them factories and a workforce that can build Lancasters later on.
This means bringing the POD forward from 1936 to 1924, but...

What if Vickers got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro VI instead of Beardmore, which built it as the Inflexible? Preferably a 4-engine version instead of the trimotor of OTL so it would not be as underpowered. Then Vickers incorporates the lessons learned into the prototypes built to B.19/27 and C.16/28, which in turn result in stressed-skin monoplanes being built instead of the OTL Vildbeest, Wellesley, Wellington and their successors.

Would it also have helped Supermarine learn how to mass produce the Spitfire if it had got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro IV flying boat, which IOTL was built by Beardmore as the Inverness?
 
I'm assuming though that the Anson remains in production as a trainer otherwise there is a huge hole in the RAF's training fleet
Yes it does. I though I had included that in some of the previous posts, but could not find it when I looked. Sorry.

The RAF would have the same number of Ansons ITTL as OTL, but they would all be trainers. The aircraft used in the GR role IOTL would be in service as trainers ITTL.
 
I've got a list of the Douglas and Fokker aircraft that Airspeed had licences on, which I made from the Putnams book on Airspeed aircraft.

Fokker did get a license to build DC3, and did make arrangements with Airspeed, which had a license to make Fokkers that didn't sell. However, Fokker didn't have the ability to make DC3s, although they got some sales rights, and assembled Douglas-made knock-down kits in France, 13 delivered before the war. There is no indication that Airspeed had the intention or the ability to do better in the 4-5 years preceding the war, since they OTL did nothing about it.
 
This means bringing the POD forward from 1936 to 1924, but...

What if Vickers got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro VI instead of Beardmore, which built it as the Inflexible? Preferably a 4-engine version instead of the trimotor of OTL so it would not be as underpowered. Then Vickers incorporates the lessons learned into the prototypes built to B.19/27 and C.16/28, which in turn result in stressed-skin monoplanes being built instead of the OTL Vildbeest, Wellesley, Wellington and their successors.

Would it also have helped Supermarine learn how to mass produce the Spitfire if it had got the contract to build the Rohrbach Ro IV flying boat, which IOTL was built by Beardmore as the Inverness?

The problem with the Spitfire construction is the wing leading edge which required machinery and sheet metal not readily available. Google "Dogfight- The Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf-109.

Building the Rohrbach designs didn't do Beardmore much good. They would have done better to hire Herbert Smith as chief designer, and a good business manager.
 
The problem with the Spitfire construction is the wing leading edge which required machinery and sheet metal not readily available. Google "Dogfight- The Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf-109.

Building the Rohrbach designs didn't do Beardmore much good. They would have done better to hire Herbert Smith as chief designer, and a good business manager.
AFAIK the Rohrbach designs didn't do anybody any good.

However, I first heard of the Inverness and Inflexible in a Bill Gunston book called, Back to the Drawing Board - Aircraft That Flew But Did Not Take Off. IIRC he regarded the failure of these types as an important lost opportunity. IIRC from the book the Inflexible wing when tested at the A&AEE was incredibly strong, but the aircraft was too heavy and again IIRC Gunston blamed that on Beardmores "civil engineering" construction methods.

In the case of Supermarine building the Inverness I was hoping that the result would have been that the firm had been building stressed skin aircraft for some several years by 1936. But from what you have written that would not have solved the problem of making the wing's leading edge. Is that correct?
 
AFAIK the Rohrbach designs didn't do anybody any good.

However, I first heard of the Inverness and Inflexible in a Bill Gunston book called, Back to the Drawing Board - Aircraft That Flew But Did Not Take Off. IIRC he regarded the failure of these types as an important lost opportunity. IIRC from the book the Inflexible wing when tested at the A&AEE was incredibly strong, but the aircraft was too heavy and again IIRC Gunston blamed that on Beardmores "civil engineering" construction methods.

In the case of Supermarine building the Inverness I was hoping that the result would have been that the firm had been building stressed skin aircraft for some several years by 1936. But from what you have written that would not have solved the problem of making the wing's leading edge. Is that correct?

Yes.

And although the wing was considered incredibly strong, they still attached a hemp hauser as a lift strut for "security". I attempted to make a Beardmore timeline at one time, but I'm no good at business management, and neither was Beardmore, although he established a huge industry. Had he hired Herbert smith as a designer, and Roy Fedden and Cosmos engineering instead of Bristols, he might have been more black than red, but he still needed a business manager.
 
Yes.

And although the wing was considered incredibly strong, they still attached a hemp hauser as a lift strut for "security". I attempted to make a Beardmore timeline at one time, but I'm no good at business management, and neither was Beardmore, although he established a huge industry. Had he hired Herbert smith as a designer, and Roy Fedden and Cosmos engineering instead of Bristols, he might have been more black than red, but he still needed a business manager.
I wanted another firm to do it because I though they would do a better job than Beardmore or at least they could not do worse.

Vickers seemed to be the logical one because I thought it would do more for British aviation generally than having them do the R.100 and it would be a good way to prevent them inventing geodetic airframes. If giving the Inverness doesn't help Supermarine with the Spitfire then I would give it to Vickers too, because AFAIK Vickers was still designing flying boats because they hadn't bought Supermarine yet.

If not Vickers and Supermarine my second choices were Handley Page for the Inflexible because I want the result to be that the HP.42 and HP43 stressed skin monoplanes with fixed undercarriages and Short Brothers for the Inverness because I want the result to be that they built a family of stressed skin monoplanes instead of the Singapore family, i.e. the Calcutta, Rangoon, Kent and Singapore II/III.
 
Roy Fedden returned from a trip to the US with amazing pictures of Douglas aircraft production on their new transport. He remarked that he was treated with derision by British aircraft manufacturers who thought it was an elaborate movie prop.

Handley Page built a monocoque cantilever monoplane fighter for the US Navy in early '20s, but the undercart collapsed on heavy landing tests. It was the same undercart as the Fairey Flycatcher, but it was installed backwards. Nothing came of it but another timeline. It was perhaps a decade and a half ahead of time. Pity.

You aren't going to improve British aviation in the period by shuffling existing models around. It has to be a different government and different people doing different things, or doing things differently. The Whitley had an improper wing installation because the designer didn't know how to build flaps. When someone told him how, the wings were not changed back. The engines installed were crap, and known to be crap, and had been crap a decade before. All this was business as usual. That doesn't make the industry better.
 
Roy Fedden returned from a trip to the US with amazing pictures of Douglas aircraft production on their new transport. He remarked that he was treated with derision by British aircraft manufacturers who thought it was an elaborate movie prop.

Handley Page built a monocoque cantilever monoplane fighter for the US Navy in early '20s, but the undercart collapsed on heavy landing tests. It was the same undercart as the Fairey Flycatcher, but it was installed backwards. Nothing came of it but another timeline. It was perhaps a decade and a half ahead of time. Pity.

You aren't going to improve British aviation in the period by shuffling existing models around. It has to be a different government and different people doing different things, or doing things differently. The Whitley had an improper wing installation because the designer didn't know how to build flaps. When someone told him how, the wings were not changed back. The engines installed were crap, and known to be crap, and had been crap a decade before. All this was business as usual. That doesn't make the industry better.
Does that mean it's impossible for OTL to be changed?
 
Does that mean it's impossible for OTL to be changed?

Ah! Philosophy. OTL will never change. Our perception of OTL can. Some official records of OTL were sealed for up to 100 years. Some records are incomplete and forgotten.

But, no. I was just wondering WHY it's changing and WHO is the driver behind the change, story-wise.
 

hipper

Banned
Having Blackburn make anything but the Botha would be a good thing. One could only wonder why it was so necessary in OTL. (as was the Saro Lerwick) It was crap as built and tested, and they knew it, yet it entered service. Wellingtons were a good thing, but their record of effectiveness as a torpedo dropper is something I'm not aware of. The Hampton's record in torpedo delivery I am aware of. It wasn't good. The Beaufort was good, albeit with heavy losses.

The entire bomber force in 1939 consisted of OTL bombers constructed to a requirement to fit existing airfields, which meant that the Hampton had wings too thick, the Whitley had wings too thick and set at a ridiculous angle of incidence, and the Stirling looked ridiculous on those long undercarriage legs. Better airfields and relaxed short grass field requirements would mean better bombers.

Vickers did make a 4 engine bomber. Winkle Brown flew it. The Warwick, as it was, was truly the limit for the construction method.


The Wellington was quite effective as a Torpedo bomber see below

The Radio homing equipment is a jostle blip enhancer that let ASV equipped wellingtons home in on a jostle equipped search wellington.

Other forms of the same equipment enabled jostle equipped aircraft to send messages to ships.
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-2Epi-c5-WH2-2Epi-e.html
 
About 35 mph slower than the Betty, vulnerability was a function of the opposition.
Plus the Wimpy was a lot faster than the Vildebeest. If it or the Hampden is ordered in 1936 instead of the Beaufort it can be in service in RAF Far East by September 1939. The OTL Beaufort was not and it is unlikely that the Bristol P.13/36 would be.
 
Could the Hampton have been up engine to the Alvis Pelides at 1200hp in 1937? I know you would have to beat half the AM to death for that to happen but!!
 
Could the Hampton have been up engine to the Alvis Pelides at 1200hp in 1937? I know you would have to beat half the AM to death for that to happen but!!
Hampton is a version of the Hampden that I drew, named after a village close by with a good chip truck. The Hampden could have had an Alvis in 1937, but not at 1200 hp one. Pushing things a bit could have meant having such an engine shortly, but I couldn't guess which half of the AM to beat to death.
 
Top