Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?

[Tony Williams]

This one is just for fun.

If you could design one additional aircraft for the RAF/FAA, to be in full squadron service by 1940, what would it look like?

My take on it is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2plane.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[SunTracker]

Very interesting.  I think I would go with a push-pull engine configuration.  Might help to save room for carrier operations.  Though visibility would be reduced.

[humble]

Sounds like the F7F....

IMO the F7F would of dominated on all fronts if it had been put into service in 1944 (which was possible). Clearly superior to any other prop driven plane of the period in overall capability. 4 x 20mm, 4 x .50 ~435 mph topspeed. payload the size of a medium bomber and easily capable of out turning/dogfighting an F6F...basically a P-38 on steroids. Amazing to think the british could have had something similiar so much earlier....

[Guppy35]

Wouldn't the DH Hornet fit the profile?  Operated by both RAF and RN as a land based and carrier based aircraft.

Too bad they couldn't get there sooner since it's in many ways an offshoot of the Mossie.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Furball]

could have been the deHavilland Vampire if the government hadn't been so anal with the development of the Jet engine

[rshubert]

Originally posted by humble
Sounds like the F7F....

IMO the F7F would of dominated on all fronts if it had been put into service in 1944 (which was possible). Clearly superior to any other prop driven plane of the period in overall capability. 4 x 20mm, 4 x .50 ~435 mph topspeed. payload the size of a medium bomber and easily capable of out turning/dogfighting an F6F...basically a P-38 on steroids. Amazing to think the british could have had something similiar so much earlier....

Yeah, I read Tony's article and was surprised by the fact that he chose not to include the F7F in the comparison.  After all, it met every requirement--range, air cooled engines, ground attack, high alt fighter, torpedo carrier, night fighter, etc.  and could be operated from an Essex class carrier.

If one drops the requirement for twin engines, then the F4U Corsair could have been the right plane at the right time.  If they had seen the need, it would almost certainly have been possible to hang a torpedo under the wing root of a corsair--they put pretty much everything else imaginable there!

[straffo]

Tony said 1940 I think the F7F is a pretty late design.

Btw have you any pict Tony ?

(plus the SE100 is really smurfy)

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>If you could design one additional aircraft for the RAF/FAA, to be in full squadron service by 1940, what would it look like?

Interesting thought experiment! :-)

The the Gloster G.39 the same as the F5/37? It seems its primary engine choice were Peregrines, just as for the the Whirlwind. (Are you certain that the 360 mph top speed is for the Taurus variant?)

I don't know much about the Taurus engine, but from the Wikipedia article it doesn't seem like a competetive fighter engine with 1065 HP at 5000 ft for 5 min power.

Higher octane fuel would give higher take-off power, but at combat altitude the Taurus would still be weak.  Adding a more effective supercharger could raise full-throttle height only at the expense of shaft power, so you'd end up with a poor fighter engine anyway.

For carrier-based ground attack operations, on the other hand, the Taurus might be an excellent choice. It appears that the Seafire was predominantly equipped with low-altitude rated Merlins similar in altitude characterstics to the Taurus.

With regard to the long-range air superiority fighter, I don't believe that role could have been played by a carrier-capable twin in 1940. With the shortcomings of the Taurus, I'd rather try to get a single-engined, Merlin-powered long-range fighter into service - less weight, less drag, less production strain. Hindsight regarding the success of the Mustang validates this idea ;-)

As a bomber destroyer, a carrier-capable twin might be feasible, but again, not with Tauri. (I think you're probably underestimating the weight impact of designing an aircraft for carrier operations, but even a relatively heavy type like the Me 110 would have helped the RAF greatly in the Battle of Britain.)

For a carrier-capable twin, I'd suggest an aircraft laid out like the Heinkel He 219, but smaller and considerably lighter. The tricycle gear appears like a must for safe carrier operations, and it will also help in short-field landings. High-lift devices will be required for short-field and carrier take-offs in any case. Until the Hercules comes along, the only British engine I spontaneously can think of as competitive is the Merlin, so it will be inline-engined.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I'd have been tempted to suggest a lengthened, drop-tank equipped, Vulture-engined Whirlwind variant, but knowing the fate of the Vulture, I'll stay of that one :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Wouldn't the DH Hornet fit the profile?  Operated by both RAF and RN as a land based and carrier based aircraft.

Too bad they couldn't get there sooner since it's in many ways an offshoot of the Mossie.

The Hornet was a superb plane, one of my all-time favourites, but it was a sophisticated design which couldn't have emerged in 1935 - same for the Tigercat.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by HoHun

The the Gloster G.39 the same as the F5/37? It seems its primary engine choice were Peregrines, just as for the the Whirlwind. (Are you certain that the 360 mph top speed is for the Taurus variant?)

It was designed to F.9/37. Two prototypes were produced and flew, the first with the preferred Taurus which did 360 mph, the second with Peregrines which did only 330 mph (both speeds at 15,000 feet). The Taurus-engined version also had a faster climb rate and a higher ceiling (30,000 feet).

I don't know much about the Taurus engine, but from the Wikipedia article it doesn't seem like a competetive fighter engine with 1065 HP at 5000 ft for 5 min power.

It was selected for a number of fighter projects in the mid-30s (it was specifically designed for that), but Bristol neglected its development in favour of the Hercules. If an important plane used it, of course, that might have been different...

With regard to the long-range air superiority fighter, I don't believe that role could have been played by a carrier-capable twin in 1940. With the shortcomings of the Taurus, I'd rather try to get a single-engined, Merlin-powered long-range fighter into service - less weight, less drag, less production strain. Hindsight regarding the success of the Mustang validates this idea ;-)

I'm not sure that the Taurus had shortcomings, apart from the usual teething problems. It basically used the same design features as the Hercules and Centaurus.

As a bomber destroyer, a carrier-capable twin might be feasible, but again, not with Tauri. (I think you're probably underestimating the weight impact of designing an aircraft for carrier operations, but even a relatively heavy type like the Me 110 would have helped the RAF greatly in the Battle of Britain.)

The idea would be to introduce the plane as an RAF fighter, in full squadron service in time for the BoB. Then when a need arose for a ground attack plane, it could be offered for that purpose in, say, 1941. Then after being well-established in both roles a navalised version could be offered in 1942.  The FAA was desperate for decent planes and might have found it hard to resist...

For a carrier-capable twin, I'd suggest an aircraft laid out like the Heinkel He 219, but smaller and considerably lighter. The tricycle gear appears like a must for safe carrier operations, and it will also help in short-field landings. High-lift devices will be required for short-field and carrier take-offs in any case. Until the Hercules comes along, the only British engine I spontaneously can think of as competitive is the Merlin, so it will be inline-engined.

The FAA seemed happy to go along with taildraggers in the Hornet and even the postwar Wyvern.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[hogenbor]

Wasn't the Wyvern the only turboprop combat aircraft ever being used in anger? I read that somewhere... Hmmm, that cannot be true when I think of the AC-130. Were there more?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Tony Williams

I'm not sure that the Taurus had shortcomings, apart from the usual teething problems. It basically used the same design features as the Hercules and Centaurus.

In the Beaufort the Taurus was pushed to 1130hp  (XII) and some sources claim 1250hp for the Taurus XX. Anyway, it's developement was never really pushed forward like the developement of the Hercules which grew from 1375hp to about 2000hp.

gripen

[humble]

Wasn't suggesting the F7F as a possibility for the time frame, simply remarking how your "vision" was eventually developed as the F7F. I'm just amazed that the plane gets no "ink" or credit since it wasnt deployed....even though it is a true 1944 fighter unlike the bearcat or other late war "experimental" planes from other nations.

When you think about having 1 plane that could be both land and carrier based. Be the dominant air to air fighter of its time and the dominant ground attack plane as well and not deploying it simply because you dont need it...

Didnt happen again till the F-14 tomcat where you had a plane that dominant....

Hope we get it in AH someday....

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>]It was designed to F.9/37. Two prototypes were produced and flew, the first with the preferred Taurus which did 360 mph, the second with Peregrines which did only 330 mph (both speeds at 15,000 feet). The Taurus-engined version also had a faster climb rate and a higher ceiling (30,000 feet).

Thanks! 15000 ft for the Taurus version, hm, that's not in line with the data from the Wikipedia article.

 >It was selected for a number of fighter projects in the mid-30s (it was specifically designed for that), but Bristol neglected its development in favour of the Hercules. If an important plane used it, of course, that might have been different...

Well, an engine only produces so much indicated power, so if an early Taurus with low-altitude (low power requirement) supercharger does only 1000 HP, it might end up with just 800 HP if you add the supercharger required to get to the same full-throttle height as a Merlin XII - which might do 1200 HP there. (And a twin with 1600 HP might easily end up inferior to performance to a 1200 HP single.) I'd say Bristol probably went to twin-row radials fully recognizing that the Aquila (also used in fighters) and the Taurus were too weak to compete.

>The FAA was desperate for decent planes and might have found it hard to resist...

I know, there's no other explanation for the Seafire ;-)
 
>The FAA seemed happy to go along with taildraggers in the Hornet and even the postwar Wyvern.

As far as I know, they never fielded a twin-engined propeller aircraft of conventional layout though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[OIO]

Umm.. the Westland Whirlwind was an ideal aircraft for multi-role.


Too bad the peregrine engines never got perfected for it Beautiful plane.