RAF Might Have beens

[PMN1]

In the book RAF Bombers 1941 – 1945 it describes some superbombers three to four times the size of the Lancaster and Halifax that were looked at for the RAF but were never followed through because of the disruption to existing production and they wouldn’t have entered service until 1945/46 at the earliest

Avro, Vickers, Miles, Shorts and Bristol all submitted designs with some of the designs being tail first designs

I no longer have the book ‘The British Aircraft Specifications File’ which would probably have given some information along with the all important specification number and I’m trying to get some information the designs especially one of the Bristol designs that would have been similar in size a Convair B-36 and bears a resemblance to a B52 with its twin fuselage wheel bogies and wing outriggers but with buried Centaurus engines driving 4 pusher props (some of what was learned from this design was used in the Brabazon), can anyone help?


Does anybody have any information on proposals for Griffin and Sabre engined Mosquito’s, a Sabre engined Hawker high-speed bomber and a bomber version of the Beaufighter? They are mentioned in the book RAF Bombers but is there more information available?


I’ve found a reference to a Mitchell designed Supermarine twin engined fighter (Spec F.37/35) powered by two Merlins to give an estimated top speed of 465mph. It was tricycle undercarriage with 3 20mm cannon in each wing.

The preliminary work that Supermarine had done was given to Westland to enable Supermarine to concentrate on its B.12/36 heavy bomber design. Both prototypes of the heavy bomber were destroyed in an air raid 1940 and further work halted but it was estimated that it could cruise at 300mph and carry 14,000lb bombs and fuel for 2,000 miles although the bomb bay was laid as in the Stirling so it couldn’t have carried bombs bigger than 2,000lb.

Anyone else know any more of these two designs?


Would fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind have made it a decent aircraft and would the performance have justified using TWO Merlins?

Westland did develop a Mk2 with an extended nose which would have double the rounds per cannon and the ability to transfer fuel from one wing tank to another but nothing much came of it.

[PMN1]

Found a site that has a Vckers and Avro proposal for the RAF Superbombers

http://myspace.virgin.net/john.dell/Aart.htm

[Romantic Technofreak]

I would also be very interested in advanced RAF designs/pojects and needed one ore more good books about them I can probably buy when I go to Britain one day. When you look on John Dell´s Hawker Henley, you see your solution about dive bombing Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Twohundred target tugs, twoo bad![xx(] Although I think Blackburn and Fairey also had modern divers on their drawing boards.

Yes, equipping the Whirlwind with Merlins would have been justified for to get a daylight long-range escort fighter Britain never produced, because Britain chose the night theater. This is the same might-have-been case Germany missed as real with the Focke-Wulf FW 187.

[Nick Sumner]

There is a book 'British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 50 by Tony Butler ISBN 1 85780 179 2 that has more information on the british 'Superbombers' including some specs.

There are only the vaguest GA drawings of the superbombers though (actually more of a size comparison chart of plan views) The John Dell artwork is the first rendering that I've seen.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

There is a book 'British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 50 by Tony Butler ISBN 1 85780 179 2 that has more information on the british 'Superbombers' including some specs.

There are only the vaguest GA drawings of the superbombers though (actually more of a size comparison chart of plan views) The John Dell artwork is the first rendering that I've seen.


I've got the book - very interesting.

John's artwork is also very good - for those who haven't seen it

http://myspace.virgin.net/john.dell/

[Trexx]

Most enjoyable! Cool too!

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

I’ve found a reference to a Mitchell designed Supermarine twin engined fighter (Spec F.37/35) powered by two Merlins to give an estimated top speed of 465mph. It was tricycle undercarriage with 3 20mm cannon in each wing.


I have just purchased the book British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 50 which details a few Supermarine twin engined fighter projects. Two were to specification F.18/35 - that being the type 324 and 325. The 324 was a conventional type twin winged aircraft, using Merlins or Bristol Taurus engine. Top speed was estimated at 421mph (at a time when the Spitfire's was 360 odd).
The wing planform looked little different from the Spitfire's, though had about 20% more area.

The 325 used the same alternative engines, but in a pusher arrangement. The wing looked similar, but reversed, with the straighter edge to the rear. Speed was estimated at 458mph.

A further twin engined project, the 327, was made for the specification. COnventional tractor layout with twin Merlins (or Taurus), and a non-elliptical wing plan form. The earlier proposals had multiple mg in outer wing panels, whilst the 327 had 6 20mm cannon in inner wing panels. Top speed was 465mph.

I should imagine that these projects would have been in service no earlier than 1941/2. Even by then the performance numbers would have placed the 325 and 327 at the upper end of the scale, whilst the 324 would have been competitive.

[Red Admiral]

I got "The British Bomber Since 1914" by Peter Lewis from my library. He mentions quite a few interesting things. The Fairey Battle looks positively modern and attractive compared to the offerings to same spec from A.W. Hawker and Bristol. Another dive bomber contemporary to the Hawker Henley was the Fairey P.4/34 which was considerably faster and looked more elegant. The P.4/34 was also built in large numbers as the Fairey Fulmar! Yes a dive-bomber is turned into a fighter. Does anyone have any idea if the Fulmar retained the structural strength needed for dive-bombing? If so it might not have been bad as a multi-role aircraft. A bit more power and losing the navigator wouldn't go down too badly for fighter ops.

[ChrisMcD]

Quote
Originaly posted by Red Admiral.

Does anyone have any idea if the Fulmar retained the structural strength needed for dive-bombing?

To quote Winkle Brown: " Marcel Lobelle's design to the P4/34 requirement had been stressed for dive bombing and it was thus sufficiently robust without basic structural redesign to absorb the punishment that would be meeted out out to it during the course of shipboard operation." Which is why it could be reworked so quickly as the Fulmar.

What I don't know is if the Fairy P4/34 had an internal bomb bay and whether the Fulmar could have had one

[Red Admiral]

The Fairey P.4/34 didn't have an internal weapons bay. It was to carry it's 500lb bomb externally, unlike the Henley.

[andyo2000]

The original P.4/34 had a 1,030 hp. Merlin I or II engine, depending on the prototype. They were later used to help test the Fulmar and the Firefly.

Not many changes were made from the P.4/34 to the Fulmar. The Fulmar was built according to specification O.8/38 for a two-seat naval fighter. The minor changes to the P.4/34 included a small reduction in wing span, folding wings, arresting gear and catapult points, a modified cockpit canopy, specific naval equipment, and a 1,275 hp. Merling VIII engine. It had 8 or 9 7.7-mm MGs.

Another development of the P.4/34 was the Firefly. It was built to specification N.5/40, and was a naval reconaissance fighter as well as anti-submarine.

It is interesting to note that P.4/34s were planned for production. The Danish Naval Workshops obtained a license for production and began, but none were completed before German occupation in 1940.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak


I have just purchased the book British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 50


Intresting isn't it, one design which seems quite intresting is Supermarine Type 313 proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - the Supermarine design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two pf the 20mm cannon removed - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft (though I am a bit suspicious about this) - imagine that getting priority on the 'Shadow Factory' lines - the design looks like it could take Merlins or possibly Taurus....make a good Blenheim replacement.

Another intresting proposal is the Handley Page proposal for a speed bomber based on its P13/36.

[Wuzak]

Not sure if the 313 could have been adapted to take the Merlin. But it was a good looking fighter plane. 390mph was a good speed for the power.

Specs for the Supermarine Type 327 were as follows:

Span 12.2m (40'0")
Length 10.2m (33'6")
Wing Area 28.3m² (304 sq ft)
Max Weight 5131kg (11312 lb)
Engines 2 x Merlin 2.SM @ 943kW (1265hp) each
Maximum Speed 748kmh (465mph) @ 6706m (22000 ft)
Armament 6 x 20mm Cannon mounted in inner wing.

Those numbers are all estimates, though.

Compare that with numbers for the Typhoon - which was ordered under the specification.

Span 12.6m (41'7")
Length 9.7m (31'11")
Wing Area 25.9m² (279 sq ft)
Max Weight 5171kg (11400 lb)
Engines 1 x Sabre II 1626kW (2180hp) each
Maximum Speed 652kmh (405mph) @ 5486m (18000 ft)
Armament 4 x 20mm Cannon mounted in wing.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Not sure if the 313 could have been adapted to take the Merlin. But it was a good looking fighter plane. 390mph was a good speed for the power.




The types 324, 325 and 327 were smaller than the 313 so if they could take Merlins or Taurus then there shouldn't have been much problem in the size area for the 313 to take them....

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1



The types 324, 325 and 327 were smaller than the 313 so if they could take Merlins or Taurus then there shouldn't have been much problem in the size area for the 313 to take them....


The Whirlwind had longer span wings, but a shorter fuselage than the 327. Yet it was said that they could not convert the type to Merlins. Maybe the structure wasn't strong enough.

Perhaps if the change was made during the design stage (which is very possible but not certain - it may have had Pergrines fitted) it probably would not have been a problem. Had the design made it to production before the change, however, it may not have been as easy.

[scotty]

One of my books (although I've never seen it in print anywhere else) says that the Whirlwind was originally slated for Merlins but that the change to peregrines was made early in the design process so that there would be no shortage of Merlins for the Hurris / Spits...

Here's a quickie for the more knowledgeable on here. How much bigger / heavier was the merlin compared to the peregrine??

I mean for a twin, the whirli was very light (some 4k pounds lighter than a 110..

Also, it's wingspan was only about 45ft??, am I the only one thinking carrier use....

(yes, I love the whirlwind, ever since I got a jigsaw of a couple of them about 20 years ago)

[Wuzak]

One of the Whirlwind's failings was that it had an excessive take off run. So carrier use was probably not an option.

The numbers for the Whirlwind are:

Primary function Fighter
Power plant Two Rolls-Royce Peregrine I
Thrust 2x 885 HP 2x 660 kW
Wingspan 45 ft 13.72 m
Length 32.25 ft 9.83 m
Wingarea 250 sq ft 23.22 sq m
Weight empty 8,310 lb 3,768 kg
max. 11,410 lb 5,175 kg
Speed 360 mph 580 km/h
Ceiling 30,315 ft 9,240 m
Range max. 808 mi 1,300 km
Armament 4x 20mm cannon; 453 kg bombs
Crew One
Date deployed 1940
Number built 116

http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/whirlwind/whirlwind_en.htm

Compare the size and weight to the Spitfire VC:
Wingspan 36.8 ft 11.23 m
Length 29.9 ft 9.12 m
Height 11.4 ft 3.48 m
Weight empty 5,100 lb 2,313 kg
max. 6,786 lb 3,078 kg


The weight of the Merlin was 1690lbs. As Shown in the thread http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=887&whichpage=4

I cannot find physical sizes or weights for the Peregrine. Maybe somebody else has a source.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by scotty

One of my books (although I've never seen it in print anywhere else) says that the Whirlwind was originally slated for Merlins but that the change to peregrines was made early in the design process so that there would be no shortage of Merlins for the Hurris / Spits...

Here's a quickie for the more knowledgeable on here. How much bigger / heavier was the merlin compared to the peregrine??

I mean for a twin, the whirli was very light (some 4k pounds lighter than a 110..

Also, it's wingspan was only about 45ft??, am I the only one thinking carrier use....

(yes, I love the whirlwind, ever since I got a jigsaw of a couple of them about 20 years ago)


Thinks!! The Fairey V P12 was very lightweight, only about 10lbs more than the Peregrine, same performance but better design more reliable than the later Merlin which probably was RR's PV12 / Merlin response to the Fairey’s first rate contender . The Fairey fulfilled its design objectives first time, many years later and several redesigns later the Rolls Royces pigs ear was made to work with the help of a supercharger.

[ChrisMcD]

To quote JK Setright

"Most Rolls Royce engines were the triumph of development over design."

[PMN1]

Intresting isn't it, one design which seems quite intresting is Supermarine Type 313 proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - the Supermarine design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two pf the 20mm cannon removed - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft (though I am a bit suspicious about this) - imagine that getting priority on the 'Shadow Factory' lines - the design looks like it could take Merlins or possibly Taurus....make a good Blenheim replacement.



The later Gloster Reaper heavy Fighter had the second crewman replaced by the ammunition for 8 0.303" MG in an underfuselage tray in addition to the usual 4 x 20mm cannon.

Presumably the same could be done with the space that was available for the four 500lb bombs on the Type 313?

[merlin]

The 313 was an earlier fighter project than that of the Reaper Night-fighter.
However, because of its adaptability, use it as a replacement in production for the 'Battle' confining those left to Training Command.
As previously suggested, use also the Hawker Henley, with Hurricane production at the Austin shadow factory.
Because, Supermarine is busy with the Spitfire and the '313', the Supermarine bomber isn't proceeded with - the contract goes to Boulton Paul for their P.90 bomber. Note too, that this means that Shorts don't build the Stirling - but get an order for a longer-range Sunderland replacement. Also, because Boulton Paul are busy, they don't have the space to do the Roc! Hawkers offer the (Sea) Henley as a fighter-dive-bomber.

See too my post on the Gloster P.5/34, where I suggested that both Gloster fighters - single & twin engined could have been ordered - no Gladiators in the RAF in WW2, nor Blenheim 'fighters'!?

Now that would be a different RAF, but IMO feasible!!

[PMN1]

According to Flight Global,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%200730.html

The Henley had a disposable load of 3,350lb???

Interesting comments from Folland at the top of the page as well.

[gruad]

To quote JK Setright

"Most Rolls Royce engines were the triumph of development over design."

Chris I have known that Rolls had undue political influence and hence the Merlin eventually succeeded, but do you or anyone have knowledge of what might have been a better engine to invest in at say 1937?

[Wuzak]

Chris I have known that Rolls had undue political influence and hence the Merlin eventually succeeded, but do you or anyone have knowledge of what might have been a better engine to invest in at say 1937?

The British government was also funding the Bristol Hercules, Taurus and the Napier Sabre, concentrating on these three engine manufacturers.

[ChrisMcD]

eventually succeeded, but do you or anyone have knowledge of what might have been a better engine to invest in at say 1937?

As Wuzak indicates the Air Ministry had three companies that it used primarily; Rolls, Bristol and Napier.

It had dabbled with others, such as Beardmore and Armstrong Siddley, but seemed to have a vendetta with Fairey Aviation and therefore refused to support their very promising development of the Fairey P24 which we have covered on other threads.

AFAIK the logic was to try and keep costs down while getting the best results. So Bristol were forced to buy the Jupiter after the first world war and were encouraged to develop sleeve valve radials (sort of!). Rolls were used to develop water cooled V's and Fairey were used to stir them up when they got complacent. Napier had the most original designers - by which I mean Rowledge and Halford - and so were expected to come up with the new generation of hyper engines like the Sabre.

So my answer to your question would have been the Fairey P24

[Wuzak]

As Wuzak indicates the Air Ministry had three companies that it used primarily; Rolls, Bristol and Napier.

It had dabbled with others, such as Beardmore and Armstrong Siddley, but seemed to have a vendetta with Fairey Aviation and therefore refused to support their very promising development of the Fairey P24 which we have covered on other threads.

AFAIK the logic was to try and keep costs down while getting the best results. So Bristol were forced to buy the Jupiter after the first world war and were encouraged to develop sleeve valve radials (sort of!). Rolls were used to develop water cooled V's and Fairey were used to stir them up when they got complacent. Napier had the most original designers - by which I mean Rowledge and Halford - and so were expected to come up with the new generation of hyper engines like the Sabre.

So my answer to your question would have been the Fairey P24


The reports I have read suggest that the P24 was not very well built or sturdy, and was still years away from becoming a useful production engine. The report was done by the USAAF in 1942..

Fairey had no experience in engine production or development, so it would have been a huge risk for the Ministry to use them instead of one of the main three.

Armstrong Siddeley had more of a history of building engines, and I am sure that the Deerhound was government funded. Later they were asked to concentrate of gas turbines instead of piston engines.

ps I believe Rowledge was at Rolls Royce at the time of the Sabre.

[Groggy]

The reports I have read suggest that the P24 was not very well built or sturdy, and was still years away from becoming a useful production engine. The report was done by the USAAF in 1942..

Fairey had no experience in engine production or development, so it would have been a huge risk for the Ministry to use them instead of one of the main three.

Armstrong Siddeley had more of a history of building engines, and I am sure that the Deerhound was government funded. Later they were asked to concentrate of gas turbines instead of piston engines.

ps I believe Rowledge was at Rolls Royce at the time of the Sabre.

Hi Wuzak,
The USAAF reports were 1942?
There were reports done before they had seen the engine in 1941 but it actually worked OK in the States?

[PMN1]

Said reports are here

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3462.new;topicseen#new

and here

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=287&page=11&highlight=Monarch

[ChrisMcD]

Armstrong Siddeley had more of a history of building engines, and I am sure that the Deerhound was government funded.

ps I believe Rowledge was at Rolls Royce at the time of the Sabre.

Hi Wuzak,

I was never very sure about Armstrong Siddeley. They spent years longer than they should have trying to make the Tiger reliable and then seem to have tinkered with the Deerhound rather than logically developed it.

Rowledge rather left AS in the lurch when he left in 1921 to join Rolls Royce, I am not sure who was doing design for them before Stewart Tresilian joined in 1939.

I do not think Halford actualy started work on the Sabre until the 30's, by which time Rowledge had knocked off the Condor III, Buzzard, R, Kestrel and was getting his teeth stuck into the PV12.

Despite the opposition of the Air Ministry Fairey had quite a track record on engine design and most of what I have heard about the P24 was quite complimentary

[Wuzak]

Despite the opposition of the Air Ministry Fairey had quite a track record on engine design and most of what I have heard about the P24 was quite complimentary


Did they? What did they do?

[ChrisMcD]

Did they? What did they do?

Got used as a bludgeon to wake up Rolls Royce for one!

Richard Fairey and Fredric Handley Page seem to have been the two great irritants amongst the English airframe makers of the mid war period - bit like Heinkel.

To quote Bill Gunston

In 1926 Curtiss began producing a further enlargement, the 25,420 cc (1,550 cu in) Conqueror, of 575 hp. This was virtually the only remaining water-cooled engine in the USA, but, despite being made in large numbers for the Army and airlines, at powers up to 650 hp, it faded rapidly after 1932, being replaced by air-cooled radials.

Its final application was as the V-1570-61, with turbosupercharger, giving the Consolidated PB-2A a speed of 441 km/h (274 mph) at 7,620 m (25,000 ft), compared with 343 kmlh (213 mph) at sea level. This was probably the fastest combat aircraft in the world in 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PB-2A

When Richard Fairey saw D-12 installations he immediately purchased a licence, and used his Fairey Felix version in the Fox high-speed bomber (much faster than any RAF fighter).

But the British Air Ministry did not want another engine builder, and used the experience to spur dormant Rolls-Royce into designing a new engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls_Royce_Kestrel

Rowledge (ex-Napier) and Sir Henry Royce schemed a remarkably advanced X-16 engine, with the four cast blocks of small 114 mm x 121 mm (4.5 in x 4.75 in) cylinders all spaced at 90°.

The prototype was already running when 'the Old Man' ordered a fresh start on a conventional V-12, with cylinders 127 mm x 140 mm (5.0 in x 5.5 in) (21,254 ccl1,296 cu in), slightly greater capacity than the X-16. This ran at the end of 1926 as the F, later named Kestrel.

It launched Rolls-Royce into the business of designing modern aero engines, and incidentally proved a considerable commercial success.

Having been most competently designed in 1926 the Kestrel was basically more modern than the Curtiss engines; and was better able to stand up to competition from air-cooled radials.

and then - note the horsepower, date and running hours!

One engine which never got into production at all, despite great potential, was the Fairey P 24. This seemed to have everything going for it. It consisted of two independent left and right engines, each comprising upper and lower six-cylinder blocks with double overhead camshafts to poppet valves, and pressure glycol cooling. Beside each block was the supercharger, on a transverse shaft. Each half of the engine gave 1,100 hp, the oppositerotation crankshafts each being geared to its own three-blade Fairey constant-speed propeller. The P 24 flew in Battle testbed K9370 in June 1939 and completed 87 hours' flying with no trouble whatever, the Battle having an excellent performance with either halfengine shut down and its propeller feathered (in other words, giving twin-engine safety in what looked like a single-engined aircraft). K9370 then flew some 250 hours at Wright Field in the USA, but Fairey was successfully kept out (as he had been with the Felix in 1924) by the Mafia of the established builders.

Regards Chris McD

[Wuzak]

So, Fairey made a few prototypes....

They never did make a D-12, or an other production engine. One wonders if they had the facilities for engine production.

In any case, there were two competitors for the P24 - the RR Vulture and the Napier Sabre. The Vulture was ahead of the others, but had significant problems. It was dropped from production in 1941, just as it was coming good. This was done to concentrate on the Merlin and Griffon, both more important engines.

The Sabre also had a lot of problems, but showed a lot of promise. It was basically all that Napier was working on in the early part of the war.

If the go for production of the P24 was given it may have been available shortly after the Vulture was dropped, but the USAAF reports suggest that production was still some time away.

[Wuzak]

Richard Fairey and Fredric Handley Page seem to have been the two great irritants amongst the English airframe makers of the mid war period - bit like Heinkel.


This is an interesting comment. Care to expand?

I thought that Fairey and Handley Page were kept very busy during WW2.