WesWorld

An overview of what the Air Ministry and the Air Staff are wanting to develop next year and the contenders offered to meet the Specfications.

F.6/39: A successor fighter to the Tornado/ Typhoon to achieve at least 450mph at 20,000ft, a sea level rate of climb of 4,500ft/ min and to be armed with four 20mm cannon. Planned to enter service in 1941.

Contenders are;
Airspeed AS.56, Airspeed has made a rare foray into military types with its first fighter design, it is powered by a Napier Sabre with a fan-cooled annular radiator to reduce drag, tail wheel faired into base of fin/rudder, four 20mm in wings, estimated rate of climb at 6,500ft is 4,675ft/min, and 4,020ft/min at 18,600ft, maximum speed estimated 492mph at 23,400ft.

Boulton Paul P.98, a tail-first layout with either a Sabre or Griffon pusher engine with contra-rotating propellers. Maximum rate of climb up to 20,000ft is estimated at 4,640ft/min for the Griffon and 4,900ft/min for the Sabre, maximum speed at 20,000ft being 440mph and 446mph respectively.
Hawker P.1018, P.1019 and P.1020, Sidney Camm has offered three variants of the same basic design based on the previous Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest series. The P.1018 is powered by a Sabre, the P.1019 a Griffon and the P.1020 a Centaurus. The P.1018 has a rear fuselage radiator duct and narrower fuselage, the shorter P.1020 has the pilot well forward with the fuel tank behind him at the c.g and the armour plate behind that to protect pilot and fuel thus saving weight on tank protection. Estimated rates of climb at 7,500ft were 5,500ft/min, 5,500ft/min and 5,700ft/min (at 6,500ft) respectively with maximum speeds at 22,000ft being 465mph, 445mph and 450mph respectively. At a later date Camm added the P.1021 with the 2,500hp Vulture IV engine with a chin radiator and with an estimated performance of rate of climb at 7,500ft of 5,500ft/min and a maximum speed at 22,000ft of 465mph.

Martin-Baker MB.3/ MB.5; Martin Baker had designed an easy to maintain M.B.2 fighter with detachable panels powered by the obsolete Napier Dagger in 1936 but it never flew. From this they developed a private venture M.B.3 which was aerodynamically refined, armed with six 20mm cannon in the wings and powered by a Napier Sabre for an estimated maximum speed of 400mph at 15,000ft. This was submitted to F.6/39 alongside a refined M.B.5 which had a clear bubble canopy, only four cannon, a rear fuselage duct radiator and refined wings. It retains the easy-to-maintain features of the M.B.2 and 3 and has contra-rotating propellers driven by a RR Griffon. Estimated maximum speed at 20,000ft is 460mph.
Supermarine, Joseph Smith has designed a new fighter broadly resembling the Spitfire but with a new laminar flow wing of 210ft sq area, powered by a 2,375hp Griffon II with contra-rotating propellers, the pilot has a bubble canopy, maximum rate of climb estimated 5,040ft/min at 10,000ft and 4,400ft/min at 19,000ft and maximum speed 465mph at 25,000ft.

Westland has tendered a Griffon II powered fighter with a Gallay ‘horse-collar’ radiator n a duct under the engine and air rather than water cooling for the intercooler to save 85lbs weight. Otherwise a conventional design, estimated max rate of climb 4,650ft /min at 19,600ft, service ceiling 40,000ft and maximum speed 443mph at 21,000ft.
Winner is: ?


F.9/39: An interim fighter to carry the AI Mk VII set as a night defence fighter and as a tactical trials type for operational evaluation duties. To be a conversion of existing airframes.
Contenders are;
Boulton Paul offers a Merlin-powered Defiant with underwing aerials and the scope fitted into the pilot’s cockpit.
Bristol offers a conversion of the Blenheim with underwing and nose aerials, a ventral pack of four Browning MGs and the usual dorsal turret and the bomb aimer becomes radar operator sat beside the pilot.
Fairey has offered a two-seat version of its Firefly carrier-based fighter.
Hawker has offered a Henley variant with four 20mm wing cannon and the rear gunner becoming the radar operator.
Winner: ?


B.3/39: Issued to Vickers for a Warwick replacement bomber.
Following discussions on proposed replacements for the Wellington and the defunct Warwick programmes with the Director of Technical Development at the Air Ministry Rex Pierson produced a brochure of slim-fuselage twin-engined fast bombers. One was a five-seat twin Centaurus powered bomber with a 4,000lb bombload, 1,600 mile range, maximum speed 390mph at sea level, service ceiling 33,000ft, single fin, geodetic construction and twin 0.50in MG remote-controlled barbettes in the rear of the engine nacelles. The Director of Operational Requirements turned the type down as the type did not meet the speed for an unarmed bomber and the armament was too light for an armed bomber. Shortly afterwards Pierson proposed an improved heavy bomber variant with four 1,280hp Merlin VI, 55,000lb all-up weight, maximum bombload 8,000lbs, maximum speed 385mph and 330mph cruise at 23,000ft, 1,500 mile range with 4,000lb bombload, defensive armament was the twin 0.50 barbettes in the inner engine nacelles and a dorsal twin MG turret. The Air Ministry was impressed as this improved design was faster than the new Avro 683 design but with lower range and bombload. Even so since Vickers’s was committed to the geodetic construction method and their factories tailored to that, it was recognised not to have a Vickers bomber would waste production capacity. Then it was decided to incorporate the pressure cabin work on B.23/39 (see below) to allow a high-altitude type to operate alongside the Avro 683 and the Bristol Type 159 ‘Ideal Bomber’. This was again dropped owing to development time fears and so instead Pierson retained the wings but designed a new fuselage when the 55,000lb all-up weight limit was dropped, armament would be two fixed nose .303in MG, dorsal twin .50in turret and two remote-barbettes upgraded with twin 20mm cannon aimed from a tail position, maximum bombload rose to 12,000lbs, four 2,375hp Griffon II would be fitted, maximum speed would be 382mph at 23,000ft, sea level rate of climb at max loaded weight (79,000lb) 1,380ft/min, range 2,890 miles with 8,000lb bombload and service ceiling 30,000ft. This was the Type 447 that was accepted by the Air Ministry.


B.6/39: A highly manoeuvrable single-seat low level Army Cooperation aircraft with a maximum speed of 280mph at 3000ft, the pilot must have excellent forward view. The armament is to be designed around the anti-tank mission and may comprise; three 40mm Vickers cannon, two 40mm and two 20mm, four 20mm or two 20mm and one Vickers 47mm 3.5lb gun. The standard bombload will be two 500lb bombs. To be in service 1941.

Contenders are;
AW.49, A single engined twin-boom type with a pusher Merlin or Napier Sabre, three 40mm cannon are mounted in the nose and two 20mm in wingroots with 500lb bombs underwing, maximum range for the Sabre variant is 1,010 miles (175gal internal fuel), maximum speed is 291mph or 355mph at 3,000ft for Merlin and Griffon respectively, a tail wheel undercarriage is used for use from unprepared strips and an all-round canopy gives the pilot excellent all-round visibility.

Boulton Paul P.99, P.100 and P.101; Boulton Paul’s designer J.D North has followed suit with a twin-boom pusher type this time using a Griffon with contra-rotating propellers and a single fin mounted midway on the horizontal tailplane, a tail wheel undercarriage is used for use from unprepared strips, armament is either a single 47mm flanked by two 20mm or a twin 20mm flanked by two 40mm in the lower nose, 260gal of internal fuel gives a range of 785 miles, max speed 315mph at 17,000ft, rate of climb 2,140ft/min up to 2,000ft, the pilot will have a downwards escape mechanism. The related P.100 has a canard foreplane and swept wing with end fins to be as manoeuvrable as possible but certainly the most radical British plane yet and is a pusher-type. The P.101 is an opposite approach and is a biplane using two sets of Defiant wings which are staggered to improve pilot’s view and lack any bracing structure, large spats house the fixed undercarriage and four 20mm or two 20mm and two 40mm cannon, two 500lb bombs are under the fuselage, maximum rate of climb is 2,200ft/min up to 3,000ft, speed 317mpg at 17,000ft and range is 750 miles. The engine is a single Centaurus in the nose.

Cunliffe-Owen has made its first foray into military design and offered two designs, one a 42ft span single-engined type with the pilot housed in a ventral position and a conventional 62ft span twin Merlin powered aircraft with 460gal of internal fuel and either four 20mm or three 40mm cannon in the nose, max speed 315mph at 3,000ft.

Martin Baker M.B.6, another twin-boom pusher design, powered by a Griffon inline with large cooling and exhaust bullet-proof scoops (the portside one facing forwards for oil cooler and radiator ahead of engine, the aft-facing starboard one for exhaust and cooling air exit) , the 48ft span straight wing are all metal and are 471ft sq, tricycle undercarriage is fixed with large spats, the entire all-metal fuselage is armoured with 12.7mm thick plates weighing 4,900lbs, the nose contains three 40mm cannon and the pilot has an all-round canopy, maximum weight is 12,000lbs, maximum speed 270mph and maximum rate of climb 2,250ft/min. A sketch was also provided of a 6pdr anti-tank gun fitted in the nose.

Miles P.42, P.43 and P.44; the P.42 and P.43 are both Libellula types with canard foreplanes and a swept mainplane with end fins, the P.42 having two Merlin engines in wing nacelles and the P.43 being a pusher type powered by a Griffon. Both were quite small to enhance manoeuvrability. The P.44 was a conventional twin-Merlin design with twin fins.

The winner is: ?


B.23/39: Issued to Vickers for a very high-altitude variant of the Wellington capable of 40,000ft.
Wellington Mk. V powered by two turbocharged 1,650hp Bristol Hercules VI or 1,650hp RR Merlin VII, the pressure chamber has a porthole in the lower nose for the bomb-aimer and a bubble for the pilot but visibility is poor. A pressurised four .303in MG turret is fitted aft. One of each type is to be built, Mk. Va with Hercules and Mk. Vb with Merlin both to begin testing in 1941.


N.2/39: Issued to Blackburn to cover a floatplane fighter. Initial design of a twin-float Napier Sabre powered fighter based on the B.37 as the B.43 but abandoned in favour of more advanced B.44. Designed by Major J.D. Rennie the B.44 has a retractable planing bottom system with retractable wing floats. Armament to comprise four 20mm cannon and can carry two 500lb bombs or 90gal drop tanks. The engine on production models should be the new 2,340hp Napier Sabre V. 50ft span, 39ft 4in length, 318sq ft wing area, maximum speed 360mph at 25,000ft, ceiling 38,000ft and range 1,000 miles. Pontoon modified after RAE investigation to reduce spray and improve take-off performance. To be used in sheltered waters. First flight planned mid 1940 for service entry in 1942.


E.8/39: Issued to Miles to cover tandem wing research project (M.35) for a compact carrier fighter. The pilot is in the extreme nose, behind is a high-mounted foreplane then a low-mounted swept wing (with unswept root section) with end plates and the engine behind the rear spar. On the prototype the undercarriage is fixed and is powered by a 130hp DH Gipsy Major, span is 20ft 5in and length 20ft 4in.

F6/39: Airspeed, Boulton-Paul, Martin-Baker and Westland are basically no hopers (IIRC Folland merged so no 119?). With the greater amount of work being put into the Tornado by Hawker they probably don't have the capacity at the moment, but Fury would be nice in the end. I'd go for the Spiteful myself as it keeps Supermarine in business.

F9/39: Realistically can only be the Blenheim as the longwave AI set is unlikely to work in others.

B3/39: I like the sound of the Griffon Windsor, though would expect weight to have increased over the historical.

B6/39: They're all no hopers - enter the Typhoon/Tornado combination.

3 40mms for strafing? Ouch, that will be heavy and the recoil really ugly. The Luftwaffe has no plans for more than 1 gun of that size, figuring that a single gun firing faster will be superior than 2 guns. The competition for this role is already in progress.

The KM will be closely watching Blackburn's progress on the B.44.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
E.8/39: Issued to Miles to cover tandem wing research project (M.35) for a compact carrier fighter. The pilot is in the extreme nose, behind is a high-mounted foreplane then a low-mounted swept wing (with unswept root section) with end plates and the engine behind the rear spar. On the prototype the undercarriage is fixed and is powered by a 130hp DH Gipsy Major, span is 20ft 5in and length 20ft 4in.

This one?



Curious.

Australia has been flying a Miles M.39 Libellula derivative for a while now. It has been designed specifically as a ground attack/MTB buster type aircraft. Would fit B.6/36 perfectly.

Canadian firms would likely submit some designs. I'm just not entirely sure which ones, and where.

Not much new on the civil side but a few interesting things will appear.

Miles M.17 Monarch; first flown 21 February 1938 as an improved M.11 Whitney Straight with three-seats and a new deeper windscreen and Magister outer wings and other standard Miles parts. Dimensions; 35.7/ 25.11/ 8.9/ 180 sq ft; 1x 130hp DH Gipsy Major I; max speed 140mph; cruising speed 125mph; range 620 miles and service ceiling 17,400ft.

Short S.32 Sandringham; a new long-range airliner for Imperial Airways for a Trans-Atlantic service and Middle Eastern routes. A normal crew of seven (including cabin crew) and 36 passengers are carried. First flight was 11 June 1937 and entry into Imperial Airways service will take place in mid 1939. An improved variant with pressurised cabin will enter service in 1941/42. Dimensions; 127.6/ 90.9/ 2,020 sq ft; 4x 1,380hp Bristol Hercules IVC; max speed 275mph; range 3,400 miles.

The new BEA airline will be looking to order a new airliner this year for its longer routes and to maximise capacity on its high-density routes. Avro, Airco (DH & HP) and Vickers seem likely to want a slice of the action.

Can the Sandringham actually fly high enough for a pressurised cabin to be useful? Having 43 people inside must be hellish, it felt cramped when I've been in one just by myself.

RA,

I think your thinking of the OTL Sandringham flying boat. The Sandringham in WW is the aborted S.32 four-engined airliner that lost out to the Fairey FC.1 before the war.
Specs etc are OTL from what I've been able to glean of the specs. I have a three-view but haven't got around to posting it.

The FC.1 is the basis of the I.Ae.7 airliner.

The results of the Specifications;

F.6/39: A successor fighter to the Tornado/ Typhoon to achieve at least 450mph at 20,000ft, a sea level rate of climb of 4,500ft/ min and to be armed with four 20mm cannon. Planned to enter service in 1941.
Winner: Supermarine Spiteful

Capt Liptrot made an assessment of the entries. His first conclusion was that Westland’s power unit idea and Airspeed’s cooling system were worth further investigation. Liptrot felt that airscrew design was the biggest factor with compromises between speed and climb; bigger diameters would bring improvements to climb but with losses of efficiency at higher speeds. Westland had the biggest propeller diameter which would result in high tip speeds. Airspeed’s design was marked down for the long airscrew drive shaft due to the interesting cooling system and lack of experience with fighters and the consequent likely delay in development and he felt the quoted 420hp from the ejector exhausts and 20hp from alleged heat regeneration was widely optimistic. Boulton Paul’s P.98 was not ideal for a fighter and so dropped. The RAE was asked to appraise the submissions and ranked them as follows, Hawker first, Airspeed second, Supermarine and Westland joint third. Support for Hawker’s designs grew but it seemed to some that they were re-hashed Tempests, while Supermarine’s laminar flow wing was very interesting in terms of delaying compressibility effects and improved rolling ability and although such interest was of a research nature the desire to have a laminar flow wing in operational service grew and since there was enough growth potential in the Tempest series (they had not even flown yet) Supermarine was given the prototype order for three prototypes as the Spiteful.


F.9/39: An interim fighter to carry the AI Mk VII set as a night defence fighter and as a tactical trials type for operational evaluation duties. To be a conversion of existing airframes.
Winner: Bristol Blenheim IF


B.6/39: A highly manoeuvrable single-seat low level Army Cooperation aircraft with a maximum speed of 280mph at 3000ft, the pilot must have excellent forward view. The armament is to be designed around the anti-tank mission and may comprise; three 40mm Vickers cannon, two 40mm and two 20mm, four 20mm or two 20mm and one Vickers 47mm 3.5lb gun. The standard bombload will be two 500lb bombs. To be in service 1941.
Winner; none

Captain R.N. Liptrot, as usual, examined the entries and made the analysis. He felt Armstrong Whitworth had not fully explored all the alternative layouts and was worried over the stiffness of the booms and engine cooling (Rolls-Royce confirmed these fears) and worried the structure weight was too low but praised the excess armament and its simplicity of construction. Boulton Paul’s P.100 was rejected as too radical, Liptrot did not like the complicated exit system of the P.99 and again stressed cooling problems and felt the Merlin would be a better choice and thought the weight would be some 1,000lbs heavier and felt the performance statistics overly optimistic. The P.101 had a poorer view and performance and the location of the cannon would impose a nose-down pitching moment when fired. Martin Baker’s design was good but it was felt the three cannon in the long nose might unbalance the aircraft and that adding bombs under the wings would overload the aircraft, armour was welcome but felt to be too extensive and costly in terms of weight. The two radical Miles designs were rejected as too sketchy in detail, too small and too radical without further research. Cunliffe-Owen had surprisingly made the most through examination of possible layouts and he felt the single-engined design a good one but too radical to be selected, the twin design was the best performance wise but was underestimated on weight. Liptrot concluded if the Air Staff wanted speed and simplicity they should go for twin-engined types and if manoeuvrability was favoured then single-engined designs would have to be unorthodox designs. The Air Staff report concluded, “There is insufficient to be gained at present by embarking upon a new and specialised type of low attack aircraft.” Therefore the specification was abandoned.

Quoted

Support for Hawker’s designs grew but it seemed to some that they were re-hashed Tempests, while Supermarine’s laminar flow wing was very interesting in terms of delaying compressibility effects and improved rolling ability and although such interest was of a research nature the desire to have a laminar flow wing in operational service grew and since there was enough growth potential in the Tempest series (they had not even flown yet)

The Hawker designs are interesting as the Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest/Fury never had an engine with high altitude performance so it's a bit of an unknown as to how they'd perform. I do like the Griffon Tempest Mk. IV but it probably isn't powerful enough without the later 60/100 series Griffons.

Spiteful is probably the best, and easiest choice. I'm not sure why the laminar flow wing would be particularly effective at higher speeds. Historically the limiting Mach was less than the normal elliptical wing. The reduce in wing area gave a useful increase in speed and agility though.

Time to strap some bombs onto the Typhoon I guess.

Well no-one has tried a laminar flow wing on an operational fighter yet so Supermarine is edging into the unknown. Can't say I've ever heard much good said about the Spiteful but then again they didn't do much flying and the shadow of Spitfire loomed over everything.

Nice idea to strap some bombs onto a Typhoon but we're not quite near that point yet. It hasn't been shown that it lacks high-altitude performance and does better down low, Fighter Command doesn't see chucking bombs around as its prime mission, Bomber Command doesn't want Fighter Command chucking bombs around, Army Co-Operation Command wants something like that but only has Lysanders and Bomber Command doesn't want Army Co-Operation Command to have any bombers. In addition the Hawker Henley is doing fine work and the new variant with four 20mm cannon is everything the RAF desires for ground attack right now.

Hmmm, now I have an image in my head of the two-seat Typhoon/Henley mash-up... hmmm...

Quoted

Can't say I've ever heard much good said about the Spiteful but then again they didn't do much flying and the shadow of Spitfire loomed over everything.

Yeah, there hasn't been much written about the Spiteful/Seafang. Most issues seem to revolve around the new wing giving inferior handling at low speeds and the reduced manoeuverability over the Spitfire - probably from the reduction in wing area. I can't say I'd go laminar flow wings myself. It's realistically impossible to make one actually work.

What is a laminar-flow wing, for that matter? I'm not entirely up on how it differs from a normal wing.

A laminar-flow wing has the max camber further back from the leading edge than a regular wing. That delays the separation of the boundary layer and promotes laminar flow over a larger section of the wing, thereby reducing parasite drag. However, in practice dirt and surface imperfections create separation of the boundary layer. So while laminar-flow wings work in theory and wind tunnels, they really don't work in practice.

They do have a side-effect of delaying compressability effects, which is why they where used in WWII.

BTW the next Mexican version of the Aguila will use laminr-flow wings.

I'm suprised the Avro Canada Skimmer (Or the Gloster knockoff) didn't get consideration for B.6/39; It should have decent visability and payload, and supposedly performs well at low altitude.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
A laminar-flow wing has the max camber further back from the leading edge than a regular wing. That delays the separation of the boundary layer and promotes laminar flow over a larger section of the wing, thereby reducing parasite drag. However, in practice dirt and surface imperfections create separation of the boundary layer. So while laminar-flow wings work in theory and wind tunnels, they really don't work in practice.

Aha, I see.

Basically the air flowing over the wing sticks closer to the wing surface, which is more efficient. Lots of laminar flow wings have been tried quite a few using active suction to suck the wing down onto the wing. As Rene said, it doesn't work that well in practice.

Quoted

They do have a side-effect of delaying compressability effects, which is why they where used in WWII.

That really needs a caveat of "all things being equal", which they never are. Thinner wings, different planforms or aerofoils are going to have more of an effect.

sorry for this post but what does ''OTL'' mean?

Quoted

Originally posted by ALVAMA
sorry for this post but what does ''OTL'' mean?

Our Time Line as opposed to WWTL - Wesworld Time Line.

It's a way of differentiating between the game (WWTL) and real life (OTL).