WI the UK Gov developed jets instead of final gen piston engines.

The Dean

Let's suppose that in 1939 the Air Ministry decide that the various very high power piston engines, Bristol Centaurus, RR Vulture and Napier Sabre are proving to be more trouble than they are worth and put their faith in Dr Pye's recommendation of Sqn Leader Whittles new engine. Then they put Power Jets into the hands of Hives at RR instead of Rovers.

The use of Rover to develop the engine in OTL put back the entry into service of the engine by over eighteen months at least.

Then instead of getting Gloster, a company whose last design was a biplane! to design the first jet powered aircraft for the RAF the best designers in the industry are commisioned to submit designs.
 

Alexius

The Dean said:
Then instead of getting Gloster, a company whose last design was a biplane! to design the first jet powered aircraft for the RAF the best designers in the industry are commisioned to submit designs.
Click to expand...
They did have a couple of monoplane prototypes between the Gladiator and the Pioneer- the F.5/34 fighter, which was supposed to compete with the Spitfire and Hurricane and allegedly inspired the Zero, and the F.9/37 night fighter which competed with the Beaufighter and Mosquito, and could have entered production had Gloster not been busy building jets.

We wouldn't have seen a Mitchell-designed jet- he died too early. Sydney Camm, on the other hand, might have given us an earlier Sea Hawk- and the Supermarine jet could have looked like the Attacker.

Jet bombers, anyone? Britain didn't build any until the V-bombers- would an earlier one have looked like an Ar-234?
 

Landshark

Given the reluctance of the RAF to put British jet fighters, or rather British jet engines, over the front lines after D-Day could binning the final generation of piston engines and their associated planes leave a serious capability gap in the RAF's order of battle during the last few months of the war?
 

The Dean

Alexius said:
They did have a couple of monoplane prototypes between the Gladiator and the Pioneer- the F.5/34 fighter, which was supposed to compete with the Spitfire and Hurricane and allegedly inspired the Zero, and the F.9/37 night fighter which competed with the Beaufighter and Mosquito, and could have entered production had Gloster not been busy building jets.
Click to expand...

They made one prototype each of the single and twin engined aircraft, they sucked! Glosters were not busy making Meteors, in fact they didn't make many at all. They mainly built Hawker machines under license during the war.

Alexius said:
We wouldn't have seen a Mitchell-designed jet- he died too early. Sydney Camm, on the other hand, might have given us an earlier Sea Hawk- and the Supermarine jet could have looked like the Attacker.
Click to expand...

We would have had Frank Halford from Napiers building his H-1 nearly two years earlier and therefore De-Havilland getting Vampires in service by '42, '43 at the very latest. As you say Sidney Camm would have come up with the Hawk by '43/4.

Alexius said:
Jet bombers, anyone? Britain didn't build any until the V-bombers- would an earlier one have looked like an Ar-234?
Click to expand...

Gloster did in fact have a design, the P.109, which did look remarkably like the Ar-234. What would have been easy was fitting Derwents or Nenes to existing machines such as Lancasters and Wellingtons enhancing their performance. This was done after the war in OTL and it worked remarkably well.

Landshark said:
Given the reluctance of the RAF to put British jet fighters, or rather British jet engines, over the front lines after D-Day could binning the final generation of piston engines and their associated planes leave a serious capability gap in the RAF's order of battle during the last few months of the war?
Click to expand...

It wasn't the RAF that was reluctant, it was the Air Ministry. Given that they would be more jet minded in this TL that reluctance would not be there. Anyway the machines that would be affected by this would be those powered by the problematic sleeve valved 24 cylinder engines, Vulture and Sabre. There were only 2,000 Typhoons built, yes they played an important role but there were many times that number of Merlin and Griffon engined machines. Then there would be the jet aircraft that would be in their place, far more effectively.
 
Last edited:

simonbp

Landshark said:
Given the reluctance of the RAF to put British jet fighters, or rather British jet engines, over the front lines after D-Day could binning the final generation of piston engines and their associated planes leave a serious capability gap in the RAF's order of battle during the last few months of the war?
Click to expand...

Or, earlier deployment gives the Air Ministry more confidence in the jets, allowing them to be used more extensively. The jets could replace Spitfires and Mosquitos for interception and fast reconnaissance/bombing, while piston-engine aircraft (probably with Merlins, with the Spits and Mosquitoes out of the way) are used for air-support and escort...

Simon ;)
 

Lord Brisbane

allegedly inspired the Zero
Click to expand...
The similarity is only skin deep as the two only look externally somewhat similar. The internal differences, mechanical, construction and technical specifications are quite different.
 

The Dean

What would have been the outcome if the Tizard mission had given RR-Derwent/Nenes and Halford's H-1 Goblins to the American aviation industry in '41 instead of '43?
 

Hendryk

Banned
The Dean said:
We would have had Frank Halford from Napiers building his H-1 nearly two years earlier and therefore De-Havilland getting Vampires in service by '42, '43 at the very latest.
Click to expand...
Having the Vampire operational in 1943 sounds good. How about the Supermarine Attacker?

Now, apart from intercepting V1 rockets, what would be the primary role of jet fighters in the last years of the war? Ground attack, tactical bombing? I suppose their range was too limited to be used for bomber escort duty.
 

The Dean

Hendryk said:
Having the Vampire operational in 1943 sounds good. How about the Supermarine Attacker?
Click to expand...

With the De-Havilland machine in service and Hawkers machine on the way I would not envisage Vickers-Supermarine being contracted to produce another fighter. Rather to keep production up of Merlin engined aircraft. Then the requirement for bombers needs to be addressed.

Hendryk said:
Now, apart from intercepting V1 rockets, what would be the primary role of jet fighters in the last years of the war? Ground attack, tactical bombing? I suppose their range was too limited to be used for bomber escort duty.
Click to expand...

With the preponderance of allied air power the majority ground attack work would fall to piston engined aircraft. I would hope the jets would be used in the air superiority role.
 

zoomar

Hendryk said:
Having the Vampire operational in 1943 sounds good. How about the Supermarine Attacker?

Now, apart from intercepting V1 rockets, what would be the primary role of jet fighters in the last years of the war? Ground attack, tactical bombing? I suppose their range was too limited to be used for bomber escort duty.
Click to expand...

That is, in fact an excellent question. The Allies had very little need for high-speed interceptors from '44 on. Would a Vampire or Meteor really be better as a ground-pounder than a P-47 or Typhoon? I guess, they might have some value against Ar-234 recon planes and Me262A2 fighter bombers
 
NHBL

NHBL

Metalurgy?

Was the metalurgy there to support jet engines? Or could it have got there in time? Having a few hot jets--like the Me-262--you can replace engines frequently, but I doubt anyone could have supported them as a front line aircraft that flies in huge numbers. I could be wrong, but one way or another, this has to be addressed here, even if it's to say, "Metal's no problem, and here's why."
 

The Dean

NHBL said:
Was the metalurgy there to support jet engines? Or could it have got there in time? Having a few hot jets--like the Me-262--you can replace engines frequently, but I doubt anyone could have supported them as a front line aircraft that flies in huge numbers. I could be wrong, but one way or another, this has to be addressed here, even if it's to say, "Metal's no problem, and here's why."
Click to expand...

This was the reason Whittle developed the Centrifugal engine first as the temperatures were far lower. He patented the design for the axial flow engine in 1930, this design was identical to modern axial flow jets. Unfortunately his salary as a trainee test pilot in the RAF was not enough for him to afford to pay to renew the patent! Oh life's cruel twists.:(
 

The BigI

Didn't Sir Frank say that the reason he went with centrifugal instead of axial flow in the 30's was because he didn't think the metallurgical skill wasn't there at the time besides servicing a centrifugal engine was easier and quicker than axial flow?? Considering that centifugal engined Mig 15 was as good as the axial flow F-86 I don't think performance-wise it wouldn't have hurt them.
 

The Dean

Paulo the Limey said:
Eh? I think you are forgetting the English Electric Canberra, the UK's first jet bomber.
Click to expand...

There was also the Short Sperrin that flew in 1951 two years after the Canberra in '49.

short_sperrin.jpg
 

The Dean

Alexius said:
Jet bombers, anyone? Britain didn't build any until the V-bombers- would an earlier one have looked like an Ar-234?
Click to expand...

As Paulo pointed out there was the Canberra and I mentioned the Sperrin. Also Rolls Royce, Vickers and Avro used existing airframes to test jet power plants and the Wellington, Lancaster, and Lincoln airframes were all tested using Nene engines with great success. It would have been possible to have bombers with speeds of 400mph+ in 1944/5 using this method.
 

merlin

The Dean said:
They made one prototype each of the single and twin engined aircraft, they sucked! Glosters were not busy making Meteors, in fact they didn't make many at all. They mainly built Hawker machines under license during the war.
Click to expand...

IYO - the main problem with the single-engine fighter F.5/34, was the delay in building and flying the prototype - after the Hurricane & Spitfire's. Yet the aircraft performed well - considering the Mercury engine, and liked by those who flew it. Would've been a useful back-up if there were problems with the Merlin, and better it than the Gladiator.
With the 'twin' there were several designs, it was the last - the Reaper a night-fighter design that was not proceeded with in favour of the Meteor. The F.9/37 was an up-dating, of an earlier design F.34/35. When it first flew in April 3 1939 it " .. proved itself to be one of the most manoeurrable and stable aircraft built at the time, and a delight to fly". Perhpas if it had been redesigned earlier to the requirement for the canon fighter - it would have been in service instead of the Blenheim 1F!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top