Which aircraft would you cancel?

[Koopernic]

With hindsight the He177, Me163, He162, Me210 (before tooling, just wait for the 410), Ta-154, He-219, Ju288 (before it started tooling and its engine), and Ju290.

I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?

 

[Starfighter91]

Salve,

from the german side,

the Ju 288 with it's engines (Jumo 222 and DB 604X), FW 191, Me 210 and 410, Me 209, Me 309 and Me 163.
The He 177 with four gondulas would be the most advanced bomber till the B29, the Me 410 was simply crap!

 

[davebender]

Soviets thought otherwise. Historical Red Army reports often complain about damage inflicted by Luftwaffe dive bombers due to lack of inadequate VVS fighter cover.

 

[kool kitty89]

B-32 Dominator, eventually...
Apart from that...

Hinsight gives a false advice. It is really at decision time that this "what do you cancel" challenge should be thought about. Something like the Me-163 Komet is absolutely impossible to cancel, at decison-making time... Forget about later historical insight.

Using it as a research aircraft and refraining from mass production could have still made sense and fit a real-world timeline, though. That and a shift of emphasis towards jet powered derivatives of the airframe. (easier if Heinkel's class 1 engines hadn't been canceled and quite possibly a more practical -and earlier- design than the He 162)

The case could be made that an obvious battle winner like the Stuka could well have been cancelled, at decision time, forgetting later history : had it met a Lufwaffe-brand opposition, including flak. By mid-war dive-bombing was obsolete, because of AAA mainly. Well modern AAA was indeed pionneered by Lufwaffe's flak as early as 1940 (Fairey Battles, Bréguet 693s...), so the case could be made that Ju-87 was a weird choice right from the start... Add a strong 1940-brand opposition of swarms of Messerschmidtts on top...

It may have made more sense for the Navy ... had Germany allowed a naval air arm, with or without carriers.

I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?

The Ju 252 should have had higher development/production priority, but yes the 290 was a useful large transport.

Investing more in correcting the Fw 200's faults as a patrol aircraft would have helped too ... and giving the Navy their own air arm to coordinate. For that matter, Naval He 111s probably would have had a longer useful life as maratime patrol aircraft than over-land bombers.

For that matter, the Bf 109T and aformentioned navalized Ju 87 likely would have had longer, more successful service lives there than on land too. (and superior to British counterparts -especially if the 109T's larger wing facilitated fuel expansion)

So rugged its tail broke off, it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns. It didn't even offer much range. Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V. It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.

That, and even without Typhoon development I seriously wonder how well the old Hurricane fuselage would have coped with a new high speed/low drag wing. The rear fabric/stringer arrangement already allows for adaptation to a bubble canopy perhaps more easily than any contemporary fighter and the issues with flamability should have been addressed with metal stringers replacing the wood and aluminum skin or flame retardant dopant. (I'm not sure if the early hurricanes still used nitrocellulose dopants, but that would be a huge fire risk for sure)

More focused development on the Griffon would have aided development of higher performance Spit and Hurricane derivatives earlier on too. (and an earlier Griffon coupled with a clipped wing Spitfire probably would have countered the Fw 190 better than the Typhoon ... clipped wing Spit III with overboost might have as well)

I have to disagree with the "P-40Q couldn't add much" idea, but that's OK. It looks like none of us would do exactly the same thing. That's why the people in power at the time made all the difference ... they did what THEY thought was right.

P-40Q was a bit late in general and a bulged hooded canopy introduced earlier on probably would have been close to as good or better in some respects without going so far as to redesign the fuselage.

Compared to the P-39, though, the P-40's slightly larger size may have given more potential for a reasonable turbocharger arrangement (unlike the YP-37 attempt) particularly with the liquid intercooler the P-38 eventually introduced. To make it really useful, more fuel would be needed, though and the larger wings of the P-40 compared to the P-39 should have been able to carry more, at least if redesigned. (ie around the time of the P-40D/E redesigns, but more extensive wing modifications with compartments for fuel cells) The P-40's fuselage and center section tanks already carried more than the P-39's total capacity, so extending internal fuel closer to that of the P-51 might have been possible.

 

[Shortround6]

For the UK So many where do you start,

Botha, Albacore, Fulmar, Roc, Sterling, Whitley, Warwick, Albemarle, Battle, Defiant, Lerwick, Sea Otter, Albecore

The scary thing is that they all entered production, there not prototypes, the waste of resources is huge

The trouble with lists like this is that there sometimes no good alternatives.

I don't think any one is really going to argue in favor of the Botha but what are you going to replace the Fulmar with?

Please remember that the guy in the rear seat operated the radio gear (not just the radio) that allowed the plane to home in on a locator beacon on the carrier. It may be doubtful if any single seat fighter could have done that at the time.

Sterling? Having the bad luck to have both production lines bombed by May of 1941 rather slowed production and service use.

Whitley had 9 squadrons in service in Sept of 1939. What else was ready? keep using biplanes until the Lancaster shows up?

The Sea Otter didn't waste much in resources. Sort of a Walrus MK III. Take an old Pegasus off the rear of the wings and stick a newer Mercury engine on the front, Make the bow a little more pointy. If you needed several hundred more planes than the existing Walruses anyway why not build a better version rather than build the 1933 Walrus in 1943-44.

If you were trying to rescue downed aircrew form the sea the Biplane Walrus/Otter made more sense than trying to use Kingfishers. At least you could fit a few more rescued personnel inside the airplane. Hanging onto a wing while taxing for miles in the tropics is one thing. Doing it on the North Sea in the Fall or Spring (let alone winter) is something else.

 

[GregP]

We'll have to disagree on that one,Kool Kitty, but that's OK. If we agreed on everything, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

So rugged its tail broke off,.

Ah, yes, that famous old saw, which is always trotted out when the Typhoon is mentioned. From 29-7-42 to 24-5-43, the Typhoon suffered 19 accidents, in 3 (only) of which the tail unit broke off, and 7 lost tailplanes, elevators or rudders. There were, in fact, more wing/wingtip failures than tail unit failures. By 1944, 1 failure every 7700 hours had gone out to 1 every 18000 hours, and it was decided that the cause was elevator flutter, largely caused by three-blade propellers.

it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns.

It was also designed pre-war, before the Fw190 was even known about, and how could MG151/20s have been fitted into any British aircraft?

Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V.

It was tried, with the Merlin XX in the Spitfire III, but it involved major airframe changes, which didn't apply to the Merlin 45-series.

It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.

Try telling that to the inhabitants of coastal towns, who regularly saw attacks by bomb-carrying 190s; it's easy to sit, safe at home, 70 years later, and pontificate solely about the aircraft, but the government/Air Ministry had the safety of the civilian population to think about.

Think of the long range spitfire viii that might have been built as well.

There was no "long range" Spitfire VIII.

Interestingly it was cancelled, twice. Once was rescinded when the Fw 190 appeared.

No, it wasn't; two versions, with different engines, were cancelled, but the Air Ministry were continually pushing for the Sabre-powered variant.

You might have gotten two spitfires for every typhoon

And you might not, since you would have needed to persuade an obdurate Sidney Camm to produce somebody else's design. Also, by 1944, there was no shortage of Merlin-powered Spitfires, which is why so many IXs were given away to Russia

 

[Glider]

So rugged its tail broke off, it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts, fancy engine and best fuels and I doubt 4 Hispanos are much more powefull than 4 Mg 151/20 plus a pair of Machine guns. It didn't even offer much range. Napiers would be better utilised making 2 speed Merlins which might have improved the Spitfire V. It might justify itself in leading to the tempest V but you didn't need to produce it.

Think of the long range spitfire viii that might have been built as well.

Interestingly it was cancelled, twice. Once was rescinded when the Fw 190 appeared.

You might have gotten two spitfires for every typhoon.

The Typhoon was a lot faster than the 190 at low altitude which is what counts for a GA role and it carried a greater variety of weapons. Re the guns when operating as a GA aircraft the FW190 normally only carried 2 x 20mm and to cap it all the Typhoon was continually up armoured. As a GA fighter the Typhoon didn't have to apologise to anyone.

edit by RAF standards the Typhoon had a decent range

 

[Greyman]

... it never was faster than the Fw 190 at any altitude despite the boasts ...

Quick estimates - mostly based on data from over at the great WWII Aircraft Performance website.

It's not pixel-perfect to the data but the idea is there:

The faster Typhoon is post upgrades: sliding hood, whip aerial, new exhausts, cannon fairings, etc.

 

[wiking85]

I can see reasoning behind all of those except the Ju 290. It was possibly the longest ranged maritime patrol aircraft of the war albeit a transport. How would you support the German navy?

Fw200; there were so few Ju290 and there were twice as heavy that they made virtually no sense to invest resources in. Keep the Fw200 as a pure recon aircraft. Of course I would also suggest they build the Do26 instead due to its use of diesel engines, being a sea plane, and having huge range.

Ideally the He177 would have replaced the Fw200, but it had serious issues that we are not presupposing would be fixed, so simply getting rid of it and using the engines and materials to make more Ju88s would be better (DB605 engined Ju88s....what would that be like?).

 

[Glider]

The trouble with lists like this is that there sometimes no good alternatives.

I don't think any one is really going to argue in favor of the Botha but what are you going to replace the Fulmar with?

Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly.

Please remember that the guy in the rear seat operated the radio gear (not just the radio) that allowed the plane to home in on a locator beacon on the carrier. It may be doubtful if any single seat fighter could have done that at the time.

You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.

Sterling? Having the bad luck to have both production lines bombed by May of 1941 rather slowed production and service use.

Then let the Sterling have a redesign to increase its altitude and do without the Halifax. The RAF didn't need three four engine bombers.

Whitley had 9 squadrons in service in Sept of 1939. What else was ready? keep using biplanes until the Lancaster shows up?

I would suggest that you build more Wellingtons and add the Hampden to the list.

The Sea Otter didn't waste much in resources. Sort of a Walrus MK III. Take an old Pegasus off the rear of the wings and stick a newer Mercury engine on the front, Make the bow a little more pointy. If you needed several hundred more planes than the existing Walruses anyway why not build a better version rather than build the 1933 Walrus in 1943-44.

I couldn't think of anything the Sea Otter could do that the Walrus couldn't so that is why it was on the list.

 

[fastmongrel]

Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly. You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.

The Japanese and US in the Pacific didnt often fly in North Atlantic/Norwegian Sea type weather or at night. If the Firefly had come along when it was supposed to in 41 we would be talking about what an awesome aircraft it was but by 44 it couldnt do anything a Corsair/Hellcat couldnt do.

That I think is the problem with a lot of the aircraft mentioned in this thread by the time they got into service WWII had left them behind.

 

[parsifal]

For the RAF

Battle and Defiant

For the RN

Cancel the order for the Buffalo and martlet I , concentrate on the Fulmar. At least it was ready shot down 114 enemy a/c for the loss of three, and operated from carriers from Day1. Those US imports whilst having greater potential later in the war (at least for the Martlet) could not operate from a carrier, leaked fuel everywhere, had limited multi role capability (a must in the early war for the RN after losing 1/3 of its carrier forces.

LW

Me 309, Me 210 and 410, Ar240, Ju 290, Me 163,

Japan

A7M, their 4 engine bombers, J1N, probably the Ki45, and the large Bomber destroyers they developed at the end of the war.

US

Probably the B-32, but I dont know enough about it to be sure, either the F6F or the Corsair....not both, but one. As greg points out, probably some models of the P-39.

Soviet

blah, too hard


Italian

Blah even worse

 

[Elmas]

Breda 88, first of all....

 

[tomo pauk]

Hard not to agree with that

Cancelling out the P-39 does not bring much, and takes away plenty; those bore the brunt of air fighting probably more than P-51s, P-47s and P-38 combined before 1943 ended. No P-39 means VVS suffers even more losses and makes less kills vs. LW.

I agree that Battle should be cancelled, but maybe after 500 produced examples; what should Fairey build instead? The Spitfire produced by Boulton Paul instead of the Defiant should make sense - same powerplant, twice the firepower, half the crew, lower drag and weight for better performance, no turret means cheaper faster production, can carry cannons unlike the Defiant.

Re. Sydney Camm not willing to produce other people aircraft - others did it, since the costumer wanted so. Mr. Camm was a designer anyway, not the owner of the conglomerate?

 

[fastmongrel]

Re. Sydney Camm not willing to produce other people aircraft - others did it, since the costumer wanted so. Mr. Camm was a designer anyway, not the owner of the conglomerate?

Very true if Hawkers refused to build what the Air Ministry wanted who were they going to build for. Plus the shadow factories and the tools and workers in them didnt belong to Hawkers they simply ran them on Air Ministry contract.

 

[stona]

Handley Page Halifax, as soon as the Lancaster came on line.
Accept some lost production for total number of heavy bombers (as Harris, unlike the bean counters at the Air Ministry, was prepared to do) and go for the best heavy bomber available.

On the German side I find it difficult to choose particular types. A rationalisation of the numerous programs was needed and this would have led inevitably to the cancellation of many types. This plethora of production already hamstrung German aircraft production in the late 1930s and was a product of the system, not the war. The Ta 154, Me 163 and He 177 stand out as a particular waste of resources.

Cheers
Steve

 

[gjs238]

How about the Vultee A-31 Vengeance?

 

[tomo pauk]

Build more of these.

 

[GrauGeist]

...The Ta 154, Me 163 and He 177 stand out as a particular waste of resources.

While the Komet wasn't as successful in it's intended role as they hoped, it actually did provide a great deal of research information in a realm of aviation that hadn't been achieved before.