Best British WW2 Prototypes Pt 2

[merlin]

As a follow on from the other thread on British prototypes, I thought I'd try a different list:

1. Gloster G.39 twin-engineed fighter
2. Boulton Paul P.94 single-seat defiant.
3. Miles M.39 (Libellula).
4. Vickers Warwick Mk III (High altitude Bomber)
5. Hawker Henley Dive-Bomber
6. Gloster F.5/34 single-engineed fighter.

All of the above did fly, though the Miles was via a scale model. The Henley, was of course ordered - but only as a target tug.
I think a case could be made for ordering any/all or them! It will be interesting to see the comments.

[bigZ]

How about the Miles M20?

[Oreo]

Oh, I don't know!

[The Basket]

The Defiant was said to be a very nice flying machine and without the turret could have been the British Il-2.

Or something like a long range heavy fighter. But it wasn't needed. There is a good reason why aircraft don't make it.

Sometimes.

[TL Blade]

I won't to point out that the Vickers Warwick was not a prototype and many where built and used as a transport. 22 Raf Squadron had Warwicks

[merlin]

Originally Posted by TL Blade

I won't to point out that the Vickers Warwick was not a prototype and many where built and used as a transport. 22 Raf Squadron had Warwicks

True the Vickers Warwick was produced - to Spec B.1/35, originally intended to have two Vulture engines - but in the event had either P & W Double Wasp or Centaurus engines. However the time of the twin engined 'heavy' bomber had passed, and therefore other uses were found for those produced.

BUT the poll states Warwick Mk III, which was a four-engined high-altitude bomber aircraft. Or at least it might have been if the specification hadn't kept changing.
The spec's max speed uti 345 mph at 31,000', service ceiling uti 38,500' bomb load of 8,000 lbs.
The Warwick Mk III Span 117', length 76' 1" wing area 1,245 sq ft., max weight 52,500 lbs., max speed 366 mph at 31,000'.
However, after re-reading I find 'egg-on-face' I was wrong, toe earlier Wellington twin high-altitude, and later four engined Windsor aircraft prototypes flew, but not the Warwick Mk III - sorry.

Interesting the voting, yet we seem to have more votes, than comments??

[eddie_brunette]

What about de havilland Hornet?

edd

[merlin]

Originally Posted by eddie_brunette

What about de havilland Hornet?

edd

What about it.

The 'Poll' is about British prototypes, that did not get a production contract, i.e. which one deserved a better life - combat history.

The de Haviland Hornet on the other hand was an excellent aircraft that gave the RAF excellent service - "the last Hornets in first-line service were those of No 45 Squadron: they were finally supplanted by Vampire jet fighter-bombers in june 1955".

Interesting the votes, strange nothing for the Gloster G.39 - considering how the Fw 187 has many fans (they IMO comparable aircraft). I will regard the votes for the Warwick Mk III as for a ' four-engineed high-altitude bomber' after my error.

Further comments & votes please.

[kool kitty89]

I thought the Vickers Warwick Mk.III was the transport version.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I thought the Vickers Warwick Mk.III was the transport version.

To quote British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers by Tony Butler p.118.

The Wellington MkV was an experimental variant of Vickers' successful medium bomber fitted with a pressure cabin and, as the development work on it matured in late 1940, the Air Staff became interested in a cmparable version of the Warwick. Draft proposals from Vickers were prepared and discussed at the Minbistry and on 9th Jan. 1941 lord Beaverbrook wrote 'High altitude bombers are to be developed intensively. .... Detailed proposals were submitted to the Ministry in May and during the initial stages the project was known as the Warwick Mk III. The fuselage was very similar to the Mk V Wellington but the standard Warwick wings were replaced by an elliptal wing and four Merlin LX engines with ducted wing radiators.

The transport version was the standard Warwick which was not up to the standard required for bomber duties - so question 'what can we do with them' - transport, and air-sea rescue.

[kool kitty89]

It might be good to mention that the G.39 is the Gloster F.9/37 project.


Hvvent voted yet, but I'm kind of tied between the G.39, F.5/34, and the P.94.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

It might be good to mention that the G.39 is the Gloster F.9/37 project.


Hvvent voted yet, but I'm kind of tied between the G.39, F.5/34, and the P.94.

Yes, by all means, thank you for mentioning it.

Oddly enough perhaps, I haven't voted either - they all have their merits, and having the RAF chose one, doesn't stop them also chosing another, as they are not competitive designs.

[KrazyKraut]

What would the P.94 have done what the Spit didn't already cover?

[kool kitty89]

It could have developed into a long range strike-fighter and fighter bomber, a replacement for the Hurricane as as the RAF's attack plane and available much earlier than the Typhoon. (and with longer range)

The G.39 would have been better in every way IMO than the Beaufighter and capable in F vs F combat as well.


The F.5/34 project showed exceptional performance considering its modest powerplant (and suprisingly large wing area) and IMO had a lot of development potential.

[Venganza]

How about the Martin-Baker M.B.5? By all accounts an excellent airplane.