RCAF '46 ?

[riggerrob]

On a radial engine?

Why not in a fictional RCAF ‘46?
Consider how at the start of World War 2, most engine manufacturers struggled to produce more than 1,000 horsepower and that was barely enough to loft a single 20mm cannon.
If .303 machineguns proved weak when asked to shoot down Focke Wulf 200 Kondors patrol bombers … what if the Fleet Air Arm asked CCF to install 20mm cannons in the second batch of Martlets?

Remember that the motor-cannons fitted to Hispano-Suiza and Klimov engines never went through the crankcase, only through the propeller speed reduction unit that was offset above the crankshaft. The PSRU was offset enough that the cannon barrel lay in the valley between the “Ved” inline cylinder banks. Similarly motor-cannons installed on Messerschmitt 109s lay between the inverted V cylinder banks, below the crankshaft.

Pretty much all WW2 combat engines had PSRUs to reduce crankshaft speed to an efficient speed for propellers. They had to keep propeller tips slower than Mach 0.8. While radials usually had planetary gears in their PSRUs nothing says that we cannot imagine side-by-side gears to offset the prop shaft away … upwards from the crank shaft.
Now look at the 1939s vintage, small radials built by Pobjoy with their offset PSRUs.
The early Grumman Wildcats/Martlets supplied to the Fleet Air Arm were powered by single-row Wright R-1820 radial engines. This was the same engine that powered high-flying B-17 bombers and dozens of other warbirds all the way up to some of Sikorsky’s Korean War helicopters.

Then try to imagine a 9-cylinder, single-row Wright R-1820 air-cooled, radial engine with a PSRU offset enough that a motor-cannon could fire between the two top cylinders. Mind you, the whole engine needs to rotate 15 degrees to keep the prop and cannon on the center-line. You might need to add an extra oil drain line to the lowest cylinder. This modification is insignificant compared with the 45 degree tilt when the same engine was installed in a Sikorsky helicopter.
With the prop spinner level with the top edge of the cowling, it more resembles an F-86D Sabre jet. But the cannon is still low enough to stay within the original cowling outer mold lines.
The higher thrust line allows for shorter main landing gear legs.

Gregor wanted to shift the wing to the bottom of the fuselage, install a nose-wheel, Schumann wing, and a Malcolm Hood until it only vaguely resembled the original Wildcat/Martlet. Perhaps the final variant more closely resembled a late-war Curtiss Sea Gull or a shrunken NAA T-28A Trojan both of which were powered by R-1820s in the original time-line.
How far does CCF allow Gregor to go with his Super Martlet?
How much does Grumman help with re-design?

Try to imagine the performance of a Wildcat/Martlet with a 1400 or 1500 hp. late variant of an R-1820!

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, It's your party

 

[red admiral]

That feels like a lot of effort compared to firing in between the cylinder banks like Gladiator, Gauntlet, Bulldog etc.

Or putting the guns in the wings

 

[Scott Kenny]

2x20mm in the wings in place of 4x 0.50cal is a MUCH simpler solution.

 

[Apophenia]

FWIW: One contemporary article - "A Canadian Light Fighter: An Unusual Fighter Type Designed by a Company with Considerable Experience" in Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology', Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 69-72 - claimed that Can-Car "held the exclusive export licence for all the recent Grumman design". If true, there would seem to be nothing to stop Fort William from building Martlets for the FAA.

On the cannon-armed Grumman, another issue would have been ammunition commonality. The RN was adopting Oerlikons as AA guns but a reliable British Hispano was still some way off in 1940. Mind you, the R-1820 engined Martlets were to prove none-too-reliable either.

I have a bigger issue with "Gregor wanted to shift the wing to the bottom of the fuselage...". Michael Gregor left Seversky Aircraft primarily because he was unhappy with the low placement of Alexander Kartveli's wing. He wanted that wing placed in the aerodynamically ideal mid-position on 'his' SEV-3 fuselage. (For some reason, Gregor had no issue with the low placement of 'bottom' wings on his Brunner-Winkle Bird designs, GR series, or Model 10 FDB-1 biplanes.)

Gregor began design of what emerged as the FDB-1 with the intention of producing a multi-purpose carrier aircraft for the US Navy. When the BuAer showed no interest, Gregor cashed his fighter design in for a Chief Aeronautical Engineer's position at CC&F. Beyond conceptual obsolescence, the biggest problems for Gregor's FBD-1 design was the restricted pilot vision inherent in gull-winged designs. Gregor's answer to this was to provide his fighter with an enomous (and consequentially drag-inducing) cockpit canopy.

So ... here's is my alternative proposal (since we're already into what-if): Instead of accepting his prepared FDB-1 carrier fighter, CC&F management hire Michael Gregor on the agreement that he will design them a monoplane fighter. This design is intended to be acceptable to both the RCAF and to the Fleet Air Arm. The resulting FDB-2 is a mid-winged fighter making use of readily available US-made aero-engines. For the prototype, a Twin Wasp Junior is mounted. However, production models will mount the more powerful R-1830 Twin Wasp.

The RCAF is not especially interested in the FDB-2 - mainly because it does not conform to RAF armament requirements (although that would be true for later RCAF Curtiss Kittyhawks as well). However, the FAA is more flexible and accepted the aircraft as a carrier fighter armed with either 4 x American .5-inch Browning guns or 2 x synchronized US Brownings and 2 x wing-mounted Oerlikon cannons. The FAA designated these aircraft as Can-Car Kittiwake Mk.I through IV, depending upon engine type and armament.

- Kittiwake Mk.I through I : 1,050 hp P&W R-1830-SC3-G; 4 x Browning .5-inch machine guns
- Kittiwake Mk.I through II: 1,050 hp P&W R-1830-S1C3-G; 2 x .5-inch + 2 x 20 mm Oerlikon cannons
- Kittiwake Mk.I through III: 1,200 hp Wright R-1820-G205A; 4 x Browning .303-inch mgs (for training only)
- Kittiwake Mk.I through IV: 1,200 hp P&W R-1830-S3C4-G; 4 x Browning .5-inch machine guns

Production of the Kittiwake was phased out at Fort William in the late Autumn of 1942 in favour of the licenced Grumman Gannet Mk.V - the CC&F equivalent of Grumman's Gannet Mk.I. CC&F Gannet production was overseen by the new Chief Aeronautical Engineer, Elsie MacGill (Gregor having moved on to the Chase Aircraft Company of Trenton, NJ).

Image: The Twin Wasp Junior-powered FDB-2 prototype on the tarmac as Bishop's Field, Fort William, Ontario in March 1939. Beyond being a monoplane, the FBD-2 differed from the unbuilt FDB-1 in having a more forward-placed cockpit covered by a shallower canopy (since the pilot no longer needed to see over gulled upper wings).[/B]

 

[riggerrob]

FWIW: One contemporary article - "A Canadian Light Fighter: An Unusual Fighter Type Designed by a Company with Considerable Experience" in Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology', Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 69-72 - claimed that Can-Car "held the exclusive export licence for all the recent Grumman design". If true, there would seem to be nothing to stop Fort William from building Martlets for the FAA.

On the cannon-armed Grumman, another issue would have been ammunition commonality. The RN was adopting Oerlikons as AA guns but a reliable British Hispano was still some way off in 1940. Mind you, the R-1820 engined Martlets were to prove none-too-reliable either.

I have a bigger issue with "Gregor wanted to shift the wing to the bottom of the fuselage...". Michael Gregor left Seversky Aircraft primarily because he was unhappy with the low placement of Alexander Kartveli's wing. He wanted that wing placed in the aerodynamically ideal mid-position on 'his' SEV-3 fuselage. (For some reason, Gregor had no issue with the low placement of 'bottom' wings on his Brunner-Winkle Bird designs, GR series, or Model 10 FDB-1 biplanes.)

Gregor began design of what emerged as the FDB-1 with the intention of producing a multi-purpose carrier aircraft for the US Navy. When the BuAer showed no interest, Gregor cashed his fighter design in for a Chief Aeronautical Engineer's position at CC&F. Beyond conceptual obsolescence, the biggest problems for Gregor's FBD-1 design was the restricted pilot vision inherent in gull-winged designs. Gregor's answer to this was to provide his fighter with an enomous (and consequentially drag-inducing) cockpit canopy.

So ... here's is my alternative proposal (since we're already into what-if): Instead of accepting his prepared FDB-1 carrier fighter, CC&F management hire Michael Gregor on the agreement that he will design them a monoplane fighter. This design is intended to be acceptable to both the RCAF and to the Fleet Air Arm. The resulting FDB-2 is a mid-winged fighter making use of readily available US-made aero-engines. For the prototype, a Twin Wasp Junior is mounted. However, production models will mount the more powerful R-1830 Twin Wasp.

The RCAF is not especially interested in the FDB-2 - mainly because it does not conform to RAF armament requirements (although that would be true for later RCAF Curtiss Kittyhawks as well). However, the FAA is more flexible and accepted the aircraft as a carrier fighter armed with either 4 x American .5-inch Browning guns or 2 x synchronized US Brownings and 2 x wing-mounted Oerlikon cannons. The FAA designated these aircraft as Can-Car Kittiwake Mk.I through IV, depending upon engine type and armament.

- Kittiwake Mk.I through I : 1,050 hp P&W R-1830-SC3-G; 4 x Browning .5-inch machine guns
- Kittiwake Mk.I through II: 1,050 hp P&W R-1830-S1C3-G; 2 x .5-inch + 2 x 20 mm Oerlikon cannons
- Kittiwake Mk.I through III: 1,200 hp Wright R-1820-G205A; 4 x Browning .303-inch mgs (for training only)
- Kittiwake Mk.I through IV: 1,200 hp P&W R-1830-S3C4-G; 4 x Browning .5-inch machine guns

Production of the Kittiwake was phased out at Fort William in the late Autumn of 1942 in favour of the licenced Grumman Gannet Mk.V - the CC&F equivalent of Grumman's Gannet Mk.I. CC&F Gannet production was overseen by the new Chief Aeronautical Engineer, Elsie MacGill (Gregor having moved on to the Chase Aircraft Company of Trenton, NJ).

Image: The Twin Wasp Junior-powered FDB-2 prototype on the tarmac as Bishop's Field, Fort William, Ontario in March 1939. Beyond being a monoplane, the FBD-2 differed from the unbuilt FDB-1 in having a more forward-placed cockpit covered by a shallower canopy (since the pilot no longer needed to see over gulled upper wings).[/B]

Dear Apophenia,
You make some good suggestions and you are WAAAAY better than me at photoshop.

 

[riggerrob]

This RCAF ‘46 thread started with personal research into motor-cannons, then morphed into a personal challenge: “How do you install a motor-cannon in a radial engine?”
Then I tried to write a “what if” alternate history around the combination of a motor-cannon firing through the single-row radial engine of an early World War 2 fighter.
My story diverges from the original time-line when Canadian Car and Foundry decides to build upon their experience assembling Grumman Goblins (for the RCAF and Spanish Republican Air Force) by signing a contract to build Grumman Wildcats/Martlets under license at their factory in Fort William (now Thunder Bay, Ontario at the west end of Lake Superior).

As in the original time line, Fairchild of Canada also sub-contracts to build parts for Grumman at their factory in Longeuil, Quebec (near Montreal). A booming three-way trade in airplane parts soon develops linking Longeuil, Fort William and Bethpage on Long Island New York. This all developed before Pearl Harbor while the USA was still trying to pretend neutrality.
Pesky Nazi spies publicize (e.g. newspapers) every movement of war materials across the Canada/USA border.

Tada!
Budd Conestoga flies to the rescue.
Since both CCF and Budd USA started out by manufacturing railway rolling stock, they trade patents and processes during the 1930s. When Budd patents shot-welding machines to build stainless steel railway cars, CCF buys some shot-welding machines, but they soon gather dust as railway construction is sidelined at the start of WW2 (1939).
When a Budd Conestoga cargo plane visits Fort William on a promotional tour, it gets pressed into rush-delivering some wing panels to Longeuil. The sole Conestoga proves so valuable that it never goes home. CCF soon buys the rest of the Conestoga jigs and builds a few hundred Conestogas for the RCAF.
CCF dodges the OTL Conestogas’ biggest flaw by installing R-1820 engines left over from the Goblin contract.
Conestoga Mark III prove their worth supporting the invasions of Sicily, Normandy, Holland and Germany delivering vehicles, artillery and flying out with wounded.

 

[riggerrob]

…. On the cannon-armed Grumman, another issue would have been ammunition commonality. The RN was adopting Oerlikons as AA guns but a reliable British Hispano was still some way off in 1940. Mind you, the R-1820 engined Martlets were to prove none-too-reliable either. …..

For the sake of simplifying this debate, can we limit 20mm ammo to the 20 x 110mm used in the Hispano-Suiza III, Polsten and some Oerlikon auto-cannons?

The RAF had problems adapting the Hispano-Suiza 404 cannons to the wings of Spitfires because it was originally designed as a motor-cannon and was supposed to be stiffened by the crankcase of of a Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine as installed in the Moraine-Saulnier 406 fighter (roughly equivalent to Hawker Hurricane). Spitfire wings proved too flexible, too cold and too thin. It took Supermarine a few years to develop pneumatic cocking mechanisms, gun heaters and drum magazines.

 

[riggerrob]

…. Production of the …. was phased out at Fort William in the late Autumn of 1942 in favour of the licenced Grumman Gannet Mk.V - the CC&F equivalent of Grumman's Gannet Mk.I. CC&F Gannet production was overseen by the new Chief Aeronautical Engineer, Elsie MacGill ….

ATL The Fleet Air Arm prove so happy with their Gannet/Hellcat that they are too busy to bother with equally-fast, but more difficult to handle Vought Corsairs.
OTL Fairchild of Canada was building sub-components for Bearcats and Tigercats by the end of WW2.
ATL Did Fairchild of Canada build sub-components for Grumman TBM Avengers?

 

[Justo Miranda]

In the immediate post-war period, the British aeronautic industry conducted three transonic research projects: The Miles M.52 was a brute force project based on the use of a W.2/700 turbojet with afterburning, the R.A.E. transonic airplane was a streamlined variant of the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 powered by one AJ 65 turbojet, the de Havilland D.H.108 was a modified Vampire jet fighter with swept wings and tailless configuration.

The British had no luck with their tailless experiments: The General Aircraft GAL 56 and GAL 61, Armstrong Withworth A.W.52, Handley Page H.P.75 and Baynes Bat prototypes had resulted in dangerously unstable machines.

In October 1945 John Frost, the project engineer of the D.H. 108, decided to use the German technology of the Messerschmitt Me 163 swept wing fighter with the cooperation of several German technicians. One of them was Dr. Waldemar Voigt, chef designer of Messserschmitt-Oberammergau AG.

Frost also had access to the information on tip jet-driven rotor helicopters, radial flow gas turbines and the Flügelrad propulsion concept that had been captured in Europe by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (B.I.O.S.). The development of the powerful BMW-Bramo radial-flow turbojet was continued at the British National Gas Turbine establishment.

In 1947 Frost joined A.V. Roe Canada Company, as project designer of the Avro XC-100 all-weather fighter, only ten days before Kenneth Arnold’s UFO encounter.

Fascinated by reports of UFO sightings, Frost concluded that the German technology could be used to build a flying disc. Privately and with a group of friends, he started the design of the tip jet-driven rotor Gyrodyne based in the Feuerball concept and a disc-shaped aircraft powered by an integral pancake radial-flow turbojet based in the Kugelblitz concept.

Researcher Tim Mattews states in the book 'UFO revelation' that in 1951 A.V. Roe employed several German scientists including the chief designer of the Kugelblitz project, Dr. Heinrich Richard Miethe.

Late in 1951 Frost made a proposal for a proof-of-concept saucer-like flying vehicle. Early in 1952 the A.V. Roe Special Projects Group was formed to investigate the Frost ideas.

On February 7, 1952, the Group distributed an internal document titled ‘Description and Thoughts on the Turbo Disc’ (a simple gas turbine halfway between a ram-jet engine and centrifugal engine), Frost also submitted the design to the engineering department of McGill University.

The radial-flow turbojet designed by the Frost team had twenty feet of diameter, 42,000 lbf minimum thrust at low pressure and an outstanding power-to-weight ratio of 1.73 to 1.

The horizontal Pelton-wheel turbine had a large multi-stage centrifugal compressor with the rotor blades mounted on the inner disc ring and the stator blades in the outer disc ring. The separate combustion system consisted of several combustion chambers with individual burners and nozzle guide vanes distributed in a radial pattern between the ribs of the vehicle.

This work led to the first design named Omega project, with elliptical planform, 36 ft wingspan, 40 ft overall length and 1 to 7 aspect ratio. It was proposed to control the vehicle by altering the direction of thrust forces.

The vehicle had twenty air-intake slots mounted in the nose, the new pancake engine was designed as an integral part of the airframe and the jet thrust exited from around the entire rim of the engine.

About three-fifths of the jet exhaust flow through a multiple jet-pipe assembly that direct the flow of gases in a rearward direction from the sides of the airframe for propulsion and the remainder is ejected from the trailing edge through ten deflector vanes comprising elevons and trimmers providing control in yaw, roll and pitch.

 

[Justo Miranda]

The idea of a supersonic aircraft with short take-off and landing (STOL) capabilities was proposed by the Special Project Group in April 1952, in the document titled ‘Proposal for a Gas Turbine Propelled Aircraft of Circular Planform’.

A second design (Project-Y July 1, 1952), was a modified variant of the Omega concept with ‘D’ shaped planform and deflector vanes replaced by two extra flaps.

The air for the engine is drawn in through two forward-facing intakes on the upper and lower surfaces of the fuselage.

The unusual landing gear consisted in a 13.7 ft long telescopic strut ended in a double tyre boggie, a tail wheel and two bumpers mounted in the tips of the fish tail. In the ground the airplane sat at a 47-degree angle on its tail, this arrangement led to the aircraft being called Praying Mantis.

Their scalloped nozzles on the airframe sides directed the jet thrust rearwards for near vertical 75-degree STOL operation, after a short run.

Two glass panels under the cockpit floor allowed the pilot to see the ground during landing.

Two wind tunnel models, including one afterburning version, were tested between December 1952 and January 1953 at the Hawker Siddeley-Woolford facilities.

Project-Y technical data

Wingspan: 22.3 ft (6.8 m), length: 29 ft (8.8 m), height: 21.2 ft (6.5 m), estimated max speed: Mach 2.25, estimated ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,817 m), estimated range: 1,000 miles (1,609 Km).

 

[Justo Miranda]

On July 1952, the Special Projects Group issued the report: ‘Project Y: An All-wing Supersonic Airplane’. This third design (August 21, 1952) named Project Y-1, was a tail-sitter supersonic interceptor with vertical take-off and landing capabilities.

The mock-up had been completed late in 1952 and revealed in April 1953.

For VTOL operation the landing gear strut was replaced by two landing legs that extended out of the dorsal and ventral spines. The exhaust flaps were replaced by large slots next to the tail and the side jet exhaust were covered by aerodynamic fairings to save drag.

Yaw control was obtained by means of additional jet-thrusters mounted to both sides of a new pointed nose.

These modifications produced a shape like a spade on a playing card and the Project Y-1 being called Ace of Spades.

The new project should compete against the el British Avro 724 VTOL all-weather interceptor and the lack of an airborne interception radar of the Y-1 was considered unacceptable. At that time, the AI radar required a second crew member, and the mock-up was modified with a second ventral cockpit for one radar operator lying in prone position.

The Ace of Spades was inherently unstable due the control problems added by the gyroscopic effect caused by the considerable mass inertia of their multi-chamber radial flow engine. The problem required an electronic stabilization control system, something not available with the current technology, and the project was cancelled in March 1954 in favor of a VTOL gyroplane with flat-riser configuration named Project Y-2.

Project Y-1 technical data

Wingspan: 21 ft (6.4 m), length: 25.6 ft (7.8 m), airframe thickness: 5.08 ft (1.55 m), wing surface: 380 sq. ft (116 sq. m), estimated top speed: 1,500 mph (2,400 kph), 2,287 mph (3,680 kph) with afterburner, estimated ceiling: 100,000 ft (30,500 m), estimated range: 780 miles (1,255 km), estimated rate of climb: 100,000 ft/minute, proposed armament: four 20 mm cannons, one retractable pack of Mighty Mouse air-to-air unguided rockets or two de Havilland Blue Jay (Firestreak) air-to-air missiles with IR guidance system.

 

[riggerrob]

Thanks dear Justo,
In related news, frustrated Avro engineers install skirts to try and tame the Avro Cars’ “hub-capping” while hovering. When they fail to demonstrate flight out of ground effect, the US Army loses interest and drops the project.
Meanwhile, a USMC officer observing the Avro Car trials “finds” some R&D funds and the hovercraft is invented a decade ahead of OTL.

 

[riggerrob]

That feels like a lot of effort compared to firing in between the cylinder banks like Gladiator, Gauntlet, Bulldog etc.

Or putting the guns in the wings

You have the correct idea.
Machinegun installations in single-engined biplanes only evolved slowly between the wars.
Remember that WW1-vintage biplanes barely had enough horsepower to loft one or two rifle-calibre (.30”) machineguns. Naturally these were mounted to the strongest part of the airframe: the center fuselage. Synchronizing them to fire through propellers was challenging.
MG installations started out outside the center fuselage (Sopwith Pup) then into rudimentary fairings (Sopwith Camel), finally inside the fuselage mold lines and firing between cylinders (Gloster Gauntlet). While Gauntlet managed to eliminate profile drag, they still struggled to synchronize bullets with blades. Synchronizers limited the numbers of bullets that could be fired per pass. As airplane closing speeds increased, pilots repeatedly asked for more rounds per second. Note how ground-bound WW2 Browning .303 MGs typically fired 600 rounds per minute while aerial variants fired at twice that rate.

This tradition continued into WW2 with first-generation monoplanes (Me-109, , Moraine-Saulnier 406, Yaks, Curtiss Hawks and even P-51A mounting .30 or .50 calibre MGs in the engine cowling synchronized to fire through the prop blades.
Synchronization became more difficult as open-bolt MGs and auto-cannons were introduced. Open-bolts are better for cooling and preventing hang-fires, but their longer dwell-time increases the risk of shooting a propeller blade. Even a fraction of a second delay in sending a bullet down the barrel can “hole” a prop blade.
Gloster Gauntlet was one of the few inter-war biplanes fitted with MGs in the lower wings. Gloster also experimented with mounting MGs on the top wings and it is rumoured that Gauntlets defending Malta were also retrofitted with guns on the upper wings.
Wing-mounted MGs - on monoplanes - needed to wait until engines consistently produced more than 1,000 hp. and engineers learned how to build stress-skin, cantilever wings.

 

[riggerrob]

In other speculation, circa 1935 an experimental jet engine blew up, destroying a test-cell and removing a chunk of FO Frank Whittle’s ear. Frustrated, Whittle abandoned his research in England and accepts an offer from a group of Montreal-based investors. The investors supply Whittle with a crew of machinists, welders, pipe-fitters, lab technicians, etc and build 3 test cells adjacent to Saint Hubert Airport. P&WC build some experimental components.
Relieved of testing duties, Whittle gets a good night’s sleep and never develops his OTL addiction to benzadrine.
Fairchild of Canada modifies a Bolingbroke to serve as a flying test bed for Whittle’s early experimental engines. After over-speeding the Bolingbroke, Whittle trades it for a DHC Mosquito bomber to prove out the high-altitude and high-speed corners of the envelope.
deHavilland sends an incomplete Spider Crab prototype to Saint Hubert to further flight tests on the new engine.

 

[Apophenia]

The RAF had problems adapting the Hispano-Suiza 404 cannons ...

Feed problems were the biggest issue for the HS 404. I'm not sure if French pilots could clear blockages in their moteur canons but RAF pilots certainly couldn't clear jammed wing-mounted guns.

The British Hispano could have been ready in late 1938 but basically had to be redesigned to get around Marc Birkigt's manufacturing preferences (as well as curing some built-in design weaknesses). As you noted, the Spitfire installation had specific problems but all Mk.I guns suffered from the original, Oerlikon-style, drum-feed. Once the 60-round drums were replaced by the recoil-driven, Chatellerault-derived belt feeds, most of the British Hispano issues were solved.

The differences of French manufacture and design detail issues with the Hispano resulted in a deal of wasted effort in Britain. J. D. North and team at Boulton Paul put a lot of energy into adapting the Hispano to a variant of BP's Type A turret. [1] That installation was flown by a Defiant testbed in Dec 1939. But, by the time the British belt feed solution appeared, Bomber Command had temporarily lost interest in 20 mm turret guns.

A whole other question is alternatives to British Hispano ... but that is drifting beyond the realm of RCAF '46.

 

[Apophenia]

...OTL Fairchild of Canada was building sub-components for Bearcats and Tigercats by the end of WW2.
ATL Did Fairchild of Canada build sub-components for Grumman TBM Avengers?

OTL: Was Fairchild Aircraft building those Bearcat sub-components for Bethpage's F8Fs or for the planned CC&F-built F4Ws?

ATL: What if Can-Car maintains its Grumman connections to supply both FW Hellcats and TBW Avengers to the US Navy for Lend-Lease. Fairchild Aircraft would then be free to build a follow-on to the twin-engined Bolingbroke ... I'm imagining a B-25H-FC [1] Mitchell with the SBF Helldiver never happening.

_________________________

[1] This what-if USAAF manufacturer code would be in sequence -- FA for Fairchild (Hagerstown, MD); FB for Fairchild (Burlington, NC); and, now, FC for 'Fairchild Canada'.

 

[Apophenia]

...Budd Conestoga flies to the rescue.
Since both CCF and Budd USA started out by manufacturing railway rolling stock, they trade patents and processes during the 1930s. When Budd patents shot-welding machines to build stainless steel railway cars, CCF buys some shot-welding machines, but they soon gather dust as railway construction is sidelined at the start of WW2 (1939).
When a Budd Conestoga cargo plane visits Fort William on a promotional tour, it gets pressed into rush-delivering some wing panels to Longeuil. The sole Conestoga proves so valuable that it never goes home. CCF soon buys the rest of the Conestoga jigs and builds a few hundred Conestogas for the RCAF.
CCF dodges the OTL Conestogas’ biggest flaw by installing R-1820 engines left over from the Goblin contract.
Conestoga Mark III prove their worth supporting the invasions of Sicily, Normandy, Holland and Germany delivering vehicles, artillery and flying out with wounded.

The Budd RB is a leap into the future of rear-ramped, tricycle-gears transport but the Budd comes with its own problems. Budd was using its decade-old experience in building stainless steel rail cars. [1] But, even still, that very SS contruction resulted in lengthy delays. So, even a CC&F buy-in to Budd SS welding technologies doesn't address all of the issues.

And, of course, all this assumes that Can-Car top management drop their obsession with Vincent Burnelli.

Since you've already got Michael Gregor in play, one possible alternative would be to use his connections. In OTL, Gregor uses the ex-pat network to leave CC&F to join Michael Stroukoff at Chase Aircraft. So, what if instead, Gregor uses his friendship with Stroukoff to create a superior transport to the RW Burnelli CBY-3? What I have in mind is a powered version of a Chase all-metal cargo glider - the Chase MS.7 (aka XCG-18A) or MS.8 (aka XCG-20) depending upon date needed.

So, let's say that this aluminum-airframed Chase glider becomes a powered transport for the RCAF. The result is the Can-Car Carcross - named after the Tagish First Nation of the Yukon Territory. The Carcross C.Mk.1 would be powered by 1,700 hp Wright R-2600-92 engines supplied from RCAF surplus stocks (meant to support the B-25 fleet). The Carcross C.Mk.2 would be powered by 1,715 hp Bristol Hercules 130s. [2]

An alternative-alternative appears if the programme is delayed long enough to tie into Fairchild taking over production of the C-123B. In that case, engines for a Can-Car version would either be 2,500 hp P&W R-2800-99Ws or (if Commonwealth interests trump) 2,405 hp Bristol Centaurus 663s.

___________________________________

[1] Can-Car never did build SS rail cars. Indeed, the CPR (and later VIA) ran Budd-built stainless steel cars.

[2] Providing commonality with the RCAF's Hercules-engined Canadair North Star C.Mk.5

 

[riggerrob]

OTL: Was Fairchild Aircraft building those Bearcat sub-components for Bethpage's F8Fs or for the planned CC&F-built F4Ws? ….

OTL AFAIK, by late war, Fairchild of Canada was building Bearcat and Tigercat components for Bethpage.

 

[riggerrob]

Meanwhile deHavilland of Canada were busy building trainers for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. As in the OTL they started by assembling Tiger Moth kits send from Britain.

ATL When the Moth Minor monoplane production line shuts down in Britain all the tools and jigs landed in Toronto (vice Australia in the OTL). DHC switches to building monoplanes and makes hundreds of Moth Minor Coupes for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.
With assistance from the National Research Council, DHC learns how to microwave plywood to cure glues faster.
As in OTL, DHC then shifts to producing hundreds of Mosquito fighters and bombers.
After signing one too many “letters of condolence” for RCAF Bomber Command crew who died over occupied Europe, Prime Minister MacKenzie-King bans training any more Canadians to serve as aerial gunners or bombardiers. The few remaining RCAF bomb-aimers, gunners and radio operators are assigned to Sunderland and Liberator squadrons patrolling the North Atlantic Ocean.
This focuses late war courses of RCAF pilots and navigators into Mosquito squadrons.

 

[GK Dundas]

As per the auto cannon problem Does anyone know whether or not the Polsten gun would have been suitable for aircraft use ?

 

[riggerrob]

As per the auto cannon problem Does anyone know whether or not the Polsten gun would have been suitable for aircraft use ?

OTL Polstens we’re only used on ground mounts: trailers, LVTs and Skink tank. Those mounts contained up to 4 Polstens in the light AAA. The biggest problem was a lack of targets, since the Luftwaffe only had a few airplanes by the time WALLIES invaded Normandy in June 1944.
Instead Polstens were used against infantry and soft-skinned trucks.

Both the Oerlikon and the Polsten used 60 round drum magazines. Polsten could also use a 30 round box magazine. Those drums would hold enough ammo to fire for 1.5 seconds at 450 rounds per minute, with the smaller 30 round box magazine only lasting 0.75 seconds.
Limited drum capacity favors a fuselage mount that allows the pilot to replace magazines during pauses in the fighting.

How much does a fully-loaded 60 round drum weigh? 64 pounds, so too heavy for a single pilot to move around a cramped cockpit.

How much elbow room do you need to replace a box magazine?

 

[Apophenia]

As per the auto cannon problem Does anyone know whether or not the Polsten gun would have been suitable for aircraft use ?

No reason why not. The Polsten was a simplified and reworked Oerlikon. That it was lighter and faster-firing (up to 450 rpm) would be advantageous. Operation was changed from straight blow-back to a Becker-style advanced primer ignition (API) action.

As riggerrob said, the Polsten could use the Oerlikon's 60-round drum. As such, a British Hispano-style Chatellerault belt feed system could have had been readily created for the Polsten. Obviously a Polsten aircraft gun would be inferior to a British Hispano Mk.V but one could imagine suitable roles for it - turret armament being one possibility.[/B]

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why not in a fictional RCAF ‘46?

Why is the above the title of the thread?

When I read the title I thought it was about a better RCAF since 1946, but when I read the Opening Post it discovered that it's a better RCAF in World War II thread and that's what most of the posts have been about.

 

[riggerrob]

Why is the above the title of the thread?

When I read the title I thought it was about a better RCAF since 1946, but when I read the Opening Post it discovered that it's a better RCAF in World War II thread and that's what most of the posts have been about.

This thread is based upon a website entitled “Luft ‘46” which speculates upon which German wonder weapons would have entered service if the Third Reich had stayed in the fight for another year or three after May 1945.

This thread is also based upon Anthony Williams’ fictional novel “The Foresight War” that sees a time-traveller - from the future - land in London during the 1930s. The novel follows him as he influences British Industrialization during the lead-up to WW2.

In the RCAF ‘46 thread I speculate about how much a time-traveller landing in Montreal can affect Canadian industry in the build up to WW2. Which Canadian-made wonder-weapons could have shortened the Second World War?
As we have already discussed - during the first few posts - this fictional account sees a more rapid “Americanization” of Canadian industry to the point that Grumman-designed airplanes built in Canada dominate the flight decks of (British) Royal Navy aircraft carriers.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This thread is based upon a website entitled “Luft ‘46” which speculates upon which German wonder weapons would have entered service if the Third Reich had stayed in the fight for another year or three after May 1945.

In the RCAF ‘46 thread I speculate about which Canadian-made wonder-weapons could have shortened the Second World War

Fair enough.

 

[riggerrob]

No reason why not. The Polsten was a simplified and reworked Oerlikon. That it was lighter and faster-firing (up to 450 rpm) would be advantageous. Operation was changed from straight blow-back to a Becker-style advanced primer ignition (API) action.

As riggerrob said, the Polsten could use the Oerlikon's 60-round drum. As such, a British Hispano-style Chatellerault belt feed system could have had been readily created for the Polsten. Obviously a Polsten aircraft gun would be inferior to a British Hispano Mk.V but one could imagine suitable roles for it - turret armament being one possibility.[/B]

As in OTL the Inglis Corporation builds many thousand Polsten auto-cannons that fire the same 20 x 110mm ammo as British Hispanos and Oerlikons.
Intitially Inglis production goes mainly to the RCN to prove light AAA to convoy escort ships approaching the UK.
The second batch goes to the Canadian Army mounted on 3 and 4 gun trailers, again to provide light AAA.
ATL Inglis adapts Polstens to arm the dH Mosquito fighter bombers built in Toronto.
Finally, Inglis develops a wing-mounted variant to install in CC&F-built Gannet/Hellcats. The last batch of CC&F built Gannets get 4 x 20mm Polsten cannons in their wings.

 

[riggerrob]

ATL Meanwhile, General Worthington visits Montreal Locomotive Works to inspect the first Valentine light tank off the production line. After he struggles to exit the driver’s hatch while wearing his iconic sheepskin winter coat, “Worthy” angrily DEMANDS larger hatches for the driver. This demand accelerates development of the cast nose on Canadian-built Valentines. The new cast nose eliminates the British “step” in the glacis plate and features a larger, triangular hatch for the driver. From a distance is the new hull glacis more resembles the “peaked” nose on an IS heavy tank.
ATL MLW only builds a handful of Valentines with 2 pounder guns and soon shifts production to 6-pounder guns.
MLW then shifts production to British QF 75mm guns.
MLW then shifts production to Valentine Archers with 17-pounder anti-tank guns.
They also build an Archer variant around a 25-pounder gun. Like the Archer, the 25-pounder variant fires over the engine compartment. Large recoil spades reduce the “jumping about” every time the gun fires. “Lazy” gun crews soon use those recoil spades as bulldozers to dig gun pits.

Then MLW develops two caisson variants (Valentine Archer) to move gun crews and ammo around the battlefield. The Valentine APC variant eventually proves the most numerous after our time-travelling hero whispers in Prime Minister MacKenzie-King’s ear about a conscription crisis looming in the later half of 1944.
As in OTL, MLW only builds a handful of Sherman Grizzly tanks, but soon shifts production to Sexton SP guns. Part of the justification for the shift to Sextons is an admission that 25-pounders are simply too heavy for. Valentine chassis.
ATL under pressure too install 17-pounder guns in Sherman turrets, MLW mounts an un-modified 17-pounder gun in a elongated turret. With its pyramidal gun mantlet and extended bustle, it looks more like a Tiger 2 turret. The bustle mainly helps balance the extra weight of the long barrel and relieves some of the load on traversing gears. The bustle also incorporates a semi-auto rammer to assist the loader.
With their foundry finally free of the work load of casting Valentine parts, MLW casts hundreds of extra 17-pounder turrets that mysteriously get swapped in during the rail trip from central Canada to Halifax. Once they arrive in the UK, their 75mm guns are swapped out for 17-pounders.

 

[Apophenia]

As in OTL the Inglis Corporation builds many thousand Polsten auto-cannons that fire the same 20 x 110mm ammo as British Hispanos and Oerlikons...

A minor note: The Polsten fired the same 20x110 RB ('Rebated Rim') round as the 20 mm/70 Mark II Oerlikons. Although the Oerlikon round had roughly the same dimensions, the 20x110 Hispano was not interchangeable.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This thread is based upon a website entitled “Luft ‘46” which speculates upon which German wonder weapons would have entered service if the Third Reich had stayed in the fight for another year or three after May 1945.

This thread is also based upon Anthony Williams’ fictional novel “The Foresight War” that sees a time-traveller - from the future - land in London during the 1930s. The novel follows him as he influences British Industrialization during the lead-up to WW2.

In the RCAF ‘46 thread I speculate about how much a time-traveller landing in Montreal can affect Canadian industry in the build up to WW2. Which Canadian-made wonder-weapons could have shortened the Second World War?
As we have already discussed - during the first few posts - this fictional account sees a more rapid “Americanization” of Canadian industry to the point that Grumman-designed airplanes built in Canada dominate the flight decks of (British) Royal Navy aircraft carriers.

Does that answer your questions?

Yes it does.

However, for the benefit of anyone who does want to write alternative RCAF since 1945 stories I recommend that they read the "The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968" by Bertram C. Frandsen first. That's the source of much of the background information that I use on post-war RCAF threads.

 

[riggerrob]

Yes it does.

However, for the benefit of anyone who does want of much of the background information that I do use on post-war RCAF threads.

Yes it does.

However, for the benefit of anyone who does want to write alternative RCAF since 1945 stories I recommend that they read the "The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968" by Bertram C. Frandsen first. That's the source of much of the background information that I do use on post-war RCAF threads.

OTL despite rapid RCAF expansion during the 1950s, they never had enough transport airplanes to perform all of their missions.
A recurring gripe/complaint from Canadian Special Air Service, jump battalions, Canadian Airborne Regiment, jump battalions, etc. is shortages of airplanes, difficulty scheduling, etc. The RCAF rarely seemed to be able to muster enough transports to drop the entire CAR at the same time. REFORGER Exercises we’re chronically short of airlift.
Similarly, the RCN never had enough cargo vessels to move large numbers of soldiers to missions overseas. On several missions, the RCN had to use their sole capital ship: HMCS Bonaventure as a transport, sending all the aircraft ashore to make room for the hundreds of soldiers and dozens of trucks needed on United Nations peace-keeping missions.
REFORGER exercises bordered on paper exercises since the RCAF never seemed to have enough transport airplanes to fly an entire battle geoup
to reinforce Norway. Forget about moving enough soft-skinned trucks - much less AFVs - to halt a Soviet invasion of Northern Europe.

 

[Hood]

Did you have in mind more C-130s or something larger?

One AU item could be for example teaming up with the RAF on AST.364 for a strategic loadlifter in the early 1960s. Or maybe buying some C-141s?

One crazier scheme could be to use an Argus wing and Caribou/Buffalo know-how to make a Canadian airlifter similar to the Short Belfast?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Similarly, the RCN never had enough cargo vessels to move large numbers of soldiers to missions overseas. On several missions, the RCN had to use their sole capital ship: HMCS Bonaventure as a transport, sending all the aircraft ashore to make room for the hundreds of soldiers and dozens of trucks needed on United Nations peace-keeping missions.

In that case, perhaps the RCN should have kept Magnificent and used her as a fast transport, like the RAN did with Sydney.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

OTL despite rapid RCAF expansion during the 1950s, they never had enough transport airplanes to perform all of their missions.
A recurring gripe/complaint from Canadian Special Air Service, jump battalions, Canadian Airborne Regiment, jump battalions, etc. is shortages of airplanes, difficulty scheduling, etc. The RCAF rarely seemed to be able to muster enough transports to drop the entire CAR at the same time. REFORGER Exercises we’re chronically short of airlift.

REFORGER exercises bordered on paper exercises since the RCAF never seemed to have enough transport airplanes to fly an entire battle geoup
to reinforce Norway. Forget about moving enough soft-skinned trucks - much less AFVs - to halt a Soviet invasion of Northern Europe.

Did you have in mind more C-130s or something larger?

One AU item could be for example teaming up with the RAF on AST.364 for a strategic loadlifter in the early 1960s. Or maybe buying some C-141s?

One crazier scheme could be to use an Argus wing and Caribou/Buffalo know-how to make a Canadian airlifter similar to the Short Belfast?

If it helps the RCAF wanted to replace its Comets & North Stars with Yukons on a one-for-one basis according to Frandsen.

 

[riggerrob]

If it helps the RCAF wanted to replace its Comets & North Stars with Yukons on a one-for-one basis according to Frandsen.

North Star had a useful load of 35,500 pounds.
Comet had a useful load of 38,500 pounds.
Yukon had a useful load of 120,000 pounds.

 

[Apophenia]

North Star had a useful load of 35,500 pounds.
Comet had a useful load of 38,500 pounds.
Yukon had a useful load of 120,000 pounds.

Yukon payload was 27,434 kg of cargo, Belfast carried 38,500kg+. The Belfast cargo hold was the same length as the stretched CL-44D's - 26 m - but had twice the width and height.
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/shorts-belfast.1290/#post-29676

The Yukon was of interest to the RCAF mainly for its range. The RAF's shifting specs forced the stretching of the Britannic III (into Britannic IIIA to become Belfast) at the expense of longer range. So, what if Canadair also bought rights to the 'short' but longer-ranged Britannic III?

Image: Canadair Britannics of No 435 Squadron, RCAF in the early 1960s. Top, CC-111A Britannic in original markings. Bottom, CC-111B Britannic with revised rear fuselage shaping and hi-viz panels added.

... and Happy Holidays to all on SPF!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

North Star had a useful load of 35,500 pounds.
Comet had a useful load of 38,500 pounds.
Yukon had a useful load of 120,000 pounds.

I re-read my copy of "The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968" by Bertram C. Frandsen and I made a mistake. The Yukon was only to replace the RCAF's 24 North Stars on a one-for-one basis. He also wrote that the number of Yukons and Argus LRMP aircraft was cut due to cost overruns on the CF-105 Arrow.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth I thought of the following a long time ago.

Alternative Vickers V.1000
The ALT-OR.315 and Specification C.132 were for a British equivalent to the Lockheed Starlifter, except the cargo bay had a wider cross section. It was effectively the Short SC.5/45 designed to meet ASR.364 but with Conway engines instead of RB.178s and I call it the Jet-Belfast.

One prototype and an initial production run of 29 production Jet-Belfast C.1 aircraft were built for the RAF instead of the 7 V.1000s that were ordered in the "Real World" and the 23 Britannias (built by Short's) for the RAF. This was followed by a second production run of 24-29 Jet-Belfast C.2 aircraft with more powerful Conway engines. These aircraft were built in place of the 10 Belfasts, 14 VC.10 C.1s and possibly the 5 Comet C.4s built for the RAF. That made a total of 54-59 aircraft (including the prototype) and the 29 Mk 1 aircraft might have been converted to Mk 2s.

Maybe the RCAF could have bought 24 of them in place of the 12 Yukons purchased out of 24 planned. They would be build in the UK with a 100% offset package or built under licence in Canada.

Or even do it as an Anglo-Canadian joint project as part of this thread.

The opening post of the thread "The Avro Arrow killed in the cradle?"

 

[riggerrob]

I re-read my copy of "The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968" by Bertram C. Frandsen and I made a mistake. The Yukon was only to replace the RCAF's 24 North Stars on a one-for-one basis. He also wrote that the number of Yukons and Argus LRMP aircraft was cut due to cost overruns on the CF-105 Arrow.

Long range transport was a major issue, especially when returning home from NATO missions in Western Europe or UN missions in the Middle East.
My suspicion is that Yukon was the first RCAF transport that could skip the refuelling stop in Newfoundland. I remember reading an account by an RCAF Yukon navigator about how they liked to juggled altitudes and fuel burn so that they always had to refuel in Quebec City … something to do with Canada Customs agents being the slackest in Quebec City. This was during an era when RCAF transport crews could supplement their pay by importing booze, cars, lobsters, etc. duty-free.

This reminds me of a later comment by my brother when he was returning from Bosnia or Afghanistan. Canada Customs met them as they deplaned and announced: “We don”t care about your booze or cigarettes. But we do care about weapons and hashish, so the amnesty bin is over there.”

 

[riggerrob]

North Star range 3,860 miles or up to 55 passengers.
Canadair Yukon range 5,860 miles or up to 160 passengers.

Which made Yukon far more productive for passenger-carrying and misc. cargo carrying across the Atlantic, but its high threshold made it difficult to load bulky cargo (e.g. trucks) and it was poorly-suited to dropping paratroopers.
Budd Conestoga. C-119, C-123, C-130, (proposed) jet Belfast would have all been better for carrying bulky cargo.

While Canadian Search and Rescue Technicians may have jumped North Stars - and every other jumpable aircraft in the RCAF inventory - I cannot find any record of them jumping from Yukons.