I had a long look at the potential and specifications of a WW2 fast, long-range multi-role British twin here:
http://quarryhs.co.uk/WW2plane.htm
Oh that is rather close to my thinking.
I do ponder the problematic success of the Beaufort/Beaufighter and Mosquito and how they influenced thinking.
A successful twin fighter of multirole capability instead would exert it's own influence on future thinking. As would a success for Gloster or Westland.
In this the Hornet is too late, the Meteor is also too late and then hampered by it's obvious conservatism.
While the Canberra reinforced this preference and perhaps prejudice.
It's thus no surprise we end up having OR.339 and the TSR.2...
While delay and constant rewrites take a radical late 40's jet designs and see them enter service so late they are eclipsed and viewed as behind the times.
When perhaps what we needed was more effort behind twin multirole fighters post-war. Which rather suggests something had to exist during if not pre-war to change perceptions.
But if conditions are changed. Then thinking is changed.
This is very true. The single-seat twin-engined fighter was a very small niche for the RAF.
Beyond the F.18/37 types the majority were twin-seaters for niche roles:
F.11/37 - turret fighter
F.6/39 - two-seater with 4x 20mm, led to Vickers 414 with 40mm nose turret and morphed into high-altitude Vickers 432
F.4/40 - two-seater high-altitude, led to the Welkin which emerged as a single-seater but had been originally designed as a two-seater (the Mk.2 reverting to that).
F.18/40 - two-seater with 6x 20mm (and later a dorsal turret)
Even the PV Miles M.22 series morphed into larger 2-seat versions.
The Mosquito and Beaufort were again two-seaters, but both having bomber origins were probably larger than needed for a single-seat fighter so amply suited the NF role with AI and other fighter-bomber strike roles.
That just leaves the Hornet which began life in late 1942 as an escort fighter for the Pacific war.
Saying that, single-seat twin-engined fighters in WW2 are pretty rare beyond the P-38, Whirlwind and Fw 189. I guess it just proved more cost-effective to make the most of the increased airframe size and performance to add an extra man to do more things. The three aircraft listed were all designed as interceptors, as engines improved traditional single-engined fighters offered superior rates of climb by the early 1940s - indeed two of the three were attempts to get good interceptors using smaller V-12s, the P-38 of course had supercharged goodies.
I would say that the Whirlwind's obvious benefit (especially with Peregrines) was for lower-altitude operations. They served well on
Rhubarbs during 1941. For the BoB they offered firepower but would probably have been suited more as anti-bomber fighters than mixing it with 109s. The Beaufighter/Mossie were still needed for NF with AI. As a fighter-bomber it could have excelled, its range would have made it ideal in the Med campaigns (even better with drop tanks), imagine a squadron of these on Malta in 1941-42? But saying that for the kind of maritime interdiction campaigns carried out the Beaufighter carried a hefty gun load and could take torpedoes and bombs, which the Whirlwind could not match.
Also, from 1943 the Typhoon is also a busted high-altitude wash-out that got stuck down in the weeds as a fighter bomber. With 800+ Whirlwinds (probably much less with attrition etc. but perhaps more if production had continued), what happens? Does MAP salvage the Tornado/Typhoon saga by pushing the Whirlwind aside? Issue Typhoon to Army Co-Operation squadrons instead of early P-51 Mustang Mk.Is and keep Whirlwind as the main fighter bomber?
Whirlwind with Merlin a whole different ball game, probably means no Hornet as long as Whirlwind proves it has growth potential to store more fuel. Even so I would probably on balance rather have those Merlins in Mosquitos which offer a far wider range of possible uses and roles.
G.39 with Hercules is probably good, means the end of the Beaufighter but then it might prove just as useful.
