Miles Monitor

[HoOmAn]

What if....

...the Miles Monitor had been used as light bomber? What would have been her armament? Some cannons abreast her cockpit and a twin-MG turret on the back? Would she have got a different nose? What if the Monitor had featured inline engines (Peregrine, Merlin etc.)?

Thanks for your input,

HoOmAn

[sideshowbob9]

The original R-2600s develop 1700hp so Peregrines aren't gonna cut the mustard. If you mean for use during the war, I'd say keep the R-2600s for commonality with the Mitchells it would almost certainly be working alongside. Which kind of makes my point really. The RAF doesn't exactly have a dearth of light and medium bombers by the time the Monitor would be available.

Mitchells, Havocs and Marauders also have the advantage of being bombers from the get-go as opposed to a converted target tug. According to the Putnam Miles tome, it's military load is only 1033lb!

If it were up to me, I'd make the Monitor a trainer/liason/utility aircraft in the vein of the Percival Prince/Pembroke.

If you want to really whif it up though, you may want to know that the Navy-specific TT.II had a requirement for dive brakes to allow simulated attacks on warships at up to 400mph!


Edit: The Miles M.44 proposal resembles a single-seat Monitor with twin fins and 2 x Merlin 30s (chin radiators) and is little bigger than a Hurricane. It was proposed as a low-level attack aircraft but was not proceeded with due to the success of the Typhoon in this role. Armaments mentioned are various mixtures of 20mm and 40mm cannons although a 47mm cannon is also mentioned as well as 2 500lb bombs. All up weight about 3/4s of the Monitor.

That's a little more like it isn't it?

[HoOmAn]

Well of course, from a historical point of view the RAF would not need need another light bomber. But what if there is no A-20 for example? Would the Monitors fuselage be large enough to feature a bomb bay? Would it be possible to add a twin MG turret (B-25 like)? Would she feature some forward armament?

Btw, I could find some nice photos but not a good line drawing of the M.33 - any idea where I can get a good one? And what would she look like with all those modifications?

The M.44 proposal is new to me and I could not find it on Google (neither text nor photo). From your information she seems to have been some kind of british late-war FW187... Would be great to have a drawing or photo.....

[HoOmAn]

Just compared stats of the A-20 and the Monitor as given on Wiki. Looks like the Monitor is in fact the superior plane (except for top speed)....

[thedarkmaster]

Personally i love the Miles Monitor, think it's very overlooked. Anyway here is one take on a later version.


http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21290.720.html

[HoOmAn]

Yikes! That installation must produce a lot of drag..... But those engines are damn cool.

[sideshowbob9]

The M.44 proposal is new to me and I could not find it on Google (neither text nor photo). From your information she seems to have been some kind of british late-war FW187... Would be great to have a drawing or photo.....

That's as good a description as any. I'll PM you the two illustrations that are in the Putnam Miles book rather than post them. Not sure about copyright issues.

[HoOmAn]

Many thanks....

Btw, speaking of Miles aircraft - I always wondered if the M.20 would have made for a good What if. With a retractable undercarriage and a vertical tail plane that suits the eye better than her original one, she might turn out a beauty.... What do you think?

[jcf]

That's as good a description as any. I'll PM you the two illustrations that are in the Putnam Miles book rather than post them. Not sure about copyright issues.

Posting of small scans (around 800 pixels wide is what I generally do) from books for personal use is covered under Fair Use rules.
Also the relative rarity of the Putnam Miles volume and high price it commands on the used market (only published once, took me
years to find mine at a decent price) makes this the best way to share info.
However, the mass scanning of drawings and photos from currently available publications (especially from Midlands  ) is to be discouraged.

Jon

[sideshowbob9]

That's as good a description as any. I'll PM you the two illustrations that are in the Putnam Miles book rather than post them. Not sure about copyright issues.

Posting of small scans (around 800 pixels wide is what I generally do) from books for personal use is covered under Fair Use rules.
Also the relative rarity of the Putnam Miles volume and high price it commands on the used market (only published once, took me
years to find mine at a decent price) makes this the best way to share info.
However, the mass scanning of drawings and photos from currently available publications (especially from Midlands  ) is to be discouraged.

Jon

Thanks for that. Noted for future reference.

As for the M.20, retractable undercarriage wasn't necessary for it to compete with early Spits or Hurries but would be if it were to compete with later marks. It was essentially an attrition unit, designed to go up during the most desparate days of the Battle of Britain, get shot down in relatively short order but be easier (quicker) to replace than a Spitfire or Hurricane. Once the Battle of Britain was over, the need for it evapourated. I have my doubts about the design's longevity and development potential compared to the Spit.

Besides, the phrase "thing of beauty" and chin radiators are incompatible.