Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2

[SaparotRob]

It seems that just about every plane has its fans, no matter what it looks like. Skyediamonds , I like the Amiot 143 too.

 

[yulzari]

It's an odd thing that two wings of the same company were each working on an eight gun fighter for the RAF. It seems like such a needless duplication of effort and waste of resources, time and money when instead the Vickers division could be expediting the Wellington program (also first flying in 1936, same as the Spitfire and Venom).

My personal opinion is that, whilst their Supermarine arm was looking purely at performance with their background in artisan made flying boats and racing aeroplanes, the Vickers arm was thinking about production ease and costs. The geodetic construction they went for in large aeroplanes required a large capital investment in tooling etc. but once invested it could churn out mass bits to be assembled by less skilled workers and (whatever modern gender views may be) draw upon cheaper women for the skin coverings. I suspect that the Venom was far easier and thus cheaper to build in quantity than the complex Spitfire and may have been aimed at a slightly different market but would fit the RAF specification too. The real curiosity was the choice of engine. Build it around the Perseus or Mercury and the minor nations would beat a path to Vickers door. The Aquila was pushed too far and was too small and light to be simply swapped for some other engine type in the existing Venom airframe.

But the OP is about aesthetics not engineering but it has a neatness and air of simplicity that appeals to me.

 

[WARSPITER]

My personal opinion is that, whilst their Supermarine arm was looking purely at performance with their background in artisan made flying boats and racing aeroplanes, the Vickers arm was thinking about production ease and costs. The geodetic construction they went for in large aeroplanes required a large capital investment in tooling etc. but once invested it could churn out mass bits to be assembled by less skilled workers and (whatever modern gender views may be) draw upon cheaper women for the skin coverings. I suspect that the Venom was far easier and thus cheaper to build in quantity than the complex Spitfire and may have been aimed at a slightly different market but would fit the RAF specification too. The real curiosity was the choice of engine. Build it around the Perseus or Mercury and the minor nations would beat a path to Vickers door. The Aquila was pushed too far and was too small and light to be simply swapped for some other engine type in the existing Venom airframe.

But the OP is about aesthetics not engineering but it has a neatness and air of simplicity that appeals to me.

That is correct. The idea behind the Venom came from the French idea of smaller, lighter, single seaters which were highly manoeuvrable
and could land almost anywhere (commonly called the jockey type). There was a good market for these in smaller airforces as in some countries
in South America for example.

The Venom even had an engine system that swung out to get at it from the back for ease of servicing.
The problem was the engine availability and the resources to actually build the plane.

 

[ThomasP]

Also, a WARSPITER indicates, per the original Air Ministry Spec F.5/34 from Wiki:

"The Vickers Venom was designed to meet Air Ministry specification F.5/34 which called for a single-seat eight-gun aircraft with the high maximum speed and rate of climb needed to catch 200 mph (320 km/h) bombers flying at 15,000 ft (4,600 m). Submissions were expected to use a radial engine for good performance in the tropics".

With further development, Bristol expected (rightly or wrongly) the Aquila (at an eventual .9 BHP/lb) to meet or exceed the contemporary performance of the Mercury engine (at .8 BHP/lb). That it did not is not (I think) attributable to the engine itself except in that the engine size became obsolete as so many smaller displacement engines did during the same period.

Also, if the numbers from Wiki are correct, the Aquila had a Ø46" diameter vs the Mercury's Ø55.3 - the Venom's smaller diameter engine and smaller (but thicker) wing resulting in a very significant (~20% I think) lesser Cd. Again per Wiki, the Venom did 312 mph on 625 BHP at ~15,500 ft during the testing, while the Bristol F.5/34 did 316 mph at about the same altitude on 840 BHP.

 

[yulzari]

Also, a WARSPITER indicates, per the original Air Ministry Spec F.5/34 from Wiki:

"The Vickers Venom was designed to meet Air Ministry specification F.5/34 which called for a single-seat eight-gun aircraft with the high maximum speed and rate of climb needed to catch 200 mph (320 km/h) bombers flying at 15,000 ft (4,600 m). Submissions were expected to use a radial engine for good performance in the tropics".

With further development, Bristol expected (rightly or wrongly) the Aquila (at an eventual .9 BHP/lb) to meet or exceed the contemporary performance of the Mercury engine (at .8 BHP/lb). That it did not is not (I think) attributable to the engine itself except in that the engine size became obsolete as so many smaller displacement engines did during the same period.

Also, if the numbers from Wiki are correct, the Aquila had a Ø46" diameter vs the Mercury's Ø55.3 - the Venom's smaller diameter engine and smaller (but thicker) wing resulting in a very significant (~20% I think) lesser Cd. Again per Wiki, the Venom did 312 mph on 625 BHP at ~15,500 ft during the testing, while the Bristol F.5/34 did 316 mph at about the same altitude on 840 BHP.

The Bristol Taurus was an Aquila related design giving about twice the power for an additional 250kg more so of the same diameter as the Aquila but a twin row so longer too. The issue would be centre of gravity and extra tankage to feed the beastie were it stuck on a Venom. As it was the Venom used Aquila was pushed too far for reliable use and put out the same power per litre as the late Taurus did. Bristol was not ready to deliver production Aquilas at 650bhp at the time, only later on in line with contemporary Taurus progress.