# WW2 Aircraft more successful in secondary role



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

Just wondered which of the aircraft, which went into production, that were more successful at a secondary role than they were at their originally designed for role.

An example would be the Typhoon.
It did have some success as a fighter but failed to replace the Spitfire as the main fighter for the RAF, its original goal.

It did have a successful secondary career as a ground support aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 14, 2016)

Bf 110 - not a great success as a day fighter, but a very useful night fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 14, 2016)

Battle?
Beaufighter - unsure, anyone know exactly what they had planned for the Beaufighter prewar?
Defiant
Lysander?
Whirlwind


----------



## muskeg13 (Jul 14, 2016)

The FW 200 Condor was designed and entered service as a civilian airliner, but was pressed into use as a long range maritime patrol aircraft and commerce raider.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 14, 2016)

Ju-88

Terrific multi role plane. Initial role was a medium bomber but probably best at being a night fighter.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Battle?
> Beaufighter - unsure, anyone know exactly what they had planned for the Beaufighter prewar?
> Defiant
> Lysander?
> Whirlwind



The Battle was a light bomber and the Defiant was a turret fighter. What were the secondary roles they successful doing? Target tug?

Whirlwind's secondary role being "Whirlybomber"?

Pre-war the Beaufighter was intended to be a backup for the Whirlwind - ie a cannon fighter. It didn't really do that task, but did a few others, including night-fighter and torpedo bomber.


----------



## GregP (Jul 14, 2016)

The P-51 was supposed to be a replacement for the P-40 and wound up being able to stay aloft so long it became the premier escort fighter, not a role originally intended. I agree with the Fw 200 Condor, not designed to be military at all. Actually, neither was the He 111, as originally announced, and it served as a Luftwaffe medium bomber for the entire war.

Surely the most adaptable planes were, in no particular order, the Mosquito and the Ju 88. The SBD Dauntless gained fame as a dive bomber, but was an effective fighter when nothing else was available ... probably because nobody had ever trained to fight it as a fighter. The role was totally unexpected, even by the pilots.


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

P-47. Successful in it's primary fighter role, unlike the Typhoon, but also outstanding as a fighter bomber.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (Jul 14, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The Battle was a light bomber and the Defiant was a turret fighter. What were the secondary roles they successful doing? Target tug?
> 
> Whirlwind's secondary role being "Whirlybomber"?
> 
> Pre-war the Beaufighter was intended to be a backup for the Whirlwind - ie a cannon fighter. It didn't really do that task, but did a few others, including night-fighter and torpedo bomber.



Battle entered service as a bomber and found better success in training roles.
Defiant entered service as a day fighter but found better success as a night fighter.
Whirlwind entered service (somewhat) as an interceptor but found better success as a fighter-bomber.


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

Not factually wrong about the Whirlwind, but so few were built, and even fewer operated, making it debatable whether it was a success at all in any meaningful way.

Total production just over 100 and less than 70 converted to 'Whirlibombers'. Others discussed were produced in thousands or tens of thousands!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 14, 2016)

GregP said:


> I agree with the Fw 200 Condor, not designed to be military at all. Actually, neither was the He 111, as originally announced, and it served as a Luftwaffe medium bomber for the entire war.



Hey Greg, IIRC the HE-111 was publicly announced as a civilian transport, but all along was being designed for the Luftwaffe. Am I correct with this?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 14, 2016)

stona said:


> Not factually wrong about the Whirlwind, but so few were built, and even fewer operated, making it debatable whether it was a success at all in any meaningful way.



As a venture I'd say no, it wasn't an overall success. But as an aircraft the men who operated it would certainly say it was a success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> Hey Greg, IIRC the HE-111 was publicly announced as a civilian transport, but all along was being designed for the Luftwaffe. Am I correct with this?



It was never intended as an civilian transport. It first appears in Goering's second production plan, the so called 'Rhineland Programme' proposed for the period from 1st January 1934 through 30th September 1935.
This was the first serious production programme, the only earlier one (which did not include the He 111) was issued hastily by Goering on assuming control of aviation in 1933, predating the He 111.
None of the aircraft appearing in the Rhineland Programme were intended for civilian use, they are quite explicitly military aircraft. Just 115 of the proposed 4021 aircraft were earmarked for Lufthansa and that did not include the 9 proposed He 111s. 

By 1934 everyone knew Germany was rearming and building an air force. The pretence that any military type was really intended for a civil role was already redundant, though it was maintained to some extent by the Germans as into 1935/36. The fact that the early He 111 prototypes were given civil registrations is not unusual or sinister, though it did allow rather ridiculous claims about high speed airliners, with just 10 seats, 4 crammed into the bomb bay, as operated by Lufthansa.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 14, 2016)

I'll give the nod to the B-25 Mitchell, designed as a medium bomber, "It became the most heavily armed airplane in the world, was used for high- and low-level bombing, strafing, photoreconnaissance, submarine patrol, and even as a fighter" - from the Boeing website.

Later on I'd give the F-86 a glance, designed as a day fighter it became an all weather interceptor (let's not talk about the rocket armament though), recon bird and fighter bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Battle?
> Beaufighter - unsure, anyone know exactly what they had planned for the Beaufighter prewar?
> Defiant
> Lysander?
> Whirlwind



The Battle was _supposed _to be a light strategic bomber. (range around 1000 miles and bomb aimer in the belly). Most wound up as trainers.
Beaufighter. With an _estimated _speed of 370mmph it was seen at the very least as a bomber interceptor. (who needs 360mph Whirlwinds when you have 370mph Beaufighters . A bit like the over 400mph Typhoon, Reality slapped them in the face like a wet fish. The Beaufigher did an awful lot of good work, just not what was intended. 
Defiant went from day fighter to Nightfighter/trainer/target tug.
Lysander: a pet peeve of mine . Went from Gods answer to the Army's prayers (every division _*needed *_at least one squadron and preferably more) to "_what do we *do* with them"._ in weeks. Air-sea rescue, training and target towing. The number of agent droppers actually used makes Whirlwind use look large scale. 

Whirlwind went from general purpose fighter to less vulnerable bait than Blenheims in the whole "Lean Forward into Europe/operation circus" Campaign. After a while they were given bomb racks when Hurricane production was so spoken for by overseas commitments (and aid to Russia) that it looked like the RAF would have to drop from two fighter bomber squadrons in England to one. 
Reason/s only 70 got bomb racks is that only two squadrons were using them and any planes lost in the first year or so of operations never got them and the racks may have only been fitted as replacement aircraft were drawn from store and issued to the squadrons. Last planes in store not fitted?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2016)

stona said:


> It was never intended as an civilian transport. It first appears in Goering's second production plan, the so called 'Rhineland Programme' proposed for the period from 1st January 1934 through 30th September 1935.
> 
> The pretence that any military type was really intended for a civil role was already redundant, though it was maintained to some extent by the Germans as into 1935/36. The fact that the early He 111 prototypes were given civil registrations is not unusual or sinister, though it did allow rather ridiculous claims about high speed airliners, with just 10 seats, 4 crammed into the bomb bay, as operated by Lufthansa.
> 
> ...



It is not quite as ridiculous as it appears. The bulk of the worlds high speed airliners holding 14 passengers or less at the time. 
The Lockheed 10





Fit 10 passengers in a cabin 15 ft long and 56in wide and 60in tall. Note man standing by the door. 

And Boeing 247 had steps over the main spar in the cabin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

It wasn't just a matter of bolting a Mk III Universal Carrier onto the Whirlwind. A Westland designed tubular structure was fitted inside each wing and then the standard 'government supplied' bomb selection and fusing switches and circuitry was fitted. This was not a job for the squadrons but was carried out at a Maintenance Unit. No. 263 Squadron was converted first, in August 1942, at 25 M.U. (Colerne) and it took between 20 and 30 man hours per aircraft, principally because the outer wings had to be removed to install the reinforcing structure. No. 137 Squadron was converted the following month. 

The Whirlwind *was not *a great fighter bomber. The bombs severely impacted performance reducing speed (one of the Whirlwind's strengths) to just 318 mph at 15,000 feet and ceiling to 27,500 feet. With just the port bomb carried the aircraft had some serious handling problems. The advice was always to drop the bombs together and if that was impossible, to drop the port bomb first.

I can't see the Whirlwind as a successful aircraft in either of the proposed roles, it just wasn't that good at anything. Just going fast at low level, by the standard of 1940, and lifting four 20mm cannons, is not good enough.

It is also important to note that the Whirlwind was being converted to carry bombs only a matter of months before the same decision was taken, in January 1943, for the much more capable Typhoon.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

SR6...I was referring to the propaganda around the aircraft's speed, as the world's fastest airliner, which was substantially exaggerated by the German media. 
Nonetheless, I wouldn't fancy being one of the passengers in the 'smoking cabin' of an He 111 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 14, 2016)

Vickers Warwick? Though I am not sure it was ever actually USED as a bomber before it was used as a lifeboat dropper.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2016)

My vote goes to the Mosquito, designed as a light bomber, it was good enough as a night fighter and recon aircraft for the USA to want it.
It also downed V1s and was a great heavy fighter/maritime stike aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> My vote goes to the Mosquito, designed as a light bomber, it was good enough as a night fighter and recon aircraft for the USA to want it.
> It also downed V1s and was a great heavy fighter/maritime stike aircraft.



But was it _more_ successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?

It was very successful as a bomber.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2016)

wuzak said:


> But was it _more_ successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?
> 
> It was very successful as a bomber.


Curiously that may rule it out, as a precision bomber and pathfinder it didnt have an equal either.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> My vote goes to the Mosquito, designed as a light bomber, it was good enough as a night fighter and recon aircraft for the USA to want it.
> It also downed V1s and was a great heavy fighter/maritime stike aircraft.



It might have been initially designed as a light bomber first but.....

Three prototypes were built, each with a different configuration. The first to fly was _W4050_ on 25 November 1940, followed by the fighter _W4052_ on 15 May 1941 and the photo-reconnaissance prototype _W4051_ on 10 June 1941.


----------



## GregP (Jul 14, 2016)

Hi Thorlifter,

I believe you are correct in that the He-111 was designed as a bomber and modified to be released as a mail plane. However, I lived in the Phoenix, Arizona area for 23 years and knew people who flew the CAF's Casa. One guy who piloted it regularly said it flew like an underpowered DC-3 and, if one engine failed, the other would overheat in about the time it took you do run a short landing pattern. So, it's suitability as a military bomber has been suspect by me since hearing that.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 14, 2016)

Supermarine Walrus. Designed to be catapulted off a Battleship to spot for its big guns and shadow targets but did most of its work as an Air Sea Rescue plane.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 14, 2016)

The Merlin powered Mustangs. In all of WW2 there is nothing else even close IN MY OPINION
of one particular aircraft in changing the events of WW2 in Europe. There were others that were
dramatic but none that change the history or direction to the degree of the Merlin powered P-51.
The English wanted more P-40s. North American gave them the NA-73, then the P-51. By the
time the P-51A came out it was a strong contender for army coop. Then came the Merlin powered
Mustangs. Direction changed and history was made. Many, many other aircraft shifted directions,
Ju88, Mosquito and several other great aircraft, but none with the impact of the Merlin Mustang.

And that is how I see that, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Just wondered which of the aircraft, which went into production, that were more successful at a secondary role than they were at their originally designed for role.
> 
> An example would be the Typhoon.
> It did have some success as a fighter but failed to replace the Spitfire as the main fighter for the RAF, its original goal.
> ...



Not sure that ground attack is really a secondary role. Perhaps secondary to air superiority but many of the other roles mentioned in this thread are into the third or fourth rank. 
Doing ground attack in the face of flak and possible interception at low altitude or lifeboat dropping and target towing? 
Ever pilot/crewman saved was important and better training also saved lives but the aircraft that did those roles sometimes had no possible combat role, "secondary" or otherwise without horrendous losses for little effect.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 14, 2016)

I am must agree with Shortround on this one.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2016)

I always was led to believe that the He 111 was developed as a bomber but called a mail plane to evade Versailles restrictions however I thought in this thread the Sunderland could fit as it was a modified passenger design, Wiki says

"However, in 1934, the British Postmaster General declared that all first-class Royal Mail sent overseas was to travel by air, establishing a subsidy for the development of intercontinental air transport in a fashion similar to the U.S. domestic programme a decade earlier. In response, Imperial Airways announced a competition to design and produce 28 flying boats, each weighing 18 long tons (18 t) and having a range of 700 mi (1,100 km) with a capacity for 24 passengers."

I didnt realise that mail delivery was used to develop aviation all around the world.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> The Merlin powered Mustangs. In all of WW2 there is nothing else even close IN MY OPINION
> of one particular aircraft in changing the events of WW2 in Europe. There were others that were
> dramatic but none that change the history or direction to the degree of the Merlin powered P-51.
> The English wanted more P-40s. North American gave them the NA-73, then the P-51. By the
> ...


I respectfully disagree, the joint air offensive which the P51 took part in only defined where the western and Soviet allies met, there were two European conflicts which were solely fought in the air The Battle of Britain and Malta. There were many German LW aces who racked up massive scores in N Africa and the Russian front but had no effect on the course of the war at all


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure that ground attack is really a secondary role. Perhaps secondary to air superiority but many of the other roles mentioned in this thread are into the third or fourth rank.
> Doing ground attack in the face of flak and possible interception at low altitude or lifeboat dropping and target towing?
> Ever pilot/crewman saved was important and better training also saved lives but the aircraft that did those roles sometimes had no possible combat role, "secondary" or otherwise without horrendous losses for little effect.



I don't mean secondary in its importance to the war effort, but secondary as it was not the aircraft's intended role.

So while ground support/attack was a very important role, it was not the one for which the Typhoon, for example, was designed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2016)

People naming a lot of aircraft that where good in multiple roles, not necessary better in their "secondary" role.

To me the one thst stands out the most.

Bf 110

It was a fantastic night fighter, but did not pan out in it's intended role.

The Ju 88 was best as a night fighter, but was good or better than average in most of it's roles. It can be argued it was the most versatile aircraft of the war (along with the Mossie). That is why I would not include it. Same for the Mossie. It, like the Ju 88 was very good in it's intended role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Later on I'd give the F-86 a glance, designed as a day fighter it became an all weather interceptor (let's not talk about the rocket armament though), recon bird and fighter bomber.



Unfortunately the F-86 missed WW2 and thus cannot be considered for this thread.

Also, since it excelled in its primary role as fighter it would be hard to claim that it was more successful in any of its secondary roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> People naming a lot of aircraft that where good in multiple roles, not necessary better in their "secondary" role.
> 
> To me the one thst stands out the most.
> 
> ...



The Bf 110 does seem to be one that stands out. 

Not sure that it was particularly bad at its original role (long range heavy fighter/destroyer?). But it proved a very capable and long-lived night fighter, defying attempts to replace it. It was also very successful at this new role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 15, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Unfortunately the F-86 missed WW2 and thus cannot be considered for this thread.
> 
> Also, since it excelled in its primary role as fighter it would be hard to claim that it was more successful in any of its secondary roles.




Point taken on number one.

Upon re-reading the thread topic, I can see I was a bit in error, I was reading the topic wrong.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I don't mean secondary in its importance to the war effort, but secondary as it was not the aircraft's intended role.
> 
> So while ground support/attack was a very important role, it was not the one for which the Typhoon, for example, was designed.





GregP said:


> Hi Thorlifter,
> 
> I believe you are correct in that the He-111 was designed as a bomber and modified to be released as a mail plane. However, I lived in the Phoenix, Arizona area for 23 years and knew people who flew the CAF's Casa. One guy who piloted it regularly said it flew like an underpowered DC-3 and, if one engine failed, the other would overheat in about the time it took you do run a short landing pattern. So, it's suitability as a military bomber has been suspect by me since hearing that.



I have no idea if there was a problem with that particular aircraft or it's engines/installation. 
Interesting report from 1956: aircraft type | 1956 | 1101 | Flight Archive

According to Wiki the plane the CAF owned had been Franco's personal transport. How thorough a conversion from Jumo engines to Merlins was done I don't know but could speculate about different cooling requirements for the different engines even at nearly the same power outputs?

Flying these planes with no bombs on board and with less than max fuel _should _have made them a bit more sprightly


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2016)

stona said:


> It wasn't just a matter of bolting a Mk III Universal Carrier onto the Whirlwind. A Westland designed tubular structure was fitted inside each wing and then the standard 'government supplied' bomb selection and fusing switches and circuitry was fitted. This was not a job for the squadrons but was carried out at a Maintenance Unit. No. 263 Squadron was converted first, in August 1942, at 25 M.U. (Colerne) and it took between 20 and 30 man hours per aircraft, principally because the outer wings had to be removed to install the reinforcing structure. No. 137 Squadron was converted the following month.
> 
> The Whirlwind *was not *a great fighter bomber. The bombs severely impacted performance reducing speed (one of the Whirlwind's strengths) to just 318 mph at 15,000 feet and ceiling to 27,500 feet. With just the port bomb carried the aircraft had some serious handling problems. The advice was always to drop the bombs together and if that was impossible, to drop the port bomb first.
> 
> ...



The poor Whirly was never allowed to become the fighting aircraft it could have become, and no, I am not talking about putting Merlins in it 

Most aircraft suffered a severe loss or performance when bombs where hung outside. Some more than others but the Whirlwind was certainly not helped by the crude conversion given to it. Understandable given the numbers involved, why do anymore work than absolutely necessary. But then don't criticize the conversion for not being as good as other planes. 
Hurricanes lost a fair amount of speed when carrying bombs and the Hurri-bombers weren't saddled with a 1940 engine.





They also got a fairly well streamlined bomb rack compared to the Whirlwind;




Single seat fighters had very little business trying to carry bombs at over 20,000ft in any case so complaints about service ceiling with bombs should be taken with more than a grain of salt. 
Most single seat fighters don't carry drop tanks and bombs at the same time and the fuel burned trying to get to over 20,000ft is not going to be made up by better cruising conditions at those altitudes. 
Hurricane IIB lost about 33mph at around 20,000ft carrying a pair of 500lb bombs and ceiling dropped from 40,000ft to 33,000ft. 
And it had a two speed supercharger and the Hooker designed supercharger intake. 

It would also be interesting to see how long it took for Typhoons to carry 1000lbs in service instead of the 500lb bombs (granted many missions flown by Whirlwinds used 250lb bombs but that is true of the Hurricane also). 

For plane that was built, for the most part, to use up already manufactured parts much like the Botha and the Lysander the Whirlwind certainly accomplished much more (inflicted more damage on the enemy) than some other planes built in far greater numbers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2016)

This might be stretching the "secondary role" a little bit, but the Me323 started out as the Me321, an un-powered transport glider.

With the addition of 6 radial engines, it was now an independent transport, no longer tying up additional resources like three Bf110s or the hybrid He111Z needed to tow it to it's destination.

So in essence, it's secondary role as a powered transport was far more successful than it's primary role as a glider transport.


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2016)

There was no aerodynamic fairing developed for the bomb carrier on the Whirlwind because so few conversions were made. Obviously it would have to fit the profile of the wing, one size doesn't fit all.
Boscombe Down note that at high speed (supposedly one of the Whirlwind's strengths) with both bombs attached the aircraft's natural tendency to fly with the left wing low became highly noticeable and pronounced aileron flutter was detected. Handling was acceptable with just the starboard bomb but with the port bomb only lateral control was deemed poor and the aircraft flew left wing low at all speeds. The Whirlwind's servo tab ailerons meant that there was no way of compensating by trimming the condition out.
It was most unusual for the Whirlwind to carry 500lb bombs, but it could and did.
It really was not a good fighter bomber in 1942/3.

The Typhoon was cleared to carry 500 lb bombs by 1943, but stocks were not available (above Bomber Command's requirements) until February 1943. Until then Typhoons carried mostly 250 lb bombs. By April 2 x 500 pounders was a standard load, except for No.197 Squadron which inherited a substantial stock of 250 lb bombs at Manston and preferred the lighter bomb for its 'Rhubarbs'.
I don't have an exact date to hand for when the Typhoon was cleared for the 1,000lb bombs, but units were training with them in early 1944 in preparation for the invasion.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Jul 15, 2016)

stona said:


> It really was not a good fighter bomber in 1942/3.



Reading the A&AEE report in question - that conclusion seems a bit harsh.

For what its worth the A&AEE tested 1000 lb bombs on the Typhoon up to 390 mph ASI Apr43 and 450 mph ASI Jun44. But, as you said, timeline for their use on operations is another matter.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 15, 2016)

Hmmm...how about the poor old Defiant? Did a decent job as a night fighter and also fulfilled ASR and target tug duties. Seems like a good candidate.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 15, 2016)

The Wellington never did any good s a day bomber and was too small as a night bomber but seemed to be the British go to plane for all sorts of dogsbody roles from mine clearance mine lying and even an early type of AWACs, with 11,461 produced it must have had a lot of positives.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2016)

*BREDA 88*







It failed at everything except being used as a decoy!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The Wellington never did any good s a day bomber and was too small as a night bomber but seemed to be the British go to plane for all sorts of dogsbody roles from mine clearance mine lying and even an early type of AWACs, with 11,461 produced it must have had a lot of positives.



Hold on there, the Wellington was the mainstay of Bomber Command well into 1943. It was still making up the majority of aircraft on missions. It wasn't until May 1943 that it was consistently outnumbered by other types. It might be considered too small for a night bomber, but that's what it did, successfully for the first four years of the war. That's why so many were produced. One might compare it with its contemporary, also developed from Specification B.9/32, the Handley Page Hampden to realise just how good it was.
The Wellington was a successful night bomber and was indeed adapted to other roles following the large scale introduction of the second generation 'heavies', Halifax and of course Lancaster.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2016)

The thing that bothers me about the Whirlwind is there seems to be a lot of "Chicken and the egg" stuff going on.

I understand that it wasn't as good as some other aircraft at being a fighter-bomber but then it never got the improvements some of them did. I understand that with the small numbers involved it didn't make sense to spend much time and money on such improvements. 
But there seems to be trend that it didn't get improvements because other planes were "better" even though later in timing or other excuses are put forward. 
To me it is amazing that the Whirlwind was operational over Europe (at least coastal Europe) in essentially unchanged condition (new tail wheel struts?) from what existed in 1940. Nobody was hanging bomb racks on Hurricane MK Is or Spitfire MK IIs and using them for fighter bombers in 1942/43. Germans weren't using 109E fighter bombers in 1942/43 or 110Cs either. At least in NW Europe on cross channel raids. 

If Typhoons didn't carry 500lbs in quantity until Feb of 1943 then why is the Whirlwind looked down upon for carrying 250lb bombs in 1942 and early 1943? 
And more importantly, what were the 2 squadrons of Hurricanes carrying in 1942? 
And what were the speeds of the Hurricane and Whirlwind, each with 250lbs at sea level or at least at 5,000ft or under? 
That was the altitude that most of the raids in 1942 were conducted at. Crossing the Channel at low altitude to evade German radar. 
These were small raids of flight of aircraft, if that, but not multiple squadrons.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 15, 2016)

To add another to the list - the Westland Lysander. Didn't succeed as an Army Co-op aircraft but excelled at clandestine missions and other roles.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I didnt realise that mail delivery was used to develop aviation all around the world.



Kevin Costner used mail delivery to recover post-apocalyptic society.
The Postman (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> To add another to the list - the Westland Lysander. Didn't succeed as an Army Co-op aircraft but excelled at clandestine missions and other roles.



Trouble with the Lysander is that they built almost 1800 of them. The agent dropping (and picking up) was by three squadrons at the most and the majority of missions was flown by one squadron and even that squadron wasn't fully equipped with Lysanders. 
You wound up with hundreds of target tugs that couldn't reach 220mph without a tailwind even without the target sleeve trailing behind. 
They may help with teaching basic principles but left a bit to be desired as far as realistic practice went.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 15, 2016)

I would like to nominate the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle, an aircraft orginaly designed as a medium bomber that left its mark as a glider tug and aircraft used to drop paratroopers. I don't believe it was ever deployed as a bomber but used as a transport. It saw service in North Africa, Sicily, at Overlord and at Arnhem.

Eagledad

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble with the Lysander is that they built almost 1800 of them. The agent dropping (and picking up) was by three squadrons at the most and the majority of missions was flown by one squadron and even that squadron wasn't fully equipped with Lysanders.
> You wound up with hundreds of target tugs that couldn't reach 220mph without a tailwind even without the target sleeve trailing behind.
> They may help with teaching basic principles but left a bit to be desired as far as realistic practice went.



The Lysander's couldn't be used as liaison aircraft like the L-5 Sentinel or L-4 Grasshopper?


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

I'll second the Albermarle.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

It is telling that in June 1943, when 137 Squadron ceased operations with the Whirlwind it was converted to the Hurricane, handing over its last nine serviceable Whirlwinds to 263 Squadron (at what is now called London Southend Airport  ).
263 soldiered on until December when the first Typhoons arrived. On 4th January, following a party thrown by Westland for the squadron, the end of the Whirlwind was marked with a fly past of the twelve serviceable examples over Yeovil, described by the squadron's diarist, probably himself also hung over, in these words.
_"Three incredibly crooked lines of Whirlwinds staggered over Yeovil."_
And that was that, three and a half years of service came to an end. The pilots would have been better employed flying other types, particularly in 1940/41. There was rarely ever even a couple of dozen examples serviceable across the two squadrons at any one time. There is a clue in the numbers setting off on operations, five, seven, eight, not even by flights but by all available.
It was a nice looking aircraft, but it was initially axed, receiving only a limited reprieve in late 1939. There was never any intention to develop it, Westland were asked simply to supply spares for the life of the aircraft. They were only built to use up material and avoid waste. 
In these terms it did alright, but in 1940 it was not a competitive front line fighter, as Dowding and others made quite clear, and in 1942/43 it was not a particularly good fighter bomber, but then nothing was until the advent/conversion of the Typhoon. The point is that the Whirlwind did not excel in either role.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 16, 2016)

The Hawker Typhoon, intended to be a fighter, but excelled in ground attach.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> The Lysander's couldn't be used as liaison aircraft like the L-5 Sentinel or L-4 Grasshopper?


 The Lysander was a 6000lb aircraft with a 870hp engine. 
The L-5 Sentinel was a 2000lb aircraft with a 185-190hp engine.
The L-4 Grasshopper was a 1200lb aircraft with a 65hp engine.

You could use a Lysander as a liaison aircraft and that was _part_ of it's original duties but it was a very expensive way to get the job done and obviously it used a lot of fuel doing that job. It also used 87 octane av-gas. While it might not be advisable to run the L-5 and L-4 on truck gasoline they required either 73 or 80 octane fuel (Sherman tanks took 80 octane) and so could use standard Army gas in emergencies. 

A _LOT _of planes were used as "communications" aircraft which basically meant they were capable of carrying at least one high priority passenger and sometimes they were just old fighter aircraft that let a pilot fly from one airfield to another without racking up hours on a service aircraft. 
The planes were pretty much what ever was available and hardly the most effective way of moving even small numbers of people/material. 
For example the British assigned 5 left over French Curtiss dive bombers to a "Communications" squadron before down grading them to ground schools.





Later in the War the British got over 800 of these (in various models)




That would hold 4 people including pilot. Most were assigned to the ATA and were used for returning ferry pilots back to the bases/manufacturers that were distributing planes. 
Obviously there were much more efficient aircraft for communications and liaison duties than redundant combat aircraft. It is just that that had become habit during the 20s/30s when what ever budget money there was went for NEW combat aircraft and secondary duties were done with whatever aircraft had been replaced in the front line squadrons. 
It didn't take too long before some people realized that with a few modifications smaller, purpose built aircraft could do jobs the bigger older ex-warhorses could not.
One use for L-5 Sentinels




Fold the seat forward and then fold that wooden panel forward and load stretcher/patient.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2016)

stona said:


> It is telling that in June 1943, when 137 Squadron ceased operations with the Whirlwind it was converted to the Hurricane, handing over its last nine serviceable Whirlwinds to 263 Squadron (at what is now called London Southend Airport  ).
> 263 soldiered on until December when the first Typhoons arrived. On 4th January, following a party thrown by Westland for the squadron, the end of the Whirlwind was marked with a fly past of the twelve serviceable examples over Yeovil, described by the squadron's diarist, probably himself also hung over, in these words.
> _"Three incredibly crooked lines of Whirlwinds staggered over Yeovil."_
> And that was that, three and a half years of service came to an end. The pilots would have been better employed flying other types, particularly in 1940/41. There was rarely ever even a couple of dozen examples serviceable across the two squadrons at any one time. There is a clue in the numbers setting off on operations, five, seven, eight, not even by flights but by all available.
> ...


And here again we get into the Chicken and egg thing. Which came first? 

"The pilots would have been better employed flying other types, particularly in 1940/41"

No 263 Squadron only became fully equipped with Whirlwinds in Nov of 1940. They had been partially equipped with Hurricanes until then. No 137 Squadron wasn't even formed until Sept of 1941 so wasn't flying _anything. _It didn't go operational until the end of Oct 1941_. _ 
Perhaps the pilots of No 263 Squadron should have been flying Defiants in daylight at the end of 1940 in order to better contribute to the war effort? Or the squadron should have been reequipped with Gladiators after reforming from the losses of the Norwegian campaign? 
Hurricanes didn't get cannon until June of 1941 so until late summer or fall of 1941 if you wanted operational 20mm armed ground attack planes you were stuck with either the few Whirlwinds or trying to use Beaufighters. Fortunately nobody came up with the Idea of using Beaufighters as "bait" in the lean forward into France campaign (or if they did the need for night fighters squashed it) 

No 137 squadron was re-equipped with MK IV Hurricanes, which are hardly what most people think of as "_fighter_-bombers" seeing as how they had been pretty much castrated as fighters by cutting the built in armament to a single .303 gun in each wing. Main armament was either the rockets *or *bombs. Once the underwing ordnance was gone the MK IV was only little more effective than a Sopwith Camel for ground attack. The increased armor was probably a good thing for ground attack. No 137 squadron gave up it's Hurricanes for Typhoons in about 6-7 months. Perhaps some of the delay was due to problems with the Typhoon????
The RAF may have been placing an over enthusiastic emphasis on rocket attacks at this time. 

Proper training could have made a difference in some these attacks or made them more effective. Unfortunately it was pretty much a learn as you go deal for the squadrons involved, a few practice runs and then off to France. 

Once again, can anybody come up with a plane that was "axed" in 1939 that was still in combat in 1943? 
Hs 123???


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

What about the Hawker Hector? Yet another Army cooperation aircraft (which tells you the date of its development) which was absolutely vital to the development of British airborne capability, particularly glider operations. If it hadn't been for the Hectors, huffing and puffing over the hedge line at Thame (previously known as Haddenham) with Hotspurs in tow, the first Hotspur arrived in April 1941, there would have been no glider operations. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> And here again we get into the Chicken and egg thing. Which came first?
> 
> "The pilots would have been better employed flying other types, particularly in 1940/41"
> 
> ...



The Whirlwind should have been axed in 1939, decisively, and the pilots could then have flown other types. It wasn't completely axed because the Air Ministry was hedging its bets, as it often did, looking at a potential reconnaissance role for the type, presumably low level. 

You can be picky about whether the Mk IV Hurricane was a true fighter bomber, it was certainly a fighter converted to a bombing role. 

The Whirlwind pilots did have special training, most had attended the 'Specialised Low Attack Instructors School' at Milfield. 137 Squadron sent a few who hadn't to this school prior to adopting the Hurricane.
263 Squadron was operational with the Typhoon less than one month after cashing in the last 14 serviceable Whirlwinds, including those it had taken on from 137 Squadron, which were flown to 18 MU at Dumfries to join 2 already there. Work being undertaken by Westland on another 3 was cancelled. In early 1943 the RAF had, theoretically serviceable, a grand total of 16 Whirlwinds, and insignificant number, irrelevant.
263 Squadron began training on Typhoons on 12th January (the Whirlwind had been declared obsolescent on 1st January) and attacked Maupertus airfield with them on 3rd February.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2016)

"absolutely vital" how???
If every single Napier Dagger engine had blown themselves to bits in Sept of 1939 it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to the war effort. They would have dredged up some other obsolete airframe/engine combo/s and used them to tow gliders in training flights. 
Perhaps even used a few hundred of those target towing Lysanders for glider towing instead? 

AS a matter of fact, from Wiki on the Hotspur.
Towing trials began in February 1941 with a Boulton & Paul Overstrand bomber.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> AS a matter of fact, from Wiki on the Hotspur.
> Towing trials began in February 1941 with a Boulton & Paul Overstrand bomber.



Nothing to do with the development of airborne operations.

In fact the nascent glider training courses had a great deal of trouble acquiring any aircraft from either the Army Cooperation squadrons or Bomber Command though the latter did provide some old bombers for parachute training. 
They did get hold of the Hectors, without which none of the basic questions being asked in mid 1941 would have been answered.
What was the composition of a glider borne Air Landing Brigade to be?
What loads could the operationaI gliders carry, and how would they perform?
What tactics would be used?
Would the glider pilots be airmen or soldiers? Initially they were referred to as coxswains and not even afforded the title, pilot.
When they finished training as Hotspur pilots would Bomber Command be willing to convert them to the Horsa? 
Would that Command allow operations to be mounted from its bases and if not, where would the tugs come from?
The first few were answered with the development of training at Thame, with the Hectors. The reason it was done with Hectors is precisely because the glider training school, described by one of its own senior officers as "an amusing side show" to the rest of the forces in 1941, couldn't get anything else. That's why they were so important.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2016)

stona said:


> Not factually wrong about the Whirlwind, but so few were built, and even fewer operated, making it debatable whether it was a success at all in any meaningful way.
> 
> Total production just over 100 and less than 70 converted to 'Whirlibombers'. Others discussed were produced in thousands or tens of thousands!
> 
> ...


The Whirlwind was a very good dive bomber but my vote for the secondary role would be the P40. Very good GA aircraft but so so fighter


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'll give the nod to the B-25 Mitchell, designed as a medium bomber, "It became the most heavily armed airplane in the world, was used for high- and low-level bombing, strafing, photoreconnaissance, submarine patrol, and even as a fighter" - from the Boeing website.
> 
> .


Only the Boeing website could make claims like that


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2016)

stona said:


> The Whirlwind should have been axed in 1939, decisively, and the pilots could then have flown other types. It wasn't completely axed because the Air Ministry was hedging its bets, as it often did, looking at a potential reconnaissance role for the type, presumably low level.
> 
> You can be picky about whether the Mk IV Hurricane was a true fighter bomber, it was certainly a fighter converted to a bombing role.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point. Out of the two squadrons only one even existed in 1940 and it flew Gladiator until the squadron was effectively destroyed in the Norwegian campaign. More due to the Glorious being sunk than air-to air combat. One squadron more of pilots (most new) during the Battle of Britain? and plenty of other squadrons were working up with new pilots that didn't much action in 1940. 2nd squadron doesn't form up until the 2nd half of 1941 so they weren't around to fly anything in 1940 and over 1/2 of 1941 but somehow that is blamed on the Whirlwind?
The Air ministry didn't seem to know what it wanted. It wanted a 20mm cannon armed fighter. But then it didn't seem to know what to do with it. Keep it for anti-tank work?? only works until the the tanks get thicker than 20mm armor. Performance predictions for future aircraft were way off leading to the initial cancellation (the famous 370 mph Beaufighter would replace it).
Wing mounted 20mmm cannon to longer to figure out than planned/hoped for leaving the orphan Whirlwind and Beaufighter the only game in town for 20mm guns for a while. 
The Whirlwind is often categorized as a low level aircraft but there is a lot of airspace between sea level and 20,000ft so even if the Whirlwind wasn't that good above 20,000ft I am not sure why that regulates it to being a a sea level aircraft?
And again, because of it's "use up the parts in stock" status it never got some relatively simple fixes that might have improved things.
Mosquito picked up 13-15mph by changing from the ducted saxaphone exhaust system to the multi-stub exhaust.
Intake on the Whirlwind gave trouble. Ducted from the radiator/oil cooler duct in the wing it didn't give the ram a more straight forward intake might have. There may have been some trouble keeping the duct/s air tight also which hurt altitude performance.
Whirlwind couldn't even get propellers with more than 20 degrees of pitch change (would help limit over revving in dives) but the whole British propeller production program was a sorry mess to understate it politely. It was claimed that the Whirlwind would need custom propellers and while it is quite true that it used a smaller shaft and hub than the Merlin the Peregrine engine was about the same power and needed about the same size propeller as the Mercury/Pegasus/Perseus. Of course in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm) the air ministry had decided that many of the aircraft powered by those engines only needed two pitch propellers and not even variable pitch between the limits of moving so there wasn't even a good variable pitch hub in that size range to even put different blades on. 
A lot of the problems were self fulfilling prophasis. It is a limited production aircraft so don't fund any improvements and then claim it was right to cancel the aircraft because of problems 1-10 that were known about in the early stages but left unfixed.
Meanwhile the much anticipated replacement (the Typhoon) was augerring into the ground with all too monotonous regularity for the pilots involved.


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

If the Whirlwind had been properly axed, with no partial reprieve in 1939 I reckon that would have freed up about 25 pilots during late 1940, double that in 1941. The initial Whirlwind testers of 25 squadron included many experienced pilots on Blenheims, but when other plans were made for them the survivors of 263 squadron got the job. The core of these pilots were not new men either, all were operational pilots. Instead of reinforcing Fighter Command's hard pressed Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons they were shuffled off to 13 Group with a few Whirlwinds. When all of these were all grounded in July 1940 with a well known list of potentially fatal problems someone should have said enough is enough and pulled the plug. They didn't and by September they had barely achieved a serviceability rate of 50%. In October when it was suggested that 263 move to 10 Group in order to be closer to the Westland factory, which might expedite the solution of the never ending technical problems, Dowding let Beaverbrook know what he thought of the type.

_"I purposely put 262 squadron well out of the way _[13 Group]_ because I know Westlands and I know what a packet of trouble the squadron would be in for. I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world."_

Dowding also thought it

_"Quite wrong to introduce a fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000 feet."_

He quoted a report (by 263 squadron's CO) in which the fighting qualities of the Whirlwind above 25,000 feet were considered _"very poor"._ The Luftwaffe were consistently arriving at 30,000 feet by this time, a big problem for the Hurricane, never mind the Whirlwind. That's why it's considered a 'low level' aircraft, not forgetting the Peregrine's rated altitude of 13,500 feet.

It was its cannon armament that led to it being co-opted into a ground attack role, a decision taken as early as July 1940 in the face of an expected (by some) German invasion. They might have been handy against tanks on the beaches, but that never happened.

The Whirlwind would have required a smaller diametre propeller with the Merlin because the nacelles were close to the fuselage. The issue of completely redesigning the landing gear to provide space for the Merlin's up draught carburettor has been discussed elsewhere.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2016)

stona said:


> Hold on there, the Wellington was the mainstay of Bomber Command well into 1943. It was still making up the majority of aircraft on missions. It wasn't until May 1943 that it was consistently outnumbered by other types. It might be considered too small for a night bomber, but that's what it did, successfully for the first four years of the war. That's why so many were produced. One might compare it with its contemporary, also developed from Specification B.9/32, the Handley Page Hampden to realise just how good it was.
> The Wellington was a successful night bomber and was indeed adapted to other roles following the large scale introduction of the second generation 'heavies', Halifax and of course Lancaster.
> Cheers
> Steve


By the time the first 1000 bomber Cologne raid only 199 Wellingtons were at front line units the raid also had 88 Stirlings 131 Halifaxes 73 Lancasters and 43 Manchesters. There were another 403 Wellingtons supplied from training units. I am not knocking the Wellington, until 1942 the RAF didnt have the numbers, navigational aids or tactics to do the task. Despite being slated for replacement by the Stirling Halifax and Lancaster from 1941 it still remained in service AND production until 1945.


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> By the time the first 1000 bomber Cologne raid only 199 Wellingtons were at front line units the raid also had 88 Stirlings 131 Halifaxes 73 Lancasters and 43 Manchesters. There were another 403 Wellingtons supplied from training units. I am not knocking the Wellington, until 1942 the RAF didnt have the numbers, navigational aids or tactics to do the task. Despite being slated for replacement by the Stirling Halifax and Lancaster from 1941 it still remained in service AND production until 1945.



On 1st March 1942 of the 469 night bombers available to Harris 221 were Wellingtons.

Nearly 18 months later,on the Cologne rate of the night 3/4 July 1943 there were still 89 Wellingtons in the 653 strong force. 124 Wellingtons attacked Berlin on the night of 22/23 August 1943! It was a mainstay of the main force squadrons well into 1943.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2016)

stona said:


> Nothing to do with the development of airborne operations.
> 
> In fact the nascent glider training courses had a great deal of trouble acquiring any aircraft from either the Army Cooperation squadrons or Bomber Command though the latter did provide some old bombers for parachute training.
> They did get hold of the Hectors, without which none of the basic questions being asked in mid 1941 would have been answered.
> ...


The particular aircraft used to tow gliders had absolutely nothing to do with most of those questions.
The Hotspur being thought to unsuitable for operations even before very many had been built and the Horsa being towed by a Hector is the stuff of nightmares.
Doesn't matter if the tow plane is a Hector or a Tiger Moth or a Whitley if you are arguing over the title for the guy who "steers" the glider. It doesn't make any difference to the towplane which branch of the service he is from and it makes no difference to either branch of the service what airplane is used to tow the glider.
Simple math helped figure out some of the other problems, if you have a 5000 man brigade than you need 625 Hotspurs at eight men per glider. IF you have one airman flying it and only 7 soldiers you need 715 Hotspurs. That or your Brigade just shrank by 12.5%. Each Glider needs a tow plane and schemes to tow two Hotspurs with one aircraft quickly were put aside (and I doubt that the Hector could tow two at once). The use of Horsa's at 15 men each means 334 Gliders and 334 towplanes. 
This could easily be worked out without a single glider flight being made. 
Hawker Audax (which predate the Hector) were also used by the Glider training school and later, with no surprise whatsoever, Those oh so valuable Lysanders were used along with Miles Masters. 

From wiki so correct if it is wrong:

" On 21 June 1940 the Central Landing Establishment was formed at Ringway airfield near Manchester; although tasked primarily with training parachute troops, it was also directed to investigate using gliders to transport troops into battle.[8][9] It had been decided that the Royal Air Force and the Army would cooperate in forming the airborne establishment, and as such Squadron Leader L.A. Strange and Major J.F. Rock were tasked with gathering potential glider pilots and forming a glider unit; this was achieved by searching for members of the armed forces who had pre-war experience of flying gliders, or were interested in learning to do so.[9] The two officers and their newly formed unit were provided with four obsolete Armstrong Whitworth Whitley bombers and a small number of Tiger Moth and Avro 504 biplanes for towing purposes.[10]"

Now by the end of June 1940 the Lysander had been shown to be almost totally useless in it's intended roll of an Army Cooperation Aircraft. In the fall of 1940 Westlands was cranking out almost 40 Lysanders a month that were no longer wanted/needed in their original role. Shaking few loose to play glider tow shouldn't have been that big a deal by the time more than a 1/2 dozen to dozen Hotspurs existed, First flight the Prototype Hotspur being in Nov 1940 so by the time they built 5-11 more any idea of having to keep large numbers (like all) of Lysanders around as anti-invasion aircraft should have receded into the far background.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2016)

Glider said:


> Only the Boeing website could make claims like that


Fact is, the B-25H gunship was one of the heaviest armed warplanes in WWII.
Several examples had as many as 12 forward firing .50 cal. MGs, a few even had more - not including the 75mm armed version, too.

This B-25H had 12 forward firing .50 MGs






This B-25J had 14 forward .50 cal. MGs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> From wiki so correct if it is wrong:
> 
> " On 21 June 1940 the Central Landing Establishment was formed at Ringway airfield near Manchester; although tasked primarily with training parachute troops, it was also directed to investigate using gliders to transport troops into battle.[8][9] It had been decided that the Royal Air Force and the Army would cooperate in forming the airborne establishment, and as such Squadron Leader L.A. Strange and Major J.F. Rock were tasked with gathering potential glider pilots and forming a glider unit; this was achieved by searching for members of the armed forces who had pre-war experience of flying gliders, or were interested in learning to do so.[9] The two officers and their newly formed unit were provided with four obsolete Armstrong Whitworth Whitley bombers and a small number of Tiger Moth and Avro 504 biplanes for towing purposes.[10]"
> .



That's not a good start for good old WIKI!

The CENTRAL LANDING SCHOOL was established at Ringway in June 1940 after Churchill demanded an airborne force of 5,000 paratroops and a proportionate glider force to be ready by 'spring' 1941.
The War Office and Air Ministry, in conference, for once agreed and knocked a zero off the total to be trained.
The RAF donated a few clapped out Whitleys and the first volunteers were dropped in July.

In October the CENTRAL LANDING ESTABLISHMENT was formed under Group Captain Hervey. My maternal grand father was posted here. It comprised Strange's Parachute Training School, a Technical and Tactical Development Establishment (Wing Commander Mungo Buxton) and a Glider Training Squadron (GTS).
The latter possessed 7 single seater gliders (3 German made!), 1 two seater and no tugs. It was supposed to train 400 'glider coxswains' by the end of 1941.
Despite an intake of trainees late in 1940 precisely ZERO glider pilots were trained at Ringway.

In late 1940 the GTS moved briefly to Newmarket.

New Year 1941 it moved to Haddenham/Thame. Here it comprised 5 Kirby Kites, towed by a Tiger Moth, liberated from the London Gliding Club.
By March the GTS had 12 Tigers, had added a Slingsby Swallow to its glider establishment and acquired an Avro 504 which had towed a Hotspur in tests at Farnborough.
March marked the first solo gliding flight by an Army pilot and the first crash of an Army pilot when Corporal Weston arrived in the Sergeant's Mess (serious faux pas) in a Kite, via the roof. Though training had now commenced there were still no troop carrying gliders and with the exception of the Avro, nothing to tow them.

April 1941 the first Hotspur glider arrived and so did the first Hector, described by one officer as_ "destined to be the standard tug for the Hotspur"._
Intake of more trainees was halted until more Hectors became available. When they did training began seriously with glider pilots (they were now accorded that title) graduating to the Hotspur towed by the Hectors.

Given the low priority accorded glider training, not helped by the general appraisal of German glider operations on Crete the following month as having been a failure, it is lucky that the GTS received any tugs at all. It did get the Hectors, without which it is impossible that sufficient glider pilots could have been trained and developed the expertise required when operations were actually undertaken with glider borne forces.
The first of the Glider Pilot Regiment appeared in March 1942.

As an aside WIKI is correct that in the summer/autumn of 1940 glider pilots were being discretely sought out (the strict standards of the RAF medical exam were even lowered to allow some older civilian glider pilots to be enlisted) but gliding was not seen in Britain as it was in Germany as a step on the road to becoming a 'proper' pilot. Young glider pilots applying to the RAF were advised NOT to take in their gliding log books, to stick to cricket or at worst rugby, when asked about sport in their interviews, and not to mention gliding. It seems having flown unpowered aircraft was perceived as a disadvantage by the RAF at this time.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Jul 17, 2016)

A lot of the issues with Whirlwind were simply the lack of development, Dowding had a poor view of Petter and Westland and as is noted above simply shoved them off out of the way, it made sense really as the merlin had to take priority and they could not afford to divert resources to develop the Peregrine, there's no doubt the altitude performance could have been addressed but at what cost?

Whirlwinds flew out of RAF Angle in West Wales for a while, the two engines would have been very welcome to the pilots flying patrols over the Irish sea and Atlantic approaches, for that role they were probably ideal.

I do believe it was a testament to the basic concept that they kept going until 43, that extra engine must have been welcome over the flak batteries of France.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 17, 2016)

Follnd Gnat, designed as a fighter ended up a trainer but was most famous as the Red Arrows original mount.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Follnd Gnat, designed as a fighter ended up a trainer but was most famous as the Red Arrows original mount.



Not a WW2 aircraft.


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2016)

Kryten said:


> A lot of the issues with Whirlwind were simply the lack of development, Dowding had a poor view of Petter and Westland and as is noted above simply shoved them off out of the way, it made sense really as the merlin had to take priority and they could not afford to divert resources to develop the Peregrine, there's no doubt the altitude performance could have been addressed but at what cost?
> 
> Whirlwinds flew out of RAF Angle in West Wales for a while, the two engines would have been very welcome to the pilots flying patrols over the Irish sea and Atlantic approaches, for that role they were probably ideal.
> 
> I do believe it was a testament to the basic concept that they kept going until 43, that extra engine must have been welcome over the flak batteries of France.



I agree with all of that, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Air Ministry chickened out of cancelling the type completely in late (November?) 1939.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Fact is, the B-25H gunship was one of the heaviest armed warplanes in WWII.
> Several examples had as many as 12 forward firing .50 cal. MGs, a few even had more - not including the 75mm armed version, too.
> 
> This B-25H had 12 forward firing .50 MGs
> ...


True without a doubt but against German defences they were basically dead weight as they were so infrequently used. Even this claim is a little doubtful as the 'fighter' version of the B17 carried a similar payload and I would back the Me262 as having more firepower. The Humble Beaufighter with 4 x 0.5 and the German nightfighters would also give this claim a run for its money.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 17, 2016)

stona said:


> I agree with all of that, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Air Ministry chickened out of cancelling the type completely in late (November?) 1939.
> Cheers
> Steve



Can we surmise that was due to the confusion in the requirements during that period, they knew they needed a cannon armed fighter, and as yet had not quantified the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter, so not placing the eggs in one basket may have been the sensible route, after all look how long it took to develop the Typhoon, the Whirlwinds successor?


----------



## Kryten (Jul 17, 2016)

Glider said:


> True without a doubt but against German defences they were basically dead weight as they were so infrequently used. Even this claim is a little doubtful as the 'fighter' version of the B17 carried a similar payload and I would back the Me262 as having more firepower. The Humble Beaufighter with 4 x 0.5 and the German nightfighters would also give this claim a run for its money.



Beaufighter flew with 4x 20mm hispano as a NF and in Coastal Command, it also carried either 6x .303 or 4x .50 dependant on model


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2016)

Kryten said:


> Can we surmise that was due to the confusion in the requirements during that period, they knew they needed a cannon armed fighter, and as yet had not quantified the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter, so not placing the eggs in one basket may have been the sensible route, after all look how long it took to develop the Typhoon, the Whirlwinds successor?



I think slightly later, after the fall of France, the RAF was glad to have a cannon armed fighter as it envisaged tanks on our beaches and knew that rifle calibre machine guns would be useless against them. Dowding was explicit about this and it's why 263 squadron started practicing attacks on ground targets.
The limited reprieve the Whirlwind received was undoubtedly due to a desire not to waste parts and engines already produced. The Air Ministry also had a long history of hedging its bets on various types, always wanting a second or third string to its bow, and the Whirlwind could carry cannon, even if they were struggling to make them work reliably. This was also a factor.
The Typhoon wasn't just supposed to be the Whirlwind's successor, but also that of the Spitfire (and Hurricane) too. Luckily the Spitfire could successfully carry cannon armament, eventually.
The 'Secret Intelligence Service Flight' at Heston coincidentally expressed interest in the type as a reconnaissance aircraft at around this time, mainly due to its speed and ability to carry a substantial fuel load, a range of 1,400 miles at 300mph was mentioned, ten times the types actual operational radius!
It is entirely understandable that, at the time, this limited reprieve was granted and the 114 Whirlwinds authorised. I still believe it was a mistake and I don't think the Whirlwind was a particularly good aircraft in any of its roles. It was good enough and soldiered on in VERY limited numbers for well over three years...but for what? If it had never been built it would have made no difference to the course of the war and you can't say that about other types that excelled in various roles, secondary or otherwise, but then I do have the benefit of hindsight 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

Hi Guys,
There have been a lot of great posts on this thread. It has been a very interesting read.
In all these great posts I have not read anything that would change my original stand in
Post No.26. The Merlin powered Mustang took the P-51 in a completely different direction
in which, during WW2 it was unequalled if all factors are considered.
There were faster, faster climbing, more maneuverable, more rugged, etc... but none
of these affected the war effort as the P-51B, C & D/K.

And that is how I still see that, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 27, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> The Merlin powered Mustang took the P-51 in a completely different direction
> in which, during WW2 it was unequalled if all factors are considered.



No doubt about the success of the P-51, but I would argue that what it achieved was not in a secondary role. It was always designed as an air superiority fighter, it was supposed to be an improvement on the P-40 in which the British initially expressed an interest. The Merlin engine simply greatly increased that capability.
The early version of the aircraft was consigned by the British to the relatively new Army Cooperation Command because it did not live up to expectations. It was not designed as a fighter-bomber or ground attack aircraft.
Eventually it was a fighter that excelled as a fighter, albeit an escort fighter, a role unimagined when it was designed. To make a fighter an escort fighter in NW Europe all that was required was sufficient range, otherwise it is the aircraft's original capability as a fighter that is important. Other aircraft, like the P-47 or Typhoon, were fighters that excelled as fighter-bombers, a truly secondary role, requiring quite different and unintended qualities.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2016)

Glider said:


> True without a doubt but against German defences they were basically dead weight as they were so infrequently used. Even this claim is a little doubtful as the 'fighter' version of the B17 carried a similar payload and I would back the Me262 as having more firepower. The Humble Beaufighter with 4 x 0.5 and the German nightfighters would also give this claim a run for its money.


The B-25 gunships were used heavily in the Italian campaign and throughout the south and eastern European theater especially against railroad, transportation and some light naval targets. Because of their range, they were used in favor of the A-20 and A-26 ground attack units until more airfields allowed better access.

In the Pacific, the B-25 gunships were the terror of the Japanese navy and accounted for many troop transports being lost in addition to other naval assets. The gunships were also used against Japanese held targets like troop concentrations, airfields, docks, buildings and similar targets.

Do not mistake the B-25 gunship as a "fighter", it was not, it was never intended to be and was never used in that capacity. It's mission was ground attack and performed that role with incredible success.

The YB-40 was never intended to be a "fighter" either, it was intended to be a heavily armed escort to ward off enemy interceptors that were trying to attack the bomber formation. While it seemed like a valid concept, it's weight from all of the additional turrets and MGs, plus tremendous stores of ammunition, made it impossible to keep up with the regular B-17s after they had dropped their bombload.

And while the Me262's four Mk108 30mm are certainly deadly, you simply cannot compare that to 10, 12 or 14 .50 cal. MGs all concentrated on a target.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

Stona, I guess we are going to disagree here. North American was approached by the
UK to build P-40s. An air superiority fighter? Maybe under 15,000 ft. it would qualify
as a contender, and the UK knew that. But at 20,000 - 40,000 ft., no way the UK
expected that out of the NA replacement fighter. And if that ability from the Merlin
Mustang doesn't qualify it for a secondary roll, I don't know what does.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2016)

So how does an aircraft that's designed to be a "fighter", get an improved engine, and is considered a fighter as a secondary role?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 27, 2016)

I was pondering the same question, GrauGeist. 

I wouldn't even consider the Mosquito as an answer to this question. Yes, it was capable in many roles but that variety wasn't at the expense of failure in its primary mission.


----------



## stona (Jul 27, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> Stona, I guess we are going to disagree here. North American was approached by the
> UK to build P-40s. An air superiority fighter? Maybe under 15,000 ft. it would qualify
> as a contender, and the UK knew that. But at 20,000 - 40,000 ft., no way the UK
> expected that out of the NA replacement fighter. And if that ability from the Merlin
> Mustang doesn't qualify it for a secondary roll, I don't know what does.



That's exactly what the P-40 was expected to do in North Africa and elsewhere. It was only in NW Europe that the altitudes rapidly spiralled to the point that the Luftwaffe was arriving over England, late in 1940, higher than the USAAF would arrive over Germany in 1944.
My point is that the P-51 was designed as a fighter and excelled as a fighter, not in what I would call a secondary role. It, like the Spitfire, did okay as a fighter bomber, but others did much better.
We are only disagreeing over detail, I think we both agree that it was the most important and influential fighter to operate in Europe in the latter stages of the war and that it was instrumental in delivering the only clear cut victory of the combined bomber offensive in the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

Well, I guess I must ask at this time, do you believe the P-40 replacement that the UK
expected from NA would be capable of combating the Fw 190 and Bf 109 at 20,000 ft.
If you are true to yourself the answer is no. All I am saying is the Merlin powered machine
was something totally different from what was expected from the original breed that
was originally called upon. In my book, that qualifies for the answer here.


----------



## stona (Jul 27, 2016)

Chronology is important. The British expressed an interest in the P-40 in late '39 or very early '40, I haven't looked it up. It is from this point in time that the conception of the P-51 dates. The British had no idea at the time that aerial combat would spiral to higher altitudes so quickly, it was soon a problem for the Hurricane, Whirlwind and others too.
The P-51 was designed as a fighter and the addition of the Merlin engine allowed it to excel in this role. If it did well in a secondary role that would be as an Army Cooperation aircraft, before the Merlin was fitted.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2016)

The Fw190 first appeared in 1941 - this would be after the both the P-40 and P-51 in the timeline.

As it happens, the Fw190's peak combat performance is at lower altitudes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 27, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> Well, I guess I must ask at this time, do you believe the P-40 replacement that the UK
> expected from NA would be capable of combating the Fw 190 and Bf 109 at 20,000 ft.
> If you are true to yourself the answer is no. All I am saying is the Merlin powered machine
> was something totally different from what was expected from the original breed that
> was originally called upon. In my book, that qualifies for the answer here.



The Merlin-powered P-51 was different, capabilities-wise, from the Allison-engined variants but the intended role was the same. You can't have a fighter with a secondary role of fighter. It's the same role, irrespective of the opposition it's up against.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 27, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Just wondered which of the aircraft, which went into production, that were more successful at a secondary role than they were at their originally designed for role.
> 
> An example would be the Typhoon.
> It did have some success as a fighter but failed to replace the Spitfire as the main fighter for the RAF, its original goal.
> ...



A little different take on it - how about the P-39?
It performed poorly or was intensely disliked in its primary role (in service for the US) but excelled in its secondary role (as a Lend lease aircraft with the USSR).


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2016)

Perhaps clarification of "secondary role" needs to be made.

The Ju87's *primary role*, for which it was designed and initially put into service, was Dive Bomber.

It's *secondary role*, for which it became well known for, was "Tank Buster" (aka ground attack). It was not originally designed nor imagined for this role, but it excelled at it when the conversion was made.

So if an aircraft's original concept, design and function was to be a fighter, this was it's *primary role*.

Putting a different engine in it, changing it's canopy or painting it orange does not change it's *primary role* if it continues to be used in it's *primary role*.

Saying that a different engine in a P-51 changes it's role from a "fighter" to a "fighter", makes no sense. If this were the case, then we could say that when the Fw190A changed from a radial engine to an inline 12, it changed it's role from a fighter to a fighter.

When I removed the small block 283 V-8 in my 1968 Chevelle and replaced it with a big block 502 V-8, it still remained in it's primary role as a passenger car (albeit a fast one), but had I cut the back off the Chevelle and hauled firewood with it, it may have performed well in it's secondary role as a very fast wood hauler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Fw190 first appeared in 1941 - this would be after the both the P-40 and P-51 in the timeline.
> 
> As it happens, the Fw190's peak combat performance is at lower altitudes.



The Fw 190 have had considerable performance in all altitudes during it's 1st two years of service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2016)

I think, for the purpose of this thread, that an aircraft should have truly excelled at it's secondary role. At least in comparison to what was available at the time and could have been used instead. Not merely been available and used because they couldn't figure out what else to do with them. 
For example the Hector, whatever it's contribution to the to the development of the Glider forces was, was only "successful" in comparison to other even worse alternatives. One account saying it overheated _less _than the Hawker Audax which was pretty much the same aircraft with a Kestrel engine. The Hectors Dagger engine being more powerful so they didn't have to thrash it quite as hard as the Kestrels. Glider towing calling for a _lot _of high output but slow airspeed flying which causes a lot of cooling problems. Over heating _less _is damning with faint praise. 
Both planes used fixed pitch props and unless refitted with props of shallower pitch the existing props were probably not ideal for the job either. Lysanders and Miles Martinets had higher powered engines and variable pitch props and the Lysanders certainly existed in 1941 and early 1942 and had no place anywhere near the front line. What they were doing with them may be subject to question (how many hundreds of target tugs did they need in any given month). 
Typhoons were an obvious flop as a general air superiority fighter no matter how good they may have been at low level. However with their size and power it was possible to add hundreds of pounds of armor to suit them to the low level role and with what were relatively minor modifications they did become a formidable ground attack plane.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 27, 2016)

The Hawker Henley - plan was for a light bomber role that ended up as a target-tug. 
Somewhere I have an old RAF Flying Review magazine with a letter to the editor from a veteran Battle of Britain pilot lamenting and chastising the RAF for not changing that role (temporarily?) to *fighter* - to assist in that conflict. 

Anyone heard of this suggestion before?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2016)

Primary Role: Bomber
Secondary Role: Night Fighter

That's a secondary role.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2016)

Graeme said:


> The Hawker Henley - plan was for a light bomber role that ended up as a target-tug.
> Somewhere I have an old RAF Flying Review magazine with a letter to the editor from a veteran Battle of Britain pilot lamenting and chastising the RAF for not changing that role (temporarily?) to *fighter* - to assist in that conflict.
> 
> Anyone heard of this suggestion before?



Some squadron pilots may not have been aware of the true situation in regards to aircraft available. The shortage of aircraft was much more feared rather than a reality. The Henley wouldn't have been a very good fighter so I can't see the suggestion being taken seriously even if it had been made at the time. Add almost 8 feet to the wingspan (and about 80sq ft of wing), 4 feet of fuselage length and about 750lbs of empty weight compared to a Hurricane I and using the same engine is going to result in much less performance than a Hurricane. Think Trying to use Fulmars in the BOB with Merlin having a higher critical altitude.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> A little different take on it - how about the P-39?
> It performed poorly or was intensely disliked in its primary role (in service for the US) but excelled in its secondary role (as a Lend lease aircraft with the USSR).



The Russians still used the P-39 in its intended role as a fighter.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I think, for the purpose of this thread, that an aircraft should have truly excelled at it's secondary role. At least in comparison to what was available at the time and could have been used instead. Not merely been available and used because they couldn't figure out what else to do with them.



More to the point, the aircraft had to be more successful in its secondary role than it was in its first.

That's why an aircraft such as the Mosquito couldn't be considered.
Its primary role was as a light bomber. At this it excelled.
Its secondary role was as a reconnaissance aircraft. At this it excelled.
Its tertiary role was as a fighter-bomber/ground attack aircraft. At this it excelled.

It was very successful in the latter two roles, but it was not more successful at them than it was at its primary role. It was similarly successful at all three.

The P-51 was designed as a fighter. The P-51B was still a fighter, though with superior performance. It was the same role.

One of the popular choices has been the Bf 110. Its intended role was heavy fighter, at which it had some success and some limitations. It was then converted into a night fighter, a role in which it enjoyed considerable success, continuing to be the Luftwaffe's primary night fighter for the remainder of the war.

This would suggest to me that it was far more successful in its secondary role (as night fighter) than it did as its primary role (as heavy fighter).

The Typhoon is another example. It can't be described as a total failure in its primary role as fighter, in fact it was adequate but not good enough to succeed the Spitfire (the original plan). It did have a more successful career as a fighter bomber, probably making its name in that role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 27, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The Russians still used the P-39 in its intended role as a fighter.



Yep, that's why I wrote "A little different take on it."


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 27, 2016)

> I didnt realise that mail delivery was used to develop aviation all around the world.



Pbehn, air routes throughout the world were pioneered via the use of air mail delivery; perhaps the most famous firm was Aeropostale;
*"Aéropostale* (formally, _Compagnie générale aéropostale_) was a pioneering aviation company which operated from 1918 to 1933. It was founded in 1918 in Toulouse, France, as _Société des lignes Latécoère_, also known as _Lignes aeriennes Latécoère_ or simply "The Line" (_La ligne_)."

From here:Aéropostale (aviation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its most famous pilot was celebrated author Antoine de Saint Exupery, who became director of Aeropostale's South American branch Aeroposta Argentina.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, slight thread drift, I'd like to suggest the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Boomerang; Australia's stop-gap fighter that found widespread service use as a ground attack aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The Typhoon is another example. It can't be described as a total failure in its primary role as fighter, in fact it was adequate but not good enough to succeed the Spitfire (the original plan). It did have a more successful career as a fighter bomber, probably making its name in that role.


I agree with everything you wrote except the part above. The Typhoon was pretty much a failure as a fighter. Or a failure due to protracted development/debugging. Had it been able to show up in numbers in late 1941 or early 1942 with a sorted out engine and tails not falling off perhaps it's reputation as fighter would be a lot better. Unfortunately by the time both problems were sorted out the Spitfire IX was entering Squadron Service and whatever advantage the Typhoon had over the Spitfire V vanished or perhaps it is better to say became irrelevant. Building fighters that can't fight at 20,000ft and above is a rather limited market in Europe in 1942/43. 
And the Typhoon was not a cheap aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 27, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> and tails not falling off



Yeah, that kinda ruins it a bit. That needs to be fixed before it can do anything, let alone become a good fighter. You can't say that an aircraft that suffers major structural failure in flight is 'good' at what it does, really. Yes, it was a worthy design, but it took some convincing of the Air Ministry to not cancel the Typhoon as a result of its technical difficulties by the likes of Roland Beamont, who saw some good in it. Interestingly, the Bf 109F suffered tailplanes breaking off initially, which required stiffening of the internal structure.


----------



## stona (Jul 28, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, that kinda ruins it a bit. That needs to be fixed before it can do anything, let alone become a good fighter. You can't say that an aircraft that suffers major structural failure in flight is 'good' at what it does, really. Yes, it was a worthy design, but it took some convincing of the Air Ministry to not cancel the Typhoon as a result of its technical difficulties by the likes of Roland Beamont, who saw some good in it. Interestingly, the Bf 109F suffered tailplanes breaking off initially, which required stiffening of the internal structure.



The Bf 109 F suffered a similar problem as you say, but the RLM never contemplated cancelling it. It all depends on the options available and the capability to introduce new types.

I should be noted that the Typhoon failures at the transport joint, unlike the failures of the 'Friedrich' were not due to an inherent structural weakness but to a rather complicated series of factors leading to fatigue failures. The cure involved strengthening the elevator mass balance mounting bracket, introducing different bearings to the elevator circuit, fitting an 8lb elevator mass balance and a 16lb control column inertia weight, changing the geared rudder balance tab to an ordinary adjustable trim tab and removing the damping cords on the rudder trailing edge. It was NOT a case of riveting on a few strengthening strips as for the Messerschmitt.
No aircraft suffered a tail breakage after the reinforcement of the elevator balance mounting bracket, even before the other modifications were introduced.
All the changes were incorporated in all Typhoons starting with the MN series, delivered to the RAF from late 1943, and of course retro fitted to earlier aircraft.
It was Beamont, while at Hawkers, who dived the modified aircraft at 500mph, making 'harsh' recoveries 'to see if the tail came off.' It didn't and 61/2 g turns were made at 5,000ft with no tendency to tighten up, showing another issue was also cured.


Once again the tendency to underestimate the complexity and difficulties associated with the development of these high performance aircraft rears its head! It took more than a year to fully understand and fix the fatigue problem with the Typhoon's empennage, precisely because there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure. A quick, interim fix, in the form of the strengthened bracket did work, but a regular inspection schedule had to be introduced with it.
The Typhoon was, and proved later in its fighter bomber role, one of the strongest and most rugged of any of the fighters deployed by the RAF.

It was just one of many development problems that beset the Typhoon, quite aside from the issues with the engine, and this was not entirely due to Hawkers. It was rushed to delivery in September 1941 with a preliminary Service Clearance and no standardisation. The programme was not initially well managed by any of the bodies involved, largely due to the Focke-Wulf panic (and look at the shambles around the introduction of that aircraft) but the Air Ministry/RAF did get it under control, and quickly, in early 1942, just in time for the new problem with structural failure to arise.

At the conference to discuss the future of the Typhoon held in January 1943 Beamont's voice was just about the only one speaking up for the type. The Typhoon was seen by the RAF as a low level _defensive_ interceptor and this was reflected in the rebuff Beamont had received when he attempted to have his Typhoons of No. 609 Squadron included on offensive sweeps. It was on Beamont's initiative, and an authorisation from AVM Saunders at 11 Group, that the Typhoons undertook independent _offensive_ operations from Manston. It was the data from this independent operational trial that enabled Beamont to argue for the low level offensive role for the Typhoon, which prevented the aircraft being cancelled or becoming something like the Whirlwind, in early 1943. The Typhoon had proved itself as a capable low level _offensive_ aircraft, and unintended and secondary role at which it was as good if not better than any other Allied aircraft operating in NW Europe.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2016)

stona said:


> It was Beamont, while at Hawkers, who dived the modified aircraft at 500mph, making 'harsh' recoveries 'to see if the tail came off.' It didn't and 61/2 g turns were made at 5,000ft with no tendency to tighten up, showing another issue was also cured.



That had to take balls of steel knowing that if the fix didnt work he was going to be a smoking hole in the ground. I dont think he would be able to bail out of a tailess Typhoon spinning down at gods knows what speed and G force.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 28, 2016)

First of all if the consensus is that all Mustangs, Allison or Merlin, were just generally considered
fighters. Then I will digress and agree. I would simply like to point out that GrauGeist referenced to
the Ju87's* primary role*: Dive Bomber.* secondary role*: ground attack (tank buster). 
Dive bombing over terrain is ground attack. So the Ju87's primary and secondary role are ground
attack and should be lumped in the same category? No, I don't think so. I also don't think the
Allison and Merlin Mustangs should be lumped into the same category either.

The first Mustangs were put into service as low-altitude attack & close-support fighters: *primary role.*
They were purchased to be Army co-op and low altitude air superiority fighters. Then the Allison
powered P-51A came along with its new 9,6:1 supercharger gears compared to the older 8.8:1.
I believe this Mustang became the best Allison for the *primary role* and it was able to expand to the
medium level air superiority role much better than its predecessors.

Then the Merlin comes along, the game changes. The Mustang has now entered into its *secondary
role*: High-Altitude Escort Fighter. A role that it exceeded at and many consider it the best of the best
at.

Now, if we are going to lump all fighters into the same category (role), how are we going to explain
the great success of the Yak-3 as low and medium level air superiority fighter and the P-47M as a
very long distance high altitude escort fighter and say they are awesome in their primary roles?
Which are considered the same...?
Try switching the two around. The Russians didn't even think the P-47 was a decent low-altitude
fighter and there is no way the Yak-3 is going to fly/fight with the best a thousand miles from
home base at 30,000 ft.

Just a little food for thought.

Oh, and just one other thing. When the 283 was replaced by the 502 I would think you went
from medium ranged passenger car to short range wild ride. Well, anyway a passenger (vehicle)
'staying politically correct' in my opinion is my wife's mini-van. We can put 6 people in that sucker
and have room for a case of beer at each station plus room for two good size kegs in the way back.
All the camping, hunting and fishing supplies are up on top. Now that is what I call a passenger
vehicle: *pimary role.*
Oh yeah, take out the back four captain's chairs and a queen size mattress fits right in:* Secondary
role,* you figure it out.

God bless, Jeff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2016)

HUGE difference between a dedicated dive bomber and a tank buster. The Stuka's role as a dive bomber was to dive at extreme angles in order to deliver a bomb as accurately on target as possible.
Once the cannon were fitted to the late D and then G series, it no longer performed dive bombing, instead approaching it's targets in a shallow dive (or level as the target dictates) and then fires it's cannon.
Two entirely different mission profiles.

If we want to get technical - the IJN Musashi performed well in it's primary role of Battleship, but excelled in it's secondary role as artificial reef...


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 28, 2016)

If you read my post carefully GrauGeist, you will see that I agree with you 100%.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> They were purchased to be Army co-op and low altitude air superiority fighters.



I dont think the British Purchasing Commision bought them as Army Co-op and low altitude superiority fighters. Thats how the Allison engined Mustang I and II were used by the RAF but that wasnt the intention when purchased they were supposed to be a better P40. In 1940 the P40 wasnt anything other than a fighter no better or worse than a whole raft of Fighters like the 109E, Hurricane MkI and De520. The low altitude bit came in 41/42 when Daimler Benz, RR and others had produced engines that could operate at 30,000ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 28, 2016)

Well, OK then.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 28, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> Well, OK then.



Next issue to resolve - world peace?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 29, 2016)

Good info Steve; I was aware the RLM had not considered cancelling the Bf 109F, I mentioned it because it also suffered structural failure, proving that even with some of the good ones, the designers didn't always get it right.


----------



## Ascent (Jul 29, 2016)

Here's a thought, could you argue that the Mustang when it went into service with the RAF in the army cooperation role was in fact in a secondary role that it wasn't purchased for, and it wasn't until it got the Merlin engine that it was able to fulfill it's primary role?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 29, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Here's a thought, could you argue that the Mustang when it went into service with the RAF in the army cooperation role was in fact in a secondary role that it wasn't purchased for, and it wasn't until it got the Merlin engine that it was able to fulfill it's primary role?



Exactly though it could be said that long range escort fighter was actually its third role. In 1940 no one had thought of that role for a single engine fighter.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Here's a thought, could you argue that the Mustang when it went into service with the RAF in the army cooperation role was in fact in a secondary role that it wasn't purchased for, and it wasn't until it got the Merlin engine that it was able to fulfill it's primary role?



I mentioned this above, slightly tongue in cheek, when I wrote
_"If it did well in a secondary role that would be as an Army Cooperation aircraft, before the Merlin was fitted." _
The problem is that it didn't really excel as an Army cooperation or ground attack aircraft, it certainly didn't do better in this secondary role than in its primary role. It excelled as a fighter at a later date, after the addition of an engine which allowed it to compete with its contemporaries, in its originally intended, primary, role.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 29, 2016)

OK Steve, I'll go with that. It sounds good to me.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> OK Steve, I'll go with that. It sounds good to me.



I wasn't being entirely serious !
I think that the P-51 evolved into a fabulous aircraft. The 'best fighter of the war' argument is slightly pointless given the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various contenders, but any list of contenders would have to include it.
The P-51 would get my vote, to use a cricketing analogy, as the best all rounder. It wasn't a batsman who could bowl a bit, or a bowler who could bat a bit, it could genuinely do both as well as being a decent fielder 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 29, 2016)

Steve,
I have done some more research on the subject. It appears that the UK purchasing commission
sent to the US in hopes of finding a long-range fighter aircraft supplier for its bomber escort
missions had approached Curtiss with a request for 300 P-40 aircraft was turned down by
Curtiss-Wright Corporation. So they approach North American Aviation.

The UK purchasing commission gave North American Aviation the OK to build a fighter
with the following two provisions; 1. They were to use the Allison V-12 with a one-stage
supercharger suitable for low-altitude operation. A ground support fighter for the Army.
2. North American had to produce the first prototype within 120 days.

So, I know you're tired of hearing it, the NA-73 entered service under the designation
Low-altitude attack and close-support fighter.

Uh, so I am just going to have to go back to my original stance.

All the best, cheers, Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 29, 2016)

It just dawned on me, what secondary designation do I give my wife's mini van with
all the four rear chairs out and a queen size mattress added? I mean in a PG-13 sort
of way so that we can keep this a family friendly site.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

Mmmm. Kendelberger just described it as an "advanced fighter", which it certainly was for North American.
Didn't it originally use the same engine as the P-40 which the British were originally interested in?
It was ordered as an improvement on the P-40, not a replacement for the Spitfire.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 29, 2016)

I totally agree. But everybody involve knew it was a low level aircraft...the later Merlin was not.

God bless, Jeff


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

The P40, which the Mustang was supposed to improve upon, was just a fighter. No one in the Western Desert called it a low level fighter and the Mustang wasn't either. The P 40 most definitely served as an air superiority fighter there and in other theatres.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 29, 2016)

I agree, designation at this time was not a priority, driving back the enemy was.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2016)

I would also like to see an official reports or correspondence or _something_ about the P-40 being _intended _to be a ground attack fighter. 
Not rumors or quotes from a book. 
In Early 1940 only one engine in service had a significantly higher critical altitude than the Allison and that was the Merlin.
In 1939 when the P-40 was first ordered the situation was the same. 
Early P-40s also had about zip for a bomb load (that came with the "C" and with the Later Tomahawks) so a "better" P-40 using the same engine was likewise not "optimized" for ground attack or army co-operation. 
In fact when NA was given the go-ahead to build the prototype NA-73 The British were urging Westland to build Lysanders for army Co-operation as fast as possible. NA-73s (or Mustang Is) would have been a sight see picking up messages with hooks


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2016)

From Joe Baugher:
_"Following the outbreak of war in Europe, the British Purchasing Commission, headed by Sir Henry Self, was posted to New York to determine if American combat aircraft could be of any use to the Royal Air Force.
One of the corporations that Self had contacted had been the North American Aviation corporation. North American had already been building NA-16 trainers, and the British ordered a number of them for the RAF as the Harvard. In April of 1940, the manager of NAA James H. "Dutch" Kindelberger was summoned by the British Air Purchasing Commision and asked to manufacture the Curtiss Hawk 87 (P-40D) under license for the RAF.
Kindelberger, who was an excellent businessman as well as aeronautical engineer, responded that NAA could do that if it were really required, but countered that he and his company could build a *better* *fighter* than the P-40 and that they could design a *real fighter* in the same time that it would take to put the P-40 into production."_

To continue:
_"The NA-73X prototype contract was signed on May 23, 1940. The British insisted that a heavy eight-gun armament be fitted, somewhat heavier than American standards of the day. Two 0.5-inch M2 Browning machine guns were installed in the underside of the nose beside the engine crankcase, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The left gun was staggered ahead of the right in order that the magazines could lie one behind the other. Two 0.50-inch guns were mounted upright inside the wings, outboard of the landing gears. Four 0.30-inch Browning machine guns were mounted further outboard on the wing, with each inboard 0.30-inch gun being mounted lower so that its muzzle was below the leading edge.
The British also specified that a liquid-cooled inline engine be used, and the Allison V-1710 twelve-cylinder Vee was the only American-built engine which fit the bill. The Allison V-1710 was a little bigger than the Merlin, slightly lighter, and similar in power at low altitudes. However, at higher altitudes the Allison suffered from a rapid drop in power in comparison to the Merlin. NAA briefly considered using a turbosupercharger to improve high-altitude performance, but ruled against it on the grounds of a tight schedule."_

Now we fast forward to the finished product:
The NA-73X (Mustang I) was produced in limited numbers and most were held back for evaluation and photo recon roles, the first arriving at Liverpool on 24 October 1941. The NA-83 were a slightly modified version of the Mustang I and the British ordered 300 of them in December of 1940.

On 11 March 1941, the lend/lease act was passed, and the next batch of Mustangs, designated NA-91 (Mustang IA) had the MGs traded for 4 Hispano 20mm cannon in the wings.

At this point, the British had been able to actively employ their Mustangs in combat and came to a conclusion on it's performance.

From Joe Baugher:
_"The British decided that the relatively poor high altitude performance of the Mustang was more than just a minor deficiency, since most aerial combat over Europe at that time was taking place at medium to high altitudes. Consequently, the Mustang I was used for low-level tactical reconnaissance and ground attack, *where full advantage could be taken of its exceptional low-altitude performance.*"
_
Now, let's fast forward to 16 April 1942, when the U.S. Army Air Force placed an order for 500 NA-97, specifically designed for ground attack and designated the A-36. The RAF was given *one* in March 1943 for evaluation (EW998).

August 1942 saw a USAAF order for 1,200 NA-99 (P-51A) which was the start of the Mustang's legacy with the USAAF.

The British didn't ask for a low level ground support aircraft, they were looking for a fighter. They discovered that their new fighter was not suitable for the type of air warfare that had evolved in the skies over Britain between the time they ordered it and the time they were able to put it to work. They did, however, exploit it's strengths which were "_*its exceptional low-altitude performance"*._

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 29, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> It just dawned on me, what secondary designation do I give my wife's mini van with
> all the four rear chairs out and a queen size mattress added? I mean in a PG-13 sort
> of way so that we can keep this a family friendly site.



Camper-van.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 29, 2016)

B-24 Liberator, secondary role of ASW.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2016)

Actually the P-40 may be a candidate like the Typhoon as it transitioned from fighter to ground attack. Last versions carrying three 500lb bombs (and in the field six 250lb bombs and on occasion two 1000lb bombs) about 4800 of these three bomb aircraft were built and by mid 1943 nobody was under the illusion that the P-40 was a first rate fighter.


----------



## rank amateur (Aug 1, 2016)

Been reading through this but yesterday it finale struck me: the Polikarpov Po 2. Used as an trainer but much more renowned as a night harrasment bomber even in Korea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2016)

Well, we have difference in "successful" and "renowned". 
For example the Lysander gained quite a bit of "renown" for it's missions as an agent dropper/retriever but with only a few dozen used for that role out of over 1750 built one wonders about the "success"
PO-2 was built in large numbers, somewhere between 20-30,000? how many were used as night raiders? A few hundred? 
The Germans pulled He 46s and HS 126s from training schools and used them for similar night attacks, I am not sure this turned them into "successful" aircraft. 
The Typhoon was less than what was hoped for as fighter and the bulk of the production (over 2/3rds) was _after _the decision to use them as "bombers" was made. 
Likewise several thousand P-40s were built for ground attack long after the P-40 was considered obsolete as a fighter.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 2, 2016)

GrauGeist,
I agree 100% that the British didn't ask for a low-level ground support aircraft, but they new
that was exactly what they were ordering from North American when they stipulated the Allison
engine. That was their call and like it or not the Mustang was designed and accepted as a low-
level air superiority fighter. I also agree that they were hoping to get something along the lines
of the Spitfire. So was every other nation in 1940. 

I still stand by my original post, probably dumber than squat, Jeff.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 2, 2016)

Shortround,
Only one engine in service in early 1940 had a significantly higher critical altitude than the
Allison...? What about the Daimler-Benz DB-601Aa in the Bf.109E-3 introduced at the end of
1939? 
I am not trying to be combative in any way. What was, was. No amount of argument can
change that.

May God bless us all and let the truth (even if I am absolutely wrong) come out, Jeff.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 2, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> GrauGeist,
> I agree 100% that the British didn't ask for a low-level ground support aircraft, but they new
> that was exactly what they were ordering from North American when they stipulated the Allison
> engine. That was their call and like it or not the Mustang was designed and accepted as a low-
> ...



The Mustang performed well at Dieppe in 1942, the British ordered a fighter, apart from the strategic bombing conflicts over south east England in 1940 and Germany 1943-45 most air combat was below 15,000ft. The Tempest had a similar altitude problem to the Allison Musang but it was introduced around D-Day and so its battles were around the front on the ground not across a stretch of water.


----------



## rank amateur (Aug 2, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, we have difference in "successful" and "renowned".
> For example the Lysander gained quite a bit of "renown" for it's missions as an agent dropper/retriever but with only a few dozen used for that role out of over 1750 built one wonders about the "success"
> PO-2 was built in large numbers, somewhere between 20-30,000? how many were used as night raiders? A few hundred?
> The Germans pulled He 46s and HS 126s from training schools and used them for similar night attacks, I am not sure this turned them into "successful" aircraft.



No dispute and I really don't know how many U2/Po-2's were ever used in the night harrasment role and how effective they really were but the fact that the Germans copied the principle with their share of obsolete planes does seem to indicate that they were considered effective.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> Shortround,
> Only one engine in service in early 1940 had a significantly higher critical altitude than the
> Allison...? What about the Daimler-Benz DB-601Aa in the Bf.109E-3 introduced at the end of
> 1939?
> ...



According to: Kurfürst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 601 Aa

Critical height of the DB 601 Aa was 3700meters at 2400rpm for 1100PS.

The Allison V-1710C-15 as used in the early P-40s had a critical altitude of 14,300ft (4333 meters) at which point it gave 1040hp. Critical altitude was about 2000ft lower than the Merlin.

The DB 601A-1 engine had a critical altitude of 4500 meters giving 1020PS. 167 meter difference isn't enough to get excited about.

You could swap a DB 601A-1 for an Allison and hardly change the performance of the planes involved.

What gave the 109 it's altitude performance was it's light weight. A P-40B empty (no fuel, oil, ammo OR GUNS, no pilot) weighed about what a 109E did loaded with full fuel, oil ammo and pilot. Stick 1700lbs into a 109 and watch the altitude performance go right in the toilet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> GrauGeist,
> I agree 100% that the British didn't ask for a low-level ground support aircraft, but they new
> that was exactly what they were ordering from North American when they stipulated the Allison
> engine. That was their call and like it or not the Mustang was designed and accepted as a low-
> ...



Were the British Purchasing Commison using a Crystal Ball Mark 1 when they ordered the Mustang because who knew that in March 1940 that the Alison V1710 was going to be left behind in the altitude race. Even when the prototype was rolled out in September I doubt anyone knew for certain that combat would be going so high, as most combat in August still took place at around 20,000feet where most of the bombers flew.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

Fastmongrel,
I agree, but that doesn't change the abilities of the NA-73 and that both North American
and UK were aware of those abilities at the time of delivery.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> Fastmongrel,
> I agree, but that doesn't change the abilities of the NA-73 and that both North American
> and UK were aware of those abilities at the time of delivery.



Yes at time of delivery but you dont order an aircraft with the foresight of 18 months. When *ordered* the British Purchasing Commision thought it was ordering an all round air superiority fighter to defend Great Britain. If they had wanted an Army Co-Op Fighter/Recce aircraft dont you think they would have ordered it with Bomb Racks, Bomb Sight, Army waveband radios and Cameras.

If I knew what was happening 18 months ahead I would be stinking rich and have Scarlett Johansenn keeping my bed warm.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

A men to that brother.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2016)

Time of delivery and time of order are off by about a year and half. 
The Mustang I was to use the same engine as the P-40D and not the earlier long nose engines used in the P-40B/C/Tomahawk. 
The British had ordered 500 Hawk 87As in May of 1940 (basically P-40D/Es) or during the Battle for France. 
I don't know which P-40 the British were interested in having North American build as obviously if the British were signing orders for the Hawk 87A instead of the Hawk 81 something must have at least existed on paper at that point. 
The "new" Allison engine offered a bit more power lower down but in fact may very well have suffered no loss in power at higher altitudes than the long nose Allisons. It used the same supercharger drive gears and few, if any modifications to the supercharger itself. 
The -39 engine was allowed to use 44in (?) pressure for military power instead of the 37-40in (?) used by the -33(C-15) engine. 
While the -39 was able to hit 1150hp at 11,700-12,000ft ( no ram) it might very well have been capable of making 1040hp at 14,300ft. 
With the first 5 Mustang Is not making it to England until Oct/Nov of 1941 operational conditions had changed considerably since they were ordered. Main opponents would be 109F-2/F-4s rather than 109Es.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

Mustang 'A' was very good in 1942, low, long legs and fast. Mustang 'M' was/became superior and
different in 1943, High or low, long legs and very fast.
That's just a fact that they were both first rate contenders in their times, but they were two different
kinds of fighters.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 3, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> If I knew what was happening 18 months ahead I would be stinking rich and have Scarlett Johansenn keeping my bed warm.



I took you for a Keira Knightley kinda guy


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

Allison V-1710-39 (-F3R): Critical altitude is 10,800 ft. (3.292 m./1,150 hp. @ 43.9"Hg).
That does not mean a whole lot though. The Middle East pilots were pushing that engine
to 66"Hg/3,000 rpm (1,570 hp.), Australian pilots pushing theirs to 70"Hg (1,780 hp.) 
for prolonged periods at very low levels. The later V-1710-81, -83 and -85 could not
be pushed to these limits

The main difference came with the Merlin that could take this kind of power 1,555 hp.
to 17,750 ft. (it was a different animal).


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

mongrel, forget gis. Hang on to Scarlett Johansson.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2016)

The Merlin you list certainly was a different animal. a Two stage supercharger unless I am very much mistaken.

Critical altitude for the early Allisons vary up or down about 1200ft. It may depend on exact manifold and type of backfire screens fitted (or even if fitted). And just like the Merlin III can be found with 3-4 different critical altitudes max power is _very _dependent on altitude.
1030hp at 16250ft at 6lbs, 1310hp at 9000ft at 12lbs boost and 1440hp at 5500ft with 16lbs boost.

Something about the power levels you quote for the Allison doesn't add up. 4 extra inches of boost (2lbs) shouldn't equal 210 more horsepower. I would also note that one source claims 1470hp for the Allison 39 at sea level using 56in of boost. Another gives 1490hp at 4600ft at 56in of boost. Getting 66in of boost out of an Allison using 8.80 supercharger gears may involve a lot of ram *and *running the engine at over 3000rpm. 

Edit: I would also note that the power levels described required fuel that was not available in 1940 and for any hope of engine longevity (engine doesn't fail in the next two flights after pulling that kind of pressure) crankshafts that were not available in 1940. 1940 Allison crankshafts being pretty much plain alloy steel. By Jan/Feb of 1942 they were not only allow steel but both shot peened and nitrited which increase their fatigue life tremendously.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 3, 2016)

I was quoting exact figures from the Allison Division, General Motors Corp.
letter dated December 12, 1942 sent to the Commanding General, Army
Air Forces, Materiel Center in Washington, D.C. If there is a problem with
the horse power figures I have posted.....well, you're going to have to take
it up with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> I took you for a Keira Knightley kinda guy



Naah be like sharing my bed with a Broom handle


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> GrauGeist,
> I agree 100% that the British didn't ask for a low-level ground support aircraft, but they new
> that was exactly what they were ordering from North American when they stipulated the Allison
> engine. That was their call and like it or not the Mustang was designed and accepted as a low-
> ...


Problem is, the BPC order with North American was signed before the Battle of Britain - up to that point, the air war over Europe and the Med was happening at low to moderate altitudes.

This could go all the way back to the Spanish Civil war, the invasion of Poland, the Battle of France and North Africa. All of these actions generally did not see high altidude bomber missions and/or fighter engagements.

I might also point out that Castle Bromwich hadn't assembled their first Spitfire by the date of North American's order, either.

So based on the fact the Britain was anxious to get more fighters into service AND the nature of the air war hadn't evolved into a high altitude contest yet, the performance of the P-40 (and subsequently the Mustang I) hadn't been an issue.

And like I posted earlier, it wouldn't be until the Mustang I/IA had been tried in the new combat conditions that it's shortcomings at higher elevations would become aparent. Leading the British to conclude in 1942, that the Mustang was not suitable for higher altitude combat, but was more than capable at lower altitudes.

But NOBODY knew beforehand, that the airwar would evolve into higher altitudes as the airwar shifted to a trans-channel contest...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> I was quoting exact figures from the Allison Division, General Motors Corp.
> letter dated December 12, 1942 sent to the Commanding General, Army
> Air Forces, Materiel Center in Washington, D.C. If there is a problem with
> the horse power figures I have posted.....well, you're going to have to take
> it up with them.



and


> Allison V-1710-39 (-F3R): Critical altitude is 10,800 ft. (3.292 m./1,150 hp. @ 43.9"Hg).
> That does not mean a whole lot though. The Middle East pilots were pushing that engine
> to 66"Hg/3,000 rpm (1,570 hp.), Australian pilots pushing theirs to 70"Hg (1,780 hp.)



Allison approved a WEP rating of 1490hp at 56in MAP at 4300ft for the -39 engine.
They approved a WEP rating of 1580hp at 60in MAP at 2500ft for the -73 engine in the P-40K
The -73 engine had a few of it's components strengthened and also use 30% gylcol/70% water cooling.

Now maybe the Mid east pilots were pushing the engine to 66" on their gauges but they had no torque meters installed on the engine and I doubt the Mid east temperatures were corrected to the standard 59 degrees Fahrenheit which makes actual power output more than a bit doubtful.
Since the only production Allison engines to get to 1700hp were either turbo charged engines in the P-38 or the two stage mechanical supercharged engines in the P-63. The P-38L engines needed 150 PN fuel to reach 1700hp (70")and the P-63 engines needed water injection to go past 1500hp and 60-61" of manifold pressure and 100/130 fuel. They could hit 1850hp at sea level using 75"

And yet somehow in the field squadron pilots pulled 1780hp (measured how?) out of a -39 engine in a P-40E using 70" of MAP using a single stage supercharger, 100/130 fuel and no water injection.
Two stage superchargers as a general rule heat the intake charge less and require less power to drive.

Allison service reps did note instances of up to 66in used on the -73 engine and the Service reps in Australia did note use of 70" with the -73 engines. But power was not noted in the book I read.
Factory power graphs show the basic Allison with 8.80 gears just running out of the ability to flow enough air to get much past 61-62"mpa without either large amounts of ram (high speed level flight) or over revving the engine at sea level.

Edit. The change from 15 degrees C to 38 degrees C (59F to just over 100F) lowers the actual air density (weight of air per cubic_____) to 92.57%. Taking in the same cubic feet (or meters) of air per second or minute at the higher temperature will result in 92.57% of the power (in theory) of the "standard" temperature of 59F or 15C that most nations used as a standard. This is _*if *_the air pressure is standard. 
This also means that a pilot _could_ (boost control permitting and some US aircraft didn't have a automatic boost limiter) use 7-8% more _absolute_ manifold pressure than "book figures" and yet only being making the "book" power numbers. Trying to get too tricking in gimmicking the boost control could land the pilot in trouble as the temperature at altitude (even 15-20,000ft) doesn't vary as much 
as the temperature at ground/sea level around the world. Yes the temperature at 15,000 is higher in the tropics (or NA desert) than in England (or Ohio) but not the same difference you sea at ground level. Setting the engine up to "over" boost at sea level could very well result in too much over boost at an altitude of 9-10,000ft.
Now perhaps the North African and Australian figures were taken in their "winters" or cold snaps but pressure readings ( or max pressure seen by pilot while doing ?????) don't really translate into reliable power figures.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Aug 4, 2016)

I have a couple of suggestions for contenders:

The Kawasaki Ki 45. In many ways it can be called the Japanese Bf 110, with the reservations that it was later, slower and build in fewer numbers. It never served in it's intended role as long range escort but did fly as a bomber interceptor. It did see much service (and improvements to enhance capability) in the roles of night fighter, ground and sea attack.

Another would be the Commonwealth CA Boomerang (I've come across several alternative ways of designation, I hope this covers the whole series in general). Build and employed as a fighter, to my knowledge it never shot down an aircraft. Making it likely it did better iwhen assigned to ground attack and miscellaneous other kinds of army support.

I mean, occasionally it should at least have succeeded in hitting the ground.

I must emphasize I don't intend to say the Boomerang was a bad aircraft/design. Even though it from the right angle can look a little like a Buffalo, I have no strong opinions about its good and bad qualities, except that its performance dosn't seem impressive for a fighter entering service in late 42.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2016)

Schmidt, the Ki.45 is a great example of an aircraft that excelled (to a degree) outside of its
original designation.

Oh, and everyone else, I am going to digress now. From what I can tell the majority
is considering the Allison and the Merlin as just fighters that were considered just fighters
in the same classification that could do different things.

I know, I have the right to remain silent...I know it...yes, I know it.................................

..... I'm sorry, I just don't have the ability. I agree with everyone that the UK believed they
were getting a better fighter than the P-40D, and they were. I agree that they believed they
were getting a fighter that could do what they wanted it to do, and it could. I also agree that
the rules of the game change by the time the NA-73 and P-51 came along,...and they did.
That brought about the classifications of fighter aircraft. With that came the classification of low level
army co-op....The NA-73 and P-51 filled this bill better than the Spitfire or Hurricane. *BUT THAT
BECAME ITS CLASSIFICATION!* The Merlin (second generation if you will) was a totally different animal
*PERIOD!*

Since the consensus does not seem to agree, I am bowing out.

My original stance (in my own mind) has not wavered. I still believe that the change from
Allison to Merlin in the Mustang brought one of the best 'long-range, high-speed Army* ground
support fighters'* of the late-early war to the best 'long-range, high-speed Army Air Force
*escort fighter'* of late-mid to late war.

I know, ' Mamma always said, stupid is as stupid does'. For a while there I was beginning
to think she was probably talking about me...again.

But then, I don't think so this time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2016)

But you keep missing the point:
The Mustang was designed, engineered and built as a *fighter*.

The British Purchasing Commission purchased it with the intention of using it as a *fighter*.

It first saw combat as a *fighter*.

All of it's variants, with the exception of the A-36, were primarily used as a *fighter*. The A-36 proved itself to be formidible as a fighter, even though the A-36 was the ONLY variant of the Mustang series to be a dedicated ground attack type.

Even after the RAF determined that the Mustang I/IA was not suitable for higher altitudes, it was still used as a *fighter* at lower levels, where it excelled.

P-51A/B/C/D/K was intended to be, and was used as, a *fighter *in it's primary, designed and built role. The fact that it could carry bombs and shoot up targets on the ground does not change it's intended and primary function. It simply means it could multi-task, just like the Spitfire, F6F, YaK-9, Bf109 or any other *fighter*. Add to that, the role of long range escort also changes nothing. It simply meant that this *fighter *had a longer range than other *fighters*, and when it encountered enemy interceptors, it shot them down.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Aug 4, 2016)

How does P-51A compare to P-51B at low altitude?


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2016)

BLine22,
In 1942 and early/mid1943 there was no Merlin P-51B. By the time the P-51B-1 became operational
in December of 1943 it had to contend with the Allison V-1710-81 engine in the P-51A. At low levels
the P-51A was faster, faster climbing and could out maneuver the P-51B using 67"Hg boost if the P-51A kept its speed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2016)

GrauGeist, I agree with you completely. In 1940 before everyone knew what was actually
going to happen for the rest of the war, your statements are dead on. But situations changed,
by the time the Mustang came on board, classifications were drawn.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 13, 2016)

BLine, here is a little data on the two on how they matched up in December 1943.
North American P-51A (Mk.II) and P-51B (Mk.III) Mustangs - World War II


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> My original stance (in my own mind) has not wavered. I still believe that the change from
> Allison to Merlin in the Mustang brought one of the best 'long-range, high-speed Army* ground
> support fighters'* of the late-early war to the best 'long-range, high-speed Army Air Force
> *escort fighter'* of late-mid to late war.



I would really like to see where the Allison Mustangs in either British or American service were categorized or labeled as 
_'long-range, high-speed Army* ground support fighters'*_

All except the A-36 did not carry bombs, making them strafers only. The need for _long-range _Army ground support fighters would be minuscule at best, regardless of speed. Army Ground support planes usually attacking either front line troops or areas/supply points/supply line in close proximity to the front lines. Long range not needed. 

Ground support being a bit different than even tactical bombing or strikes although they can cross over or be performed by the same units/aircraft on different missions. 

Tactical or general reconnaissance is a different mission that "Army ground support" and may well require high speed and long range even if done at low altitude. Allison Mustangs did perform, many many low altitude photo-recon missions for both the British and Americans but that was not Army ground support.


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I would really like to see where the Allison Mustangs in either British or American service were categorized or labeled as
> _'long-range, high-speed Army* ground support fighters'*_
> .



There really wasn't any such thing at the time. Much later, after the invasion the two principle mission types were, in British terms, Close Air Support and Armed Reconnaissance.
Both the British 2nd TAF and the US 9th AF carried out substantially more of the latter, and it was much more dangerous. The MAAF used different terms, but most of its missions would also fall into an armed reconnaissance rather than close air support category.
Helpfully, in early 1945 the 2nd TAF's No.83 Group started to divide its armed reconnaissance missions into two categories, 'shallow' and 'deep', which gives us an idea of the sort of missions they were flying.
A 'deep' sortie passed over a line running through Hamm-Munster-Rheine-Almelo-Zwolle, at that time about 60 miles behind the German front line. A 'shallow' sortie obviously operated in the area between the front line and this line.
Even in 1945 I think it debatable that a long range ground support fighter was required. These aircraft operated from airfields close to the front lines and penetrated 60-100 miles behind the lines at most. They were barely flying further than the Luftwaffe's Bf 109s in the BoB, though they did enjoy rather more loiter time.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 13, 2016)

My wording may be off some. I apologize if it was misleading. The term used is Close Air Support.
The NA-73 interred service with the RAF Army Cooperation Command on 10 May 1942 with No.26
Squadron.
RAF Army Cooperation Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2016)

Army Cooperation Command was a bit of a non event. Remnants of it, along with substantial units from Fighter Command and the often forgotten Bomber Command, eventually morphed into 2nd TAF (it was a bit more complicated than that, but that's a simplified version).
Cheers
Steve


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 22, 2016)

For it's success in not one, but multiple secondary roles, it's hard to beat the P-38. While designed as an "interceptor" it performed a wide variety of roles.
Long range escort fighter
Ground support/fighter bomber role
Dive bomber
Skip bomber
4000 lb bomb load capability
Tested as a torpedo bomber, carrying (2) 2000 lb torpedos
Photo-recon aircraft-one of the most successful of the war
High altitude level bomber with "droop snoot" variants equipped with Norden bombsites
Radar equipped Pathfinder
Night fighter


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 22, 2016)

Idaho,
I will agree 100% that the P-38 was an extremely versatile aircraft. The original
question was asking," What aircraft was (became) more successful in a secondary
roll?"
I will have to do some research here, but I believe the P-38F entered service as
an interceptor/air superiority fighter. I believe that is were it excelled in the Pacific
late in the war as the P-38L.
The P-51 (NA-73) interred service as an *Army coop (close air support) low altitude fighter*. It
later became what is now arguably the best* high altitude, long range escort fighter*.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2016)

"The P-51 (NA-73) interred service as an *Army coop (close air support) low altitude fighter*."

You keep repeating this but it is highly debatable. 
It was not *designed* as such, and while to was assigned to Army co-operation squadrons (at least they were named that) it did a lot more recon/photo recon in it's early operational deployments. Due to a rather notable lack of boots on the ground (Dieppe being a major exception) there was a distinct lack of actual Army Co-operation missions in Europe until 1944. 
There were a lot of "tactical" or low altitude strikes against railroads, barges and airfields during 1942 and 1943 but there were no Army ground troops to support no matter what the squadrons were named. 
If you are not actually supporting the Army and the majority of planes have 1-3 cameras fitted is the plane really a_ close air support fighter? _


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> "The P-51 (NA-73) interred service as an *Army coop (close air support) low altitude fighter*."
> 
> You keep repeating this but it is highly debatable.
> It was not *designed* as such, and while to was assigned to Army co-operation squadrons (at least they were named that) it did a lot more recon/photo recon in it's early operational deployments. Due to a rather notable lack of boots on the ground (Dieppe being a major exception) there was a distinct lack of actual Army Co-operation missions in Europe until 1944.
> ...


The problem for the P,51 in this respect is that it was put in service first by the R.A.F. they had no bombers to escort in daylight across the channel most objectives were at ground level.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2016)

IdahoRenegade said:


> For it's success in not one, but multiple secondary roles, it's hard to beat the P-38. While designed as an "interceptor" it performed a wide variety of roles.
> Long range escort fighter
> Ground support/fighter bomber role
> Dive bomber
> ...



Did it perform any of those better than its primary role as fighter?




IdahoRenegade said:


> Radar equipped Pathfinder



Really?

Tell me more please. I hadn't heard of this role.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 22, 2016)

Just Schmidt said:


> I have a couple of suggestions for contenders:
> 
> The Kawasaki Ki 45. In many ways it can be called the Japanese Bf 110, with the reservations that it was later, slower and build in fewer numbers. It never served in it's intended role as long range escort but did fly as a bomber interceptor. It did see much service (and improvements to enhance capability) in the roles of night fighter, ground and sea attack.



Actually, the Ki-45 DID serve as a long range bomber escort in mid '42 over China. And it performed admirably in that role until it encountered AVG interceptors.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 22, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Did it perform any of those better than its primary role as fighter?
> 
> 
> Really?
> ...



Perhaps he is referring to H2X radar?

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_The Lightning was modified for other roles. In addition to the F-4 and F-5 reconnaissance variants, a number of P-38Js and P-38Ls were field-modified as formation bombing "pathfinders" or "droopsnoots", fitted with a glazed nose with a Norden bombsight, or a H2X radar "bombing through overcast" nose. A pathfinder would lead a formation of other P-38s, each overloaded with two 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs; the entire formation releasing when the pathfinder did.
_
H2X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_In Europe several P-38 fighters were also converted to carrying H2X radar in the nose, along with an operator/navigator in a cramped compartment in the nose behind the radar dish, provided with small side windows and an access/exit hatch in the floor (much like the earlier P-38 "Droop Snoot" bomber-leader variants, but with a radome instead of a glazed nose). These missions were to obtain radar maps of German targets but plans to produce the variant in quantity never materialized._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

I know the quotes are from Wikipedia, but I find it hard to believe that a P-38 (or anything else) could be 'field modified' to carry H2X and associated paraphernalia. Post production? Yes, this was often the case with H2S in British aircraft, but in the field?...

What were they planning to make? A map of H2S images of Germany? Here is an H2S image, taken by the British during testing over the East Midlands. You'll have to take my word for it, but it is a very good image, they were often far more 'confused'.







The solid white line is the bearing the aircraft is flying on. The circle is either ten mile radius or diametre, I can't remember! It was easy for the British too identify Leicester, Loughborough and Melton Mowbray (pork pies!) because they knew where the aircraft was flying. In the absence of any obvious distinguishing feature which would show up on radar, like a river or coastline, it would be impossible for an H2S operator to know what the various areas of reflected energy in his scanner actually represented. They had enough problems doing it visually in daylight.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 23, 2016)

stona said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> What were they planning to make? A map of H2S images of Germany? Here is an H2S image, taken by the British during testing over the East Midlands. You'll have to take my word for it, but it is a very good image, they were often far more 'confused'.
> 
> ...




H2X was what was being used, not H2S

H2X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_It differed from the original H2S mainly in its operating frequency which was in the X band rather than H2S' S band. This gave H2X higher resolution than H2S, which had problems over large cities, which appeared as a single mass on the H2S display.

H2X used a shorter 3 cm "centimetric" wavelength (10 GHz frequency) than the H2S, giving a higher angular resolution and thus a sharper picture, which allowed much finer details to be discerned, aiding in target identification._


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> H2X was what was being used, not H2S
> _._



It is effectively the same thing. H2X was the US code for the American 'development' of the British H2S system. Of course the British developed H2S too as the war went one 

The early test image I posted was taken using a 10cm wavelength (it's marked on the photograph), later this was reduced to 3cm.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2016)

I think Steve was referring to the size of the equipment of H2S/H2X radar.

Here is a picture of a Mosquito experimentally flying with H2S
AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945 DE HAVILLAND DH 98 MOSQUITO (MH 4647)

Here is a B-17 with a retractable radar dome.
http://www.wdnorton.nl/B-17 GSH 42-3486/B-17Gs96thBGwithMickeyRadar-1[1].jpg

Note that the ball turret was removed in this installation.

And an earlier installation
http://www.wdnorton.nl/B-17 GSH 42-3486/EarlyB17H2X Radar an early hand-built .gif

The radar operator's station
https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/si..._radar_-_national_archives_342-fh-3a12719.jpg


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

Indeed. Here is the set up of the H2S scanner, as seen from inside the fuselage of a Lancaster looking down into the radome.






Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2016)

Also, it is often said that H2X was an American development (ie better) than H2S. In fact H2X was heavily based on the 3cm ASV radar used by Coastal Command.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2016)

A couple of H2S radar scope pictures from 1945

An H2S radar image taken from a cathode-ray tube display monitor on board a Mosquito aircraft of 139 Pathfinder Squadron RAF. The aerial view, from 24000 feet, shows the areas affected by fires ...
An H2S radar image taken from a cathode-ray tube display monitor on board a Mosquito aircraft of 139 Pathfinder Squadron RAF. The aerial view, from 25000 feet, shows the areas affected by fires ...

The second one was taken from a Mosquito. The Mosquito was similar in size to the P-38, but was designed at the outset to be a 2 seater, and the H2S radar was fitted under the fuselage, using space in the bomb bay, going by the picture of the test model earlier.

The 8th AF also used, experimentally, Oboe Mk I. At the time the RAF BC had moved to Oboe Mk II and Gee H, but feared that the Germans would get a hold of the system more easily with US bombers carrying them too, and thus be able to counter the system.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2016)

Last photo was taken in Burbank, CA. The planes carried AN/APS-15 radar.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

Those are much more typical images. It's not hard to see why bombing accurately by such a system was impossible. Sometimes a really good and recognisable image could be achieved.
This is another British test image, clearly showing the River Humber and its estuary. Hull would be just west of the top of the larger bend in the river, but unless you know that you can't see it.






Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

Nice pictures! They certainly don't look like modifications done in the field.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2016)

Well, there you go....

Only thing, the radar seems to be pointing in the wrong direction - forwards, not downwards.


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Also, it is often said that H2X was an American development (ie better) than H2S. In fact H2X was heavily based on the 3cm ASV radar used by Coastal Command.



H2X (operating in the X band) was an Ameican development of H2S. The British too developed H2S operating in this band with a 3cm wavelength. H2S III, the most commonly used type from early 1944 on, did precisely that.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 23, 2016)

stona said:


> Those are much more typical images. It's not hard to see why bombing accurately by such a system was impossible. Sometimes a really good and recognisable image could be achieved.
> This is another British test image, clearly showing the River Humber and its estuary. Hull would be just west of the top of the larger bend in the river, but unless you know that you can't see it.
> 
> 
> ...



Is that H2S or H2X?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2016)

A different Wiki article (one on the AN/APS-15 radar) says that the P-38s were being used to make radar maps, much a like a number of mosquitoes were being used. This particular radar seemed to overload the Mosquitoes electrical system (or poor installation?) causing a number of failures and even lost aircraft.
The radar operator sat (squished?) behind the radar under the clear panel shown in the photos. The radar itself weighed about 370lbs and with the removal of the guns/ammo weight was probably not a big issue.

In one spec sheet for the radar it was claimed it could pick a harbour buoy at 15 nautical miles.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: APS-15 Airborne Radar


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Is that H2S or H2X?
> *H2S*


It's the same thing. H2X is just the American code, they chose X because that is the frequency band it operates in (roughly 7-11 GHz), why the British chose H2S is a subject of some debate. R V Jones gives one entertaining explanation. The early H2S worked on a longer, 10cm, wavelength, but the American H2X and later versions of H2S both operated at 3cm.
Wavelength x Frequency = Speed of Light (c), which makes one easy to work out if you know the other (and c of course)

Both were derived from the work of Randall and Boot (at Birmingham University, just up the road from where I'm sitting) on the cavity magnetron, which had been around for several years by the early 1940s.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

Spot the difference.

Here is an H2X image, taken by a US aircraft on 6th June 1944.






The invasion coast runs across the image. The bright spot at about 7 o'clock is Caen.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 23, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Well, there you go....
> 
> Only thing, the radar seems to be pointing in the wrong direction - forwards, not downwards.



I was wondering about the installation as well. I am guessing but think both installs have the actual radar pointing down at an angle, most likely the same regardless of being nose or belly mounted. Does anyone know if this system had a crew adjustable tilt?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 23, 2016)

stona said:


> The invasion coast runs across the image. The bright spot at about 7 o'clock is Caen.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Yeh we all knew that.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 23, 2016)

Ug - ok then, I'll rephrase the question:
Was that photo from a X band 3 cm "centimetric" wavelength (10 GHz frequency) unit or the S band 9.1 cm (3 GHz) units?


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

The point is that these images show the limitations of H2S/H2X as a means of aiming bombs. It was intended originally as, and was best as, a navigation aid, _in conjunction with other navigational methods carried out at the same time_. Whilst it could show a city the idea that it could reveal a target within that city is ridiculous. There is no way, for example, bombing through 10/10 cloud, that the USAAF could attack a factory or marshaling yard using H2X, any more than the RAF could using H2S by night. If they were lucky and the pathfinder sets were working (in the early days Bomber Command found that 55% of sets that were working on take off had ceased to do so by the time the target area was reached) they might bomb the right city, but the concentrations required to do any real damage were almost impossible to achieve.

The British were determined to make H2S a target finding device, but never really succeeded. Best results were achieved when H2S equipped aircraft illuminated the target area for aircraft to mark visually. This method still only achieved, on average, 44% of bombing photographs within 3 miles of the aiming point, still better than the 11% when the H2S aircraft themselves carried out the marking. Other systems and marking methods were devised and strenuous efforts were made to increase the quality and training of crews in the PFF to better use the equipment. Some improvements were made but the essential problem of seeing in the dark (or through solid cloud) was never overcome.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Ug - ok then, I'll rephrase the question:
> Was that photo from a X band 3 cm "centimetric" wavelength (10 GHz frequency) unit or the S band 9.1 cm (3 GHz) units?



The Caen photo is from a 3cm X band H2X unit. You would have got a very similar image from a British H2S Mk III unit which operated at a similar wavelength and frequency (and thus resolution).

You have to be careful with frequency band designations as there seem to have been various standards at different times 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2016)

IdahoRenegade said:


> For it's success in not one, but multiple secondary roles, it's hard to beat the P-38. While designed as an "interceptor" it performed a wide variety of roles.
> Long range escort fighter
> Ground support/fighter bomber role
> Dive bomber
> ...



Going back to this post, the P-38 was a rather confusing airplane due to the changes made to it and the time it served. 
However few of it's additional "roles" were any more successful if as successful as it's original role/s.

_ While designed as an "interceptor" it performed a wide variety of roles._
it was desinged as a high endurance "intercepter" with twice the endurance of the other specification that was put out at teh same time. that one lead to the P-39. which leads to. 

_Long range escort fighter_
It wasn't modified into a long range escort fighter. It was already a long range fighter compared to most other fighters in the world. A P-38 could go about 700 miles on 250 gal of internal fuel at a bit over 200mph, Slow it down to US Navy cruise speeds and it would go about 840 miles. Figure around 50 gals for warm up and take off. Adding the drop tanks just kicked the range out. 

_Ground support/fighter bomber role_
It did it but it wasn't often until replaced as a primary air superiority fighter. And it is debatable as to if was better as a fighter/bomber than as an air superiority fighter. 

_Dive bomber_
Depends on defintion of dive bomber, P-38 had no dive brakes (dive brakes later fitted were for recovery from high speed dives from altitude, not speed restricters for accurate bomb placement). 

_Skip bomber_
A different method of bomb delivery but not a different "role".

_4000 lb bomb load capability_
A capability that was rarely used. A quick look at the numbers would show why. Basic weight of a P-38J/L was 14,100lbs. Basic weight is also empty equipped, that is guns, armor, and other equipment. Pilot, oil and full internal fuel pushes the weight to 16,985lbs. and that is with *no *ammo for the guns. hanging a pair of 2000lbs on the plane would put you within 55lbs of the gross weight of a ferry mission (pair of 300-310 gallon drop tanks). Since flying bombing missions without at least some ammo for the guns wasn't going to be done that means not filling all the internal tanks. 

_Tested as a torpedo bomber, carrying (2) 2000 lb torpedos_
Test yes, actually used....no. Why???

_Photo-recon aircraft-one of the most successful of the war_
That it was and bit more. 

_High altitude level bomber with "droop snoot" variants equipped with Norden bombsites_
Less successful than hoped, not terrible or a failure but no real advatage over regular medium bombers. In fact results were usually a bit lower than the medium bombers. BTW most droop snoot missions were flown at altitudes between 10,000 and 20,000ft. Not low altitude but calling them High Altitude is stretching things.

_Radar equipped Pathfinder_
There weren't many of them and they were actually used for a rather different function. They were often used for weather recconisance and on at least one set of missions (Ploesti July 9-15 1944) a P-38 weather plane arrived over the target and stayed for about an hour directing incoming waves of bombers to one of 5 different targets depending on visiablity just before the bomber wave reached intial points. 

_Night fighter_
Another "what if". Yes about 100 were built but apparently only four(?) actually saw service in a combat zone. 

I like the P-38 and for almost a year it was the best US fighter available what ever it's faults may have been. But it didn't really fail at it's primary job. Better aircraft came along later (the P-51) but being replaced by a newer fighter doesn't mean the P-38 was a failure. 
And it was rarely dedicated to any secondary roles (except photo recon) until large numbers of P-51s were in theater. 
At one point a 15th Air Force report on droop snoots stated. "The Primary function of all fighter aircraft assigned to the 15th AIr Force is to provide escort for heavy bombers. Droop Snoot bombing is considered to be a valuable, though relatively minor, adjunct to the strategic employment of the Air Force. Droopsnoot bombing will be employed .......at every opportunity in the future when P-38 aircraft are not required for use in their primary role as escort and are available for bombing." 
This report covered droop snoot operations between Aug 29th 1944 and 21st Jan 1945. 

The P-38 wasn't shuffled off to ground support or droop snoot missions because it failed to perform it's primary role like the Typhoon. However it also didn't perform in many of the above listed "roles" in great enough numbers to establish a reputation one way or another.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Going back to this post, the P-38 was a rather confusing airplane due to the changes made to it and the time it served.
> However few of it's additional "roles" were any more successful if as successful as it's original role/s.
> <SNIP>
> _Tested as a torpedo bomber, carrying (2) 2000 lb torpedos_
> ...



Another what if: Torpedo wielding P-38's at Midway.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 23, 2016)

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> _Dive bomber_
> Depends on defintion of dive bomber, P-38 had no dive brakes (dive brakes later fitted were for recovery from high speed dives from altitude, not speed restricters for accurate bomb placement).



I wouldn't think the P-38 could dive at a sufficient angle to qualify as a dive bomber?

From memory, the dive limitation was 15° without dive flaps and 45° with dive flaps. Not exactly the stuff of dive bombing legend.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 23, 2016)

54th FS P-38Es arrived in Alaska just too late to defend against the Dutch Harbor attacks. Later were successfully used to intercept Japanese flying boats attacking USN seaplane tenders at Atka. Shot up a lot of Rufes and Jakes at Attu and Kiska. Not really a fair fight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Another what if: Torpedo wielding P-38's at Midway.


Yep, all they needed was torpedo that actually worked. 
BTW, drop speed for the MK 13 Torpedo as used at Midway was 110kts (126mph) from 50ft. A P-38 at that speed and altitude was in trouble even after the torpedoes dropped.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I wouldn't think the P-38 could dive at a sufficient angle to qualify as a dive bomber?
> 
> From memory, the dive limitation was 15° without dive flaps and 45° with dive flaps. Not exactly the stuff of dive bombing legend.


Not to mention most dive bombers used displacement gear 






to help bomb clear the prop in steep dives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Not to mention most dive bombers used displacement gear
> 
> 
> 
> ...




SR6,

Did they use that because they had dive brakes, and as such were going below the terminal velocity of the bomb? It's obviously made to cause the bomb to clear the prop (a good thing in pilots eyes), but didn't think all fighter bombers used them.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2016)

Most fighter bombers didn't need them as the fell clear of the propeller, even the very large propeller of the P-47, without any need.
From the 8th AF's official history.




Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2016)

I think the problems come in with really steep dive angles and dive brakes. The A-36 had dive brakes but the bombs were under wing and clear of the prop disc. 
The P-40 carried it's main bomb under fuselage without a crutch but had no dive brakes and didn't normally dive at over 60-70 degrees if that.
The P-38 carried it's bombs in line with the prop disc. 
Lots of fighters did what was called dive bombing but they basically meant a steeper angle than glide bombing and not the angles that true dive bombers used.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2016)

As far as the USN goes this comment is from the 9th meeting at the Joint Fighter Conference. Which 'fighters' are not specified, but the comment is with reference to the Pacific Fleet(s). 

_"Our fighters are authorized to dive up to 85 degrees. Of course they have no displacing gear. Careful investigation down here shows absolutely no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller. At least the airplane and the bomb keep their relative pressures fore and aft, and the bomb drops away from the airplane, which was a great relief to everybody."
_
A lot of those naval fighters had big propeller arcs too!_
_
Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 24, 2016)

When dropping bombs horizontally, planes would jump vertically when the bomb left.

Would planes in a dive also move when the bomb is dropped as there is some lift generated by the wings? There is also the question of the plane slowing down/decelerating after dropping the bomb.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Yep, all they needed was torpedo that actually worked.
> BTW, drop speed for the MK 13 Torpedo as used at Midway was 110kts (126mph) from 50ft. A P-38 at that speed and altitude was in trouble even after the torpedoes dropped.


The B-26s at Midway used an approach at 220', speed 210 mph. Three torpedoes were launched, but scored no hits.

Why anyone would want to take a high speed fighter and shackle it to a torpedo, let alone two, is beyond me. They would have been more useful knocking down Kates, Vals, and Zeroes


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2016)

What happens when a torpedo is dropped way outside it's intended drop speed ?
Does it dive deep, and never come back to it's proper running depth ?
Or take a long time to get back to it's proper depth ?
Could that effect be minimized by dropping from a lower altitude ?

Did anyone know what dropping outside the parameters would result in ?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 24, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> What happens when a torpedo is dropped way outside it's intended drop speed ?
> Does it dive deep, and never come back to it's proper running depth ?
> Or take a long time to get back to it's proper depth ?
> Could that effect be minimized by dropping from a lower altitude ?
> ...



Does it get damaged or break up on impact?

Also, dropping the torpedo from a lower altitude and a higher speed may lead to it skipping along the water a bit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2016)

It can result in the torpedo actually breaking in two (or more) pieces. It can mean a much deeper dive than intended and screw up the depth keeping mechanism. 

early torpedoes needed to enter the water at a given angle or range of angle, too steep and you had the deep dive even at low speed, to flat and you had the skip problem and the stress of of side forces acting on the torpedo to break it up. Even too fast an entry could break or disturb the torpedo control mechanisms. The wooden noses used later served to cushion the impact load on the torpedo as the wooden nose broke up. Large wooden tails served as air brakes/ retarders to slow the torpedo before it hit the water. 
Perhaps they hoped the "220', speed 210 mph." drop would give an angle of entry similar to the lower speed, lower altitude drop. 
All we know for sure is that the B-26s missed. we don't really know if they dropped from too far out. If they dropped and the Japanese turned to avoid Or if the torpedoes where damaged in dropping or.......
Until the torpedoes were fixed the US Army had no need of the P-38 to carry torpedoes with the A-20, the B-25 and B-26 all being torpedo capable.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2016)

I don't know if it's true or not, but a lot of faults were in the torpedoes because they never tested them enough. 
They were so expensive, and the Navy so short of funds in the 30's , they just tested a few, and hoped for the best.
Any truth in that ?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 24, 2016)

stona said:


> As far as the USN goes this comment is from the 9th meeting at the Joint Fighter Conference. Which 'fighters' are not specified, but the comment is with reference to the Pacific Fleet(s).
> 
> _"Our fighters are authorized to dive up to 85 degrees. Of course they have no displacing gear. Careful investigation down here shows absolutely no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller. At least the airplane and the bomb keep their relative pressures fore and aft, and the bomb drops away from the airplane, which was a great relief to everybody."
> _
> ...



I wonder if the position of the bombs on the P-38 relative to the props is worse than for single engine fighters?

The Lightning's bomb racks were hung from the wing between the cockpit and the boom. As the wing was at the top of the boom the bomb position would be higher compared to the centreline of the prop than single engine fighters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...n_Lockheed_P-38G-10-LO_Lightning_42-12982.jpg

That said, the props were smaller than the likes of the F6F, F4U and P-47, and the bombs were offset from the centreline of the boom.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 25, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It can result in the torpedo actually breaking in two (or more) pieces. It can mean a much deeper dive than intended and screw up the depth keeping mechanism.
> 
> early torpedoes needed to enter the water at a given angle or range of angle, too steep and you had the deep dive even at low speed, to flat and you had the skip problem and the stress of of side forces acting on the torpedo to break it up. Even too fast an entry could break or disturb the torpedo control mechanisms. The wooden noses used later served to cushion the impact load on the torpedo as the wooden nose broke up. Large wooden tails served as air brakes/ retarders to slow the torpedo before it hit the water.
> Perhaps they hoped the "220', speed 210 mph." drop would give an angle of entry similar to the lower speed, lower altitude drop.
> ...



Tests with the 22nd BG in May of '42 in Australia determined that the Mk 13 torpedo could be dropped successfully by matching airspeed in MPH with altitude in feet. This was done by dropping solid wooden dummy torpedoes, as well as actual Mk 13s with the charge replaced with ballast. USAAF B-26s used torpedoes operationally only at Midway and in the Aleutians, without success. The RAF had better luck with their Marauder Mk Is in the Med with their own torpedoes, sinking several merchants in January '43


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> Why anyone would want to take a high speed fighter and shackle it to a torpedo, let alone two, is beyond me. They would have been more useful knocking down Kates, Vals, and Zeroes



Then photos like this must make you shudder:


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 26, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 26, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 26, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2016)

Good job Corsning!


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 26, 2016)

That's a massive drop tank in the bottom photo, looks close to the size of the engine / boom in diameter.

Cheers,
Biff


----------

