# 1930s British modern fighters.



## The Basket (Apr 22, 2011)

I have been checking these out and quite surprised how many new UK fighters were around in the 30s.

Of course, the Hurricane and Spitfire rules but if these designs failed then one of these may have filled the need.

Gloster F.5/34
Vickers Venom
Martin Baker M.B.2
Bristol Type 146
Bristol Type 133

None of these fighters were as good as the Hurracane of Spitfire but if these designs failed then one of these could have held the line during the BoB.

Interesting reading.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2011)

While we all (esp. me) like debating the extra MPH one fighter has vs. another, we forget many times that a fighter plane is just a part of an air force. The impact of not having Hurricane and Spitfire (replaced with one of those fighters) would've been far less important than absence of radar, or such a professional command structure, or absence of trained pilots.


----------



## merlin (Apr 23, 2011)

Martin Baker MB-2
Like all Martin-Baker designs the 'ease of maintenance and servicing was excellent, and perhaps the fixed undercarriage made it less complicated and easy to build. But when 'evaluated at Martlesham Heath the test pilots found it uncomfortable to fly and it was a poor gun platform. The ailerons needed improving and there was not enough rudder area.
Bristol 146
Not up to 'speed' - only 287 mph at 15,000, its cause not helped when at the 1938 Empire Air Day it collided on landing with some set-piece scenery at Filton - a write off.
Vickers Venom.
Did well with the 625 hp Bristol Aquila engine to get 300 mph, but where was the development potential.
Gloster F.5/34
An aircraft that perhaps sadly didn't meet a better end, well liked by pilots who flew her - good visibility, with short take-off and initial climb rate , good speed 316 mph at 16,000 ft. Pity, the first flight wasn't earlier, and/or overseas interest, or indeed a small RAF order just in case any problems with the Merlin!


----------



## The Basket (Apr 23, 2011)

These aircraft is pure talk as none was anywhere near a Spitfire but interesting to see that British aircraft design was cutting edge and that modern designs were coming from a number of factories.

I disagree with the idea that any fighter would have done. The Hurricane just scraped by. If we had to depend on the Venom or Gladiator then bad things may have happened.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2011)

Polish airforce with Spitfires, or with command control as RAF had. What would've you picked?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 23, 2011)

Uk is an island nation.

Poland is not. 

Radar and fighters are no good if occupied by a foreign army.


----------



## davebender (Apr 23, 2011)

Was early WWII RAF command control any better then Polish Air Force command and control? RAF operations in France and Norway during 1940 were nothing to brag about. Conditions in Poland would have been similiar with a need to support fast moving ground operations.


----------



## Rivet (Apr 23, 2011)

Laugh if you will. I'd have liked to have seen the Blackburn Roc continued in limited production in its floatplane version as an addendum to the Supermarine Walrus that was shipboard carried until the RN pulled them late in 1941 and used the space for more stores/ bigger magazines.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 24, 2011)

The Roc and the Fulmar were poor in comparison to what could have been.

A naval Venom would have been tops.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Uk is an island nation.
> 
> Poland is not.
> 
> Radar and fighters are no good if occupied by a foreign army.



It took 30 days for Germans Soviets to occupy Poland, so that's 30 days of radar-less airforce to battle vs. much greater force. The key role in occupation was played by Luftwaffe. 
Now, with LW bombers in air, the Chain Home radar operating for Poland, we have 30-60 min to scramble fighters and to alert AAA; Polish airfoce is mobilised ready for battle prior Sept 1st. Much better prospect than to have fighters grounded and AAA still in towed position as LW planes are flying over.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> Was early WWII RAF command control any better then Polish Air Force command and control?


 
Of course RAF was better.



> RAF operations in France and Norway during 1940 were nothing to brag about. Conditions in Poland would have been similiar with a need to support fast moving ground operations.


 
RAF did not have same command control facilities in France Norway, as they have had at the island. Plus, they didn't deployed fighters in numbers at those countries, compared with numbers of fighters in BoB. No 100 oct fuel, too. 
No 'fast moving ground operations' were made by polish Army, so nothing to support inthe 1st place. An air force with radars/command centers is better able to support such operations anyway, than historic Polish AF.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 24, 2011)

Comparing the British and Polish war effort is trying to compare apples with oranges.

2 different scenarios.

One must also remember that both the Hurricane and Spitfire had the Merlin engine which was new at the time. If the Merlin had been a dog like the Vulture, Goshawk or Peregrine then we had 2 fighters which went no where.

The back up fighters could have offered an alternative with a diffrent engine.

Also they were designed to be air cooled so they could operate in some far flung corner of the Empire where the climate was hot.


----------



## merlin (Apr 24, 2011)

The Basket said:


> I disagree with the idea that any fighter would have done. The Hurricane just scraped by. If we had to depend on the Venom or Gladiator then bad things may have happened.


 
Basically I agrre - hence my earlier comment on the Gloster fighter - if the RAF had those instead of the Gladiator, it would have been a plus in a number of combat areas - I wonder how many more 'Pat' Pattle would have got!?


----------



## merlin (Apr 24, 2011)

The Basket said:


> A) The Roc and the Fulmar were poor in comparison to what could have been.
> 
> B) A naval Venom would have been tops.


 
Agree point 'A' - both the RAF FAA were blinded by the technology of the 'turret' - the Roc a waste of space. Perhaps instead of the technological turret, the FAA could have gone for cannons - and gone for a navalised Boulton Paul P.88a (Hercules engine 4 x 20mm canon).
Disagree point 'B' - I think the Venom, would have too fragile - lightly built - for carrier use.


----------



## stona (Apr 24, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Uk is an island nation.


 
The UK is not a nation. England,Scotland and Wales are. The United Kingdom is,including Northern Ireland,spread over several islands so I take your point.

Sorry to be pedantic but these things do matter. 

Cheers 
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Comparing the British and Polish war effort is trying to compare apples with oranges.
> 
> 2 different scenarios.



Both countries have had airforces. The key part of one was absent from another, hence the second one never had oportunity to make a concentration of it's fighter AAA force, like the 1st one managed.



> One must also remember that both the Hurricane and Spitfire had the Merlin engine which was new at the time. If the Merlin had been a dog like the Vulture, Goshawk or Peregrine then we had 2 fighters which went no where.



I see no issues in Bristol Taurus Hercules being fighter engines for BoB; Merlin was fine piece of engineering, but not irreplacable.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 24, 2011)

stona said:


> The UK is not a nation. England,Scotland and Wales are. The United Kingdom is,including Northern Ireland,spread over several islands so I take your point.
> 
> Sorry to be pedantic but these things do matter.
> 
> ...



Very Pedantic. Matter to whom? The fighter design of 1930s?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 24, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Both countries have had airforces. The key part of one was absent from another, hence the second one never had oportunity to make a concentration of it's fighter AAA force, like the 1st one managed.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no issues in Bristol Taurus Hercules being fighter engines for BoB; Merlin was fine piece of engineering, but not irreplacable.



The problem is that if the Merlin failed to work then you would have a very narrow window to find a replacement. Too narrow. It is irreplacable because you dont have fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2011)

Does anyone have production figures for the Taurus and Hercules for 1939-1940?
While a prototype Taurus was rated for altitude work no production Taurus was except the MK III. According to "wiki" by April of 1940 suggestions to use the R-1830 instead of troublesome Taurus engines were being made. 
All but the MK III seem to have been rated at 3500ft for max power using 4.75lb of boost regardless of fuel used. It would have been near useless as a fighter engine in the BoB without major modifications. 
The MK III Hercules is the only one in time for the BoB and it runs into the same weight and frontal area issues as the R-2600. 1845-1900lbs and a frontal area of 14.7 sq ft. Not as bad as a R-2600 but then a 1940 Hercules III was good for about 1375-1400hp for take-off and about 1400hp at around 2000ft. High gear is better at around 1210-1250hp at 15,000 -16,750ft depending on source and/or fuel.

The problem with late arrivals having much influence on the BoB is shown by the Merlin XII and XX, both of which showed up during the BoB but not in enough numbers to really affect things. The battle was fought on the British side by the thousands of Merlin IIIs already built and coming of the production lines, not new models being made a few dozen a week.


----------



## merlin (Apr 24, 2011)

I don't see any of the aircraft mentioned by the OP taking a Hercules.
The Gloster F.5/34 was optimised for the Mercury, could probably have taken later versions of it.
To get a hercules powered aircraft in time for the BoB, would mean the treasury coughing up a bit extra cash for the Boulton-Paul P.88 prototypes - perversely the 'B' model more likely to fly first, but because of engine problems - it crashes! Hence, the 'A' model flies, successful 'test' programme - RAF order. But delayed entering service due to engine shortages, and problems with the cannons in the wings, (but with the extra time compared to OTL) declared operational to re-equip Squadrons just after Dunkirk!


----------



## woljags (Apr 24, 2011)

These aircraft is pure talk as none was anywhere near a Spitfire but interesting to see that British aircraft design was cutting edge and that modern designs were coming from a number of factories.

I disagree with the idea that any fighter would have done. The Hurricane just scraped by. If we had to depend on the Venom or Gladiator then bad things may have happened. 

considering the Hurricane accounted for more kills than any other aircraft or ground batterys combined in my humble view without the Hurricane not the Spitfire we would have lost the BoB


----------



## The Basket (Apr 24, 2011)

In britain at the end of the 1930s there were distinct groups who championed their own pet theories....when it came to fighter design.

The turret fighter was one. Twin engined fighters like the Whirlwind was another and big bruising 2000bhp single engine monsters were another.

An interesting aside is the Gloster F5/34 performance was not accepted by the RAF but the Japanese Imperial Navy did put a very similiar fighter into production. 

The Hurricane on paper would have been a very marginal design in 1940 and had Hawker flown it in 1938 rather than 1935 then it would have gone nowhere and joined the list of also rans.


----------



## Rivet (Apr 24, 2011)

Rather than consider what could have been possible regarding the development of British fighter capability I consider what was in place and plausible. Before one decries the Blackburn effort as 'poor' one might consider the historical record as to what was achieved by these aircraft against superior force.

The reason Royal Naval vessels had aircraft removed form them was the buildup of land based aviation whose supposed range made shipboard aircraft superfluous. I believe this to have been an error of RN operations planning, removing force projection at a time of Third Reich submarine operational increase. The ability to take on attacking submarines in the North Atlantic was lost and only regained to the Allies in 1943 with the usage of long-range four-engine aircraft.

Point taken, Steve. As an addendum the National Health Care system does not have but one central organization, but several to cover the different areas you mention as comprising the UK. Regards


----------



## stona (Apr 25, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Very Pedantic. Matter to whom? The fighter design of 1930s?



I was making a friendly point,not seeking an argument. I'm surprised to see that it doesn't matter to you who I'm assuming is Scottish.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Apr 25, 2011)

I am English with a Welsh mother who lives in Scotland.

And no...it still doesnt matter to me.


----------



## merlin (Apr 25, 2011)

The Basket said:


> An interesting aside is the Gloster F5/34 performance was not accepted by the RAF but the Japanese Imperial Navy did put a very similiar fighter into production.
> The Hurricane on paper would have been a very marginal design in 1940 and had Hawker flown it in 1938 rather than 1935 then it would have gone nowhere and joined the list of also rans.



The Gloster's problem was the prototype flight delay, by the time of its flight tests, the Hurricane was already in service, and the Spitfire ordered and in production. An added complication could be that Hawker owned Gloster - the Hurricane would be built there. Nevertheless, given, an earlier flight, and perhaps more consideration as an 'Empire' fighter - seems an order was plausible.
The Hurricane was an 'old fashioned' design if it was designed later, it would be metal stressed skin rather than fabric covered.


----------



## merlin (Apr 25, 2011)

The Basket said:


> I am English with a Welsh mother who lives in Scotland.


 
I'm Welsh - both Grandfathers, and my Mother were English.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 25, 2011)

A radial fighter would probably made a better ground attacker and be more robust in naval and desert warfare.

I will have to read more details about British radial engines of the period to see whats what.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2011)

The Basket said:


> A radial fighter would probably made a better ground attacker and be more robust in naval and desert warfare.
> 
> I will have to read more details about British radial engines of the period to see whats what.


 
If you are talking British radials you are talking Bristol (less said about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger the better) and from a practical point of view if you are talking Bristol you are talking the Hercules. Bristol had 5 different radials on offer in 1939-40 not including the Aquila and the Centaurus. The problem for the airstaff of the time and us modern revisionists is that 4 of them were too small/low powered to be worth bothering with. The Mercury was 1520cu in (24.9L) poppet valve engine from the late 20s. The Pegasus was a 1753 cu in (28.7L) poppet valve engine from the early 30s, it was basically a long stroke Mercury. Both had been designed when 73 octane fuel was hot stuff. Both had been updated but development slowed/stalled as effort was put into the sleeve valve engines and the later versions didn't quite keep pace with the Wright Cyclone. The Perseus was another 1520 cu in (24.9L) 9 cylinder radial and never went much beyond 900hp. The Taurus was a 1550cu in (25.4L) 14cylinder radial that went just over 1300lbs. It proved rather troublesome and because of it's small size didn't really offer much scope for the power that was coming into demand. That Leaves the 2360cu in (38.7L) Hercules as the only viable choice for a competitive fighter, ground attack/strike aircraft. The question is can you pry a worthwhile number of them away from bomber command? For some reason the Hercules was never used in a production single engined aircraft.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 27, 2011)

Still reading up on this issue as of interest to me.

Things I learnt so far. Vickers and Supermarine were the same company so if Vickers pushed the Venom it would be to the loss of another works plane.

There was a window but it wasnt taken and at the push there wasnt a radial producing 900bhp in the 1934-1935 timeframe.

The reliability issues of the Taurus was a show stopper.

The Hercules was too late.

A late model Perseus or Mercury XV could have powered a fighter which could have seen service in the BoB and have a top speed of over 300mph. An interesting read although purely academic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Still reading up on this issue as of interest to me.
> 
> There was a window but it wasnt taken and at the push there wasnt a radial producing 900bhp in the 1934-1935 timeframe.
> 
> ...



It is quite possible that a Perseus or Mercury powered fighter could have fought in the BoB and topped the 300mph. But that just gets to the level of a Curtiss Hawk/Mohawk if you are lucky. Once you stick in the self sealing tanks and armor the climb gets worse and without major development (which they did not/could not get) historically the plane would have been a dead end. Even with new cylinders/heads/finning and crankcase it is unlikely even the Pegasus would have gone much over 1200hp. A Perseus getting the same power per cylinder as a 1600hp Hercules is only 1028hp.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 28, 2011)

Good points Shortround. You mentioned the Hawk 75.

Looking into this is certainly going Japanese for me rather than American. Any British radial fighter would end up like an Oscar or a Zero. Power to weight ratio. If you dont have power then you dont have weight. So the radial fighter would be a dog but structually strong and robust or sparky performance but made out of toilet paper and coat hangers. 

The radials didn't offer the power to go rival the Bf 109 and that in a nutshell is what the story is all about. The decision not to go down this road was a good one.

Interesting though. Plenty of good stuff for aviation fans but as always....Spitfire rules!


----------



## merlin (Apr 30, 2011)

The Gloster design did seem to do better than most, considering the relatively low power of the Mercury - yet still get 316 mph at 16,000 ft. (Hurricane I = 318 mph). Granted there maybe weight rises, yet there are pluses that would have improved performance - constant speed propellor, and 100 octane fuel. Moreover, although an old design the engine still had some room for improvement - e.g. Mercury XV = 905 hp. No it's still not going to be a 'world-beater' but I suspect many Gladiator pilots would have prefered it, and possibly some Hurricanes ones too.
Other engine options, are the Taurus, and the P W R-1830 - both have a smaller diameter, than the Mercury.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2011)

The Taurus wasnt reliable enough so a non started for a Hurricane rival.

The Venom was good. 312mph on 625bhp is very good. Available in 1936. Proper job. Even with full kit I bet it still would have been a better bet than a Gladiator.

Gladiator had a 830bhp Mercury radial and just cracked 250mph. Had a Venom had the Mercury then it would have seemed like a rocket ship.

100 octane fuel and a constant speed propeller and it would have been at least on a performance par with a Hurricane. 

Why did Vickers use the Aquilla when the Mercury was available and increasing in power and flying? The Venom may have been too small for the physically heavier and bigger Mercury...but maybe design for the Mercury in first place.

The Gloster F5/34 first flew in 1938 and was no where near fast enough. just too late. I wish it first flew in 1936 and it may have gone into production although I doubt it. The RAF and the British Air Ministy didnt believe in radials until the Fw 190 showed them the errors of that philosphy.

An American engine? Licence built? When we still had an engine industry? No thanks!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2011)

100 octane fuel won't do much for the Mercury. Unlike the Merlin which went from 6lbs boost to 12 and beyond with 100 octane the Mercury went from about 4lbs to 6.5 or so. An improvement but nowhere near the Merlin's. Without both structural strengthening and cooling upgrades (more finning) the Mercury won't handle high boost levels. With the engineering effort going into the sleeve valve engines that wasn't going to happen. While radials did eventually get down close to the drag of a liquid cooled inline it was't until later in WW II.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 2, 2011)

Was the 312 mph @ 625 Hp for Venom just a sales pitch, or a proven figure for a battle-worthy aircraft?


----------



## fastmongrel (May 2, 2011)

If the Gloster F5 could get 316mph out of an 830 hp Mercury wonder what performance it would have had with a Merlin engine and a redesigned undercarriage.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 2, 2011)

Some nice what if pictures of the Gloster here
Gloster F5


----------



## merlin (May 2, 2011)

The Basket said:


> The Taurus wasnt reliable enough so a non started for a Hurricane rival.
> 
> _*It was used on the Gloster twin, and whilst the Taurus TE/1 (with which it reached 360 mph at 15,200 ft.) did give problems - even the IIIs derated to 900 hp reached 332 mph. But that maybe makes the case for retaining Mercurys but more powerful ones*._
> 
> ...


 
No can't see a US engine in a UK produced aircraft, but the original spec was for hot climate use, so while the Hurricane was produced in Canada, perhaps the Aussies should have done the Gloster with a US engine!?


----------



## Readie (May 2, 2011)

merlin said:


> I'm Welsh - both Grandfathers, and my Mother were English.


 
All my family are southern English 
Which means that we are French if you go back far enough...
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (May 2, 2011)

Back on thread...
The Hurricane was not as 'modern' as the Spitfire or some of the others already mentioned.
But, it was a steady gun platform,strong easy to repair, undemanding to fly, performed well enough, was well armed for the time and with its wide undercarriage easier to land on grass airfields.
I think that counted for a great deal in the real world.
Cheers
John


----------



## fastmongrel (May 2, 2011)

Readie said:


> All my family are southern English
> Which means that we are French if you go back far enough...
> Cheers
> John



We are all African if you go back far enough


----------



## Readie (May 3, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> We are all African if you go back far enough



Umm...I can prove the Northern French / Dane link in my family, the rest is subjective.

The history of Britain is fascinating, whether you of Celt or Anglo Saxon origin its worth the effort to track ancestry.

My Australian friends love to pull my leg about 'poms' but, they have English grandparents parents. Its only taken 40 years for them to admit this.... 

Anyway...back to the aircraft...

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2011)

All aircraft are a balance, the smaller the aircraft the finer the balance. The Venom may have cut things a bit too fine. The Aquila engine, while offering good power for it's size, was a hot rodded sleeve valve WASP JR in size. Starting several hundred horsepower behind the Mercury it was never going to catch up. The Venom may have been too small to easily re-engine with larger, heavier engines. 
In 1938 2000hp engines were on drawing boards and parts were in pattern rooms or experimental shops. 1300-1500hp engines were running in test cells. Putting a lot of time/effort into 800-900 engines and fighters to get small improvements wasn't worthwhile.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> Umm...I can prove the Northern French / Dane link in my family, the rest is subjective.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> John



No the African bit is science Mitochondrial DNA which is passed down the female side shows we are all linked in some way to 1 woman (or more likely a group of closely related women) in East Africa approx 200,000 years ago known as Mitochondrial Eve. When any rascist idiot starts banging on about racial groupings its a good riposte to point out that we all come from the same root. Usually stops the morons for a bit while they get there tiny brains round the big words


----------



## Rivet (May 3, 2011)

I can't believe I actually logged onto this thread and had to read the above tripe....Hey, can you come to my neighborhood and explain to your better half what the purpose of a garbage pail lid is?

Please contain to the topic.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 3, 2011)

Its important to remember in examining the performance of the Venom, F.5 and similar aircraft that the results were generally achieved in private testing and were done largely without military equipment. 

With the fitting of items such as armour, self-sealing fuel tanks, armament and necessary ancillaries, IFF equipment, military radio transcievers and the like, performance will suffer. 

In the Hurricane and Spitfire, this added between 600 and 800 lbs to total weight, which degraded performance. The Spitfire lost something like 12-15 mph thanks to all the extra equipment.


----------



## Readie (May 4, 2011)

:When any rascist idiot starts banging on about racial groupings its a good riposte to point out that we all come from the same root. Usually stops the morons for a bit while they get there tiny brains round the big words [/QUOTE]

Well said


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> In the Hurricane and Spitfire, this added between 600 and 800 lbs to total weight, which degraded performance. The Spitfire lost something like 12-15 mph thanks to all the extra equipment.



And the smaller/lighter the plane the more it will suffer. With pilots being, for the most part, un-shrinkable the armor and bullet proof windscreen can't be shrunk. While the smaller fuel tanks for the smaller engines maybe able to be provided with protection for less weight you still have a short radius/endurance plane. The Spitfire had a fair amount of 'stretch' in it. A smaller plane may not have had the same amount.


----------



## Rivet (May 5, 2011)

There is no doubt that the Merlin powered fighters were the top pick, though I have some thoughts as to how production limitations, both in the late 30's and early war period to the end of 1942, were viewed by Lord Beaverbrook's minions when planning an air arm that depended on this liquid cooled device not only for fighters but four-engined bombers as well. What would be the definitive source of Merlin production data?

I'd like to expand on my post 9 of this thread. I'd stated that I would have liked to have seen some of Blackburn Aviations radial engined single engined aircraft maintained in production, even if only on a limited basis. That Blackburn and its major subcontractor, Boulton-Paul, were not afforded consideration for design production may be due to the failure of the BEF missions early on. It isn't the successes that stuck in the minds of the British leadership, like some of the Norway events, it was the failures such as the Aachen raid. I mention that the Royal Navy pulled aviation sections from cruisers and capital vessels, supposing that all support could be provided by land-based aviation. This occured in December of 1941, all of the aviation sections removed from the ships in a day. I consider this one of the errors of World War II. 

In early 1942 the Japanese wished to consolidate their holdings in Malaysia. A task force was assembled to carry out Operation C, the consolidation of the Western flank of Japanese expansion. Admiral Nogumo's job was to attack allied shipping and challenge naval force in those waters adjoining Malaysia to the Indian Ocean. No further invasion was ordered,no more land to be taken. The fact that RN ships, sent to the area hastily apon the Malaysian invasion, were stripped of their aviation capability led to the sinking of several by Vals and the unchallenged sinking of 30 merchant vessels. I can cite several other events where the products of Blackburn or one of the other smaller production facilities would have been a welcome sight in the sky to a sailor.

You mention the 'stretch' of the Spitfire. I've noticed this in several other aircraft of the period, called on to soldier-on with an increased payload. This seems to have put the spur to increased engine power output, the number of hours one could expect from a powerplant's useful life decreasing rapidly. I believe the Blackburn effort could have been 'stretched' for the mission at hand, though with the constraits of a radial engine. Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2011)

I am not sure which Blackburn products you are referring to. The Roc was a lost cause from day one. Sticking floats on it just made things worse. Watching your own aircraft come down in flames would only be a welcome sight to a sailor as he thought "thank god that wasn't me!"
Catapult aircraft from Battleships and Cruisers were for reconnaissance and/or spotting for long range fire. They were never intended for fleet defense nor were they capable of fleet defense against all but the most feeble of enemies. 
British Catapult planes in 1939-42 were little more than targets against land based aircraft and their installation aboard ship took up room and top weight that was better spent on other things (like increased AA armament), not to mention the increase vulnerability due to fuel and oil stores. 
Perhaps a dedicated float fighter or even a few catapult launched Hurricanes might have helped but the first option has a lot of problems and the second, while effective against lone FW 200s, wasn't really going to work against multi squadron strength attacks. 

The British radials (Mercury, Pegasus, Perseus) while good engines in their day were simply too small (83% of a Cyclone for the Mercury and Perseus) to give the needed performance. The Taurus was too small, too late in timing and didn't work well when it did show up. That leaves the Hercules, and at about 1/2 ton heavier than a Perseus (installed weight, not dry), sticking it an existing single engine airframe is not going to be a quick or easy task. 

I am not sure the Float Rocs were even stressed for catapult launch. It could have been done but it would have reduced the pitiful performance even more without a major engine upgrade.


----------



## Rivet (May 5, 2011)

I understand the compromise of using the existing production might not have been a pretty one as far as results go, but having anything in the air that could train a weapon over a friendly Allied naval force was noticable by its absence on many occasions. 

The Fuel danger aboard ship was one of the reasons cited by the Admiralty for the rapid deletion of the aviation divisions.

Some of the same vessels who were shorn of aviation became casualties to Vals, not an aircraft known for stellar performance.
I appreciate your arguments, Shortround, but I'd have upgraded from the Supermarine Walrus to some of the lesser known and loved monoplane designs and took the fuel and performance debits in order to have some coverage on the spot. The losses in naval crewmen were horrendous, a situation that, in hindsight, could have been ameliorated by the presence of dedicated airborne defense.

The first naval air victory of WWII for the Royal Navy was to a Blackburn aircraft, albeit a clunky reconaissance biplane. The lesser known planes did sink shipping during the Norwegian campaign, though at loss that set the leadership back a step. Certainly some developement of the single engined monoplanes could have been achieved before the early spring of 1942 when they really became a requirement.

You mention the engines available with clarity. Where would one find production records of the Rolls-Royce Merlin? What's the definitive source? Regards


----------



## stona (May 5, 2011)

There are interesting hypothetical arguments above but given the situation of Britain in 1940/1 there are a clear practical and economic advantages to manufacturing one type of engine and fitting it to as many aircraft as possible.The proviso is that the engine is good enough and the Merlin was. Disparate and competing weapons programmes were a problem that bedevilled the German war economy throughout the war. They makes "luft '46" fun though!
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2011)

Would you care to provide a source for the first kill by"clunky reconaissance biplane"? 

Most histories say

"Just over a week later, on 26 September 1939 a Skua of 803 squadron of HMS Ark Royal piloted by Lt BS McEwen and PO BM Seymour, along with another piloted by Lt CLG Evans and Lt WA Robertson, shot down the first enemy aircraft of the war, a German Do18 which fell in the sea, its crew subsequently being picked up by HMS Somali."

The Skua being a monoplane with 4 fixed forward firing guns and a speed of 225mph. The Do 18 being a twin engined (diesel) flying boat with a top speed closer to 160mph. The early Vals were good for close to 240mph at 3,000meters and twin fixed guns of their own. Hanging floats on the Skua would knock a good 20mph off the speed and slow the climb by a fair amount. The Skua, being a dive bomber, was responsible for sinking the German cruiser Koenigsberg. 
But this like claiming you can put floats under an early Dauntless dive bomber and use it to defend against land based fighters/bombers. Even a dozen float equipped Hurricanes would have been hard pressed to defend the Prince of Wales and Repulse and considering that the ships had to slow down or even stop to hoist the planes back aboard meant that float planes were not looked on with favor with submarines about.


----------



## Rivet (May 5, 2011)

William Green mentions the Skua/Dornier engagement. It is also fare on Wikipedia's overview of Blackburn Aviation, as well as the page specific to the Roc/Skua development. There was an operational report website containing all the reports of the RAF/RNAS that was pulled form the internet in the interest of making money from the information. Yes, I consider Dornier's DO-18 a clunker, less than desirable.

I can't agree with your statements regarding the Prince of Wales/Repulse attack. Given the type of aircraft comprising the attacking force the major operational problem would be gaining altitude in time to challenge the attack. 

Shortround, you have mentioned several obvious debits to floatplane operations that were mentioned by the UK Admiralty in orders for removal. The fact remains that what occured due to the removal of the aviation divisions from the vessels of the fleet removed the possibility of disaster and made it a certainty. 

Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2011)

Rivet said:


> I can't agree with your statements regarding the Prince of Wales/Repulse attack. Given the type of aircraft comprising the attacking force the major operational problem would be gaining altitude in time to challenge the attack.
> 
> Shortround, you have mentioned several obvious debits to floatplane operations that were mentioned by the UK Admiralty in orders for removal. The fact remains that what occured due to the removal of the aviation divisions from the vessels of the fleet removed the possibility of disaster and made it a certainty.
> 
> Regards



What planes were removed historically? Walruses and Seafoxes? I have no idea how they could have prevented Nells from attacking let alone Vals and Betty's. The fact is that aside from going down heroically a few minutes before their parent ships such planes could do nothing to stop or even hinder planes that were 100-130mph faster than they were. It is not a question of any aircraft being better than no aircraft unless you also believe that a baseball cap can offer partial head protection in a motorcycle crash compared to a real helmet. 
The Do 18 was at least as well armed as either British plane and 30-40mph faster. 
The Japanese used over 70 twin engined bombers in the attacks on the Prince of Wales and Repulse and were reading another strike when the report came in that they were sunk. While a handful of float equipped Hurricanes might have made the Japanese pay a higher price than they did (four aircraft lost?) I doubt it would have changed the outcome.


----------



## stona (May 6, 2011)

Rivet said:


> I can't agree with your statements regarding the Prince of Wales/Repulse attack. Given the type of aircraft comprising the attacking force the major operational problem would be gaining altitude in time to challenge the attack.



Wouldn't having a seviceable vessel with the capability to carry and maintain enough aircraft to make the slightest difference to the Japanese attack have been more of a problem? It certainly was in December 1941. Force Z comprised the two capital ships and four destroyers.Where were these hypothetical aircraft going to come from? 
I know the thread is about the aircraft but there is a far bigger picture. Britain was still fighting for her life and I don't think naval aviation was high on the agenda. When your towns and cities are being bombed and thousands of your civilians being killed and wounded,the emphasis is going to be on producing and developing the land based interceptors needed to try to prevent that. 
My father was a FAA officer and was really angry at the loss of ships during the Falklands conflict. He served at a time when the Royal Navy was still able to provide air cover for its task forces. The best efforts of the handful of aircraft we had in the South Atlantic could not prevent those losses. The lessons learnt the hard way during WWII had,he thought,been forgotten. I shudder to think what he would think of a Royal Navy with no carriers at all,had he lived to see such a sorry state of affairs.
Steve


----------



## merlin (May 6, 2011)

Whilst I agree with earlier posts re: the Merlin (well I would with my username) i.e. any combination of radial engined fighters from the 30s instead of the Hurricane Spitfire would have been disastrous in the BoB; I do think that an aircraft such as the Gloster F.5/34 woulld still have made a useful contribution - 'Empire fighter'. Think of it instead of the Gladiator in North-Africa, and surely better than the Buffalo!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Wouldn't having a seviceable vessel with the capability to carry and maintain enough aircraft to make the slightest difference to the Japanese attack have been more of a problem? It certainly was in December 1941. Force Z comprised the two capital ships and four destroyers.Where were these hypothetical aircraft going to come from?
> 
> Steve



I believe a carrier was supposed to have been included but it ran aground while working up (training) of Bermuda and was delayed for repairs?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2011)

merlin said:


> Whilst I agree with earlier posts re: the Merlin (well I would with my username) i.e. any combination of radial engined fighters from the 30s instead of the Hurricane Spitfire would have been disastrous in the BoB; I do think that an aircraft such as the Gloster F.5/34 woulld still have made a useful contribution - 'Empire fighter'. Think of it instead of the Gladiator in North-Africa, and surely better than the Buffalo!


 
The Gloster F.5/34 was 3-4 years later in timing than the Gladiator. Gladiator was going into squadron use in Jan 1937 while the F.5/34 didn't even fly for the first time until Dec of 1937. Perhaps more effort could have been put into getting it going a bit sooner but about the best you could hope for was first squadron going into service in the summer/fall of 1939. 
As far as being better than the Buffalo,???

Prototype F.5/34 used an engine with 100 less HP than an early Buffalo, could do 316mph at 16,000ft compared to the Buffalo's 311mph at 18,000ft. The planes had similar ceilings and weighed within a few hundred pounds of each other. Neither plane had armor or self sealing tanks. Later Buffalo's gained a considerable amount of weight but had engines of 1100-1200hp instead of the original 940-950hp engines. If the F.5/34 had entered service there is little doubt it would have gained weight although likely not as much as the Buffalo (US Navy spec'd a ridiculous amount of ammo) but the British 9 cylinder engines didn't have the growth potential of the Cyclone without major redesign/rework. A 950-1000hp engine in a 6,000lb plane is not going to cut it.


----------



## Rivet (May 6, 2011)

"Wouldn't having a seviceable vessel with the capability to carry and maintain enough aircraft to make the slightest difference to the Japanese attack have been more of a problem? It certainly was in December 1941. Force Z comprised the two capital ships and four destroyers.Where were these hypothetical aircraft going to come from? 
I know the thread is about the aircraft but there is a far bigger picture. Britain was still fighting for her life and I don't think naval aviation was high on the agenda."

Well ,Steve, how the aircraft are used certainly has a bearing on whose colors will be on them when the smoke cleared. Relevant here.

During the period of December, 1941, UK resources were stretched. Aide to Russia was a major drain, 151 squadron being among the aircraft shipped aboard the HMS Argus, a carrier such as you mention, Stona. Operations in the Mediterranean and Atlantic had precedence over the Pacific theatre.

The failure of Allied air support during the Operation C period of April, 1942 was due to an Allied logistics failure. Though three aircraft carriers were committed to the area many of their aircraft were on the ground at Colombo when attacked, the aircraft mechanics and many of the necessary supplies following on a much slower freighter than the naval forces hastily moved into the area in order to counter a supposed move on India.

"British 9 cylinder engines didn't have the growth potential of the Cyclone without major redesign/rework. A 950-1000hp engine in a 6,000lb plane is not going to cut it."

So there is part of the issue, Shortround. 

I'm still adamant that the presence of aviation aboard UK capitol vessels might of made a difference, though as you state, just making the attacking force pay a dearer price for success. This payment would have probably produced a dividend further down the road. I'm researching the thoughts of Vice-Admiral Lyster, Fifth Sea Lord in charge of Naval Aviation during 41-42 at this time. This fellow was architect of the attack on the Port of Taranto (in 1935), as well as responsible for the removal of the aviation divisions. Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2011)

Better co-ordination would have helped the Prince of Wales and Repulse. The squadrons (and HQ) at Singapore had no idea where they were (must maintain radio silence) and so could not support/fly cover for them or even drop rafts to survivors. I believe one Walrus was flown off one of the ships before the Japanese attacked and witnessed part of the attack?

Without float Hurricanes or float Fulmars no aircraft presence aboard capitol ships or cruisers is going to have any practical effect on squadron strength or larger attacks. Each Capitol ship having 3-4 catapult planes would give you 8 at best vs 70+ in the Prince of Wales?repulse battle. The Roc lost almost 20mph when fitted with floats, 178mph top speed and a pitiful climb. It's only hope of affecting an air battle is to try to get in the way and get off a burst as the attackers go by. It can't pursue or engage multiple targets in quick succession unless they are kind enough to stream by at the right altitude speed and intervel between planes to allow the turret to traverse back to a starting point for each plane. And they are vulnerable to return fire from the bombers, Vals would have had a field day after they dropped their bombs. 
The Walrus and Seafox had a much lower chance of actually doing anything, not counting golden BBs it was about zero.


----------



## stona (May 6, 2011)

Rivet said:


> During the period of December, 1941, UK resources were stretched. Regards



That's true and putting it mildly. Britain had an enormous a maritime empire which it was manifestly incapable of defending at this time.
Operation Judgement,November 11/12 1940 (your typo above). I think we and the Italians were still friends in 1935!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (May 6, 2011)

Britain was still fighting for her life and I don't think naval aviation was high on the agenda.

Maybe Rivet, but naval power and convey protection certainly were. The Hurricane was catapulted for a one use as fighter cover.

Cheers
John


----------



## Rivet (May 6, 2011)

No, no typo, Steve. Lyster planned the Taranto attack in 1935 at the behest of Admiral Sir Dudley Pound. Mussolini was not a popular topic of dinner conversation at Kensington at the time. Folks wanted to punch him in the face, if only on paper.

"Britain was still fighting for her life and I don't think naval aviation was high on the agenda.", is a quote from Stona, Readie.

The CAM merchantmen came into use in 1943, a one-shot usage of an Hurricane fighter as a defense measure. Some managed to make a landing on land, within range of Ireland. The removal of aviation divisions earlier in the war is what I am addressing in questiong 1930's UK fighter development. CAM was effective, though the use of this measure just highlights the lack of naval aviation. Regards
--------------
Shrtround- Simply amazed that Prince of Wales, the vessel who launched the Supermarine Walrus at the notification of Repulse of an unidentified aircraft in the area, still had her aviation aboard. I believe this was due to her being involved in operations in December, 1941 and not being able to obey the order to remove. That aviation was not sent from Singapore apon arrival of the Walrus there may be due to the need to conserve aviation fuel, in very short supply. Regards

Oh, Do you believe the dependence on the Rolls-Royce Merlin hampered radial engine development in UK?


----------



## fastmongrel (May 6, 2011)

Rivet said:


> The CAM merchantmen came into use in 1943,



The first CAM ship the Michael E sailed in a convoy from Belfast on May 28th 1941. I think your thinking of the MAC ship which was a flight deck on an Oil tanker or Grain ship and 3 or 4 Stringbags, they came into service in 1943.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2011)

Rivet said:


> --------------
> Shrtround- Simply amazed that Prince of Wales, the vessel who launched the Supermarine Walrus at the notification of Repulse of an unidentified aircraft in the area, still had her aviation aboard. I believe this was due to her being involved in operations in December, 1941 and not being able to obey the order to remove. That aviation was not sent from Singapore apon arrival of the Walrus there may be due to the need to conserve aviation fuel, in very short supply. Regards



There is a quote in "Bloody Shambles" about a Senior British air staffer with tears in his eyes telling one of the naval officers that they had no idea where the ships were were and so could not send support. I will try to find the exact quote soon. 


Rivet said:


> Oh, Do you believe the dependence on the Rolls-Royce Merlin hampered radial engine development in UK?



Not really, Armstrong-Siddeley was content to sit on their hands and sell trainer engines and what money was spent on development went into things like the Deerhound engine and not improving the Tiger, even though it had the first 2 speed supercharger. Bristol was pretty much air-cooled all the way and with the Jupiter, Mercury, Pegasus series split a large share of the world market in the 20s and early 30s with Armstrong-Siddeley. Bristol just sank an awful lot of money and time into the sleeve valve engines and only just got the Hercules going in time. Napiar had clung to the Lion a bit too long before trying the air-cooled in-line Rapier and Dagger before going for the Sabre. Alvis had licensed the Gnome-Rhone series of engines (including an 18 cylinder radial) before the war but didn't have the time to really set up production or even do much testing of prototypes. 
Part of the reliance on the Merlin was a matter of timing. It came to maturity after some other designs peaked and before some others were quite ready. The vast improvement in fuel meant that it could keep on going when, if fuel had stayed at 87-100 octane it would have had to be replaced by bigger engines much sooner.


----------



## Rivet (May 7, 2011)

Thanks for the knowledgable answer, Shortround. Fedden's development of the sleeve valve for aviation created a lot of excitment in 1938, but certainly didn't pan out into widespread usage. Sabre and the Bristol design. More than nine cylinders might have been the key to a British radial worth development. The Gnome-Rhone license might have been useful, given the time.

"Part of the reliance on the Merlin was a matter of timing. It came to maturity after some other designs peaked and before some others were quite ready." 

Regards


----------



## stona (May 7, 2011)

Rivet said:


> No, no typo, Steve. Lyster planned the Taranto attack in 1935 at the behest of Admiral Sir Dudley Pound.



Sorry,I misunderstood your post. I also didn't know it was planned so far in advance.I'm guessing this was as a result of the "Abyssinia crisis" but we're getting a bit too far off topic there.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Rivet (May 11, 2011)

Yes, Stona- Mussolini's moves in Africa, compounded by the insults given Great Britian in facist newspapers were a spur to considering the reduction of Italy prior to open hostilities.

For a primary document regarding the outcome of the sinking of the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse, as well as Admiral Nagumo's Operation C, this in consideration of the thread topic, please read National Archive Document ADM 1/13487. This is a mission requirement assessment written by Vice Admiral Sir Arthur Lumley St. George Lyster and addresses the shortcomings. This document at the National Archives, Kew, London, England. Lumley was Fifth Sea Lord at the Admiralty at the time, in charge of naval aviation. Regards


----------



## Rivet (May 11, 2011)

Found the following regarding engine development of the 1930's:

Extract from an article published in Flight magazine, November 22, 1934:

"There are no British radials with output as high as the Gnome-Rhone "Mistral Major" or the new Hispano and Renault two-row types, but the higher powered examples of the Bristol and Sidderley types are obviously popular on the continent for installation in military aircraft."

Further into the article:

Incidentally, the two-row arrangement
has taken a firm hold on the Continent
for use in high-powered engines.
The best-established engine of this type
at present is undoubtedly the Gnome-
Rhone "Mistral Major" or K.14. This
engine, it is claimed, is the most powerful
type to have been ordered and constructed
in large series anywhere in the
world. It is supplied as a direct-drive
and fully supercharged engine for use in
fighting aircraft, as a moderately supercharged
and geared type for use in civil
machines and seaplanes, or geared aád
fully supercharged for installation in
larger military types. The "fighter"
tvpe engine weighs 1,144 lb. and is
rated at 900 h.p.

regards


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2011)

And 900hp is about where the Gnome-Rhone "Mistral Major" or K.14 stayed. The later N.14's got up to 1080 or 1100hp (with more finning on the cylinder heads) and reduction gear for the prop added about 100lbs. The Mistral Major had the same basic flaw as the A-S Tiger, No center bearing on the crankshaft. While this allows for a shorter, lighter, crankshaft and crankcase it means the that the crankshaft for a 2 row 14cylinder engine is supported by only two bearings, one at each end. It was OK with 77080 octane gas or even 87 octane but the construction would not stand up to the higher cylinder pressures that higher octane fuels allowed. It also limited the amount of RPM that could be used. The G-R 14 cylinder engines ran at about 2300rpm for the ungeared ones and 2360-2400rpm for the geared ones. They used the exact same bore and stroke as a Bristol Mercury or Hercules which could run at 2750-2800rpm. The French were working on a 3 bearing version of the engine which was just coming out in the Spring of 1940 and flown in the Bloch 157.

from Wiki.

" Facing criticisms over the 14K's reliability, Gnome-Rhône undertook a major upgrade of its 14-cylinder design, using different materials for the pistons and valves, and enlarging cooling surfaces by 39%.
The new 14N was introduced in 1937 and was quickly adopted on several aircraft models. In 1939, minor improvements allowed Gnome-Rhône to increase the compression ratio from 6.1:1 to 6.8:1, which resulted in increased power for wartime production aircraft.
The 14N was further developed into the Gnome-Rhône 14R featuring a 2-stage supercharger, but this type was not widely used until after World War II as production of improved engines was prohibited by the terms of the armistice with Germany."

Which isn't bad except the part about the 2 stage supercharger. The French used only single speed superchargers on the rest of their engines and while the 14N did use a 2 speed supercharger it also used a SZYDLOWSKI - PLANIOL SUPERCHARGER which is sort of a 1 and 1/2 stage supercharger. Several Axial compressor discs are put in front of the centrifugal compressor. 

At any rate the post war 14R's on 100/130 octane fuel were good for about 1660hp at 2600rpm using 8.6lbs boost and weighed 1805 pounds.


----------



## Rivet (May 13, 2011)

Yes, I recollect British motorcycle engines, crankshaft unsupported midline, and the effects of tweaking capacity and BMEP on them. That and frame whip at speed.

Complexities of crankcase construction appear to have been a limiting factor in upping power delivery, your mention of the Mistral 14 engine not reaching a higher stage of development during the period in question raises the question of who developed a bottom end capable of handling high power delivery first? Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (May 14, 2011)

Rivet said:


> Complexities of crankcase construction appear to have been a limiting factor in upping power delivery, your mention of the Mistral 14 engine not reaching a higher stage of development during the period in question raises the question of who developed a bottom end capable of handling high power delivery first? Regards



Probably Pratt Whitney with R-1830 but there may have been other 3 bearing 2 row radials before that that didn't get any real numbers made for other reasons. A lot of this is related to fuel development.
They went from gas with unknown octane to 100 octane in about 10 years. In 1925 there was no octane test and nobody knew how the lasted batch of fuel they got was going to work until they put it in the engine and tried it, and I mean at the airfields. Now it wasn't quite that bad but things were not exactly known. In the US it was known that gasoline from the California oil fields was 'sweeter' and would allow higher compression to be used than Pennsylvania gasoline. In Europe similar distinctions were made as to the sources of the gasoline and while octane could vary from 40 to 70 depending on location and batch the latter meant that even California gasoline while much better than the Pennsylvania gas could vary from batch to batch. By 1935 not only had they developed the octane rating scale and figured out how to use tetraethyl lead to boost octane (and by using differing amount to get different batches of gasoline to act the same) but they were producing 100 octane fuel in experimental batches, at a cost of 4.00 dollars a gallon in 1935. large scale production of 100 octane was in the indefinite future. 
without high octane gas there is a limit to the BMEP that an engine can reach without detonation. Why build an engine with a larger, heavier bottom end than it can use with the fuel available at the time?
Power to weight is much more important to an aircraft designer than power per cubic inch or liter.

Other factors affecting the bottom end include materials and bearing technology. Wright went forged steel crankcases instead of aluminium Crankcases on later Cyclone 9s, 14s and 18s.

Think of engine development in the late 20s/30s as somewhat like electronics development now. The latest, hottest thing going is obsolete junk in 5 years


----------

