# MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

In contrast to the other topic what do you think the most underrated aircraft of WW2 was?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

3 way tie - the Lysander, the PO-2, and the Storch. B-24 honerable mention

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2005)

Fiat G.55, P-39 Airacobra or Hawker Tempest MkIV

Matt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

Fiat G.55 is a great aircraft...

I would have to say the Series 5 Italian fighters, and also the Piaggio P.108 and the Macchi MC.200 8)


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

Brewster Buffalo. Look what the Finns did with it.

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

I can certainly see the logic in that choice evan, I must say id forgot about that 8)


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

IAR-81, Storch, Po-2 and Fw-189
(agreed, Buffalo also)
and moreso the P-40 B


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

FW-189 - Forgot that one. That would of been a kick to fly, one would probably need lots of sunscreen 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

B-239, B-24, Tiffie and the Hallie, all of them never recieved the praise they deserved as they were overshadowed by more "famous" planes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

HEY WHAT ABOUT THE FOKKER D.21  - AGAIN, THIS DID WELL WITH THE FINNS - HEY WAIT, MAYBE THE FINNS WERE THE MOST UNDER-RATED AF OF WWII!?!

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


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Yep, they were no-one hqs heard of them but they performed miracles with the planes they had


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

Yep, the Finns were pretty amazing.


Ah yes, the Fw-189 - one of my favourite aircraft.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

I would agree, Flyboy. The Finns put up a hell of a fight!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

*BRING YOUR COPPERTONE*!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Don't forget the sunglasses 8) and the windex!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

No need to if you fly an Fw-189C


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

I once read that many of the post war treaties between the Soviet Union and the Finns were due to the Russians actually being afraid of them! I think because of these treaties the Finns had to buy a certain percentage of Soviet military equipment. Comments?!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> No need to if you fly an Fw-189C

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

Ironically that actually performed better than the Henschel Hs-129 that it was in competition with, but the RLM chose the Henschel for some reason...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

i think the lizzie's up there with the best on this one...........


----------



## trackend (Apr 14, 2005)

I'm going with my beloved Stringbag out dated, out classed but punching way beyond it's weight. Laughed at by opponents until they did their thing. Amazing.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Good choice Trackend. It also outlived two airplanes that were designed to replace it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

I know one was the Albacore, what was the other?


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

The Barracuda

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

however i don't believe it was underrated- people knew what they were capable of............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The Barracuda



Ah I thought that, but I wasnt sure.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

Name a British carrier torpedo bomber apart from those three then?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

Did the Firefly carry torps?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

well there were no others that saw major combat...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

Exactly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

but there were others..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

Not British built during WWII


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

The Firebrand nearly made it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Not British built during WWII



oh we'll see..........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 14, 2005)

The Sea Mosquito, guys !!!

I agree the Buffalo was under-rated....What was really under-rated was the British High Command's attitude to the Japan Forces, particuarly the aircraft, which if they'd noticed, was creating mayhem in China and Russia prior to the Singapore debacle.....Outnumbered 16 to 1 by seasoned Japanese pilots, RAF, RAAF AND RNZAF pilots did the best they could with the Buffalo....One of our chaps, Geoff Fisken DFC, scored 3 Zeros in the conflict, so they had teeth and tactics despite the odds.....

I agree the Lysander's and Typhoon's service wasn't recognised as it should have been.......


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 14, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> The Sea Mosquito, guys !!!
> 
> I agree the Buffalo was under-rated....What was really under-rated was the British High Command's attitude to the Japan Forces, particuarly the aircraft, which if they'd noticed, was creating mayhem in China and Russia prior to the Singapore debacle.....Outnumbered 16 to 1 by seasoned Japanese pilots, RAF, RAAF AND RNZAF pilots did the best they could with the Buffalo....One of our chaps, Geoff Fisken DFC, scored 3 Zeros in the conflict, so they had teeth and tactics despite the odds.....
> 
> I agree the Lysander's and Typhoon's service wasn't recognised as it should have been.......



If anyone's interested there's a great book called "Buffaloes over Singapore" by Brian Cull et al. It details the heroic stand the RAF RAAF RNZAF and the Dutch pilots put up against overwhelming odds against the Japanese at Singapore. One of my favourite books, if you can get your hands on a copy you won't be disappointed!


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 14, 2005)

I think that the Seafire was underrated, it had a lot of potential but it ended up being passed over. The first Seafires were built during WW2 but failed to pass fully active service, and were scrapped when the Navy got jets. It had potential but just came at the wrong time.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 15, 2005)

He-100

A better aircraft all-round than the Me-109






www.luftarchiv.de/ flugzeuge/heinkel/he100.htm

Kiwimac


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

F4F Wildcat is my choice.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 15, 2005)

Oh how I agree RG!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 15, 2005)

I'll say the Hally


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> I think that the Seafire was underrated, it had a lot of potential but it ended up being passed over. The first Seafires were built during WW2 but failed to pass fully active service, and were scrapped when the Navy got jets. It had potential but just came at the wrong time.



Did you mean the SeaFury?






Navalized Spitfires (Seafires) were used extensively by the FAA.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

*WHAT ABOUT THESE POOR BLOKES! UNDER-RATED, UNDER-PAID, AND UNDERMINED!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

PART 2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

yeah shame they had nowhere to land 

but i still think it should go to the lizzie.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Naw. Probably the Buffalo I reckon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

lizzie.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

A GREAT STORY ABOUT THE LIZZIE!:

As a result, the two Lysanders were thrown into the early part of the Palestine War. One of these, or perhaps the third surviving Lysander, was soon involved in an extraordinary aerial combat with an Israeli Avia C210 (Czech-built Messerschmitt Bf 109) on June 9, 1948. Air Commodore Muhammad Abd al-Munaim Miqaati, one of Egypt’s first three military pilots, and now Deputy Director General of the REAF, was due to fly from al-Arish to Cairo-Almaza, but had been expecting trouble. This would, in fact, be fhte first day of the so-called Ten Day War, which followed the collapse of the first UN Truce. As Miqaati recalled: ‘It was Condition Red. I had been advised to keep the radio on, but I was still nervous as I set across the Mediterranean. Fortunately my gunner – I don’t remember his name – was a keen-sighted man and he spotted an Israeli Messerschmitt as it maneuvered into position to attack. Of course, my Lysander was a very old kind of airplane, but I’d flown these for a long time. Still, we were at a big disadvantage and you’d expect such a contest could only end one way… The pilot of the Israeli aircraft came up behind us. I told my gunner to fire just as the Messerschmitt came into range and I went down to about 100 feet. Then the gunner fired and I throttled right back. You know the Lysander can drop like a stone to land in a field, like they did when the RAF took spies in and out of France. The Israeli must have been concentrating on keeping me in his sights because he dropped his nose to follow. He overshot and went right in, almost level with me. I honestly felt sick in my stomach and, I don’t know why, I saluted him. Then we flew straight back to Cairo.’


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 17, 2005)

What about the great PBY Catalina? No-ones mentioned it yet and I reckon it did a stirling job during the war. It did everything from rescuing downed pilots, recon, sub hunting and even used to bomb and lay sea mines in enemy held harbours!Probably did a whole lot more too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

The Cat was a great aircraft, no-one can possibly deny that. I dont think it was underrated though 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

I Agree, it did a great job but it's still the most recognisable Coastal Command aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

A classic seaplane! 
Oh, imagine the lake hopping you could do in one of those.
Like that video someone posted of the old men fishing in their boat.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

I'd have a Sunderland myself- it's got a galley and an anchor!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

I have a Bv-238...Why? Because bigger IS better


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

The Sunderland could hold more fish...and beer!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

If bigger is better, I've got the Spruce Goose instead of the Sunderland


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Yeah, but I'd be too afraid to smoke near the Spruce Goose. One stray ash and, WHOOSH!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

Anyway,
The whole of Coastal Command has been undervalued so any of their planes would be appropriate in this thread


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

At least they didn't use the Spruce Goose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

the sunderland did it's fair share...........


----------



## tail_gunner (Apr 26, 2005)

I'd say the P-40. ALWAYS overshadowed by the P-38, P-51, or other aircraft. But it flew on all fronts, and it looked cool.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2005)

For this topic I must suggest the P40, Halifax, B24, B26 and Do217. They all did a great job and you hardly hear about them.

Early on the in stream ther was a question about the limits on the aircraft the Fins could buy. They were limited to 60 combat aircraft and tended to buy about 50% from Russia and 50% from other country's. There were able to get around this to a degree when they purchased I think it was 60 Hawks as trainers. As I am sure you know the Hawk is an excellent GA aircraft.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 27, 2005)

Hmm, big list here... ALL of the Bomber Command's early twin-engined bombers (except the Manchester), Halifax, Hurricane, P-40, most Italian fighters, and the Me-410.

Incidentally, I didnt include the B-239 because I dont think it's performance against the Russians was all that surprising. You must remember that it was a very different beast to the F2A-2, which was the 'Buffalo' of Far Eastern fame. the B-239 was a better aircraft than the Buffalo, and with a skilled pilot, fighting against less skilled Soviet pilots, many of whom were (in the Winter War at least), were in older machines like the I-16, SB-2 or DB-3, there was no reason why it shouldn't be sucessful.

I included the Bomber Command types, namely the Whitley, Hampden and Wellington because people seem to forget that Bomber Command was active from the very first day of the war, and Berlin was first bombed by Hampdens in 1940, when the Lancaster had not even been conceived. Right up until 1942, Wellingtons served alonside the four-engined heavies on night raids, and some were involved in the 1000 bomber raid on Cologne. The Whitleys and Wimpeys than went on to do sterling service with Coastal Command.

And finally I included the Hurri for the obvious reason that despite winning the BoB and playing a massive role in the Battle of France and the Western Desert, and as a home defence nightfighter, it was utterly overshadowed by the prettier Spitfire.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> ... it was utterly overshadowed by the prettier Spitfire.


You forgot to say "and better". 

Seriously, I agree that the Hurricane was somewhat underrated. While it was an older design, even at the onset of the war, it more than proved it's worth during the BoB and in the desert for a time.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 27, 2005)

I dont deny that outright the Spit was the better plane, but it's no good having a good plane if you cant get it to squadrons. Hence my point that the few Spits fighting in the BoB got far more glory than thier contribution deserved


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 27, 2005)

Yep, the B-24 did the bulk of the bomb-carrying in the 8th AF but the B-17 was more photogenic. The Hally, Wimpey, Lib, Whitley and Hampden provided the bulk of Coastal Command aircraft aswell- punching well above their weight


----------



## evangilder (Apr 27, 2005)

The B-17 actually carried more total bomb tonnage than the B-24 for the war. 
_
B-17’s dropped 640,036 tons of bombs on European targets in daylight raids. This compares to the 452,508 tons dropped by the B-24 and 464,544 tons dropped by all other U.S. aircraft. 
http://www.libertyfoundation.org/history.php
_


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

ok but what if you compare that to the actual number of sorties carried out by the aircraft, and use only the true bombing sorties for the B-24's figure...........


----------



## Timppa (May 11, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I once read that many of the post war treaties between the Soviet Union and the Finns were due to the Russians actually being afraid of them!



Maybe some kind of respect at most. After the iron curtain was deep in Europe, Finland was not strategically important to the Soviets any more.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I think because of these treaties the Finns had to buy a certain percentage of Soviet military equipment. Comments?!?


No. Only buying war material from Germany and Japan was forbidden.
For political and economical (barter trade) reasons Soviet material was bought, like T-54/55/72 tanks, MiG-21's, 130mm artillery etc. But these were equal to any western material of the day


----------



## CORSNING (May 11, 2016)

No.1: The P-39. Considered 2nd-3rd class by the USAAF. It was considered the best import fighter by the Russians in 1942-1944. In 1-on-1 combat below 5,000 m. it could hold its own against the best. It had several serious faults, but it was there when needed.
No.2: (in my opinion): The B-24. Its crews were there deep in battle just like the B-17, but you seldom hear about its accomplishments.
No.3: Not sure yet. I haven't done enough research.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

One of the most under-rated aircraft of WWII is the Romanian IAR.80

Fast, maneuverable and well armed, it performed well against it's adversaries.

By the last part of the war, it simply couldn't hold off the overwhelming number of Allied aircraft, as was the case with all Axis aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2016)

Timppa said:


> Maybe some kind of respect at most. After the iron curtain was deep in Europe, Finland was not strategically important to the Soviets any more.



Boy, this is an old thread!

from Canada;

Why Finland doesn’t fear the growling Russian bear next door


Timppa said:


> No. Only buying war material from Germany and Japan was forbidden.
> For political and economical (barter trade) reasons Soviet material was bought, like T-54/55/72 tanks, MiG-21's, 130mm artillery etc. But these were equal to any western material of the day



Thought I saw somewhere that either by treaty (or maybe by policy) Finland maintained a 50-50 split between western and soviet equipment during the good ole cold war years...

All good equipment, I think the MiG-21Fs were outmatched during their operational stint, but the MiG-21MF was a excellent choice for their mission during the years served.


----------



## stona (May 11, 2016)

BombTaxi said:


> I dont deny that outright the Spit was the better plane, but it's no good having a good plane if you cant get it to squadrons. Hence my point that the few Spits fighting in the BoB got far more glory than thier contribution deserved



During what the British call the BoB, 655 victories were credited to 30 Squadrons of Hurricanes at 22.5 per Squadron, while the 19 Spitfire Squadrons were credited with 530 at 28 per Squadron.

There were roughly 3 Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires, not exactly a few Spitfires, but the Spitfire was marginally more lethal to the Luftwaffe.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 12, 2016)

Hhmmmm ... more deadly with less kills. Doesn't add up to me ...

More deadly per airplane, sure.

More deadly overall? No. Advantage Hurricane squadrons for the overall battle.


----------



## Timppa (May 13, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thought I saw somewhere that either by treaty (or maybe by policy) Finland maintained a 50-50 split between western and soviet equipment during the good ole cold war years...



Definitely not by any treaty. It was (unofficial) policy to buy military equipment from both east and west. But not necessarily with rigid 50-50 split. Note that "west" was mainly Britain, France and Sweden. US was a big no-no until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Back to the topic:

1. F2A
2. P-39
3. Ki-43
4. I-16
5. I-153

The last one shot down more FAF planes than any other russian or lend-lease plane in the Continuation War (1941-1944)


----------



## stona (May 13, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hhmmmm ... more deadly with less kills. Doesn't add up to me ...
> 
> More deadly per airplane, sure.
> 
> More deadly overall? No. Advantage Hurricane squadrons for the overall battle.



I said that the Spitfires were marginally more lethal. A Spitfire squadron shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft per squadron (and therefore per aircraft) than did a Hurricane squadron. 
Had all of Fighter Command's squadrons been equipped with Hurricanes then less enemy aircraft would have been destroyed. Had nineteen squadrons been equipped with Hurricanes rather than Spitfires they would have shot down 427 aircraft whereas the actual nineteen Spitfire squadrons shot down 530. The 'extra' 103 enemy aircraft destroyed are a measure of the more lethal nature of the Spitfire.
Of course this sort of statistic ignores many factors impacting the effectiveness of the squadrons, apart from the type flown. Nonetheless, it is a significant sample taken over a significant time.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2016)

I believe the _average _pilot or aircraft had a longer life expectancy when comparing Spitfires to flying Hurricanes. It may have been a matter of a few days or a week but a difference was noted. 

Hmmm, Spitfires and pilots lasted longer and shot down more enemy planes _on average???_


----------



## stona (May 13, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, Spitfires and pilots lasted longer and shot down more enemy planes _on average???_



Hurricanes were more likely to be shot down. I can't give the figures as I'm not at home, but the percentage difference between Hurricane and Spitfire was significant.
To be fair to the original and ancient post, the poster acknowledged that the Spitfire was a better aircraft, he just underestimated its numbers somewhat.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2016)

My vote goes for the Messerschmitt Me-110, underrated, despissed, ridiculized. Is true that probably its line of development true that the shall not put the effort in a fighter but a fast bomber/attacker.

I agree on the the P-39, is a fascinating airplane that deserve better research, I still got in my library some old books claiming thta russian used it as a tank killer, biased and incorrect info.


----------



## Glider (May 13, 2016)

Has to be the
Halifax which from the Mk III onwards had an excellent performance and was overshadowed by the Lancaster
Do 217 probably the best medium bomber anywhere until the end of the war
Ki44 a very capable fighter
Macchi 202 why didn't they put a couple of 20mm guns on them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2016)

Fighters, fighters, fighters...

I'll repeat my response from over 11 years ago...

*3 way tie - the Lysander, the PO-2, and the Storch. *


----------



## GrauGeist (May 13, 2016)

Another type that doesn't show up much, is the Westland Whirlwind.

Fast, well armed and capable in a fighter/bomber role, it was a scourge of U-Boats in the channel and held it's own against the Bf109 when bounced.

It had it's shortcomings like a lack of range or poor performance at high altitudes, but it simply wasn't given enough time to be fully developed.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2016)

I don't know about the PO-2 and the Storch but the Lysander could very well be in the list for most overrated at least in 1938 through April/May of 1940. 
It went from being a high priority item to a "what the heck do we do with them" in a matter of 8 weeks or less. 
Granted as an agent dropper it had few, if any, peers and was certainly an interesting aircraft from an aerodynamic (STOL) point of view but it was a failure at most of it's intended roles (so were most other planes of it's type to a greater or lesser degree).


----------



## stona (May 13, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> My vote goes for the Messerschmitt Me-110,



It would definitely be in my top ten aircraft of the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (May 13, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Another type that doesn't show up much, is the Westland Whirlwind.



There were never enough operational to really form a real assessment. It certainly wasn't a bad aircraft, it would make my top thirty, but I don't think it was underrated. The British were always looking to lift four cannon with a single engine type (which became the Typhoon). Fighter Command never really liked them and in 1940 didn't have a role for them. The number of Whirlwinds built was due to the availability of parts and engines which would otherwise have been scrap.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (May 15, 2016)

Hands down the Spitfire.

Most people think it's merely the greatest aircraft of the second world war - when in actuality it's the greatest thing created by our species.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2016)

stona said:


> There were never enough operational to really form a real assessment. It certainly wasn't a bad aircraft, it would make my top thirty, but I don't think it was underrated. The British were always looking to lift four cannon with a single engine type (which became the Typhoon). Fighter Command never really liked them and in 1940 didn't have a role for them. The number of Whirlwinds built was due to the availability of parts and engines which would otherwise have been scrap.
> Cheers
> Steve


Considering that it performed as well it did and made a good showing in spite of it's engines' shortcomings and small numbers that were produced, I think it doesn't get nearly half the credit it should.



Greyman said:


> Hands down the Spitfire.
> 
> Most people think it's merely the greatest aircraft of the second world war - *when in actuality it's the greatest thing created by our species*.


That comment right there just pushed the Spitfire directly into the over-rated category...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 15, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that it performed as well it did and made a good showing in spite of it's engines' shortcomings and small numbers that were produced, I think it doesn't get nearly half the credit it should.



But the Whirlwind did have serious shortcomings. Serviceability rates were very low. It also had problems with the tail wheel assembly, intakes, slats, wing tips, canopy, armament, etc. That's before we even consider its lack of performance at the sort of altitudes to which combat was soaring in NW Europe by 1940. I think it was a design with potential, but as seen on the sort of low level operations at which it excelled, when protected by other fighters, I think it also showed its limitations. It wasn't just the rationalisation of British aero engine production which caused the Air Ministry axe to fall on the Whirlwind (it took two blows to finally finish it off).
It was a good looking aircraft, modern for its time, but I'm not sure that it was underrated, except possibly by Dowding, who definitely didn't like it at all 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (May 15, 2016)

stona said:


> But the Whirlwind did have serious shortcomings. Serviceability rates were very low. It also had problems with the tail wheel assembly, intakes, slats, wing tips, canopy, armament, etc. That's before we even consider its lack of performance at the sort of altitudes to which combat was soaring in NW Europe by 1940. I think it was a design with potential, but as seen on the sort of low level operations at which it excelled, when protected by other fighters, I think it also showed its limitations. It wasn't just the rationalisation of British aero engine production which caused the Air Ministry axe to fall on the Whirlwind (it took two blows to finally finish it off).



I don't think serviceability had anything to do with the end of Whirlwind production/development. If it was that bad they wouldn't have continued to operate them for as long as they did. The RAF certainly tossed other aircraft in the 'bin' a lot faster (Airacobra). I think that even if maintenance happened to be a dream on the Whirlwind - engine rationalisation would have ended things no matter what.

Altitude performance of the Whirlwind was fine for 1940, certainly better than the Hurricane and Bf 110. The jig was up by the end of the year though with the Spitfire II and 109F (above 16,000 feet anyway).

But again, not really the Whirlwind design's fault. Development had stopped while the Spitfire's and 109's continued. Somewhat like faulting the Dewoitine 520 for not keeping up either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> That comment right there just pushed the Spitfire directly into the over-rated category...



Give this man some bacon!

Not just any bacon, but thick cut applewood smoked bacon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2016)

lol..thanks, it had to be said


----------



## stona (May 16, 2016)

The serviceability of the Whirlwind was not an issue with the two squadrons operating the type, though despite the numbers produced, both of these often had single figure numbers operational. You would not want to build hundreds of aircraft with these problems equipping dozens of squadrons as that would seriously impact efficiency.
Other problems were not properly fixed. The tail wheel oleo just had to be re-filled almost continuously, a heavy landing still ripped the whole assembly off, damaging the rear bulkhead in the process and removing the aircraft from service for major repair. The slats were simply wired shut, increasing an already high landing speed. The other issues are well documented. It was an aircraft with potential, but never realised.
The MAP consistently argued that it was an expensive and cost ineffective way to lift four 20mm cannon. It carried out what would later be called fighter bomber missions, similar to those carried out by Hurricanes, in 1941 using its low altitude performance to evade interception. Whirlwind squadrons were told to run away rather than fight and were often escorted by Spitfires. This shows a lack of confidence in the type's ability to defend itself emanating from the higher echelons of Fighter Command, despite some limited successes.

As for 1940 and the BoB, the few Whirlwinds available to Fighter Command were based with No. 263 Squadron in 13 Group, in Scotland, a long way from the action. Dowding's 'no passengers' signal shows that he did not share your confidence in the type in October 1940. When the Whirlwinds did move south it was to 10 Group, again, out of harm's way.

The Whirlwind was not underrated, it was just superseded.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (May 16, 2016)

The Whirlwind was a way to bring 4 cannons in the air and still perform. Spitfire and Hurricane with 4 cannons were bad proposals before 1942 - Hurricane with 4 cannons and couple of bombs flying against the targets in occupied France?
Beaufighter was probably an even more expensive way to carry 4 cannons in the war, and it was a wrong machine to both fight against and run from the LW.
Let's recall that Whirlwind was an aircraft of 1939/40 flying against the LW of 1941 and '42. Sending Hurricane I or Spitfire I to do the same? And that RAF was not sending it's P-39s and P-40s against the LW in ETO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2016)

To second Tomo let's not forget that the RAF was operating only two fighter bomber squadrons of Hurricanes (an no Spitfires or any other single engine fighter bombers) at one point across the English channel, one reason the Whirlwinds got the crude bomb racks they were given (other Hurricanes were going to the Mid-east/Med) and let's not also forget that the Typhoon, that "oh so cheap" way of carrying four 20mm guns was a long, long way from being trouble free in 1941 and 1942. Having your tail wheel fall off while landing is a whole lot better for the pilot than having the tail fall off while flying. The "fix" which didn't actually entirely solve the problem was ,according to Wiki...., "Modification 286" which suggests that a whole bunch of other things on the Typhoon also needed modification. 

I do like this quote from the 197 Squadron Website. "With its *major engine problems solved and tail failures much reduced*, the Typhoon was chosen as the premier ground attack aircraft for the 2nd Tactical Air Force, which was being formed to provide support for the British and Canadian armies in the forthcoming invasion of Europe."

Bolding by me.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 16, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Fighters, fighters, fighters...
> 
> I'll repeat my response from over 11 years ago...
> 
> *3 way tie - the Lysander, the PO-2, and the Storch. *




You mean POS-2 ?  What is soo good about that biplane ?


----------



## Valdez (May 16, 2016)

I will cast my vote for the T-6 Texan. Without properly trained pilots, all of the other aircraft listed are ineffective.... Besides that, it continued to serve in its primary function well into the jet age.


----------



## Milosh (May 16, 2016)

There was not that many tail failures for the Typhoon. Engine failures was a much bigger problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2016)

Not sure if anybody has the true number of tail failures and there seem to be several causes and/or contributing factors. 

Point is that _many _aircraft had problems upon introduction with the first few dozen (or several hundred) built. P-36 had structural problems. P-40 had engine problems, P-47Bs caught fire in flight among other problems for instance, early FW 190s were hardly trouble free. Since there was never a MK II Whirlwind it's initial problems never really had a chance to get straightened out. How many of it's problems were fundamental flaws or were the fault of components/sub assemblies that could have been fixed in a later production run, like the tail wheel strut. Much more likely than not a bought in part/assembly from an outside supplier. 
Since the manufacturing program was effectively canceled _before _a single squadron came close to being equipped with it and continued production was allowed only to use up already manufactured (or close to completed) parts there was zero incentive to design any "fixes" that would require major new parts/assemblies. 
Canceling the Peregrine and Whirlwind made sense from a manufacturing stand point given what was known at the time but many of the reasons given after the fact don't seem to very solid. 

Typhoon might actually be a candidate for most overrated, at least overrated in in 1940/41 when it was seen to be the answer to many of the RAFs needs/problems _before _actual flight performance and engine problems became known.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2016)

PO-2s were not that great as an aircraft, but the Soviets used them to great effect as a night harassment aircraft that would keep the exhausted Wehrmacht troops awake all night when all they wanted was some sleep. they were easy to fly, easier to build and didn't care about abuse.

For an aircraft that cost next to nothing to build, flown by a pilot with maybe 10 hours flight time. 

it doesn't get more cost effective than that

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


----------



## ChrisMcD (May 17, 2016)

I agree with Shortround, I think you have to take into account some of the practicalities that led to aircraft being "underrated"

1) Halifax - not as much fun to fly as a Lanc, much harder to land and a lower ceiling what attracted the flak. Hardly surprising that the Halifax crews felt like second class citizens. And Bomber Harris hated it with a passion!

2) Whirlwind - Petter's overly complex design was hard for Westland to cope with - hence a lot of the niggles. Also it's high landing speed restricted the number of airdromes that it could operate from. And it was typical of Petter to go for the minimum dimensions/weight route and fixate on the RR Peregrine. Willy Messerschmidt was much more sensible with the Bf 110 and designed a bigger airframe that was way outside the RLM spec, but able to take a lot of stretch (Jumo210 to DB605's) and last out the war. 

3) Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2016)

ChrisMcD said:


> Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?


Depends who you talk to. I've met PTO veterans who flew the B-24 over the Pacific and they swore by it, others hated it. Whether it flew like a bus was unimportant (there goes Brown's opinions again), it's job was to carry a lot of bombs long distances, and it did that well. It was also easily produced and the basic design did allow for growth. 

A couple of threads making comparisons on the B-24.

Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

B-24 tricycle landing gear vs B-17 taildragger


----------



## ChrisMcD (May 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends who you talk to.
> 
> A couple of threads making comparisons on the B-24.
> 
> ...



Looking at those links - sounds like B24 vs B17 is an argument of long standing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2016)

ChrisMcD said:


> Looking at those links - sounds like B24 vs B17 is an argument of long standing!


Very long standing and I think the argument will continue for the next 70 years.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 17, 2016)

parsifal said:


> PO-2s were not that great as an aircraft, but the Soviets used them to great effect as a night harassment aircraft that would keep the exhausted Wehrmacht troops awake all night when all they wanted was some sleep. they were easy to fly, easier to build and didn't care about abuse.
> 
> For an aircraft that cost next to nothing to build, flown by a pilot with maybe 10 hours flight time.
> 
> it doesn't get more cost effective than that



I think that capabilities are more related with the skills and courage of the people flying that small rusky plane, the Po.2 was an outdated piece wich had some sucess enlarged by the propaganda, not much different to swordfish.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2016)

ChrisMcD said:


> I agree with Shortround, I think you have to take into account some of the practicalities that led to aircraft being "underrated"
> 
> 1) Halifax - not as much fun to fly as a Lanc, much harder to land and a lower ceiling what attracted the flak. Hardly surprising that the Halifax crews felt like second class citizens. And Bomber Harris hated it with a passion!



A lot of times planes were somewhat sacrificed to the "Production Gods". Improved Halifax's were delayed (mainly the redesigned tail fins/rudders) due to a desire to avoid disrupting production. Even the best Halifax's are not the equal of the Lancaster but a lot more crews would have survived had the redesigned tails showed up earlier ( that and using higher cruise power settings on most of the short/medium range raids) 



> 2) Whirlwind - Petter's overly complex design was hard for Westland to cope with - hence a lot of the niggles. Also it's high landing speed restricted the number of airdromes that it could operate from. And it was typical of Petter to go for the minimum dimensions/weight route and fixate on the RR Peregrine. Willy Messerschmidt was much more sensible with the Bf 110 and designed a bigger airframe that was way outside the RLM spec, but able to take a lot of stretch (Jumo210 to DB605's) and last out the war.



Petter does seem to have been a bit of a prima donna but the two planes were designed for rather different missions. The Bf 110 was actually designed to use the DB 600 engines. it was a shortage of early DB 600/601 engines that forced the fitting of Jumo 210s, not 
any great degree of stretch in the design and in fact Messerschmidt actually designed a _smaller _airframe than the RLM wanted (even if it was much larger than the Whirlwind) by leaving out the bomb bay the original specification called for. 
BTW the Whirlwind wound up operating from many of the airdromes (or staging through) it wasn't _supposed_ to be able to use. How much the airdromes had been modified between 1939/40 and 1942/43 I don't know (made larger or bordering trees cut down.



> 3) Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?



And here we get into how and why a plane was _initially _designed and how it was modified/used several years later. Neither the B-17 or B-24 had been designed with self sealing fuel tanks or with power turrets. The B-24 was _initially designed _with a wet wing and leading edge slots and used two speed superchargers not turbos. The B-24 gained over 5000lbs in *empty *weight between the YB-24 and the B-24D (first really combat capable version) and a whopping 10,500lbs from the YB-24 to the B-24J. The B-24J weighed about 6,000lbs less empty than the YB-24 did at gross weight. The B-17 also gained very large amounts of weight but both planes saw their most extensive use at weights and in configurations that were very different than the original designs.


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2016)

With the Halifax/ Lancaster and B17/B24 the crews were not aware of what those in high office were. The Halifax suffered higher losses but some crews liked it because flying in it you were aware that it was easier to get out of, you were not aware that statistically you would have more reasons to get out.


----------



## stona (May 18, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> BTW the Whirlwind wound up operating from many of the airdromes (or staging through) it wasn't _supposed_ to be able to use. How much the airdromes had been modified between 1939/40 and 1942/43 I don't know (made larger or bordering trees cut down.



They did fly from a lot of airfields, most of which will be unknown to casual readers, being in Scotland or SW England. That is an important point. Though a decent aircraft it was never developed and was never at the sharp end of Fighter Command's pointy stick.
Instead roles were found for it which suited its abilities, in itself not a bad thing, but not something you want to be doing with your first line fighters.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (May 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends who you talk to. I've met PTO veterans who flew the B-24 over the Pacific and they swore by it, others hated it. Whether it flew like a bus was unimportant (there goes Brown's opinions again), it's job was to carry a lot of bombs long distances, and it did that well. It was also easily produced and the basic design did allow for growth.



True enough, although I met a WWII vet who flew both types and he unequivocally preferred the B-17 because it was just easier to fly in formation for long periods. Now...that's just one anecdote and I'm not seeking to extrapolate, but it comes from someone who flew both in combat.

It must be remembered that aircrew must trust the aircraft they fly, and so there's a natural tendency to argue in favour of "your" type when others criticize it. The number of scraps we got into with other squadrons (typically when under the affluence of incohol) if they dared criticize the "Mighty Fin!" (Tornado GR1A for the uninitiated!).


----------



## soulezoo (May 18, 2016)

My dad started as a right seat in -17's then went to -24's and flew mostly the -24.

His opinion was like many others... he preferred the -17 simply because it was easier to fly and could take more damage. He saw a couple of -24's blow up on take off (no known reason that he stated) and that always scared him. I recall him saying at higher altitudes it felt like the -24 just didn't have any air under the wing and one had to be really cautious on pilot input.

That said, the -24 was always my favorite bomber of the war.

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


----------



## Ascent (May 19, 2016)

buffnut, 2 or 13?


----------



## buffnut453 (May 19, 2016)

Ascent said:


> buffnut, 2 or 13?



Stabbed cats forever!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (May 19, 2016)

I'll always be a Crusader myself.

XIV the one for me!


----------



## buffnut453 (May 19, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I'll always be a Crusader myself.
> 
> XIV the one for me!



Better that than II (AC) Sqn (aka "Aye-Aye (Absent Canopy) Sqn"!).

Shiny? My *****!


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

1. A-20 Havoc/Boston
2. F4F Wildcat
3. Petlyakov Pe-2
4. Hawker Hurricane
5. Vickers Wellington
6. P-40 Warhawk
7. Lavochkin La-5
8. Bristol Blenheim
9. P-39 Airacobra
10. P-38 Lightning


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2016)

How was the Lightning underrated?

I have always seen people pointing out it's faults, but never underrated it.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Its underrated in the since that it doesn't get the respect if the P-51, P-47, and Corsair even though at carried the load for the 5th AF and the highest scoring U'S. pilot flew. It was only #10 on my list. I take it the others are ok/


----------



## GregP (Jul 4, 2016)

1. Hurricane
2. Anything Soviet
3. Anything Japanese
4. P-40

Not to say some other British planes weren't underrated, but perhaps not to the same extent as the above.


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2016)

I don't disagree that the Hurricane is generally under rated, but there is an obvious reason for this. It's name is almost always spoken in the same breath as the Spitfire, in the UK they are as much a pair as Castor and Pollux or Cheech and Chong. Being the 'twin' of one of the best fighters of WW2 invariably leads to unfavourable comparisons.

I'm close to completing the Fly 1/32 scale Hurricane IIc and have compared it to a Tamiya Spitfire in the same scale. All I can say politely is that in a beauty pageant the poor old Hurricane is going to come a very distant second 
This too influences people's perceptions.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

To be fair, the Hurricane wasn't that bad looking for an aircraft, and you could certainly see it's predecessors in it's design.


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2016)

I have to say I might agree with you, James, in your last paragraph above, at least in spirit. Not quite the "chop-bound" you said, but definitely a bit outperformed with pilots of the same skill level in both planes. Sometimes it is necessary; sometimes not. Can't say for the somewhat vague timeframe you state, but the "help" coming from the USA might or might not have been there yet, depending on when in 43 you are talking about.

If not, then perhaps it WAS necessary. If the help had just arrived, then perhaps the same. Once blooded and trained, then both the British and American pilots could have used a better aircraft than the Hurricane by sometime in mid-1943. Before that, it was sort of hit and miss with available airframes of top performance. Our best didn't arrive until even later, and the Hurricane might have been the best available until they did ... somewhat depending upon the level of familiarity with any "new mounts." A better airplane with which you are unfamiliar might be worse in the end than an "old faithful" mount. Many late-war Bf 109 pilots might agree with that, I'm sure.

So it might not have been "unfair" at all, again depending on timeframe. Certainly by 1944 it might have been unfair.

Spitfires didn't exactly grow on trees and were likely in somewhat short supply with regard to summarized world-wide British theaters of action needs / requests in early-to-mid 1943, considering that everyone wanted them, all at the same time, in large quantities, together with gasoline (nay, petrol) and pilots / maintenance personnel / spares / tools / and ammunition.

Even if you HAD the Spitfires, what good is a Spitfire without ammunition, a good crew chief, fuel, and maintenance crew ... or pilot? So reliable sea supply lanes were also sorely needed along with Naval presence for same, at least pretty much away from the ETO.

Methinks the British did OK in the end, with what they had. Jolly good, chaps, altogether a fine effort.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2016)

P. Clostermann is sometimes known for not letting facts get in the way of a good story. 

BTW the 184 squadron logs are on line. Standard load was eight rockets and in Dec of 1943 they lost more aircraft due to crashes and maintenance problems than they did to enemy action. Flak being a much bigger problem than enemy fighters. Weather being generally crappy and visibility poor most days in December. 
The Squadron was flying Hurricane MK IVs.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> 1. A-20 Havoc/Boston
> 2. F4F Wildcat
> 3. Petlyakov Pe-2
> 4. Hawker Hurricane
> ...



There is a difference between being underrated and under appreciated. 
With some of these planes serving for 4-5 years and going through (in some cases) a number of different models/versions trying to decide when and where they were under rated gets a little difficult.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> With some of these planes serving for 4-5 years and going through (in some cases) a number of different models/versions trying to decide when and where they were under rated gets a little difficult.



Quite right. The Hurricanes operating in France and then during the BoB in 1939/40 were neither under rated, nor under appreciated!

In other theatres, at later dates, they always suffer with the comparison to the Spitfire. Malta, 1942, would be the best known example of this. The Hurricanes did just fine in the preceding two years, with the exception of dealing with JG 26, but the Island was 'saved' by the arrival of the Spitfire.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 5, 2016)

The Hurricane is overshadowed by the Spitfire and the BF-109, but when compared to its other 1935/6 contemporaries, it shines; P-35, P-36, Gladiator, F3F, Ki-27, A5M.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> Maybe he meant 4 rockets under each wing, even so those Hurricanes were well past their best by date for those duties,
> I suppose they were kept going in production for politico-economic reasons, & to soak up a few thousand excess Merlins.



What a/c would be used instead of the Hurricane?
How many Hurricane Mk IVs made?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> Too many! 15,000 Hurricanes built all up VS 3,300 Typhoons, which were a far superior war machine.
> Brit industry was too slow & disorganised to get enough Napier Sabre engines properly & timely built.



You mean _Napiers_ was too slow and disorganised to get enough Sabre engines properly and timely built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 5, 2016)

The Hurricane was probably kept in production due to all the problems with the Typhoon which not only had engine problems but structural problems as well. Several aircraft broke apart in flight. The Hurricane provided good service as a ground attack aircraft in North Africa and the MK IV was intended as a ground attack aircraft with additional armor, 40mm cannon and provisions for bombs and rockets.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> The Typhoon was pretty well sorted out by mid 1942, several were even sent for trials with the DAF in Africa,
> but the major problem was too few Sabre engines, Typhoon airframes were sitting idle - waiting for them, through 1943.



wiki-
In August 1942, Hawker’s second test pilot, Ken Seth-Smith, while deputising for Chief Test Pilot Philip Lucas, carried out a straight and level speed test from Hawker’s test centre at Langley, and the aircraft broke up over Thorpe, killing the pilot.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Too many! 15,000 Hurricanes built all up VS 3,300 Typhoons, which were a far superior war machine.
> Brit industry was too slow & disorganised to get enough Napier Sabre engines properly & timely built.



15000 Hurricane Mk IVs were produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> I blame Beaverbrook, Napier & sons was apparently like some kind of Dickensian engineering craft/workshop rather than a real factory.
> 
> As for then siting the main Sabre production works in an area with virtually zero skilled workforce, well, c'mon..
> No wonder only ~5,000 Sabres were produced, sadly for those Hurricane pilots who got the chop, so needlessly.



That suggests a lack of investment in their own facilities.

The MAP did force Bristol to help (ie hand over) their sleeve production techniques. Something which cost Bristol millions of pounds to develop.

And they did have machine tools diverted from another aero engine company to help with sleeve valve production.




James W. said:


> The Typhoon was pretty well sorted out by mid 1942, several were even sent for trials with the DAF in Africa,
> but the major problem was too few Sabre engines, Typhoon airframes were sitting idle - waiting for them, through 1943.



How many Typhoons were produced in 1942? And how many Sabres?

I think the Typhoon's wing was so thick it probably could have accommodated the 40mm cannon internally, rather than underslung, as was the case for the Hurricane.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yeah, test piloting can be dangerous, esp'when a machine is ordered in to production straight off the drawing board.
> The Typhoon was really pushing the envelope too, as a 2,000+ hp fighter, much as the "ensign killer" F4U was, stateside..
> 
> Roland Beamont writes of his Typhoon testing, doing violent high-speed, high-G manoeuvres to try instigate stress tell-tales,
> at the risk of provoking the tail to fall off!



You stated problem solved by mid '42 but this aircraft fell apart in Aug. Typhoon wasn't ready, hence, further Hurricane production.

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

Shooter, stop the trolling.

The R-3350 first ran in 1937. For the Sabre it was 1938. The R-3350 was still having problems in 1945 when the Sabre had become a rather reliable engine.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> "15,000 Hurricanes all up."
> ( Hurricane Mk IV serials are listed as consecutive in production with Mk IIs, & there are heaps of 'em!)



Source is ......


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> You are wrong, Hurricane production was continued 'til mid 1944, but NO Hurricane had the speed to catch a Focke-Wulf,
> which is why the Typhoon was rushed into service, bugs & all ( as was the FW 190 itself, as it happens).


What exactly was I wrong about? I never stated that the Hurricane could catch the 190. That the test airplane's tail fell off in August? It is your timeline that is wrong. The Typhoons were deployed in late 1941 when they began to have problems. Mod 286 was developed after the Aug '42 incident. I'm sure it took a while to implement. Who knows when the Air Ministry finally gained confidence in the Typhoon as a viable platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> D.N. James 'Hawker an Aircraft Album' - he lists the serials & from the prototype Mk IV to "The Last of the Many",
> it goes KX, KZ, LA, LB, LD, LE, LF, MW, PG, PZ, with hundreds of numbers, per letter group.



So lets see a breakdown of production by MK and the production dates.

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


----------



## Greyman (Jul 6, 2016)

Milosh said:


> How many Hurricane Mk IVs made?



524 - all at Langley.

Data sheet says:
205 mph at 2,000 ft - max weak mixture - eight rockets with 60 lb heads

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

There is a huge oversimplification of the issues and a lack of understanding of Air Ministry policies and the role of the various aero engine manufacturers expressed in some of the posts above.

Rolls Royce themselves suggested to the Air Ministry, in 1939 that their production be concentrated on one 'standard engine', the Merlin. Ernest Hives wrote.

_"Our proposal is that it should be a definite policy of the Air Ministry that the plant for producing the standard engine, in our case the Merlin, should not be broken down to produce another type."_

The immediate consequence was that Rolls Royce's development programmes were cut back. The early casualties were the Peregrine and the Exe, as Rolls Royce concentrated on increasing the output of the Merlin.

A fundamental tenet of the selection process of the Air Ministry was that quality could only be maintained by competition. In the mid 1930s Napiers nearly went out of business on several occasions. As early as 1935 the then Secretary for Air, Sir Christopher Bullock. was arguing that it was 

_"essential Messrs Napiers should be kept alive as a separate entity, in order to prevent the engine industry being constituted on too restricted a basis."_

In February 1937 it was Freeman arguing that

_"The loss of experienced personnel making up the technical organisation_ [of Napier] _would be a serious loss to the RAF"_

In May 1939 there were fears that not only Napiers, but also Armstrong Siddely were on the verge of leaving the aero engine business, and in Freeman's opinion

_"It was a most unhealthy position for the Air Ministry to dependent substantially on two firms only."_

During 1937 a development order was placed for 6 Napier Sabres, and in the same year plans were drawn up for a new Sabre engined fighter that would become the Typhoon. 
The other aero engine firms were running into problems developing the next generation of high performance reciprocating engines. The Rolls Royce Vulture suffered repeated failures during 1939. The Bristol Centaurus was still in the most rudimentary phases of early development and the Air Ministry had been forced to make arrangements for production of the Bristol Hercules before it was certain that it would be a success. 
The decision to gamble on the Sabre was primarily based on two considerations. Firstly, to provide a 'third string' should the Vulture and Centaurus fail, and secondly to maintain Napiers in the aero engine industry.
This hardly reflects disorganisation in either the Air Ministry or the aero engine industry.

It was as a result of this that the decision to erect the factory at Liverpool, with a capacity of 2,000 Sabres a month was taken. Incidentally, after the outbreak of war, skilled workers could be compelled to go where they were required.

An often forgotten side product of the investment in the Sabre is the effect it had on Rolls Royce. Their most likely competitor to the Sabre would have been the Vulture, but development was cut and some at Rolls Royce seem to already have harboured doubts about the engine. At the beginning of 1939, just as the investment in Napiers was being agreed, a much simpler design project was started at Rolls Royce. This was for a new 37 litre engine based on the Schneider Trophy 'R' type. Hives wrote to Freeman in February 1939.

_"The fact that the engine follows closely on the Rolls Royce standard design, and the fact that we have an engine of such dimensions on which we shall shortly be running an endurance test, and also the fact that it is a similar engine to the 'R' engine, means that we are taking the minimum of risk; far less risk than when jigs and tools are ordered for new aircraft."_

This of course became the Griffon engine. No investment in Napiers would almost certainly have meant no Griffon. Rolls Royce was responding to a commercial threat.

The Air Ministry was understandably delighted because this reduced one of the biggest risks to production, as Freeman noted later that year.
_
"In wartime, when it is difficult to introduce new types of aircraft without a great falling off in production, it is essential that we improve the performance of the types which are already being produced."_

The Sabre engine, like several of its contemporaries, proved more difficult to develop and get into production than anyone had anticipated, but the Air Ministry did have other options. At no time did the RAF not have at least one competitive fighter, even if that meant improving the performance of types already in service (as Freeman had noted) whilst the problems were overcome.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> D.N. James 'Hawker an Aircraft Album' - he lists the serials & from the prototype Mk IV to "The Last of the Many",
> it goes KX, KZ, LA, LB, LD, LE, LF, MW, PG, PZ, with hundreds of numbers, per letter group.



KX and KZ serials are in Hawker Production Block 8, delivered between 11/42 and 4/43 comprising 972 aircraft. There were 1,200 aircraft in the block, the other serials were in the KW range which you did not include.

KZ, LA, LB and LD serials are in Hawker Production Block 9, delivered between 4/43 and 9/43, comprising 1,184 aircraft

LE, LF, MW, PG and PZ serials are in Hawker Production Block 10, delivered between 9/43 and 5/44, comprising 1,357 aircraft.

I haven't checked if the serials you quoted are all to Mk IV standard, if they are that's a total of 3,513 aircraft, a little short of 15,000 

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> No Steve,
> Sydney Camm repeatedly rejected the Griffon as a Sabre substitute, once the R-R Vulture proved a dud, ( like all their X-engines, & their Sabre 'Chinese copy', the Eagle II) - as did de Havilland.
> 
> & Bristol were even less capable of getting the Centaurus reliable, or built in meaningful production numbers, during the war.
> ...



It really wasn't up to Sidney Camm to _reject_ the Griffon. He could point out to the air ministry, and rightly so, that the Griffon didn't offer the power needed to get the job done (power the Typhoon airframe to the desired speed) and the time in question. The Griffon offering 3-400hp less than the Sabre most of the time in the early years. 
The Eagle was hardly a 'Chinese copy' of the Sabre, 10mm more bore and 10mm more stroke gave about an extra 10 liters of displacement and the engine weighed about 50% more than the Sabre. I doubt anything but a few nuts and bolts were interchangeable between the two engines. 
Bristol had their hands full building the Hercules in the needed numbers and it didn't help that Fedden was fired by the Bristol Board of directors in 1942. 

The Merlin can only be considered to be _over-produced _if you can point to reports of hundreds of extra engines just laying around in crates waiting for somebody to order them. Please remember that it was quite customary to order about 50% more engines than airframes to ensure an adequate number of spare engines. 

2000hp engines were not as easy to build as many people thought (or seem to think now). A lot also depended on fuel. The type of engine you build trying for 2000hp when you have 87 octane fuel is a lot different than the type of engine you build trying for 2000hp with 100/130 fuel. 
RR with the Merlin took advantage of the improving fuels and were able to push the Merlin into producing almost double what the early development engines did. going from about 900hp to over 1700hp. Having 1700hp Merlins ( and higher using emergency power) took the pressure off having a "2000hp" engine. Of course by 1944/45 the "2000hp" engines were now running 2200-2600hp.

The Americans, for all their industrial capacity managed only two _production_ 2000hp class engines _during_ WW II. The R-2800 and the R-3350 and the R-3350 wasn't fully sorted out until very late in the game. It took P & W around 5 years to get the R-4360 into service and it used cylinders that were based on the R-2800 (same bore and stroke, may have used same valves and rocker arms and other parts). Work on the R-4360 started in 1940.

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


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> No Steve,
> Sydney Camm repeatedly rejected the Griffon as a Sabre substitute,



But Supermarine didn't. Remember that they were supposed to convert from Spitfire to Beaufighter production in 1941 when the Sabre engined Typhoon was expected to enter service. *There was a scheme for installing the Griffon in the Spitfire by October 1939*. This was to produce a fighter equal in performance to the Typhoon, lighter with a lower powered engine. It would also be more economical both in terms of man hours and materials than the Typhoon. Supermarins were not keen to give up the Spitfire. We have the benefit of hindsight, we know this wouldn't happen, the board of Vickers-Supermarine did not.
The Griffon was never intended to compete with the Sabre in the Typhoon, which was designed around that engine. It was intended as a competitor for other types. It's development was a commercial decision, taken with an eye on the competition, in this case Napiers, who Rolls Royce would have gladly seen the back of in the mid 1930s.
Rolls Royce offered this engine to the air Ministry despite their own professed intention to concentrate on fewer models. 

The inter war years saw huge advances in aero engine performance and in 1939 many thought that the trend would be continued by developing larger engines. The same assumption was made by other powers. In fact reciprocating engines were nearing the end of their economical development, something only made clear with the arrival of jets in the next decade.
Extravagant claims were made for engines like the Sabre and although work did continue on the Merlin the important breakthroughs were in the future. In April 1940 a memorandum on research and development (Freeman to Secretary of State for Air) listed two Hercules variants, the Sabre, Griffon and Centaurus, but made no mention of the Merlin. The arguments made by Rolls Royce (see my post above) for development of the Griffon were actually even more applicable to the Merlin, with its large production capacity. 
By late 1940 both the Air ministry and the aircraft industry were revising many earlier assumptions about the aircraft production programme, not least with the realisation that the most direct path to increased fighter performance (and others) lay in the development of the Merlin.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sorry, but It does not interest me enough to type it all out, there's literally columns of the bloody things.



Yes I can see you are only interested in trolling.

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

stona said:


> KX and KZ serials are in Hawker Production Block 8, delivered between 11/42 and 4/43 comprising 972 aircraft. There were 1,200 aircraft in the block, the other serials were in the KW range which you did not include.
> 
> KZ, LA, LB and LD serials are in Hawker Production Block 9, delivered between 4/43 and 9/43, comprising 1,184 aircraft
> 
> ...



Thank you Steve,

See Shooter, it was that hard to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Crikey Steve, good research skills, but I only included a fraction of the list - from the prototype Mk IV on to end of production.



What are you trying to establish? Total Hurricane production, all types?

I don't have the will or time to give all the serial groups, but in simplified terms

Hawker Block 1, delivered 12/37-10/39, 600 aircraft
Hawker Block 2, delivered 9/39-5-40, 300 aircraft
Gloster Block 1, delivered 11/39-4/40, 500 aircraft
Hawker Block 3, delivered 2/40-7/40, 544 aircraft
Canadian Car and Foundry (CFF) Block 1, shipped to UK 2/40-10/40, 40 aircraft
Gloster Block 2, delivered 5/40-7/40, 100 aircraft
Gloster Block 3, delivered 7/40-2/41, 1,700 aircraft
Hawker Block 4, delivered 7/40-2/41, 195 aircraft
Hawker Block 5, delivered , 1/41-7/41, 1,000 aircraft
CFF Block 2, shipped to UK 7/40-4/41, 340 aircraft
CFF Block 3 ??????, 100 aircraft (these may have gone to Soviet Union, but I can't be arsed to check all the serials)
Hawker Block 6, delivered 7/41-3/42, 1,350 aircraft
Gloster Block 4, delivered 9/41-12-41, 450 aircraft
Hawker Block 7, delivered 3/42-11/42, 1,888 aircraft
Hawker Block 8, delivered 11/42-4-43, 1,200 aircraft
Hawker Block 9, delivered 4/43-9/43, 1,184 aircraft
Hawker Block 10, delivered 9/43-5/44, 1,357 aircraft

Now we have some odd anomalies and fragmented production.

Austin Block I, all except three sent to Soviet Union, 300 aircraft

Four CFF Blocks, many to Soviet Union, some not clear, most delivered in 1941/2 a few in 1943, total of 598 aircraft.

Hawker/Rolls Royce produced one new built Mk V, there was no production order.

Not all these aircraft went to the British and Commonwealth Air Forces or Navies (it includes Sea Hurricanes).

You can add that up, but it will be around the 14,000 generally accepted. Production for the first six years was of course of a competitive fighter, after 1942 other roles or less contested theatres had to be found. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yes, Steve, & curiously enough, ( & this is so tragically 'British') that the decision to standardise the rotation of the tractor prop
> as left-turning for newer designs ignored the Merlin in its tens of thousands, so when the Griffon was fitted to the Spit,
> it caused untold needless drama to pilots conditioned to the opposite rotation of the Merlin..



Don't be ridiculous, it's why pilots are trained. I don't know what practical or engineering factors influenced the change, but pilots simply have to deal with it. Any drama is down to their own lack of attention or stupidity.

Extravagant claims were made by manufacturers of just about all the engines in development from the late 1930s. If you re-read my post you will see that it was the failure of most (all?) of them to live up to expectation that led to the serious re-think around late 1940/early 1941.
At the end of the day the British had the Merlin. It powered two of the best four or five fighters operating in the ETO on all sides and the best allied bomber of the war. The decision to develop it at the expense of others was clearly the correct one. Things could have been a lot worse.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

That claim of more power had been around from the 20s. 
As a practical matter instead of theory it rather falls apart. In the 20s or early 30s it did have some merit. That was when cylinder cooling was still more art than science and before sodium cooled valves became common. 
The idea was that the sleeve valve engine could use more compression. The Sabre and Hercules used 7.0 compression ratios, while better than the Merlin's 6.0 compression ratio it isn't enough better than the Allison's 6.65 or P & W using 6.5 to 7.0 on their engines or Wright using 6.5 and above to make a real difference. It also falls apart when higher boost pressures are used. you can only use a certain amount of compression and boost before detonation sets in. The higher the compression the less boost you can use. While more compression extracts more power from the fuel higher boost means you are burning more fuel to begin with. This is a reason RR stayed with the 6.0 compression on the Merlin and kept increasing the boost pressure. 
Basically just about all the problems the sleeve valve was supposed to cure had been solved by other means by the late 30s or 1940 and the Sleeve valve offered no real advantage. 

If you really believe the RR Eagle was a "Chinese copy" of the Sabre then you have to believe the Merlin, Allison and Junkers and DB engines were "Chinese copies" of the Curtiss D-12 engine. 

As for your list of "passe" aircraft please quit padding things. Production of P-40s with Merlin's stopped at the end of April 1943. Spitfire VIIIs, IXs and XVIs were hardly "passe" in 1943/44. Bumping the boost pressure up in the later versions certainly kept them close to the front runners or at least competitive with their opponents. How many Merlin-Spitfire pilots in 1944/45 felt they were at a disadvantage against Bf 109s or Fw 190s? 
How many of the Hurricanes produced in 1943/44 were sent to the Russians as lend lease?

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Merlin Spits were being replaced in the ETO by Mustangs,Tempests & Griffon Spits, & Typhoons were of much more use in A2G..



Again a general statement and no data to back up the statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

stona said:


> Extravagant claims were made by manufacturers of just about all the engines in development from the late 1930s. If you re-read my post you will see that it was the failure of most (all?) of them to live up to expectation that led to the serious re-think around late 1940/early 1941.
> At the end of the day the British had the Merlin. It powered two of the best four or five fighters operating in the ETO on all sides and the best allied bomber of the war. The decision to develop it at the expense of others was clearly the correct one. Things could have been a lot worse.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



I would note that not just the British engine makers were making extravagant claims. The list of failed big engines in the late 30s and early 40s is a long, long one and includes all seven major Countries. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan. Each country had more than one failed engine and most had several. 
I am puzzled however by the claim that the Merlin powered the best bomber of the war, I don't recall seeing a Merlin powered B-29

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Do do you dispute the fact of the matter? Evidence then Milosh, ta..or is it simply more 'trolling'?



You are the one who made the statement so it is you Shooter that has to provide data to back up your statement.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Ridiculous Steve? Its a fact, & a predictably avoidable one, since even in recent times, Kiwi 'Alpine Fighter Collection' owner/founder
> came a cropper doing exactly the same thing, automatically trimming his new Mk XIV to his Mk IX take off specs.. a real bummer..



That is entirely his own fault. He made a mistake.

My own father was one of thousands who trained and later flew operationally aircraft with different directions of rotation of the propeller and they all dealt with it.
Aircraft are designed any number of ways, pilots train to fly them.

I don't see any evidence for the 'glut' of Merlins. There don't seem to have been hundreds of them lying around waiting for air frames at any time during the war as far as I can see. I can't find any evidence in any British Air Ministry references to any such situation. Maybe in America? Provide some evidence for your assertion.

I was clearly referring to the ETO and I don't recall seeing any B-29s there.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

So they went into aircraft serving in a variety of roles in various air forces. Just because an aircraft isn't a state of the art front line fighter doesn't mean that it is not required.
This does not show a 'glut' of Merlins. If the Air Ministry chose to produce these aircraft then it would also have taken the requisite steps to provide engines for them. I don't think you have any understanding of how the system worked.

Incidentally, was the cause of the accident suffered by the person who somehow mistook his Mk XIV for a Mk IX established by the investigating authority or is it just another of your opinions?

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> You are incorrect about the sleeve valve advantages SR, their specific output, specific fuel consumption
> & power-to-weight show it.
> Superior gas flow, spark plug location/combustion chamber shape, oil consumption,moving parts number count
> & oil-tightness also.
> ...



really???? Superior oil consumption? I almost blew my tea out my nose on that one. That is one of the areas that took quite a _loooong _while for actual practice (service in the field) to come up to predictions/promises. Many early Sabres and Hercules engines being taken out of service for overhaul due to excessive oil consumption after only a few dozen hours of service. 
The big problem with most of the sleeve valve to poppet valve comparisons is that Bristol (Fedden) was comparing the sleeve valve engine to their own poppet valve engine instead of the poppet valve engines made by other companies or countries. Most other companies had gone to enclosed valve gear by the end of the 30s and not leaving valve stems, springs and rocker arms all flapping around in the Breeze. 





enclosed valve gear was not exactly rocket science, Other companies had been doing it for years.




It does wonders for oil tightness. 
You can also cut way down on the number of moving parts by using two valves per cylinder instead of 4 valves per cylinder. 
A lot of the cooling problems go away when you learn to make close spaced fins instead of fins that look like they were made by a blacksmith apprentice. 
BTW it only took Bristol about 5-7 different cylinder head designs (each one with more fin area) to get the Hercules to teh 2000hp level. And the last ones used a copper alloy head for better heat transfer than aluminum alloy. 
The two valve head also allows for a hemispherical combustion chamber and spark plugs.

And lets see,let me do a little selecting of specifications of my own. 
Hercules XI engine of 1590 hp take-off. gets 0.67 hp per cubic in and weighs 1.16lbs per hp. 
Wright R-2600B gives 1700 hp for take-off and has 0.65 hp per cubic in and weighs 1.16lbs per hp. 
Yep, it is easy to see just how superior the Sleeve valve was.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Steve,
> 
> The Merlins found 'homes' in obsolescent Hurricanes, P-40s & Spit Vs sure enough.. to no good war fighting use.
> 
> & "The mistake" was failing to ensure standardisation meant just that, including the Merlin, that is obvious.



I'm pretty sure that Spitfire V production didn't continue throughout the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Check your copy of Wilkinson's 1947 book for the Sabre VII rated at 3,500 hp for take off, on + 20lbs boost ( with ADI) & on lowly 100/130 juice.



Merlins with ADI were using +30psi boost. Not that the British used ADI on Merlins during the war.

3500hp is not much more than the 3200hp the Eagle 22 was making without 10 years of development. On +18psi without ADI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

According to the TAIC report he had applied only 2 degrees of left rudder trim (tab deflection) of the 14 degrees available. A previous injury meant that his ability to apply left rudder directly was limited, though this was not considered significant.
The report also notes that the take off check list for the type calls for the rudder to be trimmed full left. The final conclusion was that

_"Inadvertent mis-selection of less than fully left rudder, prior to take off, was the probable predominant factor in the accident."_

The pilot made a mistake which very nearly cost him his life. 'Inadvertent' is about as close to apportioning blame as this sort of report will come, that is not their function.
The report does mention that the pilot had been flying a Merlin powered Mk XVI previously, though he had 5.5 hours on the Griffon powered Mk XIV.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

Its not ridiculous to question why RR would change the direction of rotation of their engines. Its a big deal. Imagine a fledgling pilot going through training in a Harvard then older Merlin Spit conditioned to apply right rudder on takeoff then have to relearn the opposite procedure when transitioning to Griffon powered machines. So many fighters were lost to accidents anyway, remember the majority of these guys are low-time pilots.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

The merlin was produced in huge numbers because it powered the two most produced British fighters, its two heavy bombers and the best multi role aircraft, It powered the P40 and P51 for which they were not designed. Its "overproduction" was because of the failure of types that were due to replace it coupled with the success of RR in getting more power from it, it ended up as a 2000BHP engine on max power.

Of the Lancaster Halifax Spitfire Mosquito Hurricane and P51 which should we have had less of and when?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I'm pretty sure that Spitfire V production didn't continue throughout the war.



It didn't! Last ones were built in late 1943, I'd have to check an exact date.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Its not ridiculous to question why RR would change the direction of rotation of their engines. Its a big deal. Imagine a fledgling pilot going through training in a Harvard then older Merlin Spit conditioned to apply right rudder on takeoff then have to relearn the opposite procedure when transitioning to Griffon powered machines. So many fighters were lost to accidents anyway, remember the majority of these guys are low-time pilots.


I believe the rotation of the Griffon was a navy requirement, it was preferable because the torque took the plane away from the tower not into it.

When the Griffon was introduced the RAF was no longer flying the BoB pilots had more than 50 hours before combat. When you fly a plane for the first time you always have zero hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Its not ridiculous to question why RR would change the direction of rotation of their engines.



I don't know why. Does anyone else? I doubt they did it for the hell of it.
Pilots have to learn to fly different types. They aren't just thrust into a strange aircraft and told to get on with it. My father trained in the US and finished with 91 hours day/8.6 night on the 'Harvard', 36.4 hours day/10.3 night on the 'Bearcat' and 84.9 hours day on the 'Hellcat'.
When he returned to the UK the FAA sent him off in an Oxford with an instructor, presumably to check the Americans had actually taught him to fly and to familiarise himself with British instruments, radio etc.
Following that he flew dual in a Firefly, specifically noted in his logbook *"Fam with handbrake and opposite torque to USN a/c"*
After that they let him loose on a Sea Fury.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

pbehn said:


> When you fly a plane for the first time you always have zero hours.


I will remember this the next time I transition to a new aircraft.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> So many fighters were lost to accidents anyway, remember the majority of these guys are low-time pilots.



Let's look at some facts. 

In mid 1944, which is the earliest we can be looking at, the average British pilot in training received 340 hours on all types and this included 90 hours on operational types. This is NOT low time. They were competent flyers, needing only to survive long enough to become competent fighters. By this stage of the war they had a good chance.

At the end of the war the RAF had a pool of nearly 50,000 (you read that correctly) trained pilots and more at various stages of training. There was no need to rush them through the programmes.
I have no idea how many were available to the USAAF, but I bet it was plenty.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

stona said:


> Let's look at some facts.
> 
> In mid 1944, which is the earliest we can be looking at, the average British pilot in training received 340 hours on all types and this included 90 hours on operational types. This is NOT low time. They were competent flyers, needing only to survive long enough to become competent fighters. By this stage of the war they had a good chance.
> 
> ...


340 hours is indicative of a very thorough training pipeline. A current U.S. military pilot has about 250 after training in an operational type. However, it is relatively low time compared to a veteran pilot and the majority of the pilots in a squadron were on the first operational assignment.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> However, it is relatively low time compared to a veteran pilot and the majority of the pilots in a squadron were on the first operational assignment.



What's your point? Everyone but another veteran pilot will have relatively low time by comparison. In English we say that's stating the bleeding obvious 
The majority of pilots in an RAF squadron in 1944 were not on their first operational assignment.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

Is flying a plane with a prop turning in the opposite direction to what you trained on difficult? I would say only if no one told you and you were too dopey to notice it.
I routinely changed from right hand drive cars in England to left hand drive in other countries, I have driven a right hand drive car all around Europe and once drove a left hand car in England. Its a bit strange at first but I and 10s of thousands each year do it. I used to have a Triumph and a Suzuki at the same time, Triumph right hand gear change up for first down for other gears, Suzuki Left hand change down for first up for other gears. After a few weks I could switch between them without a thought.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

Actually it is the switching that can cause problems. If, for instance you are a high time pilot (hundreds of hours in Merlin Spitfires) and switch to the Griffon you are doing a lot of things from habit. A low time pilot may only have a few dozen hours in Spitfires in an operational training unit before being posted to a Griffon Squadron. After a few weeks of flying a Griffon only how likely is he to make a mistake? He actually doesn't have as much to "Unlearn". 
Flying 4-6 different aircraft in a few weeks takes a lot of concentration and sticking to check lists. 

The opposite rotation seems to making a mountain out a mole hill unless somebody can come up with actual statistics that show otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

It's a matter of directional control and understanding how much rudder input is needed, especially during take off. Once the pilot understands the required rudder force and direction required, the rest should be instinctive, especially if said pilot has some good tailwheel time under his belt.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

Mike Crosley gives a list of issues which he and 801 Sqn. discovered with the first Griffon engined Seafires and he does mention issues arising from the increased torque of the Griffon. It is the the magnitude of the torque which caused problems, particularly for carrier take offs. The direction, opposite the Merlin, doesn't even get a mention or seem to have been relevant.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's a matter of directional control and understanding how much rudder input is needed, especially during take off. Once the pilot understands the required rudder force and direction required, the rest should be instinctive, especially if said pilot has some good tailwheel time under his belt.



Absolutely. If a Spitfire XIV pilot reads the take off check list in the pilot's notes he will see.

_"Part II Handling

Check list before take off

T- Trimming tabs
_
*Rudder: fully left (hand wheel fully back)*
_
Elevator: a) At typical service load, but no fuel in the rear fuselage tank, 8,376 lb; Neutral..."_

My bold.

Of course if he ignores this or inadvertently sets up a different aircraft he might find himself in a world of ****.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

From what I read, the British Ministry of Defense mandated the change in prop rotation for standardization. They let the Merlin go because it was already in production, but had all new large piston developments rotate the other way. Fortunately, most pilots hold the rudder that corrects the drift rather than blindly crash by using wrong rudder, and not many new large pistons were started after the rotation change seeing as how jets were the up and coming "thing." I have never investigated whether they had jets turning the "other way" or both ways since it would most likely be an issue only at or about stall speed.

When I flew a Soviet Yak-18, I used left rudder because it was trying to turn right and that turned out to be correct. I suspect it wasn't all that hard once you started flying it. The real issue would be developing the left leg muscles to HOLD left rudder when you HAD been using right rudder prior to the transition.

Most aerobatic pilots don't have any trouble flying a Sukhoi 26/29/31 and it turns the "other way."


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Wrong James.

They were required to have the shifter on the left, but the gear pattern was and IS up to the manufacturer, unless the laws have changed in the last 10 years or so. I was riding quite regularly when that came into being, and I had some 5 friends who owned dealerships at the time. The only bike that gave me trouble was when I had a traffic emergency while on a Triumph 650 Tiger ... I downshifted instead of hitting the brake.

After that, I din't have any more trouble with it since once burned is learned.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> SR6, here is Roy Fedden's S-V attributes list, 1941 | 2830 | Flight Archive


https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941 - 2830.html
You didn't really think Roy Fedden was going to read a paper at the Royal Aeronautical Society bashing the crap out of what he had been working on for around 10 years (and spending millions of pounds on) did you?



> & as shown in an ad, noting those economies. advertisements fligh | bristol england | alii ax | 1945 | 1244 | Flight Archive


https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1244.html
I never realized that advertising copy was a _reliable _source before_? 






_
Guess I should take up smoking? 



> FYI the Napier Lion had fully enclosed its DOHC 4V heads 'bout a century ago.



And Bristol was still letting the valve gear flap around in mid air 20 plus years later and complaining about oil tightness. Go figure. 

Lets go through Feddens list shall we?
_(a) Total absence of maintenance except for plug and magneto servicing._
Ok, tell that to the erks who had to swap engines with under 20 hours on them due to excessive oil consumption. We have a disconnect between what was promised and what was delivered.

_(b) Elimination of hot spots in the combustion chamber_.
Nice theory, lets see how it worked.
1. Prototype engines used single piece sand cast heads that reached 540in2 of finning. 
2. first production engines used a single piece die cast head with 581in2 of finning. 
3. Main wartime heads were two piece with fore and aft fins integral with the base to reduce heat in the area of the spark plugs. Fin area had gone to 728 in2.
4. Late war engines used a two piece head with 777 in2 of fining which was allowed by improved casting technique.
Please note that the these last two heads were developed *after* Fedden gave his talk/paper. 
They were followed by several more designs of cylinder head including a one piece with cast in spikes and a two-piece with shrunk-in copper insert. Next came a fabricated copper based head and then a machined copper-base head, this one was the first post war cylinder head on the Hercules. 
5. Final head design was was a copper base with close pitch fins with a steel skirt with an inner face (combustion chamber) coated with nickel. This head ran 25 degrees C cooler than the previous production head which had run 15 degrees cooler than the one before it. 
I would note that P&W and Wright didn't seem to need copper cylinder heads or nickel facings even in their post war engines. 

_(c) Use of higher compression ratios or boost pressure._
We have been over this before. The Hercules didn't use much higher compression that other radial engines and it didn't use much higher boost. The Hercules XI Used 6.75 compression and 43..7in pressure for take off. A 1200hp P & W R-1830 had 6.7 compression and used 48in of manifold pressure for take off. The R-1830 was making 0.66hp per cu in and Hercules was making 0.67 hp per cu in.
I am just not seeing a practical difference despite what *theory *said. 

More in next post

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

You rather obviously weren't around when that went down. Like most young people, you assume something that makes sense to you and state it is right. lol. I know Eddie Lawson would be amused to hear that.

Loved the Kawa 500 and 750 triple except the frame was made out of mild steel and you got a LOT of frame flex under acceleration out of a turn at hard throttle, not to mention head shake going into the turn. The 900 did the same on a track until it got "fixed." Our fix was welding in steel plate about 1/4" thick ... and new bushings. The "fix" for head shake was a good steering dampener ... but they tended to get "soft" after 20 - 25 minutes, so you started getting some head shake after that until they finally figured out the dampeners and then, ultimately, better steering geometry. Tanks slappers at 80 mph are NOT fun.

I have an idea, James. This is an aircraft forum and you aren't going to convince me of something I KNOW to be false, so why not let's just say we have a difference of opinion and get back to airplanes? OK?

Just for your information, I was 4-time Arizona state champion in in Observed Trials (with Central Arizona Trials), Advanced class, and have been riding since 1964. There's not a lot about motorcycles including frame geometry, engines, shocks, forks, tires, or 2-stroke carburetors you can say that I didn't live for decades. I could use some pointers in 4-stroke carburetors except that if I were riding one today, it would be injected, not running carbs. Last time I even SAW carbs on a 1-liter+ bike was a LONG time ago.

I still don't like Bing carbs, even with the fog of time making them seem better than they were. I had 2 of them stick wide open while on Montesa Cota 247s and swore off forever. I used the last one as a shooting target. So at least it then had a reason to leak. I ordered Mikunis on my Cota 348 and later Cota 349s.

Never owned a Norton and only rode one about 4 - 5 times. Seemed like neat bikes except for all the gas weeping in and around the carbs.

Favorite "exotics" were always from Ducati. The Dellortos didn't weep or leak.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> The rotation direction was official policy, that the Merlin had predated the promulgation of the policy meant it wasn't
> required to comply. 'Blind Freddy' could see this was going to be an issue, with cocky, or 'operationally tired'
> fighter jocks jumping into a Spit & automatically doing the take-off trim settings, but in the wrong direction.
> 
> ...



Comparing driving on opposite sides of the road to flying tail wheel aircraft with different engine rotations is nonsense. As stated, there is a natural instinct to make required directional corrections during takeoff. Anyone who has flown a tail dragger knows you are continually "dancing" on the rudders. It would take a really green or extremely inattentive pilot to groundloop (or worse) because they forgot the required rudder input on the aircraft below their fanny.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> I think you are missing the point about 'conditioned responses', these are well documented as both useful & harmful,
> depending on the situation. Air safety has long since mandated standard cockpit instrument/control layouts to reduce such errors.


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with flying a tail wheel aircraft, regardless of propeller rotation. If you believe otherwise, let's hear about YOUR experience on this!!!


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 6, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Comparing driving on opposite sides of the road to flying tail wheel aircraft with different engine rotations is nonsense. As stated, there is a natural instinct to make required directional corrections during takeoff. Anyone who has flown a tail dragger knows you are continually "dancing" on the rudders. It would take a really green or extremely inattentive pilot to groundloop (or worse) because they forgot the required rudder input on the aircraft below their fanny.


It's not only the working the correct pedals. We've got a very highly respected pilot down here who owned a MkIX and a MkXIV spitfire. He wound the trim the wrong way in the XIV and almost killed himself.
There have been many accidents - even two-crew, where a conditioned response has been incorrect, and it isn't due to inattention or greenness.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

[


FLYBOYJ said:


> This has absolutely NOTHING to do with flying a tail wheel aircraft, regardless of propeller rotation. If you believe otherwise, let's hear about YOUR experience on this!!!


Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate. If you are only reacting then you are behind the aircraft. its not a big deal, its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

Continued:

_(d) Improved volumetric efficiency due to greater effective port areas._
In theory yes, in practice it is much harder to figure out but the Americans certainly had no trouble developing the same or higher power outputs per unit of volume than the Hercules (development of the Perseus was pretty much put on hold during the war and nobody wanted 1000hp engines after the war). Perhaps the Americans simply used higher boost pressure to get around the breathing problem and paid for it with slightly higher power going to the supercharger. In any case a P & W R-2800 giving 1850hp was running at 0.66hp per cubic in. Later ones just got better. 

_(e) Centrally situated plugs, giving, if necessary, good performance on single ignition._
_



_
While not in the center of the head these plugs are well into the combustion chamber and not going through the cylinder wall or edge of the chamber. Practical difference between ideal and this arrangement is?? And again, Fedden is comparing his Sleeve valve engine to Bristols own poppet valve radials.




Spark plugs about as far from the center as you can get. 

_(/) Very flat mixture loops, permitting smooth running under conditions of extreme economy. 
(g) Smooth running due to good combustion chamber shape, and to the accurate and simple valve timing. 
(h) More silent operation_
Well, two valves may be simpler to "time" than four valves. as to the other "benefits" I can't really say.

_(i) Good accessibility and clean exterior appearance
(j) Complete enclosure of all working parts, absence of external oil leads, and impossibility of oil leakage_
Look at An American ( or newer french or Italian or.....) engine for accessibility and clean appearance. 
I would note there are 5 grease fittings visible in the picture of the Mercury engine on just one cylinder (and others out of view??)
There is no doubt the Sleeve valve engine offered a big advantage over the Bristol poppet valve engines. But over other possibel arrangements??? 
And the Hercules wound up hardly being leak free. Stories of columns of smoke rising from the cowls of Hercules powered glider tugs after landing are common. 

_ (k) Cooler exhaust.
(l) Freedom from lead corrosion.
(m) Greater freedom from cold corrosion._
All quite possible but how big a problem were some of these points? Enough to justify the 2 million pounds spent in development by the mid 30s let alone the rest of the development cycle? 

_(n) Regular cylinder shape, permitting the simplest form of baffling._
Really??? Millions of pounds so you can simplify stamped sheet metal baffles? 
And then they would up devising all sorts of baffles to get the air down inside the junk head. 




Next post

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> It's not only the working the correct pedals. We've got a very highly respected pilot down here who owned a MkIX and a MkXIV spitfire. He wound the trim the wrong way in the XIV and almost killed himself.
> There have been many accidents - even two-crew, where a conditioned response has been incorrect, and it isn't due to inattention or greenness.



Point taken - but I think we both know (and been there) that propeller rotation on tail wheel ops should be a relative non-event with a bit of training and situational awareness.


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Good pics Shortround! Enjoy seeing good pics.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> [
> 
> Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate. If you are only reacting then you are behind the aircraft. its not a big deal, its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.


A bit of both, really. You anticipate swing on take-off, but you still have to react to things like wind gusts

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> FBJ, it has to do with the general way the human brain is trained, & values ingrained, & not about particular aspects of tail-draggers,
> - except in relation to the Merlin/Griffon Spitfire take-off opposite trimming issue.
> 
> Obviously, the fundamental familiarity of being in a Spitfire caught some pilots out, which would've been less likely,
> if they'd been doing a take off in a completely different aircraft, even with opposite rotation, such as a Typhoon.



And again, a matter of training and situational awareness. I've flown aircraft with "opposite rotating propellers." Once the feel for the required right rudder in lieu of left rudder was established, all else was easy - and I'll concede these were aircraft with ALOT LESS HP when a WW2 fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> [
> 
> Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate.


Admitting both but mainly anticipate, especially if it's a taildragger that could bite you real quick - I've flown 180 HP Supercubs - you're flying the aircraft the minute you crank the engine up! Cubs and Citabrias are a little more forgiving IMO


BLine22 said:


> its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.



Driving on the opposite side of the road compared to flying an "opposite rotating propeller" taildragger? Not even close! Those British drivers are crazy!!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

_(o) Marked decrease in number of parts, and consequent reduced production and maintenance costs.
(p) Relative simplicity of all major parts, permitting accurate repetition machining._

I really love point O. While the sleeve valve certainly cut down on the number of parts per cylinder outside the crankcase in the valve train, inside things were not quite so simple. 





Push rods and rocker arms or gears and shafts? 
They also had just a wee bit of trouble with that point (p). for a while (also after Fedden's presentation). Mass production of sleeves with an acceptable scrap rate was a lot harder than they thought. Yes they did get it fixed. 

_(q) Probability of easier operation when exhaust turboblowers are used. 
(r) Greater Reliability due to most of the causes mentioned above. 
(s) Any desired control of cylinder turbulence with its possible application to stratified charges and abnormally weak mixtures with petrol injection.
_
Point (q) turned out to be a non-issue and the Americans didn't seem to have much trouble putting turbo blowers on poppet valve engines. 
(r) turned out to be true but it took until several years after the paper was read to become reality. Post war the Bristol sleeve valve radials did establish a very good reputation for reliability and long life. But then the post war R-2800 engines established a very good reputation also. 
(s) also tuned out to be a non-issue as it was never used in a production engine.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Be serious SR6, as if Fedden would've tried to bullshit his peers..
> 
> & the lame cigarette ad is a poor analogy, the type-testing/rating figures were published too, no need to go 'strawman'..
> 
> What evidence do you have of "erks having to swap engines in 20 hours..."?



Call it what you will. Many of the advantages in that list were either minor or of little practical difference. 

I am am NOT the one who first used a magazine ad as PROOF of a position. If you have the "type-testing/rating figures" then post them instead of having us chase magazine ads.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> SR6 Try not to conflate the oddities of radial engine architecture with the sleeve valve itself, since to a liquid-cooled inline,
> many of these things are meaningless. I'll find & post a NACA S-V port flow paper, that confirms those Ricardo/Fedden points.



Hey, you brought up Feddens presentation and Fedden was working on radials. Or does the sleeve valve only work on in line engines?
Air cooled engines present the toughest cooling problems. If the sleeve valve did what was claimed why did it take so long to sort out the air cooled version?

The sleeve valve did solve a number of problems that existed with poppet valve engines in the 20s. Trouble is that the poppet valve camp also spent millions solving most of the problems and by the time the sleeve valve was really ready most of the real problems with the poppet valve had already been solved.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> That clockwork looking timing chest serves 14 individual cylinders, & yet the parts count is way less than pushrods/rockers/poppet valves/springs/collars/collets/oil feeds/ & etc. The S-V had nothing moving/clattering about in the cylinder head.



Quite true but then the comparison pictures and articles about the advantages of sleeve valves always mention the parts count of the cylinders and tend to neglect (or ignore) the complexity of the gear train needed. Gears also need a lot more machining than pushrods.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 7, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Driving on the opposite side of the road compared to flying an "opposite rotating propeller" taildragger? Not even close! Those British drivers are crazy!!!



HEY!!! I resemble that remark!!!

As for flying LH vs. RH turning propellers, I'm pretty happy to get out of one and into the other, but then again, Like FBJ, I'm not getting out of one mark of spitfire and into another. To be honest, after a while you don't really even think about what rudder inputs you need. As long as you don't give it a big burst of power, which isn't good for the engine, I haven't had any problems, and I'm just an average pilot...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 7, 2016)

One last time James, in an attempt to set you straight on motorcycles. The law you are referring to was passed in 1968 and addresses only motorcycles that are licensed for street use in the USA.

Hate to tell you, but I purchased motorcycles with non-standard shift patterns from 1968 through 1995. Some even with shifters on the opposite side. They were, one and all, for racing or off-road use, with no possibility for being licensed on the street. Like I said, Eddie Lawson would laugh at you, just like I am laughing.

My Bultaco Sherpa T trials bikes had shifters on the opposite side in stock configuration. So did an Ossa I rode for awhile. Both from Barcelona, opposite sides of the city. Moving the shifter to the other side made the shifter on the familiar side, but the pattern was backwards since changing the shifter does nothing to the internal gears. It was all perfectly legal since they were not street motorcycles. It still IS legal.

I even purchased a STREET motorcycle with a non-standard shift pattern in 1971! It was a Norton with first gear up and the rest down. Seems they "got around" the "law" that year due to being a low-volume brand. I sold it before I got it home because I encountered a real Norton lover and he wanted THAT model. He let me ride it before he took it, and I made $500 on it.

With that, I will refrain from posting anything further on the subject of motorcycles with you. Your knowledge of motorcycles is as awesome as your knowledge and understanding of WWII aircraft.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Off-road/racing-wise, well, of course, *like mil-spec machines*, those are exempt from regular road vehicle reg's...


Are you referring to Harley-Davidson or Indians here?

Because they haven't made military motorcycles for decades.

And my 1939 Indian Messenger 74 had an asswipe-shifter - not shift "pegs"

Just curious...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No, not bikes G-G,
> Detroit Diesels.. banned for civil sale by the EPA - for being filthy 2-strokes, their value/utility to the military keeps them in production/use.


wait, J-W

how did Detroit Diesels get into that motorcycle conversation?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 7, 2016)

Any vehicle (or machine) that is imported into the U.S. had to follow current Federal laws of the day, regardless of emissions or safety standards.

If something is deemed "for offroad use only" that applies to aftermarket modifications of existing vehicles ONLY. Otherwise, it's "gray market" and can be confiscated if there's an infraction while the said vehicle is in use.

The 1975 Dodge Powerwagon I was assigned while at NWS Seal Beach had Federal smog equipment, not California smog equipment, so *technically* it was in violation of State law, but it was primarily intended for use aboard the weapons station, which is Federal jurisdiction, so it wasn't an issue.

However, any vehicle imported into the United States that does not comply with Federal law is illegal.


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> & yes tourists not used to driving on the left do cause an inordinate number of crashes, rental cars here
> have face level advisories about it posted in them.



This doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK. There are prominent signs at the exits to ports and the 'Chunnel' advising drivers to drive on the left, but I've never seen an eye level advisory in any hire car I've picked up, usually from airports where the majority of hirers would be from overseas.
I've also driven on the right a lot, both in Europe and North America, and it is less of an issue than remembering to put a foot on the brake to start a car with an automatic transmission (something I never drive at home). I have never, even for a second, had the urge to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Without wishing to be misrepresented as 'anti-Asian' I would point out that 'downunder' at least,
> quite a few drivers here - from Asia demonstrate sub-standard driving abilities to actuarial significance levels...



All people are equally capable of driving cars safely. The statistically significant fact that people from some countries drive less well than others would indicate failings in their driver training programmes, just as accidents involving aircraft with a different direction of torque would imply failings in pilot training programmes. It's got nothing to do with the car or aircraft.
Cheers
Steve

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


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Without wishing to be misrepresented as 'anti-Asian' I would point out that 'downunder' at least,
> quite a few drivers here - from Asia demonstrate sub-standard driving abilities to actuarial significance levels...


Actually - they don't have an increased number of accidents, at least here in NZ, but somehow they seem to get more media attention.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 7, 2016)

What did they say?
I've never seen any warnings, other than the "keep left" arrow, which isn't aimed at our Asian cousins, since they mostly drive on the left too.


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

I meant in a general sense. Obviously individuals will have different capacities to learn and varying driving abilities, but Asian people, African people or European people are all equally capable of driving cars safely. The same can be said for people from individual countries.
Some drivers and some pilots will always be better than others, but there is no reason, given proper training that ,say, European pilots should be statistically better or worse than African pilots. Again, the same can apply to different countries.
You said that people from other countries can be shown statistically (that's what actuaries work from) to have more accidents and that can only be a result of the driver training they have received in their home country. Poor training makes for more accidents, for drivers as well as pilots.
Not acknowledging the point I'm making, because it is at odds with your position, and making spurious and diversionary observations based on the logical semantics of the word 'people' is not really helpful.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

Well I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm not.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> How many incidents/accidents this predictable matter caused? Even one was too many, IMO.
> .



How many people died just trying to take to the air?
How many died flying at night?
How many died landing with wheels up?
How many died developing the jet engine and then supersonic flight?



My opinion is that the problem stemmed from both planes being spitfires, the pilot therefore is in a comfort zone, the griffon plane my have seemed familiar but in one respect was substantially different. There must have been thousands of pilots transitioned from Merlin engined planes to planes with props turning the other direction but it only seems to be discussed on spitfires.

A designer cannot think about pilot ignoring instructions when he designs a plane or anything else for that matter.


As I recall standardisation of motorcycles started with a batch of 250/350 yamahas being shipped with no stop on the selector drum, it was therefore possible to shift directly from 6th to 1st almost certain to cause a crash., this set up an investigation into all types of accidents where gear selection/braking was the cause and it was agreed to standardise. At one time some "Indian" police motorcycles had the throttle on the left side to allow an officer to ride and shoot, though I suspect it must be easier to learn to shoot left handed, outside the movies how many cops actually do open fire while riding?

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


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 7, 2016)

Coming back to the main topic point I think one of the more underrated aircraft, not really the most, but still is Army Type 1 fighter, also known as Ki-43 or called by its opponents Oscar. 
Machine that probably is responsible for more aerial victories than any other Japanese Army and Navy fighter, a pure ace maker, since flying on it more than 50 pilots reached Ace status. 

Machine is generally recognized for its outstanding maneuverability, many Allied pilots underestimated it only to find themselves in the sights of the fighter. However its also worth noting for the fact that it was a first mass produced Japanese fighter with fuel tank protection (since late 1942) and one of the first Japanese fighters to be equipped with pilot protection (armored plate, since 1943). 

Overall the design went through major changes, starting with 900 HP engine with single stage, single-speed supercharger but ending with a 1150 HP engine with a two-speed supercharger, doubling its effective combat altitude. I've recently came across the South West Pacific Area Intelligence Summary No. 238 which included a description of "Impressions of Oscar Mark II" which contains a description of combat trials against four Allied fighters given by four Allied pilots. Thus I have decided to bring a few quotes just for the pleasure of reading:


> It is easy on the controls and requires very little rudder pressure between 140 and 350 m.p.h. A person can hold the rudder pressure needed for an hour and probably not notice it. I had a complete confidence in its flying characteristics after only a few minutes of flight. The smallness of the cockpit is about the only thing that bothersome. (...)





> In Lieut. Jackson's opinion: "Oscar Mk. 2 is the easiest aircraft to handle that I have ever flown. All the controls are very sensitive at low speeds and aircraft is definitely one which can be flown by 'the seat of the pants.' Only in one or two instances during flight did I check the needle and ball, and then only to verify that it was flying so nicely."
> "The aircraft has no vicious characteristics. At one time in a hammerhead stall the airspeed indicated 30 m.p.h and in falling off, Oscar simply rolled on its back and fell through nicely. Loops can be done at 170 m.p.h. Battle flaps increase the rate of turn and are handily operated on the stick.





> Lieut. Ray said, "After flying Oscar, I can understand why so many Japanese pilots use the Split S for evasive action. I flew the Oscar through aerobatics and it seems to me the Split S would be the quickest and safest evasive action against our P-40, P-47, P-38 and Spitfire, as the airspeed drops fast when you pull the nose up."
> "Comparing the Oscar with our first-line fighters, I would say it was far inferior, its normal cruising speed being 40 to 60 m.p.h. slower than that of our fighters. Oscar handles very well in the air and can be looped and immelmanned at airspeeds of 170 m.p.h. or lower. I found no freezing tendency of the controls at 300 m.p.h. airspeed at 9,000 feet."





> Lieut. Strand said, "The Oscar is highly maneuverable - that I knew before flying the aircraft, but after being in it several times, I found out just where the aircraft performs best and what were its bad spots."
> "I would recommend that in combat with an Oscar, ou keep your airspeed above 250 m.p.h. and the Oscar will not be able to get above you at any time. In straight and level flight, the enemy aircraft is pretty slow, but if you put it in a steep dive it will pick up a good speed and hold it. Stay away from the Oscar at low airspeeds because he can accelerate from 150 to 250 m.p.h. too fast."



And one of my favorites, also from SWPA, but this time related to Oscar I compared against a P-47, printed somewhere in the spring of 1944:


> The captured Oscar's AAF pilot, identified in the report only as Captain Stanton, described his initial encounter with the Thunderbolt: "Met the P-47 at 3,000 feet and outclimbed it to 5,000 feet. It dove on my tail from 6,000 feet and in a steep bank to the left I easily got out of the gun range in 90 degrees. In a 360 degrees I was behind the P-47 but its circle was so large that it was one-and-a-half turns to the right before I was in effective gun range."
> Stanton continued: "The circle was so large that it took half a turn for the Oscar to cross it to the P-47s tail after getting behind it."

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> You have Wilkinson? He lists the factory data sets for fuel/oil consumption, power-density such as here:
> 
> Sabre VII cruise fuel consumption 205 g/hp/hr, & oil 6 g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.33 kg/hp, all rather better than a Griffon, or R-2800..



A little more pick and choose on the figures and lets throw in a typo too? 
How many Sabre VIIs were built? How many flew?
1947 Wilkinson says_ fuel consumption 205 g/hp/hr, & oil 6 g /hp/ hr, weight to hp *0.37* kg/hp._ the page is revised from the 1946 edition.

Now if I pick and choose which entry for the Griffon I quote from I can find fuel consumption 210 g/hp/hr, & oil 3 g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.41 kg/hp for a Griffon 130. For a Griffon 88 I get fuel consumption 225 g/hp/hr, & oil 4 g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.43 kg/hp.
Since the Griffon 88 is using a two stage supercharger it keeps some of it's performance better at high altitudes but it pays for it in the weight of the supercharger.

Figures for a P & W R-2800 CA 19 which is a commercial engine are 190 g/hp/hr, & oil 7 g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.45 kg/hp.
Of course the power to weight ratios are for the "dry" weight of the engine and the two liquid cooled engines don't count the weight of the coolant and radiator/s so the air-cooled engines always look worse in this type comparison.

In the 1946 edition the Sabre VII is rated at 230 g/hp/hr, & oil *15* g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.37 kg/hp.
and the more common Sabre VA is rated at 225 g/hp/hr, & oil *15* g /hp/ hr, weight to hp 0.44 kg/hp.
The power to weight figure for the Sabre VA is for 2600hp. 

The Sabre VII was a remarkable engineering achievement but since it was pretty much post war it means very little to what should or should not have been produced during the war. 

I would note that during testing a P & W engineer pushed a "B" series R-2800 engine to 3800hp on a test stand using 150in of map (or about 60lb boost) and lots of ADI and the engine survived. I am sure the power was of very short duration and a lot of the air-supply may have been coming from an outside source (?) but it shows that many of these engines were capable of making much more power than they were rated at (although at a cost in durability and reliability) and that test stand figures are sometimes in no way connected to service capabilities. Service "B" series engines were never rated more than a bit over 2500hp using ADI in Thunderbolts using turbos.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2016)

stona said:


> This doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK. There are prominent signs at the exits to ports and the 'Chunnel' advising drivers to drive on the left, but I've never seen an eye level advisory in any hire car I've picked up, usually from airports where the majority of hirers would be from overseas.
> I've also driven on the right a lot, both in Europe and North America, and it is less of an issue than remembering to put a foot on the brake to start a car with an automatic transmission (something I never drive at home). I have never, even for a second, had the urge to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road
> Cheers
> Steve


There are occasional accidents in Yorkshire with Dutch/German motorists off the Hull ferry. It isnt a question of difficulty it is concentration. I have set off on the wrong side of the road 3 times, every time was on a weekend at home, Sunday morning when there was no traffic, I only know one guy who had a crash but I dont know anyone who has driven a left hand drive car who hasnt grabbed the window winder instead of the gear leaver at some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2016)

Was any engine dropped from service more quickly than the Sabre, it was a technical marvel that was just too needy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The Hurricane is overshadowed by the Spitfire and the BF-109, but when compared to its other 1935/6 contemporaries, it shines;



And was lethal in the right hands 







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 7, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> really???? Superior oil consumption? I almost blew my tea out my nose on that one.



You managed better than me. I'm still cleaning the tea out of my keyboard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2016)

Whatever the short comings of the Hurricane were, it was easy to build. In 1940 the RAF were running short on pilots only the LW were running short of pilots and planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> I'm just an average pilot...



makes 2 of us!


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Whatever the short comings of the Hurricane were, it was easy to build. In 1940 the RAF were running short on pilots only the LW were running short of pilots and planes.



An important point you have raised, quite right too. In late 1939, early 1940, they were producing about five a day (two Hawker, three Gloster). By the BoB this was up to around seven a day, mainly down to Gloster's increased rate.
There were only three weeks between July 1940 and the beginning of November 1940 in which Hurricane losses exceeded production.

I would note that the British were never short of pilots, as Douglas and the men at the Ministry were keen to point out (and did in the thoroughly misleading BoB pamphlet), they were short of *operational* pilots, as Dowding, Park et alter were equally keen to point out.
This is what led to the much disliked system whereby rather than entire squadrons being rotated in and out of 11 Group and to a lesser extent 12 Group, squadrons in other Groups were stripped of their experienced hands and reduced to B or C Class status. A C class squadron was not in any sense operational, typically including only three operational pilots. Even a B Class squadron might include up to six non operational pilots. Only A Class squadrons were required to maintain a minimum strength of sixteen operational pilots. Most of these were in 11 Group, there were a few in 10 and 12 Groups, none in the others.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Laughing Greg? Confident to put a buck on it, then - perhaps?



More betting? You still owe pbehn $1k from the last bet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> More betting? You still owe pbehn $1k from the last bet.


It was shooter who made that bet

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


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 7, 2016)

pbehn said:


> It was shooter who made that bet


OK


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No typo, 0.73 lb/hp 0.33 kg/hp, obviously for the most highly rated example, & the issue was sleeve valves not date of test.
> Installed weight is a separate issue, so the thirsty R-2800 hauling the draggy P-47N made for a virtual flying gas-tank.



Gee, my copy of the 1947 Wilkinsons says 0.83 lb/hp 0.37kg/hp on page 171 for the Sabre VII. 
We can double check the math???? 2540lbs divided by 3055hp (Miltary power at 2,250ft) in low gear = 0.8314
to get to 0.73 lb/hp the 2540lb Sabre VII would need to make 3480hp. 
Forget test stand, what was it rated at for flying? 

Not sure why you are complaining about the R-2800 and installed weight. The air-cooled vs Liquid cooled _DRY _weight comparison affects all engines of both types. And apparently the R-2800 isn't any thirstier than many other engines. Fuel consumption being between 190 g hp/hr and 215 g hp/hr depending on model and conditions according to other editions of Wilkinsons's. 
Chart for the engine in an F4U Corsair shows 1070hp for 83 gallons an hour at low altitude. If you are going to cruise using 1000hp you are going to use a lot of fuel per hour, doesn't matter what engine. 
Check out P-47 chart here: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47SEFC.gif
1200hp for 105 gallons (630lbs) an hour cruise at 25,000ft. (.525lb hp/hr. 238 g an hour)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sabre was, like ALL fighter piston aero-engines rapidly eclipsed by turbines, post war,
> - but FYI Sabre Tempests remained in service with the RAF until the mid 1950s
> since that 1,700 hp cruise/2,300 hp normal rating enabled realistic target training for jet-jockeys.



Not as fighter squadrons. 1950 was when the Tempest VI were retired from squadron service.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Not "complaining" , commenting. Take off rating of 3,500 hp, correct.
> For the 0.33 kg/ hp figure, see here: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Napier_Sabre.pdf
> 
> Thr R-2800 powered fighters operated by the British have data cards which show max-cruise speeds ~100 mph less than a Tempest.



As per the link (pg191) 3000hp with ADI for the Sabre VII.

Must be a typo error in the article.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Of course, the RAF wanted an all-jet front line, & when the Vampire FB 5 was available, it took over, as intended.
> The Sabre Tempests were still in "service", however.



As target tugs. The last user, No. 233, was using the Tempest until July 1955.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 7, 2016)

I have the VI retired in '53

edit: as a target tug


----------



## wuzak (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No, scroll down further, its there, 3,500 hp take-off rating at + 20 lbs boost on ADI.



Shouldn't the actual flying power maximum be the one you use?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

This thing with the sleeve valves started back around post #158 with this statement

_"SR6, one of the justified claims of the sleeve valve mill was the ability to make more power on lesser octane fuel.
R-R lobbied hard to have the Sabre abandoned as a quid pro quo with the Vulture, until Camm did his block''.
_
In the 1920s this was proven to be true on test stands and with one and two cylinder test rigs. One full point more of compression could be used in the sleeve valve cylinders. 6.0 to 1 instead of 5.0 to 1 for example. 
*However *this was for normally aspirated engines (no superchargers) using gasoline that was lucky to be 70 octane. If the tests were even being run after the invention of the octane scale. The poppet valve engines had plain steel (or alloy steel) exhaust valves with severe cooling problems which did cause major hot spots in the cylinder head (along with inadequate fining in some areas due to ports and valve gear space requirements.) 
The Sleeve valve boys were aiming at a moving target as the poppet valve boys introduced the sodium cooled exhaust valve , more fin area and longer valve guide area to soak up the heat from the exhaust valve. 
Valve springs in the 20s were also a major source of trouble and spring failure or breakage was common. A reason why many designers did let the valve gear flop around in the airstream. Better cooling for the springs and valve gear (and if you are using grease from grease guns for lubrication it is stuck there for the duration of the flight, not cycled through the oil cooler and replenished by somewhat cooler oil on a continuing basis). But better metallurgy provided better valve springs, differnt alloys, different and better wire drawing had fewer imperfections, shot peening the springs increased fatigue life and better/different finishes fought corrosion better. Valve spring life got much, much better around 1930 and the early 30s to the point were valve spring failure was pretty uncommon before the engine reached normal overhaul life. 
As foundry techniques improved fins could be made longer and closer spaced (without ruinous scrap rates) which aided cooling and allowed more power from each air cooled cylinder before oil film failure or detonation set in. This also helped the Sleeve valve boys (the first Perseus cylinders look like WW I relics) as the Perseus I started at 515hp. 

A lot of what was claimed for advantages for the sleeve valve were true, if the comparison was against 1920s engines. Unfortunately for the sleeve valve boys, the Poppet valve boys had not stood around with their thumbs up their bums and and found solutions for most of the problems. If not quite the ideal they were certainly workable solutions and showed major improvements over the 1920s engines. 
Bristol didn't have the resources to develop both types and bet on the sleeve valve, doing only the most minor improvements to the poppet valve series of engines during the 30s (the sales of which was financing the Sleeve valve project). 

Practical difference between the types of engine were so small during WW II as to be ignored. 
Sabre gets most of it's power from using 24 small cylinders and running at high rpm for a higher airflow than similar sized but slower running engines. I mean come on, what is the great surprise about a 36.7 liter engine running at 3850 rpm making a lot more power than a 36.7 liter engine running at 2750rpm? 40% more RPM means 40% more power if everything else is equal (which it never is). 
A Sabre _should _have been able to make 2800hp running the same boost and compression as a 2000hp Griffon using this admittedly simplistic scenario. But the Sabre (V) used higher compression and lower boost. 7.0 to 1 compression instead of 6.0 to 1 and 15lbs boost instead of the 18lbs of the Griffon (37) so the Sabre was actually burning less fuel/air per revolution. 

Of course the strength of the engines also have to be taken into account

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No, scroll down further, its there, 3,500 hp take-off rating at + 20 lbs boost on ADI.



And that is why I said there must be a typo error in the article.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No, scroll down further, its there, 3,500 hp take-off rating at + 20 lbs boost on ADI.


a bit more pick and choose the best numbers?
The Page showing the 3500hp take-off number is from a 1949 or later edition. 
I have next to my desk the 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 editions. First one that shows 3500hp is the 1949 edition and it has a different page number than the one in the link. 
want to start comparing the Sabre VII to 1948/49 engines like the P & W R-2800 "E" series or 1949 Griffons or experimental R-4360s?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Piston area & piston speed, rpm & pressure,
> 
> What is remarkable is that the Sabre was actually built, even if in modest numbers, & saw useful service, unlike
> the equivalent P & W attempt , any of the adventurous R-R designs, or the German piston exotics.



The real question is should it have been built or should it have been consigned to the rubbish bin like most of those other engines. 
The total cost of the sleeve valve adventure may never be known but it was millions of pounds for not a lot of result. 
Some people estimated that the sleeve valve engines cost 2 to 4 times per horsepower what a Merlin did (NOT including research and development) which goes a long long way in explaining why they built so many Merlins and not so many exotic engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

Title of the thread: 
*MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?*

Afaik WW2 ended in Europe on May 8 1945 so why all this talk about post WW2 engines?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sure, whatever the most highly developed versions were..
> Note the fuel used? 100/130 grade..


You stared this claiming they over produced Merlins in WW II and should have built other engines. 
I am sure the US Navy would have LOVED using F4U-5s or F8F-2 Bearcats in 1943. 

P & W R-2800-32W (E series) could make 2850hp at 30,000ft without turbo. Can the Sabre match it???


----------



## wuzak (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Depends on the airframe, a Spit XIV take-off on +25lbs with the throttle 'through the gate' would be a wild ride...



No, it is pointless using the specific fuel consumption for an engine mode which is only used rarely, if ever.

The BSFC that should be used is for a mode for flight.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Piston area & piston speed, rpm & pressure,



38% more piston area to go with the 40% increase in rpm.

Not sure you can justify the pressure bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> With the right supercharger, sure, the Tempest I prototype was doing 470+ mph at ~25,000 ft in early 1943..



That doesn't answer the question.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> That is why the cruise rating is used for quoting that parameter, perhaps, W?



Sorry, you were quoting hp/lb or lb/hp. 

Still seems a little pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 7, 2016)

Do you have any idea how the valves in a Formula 1 engine operate?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Merlin Hurricanes could not do a Typhoon's work, Nor could a Merlin Spit do a Tempest's job.
> 800+ V1s not crashing down on London more than paid for a few hundred Tempests.
> 
> & how many thousand Merlins were wastefully scattered over Germany?
> ...



There were TWO, count 'em. TWO Hurricane fighter bomber squadrons operating in Europe in 1942. This is the reason the Whirlwind got a reprieve and was fitted with bomb racks. It doubles the number of fighter bomber squadrons operating across the the Channel in 1942 and early 1943 (Hurricane production was spoken for, either going to Russia or other theaters). 
By the end of 1943 you had ONE squadron operating Hurricanes across the Channel. 
You have a solution in search of problem here. 

Tempests shot down 800*+* V1s ??? 
I thought it was closer to 600 +
And had the Tempest not been there were there other aircraft that could do the Job? 
after all almost 2/3rds of the V-1s destroyed by aircraft were destroyed by other types. 

A lot fewer Merlins would have scattered over the Germany if the operations men had listened to a few of the boffins and had the planes cruise at max lean mixture instead of the low cruise speeds that were used on way too many missions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> With the right supercharger, sure, the Tempest I prototype was doing 470+ mph at ~25,000 ft in early 1943..


 Ah, once again we a subject to the performance figures for prototype aircraft using an engine that failed to make it into production.






Nice plane, good thing it can run because it sure can't fight. no guns. 
Also used the Sabre IV engine which failed to go into production due to "problems". go figure. 

BTW the F4U-5 could do 403mph at sea level and 470mph at 26,800ft. They built 397 of them. 
Can we go back to WW II planes that actually entered production or had a fair shot at it instead of time traveling fantasy planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Merlin Spits were used as fighter bombers post invasion, they could not pull the weight of a Typhoon either.



It took until the middle of 1944 for a Typhoon to pull the weight of a Typhoon. 
Bigger solid tail wheels were fitted to the 1001st and later Typhoons to help handle the weight of bombs (and 500lbs bombs at that), New brakes were fitted to the main wheels. The 4 bladed prop was thought to such an advantage in trying to carry 1000lbs that up to 200 Typhoons were grounded waiting for new propeller sealing kits to come from the US rather than put the old 3 bladed props on and use them. new manufacture and refitting of older planes with Tempest tail-planes was also very desirable for carrying 1000lb bombs. 

If the Sabre had been scrapped in 1941/42 other aircraft would have been built to fill the gap. The Typhoon and Tempest were not irreplaceable.

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


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> The RAF could have used its L-L P-47s in the Typhoon role, post-invasion, but it just wasn't as good..
> None of the R-2800 powered fighters the British had on hand in mid `44 were fast enough to catch V1s..
> 
> So, I'd reckon those relatively few Sabres available sure did come in handy, huh..





Shortround6 said:


> There were TWO, count 'em. TWO Hurricane fighter bomber squadrons operating in Europe in 1942. This is the reason the Whirlwind got a reprieve and was fitted with bomb racks. It doubles the number of fighter bomber squadrons operating across the the Channel in 1942 and early 1943 (Hurricane production was spoken for, either going to Russia or other theaters).
> By the end of 1943 you had ONE squadron operating Hurricanes across the Channel.
> You have a solution in search of problem here.
> 
> ...



Someone's numbers are off.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> The RAF could have used its L-L P-47s in the Typhoon role, post-invasion, but it just wasn't as good..
> None of the R-2800 powered fighters the British had on hand in mid `44 were fast enough to catch V1s..
> 
> So, I'd reckon those relatively few Sabres available sure did come in handy, huh..


Typhoon VS Thunderbolt, sounds like a new thread. Ill take the P-47 but I'm sure each one could and did fulfill the role more than satisfactorily.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> The RAF could have used its L-L P-47s in the Typhoon role, post-invasion, but it just wasn't as good..
> None of the R-2800 powered fighters the British had on hand in mid `44 were fast enough to catch V1s..
> 
> So, I'd reckon those relatively few Sabres available sure did come in handy, huh..



Gee, I guess you got me. Of course the British actually had very few R-2800 powered fighters on hand in Mid 1944 did they? A large number of the R-2800 powered fighters being Corsairs or Hellcats. A lot of the British P-47s went to India/Burma. 
Of course the Hundreds of British P-51s on hand would be totally useless for attacking V-1s right??
Or perhaps more Spitfire XIVs? English Electric builds Griffons instead of Sabres?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No guns, you are being funny..
> 
> I have a picture of HM 599 with its Mk II H-S cannon projecting from the leading edge,
> & wearing an earlier Typhoon car-door canopy.
> ...


 Do you have a Picture of the HM 599 with cannon or a picture of the HM 599 with a mock up of cannon? 

Like this? 




What was the condition of the HM 599 during the speed run, like weight and were guns actually fitted or mocked up or absent.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> No indeed, the RAF really liked Mustangs, & even wanted more Allison powered units, they tried the Typhoon
> as a replacement in the Mustang's FR role, but the vibration spoiled the photos..
> 
> Bit harder to shoot down V1's with 4 X 0.5" compared with 4 X 20mm though..
> ...


 Purloined them from where? carriers at sea? 

And you missed the point, there were other aircraft in existence that could do the job, perhaps not quite as well but the absence of the Tempests dos NOT mean that 600-800 more V-1 would have got through if 2-3 fighter groups using other planes had been assigned to do the same work.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sabre was, like ALL fighter piston aero-engines rapidly eclipsed by turbines, post war,
> - but FYI Sabre Tempests remained in service with the RAF until the mid 1950s
> since that 1,700 hp cruise/2,300 hp normal rating enabled realistic target training for jet-jockeys.



The last Griffon powered RAF a/c was retired in 1991.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2016)

Milosh, it isn't your post that is dumb. We may have had a few minor skirmishes, but you've NEVER been dumb.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2016)

Our annoying friend will be dealt with. Those of you who messaged me, thanks for the heads up

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2016)

Agreed Greg. He's handed out 99% of the "dumb" tags on the entire site






Thanks FBJ

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2016)

Hey...did I just hear the sound of a toilet being flushed?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 8, 2016)

stona said:


> An important point you have raised, quite right too. In late 1939, early 1940, they were producing about five a day (two Hawker, three Gloster). By the BoB this was up to around seven a day, mainly down to Gloster's increased rate.
> There were only three weeks between July 1940 and the beginning of November 1940 in which Hurricane losses exceeded production.
> 
> I would note that the British were never short of pilots, as Douglas and the men at the Ministry were keen to point out (and did in the thoroughly misleading BoB pamphlet), they were short of *operational* pilots, as Dowding, Park et alter were equally keen to point out.
> ...


Thanks steve, I was not suggesting we had no one who could fly a plane, when you consider WW1 veterans and bomber/coastal command we must have had thousands just not fully trained on Spitfire Hurricanes. The LW however was having to consolidate and merge squadrons of both fighters and bombers due to pilot losses and lack of operational aircraft. The RAF were never so short of machines that they had to consider it.


----------



## stona (Jul 8, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Thanks steve, I was not suggesting we had no one who could fly a plane, when you consider WW1 veterans and bomber/coastal command we must have had thousands just not fully trained on Spitfire Hurricanes. The LW however was having to consolidate and merge squadrons of both fighters and bombers due to pilot losses and lack of operational aircraft. The RAF were never so short of machines that they had to consider it.



I am a great admirer of Dowding and he always resisted merging squadrons, it was done. At the infamous 7th September conference Park confirmed that on that very day nine of 11 Group's squadrons had started the day with less than 15 pilots and that on the previous day he had put squadrons together and ordered them off as composite units. To put these numbers in perspective a front line squadron was supposed to have 25 operational pilots, though this had been lowered to 21 during the Battle. 15 represents a shortage and became the number at which 11 Group would request pilots from other Groups to reinforce a squadron. An A Class squadron (all in 11 Group) was to have a minimum of 16 *operationa*l pilots
This rather flies in the face of those who simply look at the raw figures for pilot numbers and deny the shortage being stressed by both Park and Dowding.
This is why when in the Battle of Britain pamphlet, in which the Air Ministry claimed that Fighter Command's squadrons were stronger at the end of the Battle than the beginning (a claim accepted uncritically by some historians who ought to know better) both Dowding and Park rejected the claim, vigorously and publicly.

There were all sorts of solutions proposed for the shortage, some like creating more OTUs were not too clever and Dowding pointed out the drain on his Command that this would create. Others, like Park's proposed 'sector training flights' in which young men fresh from OTUs would be posted to squadrons in the quieter Groups for more on the job training had more merit. The squadrons in 11 Group were simply too busy fighting and dying to do it.

Dowding may have missed one trick. There is no mention by him or anyone else, at any of these meetings/conferences of the qualified pilots at Defiant and Blenheim squadrons. By grounding these squadrons and converting their pilots to Spitfires and Hurricanes a pool of qualified pilots, mostly more effective than those fresh from the OTUs, could have been created.
We have the benefit of hindsight. I don't know why this option was never even looked at. There may be very good reasons, unknown to us 70+ years later but important at the time why it wasn't done.

Others have argued that the pilot shortage was brought about by the Air Ministry's determination to maintain a large bomber force and its failure to expand the training programmes soon enough, lacking an appreciation of the level of losses that the RAF would suffer. Both factors contributed, but there wasn't much Dowding could have done about either.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## My109 (Jul 13, 2016)

This may sound funny but I think the me109 is a very underrated aircraft............maybe because the plane was defamed so much that the reputation of the plane was lower than it should be. I really don't like how many people see the me109 as a flying stone with big guns that cannot maneuver properly.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 13, 2016)

My109 said:


> This may sound funny but I think the me109 is a very underrated aircraft............maybe because the plane was defamed so much that the reputation of the plane was lower than it should be. I really don't like how many people see the me109 as a flying stone with big guns that cannot maneuver properly.


Not many with that opinion here, my opinion is it was one of the two greats (with the spitfire) of the war simply because it served from before the start to the finish in front line service

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2016)

My109 said:


> This may sound funny but I think the me109 is a very underrated aircraft............maybe because the plane was defamed so much that the reputation of the plane was lower than it should be. I really don't like how many people see the me109 as a flying stone with big guns that cannot maneuver properly.


Not sure where you've heard those sentiments, as the Bf109 remained a formidable adversary right up to the last days of the war...certainly not an under-rated aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2016)

It was one of the greats. It struggled at the end of the war and was outclassed by late Marks of Spitfire, something that hadn't happened earlier, but still a great aircraft.
'Johnnie' Johnson's politically incorrect but apt recollections of commanding a Spitfire Wing and flying the Mk.XIV late in the war are apt. He bemoaned the lack of "Kraut traffic" around late in the war whilst recalling that what there was "did not last long". His conclusion was that. "If, God forbid, we had to fight WW2 again with WW2 kit, my weapon of choice would be a four cannon XIV."
It was the possibility of more successful late development that elevates the Spitfire over the Bf 109 in my mind, but it's by a narrow margin.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hickam Field (Jul 15, 2016)

With a 5.5:1 aerial victory ratio over Japanese aircraft, I'll throw the Grumman F4F Wildcat/Martlet into the hat. Actually, I personally think that in comparison to manufacturers like Supermarine, North American, and several others, Grumman was very underrated with thier rugged birds like the F4F, F6F, and TBM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 17, 2016)

The Curtis P-40


----------



## Greyman (Jul 17, 2016)

The C-47 is the most underrated. By me. Eisenhower lists it as one of the four pieces of equipment most important to victory in WWII - and I never give it its due.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2016)

Greyman said:


> The C-47 is the most underrated. By me. Eisenhower lists it as one of the four pieces of equipment most important to victory in WWII - and I never give it its due.


We've had discussions here to the same, IMO the C-47 was the best all round aircraft of WW2. Too many people are hung up on combat aircraft to appreciate it's importance, not only in performing its mission, but the operational and developmental legacy it paved in later years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We've had discussions here to the same, IMO the C-47 was the best all round aircraft of WW2. Too many people are hung up on combat aircraft to appreciate it's importance, not only in performing its mission, but the operational and developmental legacy it paved in later years.



It's hard to disagree, it was an important aircraft. Under rated though? If Eisenhower made it the fourth most important piece of military equipment vital to victory in WW2 it received recognition by those in the know 

When reading up on the beginnings of British airborne forces in 1940/41 I noticed the British bemoaning the fact that they didn't have something like the German Ju 52, despite the earlier requirements for bombers to double as transports. The C-47 was much superior to the Ju 52, but the principle is the same.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We've had discussions here to the same, *IMO the C-47 was the best all round aircraft ever built.* Too many people are hung up on combat aircraft to appreciate it's importance, not only in performing its mission, but the operational and developmental legacy it paved in later years.



Fixed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 17, 2016)

"... Grumman was very underrated with their rugged birds"

Many of which were _built _by GM .....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2016)

Perhaps instead of listing the C-47 itself, we could actually say the DC-3, since it launched not only the C-47, but was built by both the Japanese (L2D) and the Soviets (Li-2).

A great many DC-3 were also pressed into military service during the war, and the Luftwaffe captured several DC-2 and DC-3 aircraft (mostly KLM), too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

stona said:


> It's hard to disagree, it was an important aircraft. Under rated though? If Eisenhower made it the fourth most important piece of military equipment vital to victory in WW2 it received recognition by those in the know
> 
> When reading up on the beginnings of British airborne forces in 1940/41 I noticed the British bemoaning the fact that they didn't have something like the German Ju 52, despite the earlier requirements for bombers to double as transports. The C-47 was much superior to the Ju 52, but the principle is the same.
> 
> ...



Actually the British did have similar planes to the Ju 52, just not in large numbers. Bristol Bombay and Handley Page Harrow. 
Both were much superior in performance to the Ju 52 even if not in the same league as the DC-3


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

Numbers were the problem. A Combined Operations officer described the Ju 52, slightly over stating the case, as having "poured troops into the Low Countries".

It is telling that in Goering's 1934 'Rhineland Programme' no less than 440 of the 4021 total aircraft to be produced were Ju 52s. The Ju 52 is listed under the larger bomber heading as an auxiliary aircraft in the 1934 programme, and it is known that some had bomb bays fitted. It was always intended as a transport aircraft, not dual role in the sense of British specifications. The 'Rhineland' bombers are listed as Do 11, Do 13 and 23. 
As late as 1936/7 the Ju 52 still appears as an auxiliary bomber, but in the March-December 1937 production summary it acquires a new category, transport, where it stays in glorious isolation apart from the occasional appearance of the Ju 90 or Fw 200 in some plans. 

There was an entirely different emphasis and understanding of the importance of so called auxiliary aircraft by Goering and the RLM. The British muddled along with a few converted bombers, having in fact abandoned the _requirement_ for bombers to double as transports in both Specifications B.12/36 and P.13/36. 

Both the Bombay and Harrow had been built to an earlier specification _requiring_ a dual role. Whether one was a transport that could bomb and the other a bomber that could transport is open to debate. Neither was built as a transport aircraft and bearing in mind that the Bombay was always intended for operations overseas, nowhere near enough were built.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

I have brought up both planes before in other threads to show that the Ju 52 was obsolete as a transport even in 1939. 
Both British aircraft could fly faster, further and carrying more payload (troops or cargo) than the Ju 52 while requiring 1/3 less engines.
Granted the British engines were more powerful but all three aircraft used 9 cylinder radials of within 3-4% displacement so manufacturing costs should be similar between the engines. 

Ju 52s poured troops into the low countries because they used hundreds of them. 430 according to one book. Of which 2/3s were lost at the time. Roughly 100 were later repaired or used for spare parts. Norway cost the Germans around 150 Ju 52s, I have no idea how many were later repaired. 

It is one thing to have a dual purpose requirement for bomber/transport aircraft when the planes had fixed landing gear and wings mechanics could crawl though to reach engines in flight. (not that they could in the two British aircraft) but as retractable landing gear became the norm and wings got thinner (and acquired flaps,etc) fat fuselages that would hold 20-24 troops became a bigger share of the total drag and the combination aircraft began to look not so good for either job. 
I believe the Stirling _started _out with the combination requirement and while the requirement was dropped at some point in the design process they kept the oversize fuselage rather than start over to save time.


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

The Stirling was designed in response to Specification B.12/36. Shorts were not initially included in the circulation of the specification for tender, but were included shortly after the July '36 release on a recommendation because they supposedly had an aircraft meeting some of the requirements on the drawing board. When approached the company was keen to participate.
This means that there was no troop carrying requirement in the specification to which the aircraft was designed.
The actual wording of the specifications (it was included in P.13/36 too) was:

_"Consideration is to be given in design for fitting a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands."_

This is not demanding provision for troop carrying as in earlier specifications. Crucially the new requirement was that seating could be fitted in the fuselage, not that the fuselage be designed to take seating. The need here was to transport RAF ground crew to Overseas Commands, this was a direct result of the introduction of a reinforcement range into the bomber requirements. 
AFTER the 1936 requirements had been issued the Air Staff did investigate using the resulting designs as transports. There was even proposed a provisional allocation of funds for a new transport should this not be possible. When this proposition was discussed in 1937 it was decided that one of the bombers _"must"_ be used as a transport, though this was obviously not an ideal solution, except for the Treasury.
Shortly after it was noted that

_"by reason of the multiplicity of internal installations in the fuselage the troops may not enjoy the same degree of comfort available in present types."_

Just how little consideration was given to a troop carrying capacity is shown by the results of an inspection of the mock up for the Supermarine design to B.12/36. Far from finding room for fully armed troops the inspecting officers from Bomber Command worried whether there was enough room for the crew! The report noted that headroom throughout the fuselage was restricted and that even the captain and navigator did not have room to stand. Clearly a troop carrying requirement did not dominate, or even in some cases influence, the designs submitted to the 1936 specifications.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

Well something was going or trying to explain the size of the Stirling Fuselage gets a little difficult. 

It may be that as you stated "Shorts were not initially included in the circulation of the specification for tender, but were included shortly after the July '36 release on a recommendation because they _supposedly had an aircraft meeting some of the requirements on the drawing board."
_It maybe that the project Shorts had on the drawing board had provision for troop transport (seeing as how Shorts may have started work on this project when such a requirement was still common). And Shorts *adapted *this large fuselage design to more fully meet the new requirement. Rather than start fuselage design from scratch and take up more time they used the legacy fuselage even though the strict requirement for troop transport was no longer in the official requirement. 

There has got to be some reason the Stirling had a wider, deeper and 5 meter longer fuselage than the Halifax and Manchester/Lancaster and it doesn't seem to be the size of the bomb bay considering the complaints about the size of the Stirling's bomb bay.


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2016)

As a transport the Sterling was pretty good and thinking about it a good contender for the aircraft in a secondary role thread.

edit - additional information
On the 5th August three Sterling's from 620 Sqd joined the USAAF base at Harrington to assist with the dropping of people taking part in a Carpet Bagger operation. The original plan was to use six Liberators but changed when it was realised that three Sterling's could do the job.
They caused quite a stir as it was the first time they had seen a Sterling close up and the whole thing was filmed by one Captain John Ford. So somewhere there is an interesting film to be dug up


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

Yep, there was something going on. I shall try and investigate 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We've had discussions here to the same, IMO the C-47 was the best all round aircraft of WW2. Too many people are hung up on combat aircraft to appreciate it's importance, not only in performing its mission, but the operational and developmental legacy it paved in later years.


I have to agree with this. In many of the discussions, weight to the argument is given to length of service. DC-3/C-47 remained in service (somewhere) for a very long time. The last time I was in Port-Au-Prince I saw one sitting at the edge of the taxiway. (a quick visual left airworthiness very much in doubt)


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

From what I can gather the Short B.12/36 design initially got the go ahead in January 1937 as a back up to the preferred design from Supermarine. The Short design was suggested as the back up by Chief of the Air Staff purely on the grounds that the company had experience of four engine monoplanes and despite extensive criticism of the design. It was this criticism which led to the firm being asked to redesign the aircraft and resubmit before any design would be considered.

Let's look at the original design, submitted in September 1936. It was a mid wing monoplane to be powered by four Napier Dagger engines (a la Hereford) . It had a 112 ft, later 102 ft wingspan of 1,300 sq/ft and a fuselage 86ft 6in long. Projected normal weight was 38,100 lb, overload 42,900 lb and maximum feasible weight 53,100 lb. Bombs to be carried in four long compartments, two either side of the fuselage centre frames. Provision was for twenty bombs in four tiers of five. A 'special arrangement' for the carriage of eight 2000 lb HE bombs was 'envisaged'. This maybe the origins of the wide fuselage.

The re-submission in April 1937 for what would become the Stirling was heavily revised. Power was to be provided by Daggers or Hercules (HE ISM whatever they were ) engines. Wingspan was to stay at 102 ft, overall length 86ft 8in (just 2 in longer). Normal loaded weight rose to 41,600lb, overload to 46,600lb and maximum feasible to 56,900lb. The aircraft could now carry twenty eight 500lb bombs or seven 2000lb bombs, tiered stowage was abandoned. The Air Ministry would have been pleased that Shorts, unlike Supermarine DID make provision for the aircraft to serve as a troop carrier. Here they may have had the advantage of the later timing. By this time they would have been aware that the Air Ministry was retrospectively looking at this role for the B.12/36 designs and possibly that funding for a purpose built transport aircraft would not be forthcoming.

It wasn't until August and then September that the mock ups were examined. Finance for two prototypes was not approved until after the final mock up conference in December.

I think that the timing is vital. There is no evidence to suggest that the fuselage size was in any way related to designs existing in 1936. There is evidence to suggest that Shorts were well aware of the developing requirements for the original specification in late 1936 and then 1937 and may therefore have built them into their design. After all this was a commercial competition, and one which Shorts were keen to win.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> I have to agree with this. In many of the discussions, weight to the argument is given to length of service. DC-3/C-47 remained in service (somewhere) for a very long time. The last time I was in Port-Au-Prince I saw one sitting at the edge of the taxiway. (a quick visual left airworthiness very much in doubt)


There are still some in commercial service to this very day.

Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

Looking at the Stirling bomb bays, the problem was not the length at 42 feet, but the fact that this was divided into three bomb cells and due to the strengthening girders these could never be altered to accommodate weapons more than 19 inches in diametre. Nevertheless it could carry the bomb loads in the specification, notably the seven 2000 lb bombs which the Air Ministry thought vital for attacking enemy surface vessels. The bomb carriers could be converted from 250lb to 500lb to 2000lb in short order.
This longitudinal division of the bomb bay was not unique to the Stirling, the Wellington was somewhat similar and if I remember correctly the Blenheim was also divided, though just into two..
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling



The Halifax had then too.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

Thank you for the time and effort you have taken in regards to the Stirling. 
It seems to take quite a bit of unraveling to trace the design histories of many of these late 30s British aircraft as just as the air ministry tended to hedge their bets regarding different aircraft for the same role, a prudent air craft maker might want to hedge their bets regarding specifications from the air ministry as those tended to either swing back and forth a bit or be modified more than once between original specification and production. 
A company not only had to meet the initial specification, they might have to guess which way the air ministry was going to jump next (add or subtract certain requirements) and bias the initial design accordingly. With about 4 years between initial specification and squadron service there was plenty of time for air ministry to change/amend the initial specification.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling


 Actually that was almost standard for British bombers of the 30s. 
Whitley and Halifax had them in addition to many "paper" aircraft of the time. 
For normal structures it actually meant lower structural weight for a given payload as the weight was more evenly distributed across the wingspan rather than being concentrated in one spot (center).
Using the "standard" RAF 250lb bomb the bays were rather easy to arrange but when the desired bomb went to 500lbs or larger the wing bays became somewhat useless.


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2016)

The specifications certainly did get amended and updated, as and when the Air Ministry saw fit. B.12/36 was no different in this respect.
The specifications could even be varied and adapted to a particular aircraft. For example, in the case of the Stirling, on 5th January *1939* a normal loaded weight of 50,844 lb was agreed, nearly 5,000lb over that agreed in 1937.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> There are still some in commercial service to this very day.
> 
> Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.



Buffalo Airways uses them
Buffalo Airways: Your passage to the North. - Home


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> There are still some in commercial service to this very day.
> 
> Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.



Air Chatham operates one on scheduled services between Auckland and Whakatane during the summer months.

DC-3 Charters

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2016)

stona said:


> Looking at the Stirling bomb bays, the problem was not the length at 42 feet, but the fact that this was divided into three bomb cells and due to the strengthening girders these could never be altered to accommodate weapons more than 19 inches in diametre. Nevertheless it could carry the bomb loads in the specification, notably the seven 2000 lb bombs which the Air Ministry thought vital for attacking enemy surface vessels. The bomb carriers could be converted from 250lb to 500lb to 2000lb in short order.
> This longitudinal division of the bomb bay was not unique to the Stirling, the Wellington was somewhat similar and if I remember correctly the Blenheim was also divided, though just into two..
> Cheers
> Steve



Some pictures of the Stirling bomb bay:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8507/8484275447_b66cf4f7d9_b.jpg
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k548/k4kittycrew/Stirlingbombload.jpg
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k548/k4kittycrew/KITTY4/Slide7_zps958d0e2e.jpg

The Wellington was similar, but that could be modified to take larger bombs.

Interestingly, a Wellington bomb beam was modified to fit into a Mosquito so that it could carry 8 x 500lb bombs (or 8 x 250lb TIs) internally.


----------



## Hickam Field (Jul 18, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Grumman was very underrated with their rugged birds"
> 
> Many of which were _built _by GM .....


Yep. Goodyear built Corsairs, Arado and Dornier built 190's....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

Hickam Field said:


> ...Arado and Dornier built 190's....


So did Weserflug, Seibel, Mimetall, Feisler and Ago.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2016)

Glider said:


> As a transport the Sterling was pretty good and thinking about it a good contender for the aircraft in a secondary role thread.
> 
> edit - additional information
> On the 5th August three Sterling's from 620 Sqd joined the USAAF base at Harrington to assist with the dropping of people taking part in a Carpet Bagger operation. The original plan was to use six Liberators but changed when it was realised that three Sterling's could do the job.
> They caused quite a stir as it was the first time they had seen a Sterling close up and the whole thing was filmed by one Captain John Ford. So somewhere there is an interesting film to be dug up



We should be aware that these aircraft were Mk IVs, a specific transport aircraft and extensively modified. It was not a case of the removable seating envisaged in the original 1936 specification being fitted. Following two factory conversions at Rochester in August 1943, EF503 and EF506 were sent off to the A+AEE for various trials and assessments followed by operational clearance.

The conversions from Mk III bombers were initially undertaken at 23 MU (Aldergrove) starting in October 1943. The switch to Mk IV production at the Belfast factory followed in December.

The Mk IV transport was different to the bomber version, not least in having nose and dorsal turrets removed, some had all removed, but it would not have been so successful had Shorts not included a troop carrying capability (not just an overseas reinforcement capability) in its original design.

A relatively unencumbered fuselage was needed and as can be seen on the Mk I that is exactly what the Stirling had. This one has a retracted FN25 ventral turret visible at the far end. This turret was deleted on later Mk Is and is not relevant to the Mk III conversions or aircraft originally built as Mk IVs.

The squadrons involved in these 'Special Operations' were largely manned by ex- Bomber Command men, 196 and 620 squadrons had left the Command in November 1943, and they were not at all happy to discover that they would be flying Stirlings.

John Payne of 620 Squadron remembered:

_" About October 1943 a large bunch of slightly bewildered aircrew were posted to Leicester East, an awful quagmire on a hill above Oadby, a suburb of Leicester....
We were intrigued to discover that we were now to be engaged in 'Special Duties', something we had only previously associated with a mysterious group of ace pilots who did hairy things like landing Lysanders in fields in France under the noses of the Jerries.
But we had no aircraft, so the burning question during the subsequent weeks of inactivity was: "WHAT are we going to fly?" We had star studded dreams that at least we would get Lancasters, but more likely some extra special type so far yet unveiled.
Imagine the near mutiny which took place when something like 600 aircrew, representing an almost equal number of Commonwealth countries, were told we would be getting...shudder...Stirlings! The CO gained a slightly better hearing when he said: "Ah, but wait till you see THIS Mark, the IV."_

Eventually a Mark IV arrived, prompting more questions.

_"But where was the front turret, the dorsal, and what was that enormous, horse shoe shaped, lumo of steel wrapped around the belly just below and forward of the tail? "_

After a few trial flights most were happier but

_"the general pleasure was tempered, in the case of veterans, with the knowledge that they were to lose their gunners as 'surplus to establishment'.... Then the questions began. "What is the purpose of that horse shoe?" "It is a strop guard to prevent strops, which serve to pull open paratroopers' chutes, from lashing holes in the fuselage." "So we're carrying paratroops?" "That's right." "In daylight ops?" "That's right." (and remember, all those crews were ex-Bomber Command). This information was supplanted by news that we were also going to tow gliders - and again, all Hell erupted."_

The cloak and dagger operations started in February 1944, often launched from an advanced base at Tarrant Rushton.
So secret were the various SOE, SAS and other operations that you will find them entered in pilots' log books simply as 'operations as ordered'. 
By the time they gave the Americans a hand the squadrons were experienced in this sort of operation.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2016)

True and thanks for the information. I believe the USAAF used modified B24D's for the carpetbagger flights, which were modified for the mission but to what degree I don't know but understood that the tail and dorsal turrets were left. If you have any more info it would be appreciated.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2016)

Glider said:


> True and thanks for the information. I believe the USAAF used modified B24D's for the carpetbagger flights, which were modified for the mission but to what degree I don't know but understood that the tail and dorsal turrets were left. If you have any more info it would be appreciated.



I really don't know what the USAAF operated in this role.

The Mk IV Stirling was significantly better than the bomber version(s). Even with a take off weight of 70,000lb the service ceiling was 19,100ft and with cooling gills closed, engines at 2,400rpm, maximum weak mix cruise speed was a respectable 235 mph TAS, in MS gear at 11,800ft.

A more usual operational take off weight was 58,000lb, 66,000lb in paratrooping mode.

John Payne again.

_"The first trial flights ended with the skippers outwardly reserved but inwardly jubilant. This 'ugly duckling', built like a battleship, had a TAS which proved it could outpace any other four-engined type we knew of."_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

stona said:


> I really don't know what the USAAF operated in this role...


The 801st PG (later renamed 492nd) of the 8th AF, primarily operated modified B-24D types with ball turret, nose MG and oxygen equipment removed, but also operated quite an interesting list of additional types:
A-26 - two aircraft; Intelligence/Insertion
B-17 - two aircraft; 406th NFS (Night Leaflet Squadron)
C-47 - Insertion/Extraction & ACRU
C-64 - one aircraft
Mosquito - two aircraft; Intelligence/Insertion
Norseman
Stirling - may have been two aircraft, operated in July 1943 with US markings.
Tigermoth
Wellington - non-combat duties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The 801st PG (later renamed 492nd) of the 8th AF, primarily operated modified B-24D types with ball turret, nose MG and oxygen equipment removed, but also operated quite an interesting list of additional types:
> A-26 - two aircraft; Intelligence/Insertion
> B-17 - two aircraft; 406th NFS (Night Leaflet Squadron)
> C-47 - Insertion/Extraction & ACRU
> ...




Tigermoth? Was that their trainer before moving up?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 19, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Tigermoth? Was that their trainer before moving up?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



No...it was the diversion asset. Some poor sucker had to fly it in the vicinity of the real drop zone with the intent of making the Germans laugh so hard that they cried and so couldn't see the Carpetbagger aircraft coming in.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Tigermoth? Was that their trainer before moving up?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Liaison

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2016)

I think I can explain the width of the Stirling fuselage.
The B.12/36 Specification included the ability to carry seven 2,000lb GP bombs. Shorts had decided to move away from a tiered bomb bay in their re-submission and I think that this might have been due to the transport requirement, keeping a relatively unencumbered fuselage. The result was three parallel 'bomb cells' underneath the floor. The 2,000lb bomb had a diametre of 18.7 inches and it is surely no coincidence that each of the bomb cells had a width of 19 inches. That is a very tight fit, but it is a fit. I think it entirely possible that the exact width of the Stirling fuselage was heavily influenced, if not dictated, by the voluntary adoption of a troop carrying capability, from conception it was designed to carry 26 troops, and the need to meet the various bomb loads required in the specification.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the British did have similar planes to the Ju 52, just not in large numbers. Bristol Bombay and Handley Page Harrow.
> Both were much superior in performance to the Ju 52 even if not in the same league as the DC-3



There was a crisis in British transport capabilities that came to a head in the summer of 1941. In July the Prime Minister asked the Secretary of State for Air to produce a consultation paper, outlining the RAF's likely transport strength for the rest of the year, to inform Cabinet discussion of what was already perceived as a serious situation. The resulting paper made for gloomy reading.

*Home Based:
27 Squadron *(Hendon); one DH 84, one DH 86B, nine DH 89As, five DH 95 Flamingos', two Lockheed Electras.
*271 Squadron* (Doncaster); fifteen Harrows and two DH 91 Albatrosses.
*Total:* thirty five aircraft, in addition to Whitley paratroop trainers and such impressed ex-civilian aircraft that were suitable for employment.

*North Africa and the Middle East:
117 Squadron;* four ex-Italian Savoia Marchetti SM 79s, three DC-2s and seven Bombays.
*216 Squadron*; fourteen Bombays
*267 Squadron;* one Anson, one Caudron Simoun, two Hudsons, one Lockheed 14, two Electras and seventeen Lodestars, two of the latter soon to be passed to the Free French.
*Total:* fifty two aircraft plus sundry light transports.

*India:
31 Squadron*; twelve DC-2s, twelve Vickers Type 264 'Valentias', six of each type being temporarily base in Iraq.
*Total*: twenty four aircraft.

*Far East:
Nil.
*
In 1941 the British were expecting delivery of just 76 transport type aircraft from the US, including 30 Hudsons.
It is no wonder that they were looking enviously at the hundreds of transport aircraft available to the Luftwaffe just a few months earlier. Throughout 1941 the RAF never had a total of more than 119 transport aircraft available *worldwide.
*
Cheers

Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 20, 2016)

all the groups had a "taxi" in case someone needed to go somewhere or the CO was summoned for a briefing or go get parts for something , etc... seems they had a 2 seater and something larger like the norseman.


----------



## Barrett (Feb 17, 2018)

Hellcat. It destroyed Japanese airpower, credited with almost as many shootdowns as the entire AAF stable in the PTO and CBI combined. (Nobody realizes that but I took time to crunch the numbers.) Established air superiority over nearly every 'phib op from 43 onward. Often in the PTO context the F6F is lumped with the F4U and P-38 but neither made the strategic contribution of the Long Island Feline.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2018)

Let's not over-rate it either.
IJN airpower was destroyed by a combination of Allied effort (suitable manpower, radars, abiity to read Japanese mail, submarines, AAA both on land and ships, F4F, P-40, P-39, -38, SBD and other bombers both land- and CV-based, plus UK-made stuff, plus F4U and F6F, proximity fuses, etc) and Japanese mistakes and limiations (squandered time and money to came out with better A/C, wrong philosophy behind many A/C designs, lack of more and better pilots as the war progressed, lack of industrial base and raw materials, overstretching, faulty & complicated plans, etc).
Naming just one silver bullet, that came into play in time when the Allies have had measure of the IJN (both under sea, at sea and over surface) does not do the justice to the members of the team that contributed. It is like saying that Spitfire won Battle of Britain, or that T-34 broke the back of Wehrmacht.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2018)

I do not doubt for a second the importance of the Hellcat and totally support the view that it was the Hellcat that broke the back of the IJN. My only comment is that in my mind it has always been given the credit due to it and therefore wouldn't be considered underrated.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2018)

Japanese airpower had well and truly been bled white well before the Hellcat began to have significant impact.
JAAF and IJN had sustained well over 6000 combat losses since December 1941 to mid'43 when the Hellcat began to have effect. I don't know the full extent of replacement that the japanese received, but as late as May 1942, the IJN was receiving a miserable 60 replacement pilots per month, whilst the USN was receiving about 1000. its in that stark reality that you find the reasons for the defeat of Japanese airpower, not the mythical qualities of the hellcat......

Serious losses were inflicted on Japanese airpower, not by fighters, but by bombers. The Japanese had no real answer to aircraft like the B-24, which they found hard to shoot down, and which packed a killer punch in their own right. One only has to look at the effectiveness of the destruction of the IJA's 4th Air Army along with (or forming part of the parent formation) the 6th and 7th Air Divisions at Wewak-Hollandia to see that.

I used to be of the opinion that the Hellcat was a waste of money, that the PTO could have been won simply by stretching the design of the F4F. I'm prepared to concede I was wrong in that regard. Hellcats were necessary and probably materially shortened the war because they were so effective. but they were not instrumental in defeating Japanese airpower in the Pacific. that had already happened by the time the hellcat rolled into the scene.

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


----------



## steven willard (Feb 17, 2018)

incendiary rounds but if they used bladders you lose performance. Hi everyone, I enjoy your forum.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2018)

Hi Parsifal,

Where did you find the Japanese aircraft losses by date? I have not located that yet!

Thanks!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 18, 2018)

In terms of losses, the best records are those developed by J. Fukamizu, who was in charge of the statistical section of the Japanese Naval Air Department. It is not considered by the Japanese to be the official ‘final report”, but as far as im aware is the most complete record of their loses. The “official” report remains incomplete as far as I am aware.


Cdr Fukamizu submitted a report on Japanese losses to the USSBS after the war, which while annexed to the final report, appears to me to be largely passed over in favour of claims data in the final summary.

As an example the following losses are recorded for the IJN air corps in the period January to March 1942

Dec....Jan....Feb....March 
203....190....241.....221

April 1, 1942 to April 1, 1943, the JNAF lost 882 fighters in combat and 768 to operational causes. In the same period the JNAF lost 631 tactical bombers to combat and 131 to operational causes. Medium bomber losses were 291 in combat and 174 to operational causes.

I make those losses in that period to be 2877, for the JNAF 1 April to 1 April. This includes all types of losses, except those written off due to damage, and does not include losses sustained by the JAAF.

Fukamizu was debriefed after the war by the Americans. As ive indicated above, it is included in the USSBS but not referenced in their final summation

“Commander FUKAMIZU also had prepared a chart breaking down wastage totals by (1) Months from December 1941 to August 1945. (2) Cause, i.e. combat and non-combat losses and (3) Principal campaigns. The monthly totals coincide with those plotted on the graph. (See Annex B) The attached interrogation conducted over a two day period established the basis on which the graph and chart were prepared.

*TRANSCRIPT*

*Q.* Did you assemble the reports yourself?
*A.* Yes. An assistant helped me prepare the chart on monthly losses, but the production and loss graph I made myself.


*Q.* Is the monthly loss chart the official reply to Nav. Memo. No. 18 submitted through the Navy Liaison Office?
*A.* No. I understand that is being prepared by officers in the GUNREIBU.

*Q.* Are you familiar with aircraft production figures as well as losses?
*A.* No. I accepted Capt. TERAI's (GUNREIBU) figures on production. (Note: Aircraft production totals graphed coincide exactly with data furnished FEAF by GUNREIBU officers and published in FEAF Intelligence Memorandum No. 22; the production totals also are the same as those furnished FEAF -- see Intelligence Memorandum No. 28 -- by General Endo, former head of Air Ordnance Bureau of the Ministry of Munitions. The latter figures are the same as those given to Comdr. Paul Johnson.)

*Q.* How did you prepare the loss reports?
*A.* On the basis of periodic plane availability reports received at least monthly and occasionally more often, from the Air Fleets and their subordinate commands.

*Q.* Do you have these reports?
*A.* No, they were burned.

*Q.* Then, how could you construct the graph and chart of losses?
*A.* I know the exact strength by plane types of the Japanese Naval Air Force at the beginning of each fiscal year (April) and also the exact monthly production as well as the approximate losses during each campaign and major action.

*Q.* What was the purpose of the Air Fleets and their subordinate commands sending by dispatch and mail-plane availability and loss reports to the First Section of the First Department of KOKU HOMBU?
*A.* They were sent to my department for two reasons: (1) To make the figures of losses available to the Minister of the Navy, and (2) in order to carry out my duties. When the GUNREIBU directed the General Affairs Department (SOMU BU) of the KOKU HOMBU to supply tactical and training units with aircraft, it was the function of my department to determine from what source such additional aircraft were to be obtained, i.e. civilian factories and/or naval arsenals, depots or other tactical or training commands. Accordingly, to accomplish its mission, my section was furnished with monthly and other periodic plane availability reports of all tactical and training commands. This was necessary so that we could know from what source aircraft would be available for supply to tactical commands.

*Q.* Regarding your loss and production chart, how were the exact loss figures, shown on the graph, obtained?
*A.* We know the exact annual production figures throughout the war and the exact strength of the IJNAF at the end of each fiscal year (31 March). By subtracting the total strength at the end of the fiscal year from the sum of the same figure for the start of the preceding year and the total years production, we arrive at an exact annual loss figure.

*Q.* Do the production figures represent actual acceptances by the Navy?
*A.* I don't know. However, it is my opinion that only planes actually accepted by the Navy are included in the production figures. During the first part of the war, all planes produced were considered Navy acceptances. This practice was found to be unsatisfactory and was abandoned in 1944 -- August, I believe. From then on, only accepted aircraft are used in the production figures.

*Q.* Why did you change your system of figuring production totals?
*A.* There was approximately a 30-50 percent discrepancy between the monthly aircraft factory production figures and the actual number of aircraft the Navy accepted.

*Q.* What were the reasons for the rejections?
*A.* Aircraft were not accepted when they failed to meet Navy specifications. There were some minor defects, modifications, adjustments, additional equipment to be added (belly tanks for over-water ferrying) etc. Some of the aircraft had to be returned to the factory for its long as a month to correct these deficiencies.

*Q.* How were these rejections listed in your availability reports?
*A.* Such aircraft were not subsequently included in the following month's factory production figures. However, at the end of the fiscal year in March, rejected aircraft were deducted from that month's aircraft production figure in order to close the yearly records and carried over into the following fiscal year.

*Q.* Do production figures include both aircraft produced by Navy arsenals and civilian factories?
*A.* Yes, both are included.

*Q.* The 1944 production is graphed at 14,178 aircraft, whereas previous information obtained from the GUNREIBU and Munitions Ministry shows a total of 13,418. Which is correct?
*A.* The lower figure does not include the OKA. (BAKA Bomb).

*Q.* Were aircraft requirements, established by GUNREIBU, generally met?
*A.* In the majority of cases, the factory orders were not fulfilled in the specified time limit. After U. S. bombings became intensive, this situation worsened. Generally speaking, orders for standard aircraft models (ZEKES, KATES etc.) were more easily met. Orders for the newer types, ( FRANCES, MYRT etc.) were often 30 to 50 percent incomplete by the time specified in the contract.

*Q.* What is your estimate of in-transit losses of aircraft being ferried from depots to tactical units?
*A.* Approximately 3 to 5 percent throughout the war. In the early part of the war, the great distances to outlying bases was the main factor in ferrying losses. Toward the end of the war the distances to bases were shortened but flight personnel were less experienced. The percentage of losses remained fairly constant.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 19, 2018)

Just as a minor bit of bragging: one of my uncles flew, as a copilot, with the Carpetbaggers. He did mention that they had to pull up, on more than one occasion, to miss church steeples. Somehow, flying at very low level, at night, before NVG, does not strike me as a particularly safe way to spend one's time, especially over territory occupied by a government which endorsed murdering captured airmen (Shot-down enemy-flyers ; Lynching of Captured Airmen ; Kaltenbrunner and AMT IV)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 10, 2018)

Glider said:


> My only comment is that in my mind it has always been given the credit due to it and therefore wouldn't be considered underrated.



I agree that the F6F has received a lot of credit in the past. However, in recent years there seems to be a trend towards minimalizing it's accomplishments during the war, almost akin to character assassination. But the Hellcat is not alone in that regard, and in recent years no other warplane has been so fervently attacked as the P-51 Mustang. Maybe it's because they both have records that for years were basically never questioned, and now with the advent of the internet and other sources there has been an explosion of new data to share and analyze. To be honest I really don't know all the reasons why this is so.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a re-evaluation of the facts, but there seems to have always been those who despise a "winner" in whatever form it may take (in this case, a WWII fighter plane), and they are always looking for the latest shred of evidence that, with the proper 'spin', could hurt the reputation of whomever (or whatever) is on top.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hey, you brought up Feddens presentation and Fedden was working on radials. Or does the sleeve valve only work on in line engines?
> Air cooled engines present the toughest cooling problems. If the sleeve valve did what was claimed why did it take so long to sort out the air cooled version?
> 
> The sleeve valve did solve a number of problems that existed with poppet valve engines in the 20s. Trouble is that the poppet valve camp also spent millions solving most of the problems and by the time the sleeve valve was really ready most of the real problems with the poppet valve had already been solved.



In C F Taylor's book, _Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice, _he stated that sleeve valves permitted greater volumetric efficiency


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I agree that the F6F has received a lot of credit in the past. However, in recent years there seems to be a trend towards minimalizing it's accomplishments during the war, almost akin to character assassination. But the Hellcat is not alone in that regard, and recently no other warplane has been so fervently attacked as the P-51 Mustang. Maybe it's because they both have records that for years were basically never questioned, and now with the advent of the internet and other sources there has been an explosion of new data to share and analyze.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am all for a re-evaluation of the facts, but there seems to have always been those who despise a "winner" in whatever form it may take (in this case, a WWII fighter plane), and they are always looking for the latest shred of evidence that could hurt the reputation of whomever (or whatever) is on top.


The "internet" can go into "meltdown" when a Kardashian photographs their own backside. There was only one allied fighter in 1939/40 good enough to almost match the opposition and easy enough to produce to make up for politicians huge early mistakes. Prior to the outbreak of war circa 500 Hurricanes were delivered as opposed to 130 Spitfires. Everyone from pilot up to Dowding himself may have wanted a pilot to be sat in a Spitfire in the BoB but the fact is there was always a Hurricane available, without it things would have been much different in Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Prior to the outbreak of war circa 500 Hurricanes were delivered as opposed to 130 Spitfires.



Hurricanes rock!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> In C F Taylor's book, _Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice, _he stated that sleeve valves permitted greater volumetric efficiency


 It may well have had greater greater volumetric efficiency in general or especially over certain examples. However poppet valve engines have considerable variation in volumetric efficiency so unless we know what is being compared such a statement doesn't mean much.
That is to say that perhaps a sleeve valve cylinder shows a 2% increase over poppet cylinder A and a 10% improvement over poppet cylinder B. 
Obviously the advantage over Cylinder B is substantial and even the difference between the sleeve valve and the _average _of the poppet valves is a noticeable one. However if the difference gets down to 2-3 % while the statement is still accurate does the cost/complication of the sleeve valve justify the development of engines using it?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hurricanes rock!


Reading Churchills History of WW2 and seeing many documentaries there is always a discussion of sending "Spitfires to France", the fact is that the UK had very few. The Spitfire was a better aircraft but it wasn't better by 5 to 1 in service and almost 10 to 1 in production at the time. Things changed very quickly but in 1939 until well into the BoB the Hurricane was the only significant fighter.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 10, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Serious losses were inflicted on Japanese airpower, not by fighters, but by bombers.



You'll find no argument from me there. But let's not forget that without control of the air, which is often times provided by fighters, the bomber becomes extremely vulnerable and loses a lot of it's effectiveness to inflict serious losses on said enemy.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It may well have had greater greater volumetric efficiency in general or especially over certain examples. However poppet valve engines have considerable variation in volumetric efficiency so unless we know what is being compared such a statement doesn't mean much.
> That is to say that perhaps a sleeve valve cylinder shows a 2% increase over poppet cylinder A and a 10% improvement over poppet cylinder B.
> Obviously the advantage over Cylinder B is substantial and even the difference between the sleeve valve and the _average _of the poppet valves is a noticeable one. However if the difference gets down to 2-3 % while the statement is still accurate does the cost/complication of the sleeve valve justify the development of engines using it?


There are many theories about engines that have fundamental theoretical superiority over others, whatever the theoretical strengths of sleeve valves are or were, getting them to work reliably was another thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

They got them to work, what has never been answered is if the cost was worth it. Post war commercial Hercules and Centaurus engines were powerful, economical in fuel and had very hi times between overhauls. But if we don't know the cost of the engines or the cost to overhaul them, then we have no real basis for figuring out if they were better than the poppet engines which were posting overhaul times of well over 1000 hours. 
Since we also have no ideas of the R&D costs leading up to WW II (or the first few years of WW II) we don't know if the they made enough engines to really justify the costs.

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> They got them to work, what has never been answered is if the cost was worth it. Post war commercial Hercules and Centaurus engines were powerful, economical in fuel and had very hi times between overhauls. But if we don't know the cost of the engines or the cost to overhaul them, then we have no real basis for figuring out if they were better than the poppet engines which were posting overhaul times of well over 1000 hours.
> Since we also have no ideas of the R&D costs leading up to WW II (or the first few years of WW II) we don't know if the they made enough engines to really justify the costs.


I use the Typhoon as a guide, I don't know if they actually flew them back to the UK to scrap them, when the war ended. In poppet valve engines minor differences of machining can "bed in" on a sleeve valve engine everything is moving in circles and orbits rubbing things away. As you allude to, the pistons wear the sleeves and the sleeves wear the block or guides, it isn't an overhaul it is basically a new engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I use the Typhoon as a guide, I don't know if they actually flew them back to the UK to scrap them, when the war ended. In poppet valve engines minor differences of machining can "bed in" on a sleeve valve engine everything is moving in circles and orbits rubbing things away. As you allude to, the pistons wear the sleeves and the sleeves wear the block or guides, it isn't an overhaul it is basically a new engine.


 Trying to give the Sleeve valve the benefit of the doubt and there were a lot more Bristol radials built than Sabres.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Trying to give the Sleeve valve the benefit of the doubt and there were a lot more Bristol radials built than Sabres.


In theory I can see the benefits, and with todays machining technology and metallurgy I could see it working, but poppet valve engines have moved on too.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It may well have had greater greater volumetric efficiency in general or especially over certain examples. However poppet valve engines have considerable variation in volumetric efficiency so unless we know what is being compared such a statement doesn't mean much.
> That is to say that perhaps a sleeve valve cylinder shows a 2% increase over poppet cylinder A and a 10% improvement over poppet cylinder B.
> Obviously the advantage over Cylinder B is substantial and even the difference between the sleeve valve and the _average _of the poppet valves is a noticeable one. However if the difference gets down to 2-3 % while the statement is still accurate does the cost/complication of the sleeve valve justify the development of engines using it?



A message I received from a former member....



> This one notes the steady increase in Bristol Hercules TBO, right up to
> 3,500 hrs in Bristol Freighters working hard ferrying cars across Cook Strait
> in NZ.
> 
> ...


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 11, 2018)

The Spitfire, at least early in the war, has been reported to have had a significantly lower availability rate than the Hurricane.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 11, 2018)

Napier couldn’t get sleeve valves to work without external help. Given the engines Napier put in service just before the Sabre, it’s surprising the Air Ministry contracted with them for anything.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 11, 2018)

Napier engines had accrued a number of merits...







Napier engines powered the World Land-speed record holder in 1939,
& Sabre* power was selected for an attempt on the World Air-speed title too.

Nothwithstanding problematic mass-production issues, the Sabre was the sole 'hyper' type
to see useful wartime service, & was the most powerful aero-engine ever, to pass service
type tests in the early 1940's..



*That specially 'fettled' Sabre then went into a regular service Typhoon, but I'd reckon
the squadron C.O. would've scored that one, for his 'personal' use..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 11, 2018)

wuzak said:


> A message I received from a former member....



Links Fixed.

https://www.newcomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Chapter-6-Hassell.pdf

Writing About Harley-Davidson


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> They got them to work, what has never been answered is if the cost was worth it. Post war commercial Hercules and Centaurus engines were powerful, economical in fuel and had very hi times between overhauls. But if we don't know the cost of the engines or the cost to overhaul them, then we have no real basis for figuring out if they were better than the poppet engines which were posting overhaul times of well over 1000 hours.
> Since we also have no ideas of the R&D costs leading up to WW II (or the first few years of WW II) we don't know if the they made enough engines to really justify the costs.




Simple 'cost' is often overridden by politico-economics..

The current supposed F1 cost-limitation by strict specification/longevity reg's is a case in point, it does not pan out..
( & akin to Grand Prix jockeys, fighter jocks don't care 'bout cost, they just want the juice, on tap!)

Sabres remained in RAF service, & were flown hard - through to the mid `50's - maybe to keep the Napier works going?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Atlantic crossing at record speed.. & yet another interesting, innovative use for pre-WW 2 Napier aero-engines.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938 - 2137.html

[flash]
_]View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYtazEBQ1K8[/flash]_


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

& Member Bill Pearce - has featured this pre-WW2 Napier-powered fighter prototype in his excellent blogsite..

Martin-Baker MB2 Fighter


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 12, 2018)

I wouldn't put any Napier powered MB fighter to advertise Napier engine, firstly Baker was killed in Napier Sabre powered MB 3 proto when its Sabre failed during a take-off. Martin & Baker had asked for a RR Griffon but had to be content with a Sabre. Secondly Dagger wasn't a good engine, look the service history of Handley Page Hereford, Dagger powered version of Hampden. Napier had made good engines earlier, like Lion, but in 30s it had not a good track record.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> I wouldn't put any Napier powered MB fighter to advertise Napier engine, firstly Baker was killed in Napier Sabre powered MB 3 proto when its Sabre failed during a take-off. Martin & Baker had asked for a RR Griffon but had to be content with a Sabre. Secondly Dagger wasn't a good engine, look the service history of Handley Page Hereford, Dagger powered version of Hampden. Napier had made good engines earlier, like Lion, but in 30s it had not a good track record.



Juha, do you have a 'root cause analysis' which sheets home fault to the Sabre engine,
- in the case of Capt Bakers' fatal crash?

To judge by the Hawker Fury prototypes, which flew with all three current 'big' British mills, Centaurus/Griffon/Sabre,
the MB 5 would've performed even better, if Sabre powered.

I'd have to dispute your "...in 30s it had not a good track record" too..
- since John Cobb took the Brooklands outright lap record in his Napier-Railton at over 150mph..

As for the dismal H-P Hereford - as I recall, the engine development writer LJK Setright likened
the use of the Dagger, ( which was intended for a fighter, such as the MB 2) in a medium bomber,
as akin to putting a Formula 1 racecar engine in a bus, & then expecting it - to do well at the task..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Napier engines had accrued a number of merits...
> 
> View attachment 489408
> 
> ...



Napier was also getting a reputation for poor quality control. One should also note that the Dagger was not used except on the Hereford and the Rapier only on the Seafox.

The success of the Napier Lion was, by this time, quite irrelevant: it was as obsolete as the Curtiss D-12 or the Liberty.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Careful not to conflate the poor workforce cadre of the Liverpool 'shadow factory', & pitiful Napier management
with the skilled engineering talents at the original Napier Acton 'works'..

If you check the link featuring the Rapier-powered record-breaking Mercury sea-plane,
you'll see it was skippered by Capt Bennett, the Aussie pilot who went on to fame as
the Bomber Command Pathfinders boss..

&, 

The venerable Lion was by no means irrelevant..

I'd bet you 'quids on' - that the suffering British tankcrews, 'up the blue' - in 'bloody Egypt' would've killed
to swap their ghastly 'Nuffield-Liberty' mills for a Sea Lion - which were earmarked for the RAF's own
high-speed sea rescue launches, & which reliably saved many a 'downed in the drink' aircrew..

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2018)

The thing is that the Napier of 1938-42 was not the Napier of 1920-28.
Certainly not the only company to either rest on it's laurels or or take a wild tangent with change of management/designer/s.

Many English companies depended too much on just a few key personnel.
When A. J. Rowledge left in 1928 to go to Rolls-Royce there was nobody in house to take over. When Napair signed up Halford on a 'consultant' basis they pretty much sealed their fate. Initial agreement only covered air cooled engines of between 404.09 cu in and 718.39 cu in. Lion production was dropping like a rock and this was before the Depression of 1929. There was no new Napair engine to compete against the Kestrel or the Jaguar or the revamped Jupiter (Mercury & Pegasus). 
The Rapier, while an interesting technical exercise, was never going to be a commercial success and I suspect the Air Ministry orders were as much to keep Napier in the game as they were actual get 'good' engines. Not that the Rapier was unreliable. It is just that 16 cylinders and 700lbs was not a cheap or light way to get 300hp. The Dagger was more of the same. 24 cylinders and 1300lbs was not commercially viable for 700-800hp in 1934-5. The Later Dagger VIII was too little, too late and had cooling problems as first used.

Any of the old 1920s aircraft engines were irrelevant to aircraft use in the late 30s and early part of the war.

The Lion was a fine engine in it's time but that time had come and gone. Use as a tank engine is debatable, it may very well have been a better engine than the Liberty (not that hard to do) but it might not have fit into the engine bay of some British tanks. The Lion was 42 in wide, the Liberty 27in. You not only have to stuff the engine into the bay, you have to perform maintenance on it while it is there so you need clearance for hands and arms. Maybe you can shift the fuel tanks on the side/s of the engine compartment to front as the LIon is shorter?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Juha, do you have a 'root cause analysis' which sheets home fault to the Sabre engine,
> - in the case of Capt Bakers' fatal crash?



The Sabre seized shortly after take-off due to the failure of a sleeve drive crank. He was at 100ft, and tried to make a landing, but had to avoid a farmhouse and, in doing so, his wing hit the ground.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

That last was using information from Tony Buttler, _British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II_. 



> On 12 September 1942, the aircraft made its 10th flight. Captain Baker had just taken off when the engine seized, a result of a sleeve drive crank failure. Low to the ground and without any options, Captain Baker put the MB3 down in one of the many small fields lined with hedgerows and other obstacles surrounding RAF Wing. The aircraft clipped a pile of straw and crashed through a hedgerow at high speed. The MB3 cartwheeled, broke apart, and caught fire. Captain Baker was killed instantly.



Martin-Baker MB3 Fighter

This also lists Buttler as a source.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It may well have had greater greater volumetric efficiency in general or especially over certain examples. However poppet valve engines have considerable variation in volumetric efficiency so unless we know what is being compared such a statement doesn't mean much.
> That is to say that perhaps a sleeve valve cylinder shows a 2% increase over poppet cylinder A and a 10% improvement over poppet cylinder B.
> Obviously the advantage over Cylinder B is substantial and even the difference between the sleeve valve and the _average _of the poppet valves is a noticeable one. However if the difference gets down to 2-3 % while the statement is still accurate does the cost/complication of the sleeve valve justify the development of engines using it?



Well, nobody outside of the UK put sleeve-valve aircraft engines into service, so I'd say most engineers of the era would say "no." Sleeve valves have some advantages, and at least as many disadvantages.


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Juha, do you have a 'root cause analysis' which sheets home fault to the Sabre engine,
> - in the case of Capt Bakers' fatal crash?..



I don't have any specific source now in hand, IIRC I have somewhere one article on the MB fighter series, but cannot remember where. I have some books on engines but IIRC none have detailed describtion on the MB 3 crash. Besides what is in Buttler's book quotes above Bowyer writes in his Interceptor Fighters for the Royal Air Force 1935-45 that during the maiden flight of the MB 3 the Galley radiator was found to be unsuitable. But Baker was not too worried and Napier representatives agreed, stating that there was no danger in a further flight. But during the second flight again coolant became excessively hot and the plane was grounded. Some mods were made in radiator but the plane crashed duringits 10th flight and Baker was killed. Bowyer notes that engine overheating had not been solved.




J.A.W. said:


> As for the dismal H-P Hereford - as I recall, the engine development writer LJK Setright likened
> the use of the Dagger, ( which was intended for a fighter, such as the MB 2) in a medium bomber,
> as akin to putting a Formula 1 racecar engine in a bus, & then expecting it - to do well at the task..



On Dagger Bowyer writes that attemps were made to persuade Supermarine to fit a 24-cyl Napier Dagger in their latest design, Type 300, but Supermarine strongly resisted. At least Supermarine trusted more on RR than Napier. IIRC in all books I have read Dagger suffered from reliability and maintenance problems. And Merlin worked well on fighters and bombers as did most of engines, Bristol Hercules, DB 60x series, BMW 801,R-1820, R-1830, R-2800, Jumo 213 etc. IIRC only on CC AW Whitley GR types there were significant troubles with early Merlins. So if Setright is correct, Dagger was fairly unique engine during late 30s early 40s, suited only for one type of aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2018)

From Wiki so..........
Napier-Halford Dagger I

1934 – 650 hp.

Dagger II
1938 – 755 hp

Dagger IIIM
1938 – 725 hp

Dagger VIII
1938 – 1000 hp, intermediate altitude supercharger, initially known as E.10

Now please note the Dagger is down on power compared to the Merlin at any given time. In 1930 the Dagger is making 1000hp at 8,750ft while the Merlin is making 1030hp at 16,250ft. The Dagger at 15,000ft is comparable to the Peregrine only it weighs over 280lbs more which pretty much cancels out the radiator on the Peregrine and we all know what happened to the Peregrine.


----------



## Glider (Apr 12, 2018)

My latest option for the most underrated aircraft of WW2 would be the Beaufighter. It was a success in all its roles in all the theaters it operated in, had a number of important firsts and is overshadowed by the Mosquito. The Mossie was a better aircraft but the Beaufighter deserves some time in the limelight and not being stuck in the shadows

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> ...
> On Dagger Bowyer writes that attemps were made to persuade Supermarine to fit a 24-cyl Napier Dagger in their latest design, Type 300, but Supermarine strongly resisted. At least Supermarine trusted more on RR than Napier. IIRC in all books I have read Dagger suffered from reliability and maintenance problems. And Merlin worked well on fighters and bombers as did most of engines, Bristol Hercules, DB 60x series, BMW 801,R-1820, R-1830, R-2800, Jumo 213 etc. IIRC only on CC AW Whitley GR types there were significant troubles with early Merlins. So if Setright is correct, Dagger was fairly unique engine during late 30s early 40s, suited only for one type of aircraft.



There was probably other reason than Supermarine having more faith in Merin/RR than in Dagger/napier - Merlin III was making more than 50% more power at 16300 ft than Dagger. Even the Kestrel of late 1930s was making more power at altitude than Dagger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 12, 2018)

Hello SR6 & Tomo
yes but IMHO it also shows that if Dagger was an engine especially designed for fighters, it wasn't so impressive, being heavy for its power and with an indifferent supercharger.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Doubtless the rapidly advancing airframe tech ( & size/mass) during the `30s meant that the time had
come for larger more powerful engines. The Dagger had been left behind by this, & Napier acknowledged it,
hence Halford & Tryon commenced work on the Sabre, as a result.

Napier had flown the 1st '1000hp' engine in the `20s, ('Cub') before airframes were able to cope with it.

The sad outcome for Capt Baker was one of the reasons the Air Min prefered such advanced work
to be the province of established makers, who were likely to have a broader outlook design-wise,
esp' for fundamentals such as cooling capacity & in MB's case - fin area/control authority.

As for engines in tanks, many much more bulky aero-engines were fitted to them, even radials!
Liberty engines were 'powering' British 'cruiser' tanks, a large Christie design, ( cousin to the T-34),
so I'd doubt that space considerations would be a significant factor, ( a Merlin would/did fit).


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Well, nobody outside of the UK put sleeve-valve aircraft engines into service, so I'd say most engineers of the era would say "no." Sleeve valves have some advantages, and at least as many disadvantages.



Much more to it than that.

Getting a new application working well is a big effort, so makers such as P & W & R-R, who certainly knew
that sleeve valve advantages were real, having tested their mettle, in metal - made a commercial
decision to stay with developments of their established, if old-fashioned designs - for mass-production.

Roy Fedden & Frank Halford both had experience with DOHC 4V poppet valve cyl heads, 
& both well knew that sleeve valves had real advantages over them, let alone pushrod 2V cyl heads.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 12, 2018)

From what I read the problem wasn't so much of the design of the Sabre but of mass producing it.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Much more to it than that.
> 
> Getting a new application working well is a big effort, so makers such as P & W & R-R, who certainly knew
> that sleeve valve advantages were real, having tested their mettle, in metal - made a commercial
> ...



Still don't like auto-wrap?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Much more to it than that.
> 
> Getting a new application working well is a big effort, so makers such as P & W & R-R, who certainly knew
> that sleeve valve advantages were real, having tested their mettle, in metal - made a commercial
> ...



The engineers at P&WA and Rolls Royce certainly knew the advantages of sleeve valves; they would have been reading the same journals and technical reports as Roy Fedden and Frank Halford, and they were all capable of doing the same sort of math. The engineers and the management at those companies also could look at their disadvantages and do a cost-benefit analysis, and conclude that sleeve valves were not worth the bother. Instead, they constructed highly optimized, very carefully designed engines that could sustain high outputs, be mass produced by subcontractors with no prior aviation experience, and perform reliably in service. Napier leapt onto the sleeve valve bandwagon and produced a complex engine that they couldn't manufacture without outside technical assistance and machinery that didn't exist in the UK.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Still don't like auto-wrap?



Whassat? Is it anyfink like gladwrap? L.o.l...


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The engineers at P&WA and Rolls Royce certainly knew the advantages of sleeve valves; they would have been reading the same journals and technical reports as Roy Fedden and Frank Halford, and they were all capable of doing the same sort of math. The engineers and the management at those companies also could look at their disadvantages and do a cost-benefit analysis, and conclude that sleeve valves were not worth the bother. Instead, they constructed highly optimized, very carefully designed engines that could sustain high outputs, be mass produced by subcontractors with no prior aviation experience, and perform reliably in service. Napier leapt onto the sleeve valve bandwagon and produced a complex engine that they couldn't manufacture without outside technical assistance and machinery that didn't exist in the UK.



Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
& usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> From what I read the problem wasn't so much of the design of the Sabre but of mass producing it.



Yep, the fact that the RAF kept their Sabres flying hard ( the manner which suited them best) right up to the mid `50s
- indeed, proves that very point.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The engineers at P&WA and Rolls Royce certainly knew the advantages of sleeve valves; they would have been reading the same journals and technical reports as Roy Fedden and Frank Halford, and they were all capable of doing the same sort of math. The engineers and the management at those companies also could look at their disadvantages and do a cost-benefit analysis, and conclude that sleeve valves were not worth the bother. Instead, they constructed highly optimized, very carefully designed engines that could sustain high outputs, be mass produced by subcontractors with no prior aviation experience, and perform reliably in service. Napier leapt onto the sleeve valve bandwagon and produced a complex engine that they couldn't manufacture without outside technical assistance and machinery that didn't exist in the UK.



Rolls-Royce/Ricardo built a couple of sleeve valve engines before Napier did.

Namely the RR/D and RR/P. These were converted Kestrels, the first an unsupercharged Diesel and the latter a (IIRC) supercharged petrol version.

The theory at the time (~1930) was that the poor quality fuel would hamper power increases. So they turned to Diesel, as that could cope with poor quality fuels.

Secondary to that, it was shown by Ricardo that the sleeve valve could cope with higher compression ratios than the poppet valve engine. But, as so often is the case, the problem became moot as fuels improved and the sodium cooled exhaust valve was invented.

Rowledge, who had moved from Napier to Rolls-Royce in the early 1920s, also designed the Exe, which first ran in 1936, about 15 months before the Sabre did.

And, of course, there was the Crecy. This evolved from Ricardo's work on a 2 stroke sleeve valve Diesel, becoming the spark ignition Crecy later on. Napier was also involved with Ricardo's research early on, and this may have led to the development of the Sabre.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
> & usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..




Granted the US had a number of flops but this bashing of entire countries isn't getting us anywhere nearer to the truth is it?

Napiers lack of machinery (chronic throughout both England and the United States at this time) called for six Sidestrand Centerless grinders to be shipped via the Queen Mary from the US to England to help solve the crisis. 
This set back the P & W Kansas city plant (which built ONLY "C" series R-2800s as used in F4U-4s, and P-47M&Ns) 6 weeks until replacements could be obtained. By the the end of 1944 this plant was making over 400 engines a month so this aid to Napier cost over 600 engines in 1944. 

While troublesome in service the R-2800 "C" did hit one HP per cu in with it's crappy old fashion 2 OHVs and pushrods. Post war "C"s were good for 2400hp with water injection for take-off using a 2 speed one stage supercharger in routine service in airliners. 

I would note that both Curtiss and Packard had used 4 valves per cylinder on their V-12s back in the *early 20s* so the concept and advantages were not unknown to american engine designers. 
Also P & W (and Wright) were using basically hemispherical combustion chambers with widely staggered valves even on their small engines. 






Without actual flow tests of the heads involved we are pretty much whistling in the dark.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Indeed S-R 6, a century ago the Napier Lion featured DOHC 4V, & *crank-end pressure lubrication,
along with jets on the conrods to squirt-cool the slipper pistons of its oversquare recip' core..

I'd heard that those 'oft quoted' special grinders - were actually an artefact of the Brit propsal to have Chrysler Corp
licence-build Sabres to slot into Bell-made Typhoons along with GE turbos.. & had been 'cash & carry' owned..

Len Setright once 'elegantly' described the R-2800's ability to maintain its impressive output figures - in flight, as "ephemeral" & duly contrasted them with the Sabre's service rating capability of an hour in 'climb power'..

Even the air-cooled Bristols could tolerate higher CHT's than that notably excellent P & W mill,
& without the 'power-fade' caused by heat-soak - which powerful radials were prone to suffering from.

Indeed Hawker test pilot ( & WW 2 ace) Neville Duke delivery flying a Centaurus Fury overseas, in the late `40s beat the record time from London-to-Rome which had been recently established by the Vampire jet.

There is a NACA research paper which tests sleeve valve port/time/area & flow co-efficients,
they also demonstrated useful swirl, not having a large poppet head obtunding the quick-opening port..

*R-R finally emulated this feature of the venerable Lion's lube-tech, for the final hi-po Merlin series..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

This link: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947 - 1491.html to 'Flight',
provides a data table in which the final Sabre iteration appears capable of these best economy figures:

57 (imp) gallons per hour @ 2,500rpm on +0.5lbs boost - for 900hp @ 11,750ft,
anyone got a C-type R-2800 (from an F4U-4 spec chart, maybe) to compare?

Also worth a comparison - as sleeve-valve/poppet & radial/V12 - are the Merlin & Hercules data sets,
esp' given these two saw use as alternative 'power-egg' installations - in various airframes..

Edit: added further link;
& this 'Flight' link: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1944/1944 - 2008.html
presents a chart showing the volumetric efficency of the Bristol Hercules - in 1944..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yep, the fact that the RAF kept their Sabres flying hard ( the manner which suited them best) right up to the mid `50s
> - indeed, proves that very point.


What proves what point? The Typhoon was retired in October 1945, presumably before winter started because the engines had to be kept constantly warm and run up through the night in the previous winter. How many Sabre Tempests were in service post war?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Deleted duplicate post.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

It proves the Sabre was a sound design, when properly built & maintained..

& for sure, there were sufficient numbers of Tempests available for post-war RAF needs.

Typhoons were thus deemed surplus to requirements, & so the *whole bloody lot - were duly scrapped!

Gloster went on to make multitudes of 'Meatboxes', so Hawker built about 550 Tempests - for postwar use..


*No action was taken in Britain to preserve even one!
( & ten years later, this was also done - to every Tempest in RAF hands)
& that's a mark of being "under-rated", surely...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> It proves the Sabre was a sound design, when properly built & maintained..
> 
> & for sure, there were sufficient numbers of Tempests available for post-war RAF needs.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

In fact 140 odd Sabre powered Tempest F.6's were built & flown post-war,
being the RAF's primary fighter in Africa/Middle-East through the 2nd 1/2 of the `40s.

& numbers of older Mk V's continued to serve too, with some 50 or so, later converted to TT spec,
- to be flown hard in A2A gunnery training, 'til the mid `50s..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> In fact 140 odd Sabre powered Tempest F.6's were built & flown post-war,
> being the RAF's primary fighter in Africa/Middle-East through the 2nd 1/2 of the `40s.
> 
> & numbers of older Mk V's continued to serve too, with some 50 or so, later converted to TT spec,
> - to be flown hard in A2A gunnery training, 'til the mid `50s..


It was more suited to the middle east because it wasn't suited to Europe at all, almost every make of plane ever made in that era ended up as a target tug. 140 planes in the WW2 era is as close to nothing as it is possible to get.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Incorrect, Tempest F.6's were suited to those climes, indeed having 'clearance',
for 'Tropical' performance.. & the Mk V's in Germany - continued in service like-wise.


----------



## Wack (Apr 13, 2018)

The pearl of the northern skies aka the Brewster Buffalo.
Could handle anything the russians threw at it until 1944.

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


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

FYI, about the same number of Sabre-Tempests saw wartime service as Spitfire XIV's & outscored them, too..
Ironically the RAF used more Merlin-Mustangs..
- than either of the British fighters which obsoleted the Merlin-Spitfire..

Those post-war F.6's replaced L-L Mustangs, because bankrupt Blighty couldn't afford to buy 'em..


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Doubtless the rapidly advancing airframe tech ( & size/mass) during the `30s meant that the time had
> come for larger more powerful engines. The Dagger had been left behind by this, & Napier acknowledged it,
> hence Halford & Tryon commenced work on the Sabre, as a result.
> 
> ...



IIRC Napier concentrated to improve the Sabre for better performance not to solve the problems in the basic engine’s reliability. In the end the Air Ministry lost its patience and hinted/asked the English Electric to purchase Napier, which happened very late in 1942 and under EE the effords were concentrated to solving the reliability and production problems and Sabre became at least acceptably reliable.

Napier was one of the members of the “old boys’ club” which the Air Ministry favoured, the AM believed continuality and believed that it was better to have 3-4 engine and airframe firms which would survive on long run, also through leaner peace times so that there would have competition but not too much. So it pushed Fairey out of a/c engine business before the war and e.g. Metrovick after the war. On airframe side Miles and MB were treated harshly to keep them out of combat plane business. And IMHO Miles got into advanced trainer business only because the favourite, dH, failed with the Don, and there was a desperate need for a new advanced was trainer in late 30s. Miles M.9 Kestrel was there and was modified/redesigned to Master.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Juha, can you kindly credit - the writer of your post?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> FYI, about the same number of Sabre-Tempests saw wartime service as Spitfire XIV's & outscored them, too..
> Ironically the RAF used more Merlin-Mustangs..
> - than either of the British fighters which obsoleted the Merlin-Spitfire..
> 
> Those post-war F.6's replaced L-L Mustangs, because bankrupt Blighty couldn't afford to buy 'em..


The Spitfire XIV was used in a different role and also performed at all altitudes, the most successful squadron used against the V1 was 91 squadron using Spitfires. The Griffon remained in service on the Shackleton until 1991.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Incorrect, Tempests destroyed 800+ V1s, top scoring squadron was No 3, with 288.

Spitfire XIVs were sent to Europe to share A2A/air superiority duties with the Tempest units,
& even flew within the same Wing - however the Tempest pilots could range further/faster on TAF tasks,
with the Sabre's greater power enabling a heavier armament - to bear down on more 'quarry'..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Juha, can you kindly credit - the writer of your post?


Me, based on what I have read over decades, at least Gunston et al of the old guard, Giffard in her fairly new Making Jet Engines in WWII might mention something on the EE Napier deal but anyway I had read on it much earlier

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 13, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> .


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Me, based on what I have read over decades, at least Gunston et al of the old guard, Giffard in her fairly new Making Jet Engines in WWII might mention something on the EE Napier deal but anyway I had read on it much earlier


 
Ok, that's a marvelous effort for a Finlander, so well done from me,
I've heard that English is as tough to grasp - for you guys,
- as German is - for us native English language users..

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ok, that's a marvelous effort for a Finlander, so well done from me,
> I've heard that English is as tough to grasp - for you guys,
> - as German is - for us native English language users..


English is a Germanic language, just about the easiest language for an English speaker to learn, especially if you are born north of Watford, I became good enough to be mistaken for a Dutchman.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Yeah, of course you do realise - that is a snide Germanic insult, right?

According to certain haughty Germans I've spoken with, Dutch is a form of 'pig-German',
albeit, ironically - Dutch people say the same thing about Afrikaans speakers..

Plus being an 'eee, by goom' - bloody 'eathen Northerner, you'd barely qualify as a English speaker, at all..

As for uncouth former 'colonials', well.. best not go there, eh..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2018)

Let’s play nice guys...


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
> & usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..



Leaving aside your snarkiness, do note that the "Hyper" program was ended because both P&WA and Curtiss-Wright already had engines in development or testing that were close to meeting the specs the "Hyper" program was aiming for. The production version of the R-2800 was rated at 2,000 shp in 1939, before the Sabre was flying.

The Double Wasp and the Duplex Cyclone were the reasons the "Hyper" program died: something better came along.

Back to sleeve valves. Note that I was being negative about Napier, specifically, in that they had not produced a viable aircraft engine between the Lion and the Sabre (the Cub was an interesting engine, and its X-16 configuration may have been a better choice than the H-24 of the Sabre; the reason for its failure was that there was at the time no application for an engine of that size. Similar fates befell the Lorraine-Dietrich 24 and the Allison X-4520. Large, single-engine aircraft fell out of favor, so the market for these engines disappeared.) 

Engineering design is a balancing act among theoretical benefits, production costs, and reliability. Napier placed so much weight on the theoretical benefits of high revs and many small cylinders, neither the Dagger nor Rapier could be considered, in any way, successes, and the Sabre only managed to be so after a lot of outside help. Napier's experience may have convinced other companies to eschew them. Of course, Napier didn't produce new piston aircraft engines after the Sabre; although the Nomad may have been a great piece of work, it died from lack of application. Wright, Bristol, Rolls, and Pratt all kept producing their "old-fashioned" engines because these all had one incredibly important attribute: they worked: users don't give a crap about the technology; they care about functionality, _e.g., _power output, fuel input, maintenance, in-flight failure rate, installed weight, vibration. Hawker wouldn't-- or shouldn't-- care whether the engine used sleeves, poppet valves, or piston ports. The Sabre was used by two related aircraft designs had significant production; it wasn't any better, or at least enough better, _in overall functionality_, for anybody to imitate. Of course, by 1945, large piston aircraft engines were being seen as obsolescent, so there was very limited effort put into new engines; the best hung around, and got used in some new applications (Double Wasps were used on new aircraft into the late 1970s or early 1980s), but they were kind of zombies. 

Napier's management and technical shortcomings are well-documented. With the Sabre, the problem wasn't sleeve valves, _per se_, it was Napier. I suspect the US government would have told Napier to build R-2800s and give up on the Sabre.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Napier's management and technical shortcomings are well-documented. With the Sabre, the problem wasn't sleeve valves, _per se_, it was Napier. I suspect the US government would have told Napier to build R-2800s and give up on the Sabre.



Napier might have been better at making a liquid cooled V-12, it depends on what their production capabilities actually were. 
For instance Allison did NOT cast the crankcases and cylinder blocks in house, they were sub-contracted out to aluminium foundries. 
Maytag washing machine company did sub-contract work for Packard and made many of the exterior castings for the Merlins, valve covers and the like. 
If Napier had the ability to make large complicated castings like cylinder blocks then it may have been better suited to making a simpler liquid cooled engine.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Napier might have been better at making a liquid cooled V-12, it depends on what their production capabilities actually were.
> For instance Allison did NOT cast the crankcases and cylinder blocks in house, they were sub-contracted out to aluminium foundries.
> Maytag washing machine company did sub-contract work for Packard and made many of the exterior castings for the Merlins, valve covers and the like.
> If Napier had the ability to make large complicated castings like cylinder blocks then it may have been better suited to making a simpler liquid cooled engine.



Well, yes. Or be told to build more its own engines for MTB and air-sea rescue craft. Packard did just that, along with building Merlins.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

Hawker, in a way, got stuck with Sabre engine. They built Prototypes using the Vulture, the Centaurus and the Sabre. The Centaurus got put on hold while they sorted out the Hercules and the Vulture did it's crash and burn act in the Manchester. Perhaps it was fixed just in time to be canceled, that what some people say. In any case it was a complicated answer (like the Sabre) to the 2000hp question and a better answer (or at least a decent substitute) had snuck in the side door. The Griffon. 
Now please note that the 3 big engines had all been designed with 87 octane fuel in mind with 100 octane coming it at some point in the future. 
ANd that is pretty much straight 100 octane and not 100/30. 
The Air ministry had placed large orders (1000 aircraft) for the Typhoon/Tornado well before 2nd prototypes had flown and had too much invested to back out once the Vulture was canceled and the Sabre ran into trouble.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
> & usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..



Stupid statements like this and calling the R-2800's power output "ephemeral" really do nothing as far as taking you and your argument serious. It shows either a lack of historical knowledge on the subject at hand or you're just being a troll on purpose.

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


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> They built Prototypes using the Vulture, the Centaurus and the Sabre. The Centaurus got put on hold while they sorted out the Hercules and the Vulture did it's crash and burn act in the Manchester. Perhaps it was fixed just in time to be canceled, that what some people say. In any case it was a complicated answer (like the Sabre) to the 2000hp question and a better answer (or at least a decent substitute) had snuck in the side door. The Griffon.



The Vulture was not completely sorted, but would have been had the manpower and resources been available. Unfortunately the situation of the war dictated that engine production had to be streamlined to maximise production. 

The Merlin was in just about anything that mattered in 1940. The Griffon was new and may have faced the chopping block if it were not for the fact that some bright spark figured it could be fitted to the Spitfire, Britain's #1 fighter. The Vulture was left with one airframe, after it was decided to convert the Manchester to 4 Merlins. The Peregrine was required by only one front line aircraft, the Whirlwind. The Exe was too small and quite heavy for most applications.

The only Rolls-Royce program, other than the Merlin and Griffon, was the Crecy. And that was not by Rolls-Royce's choice.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
> & usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..



The Double Wasp's ephemeral performance kept it in production almost three decades in dozens of aircraft designs where the designers had a free choice of engines. The Sabre was used on three, on two of which there wasn't a choice and the third, the Firebrand, where it was replaced by the Centaurus early in production.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2018)

Again everyone knock it off with the snide comments. Play nice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Well, yes. Or be told to build more Lions for MTB




The Lion was well passed it as an MTB engine, unless you want small, slow MTBs.
it was a 24 liter engine that was hard pressed at 2600rpm, if that.

The three engines used to replace it were the Isotta Fraschini W-18s of about 1100hp and 57 liters, then the Hall-Scott Defenders (32.7 and 37.4 liter versions, some with superchargers 500-900hp depending on version and source) ) and finally the 41 liter Packards. The Hall Scotts were souped up workboat engines and heavy for their power.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 13, 2018)

Depending on what one means by "under-rated," which is a term _I_ believe means "performed better in service than it's reputation would indicate," I think, limiting this to US aircraft (not necessarily those in US service), the candidates for most under-rated fighter would include the P-40 and P-39, which were widely decried as useless, and, for bombers, the B-24, which was overshadowed by its stablemate, the B-17, despite being more numerous and having better payload-range characteristics (in fairness, the B-17 was more robust and easier to fly).


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ok, that's a marvelous effort for a Finlander, so well done from me,
> I've heard that English is as tough to grasp - for you guys,
> - as German is - for us native English language users..



Thank You for your compliment.
Yes, Finnish is very different from Germanic or Indo-European languages generally. We used postposition, like _in Pori_ (a town) = _Porissa_, we have no articles (a, an, the) so to learn to use them correctly is a bit challenge to those like me who are not good in languages, I’m more mathematically oriented. In Finnish we have many long words with many vocals, as an extreme example, _valaannahkasaapasrasvarasia_ = _a box of grease for whale skin boots_. So we can say it with a fewer words even if not necessarily shorter.
_Hän_ can mean either _h_e or _she_ but we have special words for each type of relationship. _Uncle_ translates either as _setä_ (father’s brother) or _eno_ (mother’s brother), _vävy_ means _son-in-law_, _appi_ = _father in law_, _käly_ = _sister in law_ etc. And we have plenty of f-words, probably because life was very hard here for centuries.

Back to business, One of the first signs of politics in the British aviation industries for me was Bill Sweetman’s article on Avro Lancaster in the Great Book of WWII Airplanes, he mentioned RR’s attempt to get Sabre cancelled and so to push Napier out of aero-engine business. The Air Ministry didn’t accept that. I have liked Buttler’s works and also I have found Furse’s bio on Wilfrid Freeman, Bowyer’s and Goulding’s books on British interceptors very helpful on the British aviation industry. Even if I like very much Penrose’s memoirs IIRC I was a little disappointed on his _British Aviation The Ominous Skies 1935-1939._

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 13, 2018)

Wack said:


> The pearl of the northern skies aka the Brewster Buffalo.
> Could handle anything the russians threw at it until 1944.



I'd say that already in mid-1943 FiAF Brewster Model 239s had bad problems with newer Soviet planes, one of our top Brewster aces was shot down and killed by a La-5 in April 43 (Kinnunen) and our No 2 ace Wind made grave warning on the superiority of La-5 over Brewster. However Finns were still not overly worried partly because they thought that Kinnunen was killed by heavy Soviet AA. They thought that with better tactics and because of Soviet in average poor shooting they could still handle the situation for a while but the top brass clearly saw that Brewster's time would be soon over.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

Sgd. Air Vice Marshall J.D. Breakey, DFC. A.C.A.S. (T.R.) Air Ministry

* refers to a previous minute that wasn't available.

March 25, 1944 SECRETARY OF STATE.

When I said in Minute 4 that the TYPHOON troubles had been overcome I referred, of course, to the major problems of the tail structure and the Sabre engine, and it was these problems to which, I believe, Prof. Appleton was referring. The difficulty due to oil leaks from the 4-bladed propeller is a very more recent trouble.

2. Perhaps it will be as well if I give you a brief history of the TYPHOON difficulties. The original aircraft fitted with a three bladed propeller presented two problems; the first was a serious vibration which was very difficult to eradicate, and the second was a failure in the air of a few aircraft, the cause of which could not be attributed to any particular defect. It was apparently due to the sum of several causes of which the vibration may have been one. Individually none of the defects would have caused failure. The failures were few in proportion to the total hours flown and, as the various possible causes were eliminated, the risk of failure became sufficiently remote to be an acceptable risk. Nevertheless, it is our endeavor to eradicate completely from British aircraft any weakness of this nature, however slight risk, and to this end the four bladed propeller and the TEMPEST tail were introduced.

3. When the four bladed propeller came into use it was found to leak oil (from the propeller and not from the engine) to an extent which may be unacceptable for operational use. We have, therefore. Been compelled to revert to the three bladed propeller until such time as we find a satisfactory remedy for the oil leak.

4. In reverting to the three bladed propeller it is necessary also to introduce a modification to the TEMPEST type tail plane in order to prevent recurrence of the vibration trouble. This involves fitting 10-lb., weights in the tail plane tips. There are some 70 TYPHOONS in Maintenance Units with TEMPEST type tail planes which must be modified before the are issued to the Service, and it may be modified before they are issued to the Service, and it may be the hiatus that this will cause which gave rise to the report that the serviceability and operational strength of the TYPHOON Squadrons is seriously low. Special arrangements have been made to modify these aircraft; they are being done at the rate of ten a day and all seventy should be completed by the end of this week. The situation is, therefore, not serious.

5. With regard to curing the leaking oil trouble, the Americans experienced the same thing with their MUSTANG aircraft which have four bladed Hamilton propellers very similar to the four bladed De Havilland propellers on our TYPHOONS. The Americans found a satisfactory cure by fitting a special seal and we were able to obtain from them a small number of these seals, which we are now trying out for our four bladed TYPHOON propellers. It seems likely that they will be successful, but we are unable to obtain from the Americans in this country more than the small number required for trials, as they have only sufficient to meet their own needs. Arrangements have, therefore, been made to obtain a supply from America, but these will not be available in the country before May. Other arrangements have, therefore, been made to manufacture similar seals in the country and sufficient of these should be coming available in tow or three weeks' time to meet requirements of the De Havilland propeller assembly line. I have been unable to obtain any confirmation of the report that seals have been lost in transit.

6. The TYPHOON with the TEMPEST tail and four bladed propeller has been thoroughly tested and will be satisfactory when we have overcome the leaking oil trouble. We believe that the American pattern seal will cure this trouble and trials are in progress, but they have not yet done sufficient flying time for any more definite statement than this.

Sgd. Air Vice Marshall J.D. Breakey, DFC. A.C.A.S. (T.R.) Air Ministry

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

Is there any substance to the below quote about Wilfrid Harman?



Forums / RAF Library / Hawker Typhoon - Axis and Allies Paintworks
Hawker managed to get Air Ministry permission to fit a Bristol Centaurus engine into a Tornado airframe, with this aircraft flying on 23 October 1941. The Centaurus-powered Tornado proved much superior in reliability and performance to either the Vulture-powered Tornado or the Sabre-powered Typhoon. However, although it seemed like a good idea, for whatever reason Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, in charge of aircraft procurement, was against it. In his defense it appears he simply didn't want British aircraft development going off in too many directions at one time. The Centaurus was having development problems of its own, and the Centaurus-powered Tornado was set aside for the time being. It was not, however, forgotten.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

duplicate


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Stupid statements like this and calling the R-2800's power output "ephemeral" really do nothing as far as taking you and your argument serious. It shows either a lack of historical knowledge on the subject at hand or you're just being a troll on purpose.



No, in fact "ephemeral" was the very word for it, as quoted by LJK Setright in his classic aero-engine book,
'The Power to Fly', & it correctly refers to the R-2800's time limits at high power settings.

It is not a matter of "stupid statements", its a matter of fact.

As S-R 6 has pointed out, the R-2800 was substantially redesigned to reduce the propensity to 'wilt',
under the strain of heat soak, when running hard & hot, yet fundamental limitations still applied.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Is there any substance to the below quote about Wilfrid Harman?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, it is important to not conflate the functional capabilities of carefully 'fettled', handbuilt prototype engines
with regular production units, esp' those from early in the production runs - as the 'bugs' start to crawl out.

The R-R Vulture for example, apparently behaved itself very well indeed - doing duty in the Tornado, 
& yet many early production Centaurus engines reportedly 'misbehaved' in the Tempest Mk II,
this matter being a significant part of the reason why they didn't quite get into WW 2 combat.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> No, in fact "ephemeral" was the very word for it, as quoted by LJK Setright in his classic aero-engine book,
> 'The Power to Fly', & it correctly refers to the R-2800's time limits at high power settings.
> 
> It is not a matter of "stupid statements", its a matter of fact.
> ...


I was a motorcyclist in the late 70s early 80s, LJK Setright was supposedly a famous M/C journalist with columns in most publications, all completely esoteric and theoretical. He saw the future as bigger bikes (bigger than a gold wing) using the advantages of weight and torque to improve safety and road holding due to the increasing difference between sprung and un-sprung weight. He opined on motorcycles with a CoG below the wheel axle centres.

Wiki says this, strange that even 30 years after the event I remember him extolling the virtues of the Honda Gold Wing.


"After writing for the engineering magazine _Machine Age_ in the early 1960s, Setright became a motoring journalist and author, contributing to _Car Magazine_ for more than 30 years and writing several books on cars and automotive engineering.[2] Setright's writing style polarised readers as some considered it to be pompous and excessively esoteric, while others found his erudite style and engineering knowledge a welcome change from the usual lightweight and largely non-technical journalistic style.[1] He had a strong enthusiasm for Bristol Cars and for Japanese engineering, in particular Honda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hawker, in a way, got stuck with Sabre engine. They built Prototypes using the Vulture, the Centaurus and the Sabre. The Centaurus got put on hold while they sorted out the Hercules and the Vulture did it's crash and burn act in the Manchester. Perhaps it was fixed just in time to be canceled, that what some people say. In any case it was a complicated answer (like the Sabre) to the 2000hp question and a better answer (or at least a decent substitute) had snuck in the side door. The Griffon.
> Now please note that the 3 big engines had all been designed with 87 octane fuel in mind with 100 octane coming it at some point in the future.
> ANd that is pretty much straight 100 octane and not 100/30.
> The Air ministry had placed large orders (1000 aircraft) for the Typhoon/Tornado well before 2nd prototypes had flown and had too much invested to back out once the Vulture was canceled and the Sabre ran into trouble.



Hawker also tried the R-R Griffon, finally flying it in a Fury prototype, after nominally selecting it as the engine to
power the 'Tempest Mk III' - however, compared to the other two 'big' Brit mills, Centaurus & Sabre, the performance
fell short, as shown by the Fury prototype LA 610 - when the Griffon was replaced by a late mark Sabre, it leapt up to
be the top performance Fury, from being the lowest.

That the RAF didn't order any, being jet-bent - is not a direct reflection of the machine itself.
Ironically, the Sea Fury used the Centaurus, rather than the Griffon, even though the R-R mill was
originally developed as 'Naval' powerplant, & was already in service with FAA Seafires & Fireflies..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Again, it is important to not conflate the functional capabilities of carefully 'fettled', handbuilt prototype engines
> with regular production units, esp' those from early in the production runs - as the 'bugs' start to crawl out.
> 
> The R-R Vulture for example, apparently behaved itself very well indeed - doing duty in the Tornado,
> ...


The Napier Sabre was problematic throughout its life from prototype to service, it was only ever fitted to two service aircraft which were different versions of the same basic type and never sold abroad, it needed a military organisation under pressure for results to keep it in service. The Centaurus, despite being sidelined in the early years of the Typhoon Tempest ended up in the Seafury and many other post war designs in the civil military transport roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

One can also note that the Hercules went through something like 7 different cylinder heads between initial versions and the post-war versions. I believe two of them were entirely Post war (although R&D _may _have started before the war ended). 
Late Hercules engines also used larger diameter main bearings than early ones and as a matter of interest, a number of the blockade running missions by aircraft and modified MTBs to Sweden were to bring back ball/roller bearings by the ton as British industry could not meet the demands. 

This is a big problem in trying to compare a 'single engine' to another over the course of the war and/or try to use post war versions to try to prove points. Many times (most times) there was no single engine but a rather varied succession of models with greater or lesser modifications. 
Picking failures (or successes) from different times can really skew things. Even the same year might need looking at as one engine might be in the last year of a major modification and the other in the first year of such a modification. 

The Bristol Sleeve valve engines were powerful, reliable and long lived engines post war but the vast majority of the Post war engines were just that, post way engines with not a lot of interchangeable parts with most of the war time versions. 

Please note that even Wright managed to power hundreds of large 4 engine airliners with new versions (without turbos) of the R-3350 that performed so poorly in the B-29. I am not saying there were no failures but certainly a lot fewer than the B-29s suffered. 

Fedden had brilliantly succeeded in making much better engines than the Mercury and Pegasus with the Perseus and Hercules. However the Mercury and Pegasus were staggering along on their last legs due to chronic neglect by the end of the 30s. Pratt & Whitney and Wright had long since stopped lubricating the valve gear in the heads with grease guns and zerk fittings for example.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I was a motorcyclist in the late 70s early 80s, LJK Setright was supposedly a famous M/C journalist...
> Setright's writing style polarised readers as some considered it to be pompous and excessively esoteric..



Yeah, ol' Len Setright fostered the image of the archetypal 'eccentric English gentleman' even putting in writing that he
drove/rode more "accurately" after a couple of 'alcoholic beverages'! ( he'd really be 'howled down' for that, now).

He was indeed, a diligent researcher, & understood well - 'sophistications of the technicalities' - engines-wise.

In his day, he was the Brit equivalent of America's Kevin Cameron, another 'rare bird' in being 'right across'
the tech, while expressing himself in an entertaining & very readable way.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Hawker also tried the R-R Griffon, finally flying it in a Fury prototype, after nominally selecting it as the engine to
> power the 'Tempest Mk III' - however, compared to the other two 'big' Brit mills, Centaurus & Sabre, the performance
> fell short, as shown by the Fury prototype LA 610 - when the Griffon was replaced by a late mark Sabre, it leapt up to
> be the top performance Fury, from being the lowest.
> ...


What on earth does "Jet bent" mean? By 1950 the airspeed record was 600 MPH a speed impossible for piston engine aircraft even today, there was no conspiracy against the Sabre or Centaurus the world had moved on.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, ol' Len Setright fostered the image of the archetypal 'eccentric English gentleman' even putting in writing that he
> drove/rode more "accurately" after a couple of 'alcoholic beverages'! ( he'd really be 'howled down' for that, now).
> 
> He was indeed, a diligent researcher, & understood well - 'sophistications of the technicalities' - engines-wise.
> ...


I beg to differ because I read a lot of his ramblings. For a motorcycle to have its CoG below the wheel axles it would have no ground clearance at all and a wheelbase as long as a house with large diameter wheels, even drag racers don't come close, it was complete B/S, I and many others couldn't figure out how he got paid, in a short time he didn't.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Napier Sabre was problematic throughout its life from prototype to service, it was only ever fitted to two service aircraft which were different versions of the same basic type and never sold abroad, it needed a military organisation under pressure for results to keep it in service. The Centaurus, despite being sidelined in the early years of the Typhoon Tempest ended up in the Seafury and many other post war designs in the civil military transport roles.



Again, this goes to the fact that some engine attributes suit different roles better, Setright made the point that the Sabre was a real 'fighter' engine, & comments from those who flew it in combat - confirm this, as Kiwis like Ron Dennis, who shot down an Me 262 - after pursuing it flat out for 50 miles wrote:

"It loved tough handling,& never objected to extended periods at max boost & rpm.."

&, 122 Wingco ( & top RNZAF ace) E.D. Mackie who wrote,

"The harder you flew it, the better it went".

Biff can confirm that even today, fighter jocks appreciate an engine that will respond 'stat',
when throttle commands are given..

Len Setright wrote that the Sabre "could be blipped up & down the rev-meter like a car engine",
which is something the big radials - did not take well to.

The fact is - the Sabre was a victim of circumstances, being subject to 1/2 arsed Brit manufacture methods
meant that only 5,000 odd were built, & were really only on-stream when piston engines were eclipsed by
turbines for future fighters.

Never-the-less, every well-built Sabre fitted to an in-service warplane in WW2, made a 'top-flite' contribution,
which is more than can be said for the Merlin, many of which went into really - pretty useless planes..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> What on earth does "Jet bent" mean? By 1950 the airspeed record was 600 MPH a speed impossible for piston engine aircraft even today, there was no conspiracy against the Sabre or Centaurus the world had moved on.



WW2?
What was the Meteor's contribution? A dozen V1's? 
& by 1950, it too - was well past its 'best by date'.

Being 'Jet bent' is self evident, surely..

The RAF & USAAF jumped on that 'bandwagon' real quick, but the 1st gen jets - just weren't that good..

Old F-51 & F-82 Mustangs had to be spurred back into duty in 1950, for the fighting in Korea,
because the F-80 was too short-legged..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Never-the-less, every well-built Sabre fitted to an in-service warplane in WW2, made a 'top-flite' contribution,
> which is more than can be said for the Merlin, many of which went into really - pretty useless planes..


This is simply flaming a forum, I thought that died out years ago. I will use the ignore function. Below is a list of A/C with Merlin engines.


Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
Avro Athena
Avro Lancaster
Avro Lancastrian
Avro Lincoln
Avro Manchester III
Avro Tudor
Avro York
Boulton Paul Balliol and Sea Balliol
Boulton Paul Defiant
Bristol Beaufighter II
CAC CA-18 Mark 23 Mustang
Canadair North Star
CASA 2.111B and D
Cierva Air Horse
de Havilland Mosquito
de Havilland Hornet
Fairey Barracuda
Fairey Battle
Fairey Fulmar
Fairey P.4/34
Fiat G.59
Handley Page Halifax
Handley Page Halton
Hawker Hart (Test bed)
Hawker Henley
Hawker Horsley (Test bed)
Hawker Hotspur
Hawker Hurricane and Sea Hurricane
Hispano Aviación HA-1112
I.Ae. 30 Ñancú
Miles M.20
North American Mustang Mk X
Renard R.38
Short Sturgeon
Supermarine Type 322
Supermarine Seafire
Supermarine Spitfire
Tsunami Racer
Vickers F.7/41
Vickers Wellington Mk II and Mk VI
Vickers Windsor
Westland Welkin

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I beg to differ because I read a lot of his ramblings. For a motorcycle to have its CoG below the wheel axles it would have no ground clearance at all and a wheelbase as long as a house with large diameter wheels, even drag racers don't come close, it was complete B/S, I and many others couldn't figure out how he got paid, in a short time he didn't.



Nevermind that, check this.. a Len Setright book.

Some Unusual Engines

Members can see for themselves, the technical grasp Setright could & did, muster..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is simply flaming a forum, I thought that died out years ago. I will use the ignore function. Below is a list of A/C with Merlin engines.



Check the hostile tone can you, ben - as fairly asked, by moderation.

In 1944 Lancaster/Mosquito/Mustang were 1st rate service aircraft flying with Merlin power,
& yet hopelessly outdated Hurricanes were still being mass-produced.. a waste of a Merlin, surely..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Seems the venerable Napier Lion is perhaps a tad 'under-rated' too,
actually, it is fairly remarkable for a century old ( yes, 100 years!) mill.

DOHC 4V, oversquare with slipper pistons & sophisticated crank-end pressure lubrication.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

The tough ol' beast pictured in the post above was able to hack supercharger pressures
high enough to add ~1000hp to its original 450hp output, & wrest back the World Land-speed Record
from R-R's mighty R-type engine, & hack being hammered across the salt at nearly 400mph,
a record that wasn't bested 'til the `60s..











& the Lion's designer Rowledge, working for R-R, had to replace the typically flimsy*
R-R 'knife & fork' conrods in the early R-type mills, with a Lion-wise ( but only 2 banks, of course)
'master-slave' set-up, to enable the 36 litre R-type to keep running hard..

Did the Junkers Jumo 222 designers have a Lion & Lioness** on hand, & decide to mate them?

*It took R-R about ten years to put a crank-end lubrication feed system on the Merlin, & add
heavy duty conrods, but nowadays for Merlin users who run them real hard, Allison rods
are a 'must do' durability mod.

**Lioness was an inverted Lion, & Lion + Lioness - come quite close dimension-wise to the Jumo 222.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Bet ol' 'Pinkie' Stark had an 'interview' with the C.O., after using the expensive 14ft prop of his Typhoon
to 'play bloody arborist' in France & bring it back all scuffed up..






What do you reckon he told the 'boss'? 
"Relax Skipper, shit'll buff out..."


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Nevermind that, check this.. a Len Setright book.
> 
> Some Unusual Engines
> 
> Members can see for themselves, the technical grasp Setright could & did, muster..


Thanks for the link, I'll look the Chrysler Multibank part when I have spare time. Unfortunately it seems that Setright doesn't deal with the other two unusual engines I'm intrerested in, Fairey P.24 and RR Crecy, but of course they were not production engines and Crecy's story advanced only to bench test stage.

Juha


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 14, 2018)

Quite a few engine makers used fork-and-blade (not "knife-and-fork") connecting rods; the alternative articulated connecting rods have several disadvantages, including increased problems with vibration, and, as happened in several quite successful engines, different strokes in the two banks. Both Allison and Rolls-Royce used these; Daimler used articulated rods. Neither is "better"; Rolls-Royce used articulated rods in their various "X" engines, but Allison used paired fork-and-blade rods in their XH-4520.

The Allison V-1710 had a very good mechanical design; its performance shortcomings seem to have been more due to poor supercharger design and integration than anything else. There was, as an aside, a prototype turbo-compounded V-1710 that was to have a military rating of 2,320 hp and a war emergency rating of 3,090 hp.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

Can we please stop with the pissing contest?








1913 Peugeot Grand Prix car engine. DOHC 4 valves per cylinder. Well angled valves.
Much copied between 1913 and 1918. Any engine designer worth his T square knew about DOHCs and 4 valves per cylinder in the early 20s.

Design "features" were often compromises due to space, weight, materials (early valve springs were crap and had a high failure rate), manufacturing techniques/abilities (British radial engines went to forged cylinder heads before the US radial makers because British casting techniques weren't as good. They couldn't get the quality heads they wanted at an acceptable scrap rate by casting.)

Without know _why _a designer did something we are guessing and making some rather large assumptions.

6 bank engines don't have to be two 3 bank engines smushed together on a common crankshaft. They can start as short 12 cylinder engines.




The 20s and 30s saw a considerable number of engine layouts. Some of them just showed later designers what NOT to do.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Is there any substance to the below quote about Wilfrid Harman?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't recall anything but going through the index eventually found something p. 348 "_Reluctant to become wholly dependant on the Sabre version, the front fuselage of a Tornado was lengthened, given the tail and wings of a Typhoon, and fitted with a Centaurus. It flew fo0r the first time on23 Oct 41, but was 10mph slower than a Typhoon. Given a later engine and a four-bladed propeller it eventually achieved 430mph. But whilst the nose of a standard Typhoon airframe was too short for a radial engine, the long-nosed Sabre Tempest airframe was able to accept one with little modification, and, likely to be faster and handle better than the Typhoon. Freeman had ordered two Tempest airframes in Nov 41, and early in 42, he stopped work on six modified Centaurus-Typhoon airframes, and ordered four more Tempest prototypes, two with Centaurus and two with Griffon engines." _Note:_ "The Griffon Tempests were cancelled, probably because of installation problems; the Griffon was at least 600 lb lighter than the Sabre or the Centaurus._"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

The proposed Griffon-Tempest prototype, the putative 'Mk III' was completed as a Fury, LA 610,
& flew with a Griffon, equpped with an R-R annular radiator, & Rotol contra-props,
but it proved to have the lowest performance of the Fury prototypes, ( until re-powered with a Sabre, that is).

'Officially' the demand for the low-production Griffon to fit into Spitfires was cited as the reason as to why no further
Griffon-Furies were built, yet although the Griffon was produced as intended for 'Naval' applications, & was in
FAA service at sea in Fireflies & Seafires, the Sea Fury was powered by the big Centaurus.

Obviously the performance aspect outweighed the logistics/engine commonality argument.


@ SR6, ta for posting those interesting engines, they serve to demonstrate that Napier
(they'd raced their own cars), saw Grand Prix racing engines as an aiming point - for their aero-engine tech.

& by contrast, all of those odd-ball 'radialine' & X-type mills built - turned out to be 'pissing in the wind' exercises.

Roy Fedden had equipped Bristol radials with 4V 'pent roof' combustion-chamber poppet valve heads, but found them less efficient than the sleeve valve, which he persevered with.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

SR6, the 5 years between the DOHC 4V Peugeot & Napier designs - is indicative of how fast things
were progressing under the impetus of war.

From radically undersquare B X S ( the small bore dictated those angles - for the race-sized valves to fit & flow),
to moderately oversquare - & from long-skirt Fe pistons to Al slipper-type, with lube jet underside cooling..

Curiously, Cosworth design, who'd adopted the narrow angle pent-roof 4V poppet valve set-up,
( as used in the WW 2 Allison V12)& raced it so successfully in a V8 F1 engine, went on to build
a sleeve-valve unit - which, just as the aero-engines had, demonstrated its superior port/time/area,
& other attributes - as a G.P. race mill - & which of course, was then promptly banned, by the FIA...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

I would note that the Germans used a number of 4 valve aircraft engines in WW I with valves being actuated by several methods. 
Some of the 4 valve heads had splayed valves (Pent roof?) some did not. 
Point is that Rowledge/Napier invented very little. They may have combined more examples of"best practice" than many other engines of the day in one engine. 
A lot of these engines were designed to get around known limitations. For example the DOHC design does not give you extra power in and of itself. It does allow for "better control" of the valves at higher rpm. That is to say it is less subject to valve "float", that is valves not following the cam profiles at high rpm due to the springs not being strong enough to yank them shut against the inertia of the rest of the valve train, the rocker arms and long push rods. 
Now if your engine isn't operating at an RPM that runs into such problems using a DOHC design head only adds weight and expense to the engine. 

At any given point in time the RPM limit of the valve train was usually governed by the quality/technology of the valve springs.
RPM limit of the engine could also be governed by the strength of the bottom end ( 

The Lion was a high RPM engine for it's time and one of it's trade offs was that the short 4 throw crankshaft was lighter and had less flex than the longer V12 (or straight 6-8) engines. Against this was the extra width of the engine and the need of a 3rd cam drive set up and the two extra camshafts. 
Quite a few of these engines used pressurized oil running from the crankshaft mains to the rod bearings though passages in the crankshaft, from there little tubes ran through the connecting rods taking the oil from the rod bearing to the "little" end bearing (gudgeon or piston pin). How much excess flow there was I have no idea. 



Some of these old engines were both sophisticated and crude at the same time. For example in some of the German WW I engines the intake and exhaust valves were interchangeable. Great from a manufacturing, supply and mechanics point of view but perhaps not so hot for performance? 
Of course there were no high temp steel alloys, let alone sodium cooled valves, at the time so the use of the same alloy was more necessity than what might have been desired. Please remember they were still arguing over whether aluminium or cast iron was better for pistons.

A lot of times the valve springs were exposed to the open air for cooling. Of course this doesn't do much for the valve stem and the valve guide to have dirt, dust and grit being blown on them continually. 

It is this "market" that the Sleeve valve engine started development. 

I would also question Feddens use of the "pent roof" combustion chamber. Yes he used 4 valves placed in two rows with an angle between the rows. however they then placed the spark plugs on the very edge of the combustion chamber, outboard of the valves and instead of a cross flow head (intake and exhausts on opposite sides of the chamber) they had one intake and one exhaust valve in each bank. I have no idea if this helped or hurt. 
In any case there are two differences from what modern performance enthusiasts think of as a Pent roof chamber. 

The radial sleeve valve engines were a big improvement over the Bristol and Armstrong Siddeley radials but that is damning with faint praise as those engines were far from the forefront of engine technology in the late 30s.


----------



## Hairog (Apr 14, 2018)

By far it's the P-38 Lightning! The Lightning defeated both the Japanese and the Luftwaffe before the more publisized cleanup crew showed up. 

In the West and the Pacific it fought the best the Japanese and Germans had to offer and defeated both. The pilots who flew the Fork Tailed Devil in 1942 - 43 were constantly out numbered and were fighting the best of the best. By the time the P-51 and the F6F came along it was all over both in terms of numbers and quality of opponents. 

The Mustang and Hellc



at fought the dregs of the Luftwaffe and Japanese Army and Navy. 

"By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944."


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

@ SR6, You are correct about the poor reputation of the Bristol poppet valve gear,
which AFAIR, were lampooned with remarks along the lines of:

'Bristol fuel economy is good, but any savings made, are quickly lost again - on valve-jobs!'

As for DOHC, this was a way ( albeit a costly way) of getting good geometry (valve guide wear-wise),
& reducing wear at the cam/valve interface.

R-R Merlins have a bad reputation for chewing up cam-followers, with this fault not limited to
( but certainly exacerbated by) high-boost applications wherein the valve has to overcome the
increased pressures to open/close, since it was remarked upon in N/A usage, as a tank mill, too.

On the ports/manifolding layout vs combustion-chamber valve array issue, the Hispano derived Klimov's
had some odd permutations too, but other than for heat flow-path concerns, as long as the manifolds & ports
themselves are not restrictive - or so bulky they affect frontal area, they are irrelevant to combustion itself.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Roy Fedden had equipped Bristol radials with 4V 'pent roof' combustion-chamber poppet valve heads, but found them less efficient than the sleeve valve, which he persevered with.



The old Jupiters use 4 valves but the valves were parallel in a "flat head". However the type of construction ws less than ideal




Cylinder on the right was made of steel and was a closed tube with the valve seats integral with the cylinder. The "head" on the left was a cap that fit on top and due to the difference in expansion under heat of steel and aluminum there was always a thin gap between the two which hindered cooling.
Number of valves is not the only criteria for engine breathing, size of of valves, lift of the valves, and the size/shape of the ports also come into play as does the intake and exhaust systems.

I would note that the Bristol did NOT introduce the pent roof heads into production until 2-3 years after they started working on sleeve valves.
The Pent roof heads went on open barrel cylinders and the valve seats were inlet into the aluminum (sometimes cast but soon forged ) heads.

I would also note that American radials also made many changes over the years and between models as they strove for more power.
For example, Wright, on the R-1820 not only changed crankcases between the G-100 series and the G-200 which allowed for higher rpm ( engines went from 1100hp to 1200hp) but the cylinder heads were different with the G-200 heads having bigger intake ports for better breathing. There were many other differences including more finning for better cooling, the main limit to high power in air cooled engines. It doesn't matter how much fuel/air you can stuff in the engine if the engine goes into meltdown mode in a matter of seconds.



Picking one or two features and saying "ah ha, this engine is better because......" may or may not be true because we know so little of all the other details.

Then you get into arguments as to whether a 4 valve head offers better cooling to the small valves than a 2 valve head does to it's larger valves or whether the 2 valve head and it's simpler valve gear offers more fin area/better cooling the head as a whole.

I would note the war time Hercules engines never seemed to offer any real advantages in boost used or power developed over the American radials.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Hairog said:


> By far it's the P-38 Lightning! The Lightning defeated both the Japanese and the Luftwaffe before the more publisized cleanup crew showed up.
> 
> In the West and the Pacific it fought the best the Japanese and Germans had to offer and defeated both. The pilots who flew the Fork Tailed Devil in 1942 - 43 were constantly out numbered and were fighting the best of the best. By the time the P-51 and the F6F came along it was all over both in terms of numbers and quality of opponents.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> As for DOHC, this was a way ( albeit a costly way) of getting good geometry (valve guide wear-wise),
> & reducing wear at the cam/valve interface.
> 
> R-R Merlins have a bad reputation for chewing up cam-followers, with this fault not limited to
> ...



A proper SOHC set up should not have any problems with valve guide wear. However if short cuts were made either through cost cutting or trying to reduce the volume of the valve cover (or short/light rockers) then problems may arise.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

@ SR6, a possibly useful parameter point for comparison between Bristol & US radials might be..
found in permissable CHT figures - perhaps?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A proper SOHC set up should not have any problems with valve guide wear. However if short cuts were made either through cost cutting or trying to reduce the volume of the valve cover (or short/light rockers) then problems may arise.



Allison provided a durable roller-rocker arrangement, but direct DOHC still puts less load on the valve & spring,
inertia-wise, & sleeve-valves avoid all that nasty recip' chattering, wear-prone, adjustment hungry gubbins - altogether..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> @ SR6, a possibly useful parameter point for comparison between Bristol & US radials might be..
> found in permissable CHT figures - perhaps?


 
Well, cylinder head temperatures sort of depend on the location of the thermocouple don't they?
Often under the spark plug (or between the spark plug and the head?) 

car CHT sensor






Since the allowable CHT was much more of _indication_ of engine operating limits of a particular engine and not direct measurement of temperatures inside the cylinder I am not sure how well it compares different engines. 

I really don't care if engine A has a limit of 260 degrees C and engine B has a limit of 285 degrees C. What I care about (as a pilot, if I was one, or designer) would be power to weight/power to volume of the installation and fuel economy.
The War time almost never exceeded 8.75lbs of boost (many versions were lower) and used a 7.0 compression ratio. The American radial used compression ratios of 6.7 to 7.0 so no real advantage (not even the 10-11% difference of the Merlins and Allison) and some of the Americans radials used used higher manifold pressure.
The R-1830 which did use smaller/easier to cool cylinders used 6.7 compression and 9lb of boost and could do that on 100 octane (NOT 100/130) fuel.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Curiously, Cosworth design, who'd adopted the narrow angle pent-roof 4V poppet valve set-up,
> ( as used in the WW 2 Allison V12)& raced it so successfully in a V8 F1 engine, went on to build
> a sleeve-valve unit - which, just as the aero-engines had, demonstrated its superior port/time/area,
> & other attributes - as a G.P. race mill - & which of course, was then promptly banned, by the FIA...



To the best of my knowledge, Cosworth did no such thing.

They built the DFV (Double Four Valve), which was based on the 4 cylinder FVA.

It remained in F1 until 1985.

Keith Duckworth was not a fan of the turbo engines. He believed them to contravene the rule about only one power source. But since they were dominating F1, Ford asked him to build a turbo engine.

Duckworth's response was to design a turbo-compound. Going to the extent of building a single cylinder test engine.

The FIA told him that it would be banned immediately after it won its first race. So it did not proceed. 

Instead, Cosworth developed the Ford TEC/Cosworth GBA twin turbo 1.5l v6, which raced in 1986 and 1987.

Ilmor developed a rotary valve engine in the 1990s, but this was banned. But this was also not a sleeve valve.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Yeah SR6, some Bristol fighter engines did get higher boost ( 1944: Centaurus @ + 12lbs), &/or ADI,
but earlier, ( see post 339) I did pose a power/economy comparison question.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

wuzak said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Cosworth did no such thing.
> 
> They built the DFV (Double Four Valve), which was based on the 4 cylinder FVA.
> 
> ...


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 15, 2018)

Hairog said:


> The Lightning defeated both the Japanese and the Luftwaffe before the more publisized cleanup crew showed up.



Not to ridicule or limit the achievements of the brave men who flew the Lightning in combat, but this type of inflammatory rhetoric is commonplace when your favorite aircraft doesn't have the stats to back up your wild claims. But I guess it's a far easier task to minimize the officially recognized victory record of both the Mustang and Hellcat than to actually bring real statistics to support your claims. That the Lightning some how singlehandedly cleared the sky of all seasoned German and Japanese pilots, only to leave the "dregs" to the two highest scoring American fighter aircraft of the war, sounds like sour grapes to me.....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 15, 2018)

How about someone splits all the engine comments into a separate thread - it is definitely a topic worth discussing, and in detail but is leading this discussion astray.

For my 2 cents worth the most underrated aircraft of ww2 is the Douglas DC-3 and all its many military derivatives produced in the US, Japan and Russia. The US Army alone operated the C-41, C-47, C-47A, RC-47A, SC-47A, VC-47A, C-47B, VC-47B, XC-47C, C-47D, NC-47D, RC-47D, SC-47D, VC-47D, C-47E, C-47F, C-48, C-48A, C-48B, C-48C, C-49, C-49A, C-49B, C-49C, C-49D, C-49E, C-49F, C-49G, C-49H, C-49J, C-49K, C-50, C-50A, C-50B, C-50C and C-50D, C-51, C-52, C-52A, C-52B, C-52C, C-52D, C-53, C-53B, C-53C, C-53D,C-68, C-84, C-117A, VC-117A, SC-117A, C-117D, LC-117D, TC-117D, VC-117D, YC-129, XCG-17 - *and that is without getting into the Vietnam derivatives.*

Did you know that as a cargo glider (XCG-17) it had a far better glide ratio than any of the gliders that were designed from the ground up?

To quote wiki
_Trials conducted using a conventional, powered C-47, first conducting ordinary deadstick landings, then being towed by another C-47, indicated that the scheme was feasible.[2] Therefore, a C-47-DL was taken in hand for conversion into a glider, which was given the designation XCG-17.[4][5][N 2] The aircraft, formerly a Northwest Airlines DC-3 that had been impressed into military service at the start of World War II,[7][N 3] was modified by the removal of the aircraft's engines; the nacelles, containing the landing gear, remained in place, covered with aerodynamically profiled hemispherical domes for streamlining, containing fixed weight to compensate for the removal of the engines.[3][7][9] Other equipment, no longer necessary with the conversion to an unpowered configuration, was also removed to save weight;[3] items removed included the aircraft's wiring and bulkheads, along with the navigator's and radio operator's positions.[1][7]_

_ The C-54 was the preferred tow aircraft for the XCG-17

The conversion, carried out at Clinton County Army Air Field, was completed on June 12, 1944, with the aircraft undergoing its initial flight test shortly thereafter.[7] The flight testing of the XCG-17 proved that the aircraft was satisfactory; compared with conventional gliders in service, the aircraft possessed lower stalling and higher towing speeds than conventional gliders, as well as gliding at a significantly shallower angle.[4][10] Tow tests were conducted using a variety of aircraft; the most commonly used configuration was a tandem tow by two C-47s, with the towing aircraft coupled one in front of the other and the leading aircraft detaching following takeoff.[3] This configuration was dangerous for the "middle" C-47, however,[7] and it was determined that a single C-54 was the optimal tug aircraft.[2][7]


The XCG-17's cargo hold had a capacity of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg);[1][7][9] alternatively, up to 40 fully equipped troops could be transported, these figures being significantly larger than conventional gliders' capacity.[3] The XCG-17 was also capable of carrying three jeeps in a single load, or alternatively two 105-millimetre (4.1 in) howitzers.[7] Regardless of the aircraft's load, no ballast was required to maintain the aircraft's center of gravity,[3] a trait unique among American assault gliders.[7]


Despite the satisfactory results in testing, however, the aircraft failed the Army's requirement that it be capable of landing on unimproved fields;[7] in addition, by the time the evaluation of the XCG-17 was completed the need for such a large assault glider had passed.[1][9] The primary role for the glider had been intended to increase the amount of supplies that could be carried to China over "The Hump"; the war situation had, however, become more favorable and the added capacity an oversized glider would provide was no longer required.[11] No further examples of the type were produced; the prototype, its trials complete, was placed in storage, being ferried to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for disposal in August 1946.[7]


In August 1949, the aircraft was sold to Advance Industries, its engines being reinstalled to return the aircraft to powered status in DC-3C configuration.[7] Some sources, however, indicate that the XCG-17 was reconverted to C-47 configuration in 1946.[9] Following its restoration to powered status, the aircraft was transferred to Mexico,[7] where it remained in civilian service until 1980.[12]_


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, cylinder head temperatures sort of depend on the location of the thermocouple don't they?
> Often under the spark plug (or between the spark plug and the head?)
> 
> car CHT sensor
> View attachment 489812



Your car CHT sensor is similar to the aircraft ones used on ww2 aircraft like the B-24 and C-47 and almost identical to those used on many modern Continental and Lycoming engines.
The sensor replaces the spark plug gasket.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Poppet valve radial cylinder heads had to contend with supporting one cool (relatively)
& one hot ( incandescent exhaust ), valve - plus the ports flowing gas to-&-from them,
along with the oil lubricating/cooling - the valve gear itself.

Overheated exhaust valve seats could be hammered out of the Al castings supporting them,
& valve heads may drop off..
(any members here experience having a hard-run, heat-soaked, air-cooled VW mill..
- drop a valve head?.. it was invariably from No 3 cyl, the hottest running one,
due to it being blanketed by the oil-cooler..)

Bristol sleeve valve heads had zero moving parts above the piston,
& nothing needing copious oil - to be damaged by heat, or leak, or fly apart, & burn..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

The main trouble with the Sleeve valve was that it almost always was one step behind the poppet valve. 

You use as an example the troubles with one poppet valve engine in one installation. Yes the troubles of the R-3350 as used in B-29s are well known. However if we step back and look at the bigger picture there were somewhere around 2500-2800 Bristol Centaurus engines built in total?
over how many years and in 34 different versions (some minor)?
Production of the R-3350 hit 2500 total sometime in April of 1944. By the end of 1944 they were making almost 1900 a month. 
The engine was rushed into service before being thoroughly sorted out. 
Anybody want to tell us how many Bristol Centaurus engines saw combat in WW II?

Contributing to the R-3350s woes in early models was the poor supercharger inlet which resulted in poor mixture distribution. This meant not all cylinders got the same mixture and some were running a lot leaner than others, including the infamous No 3.
Before the war ended new R-3350 engines were being fitted with direct fuel injection which solved the mixture distribution problem. There were a number of other problems including one that had nothing to do with the valve action. They had problems with exhaust leaks from the ball joint
in the exhaust system on some of the front cylinders. Having hot exhaust gases blowing on your cylinder heads certainly doesn't help cooling.
By the end of the war against Japan the R-3350s were being rated for 400 hours between overhauls. It took a lot of hard work and many modifications to get there but it did. Post war saw many more improvements and higher times between overhauls. 

As too the CHT thing. That was also part of the R-3350s woes. Some of them were out of calibration and not giving accurate readings. 
Most service engines only had or two(?) per engine and the crew hoped it was placed on the hottest cylinder on _their_ engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/contributions/photos/329-napier-sabre-animations-created-by-sergio-pasquali

Some great animations here, what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 15, 2018)

Apparently, sleeve valve engines were not able to demonstrate greater volumetric efficiency than contemporary engines from P&WA and Curtiss-Wright and were more sensitive to CHT (Bristol Engine Tests)

For some more information:
http://enginehistory.org/members/articles/Sleeve.pdf

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


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

@ SR 6, there is no doubt the US aero-engine manufacturing system was much more efficiently 
organised & directed than any other.. FDR's 'New Deal' federal overseers were cranked up for
war, with skilled men such as JK Galbraith able to cut through many 'vested interest' issues.

& capable engineers in US automotive corporations put their considerable talents to work.
Chrysler in fact, while building R-3350s showed Wright how to effectively sort out a number
of problems, since the Mopar team's mills were increasing durability/TBO quicker than CW.

But it is important not to conflate design merit with production numbers, a Model A Ford
aint no blower-Bentley.

@ pbehn, it is important not to conflate muliplicity with complexity, & sleeve valve engines
had advantages in fewer moving/wearing parts, improved access to items like spark-plugs,
& no need for valve adjustments between overhauls.

@SY, the author of those articles apparently has little actual 'hands on' experience with engines,
as he makes some assumptions from a basis lacking a grasp of engine architecture & function.
IMO, this also applies to his thesis supervisor, who ought to referred him to an engineer with a
proper working understanding of the tech - to check his work, & advise corrections.

Also, he needs to do a more diligent literature review, many primary sources are available.
(several members here, for example - could have guided him in the right direction).
& even a quick search brings up stuff like: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive.com/view/1944/1944 - 2008.html

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

This one - looks like it'll be a well researched book.
Current Book: The Secret Horsepower Race - Calum Douglas

& member Bill Pearce - runs an excellent blog: Hawker Fury I (Sabre-Powered) Fighter


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

In the late war years Rolls Royce developed a sleeve valve H format 24 cylinder engine, the Eagle. It was used in the prototypes for the Westland Wyvern a carrier based strike plane. Given the free choice they chose sleeve valves but almost all their wartime experience was with water cooled V 12s. The H format is two water cooled flat 12s fastened together. As far as I understand the discussion it is not so much that sleeve valves had greater volumetric efficiency but that they could have higher boost on the same fuel without detonation, the downside being the scraping of pistons and rings against open ports.

The needs of poppet engines gave rise to new alloys like Brightray and Nimonic , while sleeve valves facing the same operating environment needed advanced nitrided austenitic spun forged steel. 

To increase performance from two row 18 cylinder, radial air cooled engines or V12s was not easy. Based on a maximum bore and stroke of 6inch the radial has the advantage because of 18cylinders but water cooling a radial is almost impossible. 

By 1944 Rolls Royce could no more come up with a ready made air cooled radial design any more than Wright could produce a water cooled H or V format engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> @ SR 6, there is no doubt the US aero-engine manufacturing system was much more efficiently
> organised & directed than any other.. FDR's 'New Deal' federal overseers were cranked up for
> war, with skilled men such as JK Galbraith able to cut through many 'vested interest' issues.
> 
> ...



I think you are rather missing the point. If you are going to build hundreds if not thousands of engines per month you had better have at least tried to finalize the basic design. In fact this was a major problem with the R-3350. Dodge actually outproduced Wright by large margin despite thousands of engineering changes.
However there was one problem that Dodge could not solve, or took longer than it should have. 
When tooling up the factory in 1943 they had to decide between using cast heads or forged heads in order to get the appropriate equipment. The Forged heads were still in the developmental stage at the time so they went with the cast heads as an expediency to get the factory going sooner. This bit them in ass big time as the stronger forged heads would have been less prone to dropping valve seats. 

We are back to comparing the oh so wonderful sleeve valve engines of 1945-46 with the poppet valve engines of 1943-44, not comparing model As and blower Bentleys. Two years was long time in WW II in terms of metallurgy (alloys and heat treat). 

Why were several hundred Vickers Warwicks built with P & W R-2800s............Oh yeah, the Centaurus engine wasn't ready yet, the Vulture had been dropped form production and the Sabre was not being built in large enough numbers to swipe any from Typhoon production. I will admit that the R-2800 Warwick was more than a bit of of a dud but then that is what happens when you stick a pair of 1850hp engines in a 45,000lb plane. I doubt anybody else's 1800-1900hp engine would have done any better. 

From Wiki so.....
"_The first major problem experienced during the first few flights was serious engine vibrations, which were cured by replacing the rigid, eight-point engine mountings with six-point rubber-packed shock mounts. In a further attempt to alleviate engine vibration, the four blade propeller was replaced with a five blade unit; eventually, a finely balanced four bladed unit was settled on.[35][36]Problems were also experienced with* engine overheating, poor crankshaft lubrication, exhaust malfunctions and reduction-gear seizures*. *Because of these problems*, and because of the decision to "tropicalise" all Tempest IIs for service in the South-East Asian theatre, *production was delayed*_"

Now this was right about the time the The R-3350 was going into full scale production in two major factories, flawed as it was. 

How long did it take for the Hercules, a 2360 cu in engine to really exceed the Wright R-2600 in power per cubic in?? I mean by more than a few hundredths of a hp per cu in? 
Or when was the Hercules first flown _in service??? _or issued to to a service squadron??
The R-2600 first flew the Atlantic on June 24, 1939 and this was not a stunt as they had started the first San Francisco to Hong Kong flight on February 23, 1939

I don't really care about first runs on a test bench or even first flights in a test hack aircraft. The Sleeve valve engines were trailing the poppet valve engines in service/squadron use.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Two years was long time in WW II in terms of metallurgy (alloys and heat treat).
> 
> .


A long and informative post S/R but this is the most important part, discussing "valves" and "sleeves" without discussing what they were made from ignores a major part of the technical battlefield, much of it about boring details about metal manufacture and properties.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

No SR6, I am not the one missing the point, the sad fact about British politico-industrial leadership
& organisation being so inept in many instances - is a different subject from engine design merits.

& here is a service trial of a sleeve-valve powered machine from late `41:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf

Performance figures well in advance of any other contemporary service test machine.

& despite the well documented shambles that accompanied the Typhoon in 1941-43,
a comparison with the F4U shows which of that pair reached its design goals 1st.


P
 pbehn
, here is Roy Fedden's list of sleeve-valve merits:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941 - 2830.html


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> No SR6, I am not the one missing the point, the sad fact about British politico-industrial leadership
> & organisation being so inept in many instances - is a different subject from engine design merits.
> 
> & here is a service trial of a sleeve-valve powered machine from late `41:
> ...


J.A.W. you are not a fool so why act like one, the sleeve valve had merits and de merits, the aviation industry decided the de merits were more important. Peak horsepower is one issue, reliability and serviceability is another.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Yeah the Warwick was an orphan, the last of Britain's dud attempt at big medium bombers,
& underpowered when flying with R-2800 bomber mills, so most def' a waste of a brace of Sabres,
'cept maybe - for a thrill-ride - Vmax = Vne.. woo hoo...

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201439.html


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> J.A.W. you are not a fool so why act like one, the sleeve valve had merits and de merits, the aviation industry decided the de merits were more important. Peak horsepower is one issue, reliability and serviceability is another.



Incorrect yet again, ben.. as the linked evidence - should you choose to avail yourself of it - shows..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> To increase performance from two row 18 cylinder, radial air cooled engines or V12s was not easy. Based on a maximum bore and stroke of 6inch the radial has the advantage because of 18cylinders but *water cooling a radial is almost impossible. *
> 
> By 1944 Rolls Royce could no more come up with a ready made air cooled radial design any more than Wright could produce a water cooled H or V format engine.



Salmson produced -- not prototyped -- water-cooled radials. For a slightly larger engine, so did Nordberg and Zvezda. In the realm of prototypes, Lycoming R-7755 and Curtiss-Wright R-2160. 

---

@ J.A.W.,

One should also not conflate unit cost with design excellence; the Model T was an _extremely_ well-designed product that used some advanced materials (and some not so advanced) to optimize utility, _e.g._, a high-alloy steel was used for parts to improve service life. This has gotten quite far afield from the original topic of the thread; the argument of the superiority (or not) of sleeve valves and Napier engines may be worth its own thread, but it's quite irrelevant to the question of which aircraft were under-rated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Incorrect yet again, ben.. as the linked evidence - should you choose to avail yourself of it - shows..


I read them, it is incredible how the links you post repeatedly point to reliability issues in almost every paragraph.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

@ SY, I don't think so, many a time - engine-airframe are twofer deal..

Take the proposed Spitfire replacement - the Tornado, without the Vulture, it was a dead-duck.
Unlike the Manchester which by accepting 2 Merlins for each Vulture, successfully morphed into the Lancaster..

& a Model A Ford, for all its value-for-$ practicality,
it wasn't going to whip an SSK Mercedes-Benz over 24hrs @ Le Mans..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read them, it is incredible how the links you post repeatedly point to reliability issues in almost every paragraph.



"Incredible"?
Really? - I'd reckon reliability issues were a fairly self-evidently obvious concern for users of aero-engines..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> @ SY, I don't think so, many a time - engine-airframe are twofer deal..
> 
> Take the proposed Spitfire replacement - the Tornado, without the Vulture, it was a dead-duck.
> unlike the Manchester which by accepting 2 Merlins for each Vulture, successfully morphed into the Lancaster..
> ...


The Typhoon/Tornado were supposed to be the spitfire/hurricane replacement as a high altitude inteceptor, after many years and three engines in many guises they managed it at low altitude only


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Which just happened to be where the most useful 'trade' could be found, for ADGB in that period, too..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Which just happened to be where the most useful 'trade' could be found, for ADGB in that period, too..


That "period" being 1944 is one of your choosing, it was supposed to be sorted in 1941/42, but it needed a new engine, wings, fuselage, canopy and tail. The Typhoon was required as a top class all altitude fighter in 1942 but it lapsed into a ground attack plane with a radiator in 1944, the Tempest, when introduced in 1944 it was in a world of jets and rockets.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read them, it is incredible how the links you post repeatedly point to reliability issues in almost every paragraph.


Are you really implying that the Hercules, which was in widespread service for much of the war, was significantly less reliable than its contemporaries?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Are you really implying that the Hercules, which was in widespread service for much of the war, was significantly less reliable than its contemporaries?


No, I was referring to all the links posted about sleeve valve engines by J.A.W. the Hercules seems to take a back seat behind the stellar performance of the Sabre and Centaurus.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> No, I was referring to all the links posted about sleeve valve engines by J.A.W. the Hercules seems to take a back seat behind the stellar performance of the Sabre and Centaurus.


So the mainstream use of sleeve valves during the war proved normally reliable, but the urgent development of the next generation of engine was problematical. Sounds pretty standard for engine development worldwide.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

I do like the car comparisons though. Like the US was incapable of build powerful cars. Picking one of the cheapest US cars of the time and comparing it Blower Bentleys and Mercedes SSKs to try to prove a point about aircraft engines is ludicrous. 
Yes the US 2 valve radials were cheaper but not the 10 to 1 ratio (or more) that these cars were. and comparing a 4.5liter supercharged engine to a 3.3 liter unsupercharged car sure doesn't tell you anything new, let alone bringing in the 7 liter supercharged SSK. 
Maybe we should bring in the 1928 Stutz? The one that lead Le Mons for over q/w the race before the Gear box broke (and lets remember that the Bentleys often failed to finish 100% of their starters) 

We are getting a bit far afield. 
The Sleeve valve engines were developed, as I have said before, into high powered, reliable and long lasting engines. It is just that they didn't offer that much of an improvement over the poppet valve engines _of the same time. _The millions of pounds invested in the sleeve valve never really paid off despite the gee whiz numbers posted by the last of the engines.

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> So the mainstream use of sleeve valves during the war proved normally reliable, but the urgent development of the next generation of engine was problematical. Sounds pretty standard for engine development worldwide.


Not really because the Merlin replaced it in the area that it was supposed to be replaced, high altitude interceptor. The Napier Sabre sleeve valve was only marginally reliable in service, when you have to heat engines and "run them up" every few hours you need two maintenance crews, time between overhauls was 25 hrs at times. Engines with similar swept volume went on to power the worlds airliners, the Napier Sabre was retired ASAP and not sold to anyone. You could say that the Centaurus was more successful, but how many engine variants did the Typhoon Tempest have in the course of the war?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

No..
Viz: 1942/43, the 'Focke-Wulf scourge' where FW 190s indulged in 'tip & run' JaBo attacks,
even to the extent of 'laying on' - a mass daylight raid on London itself in Jan `43..

Spitfires could not catch these fast intruders when they were running hard for home,
but Typhoons could, & did..

Same with sneaky Do 217 recce & mine-layer intruders, they were fast enough at low level to 
often evade Spitfire interception attempts, but Typhoons could run them down..

As for V1s, Sabre powered Hawkers garnered the 'lions share' of fighter victories there too,
preventing 800+ of the Nazi vengeance cruise-missiles from crashing down on Londoners..


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Sleeve valve engines were developed, as I have said before, into high powered, reliable and long lasting engines. It is just that they didn't offer that much of an improvement over the poppet valve engines _of the same time. _The millions of pounds invested in the sleeve valve never really paid off despite the gee whiz numbers posted by the last of the engines.


Retrospectroscope, much? Poppet valves for high-performance engines were saved by the development of high octane fuels. At the time when sleeve valves were being developed - the Hercules started development in 1936, I think - high octane fuels didn't exist. Sleeve valves were a pretty good way to get high performance from 87 octane fuel.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Not really because the Merlin replaced it in the area that it was supposed to be replaced, high altitude interceptor. The Napier Sabre sleeve valve was only marginally reliable in service, when you have to heat engines and "run them up" every few hours you need two maintenance crews, time between overhauls was 25 hrs at times. Engines with similar swept volume went on to power the worlds airliners, the Napier Sabre was retired ASAP and not sold to anyone. You could say that the Centaurus was more successful, but how many engine variants did the Typhoon Tempest have in the course of the war?



Still wrong, ben..

Read the AFDU Tactical Trial.. the Spit V was whipped.. ( & the FW 190 proved it).
& "marginally reliable" - seriously - where do you get this stuff from? 

The RAF had standards, & if the Sabre was as awful as you purport, it would've been cancelled, like the Vuture..
& certainly not kept in hard-duty service 'til 1955..

Here's an exercise for you ben, compare the two Kiwi fighter squadrons operational in Blighty, No's 485 & 486,
485 was Spitfire equipped & 486 went Hurricane-Typhoon-Tempest, guess which - had the 'results on the board'..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Retrospectroscope, much? Poppet valves for high-performance engines were saved by the development of high octane fuels. At the time when sleeve valves were being developed - the Hercules started development in 1936, I think - high octane fuels didn't exist. Sleeve valves were a pretty good way to get high performance from 87 octane fuel.



Indeed, Wilkinson notes that the fuel spec for the final Sabre - rated at 3,500hp for take off, was regular 100/130..


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Indeed, Wilkinson notes that the fuel spec for the final Sabre - rated at 3,500hp for take off, was regular 100/130..


And it needs to be reemphasised, the peak power settings on a Sabre could be sustained for hours. This was not a break-the-wire-and-rebuild-the-engine setting.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> So the mainstream use of sleeve valves during the war proved normally reliable, but the urgent development of the next generation of engine was problematical. Sounds pretty standard for engine development worldwide.



Well, there were basically 5 sleeve valve engines. 
The 9 cylinder Perseus which may have been a fine engine but it was just too small to power front line combat aircraft.

The 14 cylinder Taurus which fell on it's face coming out of the gate. The Air Ministry was all set to replace it with the poppet valve R-1830 until the ship carrying the first 200 engines was sunk by a U-Boat. Air Ministry decided planes powered by a less than ideal engine were better than planes sitting outside the factory waiting for engines. 

The 14 Cylinder Hercules using Perseus cylinders (another reason the Perseus faded from sight), In 1940 there were as host of problems with the Hercules which lead to Merlin powered Beaufighters and Merlin powered Wellingtons. Basically production problems with the sleeves (sound familiar?) which Bristol solved literally in the nick of time. Went on to become a very good engine but never really lead the way in HP per pound or HP per cu in. 

The Sabre which we have been debating for pages and pages and.........

The 18 Cylinder Centaurus, while first run in 1938, was put on hold for a number of reasons and not really brought out again until 1943? at any rate the only wartime aircraft to use were some Vickers Warwicks (a lot built but few issued?) The Hawker Tempest II (but did not enter squadron service until after WW II ended, the The Bristol trio.....The Buckingham/Brigand/Buckmaster. Engine may have been much less to blame than the airframe/s. 
the Blackburn Firebrand was another late war lashup that did nothing to prove or disprove the Centaurus engine during the war. 
The Centaurus was, for all practical purposes a post war engine and it's reliability/engine life and power ratings should be compared to other post war engines.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I do like the car comparisons though. Like the US was incapable of build powerful cars. Picking one of the cheapest US cars of the time and comparing it Blower Bentleys and Mercedes SSKs to try to prove a point about aircraft engines is ludicrous.
> Yes the US 2 valve radials were cheaper but not the 10 to 1 ratio (or more) that these cars were. and comparing a 4.5liter supercharged engine to a 3.3 liter unsupercharged car sure doesn't tell you anything new, let alone bringing in the 7 liter supercharged SSK.
> Maybe we should bring in the 1928 Stutz? The one that lead Le Mons for over q/w the race before the Gear box broke (and lets remember that the Bentleys often failed to finish 100% of their starters)
> 
> ...





Duesenberg/ AFAIR, never attempted to win Le Mans, but in the late `20s when Bentley & Benz were
going 'hammer & tongs' - Chrysler & Stutz gave it a red-hot go, getting right up there, fighting for the win, & full credit to 'em..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Ok, you asked for it!

Here's ol' Len Setright getting more'n a tad lurid - about the Sabre..

The Greatest Engines of All Time by LJK Setright

( To be fair, Lenny did have full access to the Napier technical archive, before R-R 'lost' it..)

& re: wartime Centaurus use, 1stly - it didn't have many airframes to go into (as SR6 notes),
2ndly, it had not yet had its 'bugs ironed out', due to Bristol keeping busy..
- with developing & producing ~55,000 Hercules units..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Retrospectroscope, much? Poppet valves for high-performance engines were saved by the development of high octane fuels. At the time when sleeve valves were being developed - the Hercules started development in 1936, I think - high octane fuels didn't exist. Sleeve valves were a pretty good way to get high performance from 87 octane fuel.



Retrospectroscope only a little;
"On *September 13, 1935*, Hughes piloted the H-1 to a new speed record of 352 miles per hour (566 kilometers per hour) at Martin Field, near Santa Ana, California."
Hughes was using 100 octane fuel. Granted at the time it cost about 10 times what normal av-gas did. At the 1938 Paris air show RR was quoting power figures for 100 octane gas. Everybody knew it was coming, the question was when. 

I would also note that the Hercules never went over a 7.0 compression ratio.

P & W R-1830s, R-1535s and even R-1690s (9 cylinder Hornets) used compression ratios of 6.0 on 80 octane fuel and 6.5 to 6.75 (but usually 6.7) when rated on 87 octane. 
Sorry, a higher compression of 0.3 points (4.4%?)doesn't seem like that big of an advantage. 
Back in the mid 20s when gas was under 70 octane a fair amount of the time the ability to use 6.0 compression vs 5.0 may have been a significant advantage. but that advantage seemed to disappear well before 100 octane showed up. In part because with sodium filled exhaust valves and better heat paths from the valve through the valve guides and into better finning the exhaust valve was no longer the glowing hot spot it had been in the 20s. 
No retrospectroscope needed for that one.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> And it needs to be reemphasised, the peak power settings on a Sabre could be sustained for hours. This was not a break-the-wire-and-rebuild-the-engine setting.



And it has to be noted that the 3500hp figure was post war, it was take-off only, 5 minutes max and used ADI.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Duesenberg/ AFAIR, never attempted to win Le Mans, but in the late `20s when Bentley & Benz were
> going 'hammer & tongs' - Chrysler & Stutz gave it a red-hot go, getting right up there, fighting for the win, & full credit to 'em..


STUTZ AT LE MANS

Well, if not attempting to win they sure put in a lot laps sightseeing. Not as successful as Bentley (but then they didn't enter 3-5 cars at a time) a few finishes in the top 5 for cars built at over a 1000 a year doesn't seem too bad.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> And it has to be noted that the 3500hp figure was post war, it was take-off only, 5 minutes max and used ADI.



Sure & that'd likely be a limitation of the Tempest/Fury coolant complex,
however the Sabre had service clearance for an hour's running,
at its considerable 'climb rating' power-setting..
- which is more than R-R's V12s, & the ( as Len Setright put it - "lazybones") US radials - could bear.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> STUTZ AT LE MANS
> 
> Well, if not attempting to win they sure put in a lot laps sightseeing. Not as successful as Bentley (but then they didn't enter 3-5 cars at a time) a few finishes in the top 5 for cars built at over a 1000 a year doesn't seem too bad.



Yeah, apologies SR 6, mea culpa, I stuffed up that post,
( haste & distraction, but no excuse) but as soon as I re-read it, I edited it.. 

& you are correct about the importance of teams, it was what finally won America's 1st big Le Mans title for Ford, 1,2,3!
( albeit it was won by a Kiwi driver crew - in an NZ black - GT 40.)


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Some immediate post-war Hercules power/economy figures in this 'Flight' table..
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947 - 1491.html

Anyone care to post the equivalent R-2600 data - for comparison?

I see the 36 litre Griffon burns about 25* (imp) gallons per hour extra @ 25,000ft,
to make ~100 more hp using + 7lbs boost - than the 38 litre Hercules 130 does
at that height - for max lean cruise on +2lbs boost..

* 94 VS 70.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Some immediate post-war Hercules power/economy figures in this 'Flight' table..
> http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947 - 1491.html
> 
> Anyone care to post the equivalent R-2600 data - for comparison?



And here is were it starts going south, Wright pretty much stopped development of the R-2600 before the war ended. One source claims production ceased immediately at the end of WW II. 

But a BB series R-2600 was good for 1900hp at take-off at 2800rpm using 46in of boost (8.0lbs), the engine used a compression ratio of 6.9 to 1. 
Cruise fuel consumption was supposed to be 0.46lbs per hp. Cruise rating given was 1040hp at 2100rpm at 10,000ft.
Normal (max continuous) was 1600hp at 2400rpm at 3000ft. 
This for a single speed single stage supercharger. Numbers from Wilkinsons Aircraft engines of the World.
Weight was about 2090lbs. 
Please note that the 1900hp R-2600s were used in Eastern Aircraft TBM-3s, Curtiss SB2C-3/-4s and Martin PBM-3Ds. They had built just about 1000 of them in 1943. Over 8800 in the Cincinnati plant in 1944 before production was stopped to concentrate on the R-3350. 

so yeah, lets compare the Hercules 230 and 730 to an engine that was in production in 1943 and essentially untouched afterwards. 
BTW the R-2600 never used water injection. Never used anything better than 100/130. 

Want to post the 1943 Hercules figures?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

'Flight' appears to have been constrained from publishing those figures during
wartime, due to security concerns, & 'Pilot's Notes' don't go into hp @ rpm figures..

But here's a 'Flight' article from May `45, with the Hercules power/consumption charts:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945 - 1015.html

Max power: 1,775hp @ 2,800rpm on +7lbs boost for 0.792 lb gas per hp/hr.
Max continuous: 1,550hp @ 2,400rpm on +6lbs boost for 0.693 lb gas per hp/hr.
Max weak cruise: 1,280hp @ 2,400rpm on +3lbs boost for 0.418 lb gas per hp/hr.


Edit: Looks like typical air-cooled radial use of the juice - as an internal coolant, running hard,
& oh yeah, a fine volumetric efficiency factor on eco-cruise, as expected by sleeve-valves..


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ok, you asked for it!
> 
> Here's ol' Len Setright getting more'n a tad lurid - about the Sabre..
> 
> ...



Ah, yes, the epitome of flag-waving, where is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sabre was making 2600+ HP on early Typhoons, and capable for 5000 HP later (why not, say, 7000 HP, now that numbers can be tossed around like it's no-one's business?). Yet, not a single facsimile of any original test report was provided by Setright that would've prove those figures. A three stage supercharger on any Sabre??? 3700 BHP day after day??? Never being envisaged as high altitude engine - a lame escuse for not being capable for coming out with a 2-stage S/C. Modestly rated at Typhoon at +15 psi while it took 130 grade fuel and reinforced crankshaft in 1944 to attain +11 psi??? Those are Luft'46-level fairytales, going along with conspiracy theory galore.

Sabre's power (and it was a powerful engine) came from use of many cylinders that allowed for high piston speed and high RPM, good dispacement and heavy weight. Napier knew well that small cylinders/pistons will allow for great RPM with Dagger.
Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, Sabre run too late to matter for the Allied war effort, too late for shadow factories to be built pre-war, and was plagued with reliability problems until those were solved via use of Bristol-made sleeves.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 16, 2018)

The discussion concerning the Napier engine and the aircraft it powered has been quite illuminating for me to say the least. And while I haven't quite made my mind up yet concerning whether or not the Typhoon/Tempest combo had been "underrated" all these years, you gotta love what these babies were capable of when their engines were in good working order:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgx8z-QBtGk_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Ah, yes, the epitome of flag-waving, where is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sabre was making 2600+ HP on early Typhoons, and capable for 5000 HP later (why not, say, 7000 HP, now that numbers can be tossed around like it's no-one's business?). Yet, not a single facsimile of any original test report was provided by Setright that would've prove those figures. A three stage supercharger on any Sabre??? 3700 BHP day after day??? Never being envisaged as high altitude engine - a lame escuse for not being capable for coming out with a 2-stage S/C. Modestly rated at Typhoon at +15 psi while it took 130 grade fuel and reinforced crankshaft in 1944 to attain +11 psi??? Those are Luft'46-level fairytales, going along with conspiracy theory galore.
> 
> Sabre's power (and it was a powerful engine) came from use of many cylinders that allowed for high piston speed and high RPM, good dispacement and heavy weight. Napier knew well that small cylinders/pistons will allow for great RPM with Dagger.
> Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, Sabre run too late to matter for the Allied war effort, too late for shadow factories to be built pre-war, and was plagued with reliability problems until those were solved via use of Bristol-made
> sleeves.




Tomo, Len Setright did have access to the Sabre's test records, & they - just as the R-2800
& the Merlin did, showed they were capable of greater outputs on test, where the engines
themselves were not subject to the constraints imposed by airframe systems limitations.

In the test cell, available cooling, fuel, & supercharger pressures were practically unlimited,
should the tester want to run the engine core to max capability,
& propeller limitations were also absent.*

Wilkinson gives the official power ratings in his book,
( parts of which are available at wwiiaircraftperformance),
- along with BMEP & fuel grade figures.

The Sabre's crankshaft was modified, 1stly to use steel-backed shell insert plain bearings,
& 2ndly to delete the full counterweighting, which was found to be needless in practice.

Tomo while only 5,000 or so Sabre's were built, you are incorrect to assert that the Hawker
fighters they powered "were too late to matter for the Allied war effort", since those British
civilians being subject to Nazi attacks by FW 190 JaBos in 1942/43 & V1 cruise missiles
in 1944 were certainly glad of the effective interception capabilities bestowed by the Sabre.

& post D-day the Typhoon units bore the brunt of RAF 2nd TAF close support, being able
to range further, faster & with twice the war-load of the Spitfires doing similar work.

The power of the Sabre enabled the Typhoon to carry a significant layer of useful
armour protection too, something the svelte Spitfires could not do.

& when the Tempest was released from ADGB anti-V1 duties & returned to 2nd TAF,
for the offence, in the role of A2A/frontal air-superiority fighter, the Tempest shot down
every kind of long nose Focke-Wulf, late mark Bf 109, & ultra-modern turbo-jet flying..

See Caldwell's JG 26 history for evidence of how fierce were the combats which Tempest units
mounted against LW attempts to intercept Allied tactical aircraft, & mount their own A2G attacks.

Compared to the Centaurus, Griffon & Vulture, the other 'big' British aero-engines, the
Sabre was the most techically advanced of the lot, yet provided more useful war service than
the rest - put together!

*Developing propellers to handle the Sabre's output lagged behind Sabre power capabilities,
& Hawker design boss Sid Camm accused R-R of virtual sabotage - by delaying supply of
the needed Rotol props, ( de Havilland units were proving to be problematic) & Camm
would know, because Rotol props were available for his Bristol Centaurus powered
Tempest Mk II's ( albeit the engines themselves - were scarce!) but not for the Sabre.

(Rotol was co-owned by R-R & Bristol, the letter Ro for R-R, & tol, for Bristol).


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2018)

The Typhoon was supposed to be a high altitude interceptor. Since it never got high altitude performance I fail to see how it was the most advanced engine and since it never had altitude performance the RAF would always need another fighter. Whatever the Tempests performance in 1944/45 it should have been in service much sooner, instead pilots had to press on in obsolete Hurricanes and Spitfires and others for ground attack for far too long. Napier as a company proved incapable of mass manufacturing their own design so I don't see how they can blame others for their problems.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Seems like you "don't see" - quite a few things, ben..

There really wasn't much high altitude 'trade' for RAF fighters in the ETO, was there..

& the British organised such excessive Merlin production ( while making very few 'big' mills)
that mass-produced obsolete Hurricanes* & out-dated Merlin-Spitfires had to be found
some useful work to do, as 2nd rate A2G 'mud-movers'..

*Albeit the Hurricane was so loss-costly, that it was withdrawn from such ops for the
post D-day, tactical air-power - invasion push into Europe).


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> There really wasn't much high altitude 'trade' for RAF fighters in the ETO, was there..


There was a lot of "trade", in high altitude interception, photo recon, there was N Africa, Malta and the far east in addition to "stuff" like Dieppe. You just discount any theatre or era where the Typhoon or Tempest didn't do well, Typhoons were at Dieppe you know.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

C'mon ben, that stuff was 'bits & bobs' at best.. 

& the RAF kept their best, in the NW-ETO..

& as I wrote yesterday.. compare the score board record of the two Kiwi fighter squadrons in Blighty,
485, Spitfire equipped, & 486, who went Hurricane -Typhoon -Tempest, & see which'd got the most 'trade'...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> C'mon ben, that stuff was 'bits & bobs' at best..
> 
> & as I wrote yesterday.. compare the score board record of the two Kiwi fighter squadrons in Blighty,
> 485, Spitfire equipped, & 486, who went Hurricane -Typhoon -Tempest, & see which'd got the most 'trade'...


You switch nimbly between advocating the Sabre as an engine and the Tempest as a plane. Most "trade" in 1944 was actually at high altitude over the Benelux and Germany and by far the most numerous and successful British engine was the Merlin in Lancasters, Halifaxes Moquitos and of course the P51. How did the Tempest get on in Italy, N Africa and the Far east BTW? Both the Sabre and Typhoon were ordered pre war, after years of development a few thousand were made and they did well in one theatre late in the war.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Right ben, so while those 'heavies' were conducting a defacto Merlins-to-Germany export program..

Other than PR Mosquitos/Spitfires, plus the 2-stage Merlin-powered 'spoof' & pathfinder Mosquitos,
( just about the only high-altitude RAF missions) the furthest ranging offensive RAF aircraft over Europe,
pre D-day - were low-altitude intruder missions, flown by Typhoons, Mustangs & Mosquitos..

Fighter Spits were just too short ranged, when flown hard..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Right ben, so while those 'heavies' were conducting a defacto Merlins-to-Germany export program..
> 
> Other than PR Mosquitos/Spitfires, plus the 2-stage Merlin-powered 'spoof' & pathfinder Mosquitos,
> ( just about the only high-altitude RAF missions) the furthest ranging offensive RAF aircraft over Europe,
> ...


Pre D-Day being from September 1939, your Typhoons in the 2nd TAF had six squadrons of spitfires for high altitude air superiority while 430 Griffon Spitfires were converted to photo recon. The point I am making is that there were a huge number of jobs and theatres that the Sabre couldn't be used for either because it was too late or didn't have the performance. 
Your endless discussion of range strange, within days of D-Day being a success teams of engineers were constructing airfields in Normandy so the planes were close to the front. Caen to Falaise is 24 miles.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

& your point is, ben?
But hey, by all means compare the value of 'trade' gleaned by Tempest units in the 2nd TAF,
compared to Griffon-Spits 'swanning about the stratosphere' - where most Germans were not..

You could also try to gain an understanding of 'close air support' - A2G work, too..
having such assets readily available to scramble & meet emerging issues within minutes,
or loiter, in an aerial 'cab rank' - until ordered into action, is certainly - part of the deal..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> & your point is, ben?
> But hey, by all means compare the value of 'trade' gleaned by Tempest units in the 2nd TAF,
> compared to Griffon-Spits 'swanning about the stratosphere' - where most Germans were not..
> 
> ...


But you are still using your retrospectometer as if everyone in the whole world knew that D-Day would be in June 1944 and the only aircraft needed from 1939 to D-Day and beyond was a Typhoon or Tempest, with anything not Sabre powered being discounted and any mission that couldn't be done by a Sabre being dismissed.

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


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Sorry ben, but your post is so incoherent.. it hurts my brain - just to read it, let alone decipher it - for a reply..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

It doesn't matter to me if Setright actually had any document or not. That piece is such a biased collection of nonsense it deserves to be enshrined in a Wikipedia article on how NOT to write technical articles.

" *Power had long been Napier's stock-in-trade*. _The company's design and development team was tiny but rich in talent._ Other riches had escaped them, and their hopes of getting something done about it were not much better, for the aero-engine business at the time was viciously competitive and the Air Ministry persistently refused to give them any encouragement. Rolls-Royce, having since the previous decade considered Napier a very real threat, employed its powerful lobbying facilities to ensure that its competitor was kept at bay."

Bolded part actually tells us nothing and actually goes against the facts. The Lion was a powerful engine in it's day but hardly head an shoulders ahead of some it's competition, Curtiss and Packard V-12s, The Rolls Royce Condor was certainly more powerful, the Mid to late 20s saw Hispano suiza stretch their V-8 into a V-12 of similar HP to the Lion. The Lion stagnated while other engines grew. The Napier Rapier was hardly a power house by anybodies definition so the "stock-in-trade" seems to have left the building. The Dagger was has hardly a front line engine either. 

The part in italics needs more than little explaining. The company didn't have much of design and development team. Not to take away anything from the poor guys who did the grunt work but you had Halford in an office in his own design company (with one or more assistants?) designing engines on contract for Napier. 
BTW he was also designing engines for De Havilland at the same time. He may have been talented but he may not have been as focused on the Sabre as a designer inbedded in the company might have been. 

"Unable to make headway with the production of the Sabre, Napier concentrated on its technical development. Employing a few little twin-cylinder research engines and some very complex and precise instrumentation of their own manufacture, Napier's engineers worked away perfecting the basic design, their ideas running further and further *beyond the original concept of 2,000bhp - a remarkable feat when at the time R-R Merlin was just breaking into four figures*."

design work started in 1935 according to most accounts. Engine first ran in Jan 1938. Mr. Setright gives no dates so it is hard to judge.
I would note that P & W started work on an R-2600 engine in 1935 and then bumped it to 2800 cu in in march of 1937 when they heard about the Wright R-2600. They had a 9 cylinder test rig running in Feb 1938. Please note this is P & W 4th twin row radial engine and 8th engine from the start of the company. It took until July of 1939 to pass a type test and get an engine into a test bed aircraft. By Feb of 1940 they had 5000 hours on the test engines. This is just to give perspective on the time it took to bring a new engine into service without tales of being blocked or conspiracies. 
I would note that the Merlin broke into four figures around 1936-7? and comparing a 37 liter engine to a 27 liter engine? Maybe he is referencing the Merlin because he figures his readers have heard of it but don't know what the Vulture is? RR was aiming for 2000hp at the same time, they just weren't planning on the Merlin to do it. Bristol also had the Centaurus on the drawing boards and in fact ran one in July of 1938 so the *concept* wasn't exactly novel. Across the pond the americans were working on the R-2800 and R-3350. 
By the time the Sabre passed it's first type test the Merlin had held 1600hp for over 10 hours when testing for the Speed Spitfire, and had hit someting over 1800hp? 

There seems to be a bit of confusion on how aircraft engines were rated. 

"To this day it is fashionable to doubt the supposed power of the Sabre. My information came from the wartime R&D department at Napier, and refutes the popular opinion. *In its first production form, for the Hawker Typhoon, the Sabre was modestly rated for combat at 2,615bhp at 3,850rpm and about 151b/in2 boost.* Later it was given water/methanol injection, raising that to 3,055bhp at 171b/in2 - still a shadow of its real ability, for it was known to be capable of a sustained 3,750bhp. That was actually the most it was ever set to deliver in service, though there had been experimental engines built (featuring much higher boost from a three-stage supercharger - the production Sabre was _quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine_) that it could deliver 5,5OObhp at 4,20Orpm, running at a boost of about 451b/in2 and a b.m.e.p. of 4671b/in2.
Nor was that 3,750bhp service a typical combat rating that might be maintained for only 15 minutes. It was a figure that could be sustained hour after hour, day after day: Napier tested the Sabre at that rating for 175 hours non-stop. The company's usual endurance test was more varied: 10 hours at cruise rating, three hours at climb rating, one hour at take-off power, and one hour at combat maximum, with the whole 15-hour cycle being repeated non-stop over and over again."

according to the RAF data card the Sabre II was rated at 2180hp at sea level at 3700rpm at 9lbs boost in 1944. Test of the Typhoon in Nov 1942 used 7lb boost as a limit. By July of 1943 the boost had been changed to 9lbs but rpm remained 3700rpm. 
Something over 1200 Typhoons had been built before they got the IIA engine so I have no idea where the Sabre ratings Setright is quoting come from. 
ANd the IIA was nowhere near his figures. The IIA was allowed 3750rpm, and the IIB 3850rpm. 
I will say that the numbers he quotes match up very well for the Sabre V used in the Tempest?????

However the _quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine _part takes bit of swallowing (or a rewrite of history). 

I would note that in US practice no WEP rating was approved until a test engine had run at that power for 7 1/2 hours, done in 5 minute spurts to allow for cooling in between. I would also note that most companies did NOT set their own test standard/cycle. The government or buying agency TOLD the manufacturer how many hours at each level of power would be required and while a company might choose to exceed those requirements (like run an engine longer at the high levels without using the cooling off period) the total number of hours would not change. The tests were much more severe than one might think because they were trying to ensure that the WORST engine in a batch would meet the standards in service. One can look at any number of engines that failed to make it to overhaul life or stopped running on take-off, etc to see the wisdom of allowing for some head room between test stand results and service ratings. 
These are not formula I car engines. You can't walk back to the pits after blowing up an engine on the back straight.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Sorry ben, but your post is so incoherent.. it hurts my brain - just to read it, let alone decipher it - for a reply..


 Somewhere there was a post with the "score board" for the the two fighters in NW Europe for several months and depending on how you viewed it it had some interesting statistics. The Typhoons dropped a lot more bombs, fired way more rockets and claimed many more tanks, vehicles, train engines and railcars. however they claimed something like 2 enemy aircraft in the air. The SPits had a much lower record of ground targets but claimed several score of German aircraft in the air, I forget the numbers. One can either guess the Typhoons really sucked at air to air OR that the Typhoons were attacking the stuff on the ground while the Spitfires kept whatever German fighters were in the area off their backs.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

2nd TAF Typhoons scored few more than 2, SR 6 - & one of them was an Me 262..

Also, USAAF 9th TAF P-47s which were like-wise using their - expensive, dedicated high-altitude optimised
turbo-blown - machines, for A2G duties - were not known for high scores against the anti-JaBo
interception missions conducted by JG 26 & other LW units either..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It doesn't matter to me if Setright actually had any document or not. That piece is such a biased collection of nonsense it deserves to be enshrined in a Wikipedia article on how NOT to write technical articles.
> 
> " *Power had long been Napier's stock-in-trade*. _The company's design and development team was tiny but rich in talent._ Other riches had escaped them, and their hopes of getting something done about it were not much better, for the aero-engine business at the time was viciously competitive and the Air Ministry persistently refused to give them any encouragement. Rolls-Royce, having since the previous decade considered Napier a very real threat, employed its powerful lobbying facilities to ensure that its competitor was kept at bay."
> 
> ...





Yeah SR 6, I did cover much of that ground, back in post 455, on the previous page..

The Napier Lion was a notably well-built & reliable service mill, it proved capable of record breaking with
an increase from 450hp to 800hp N/A ( on a 10 to 1 comp ratio) & even further to ~ 1,400hp blown,
so - not too shabby for a 24 litre design dating to 1918 - even up against a best of `30s Merlin performance.

That US 7.5 hour WEP test, was it run WFO, for the whole time, or was it repeated runs of 5min duration
done consecutively - with a cool-down period in between?

If it was a test bed run, with masses of real cold, dense air being blasted over it, & similarly with
the fuel/ADI - through it, then its a possibility, esp' for an air-cooled radial, but otherwise I doubt
that power could be sustained very long, without inevitable heat-soak/power-fade issues..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> That was actually the most it was ever set to deliver in service, though there had been experimental engines built (featuring much higher boost from a three-stage supercharger - the production Sabre was _quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine_) that it could deliver 5,5OObhp at 4,20Orpm, running at a boost of about 451b/in2 and a b.m.e.p. of 4671b/in2.



That is an odd statement, considering that the Sabre was to power the successor of the Spitfire (and Hurricane), very much a high altitude aircraft, for that time.

Also considering that when English electric took over, Napiers were working on a 2 stage 3 _speed_ supercharger for the Sabre (E122?). EE cancelled that engine so they could concentrate on making reliable production engines.

Also, the Sabre was available from the start with a 2 speed supercharger. Not something one would expect from an engine that is designed for low altitude work.


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 16, 2018)

I would definitely agree with B-24. Longer range, larger bomb load, and made in much larger numbers than the B-17. It did most of the heavy bombing work for the entire war, but didn't get the movie rights. (No 12 o'clock high B-24s).
After reading the book Stuka I learned how many tanks were destroyed by this ugly and slow airplane. Very under appreciated.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> By the time the Sabre passed it's first type test the Merlin had held 1600hp for over 10 hours when testing for the Speed Spitfire, and had hit something over 1800hp?



I believe it was somewhat more than that.

Over 2000hp, but I'd have to check.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> I would definitely agree with B-24. Longer range, larger bomb load, and made in much larger numbers than the B-17. It did most of the heavy bombing work for the entire war, but didn't get the movie rights. (No 12 o'clock high B-24s).
> After reading the book Stuka I learned how many tanks were destroyed by this ugly and slow airplane. Very under appreciated.



I don't think so, Liberators were justly renowned for their maritime patrol prowess, ( if less so for 8th AF duties).

& the Stuka was used so much more capably than the RAF's contemporary Battle/Skua pair, that bagging it for
its its like difficulties in contending with staunch opposition ( just as any bomber had) has become de rigueur..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The Napier Lion was a notably well-built & reliable service mill, it proved capable of record breaking with
> an increase from 450hp to 800hp N/A ( on a 10 to 1 comp ratio) & even further to ~ 1,400hp blown,
> so - not too shabby for a 24 litre design dating to 1918 - even up against a best of `30s Merlin performance.



Trouble is those racing engines weren't running on gasoline were they?
Now run that Lion at those power levels or even close to it for the same relative performance as the Merlin for the time needed for a type test.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Here's a 'Flight' piece on av-gas which notes the N/A racing Lion,
running on straight run gasoline, with ++TEL, for 880hp, & at good economy, too.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1118.html

& for sure ' The Great White Dyno' - WFO LSR runs across the salt at Bonneville - are a severe engine test.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> 2nd TAF Typhoons scored few more than 2, SR 6 - & one of them was an Me 262..
> ..



Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia

_Some 246 Axis aircraft were claimed by Typhoon pilots during the war....._

Yes they did but according to a Wikipedia article they scored far less than one would expect of a fighter aircraft that was in service for practically three and one-half years. But I'm sure it had more to do with a lack of opportunity than anything else (being for the most part utilized in a home defense or ground attack role).



_
_


_
_

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia
> 
> _Some 246 Axis aircraft were claimed by Typhoon pilots during the war....._
> 
> ...


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 16, 2018)

_"Yeah D-W, Johnny Baldwin was top scoring Typhoon ace with 16 victories credited,
& when the opportunity was there,
those quad 20mm Hispanos could sure bang out a deadly drumbeat..


On a 4th December `43 'Ramrod' ( USAAF 8th AF support) mission,
No's 198 & 609 Squadron Typhoons, 'lurking with intent' in proximity of
LW occupied Dutch airbases, overhauled & hacked down eleven
of KG 2's fast-fleeing Do 217 bombers.."
_
They sure were deadly in their own right. But from everything I've read there was a protracted and very painful development period for the aircraft, and this is true even if one ignores the controversy surrounding the Sabre engine. With your obvious knowledge of the aircraft and it's engine, do you agree with the oft-held belief that it was rushed into full-scale production well before it had matured into a viable operational fighter aircraft?
_



_


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> _"Yeah D-W, Johnny Baldwin was top scoring Typhoon ace with 16 victories credited,
> & when the opportunity was there,
> those quad 20mm Hispanos could sure bang out a deadly drumbeat..
> 
> ...


Typhoon, yes. It was urgently needed and was rushed into production. But not the Tempest, which is in no way the same aircraft. By the time the Tempest entered service it was an extremely capable and well sorted machine. Its combination of high speed, high climb rate, powerful armament and great cockpit visibility were unmatched. To my mind, it was the best mass-production fighter of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> They sure were deadly in their own right. But from everything I've read, there was a protracted and very painful development period for the aircraft, and this is true even if one ignores the controversy surrounding the Sabre engine. With your obvious knowledge of the aircraft and it's engine, do you agree with the oft-held belief that it was rushed into full-scale production well before it had matured into a viable operational fighter aircraft?



Back in those days DW, often only one, or maybe two prototypes were ordered/flown, so just as in the P-38 incident, so
if one crashed, it would set the whole program back significantly, even as production facilities were being organised
for hundreds of aircraft 'straight off the drawing board'.. & when the R-R Vulture engine failed, all those Tornado
specific jigs & other expensive manufacturing items were just so much scrap..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf

At the time ( late `41) that trial was done, the Typhoon was rushed into service..
(& def' prematurely, it was 'crawling with bugs') under wartime urgency measures,
due to the fact that the only other service fighter with a performance that humbled
the Spitfire V so effectively - was based just across the English Channel.. FW 190..
( albeit still suffering 'bugs' of its own).

As matter of interest DW, have you yet seen an F6F service test showing any
more impressive speed/height graphs than achieved - by those Typhoons?
They were - very likely - preciously hand-fettled 'production' jobs..

Edit: Fixed typos.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

SR 6 wrote:
"These are not formula I car engines. You can't walk back to the pits after blowing up an engine on the back straight."

No they aint, but doubtless ( as Biff can confirm), fighter jocks, then & now, just like Grand Prix riders/drivers, fully
expect to be handling - a no expense spared, pursang machine - able to hack their demands - when its 'hammer time'..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2018)

I’m still seeing the same snarky condescending comments. Last time...

Everyone be civil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> That US 7.5 hour WEP test, was it run WFO, for the whole time, or was it repeated runs of 5min duration
> done consecutively - with a cool-down period in between?
> 
> If it was a test bed run, with masses of real cold, dense air being blasted over it, & similarly with
> ...



Could it be.. that some of the reported difficulties encountered by the USAAF 8th AF 56th FG, with the
C-series R-2800s rushed over the Atlantic - to power the P-47M in time to see action, was due to excess
ADI use on test - for best power, then a too hurried packaging up, while still somewhat 'wet', 
& subsequent internal oxidisation/corrosion causing serviceability problems?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

Quoting test figures regardless of fuel used and conditions means nothing, the "R" series racing engines used by Rolls-Royce in the Schneider trophy were cleared for short sprints producing 2,783BHP.and had the same bore and stroke as the Griffon.

A fundamental issue at the time with the Sabre was the oils available. Since oils became increasingly viscous as temperatures went down, the Sabre with its massive surface area of sleeves and pistons in contact wouldn't "run on" with a Coffman starter and so were very difficult to start in cold weather. The solution was to heat them overnight and run them up every couple of hours.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Yeah, that technique of 'pre-warming' the lube/mill was SOP for the 'Russian Front',
but was blithely ignored in balmy Blighty..
& it has of course, been de rigueur for 'pukka' 4T race-mills, for 'yonks' too..
( So that'd be another Sabre/G.P. tech interface).

One of R-R's proud claims was that they'd developed their Griffon engine so well, it could match the mighty R-type
for max-power, but in regular service use, not just for a racing TBO of ~ an hour, or so..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, that technique of 'pre-warming' the lube/mill was SOP for the 'Russian Front',
> but was blithely ignored in balmy Blighty..
> & it has of course, been de rigueur for 'pukka' 4T race-mills, for 'yonks' too..
> ( So that'd be another Sabre/G.P. tech interface).
> ...


But that is exactly what they did, for any type of sustained use the Griffon could produce the same as the type R racers.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> But that is exactly what they did, for any type of sustained use the Griffon could produce the same as the type R racers.


 

Not quite, check the time allowance for the Griffon at its 'climbing power' rating, & see how far it falls short
of the more robust ( but same 36 litre swept volume) Sabre's "1 hour" capability - at that same rating..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Not quite, check the time allowance for the Griffon at its 'climbing power' rating, & see how far it falls short
> of the more robust ( but same 36 litre swept volume) Sabre's "1 hour" capability at that same rating..


The R engine was only cleared for short sprints, and not in aircraft at 2,783HP. The sabre had twice as many cylinders as the Griffon and had no high altitude performance, since it couldn't fight over 20,000ft the Griffon doesn't need much "climbing power" or time to get above that. Your definition of robust must be different to mine, robust means it doesn't eat itself on a regular basis. In the Typhoons first nine months of service it killed more of its own pilots than that of the enemy due to structural and engine failures. It is completely immaterial what Napier were producing on a test bed, the engines in service only produced that in the best case, in the worst case they failed. This is a quality control or more importantly quality assurance issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The R engine was only cleared for short sprints, and not in aircraft at 2,783HP. The sabre had twice as many cylinders as the Griffon and had no high altitude performance, since it couldn't fight over 20,000ft the Griffon doesn't need much "climbing power" or time to get above that. Your definition of robust must be different to mine, robust means it doesn't eat itself on a regular basis. In the Typhoons first nine months of service it killed more of its own pilots than that of the enemy due to structural and engine failures. It is completely immaterial what Napier were producing on a test bed, the engines in service only produced that in the best case, in the worst case they failed. This is a quality control or more importantly quality assurance issue.



Well, if you really believe that ben, you'd best be getting stuck in to some further research..

1stly , check the Schneider Trophy race reg's - it most def' - wasn't a "short sprint"!

& 2ndly, look up top scoring Typhoon ace Johnny Baldwin's 'quarry sheet' - for amongst his early victims,
- shot down at over 20,000ft - were Bf 109s, flying 'top cover' - for the low-level,'under the radar' FW 190 JaBos..

Edit: As for "robust" - check the venerable Wilkinson's tome, see if you can find any Griffon mark,
which can match the final production Sabre take-off rating of 3,500hp..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 17, 2018)

R-2800s were run for hours at over 3500 shp in test cells, without significant failures, nonetheless, Pratt didn't consider this to be anywhere near a viable service rating. Someone else may have.

Engines aren’t good or bad because of details like sleeve valves or whether they use roller bearings or overhead cams; they’re good because of power to weight, sfc, mtbf, and mttr. Because of the Sabre’s shortcomings in those qualities, I would not have designed an airplane around the Sabre unless that was part of the customer’s requirements. If my company had a lot of work, I may have no-bid if it was; the engine simply had too many negatives. Fighter squadrons aren’t the place to work them out: issues with cold weather starting, for example, should have been dealt with before service.

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Well if you really believe that ben, you'd best be getting stuck in to some further research..
> 
> 1stly , check the Schneider Trophy race reg's - it most def' - wasn't a "short sprint"!
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

So much for that lasr wee 'foray' of yours, then.. eh, ben..

My name isn't Ben. The Schneider trophy planes never ran engines that produced 2,700HP because the airframe couldn't handle it or carry enough fuel for it.

One action doesn't prove anything, if it did the Avro Anson would be a front line fighter and a rifle would be standard air defence, the Hurricane shot down more 109s than any aircraft over UK.

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


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

The final Sabre was 'officially rated' at 3,500hp for take-off, & it was 10 litres smaller than the R-2800..
as the saying goes.. 'do the maths' - on that one..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

So much for that lasr wee 'foray' of yours, then.. eh, ben..

My name isn't Ben. The Schneider trophy planes never ran engines that produced 2,700HP because the airframe couldn't handle it or carry enough fuel for it.

One action doesn't prove anything, if it did the Avro Anson would be a front line fighter and a rifle would be standard air defence, the Hurricane shot down more 109s than any aircraft over UK.[/QUOTE]




Now ben, you are.. being.. what Capt Mainwaring frequently called Pvt Pike.. & its not.. "Don't be absurd, boy."


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> My name isn't Ben.
> Now ben, you are.. being.. what Cpt Mainwaring frequently called Pvt Pike.. & its not.. "Don't be absurd, boy."


I will just post that, and leave it with you.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I will just post that, and leave it with you.


 

Seriously no, don't ( yes by all means - give the attempt at baiting an ill-considered response - a rest)
but try fact-checking 'highest altitude for successful Typhoon combat sortie' & duly see.. '27,000ft'...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Seriously no, don't ( yes by all means - give the attempt at baiting an ill-considered response - a rest)
> but try fact-checking 'highest altitude for successful Typhoon combat sortie' & duly see.. '27,000ft'...


Was that before or after a Spitfire MkIX intercepted a German recon plane at 43,000ft? How does it compare to the highest successful combat sortie of a Hurricane?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

You still here.. could that Hurricane, or Spitfire IX run WFO in hot-pursuit ..
- of an FW 190 JaBo fleeing back across the Channel, hard-out - at zero feet, 
& blow it away? Nah, course ( 'scuse the pun) not..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> You still here.. could that Hurricane, or Spitfire IX run WFO in hot-pursuit ..
> - of an FW 190 JaBo fleeing back across the Channel, hard-out - at zero feet,
> & blow it away? Nah, course ( 'scuse the pun) not..


.
www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon.html
In fact, during the Dieppe operations in August 1942 when the first official mention of the Typhoon was made, fighters of this type bounced a formation of  Fw 190s south of Le Treport diving out of the sun and damaging three of the German fighters, but two of the Typhoons did not pull out of their dive owing to structural failures in their tail assemblies.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

& during the Battle of Britain, Spitfire P 7864 disintegrated during a terminal dive in 'hot pursuit' of
a Bf 109, but amazingly the pilot, R.J. Spurdle survived the 'incident' - & went on to be an RAF ace,
- inc' shooting down a couple of Zero's - in a lousy low-altitude rated P-40, & eventually returned to
lead 80 Squadron as C.O., when it replaced its Spits with Tempests, to better take the war to the LW..

So what?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> & during the Battle of Britain, Spitfire P 7864 disintegrated during a *terminal dive* in 'hot pursuit' of
> a Bf 109, but amazingly the pilot, R.J. Spurdle survived the 'incident' - & went on to be an RAF ace,
> - inc' shooting down a couple of Zero's - in a lousy low-altitude rated P-40, & eventually returned to
> lead 80 Squadron as C.O., when it replaced its Spits with Tempests, to better take the war to the LW..
> ...


The Typhoons were not in a "terminal dive", tail failures were common, Dieppe was one year after the Typhoon was accepted to squadron service.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Ah, no.. wrong again, Dieppe was 'bout the 1st major combat action for both Typhoon & Mustang..
Those two Typhoons must've been well 'wrung out' by then, to have had that metal fatigue failure..

& the same applied - to the admittedly much more numerous Spitfire structural-failure-in-flight - incidents,
although the 'dainty' Spit airframe was both much lighter, & more lightly stress factor capable..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

On October 25, 1943, now armed with powerful 4 20mm cannons, plus 8 60-pound High Explosive Rockets, Hawker Typhoons made their first rocket attack when they struck targets near the French city of Caen. The mission, not a great success, resulted in three Typhoons lost. All told, during 1943 low-level attacks resulted in the loss of 380 Typhoons in exchange for the downing of 103 German aircraft including 52 Focke-Wulf 190s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Rather better exchange rate then, than the pure fighter missions 'laid on' by Spitfire units during
Fighter Command's 1941/42 attempt at 'leaning forward' into France, aimed at 'attriting' LW power..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Rather better exchange rate then, than the pure fighter missions 'laid on' by Spitfire units during
> Fighter Command's 1941/42 attempt at 'leaning forward' into France, aimed at 'attriting' LW power..


Not rather better, just slightly better, 5:1 against 3.8:1.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Jeeze.. those low-alt spec Focke's sure gave them fancy-pants high-falutin' Spits - a hellava wallopin'..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2018)

Why do I feel like I am being ignored?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Negatory Chief, we're only havin' a bit of fun.. seriously..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Here's a 'Flight' piece on av-gas which notes the N/A racing Lion,
> running on straight run gasoline, with ++TEL, for 880hp, & at good economy, too.
> 
> http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1118.html


This seems to be a bit contrary to other published information. 

Lumsden claims the fuel was 25% petrol/75% benzol with 10.75cc/imp gal TEL.

Which would certainly explain the Lions ability to use 10 to 1 compression either N/A or supercharged. 
Benzol having a PN number of 68 (equal to 87 octane) when running lean but a whopping PN number of over 160 when running rich. 
Benzol has several _interesting _properties for aviation use. It weighs more than straight run gasoline. 7.34lb per US gallon vs 6lb/gal.
It has less BTUs per lb 17,300 vs 19,000 and a slightly higher latent heat of vaporization. 169 btus per pound vs 140. 

So it acts about 20% better as an internal coolant, which is compounded by the fact that you have to use about 10% more to get the same power. 

what is more interesting is that it freezes at 42 degrees F which makes pretty useless as an aviation fuel except as an additive for any aircraft that flies in cool weather or any not near to the ground. 

I wonder what the spark plug life was with 10.75cc of TEL per gallon  

If you believe you can get 880hp for one hour using 50 imp gallons of fuel then I have a nice bridge to sell you that connects Manhattan to Long Island

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Well SR 6, since that 'Flight' article was based on a presentation by..
..none other than Rod Banks, Mr Schneider Trophy - hi-test fuel - himself..
I'd take it as read - over Lumsden, writing many decades later..

& since the Sabre is on record as making 900hp on +0.5lb boost for 57 gal/hr..
maybe you'd best get that B-B deed ready to hand over, gratis..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Well SR 6, since that 'Flight' article was based on a presentation by..
> ..none other than Rod Banks, Mr Schneider Trophy - hi-test fuel - himself..
> I'd take it as read - over Lumsden, writing many decades later..
> 
> ...


Try reading it again.
"Full information on fuel grading is given in a recent R.Ae.S. Paper by Air Commodore F. R. Banks.*"
"•"The Importance of Power Unit Development'' by Air Cdre. F. R. Banks. Journal of the R.Ae.S., April, 1945."

So the article was based on a paper written by Banks and therefore no misinterpretation or changes from the original paper could have occured? 

Did the paper Banks presented even mention the fuel blend used in the Lion engine? 

The Fuel blend used in the Lion was not a lot different than the blend first used by Banks in the "R"engine (a lot less lead used in the "R") and the idea that you could use straight run gasoline of around 93PN (after the addition of the lead) in a supercharged engine with 10-1 compression ratio is a little hard to believe. 
This was in the early days of lead use and it took a while to realize that the use of lead did not give linier results. 

By the late 30s they realized that with a straight run petrol of about 76-77 octane adding 1 cc lead raised it to about 84 octane, 2cc gave just under 87 octane, 3cc gave 87-88 and 4cc gave 90 octane. Using large amount of lead (anything over about 6cc) gave very little in return. 

I do like the comparison of an engine running at lean mixture at medium/low cruise power to an engine supposedly going full tilt.
I don't suppose those racers might have throttled back at times? Like going around the turns? 





On the last lap the only two planes in the air were the British ones.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Tomo, Len Setright did have access to the Sabre's test records, & they - just as the R-2800
> & the Merlin did, showed they were capable of greater outputs on test, where the engines
> themselves were not subject to the constraints imposed by airframe systems limitations.
> 
> ...



Problem with Setright's writing is that he takes out performance numbers attained from Sabre Va from 1945 (2615 HP on +15 psi boost) and claims that the 1942-vinatge was able to replicate performance - yes, 3 years earlier. Not that it does not pass a child's brain, but RAF docs confirm just under 2200 HP, and 2400 HP by 1944 available due to improved crankshaft (this, this), and Setright does not bother to provide a trickle of evidence for hi's claim. Another problem is that he keeps telling that Sabre could do it days in a row, again without a tricke of evidence. Wilikinson states 2200 HP for the IIa, not 2600+ like Setright.
Even if RR was that evil to destroy any piece of evidence about the supposed Sabre's power figures, seems like that Air Ministry files are still alive and well, and dispute Setright's fairytales just nicely.



> Tomo while only 5,000 or so Sabre's were built, you are incorrect to assert that the Hawker
> fighters they powered "were too late to matter for the Allied war effort", since those British
> civilians being subject to Nazi attacks by FW 190 JaBos in 1942/43 & V1 cruise missiles
> in 1944 were certainly glad of the effective interception capabilities bestowed by the Sabre.
> ...



I will not deny that Sabre-powered A/C have done anything. However, Sabre did not take part in BoB, Battle of Atlantic, bombing of Germany proper, destruction of Luftwaffe over the same Germany, anywehere in Mediterranean, nothing in Asia, same for Pacific, nothing in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe - times and places that were deciding the outcome of the war. Sabre (and Griffon, and R-3350) were nice-to-have engines, war was decided by Merlins, Hercules, Pegasus, V-1710, M-105, M-82, AM-38, R-2800, R-1830 and even the decidely-low-tech R-1820. 
V1 attacks, while indeed a threat for the civilians on the receiving end, were the effort of a defeated side to kill civilains of the winning side, and that was too little and too late to chage anything.



> & when the Tempest was released from ADGB anti-V1 duties & returned to 2nd TAF,
> for the offence, in the role of A2A/frontal air-superiority fighter, the Tempest shot down
> every kind of long nose Focke-Wulf, late mark Bf 109, & ultra-modern turbo-jet flying..
> 
> ...



I did not attempt to trumpet the contribution of those big engines to the Allied war effort, so comparing the Sabre for them is a daming with a faint praise.



> *Developing propellers to handle the Sabre's output lagged behind Sabre power capabilities,
> & Hawker design boss Sid Camm accused R-R of virtual sabotage - by delaying supply of
> the needed Rotol props, ( de Havilland units were proving to be problematic) & Camm
> would know, because Rotol props were available for his Bristol Centaurus powered
> ...



Great. 
Why such a surge to post the conspiracy theories, while not giving any facsimile of evidence to support it? Have we fallen _that_ low?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> As matter of interest DW, have you yet seen an F6F service test showing any
> more impressive speed/height graphs than achieved - by those Typhoons?
> They were - very likely - preciously hand-fettled 'production' jobs..



That's my point exactly. It's of my humble opinion that in order for it to exceed the performance of some of its contemporaries, the engine and airframe of the Typhoon had to be pushed beyond safe levels. The R-2800 _could _have safely operated at a higher rating, and if this occurred all aircraft powered by it would have had greater performance. But at what cost? Sometimes other factors, such as engine and airframe life, are considered just as important because you can't fly an airplane that's always broke. It's a delicate balance indeed.

And your comment about the Hellcat is well taken. But lest not forget that no other fighter aircraft of it's era had a briefer gestation and none progressed from prototype testing to squadron service within a shorter timespan. All this and with none of the tragedies that befell the Typhoon development program.

But I'm saying this not to dump on the Typhoon. I just wanted put things in the proper perspective, that's all. I'm hopeful that this doesn't turn into a p-----g contest of "my plane is better than your plane" blah blah blah....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Why such a surge to post the conspiracy theories, while not giving any facsimile of evidence to support it? Have we fallen _that_ low?




I believe it is a conspiracy theory,

This was the discussion in the House of Commons. The propellers with 4 blades suffered from oil leaks requiring new seals and testing as below. It would be normal for propellers known to have a fault not to be sent until fixed and also normal IMO for Rotol not to discuss with Hawker. Since de Havilland props had problems and Hamilton standard had exactly the same problem, it just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.


"3. When the four bladed propeller came into use it was found to leak oil (from the propeller and not from the engine) to an extent which may be unacceptable for operational use. We have, therefore. Been compelled to revert to the three bladed propeller until such time as we find a satisfactory remedy for the oil leak.

4. In reverting to the three bladed propeller it is necessary also to introduce a modification to the TEMPEST type tail plane in order to prevent recurrence of the vibration trouble. This involves fitting 10-lb., weights in the tail plane tips. There are some 70 TYPHOONS in Maintenance Units with TEMPEST type tail planes which must be modified before the are issued to the Service, and it may be modified before they are issued to the Service, and it may be the hiatus that this will cause which gave rise to the report that the serviceability and operational strength of the TYPHOON Squadrons is seriously low. Special arrangements have been made to modify these aircraft; they are being done at the rate of ten a day and all seventy should be completed by the end of this week. The situation is, therefore, not serious.

5. With regard to curing the leaking oil trouble, the Americans experienced the same thing with their MUSTANG aircraft which have four bladed Hamilton propellers very similar to the four bladed De Havilland propellers on our TYPHOONS. The Americans found a satisfactory cure by fitting a special seal and we were able to obtain from them a small number of these seals, which we are now trying out for our four bladed TYPHOON propellers. It seems likely that they will be successful, but we are unable to obtain from the Americans in this country more than the small number required for trials, as they have only sufficient to meet their own needs. Arrangements have, therefore, been made to obtain a supply from America, but these will not be available in the country before May. Other arrangements have, therefore, been made to manufacture similar seals in the country and sufficient of these should be coming available in tow or three weeks' time to meet requirements of the De Havilland propeller assembly line. I have been unable to obtain any confirmation of the report that seals have been lost in transit.

6. The TYPHOON with the TEMPEST tail and four bladed propeller has been thoroughly tested and will be satisfactory when we have overcome the leaking oil trouble. We believe that the American pattern seal will cure this trouble and trials are in progress, but they have not yet done sufficient flying time for any more definite statement than this."

Then later

*April 10, 1944*

*"SECRETARY OF STATE.*

The trials of the four bladed propeller with the seals have now been satisfactorily completed, but we shall not be completely satisfied until they have done intensive flying in the Service. The four bladed propellers fitted with the seals have already been despatched for fitting to aircraft on the Hawker production line and modified propellers will be sent for the Gloster production line early next week. The expected delivery of the modified propellers is 50 per week. Retrospective fitting to aircraft already produced will be arranged as soon as supplies of the propellers become surplus to production line commitments."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Try reading it again.
> "Full information on fuel grading is given in a recent R.Ae.S. Paper by Air Commodore F. R. Banks.*"
> "•"The Importance of Power Unit Development'' by Air Cdre. F. R. Banks. Journal of the R.Ae.S., April, 1945."
> 
> ...






Ok, here's the period 'Flight' article detailing the race-winning Lion:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1928/1928 - 0310.html

Fuel 'cocktail' is stated to be "75% petrol, 25% benzol, & 0.22% TEL"
Fuel consumption is "50 gal/hr" & permissable WFO rpm is 3,300! 

That beast must've roared real loud..


Also as far as fuel efficiency goes, if the volumetric efficiency of the Lion running 'unthottled'
(& ta for that race route map, it shows most of the running was straight line) was a close match
in power-to-fuel consumption level for a heavily throttled, but far higher breathing capacity Sabre,
that figures..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Great.
> Why such a surge to post the conspiracy theories, while not giving any facsimile of evidence to support it? Have we fallen _that_ low?



Relax, Tomo..

I linked Setright's piece & duly noted that it was "lurid"..

IMO, its wrong to conflate the design & specs of an engine, with the use it was put to, or the shambles of producing it.
Given the 1/2-arsed way the Brits went about it, its amazing that as many Sabres were available,
- to give the service - which they actually did.

As for "conspiracies" Tomo, Len Setright is far from the only writer to note the existence of R-R's 'dirty tricks dept',
Bill Gunston has, as have others, & indeed, it is virtually an industrial equivalent of the GRU, still in operation today,
- as recent scandals have shown.

Hawker's chief of design went on the record with his comments about Rotol props, & wwiiaircraftperformance notes
the issue, too, including a quote from Kiwi Tempest combat pilot, Ron Dennis:

"All our machines were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased to 3,850 from 3,700,
& boost to +13 from +11, as the de Havilland airscrew could not absorb the added power & more than once shed
a blade, with somewhat detrimental effects on the engine."


----------



## Milosh (Apr 17, 2018)

September 26, 1927 – Venice, Italy (7 laps of a 50-km. course)

1. Sidney Webster 4 Supermarine S.5 N-220 46:20.3 281.656 mph

2. Oswald Worsley 6 Supermarine S.5 N-219 47:46.7 272.91

3. Frederico Guazetti 5 Macchi M.52 MM81 out lap 7 @ 257.78 mph

*4. S.M. Kinkead 1 Gloster IVB N-222 out lap 6 @ 272.53 mph*

5. Mario de Bernardi 2 Macchi M.52 MM80 out lap 2 @ 263.1 mph

6. Arturo Ferrarin 7 Macchi M.52 MM82 out lap 1

-- Slatter Gloster IVA N-224 reserve

-- Short Crusader N-226 w/o 9/11/27

-- Al Williams 3 Kirkham-Williams failed to arrive


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> That's my point exactly. It's of my humble opinion that in order for it to exceed the performance of some of its contemporaries, the engine and airframe of the Typhoon had to be pushed beyond safe levels. The R-2800 _could _have safely operated at a higher rating, and if this occurred all aircraft powered by it would have had greater performance. But at what cost? Sometimes other factors, such as engine and airframe life, are considered just as important because you can't fly an airplane that's always broke. It's a delicate balance indeed.
> 
> And your comment about the Hellcat is well taken. But lest not forget that no other fighter aircraft of it's era had a briefer gestation and none progressed from prototype testing to squadron service within a shorter timespan. All this and with none of the tragedies that befell the Typhoon development program.
> 
> But I'm saying this not to dump on the Typhoon. I just wanted put things in the proper perspective, that's all. I'm hopeful that this doesn't turn into a p-----g contest of "my plane is better than your plane" blah blah blah....





Nah DW, you've got the wrong end of the stick..

The AFDU trials Typhoons were not being "pushed beyond safe limits" to show those speeds..

The quality of carefully, exactingly checked 1st 'production' units, was difficult to match with regular
production-line machines, esp' the early runs ( see P-39 saga - but in that case even the service evaluation
planes tested were well below the expected 'standard', not a 'cut above', like the AFDU Typhoons).

As for unexpected & puzzling metal fatigue problems, this was an artefact of 'pushing the envelope'
with a large, powerful, fast machine pushing into the 'ughknown' zone of 'Mach buzz' - on an 'everyday' basis. 

If more Typhoon development flying had been done prior to urgent production/service entry, many of the 'bugs'
could've been sorted out by test pilots, rather than killing the hapless young fighter jocks.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 17, 2018)

Just as an aside, as most of you know this: de Havilland's propellers were Hamilton Standard designs built under license.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Just as an aside, as most of you know this: de Havilland's propellers were Hamilton Standard designs built under license.


I read recently that on Sabre engines the Rotol props performed better than de Havillands, on high power settings the de Havilland props could shed blades.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read recently that on Sabre engines the Rotol props performed better than de Havillands, on high power settings the de Havilland props could shed blades.




Yeah, its already duly noted, in post No 515, on this page.. Sid Camm was right.. as he usually was..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, its already duly noted, in post No 515, on this page.. Sid Camm was right.. as he usually was..


Hardly proof of a Rolls Royce conspiracy though, since Rolls Royce part owned Ro tol.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Huh?
That was Camm's point, R-R didn't like him rejecting the Griffon for his Tempest/Fury,
& the 'go slow' at Rotol - in producing props for the Sabre - was R-R 'payback'..

( & I did also - already note - what the R-R Rotol connection was, too)


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> September 26, 1927 – Venice, Italy (7 laps of a 50-km. course)
> 
> 1. Sidney Webster 4 Supermarine S.5 N-220 46:20.3 281.656 mph
> 
> ...



The Supermarine S.5 was also Lion powered.





Supermarine s5 (replica) by Tom Wigley, on Flickr

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Huh?
> That was Camm's point, R-R didn't like him rejecting the Griffon for his Tempest/Fury,
> & the 'go slow' at Rotol - in producing props for the Sabre - was R-R 'payback'..
> 
> ( & I did also - already note - what the R-R Rotol connection was, too)



You have proof that Rolls-Royce gave two hoots about the Tempest/Fury?

Any evidence there was a "go slow". Maybe they were already at capacity making props for other aircraft?

I couldn't say. But it stands to reason that Rotol would concentrate on props for the many thousands of aircraft that weren't powered by Sabres.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You have proof that Rolls-Royce gave two hoots about the Tempest/Fury?
> 
> Any evidence there was a "go slow". Maybe they were already at capacity making props for other aircraft?
> 
> I couldn't say. But it stands to reason that Rotol would concentrate on props for the many thousands of aircraft that weren't powered by Sabres.


I have posted two statements by the UK secretary of state at the time that explained the "go slow". It was caused by oil leaks and was cured with oil seals obtained initially from the US military and then from USA suppliers, P-51s were having the same trouble. I would say both RR and Bristol would be a little "peeved" at another engine maker making demands on the company they set up to solve propeller supply issues.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

The "proof" is plain - & is noted in the offical Air Min records..

R-R were embarassed about losing the Tornado business (due to their own Vulture debacle),
& pushed to have the Sabre dropped too, in favour of a Griffon -Typhoon, but frank ol' Camm
retorted that he'd put the Griffon in 'his' Hurricane, but it wasn't up to hauling 'his' Typhoon about..

& as I noted earlier, Camm was annoyed that he'd had plenty of Rotol props delivered for Centaurus
powered Tempest Mk IIs, ( but - no engines to fit them to) but none for Sabres, even though they
were urgently required for combat ops.. & this was in 1944..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I have posted two statements by the UK secretary of state at the time that explained the "go slow". It was caused by oil leaks and was cured with oil seals obtained initially from the US military and then from USA suppliers, P-51s were having the same trouble. I would say both RR and Bristol would be a little "peeved" at another engine maker making demands on the company they set up to solve propeller supply issues.



Different issue altogether.. & it does not matter - how many times you post it..
The problem wasn't oil leaks or even dangerous CSU 'run-away' - it was a structural problem..

Analogous to your car - snapping drive axle half-shafts - when you wind up the turbo-boost, 
& so a higher-spec shaft is required, to transmit the added power..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The "proof" is plain - & is noted in the offical Air Min records..
> 
> R-R were embarassed about losing the Tornado business (due to their own Vulture debacle),
> & pushed to have the Sabre dropped too, in favour of a Griffon -Typhoon, but frank ol' Camm
> ...




The "Vulture debacle" was called the second world war, which included the Battle of Britain and Beaverbrook as minister of aircraft production. . Many companies were ordered to cancel or postpone projects. RR were told to concentrate on the Merlin cancelling the Vulture and Peregrine, Napier were told to reduce activity on the Sabre. However RR had already delivered two Vultures to Hawker and the Manchester did go into service.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I have posted two statements by the UK secretary of state at the time that explained the "go slow". It was caused by oil leaks and was cured with oil seals obtained initially from the US military and then from USA suppliers, P-51s were having the same trouble. I would say both RR and Bristol would be a little "peeved" at another engine maker making demands on the company they set up to solve propeller supply issues.



Don't they apply to the de Havilland/Hamilton Standard propeller?

Whereas J.A.W. was bitching and moaning about Rotol.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The "proof" is plain - & is noted in the offical Air Min records..
> 
> R-R were embarassed about losing the Tornado business (due to their own Vulture debacle),
> & pushed to have the Sabre dropped too, in favour of a Griffon -Typhoon, but frank ol' Camm
> ...



You have those Air Ministry records?

Rolls-Royce pushed to have several of their programs cut back or cancelled - including the Vulture.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Not on hand, but I've had discussions with those who have,
& I do have a direct quote concerning the issue,
in a book, which I'll dig out, if you're interested..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Not on hand, but I've had discussions with those who have,
> & I do have a direct quote concerning the issue,
> in a book, which I'll dig out, if you're interested..



Well, so long as it is not Camm bitching and moaning.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Don't they apply to the de Havilland/Hamilton Standard propeller?
> 
> Whereas J.A.W. was bitching and moaning about Rotol.



Wayne, be advised, pejorative use of emotive terms "Bitching & moaning" is likely 'crossing the line of snark'..

& yes, that is the point, there were a number of problems with the de Havilland prop, one of which an oil seal
spec revision would not solve, hence the need for the Rotol replacement.

( & to be fair the Sabre was turning a big 14ft prop, did any other WW2 fighter spin a larger one?,
plus AFAIR, Rotol utilized the lighter 'Jablo' composite blades, not metal ones like DH).


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> As for unexpected & puzzling metal fatigue problems, this was an artefact of 'pushing the envelope'
> with a large, powerful, fast machine pushing into the 'ughknown' zone of 'Mach buzz' - on an 'everyday' basis.
> 
> If more Typhoon development flying had been done prior to urgent production/service entry, many of the 'bugs'
> could've been sorted out by test pilots, rather than killing the hapless young fighter jocks.



There were planes splitting apart in mid-air and test pilots killed well before and after it entered service. And they never seemed to have solved the problems with the tail section:

Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia

_In August 1942, Hawker’s second test pilot, Ken Seth-Smith, while deputising for Chief Test Pilot Philip Lucas, carried out a *straight and level speed test* from Hawker’s test centre at Langley, and the aircraft broke up over Thorpe, killing the pilot. Sydney Camm and the design team immediately ruled out pilot error, which had been suspected in earlier crashes...... Mod 286, which involved fastening external fishplates, or reinforcing plates, around the tail of the aircraft, and eventually internal strengthening, was only a partial remedy, and there were still failures right up to the end of the Typhoon's service life. The Sabre engine was also a constant source of problems, notably in colder weather, when it was very difficult to start, and it suffered problems with wear of its sleeve valves, with consequently high oil consumption. The 24-cylinder engine also produced a very high-pitched engine note, which pilots found very fatiguing...._

Let's be frank - ALL fighter aircraft of WWII were physically stressed while performing their duties. Their innate mission required them to hold together during violent and demanding maneuvers. The Typhoon may have been fast but it surely wasn't flying at such speeds to cause the catastrophic failures of the tail section. This wasn't normal flying fatigue. Obviously there were "bad aerodynamics" at play here.

Being a Typhoon fanatic, do you happen to have any information which refutes this article, as I'm fully aware that Wikipedia isn't the "best" source in town. And how exactly is "pushing the envelop" different than "pushing" an airframe beyond reasonable limits????


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

I am def' not a "Typhoon fanatic" DW, I recognize both the -ve & +ve aspects of the big Hawker machine..

But I'd caution you about putting too much store in what's on wiki, too - its only as good as its cited references..
The accounts by the men who flew them to the limit, in testing & in combat, certainly refute the tone of that wiki entry,
it was likely 'done over' by an F4U fanatic, since the 'ensign killer' had more'n a few 'entry into service' issues too.

If you re-read my posts noting 'metal fatigue' caused by 'Mach buzz' & how these matters
were poorly understood at the time, you'll get the idea..

& FYI search for the thread (on this site) 'Structure weight & drag analysis' - it'll give you
some more interesting data on the subject.



Edit: P-51's also had problems with tail empenages departing in flight, & received a remedial
strengthening fin-fillet, prior to a major redesign to P-51H specs, but you don't hear much
about that, do you?

& check your F6F flight manual, does it mention 'flick rolls', & forbid them?
The F6F had large tail surfaces & such coarse evolutions could put considerable
forces through the rear fuselage, & if weakened by cumulative fatigue, it could 'let go'..

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> & check your F6F flight manual, does it mention 'flick rolls', & forbid them?
> The F6F had large tail surfaces & such coarse evolutions could put considerable
> forces through the rear fuselage, & if weakened by cumulative fatigue, it could 'let go'..





Nope, no mention of any such limitations in the Hellcat pilot handbooks that I possess. I do agree though that there are inherent weaknesses in most any airframe, but unfortunately the Typhoon seemed to have had more than it's fair share. It got so bad that it was official suggested to have the Tiffy withdrawn from service until the problems could be resolved. That's pretty serious if you ask me.

And I hope you don't think that I lack access to other, more reputable sources than Wiki lol. I just find it easier to copy and past from what I find on-line. But this is not to say that there aren't any well-researched and written articles to be found there because they do exist as well. I was also trying not to insult your intelligence by quoting things that you are most likely already aware of as my knowledge of the Typhoon is obviously of a lesser degree than yours. So I came here to learn more.  

Could you elaborate further concerning the P-51D tail issues? I've read that the fillet was eventually added to strengthen the tail section as it lost some bulk due to the cut-down rear fuselage and there was worry regarding it's ability to hold up in regular service, but never heard of any serious accidents resulting from it.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

"A short term reprieve from cancellation meant that the major problems could be addressed. Engine seizures were subsequently found to be exacerbated when the fitters realised that they could adjust the limits for the throttle thus giving the pilot a little extra speed however; after investigation by Napier engineers on an aircraft exhibiting some unusual engine faults (It was pure luck that this aircraft was sent for investigation as it happened to have had the throttle adjusted and survived) it was discovered that this unauthorised modification weakened the engine with dramatic results. Modifications to the throttle and with Bristol ‘encouraged’ to help with the development of the sleeve valves the Sabre engine became very reliable and could regularly reach its service life without issue.

The separation of the tail from the rest of the aircraft was a more pressing issue. Pilots could deal with engine failure in normal operational conditions however; loss of the tail was catastrophic with a near 0% survival rate for pilots which meant that there were no symptoms that could be reported to Hawker engineers to enable the problem to be diagnosed. With the very real possibility that they would refuse to fly the aircraft Hawker engineers fitted fish plates to the transport joint to provide extra strength. This bought them some additional time as the number of incidents greatly reduced, but were not entirely eliminated as a result of the modification. This changed when in October 1943 a Typhoon returned from a sortie after the pilot reported severe, at times violent, elevator ‘flutter’. This information combined with the detail given by a pilot who survived the tail separating from the fuselage of a Typhoon (the only known survivor), the engineers soon realised that elevator ‘flutter’ weakened the tail which could result in failure. A redesign of the elevator mass balances and regular monitoring of the control cable runs eliminated failure’s in service. The plates added earlier in the Typhoons life were never removed, it was realised that the pilots viewed these as the reason why the failures were reduced. Removal of these plates, which did not affect the aircraft’s performance to any noticeable degree, could potentially affect pilot confidence so they were left in place with all new Typhoons continuing to have them fitted before leaving the factory."

The Typhoon not only had a high pitched exhaust note but also high pitch vibration, especially with a three bladed propeller. When fitting a four bladed propeller the balance weights were removed from the tail elevators, this meant that they must be fitted if a four blade prop wasn't available, and that was a problem for Hawker.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Ted Major, Defects Dept Head for Hawker, has his say concerning Camm & the Typhoon.

"He held the chief designer's post at Hakers for more than 40 years, & during all that time,
the only aircraft which suffered structural failure was the Typhoon. 
This could've happened to any aeroplane at a time when so little was known about metal fatigue,
esp' one with a great thick wing, which was pushing against the 'sonic barrier' for the 1st time
- & the Americans were encountering similar problems with their P-38 Lightning." 

I'll add this, the P-38's diving speed limitation for 10,000ft on down was 420-440mph IAS,
whereas for the Typhoon, it was 525mph IAS, 'Mach-buzz' & all,
nor did it need 'dive flaps' - to recover from that dive-speed either..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

. "Owing to the size and weight of the Sabre and the need to preserve c.g. balance, the Typhoon's engine was fitted so close to the leading edge of the wing that severe vibration was experienced as the slipstream buffeted the thick wing roots. On an early test flight the stressed-skin covering began to tear away from its rivets and the Typhoon's pilot, Philip G. Lucas, only just succeeded in bringing the prototype in to a landing. "

"Several test pilots were killed in the Typhoon. Of the first 142 delivered, only seven were not involved in serious non-combat accidents due to engine or airframe failures at one time or another. The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war. Since nobody knew what was causing the trouble before that time, a distinctive row of "fish plates" was attached in a ring around the fuselage just ahead of the tailplane as an interim measure to keep the tail on. "


To my knowledge a solution was found to the structural problems with the Typhoon without ever fully understanding the cause of the problem.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

If you do a search through Cranfield's Aerade for ARC publications with the tem "flutter," (AERADE), about 140 papers show up, with one in 1931, then a bunch starting in 1942. The ARC has ben characterized as a bit less application-oriented than the contemporary NACA, but it's obvious that flutter was known. Why did Hawker have so much more trouble with the Typhoon, especially when contemporaries did not? [aside: don't bring up anything that's not relevant; flutter is not the phenomenon that caused the P-38 dive speed restrictions, nor is it the same as structural failures due to sudden control motions]


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

However, the final reason why tip and run attacks stopped was far simpler in that there were no fighter-bombers available for ‘tip and run’ missions left in north-west Europe by the middle of June 1943. On the 12th of May 1943, German forces had surrendered in North Africa and it was clear that the Allies would soon invade southern Europe. The Germans thought that the greater threat was now in the Mediterranean, the ‘soft underbelly of Europe’, so in order to reinforce one wing of SKG 10, a second was rushed from France to southern Italy in the second week of June 1943 whilst a third wing was withdrawn from France and operational from Italy by the end of June 1943. By then, the only fighter-bomber unit still in northern France was the nocturnal wing of SKG 10.


For much of the 15 months that ‘tip and run’ attacks occurred, the Germans could only muster a maximum of 28 aircraft to attack targets on a coastline which stretched from Great Yarmouth to the Lizard, a distance in excess of 1300 kilometres. However, this length of coastline and uncertainty of what would be attacked also played into the German’s hands. There were insufficient anti-aircraft guns of the correct calibre to counter a low-flying high-speed threat, whilst: “…the RAF could offer no positive defence against these fast, low-flying fighter-bombers which achieved an effect out of all proportion to the effort they represented. The Chain-Home and Chain-Home Low radar stations…were unable to plot the movements of the jabos on account of their low altitude and Fighter Command was forced to mount standing patrols in order to counter the threat…”65 It is interesting to note that wartime analysis stated anti-aircraft guns accounted for 55 ‘tip and run’ attackers during the period March 1942 to the 6th of June 1943; fighters were said to have accounted for a further 51.66 Analysis carried out by myself tells a different story – anti-aircraft fire actually accounted for 28 fighter-bombers, fighters a further 28, one aircraft was shared whilst a further five either collided with buildings, high-tension wires or other aircraft.67 It is clear that to lose 62 aircraft and 62 pilots over a 15 month period was high but at this stage of the war, this was sustainable. Furthermore, these losses should be compared against a comparable German twin-engined bomber group which, for the same period, lost 122 aircraft in attacks on Britain, costing in the region of 480 aircrew killed, missing or prisoners of war.68 From a military viewpoint, ‘tip and run’ attacks did result in many more anti-aircraft guns and associated personnel being dedicated to defend potential targets. Furthermore, Fighter Command was forced to dedicate many aircraft to try and prevent the fighter-bombers from dropping their bombs, something normally met with little success. These assets could have been better used


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Probably because Camm had bought the RAE's flawed 'thick wing - is the go' malakey,
& since the Air Min had duly deemed..

' For future fighters, fuel tanks have to be mounted in the wings, away from the pilot'

Camm figured, - ok then, I've 2,000hp to play with & more to come, so I'll draw up a big, strong bird..

But the dreaded 'speed demon' emerged from the 'ughknown' - to plague him..

A blobbly lump of a radiator plopped on underneath the Hurricane's wing centre section worked well enough,
so why not do the same for the Tornado?

But... at ~400mph in level flight, WTF! Oh no.. compressibility troubles.. ok, so sling it under the nose
like the Typhoon & Bob's your bleedin' mums brother..

Interestingly the 1/2 sisters Tornado & Typhoon had one major difference, the more compact Sabre
could be fitted closer back to the cockpit & the X-type Vulture was mounted ahead of the wing..
big deal.. but.. Tornado dies with the sorry ol' dud of an R-R mill, so that's that..

Anyhow, Camm sees the flight performance numbers for the Typhoon, compares them with
the projections he'd been given by RAE, & realises he's been sold a pup.. & a naughty one..

So Camm goes to the NPL & sez, ' I've seen the Yank's new Mustang wing, what have you got?'
& an ultra-modern NPL profile becomes the new 'Hawker high-speed wing' & the Tempest emerges..

Camm tells Air Min, ' I cant bloody well fit all the juice in my new thin wing, & you keep approving
new Spitfire Mk's that don't either, so I am extending the nose to fit a tank behind the mill'.

Lo & behold, when the Tempest flies, she's a big improvement on the Typhoon, being over 20mph
faster on the same power, & much smoother, plus, when the higher altitude Sabre IV is trialled,
with leading edge radiators & a thinner section tailplane the Mk I prototype is making ~470mph,
@ ~25,000ft - in early 1943.. 

So the Typhoon goes on the development back-burner, never progressing beyond Mk Ib,
& picking up some Tempest hand-me-downs, 4-blade prop, thinner tailplane & bubble top..
( that clear view canopy really impressed stateside, with the P-47K being 1st of a bunch to copy it)..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Could you elaborate further concerning the P-51D tail issues? I've read that the fillet was eventually added to strengthen the tail section as it lost some bulk due to the cut-down rear fuselage and there was worry regarding it's ability to hold up in regular service, but never heard of any serious accidents resulting from it.



The fin fillet was not structural strengthening - it was to help stability, which had deteriorated when the rear fuselage was cut down for the bubble canopy.

The P-51B also suffered from stability issues, brought about from increasing the power significantly (from V-1710 to V-1650-3) and going from a 3 blade prop to a larger 4 blade prop.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

This


wuzak said:


> The fin fillet was not structural strengthening - it was to help stability, which had deteriorated when the rear fuselage was cut down for the bubble canopy.
> 
> The P-51B also suffered from stability issues, brought about from increasing the power significantly (from V-1710 to V-1650-3) and going from a 3 blade prop to a larger 4 blade prop.


 is consistent with all the documentation I havr seen, and that’s a lot. I would lije to see citations for any thing else.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> However, the final reason why tip and run attacks stopped was far simpler in that there were no fighter-bombers available for ‘tip and run’ missions left in north-west Europe by the middle of June 1943. On the 12th of May 1943, German forces had surrendered in North Africa and it was clear that the Allies would soon invade southern Europe. The Germans thought that the greater threat was now in the Mediterranean, the ‘soft underbelly of Europe’, so in order to reinforce one wing of SKG 10, a second was rushed from France to southern Italy in the second week of June 1943 whilst a third wing was withdrawn from France and operational from Italy by the end of June 1943. By then, the only fighter-bomber unit still in northern France was the nocturnal wing of SKG 10.
> 
> 
> For much of the 15 months that ‘tip and run’ attacks occurred, the Germans could only muster a maximum of 28 aircraft to attack targets on a coastline which stretched from Great Yarmouth to the Lizard, a distance in excess of 1300 kilometres. However, this length of coastline and uncertainty of what would be attacked also played into the German’s hands. There were insufficient anti-aircraft guns of the correct calibre to counter a low-flying high-speed threat, whilst: “…the RAF c
> offer no positive defence against these fast, low-flying fighter-bombers which achieved an effect out of all proportion to the effort they represented. The Chain-Home and Chain-Home Low radar stations…were unable to plot the movements of the jabos on account of their low altitude and Fighter Command was forced to mount standing patrols in order to counter the threat…”65 It is interesting to note that wartime analysis stated anti-aircraft guns accounted for 55 ‘tip and run’ attackers during the period March 1942 to the 6th of June 1943; fighters were said to have accounted for a further 51.66 Analysis carried out by myself tells a different story – anti-aircraft fire actually accounted for 28 fighter-bombers, fighters a further 28, one aircraft was shared whilst a further five either collided with buildings, high-tension wires or other aircraft.67 It is clear that to lose 62 aircraft and 62 pilots over a 15 month period was high but at this stage of the war, this was sustainable. Furthermore, these losses should be compared against a comparable German twin-engined bomber group which, for the same period, lost 122 aircraft in attacks on Britain, costing in the region of 480 aircrew killed, missing or prisoners of war.68 From a military viewpoint, ‘tip and run’ attacks did result in many more anti-aircraft guns and associated personnel being dedicated to defend potential targets. Furthermore, Fighter Command was forced to dedicate many aircraft to try and prevent the fighter-bombers from dropping their bombs, something normally met with little success. These assets could have been better used





You gonna credit a source for that enbloc spiel? Likely not..
It is inaccurate..

FYI on Jan 20 `43.. 28 FW 190 JaBos were allocated to a daylight penetration attack on London,
with another 85 LW 109/190's flying escort, 'spoof' & other direct support roles over Blighty..


pbehn said:


> However, the final reason why tip and run attacks stopped was far simpler in that there were no fighter-bombers available for ‘tip and run’ missions left in north-west Europe by the middle of June 1943. On the 12th of May 1943, German forces had surrendered in North Africa and it was clear that the Allies would soon invade southern Europe. The Germans thought that the greater threat was now in the Mediterranean, the ‘soft underbelly of Europe’, so in order to reinforce one wing of SKG 10, a second was rushed from France to southern Italy in the second week of June 1943 whilst a third wing was withdrawn from France and operational from Italy by the end of June 1943. By then, the only fighter-bomber unit still in northern France was the nocturnal wing of SKG 10.
> 
> 
> For much of the 15 months that ‘tip and run’ attacks occurred, the Germans could only muster a maximum of 28 aircraft to attack targets on a coastline which stretched from Great Yarmouth to the Lizard, a distance in excess of 1300 kilometres. However, this length of coastline and uncertainty of what would be attacked also played into the German’s hands. There were insufficient anti-aircraft guns of the correct calibre to counter a low-flying high-speed threat, whilst: “…the RAF could offer no positive defence against these fast, low-flying fighter-bombers which achieved an effect out of all proportion to the effort they represented. The Chain-Home and Chain-Home Low radar stations…were unable to plot the movements of the jabos on account of their low altitude and Fighter Command was forced to mount standing patrols in order to counter the threat…”65 It is interesting to note that wartime analysis stated anti-aircraft guns accounted for 55 ‘tip and run’ attackers during the period March 1942 to the 6th of June 1943; fighters were said to have accounted for a further 51.66 Analysis carried out by myself tells a different story – anti-aircraft fire actually accounted for 28 fighter-bombers, fighters a further 28, one aircraft was shared whilst a further five either collided with buildings, high-tension wires or other aircraft.67 It is clear that to lose 62 aircraft and 62 pilots over a 15 month period was high but at this stage of the war, this was sustainable. Furthermore, these losses should be compared against a comparable German twin-engined bomber group which, for the same period, lost 122 aircraft in attacks on Britain, costing in the region of 480 aircrew killed, missing or prisoners of war.68 From a military viewpoint, ‘tip and run’ attacks did result in many more anti-aircraft guns and associated personnel being dedicated to defend potential targets. Furthermore, Fighter Command was forced to dedicate many aircraft to try and prevent the fighter-bombers from dropping their bombs, something normally met with little success. These assets could have been better used


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The fin fillet was not structural strengthening - it was to help stability, which had deteriorated when the rear fuselage was cut down for the bubble canopy.
> 
> The P-51B also suffered from stability issues, brought about from increasing the power significantly (from V-1710 to V-1650-3) and going from a 3 blade prop to a larger 4 blade prop.


I believe the maximum take off weight with full internal and external tanks coupled with the CoG issue with a full rear tank was also an issue to be considered.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The fin fillet was not structural strengthening - it was to help stability, which had deteriorated when the rear fuselage was cut down for the bubble canopy.
> 
> The P-51B also suffered from stability issues, brought about from increasing the power significantly (from V-1710 to V-1650-3) and going from a 3 blade prop to a larger 4 blade prop.



Best check that with a P-51 savvy member for a call, but I'll put a quid on what I wrote..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

This


wuzak said:


> The fin fillet was not structural strengthening - it was to help stability, which had deteriorated when the rear fuselage was cut down for the bubble canopy.
> 
> The P-51B also suffered from stability issues, brought about from increasing the power significantly (from V-1710 to V-1650-3) and going from a 3 blade prop to a larger 4 blade prop.


 is consistent with all the documentation I have seen, and that’s a lot. I would like to see citations for any thing else.

Dorsal fins are almost invariably added due to shortfalls in yaw stability, yaw damping, or spin recovery.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> You gonna credit a source for that enbloc spiel? Likely not..
> It is inaccurate..
> 
> FYI on Jan 20 `43.. 28 FW 190 JaBos were allocated to a daylight penetration attack on London,
> with another 85 LW 109/190's flying escort, 'spoof' & other direct support roles over Blighty..




It is a piece by Squadron Leader Chris Goss, start at page 93 through to 114
www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/aprvol4no4.pdf


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Probably because Camm had bought the RAE's flawed 'thick wing - is the go' malakey,
> & since the Air Min had duly deemed..



Or was it Camm's MO?




J.A.W. said:


> But the dreaded 'speed demon' emerged from the 'ughknown' - to plague him..



Seriously WTF!




J.A.W. said:


> A blobbly lump of a radiator plopped on underneath the Hurricane's wing centre section worked well enough,
> so why not do the same for the Tornado?



Because Camm stuffed it up?

Note that he was not on his own there - Curtiss also tried belly radiators on some of their aircraft (such as XP-40), without great success.

Curtiss-Wright XP-40 Archives - This Day in Aviation

XP-40 is about half the way down.




J.A.W. said:


> But... at ~400mph in level flight, WTF! Oh no.. compressibility troubles.. ok, so sling it under the nose
> like the Typhoon & Bob's your bleedin' mums brother..



The Tornado flew only a handful of flights with the belly radiator before moving the radiator to behind the spinner. This all occurred before the Typhoon flew (something about the engine not being available).

When the Typhoon did fly, it sported the chin radiator of the Tornado.




J.A.W. said:


> Interestingly the 1/2 sisters Tornado & Typhoon had one major difference, the more compact Sabre
> could be fitted closer back to the cockpit & the X-type Vulture was mounted ahead of the wing..
> big deal.. but.. Tornado dies with the sorry ol' dud of an R-R mill, so that's that..



If Rolls-Royce had only the Vulture to get sorted and the pressure of the war situation was being borne by other manufacturers, I'm sure it would have been a winner.

Recall that the original Merlins were not great either, it took some work to get them to an acceptable performance, and quite a few mods and design changes (ramp head to flat head, for example).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I believe the maximum take off weight with full internal and external tanks coupled with the CoG issue with a full rear tank was also an issue to be considered.



Yes, but that came later.

Bill would know better than me, but I think the stability issue came up in flight testing for the D and the fillet was added for production from teh start, or not long after.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> This
> 
> is consistent with all the documentation I have seen, and that’s a lot. I would like to see citations for any thing else.
> 
> Dorsal fins are almost invariably added due to shortfalls in yaw stability, yaw damping, or spin recovery.




Member drgondog might chime in with his take on, we'll see...


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Yes, but that came later.
> 
> Bill would know better than me, but I think the stability issue came up in flight testing for the D and the fillet was added for production from teh start, or not long after.




I’m pretty sure the dorsal fin was added after service experience.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I’m pretty sure the dorsal fin was added after service experience.



Yeah, with tail empennage failures, like the Typhoon, ( same problem, different root cause).


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

Wiki says this
"
Despite these modifications, the P-51Bs and P-51Cs, and the newer P-51Ds and P-51Ks, experienced low-speed handling problems that could result in an involuntary "snap-roll" under certain conditions of air speed, angle of attack, gross weight, and center of gravity. Several crash reports tell of P-51Bs and P-51Cs crashing because horizontal stabilizers were torn off during maneuvering. As a result of these problems, a modification kit consisting of a dorsal fin was manufactured. One report stated:

"Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll. The horizontal stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a snap roll. To prevent recurrence, the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O. 01-60J-18 dated 8 April 1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"

The dorsal fin kits became available in August 1944, and available as retrofits for P-51Bs and P-51Cs (but rarely used on the "razorback" -B and -C Mustangs), and to early P-51Ds and P-51Ks that had not already been built with them. Also incorporated was a change to the rudder trim tabs, which would help prevent the pilot over-controlling the aircraft and creating heavy loads on the tail unit.[31]

and this

The addition of the 85 U.S gallon (322 l) fuselage fuel tank, coupled with the reduction in area of the new rear fuselage, exacerbated the handling problems already experienced with the B/C series when fitted with the tank, and led to the same fillet being added to -B, -C and initial -D-series versions in the field, to be quickly standardized as a normal rear-fuselage airframe component on later production blocks of the -D version.[35] P-51Ds without fuselage fuel tanks were fitted with either the SCR-522-A or SCR-274-N Command Radio sets and SCR-695-A, or SCR-515 radio transmitters, as well as an AN/APS-13 rear-warning set;[nb 9] P-51Ds and Ks with fuselage tanks used the SCR-522-A and AN/APS-13 only.[44]

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> When the Typhoon did fly, it sported the chin radiator of the Tornado.
> 
> If Rolls-Royce had only the Vulture to get sorted and the pressure of the war situation was being borne by other manufacturers, I'm sure it would have been a winner.




No, & no - you cannot be serious!

1, The Typhoon was always intended to have the chin rad, the Tornado jumped on the band wagon..
& no early XP-40 with a belly rad got anywhere near 400mph, AFAIK..

2, If only Jesus H, Christ appeared to me in person & gave me the kosher numbers for the next big lotto draw..
then hell, I'd be a winner, too!

& WTF?, Hey W, aint you read/seen 'The Right Stuff' - with that rascally ol' demon - a lurkin' in the ughknown?
Its a classic..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Wiki says this
> "
> Despite these modifications, the P-51Bs and P-51Cs, and the newer P-51Ds and P-51Ks, experienced low-speed handling problems that could result in an involuntary "snap-roll" under certain conditions of air speed, angle of attack, gross weight, and center of gravity. Several crash reports tell of P-51Bs and P-51Cs crashing because horizontal stabilizers were torn off during maneuvering. As a result of these problems, a modification kit consisting of a dorsal fin was manufactured. One report stated:
> 
> ...




Hmmm... now who was it, mentioned 'snap rolls' as a no no - a few posts back? Oh yeah, I remember now..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, with tail empennage failures, like the Typhoon, ( same problem, different root cause).


Citation required. In 30+ years of looking aircraft history, I have never seen that reported, nor is it the most likely form for a structural fix, as it would require loads be reacted into the vertical fin, and would not contribute to torsional strength, which would have been lost with the removal of the turtle deck. Vertical bending strength may have been lost, but removing the turtle deck would have reduced torsional strength.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> [QUOTE="wuzak, post: 1398870, member: 4256]
> 
> 
> 1, The Typhoon was always intended to have the chin rad, the Tornado jumped on the band wagon..
> ..


This makes no sense at all, the Tornado and Typhoon were Hawker designs what they were meant to have or not have is up to Hawker. A design doesn't "jump" on anything, the Griffon installation was another radiator variation while the Centaurus was air cooled and different again, while even the last tempests were tried with an annular radiator.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Citation required. In 30+ years of looking aircraft history, I have never seen that reported, nor is it the most likely form for a structural fix, as it would require loads be reacted into the vertical fin, and would not contribute to torsional strength, which would have been lost with the removal of the turtle deck.




Sure.. try www.avialogs.com - they have the original NAA document citing..
"0J-60J-18 Reinforcement..."
"To reduce the possibility of empennage failure..."


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

The idea of a “power egg,” where the engine and its auxiliaries could be removed as a unit was somewhat popular with the RAF, and that’s easier with s nose radiator.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This makes no sense at all, the Tornado and Typhoon were Hawker designs what they were meant to have or not have is up to Hawker. A design doesn't "jump" on anything, the Griffon installation was another radiator variation while the Centaurus was air cooled and different again, while even the last tempests were tried with an annular radiator.




Oh dear, wrong again..

FYI, Hawker Fury prototype LA 610 flew with an R-R Griffon & R-R's own annular rad,
then Hawker scraped that ugly mess off & fitted a Sabre with Hawker's own wing leading edge rad set-up..

Meanwhile Napier development were flying Typhoon/Tempests - with their own annular rad..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The idea of a “power egg,” where the engine and its auxiliaries could be removed as a unit was somewhat popular with the RAF, and that’s easier with s nose radiator.


There was a strategic element to the thinking, in case one engine supplier was affected by heavy bombing, another route could be used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> No, & no - you cannot be serious!
> 
> 1, The Typhoon was always intended to have the chin rad, the Tornado jumped on the band wagon..
> & no early XP-40 with a belly rad got anywhere near 400mph, AFAIK..



Right. Because the Tornado had flown, found the belly radiator did not work and abandoned it before the Typhoon prototype had been completed, certainly months before it flew.

Did I mention anywhere that the XP-40 did 400mph? 

400mph had nought to do with it anyway, and nor, IMO, did compressibility. Instead it was good old boundary layer and/or flow turbulence that did the radiator in.




J.A.W. said:


> 2, If only Jesus H, Christ appeared to me in person & gave me the kosher numbers for the next big lotto draw..
> then hell, I'd be a winner, too!



Well, the situation I described was essentially the situation Napiers was in the late 1930s. One engine to seriously develop, two others were going nowhere. Service types used Rolls-Royce and Bristol engines almost exclusively.




J.A.W. said:


> & WTF?, Hey W, aint you read/seen 'The Right Stuff' - with that rascally ol' demon - a lurkin' in the ughknown?
> Its a classic..



No, I haven't read that.

Your insertion of such phrases and jargon makes it difficult to follow your arguments. Such as they are.

But here are the facts:
The Tornado/Typhoon program was designed to replace the Hurricane/Spitfire as the front line fighter in the RAF. It could not replace the Spitfire.

If the Typhoon and Tempest had been cancelled, the war would not have been very much different.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The idea of a “power egg,” where the engine and its auxiliaries could be removed as a unit was somewhat popular with the RAF, and that’s easier with s nose radiator.




Yep, see R-R's later annular rad Merlin 'power egg' set-up on a DC-4, here, below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 1455.html


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Oh dear, wrong again..
> .


How am I wrong? I said this
*This makes no sense at all, the Tornado and Typhoon were Hawker designs what they were meant to have or not have is up to Hawker. A design doesn't "jump" on anything, the Griffon installation was another radiator variation while the Centaurus was air cooled and different again, while even the last tempests were tried with an annular radiator.

From the Tempest web site re Griffon *









The Tempest Mk III and IV, both earmarked for installation of Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, diverged significantly from the Sabre engined Tempest program. Only the Mk III prototype (LA610) was actually converted (Mk IV prototype LA614 was cancelled in Feb 1943). The aircraft was test flown during September 1944 as a "lightweight" Tempest powered by a Griffon 85 engine. Later it was re-engined with the final version of the Sabre, the Mk VIII, which developed over 3000hp, and in this form it achieved 483mph making it the fastest of the Hawker piston-engined fighters."

And as far as the annular radiator
*Annular Radiator *





As part of the power plant testing, Napier had developed a unique annular radiator for use on the Tempest, in an effort to streamline the aircraft by doing away the big scoop radiator.
The radiator development program used two modified Tempest Mk. V, serials EJ518 (fitted with a Sabre VI) and NV 768. NV 768 was later fitted with a ducted spinner with the same diameter as the fuselage and, although test flown, the spinner was not actually planned for use on production Tempests. Neither feaure was incorporated onto Tempest production line and the aircrafts were scrapped after the war


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Right. Because the Tornado had flown, found the belly radiator did not work and abandoned it before the Typhoon prototype had been completed, certainly months before it flew.
> 
> 400mph had nought to do with it anyway..
> 
> ...





Hardly.. it was only when top speed runs were done, at ~400mph, & Tornado's belly rad showed itself as a problem..

Rather callous too, to dismiss the carnage that an extra 800+ V1's crashing on London would cause..
not to mention the horrific losses the Merlin Spit chaps would've suffered, in trying to shoulder the Typhoon's
2nd TAF burden, post D-day..


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Hmmm... now who was it, mentioned 'snap rolls' as a no no - a few posts back? Oh yeah, I remember now..



These snap rolls were not voluntary; they were due to instability. The dorsal fin precluded the instability; the structural changes were distinct and applied to the horizontal tail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> How am I wrong? I said this
> *This makes no sense at all, the Tornado and Typhoon were Hawker designs what they were meant to have or not have is up to Hawker. A design doesn't "jump" on anything, the Griffon installation was another radiator...*





You wrote: "It makes no sense..."

Ironically, you got that bit right, it applies to much of your confused posting output..

FYI, that ''Griffon-Fury" pic you posted, is actually a Sabre-Fury, too..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> These snap rolls were not voluntary; they were due to instability. The dorsal fin precluded the instability; the structural changes were distinct and applied to the horizontal tail.



No, a 'snap roll' is a deliberate aerobatic technique, & that's why 'Pilot's Notes' often list them as
'verboten!' along with 'extended intentional spins'..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> No, a 'snap roll' is a deliberate aerobatic technique, & that's why 'Pilot's Notes' often list them as
> 'verboten!' along with 'extended intentional spins'..





pbehn said:


> "Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, *a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll*. The horizontal stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a snap roll. To prevent recurrence, the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O. 01-60J-18 dated 8 April 1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Hey W, nevermind that - where's my quid? Tail empennages departing P-51's remember..

(& FYI, 'snap roll' is the US term for 'flick roll' & they ARE an aerobatic routine)..


----------



## Marcel (Apr 19, 2018)

Reopened. Hope it can stay civilised this time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 19, 2018)

Uh, I vote for the P-39.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I believe it was somewhat more than that.
> 
> Over 2000hp, but I'd have to check.


The Merlin 61 that was about to go into the P-51B/C actually failed a standard AAF 150 hour test. Cracked pistons among other things. The British required only a 100 hour test. AAF decided to just be extra careful with maintenance. Allison, P&W and Wright grumbled that their engines were normally delayed until they could pass the test, but to no avail.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 19, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> No, a 'snap roll' is a deliberate aerobatic technique, & that's why 'Pilot's Notes' often list them as
> 'verboten!' along with 'extended intentional spins'..


Not exactly! A snap roll occurs whenever one wing stalls and the other does not at a high enough speed such that forward inertia overrides gravity; a "horizontal spin", if you will. This is generally, but not necessarily, deliberate on the pilot's part. Any sudden yaw at higher AOAs and speeds can induce an inadvertent snap roll, and agravated if opposite aileron is applied, as might occur with a sudden application of power at high AOA. (Think nugget pilot getting used to his high powered fighter gets behind the power curve on approach and notices high sink rate too late; jams on a big wad of power: yaw leads to induced roll, hard over aileron to correct, SNAP! Another funeral.)
I've had students put us through an inadvertant snap roll while setting up to enter a spin. Nervous and impatient, failing to wait for the plane to slow down enough before stepping on the rudder. That's all it takes. Never had one do it to me twice!
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not exactly! A snap roll occurs whenever one wing stalls and the other does not at a high enough speed such that forward inertia overrides gravity; a "horizontal spin", if you will. This is generally, but not necessarily, deliberate on the pilot's part. Any sudden yaw at higher AOAs and speeds can induce an inadvertent snap roll, and agravated if opposite aileron is applied, as might occur with a sudden application of power at high AOA. (Think nugget pilot getting used to his high powered fighter gets behind the power curve on approach and notices high sink rate too late; jams on a big wad of power: yaw leads to induced roll, hard over aileron to correct, SNAP! Another funeral.)
> I've had students put us through an inadvertant snap roll while setting up to enter a spin. Nervous and impatient, failing to wait for the plane to slow down enough before stepping on the rudder. That's all it takes. Never had one do it to me twice!
> Cheers,
> Wes


Wes, is there any reason why pilots manuals forbid snap or flick rolls when they seem to be perfectly capable of doing them? Is it just "playing safe"


----------



## maxmwill (Apr 19, 2018)

cheddar cheese said:


> In contrast to the other topic what do you think the most underrated aircraft of WW2 was?


The Sea Hornet, TBF/M, FG1, the L4 right off the top of m'head.


----------



## Jugman (Apr 19, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The Merlin 61 that was about to go into the P-51B/C actually failed a standard AAF 150 hour test. Cracked pistons among other things. The British required only a 100 hour test. AAF decided to just be extra careful with maintenance. Allison, P&W and Wright grumbled that their engines were normally delayed until they could pass the test, but to no avail.



The V-1650-1 technically failed it's type/model test but was put into production with the understanding that once it passed its penalty run that existing engines would be upgraded. The two-stage models had to pass their model test before they were put into production.


----------



## maxmwill (Apr 19, 2018)

Could the Griffon be used in a future mark of the P51, after the H?


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Wes, is there any reason why pilots manuals forbid snap or flick rolls when they seem to be perfectly capable of doing them? Is it just "playing safe"



pbehn,

The OV-10 Bronco forbade them although I knew guys who did them. My bet would be the reasons varied by plane. The Eagle doesn't like negative G flight for other than short periods. The Bronco didn't like hammerhead stalls, caused the exhaust "pipe" to come lose if you did a tail slide (know someone who did that to), however it's a non-event in the Eagle. Snap rolls put a lot of stress on a plane and its parts and would guess most planes aren't stressed for doing that repeatedly.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> pbehn,
> 
> The OV-10 Bronco forbade them although I knew guys who did them. My bet would be the reasons varied by plane. The Eagle doesn't like negative G flight for other than short periods. The Bronco didn't like hammerhead stalls, caused the exhaust "pipe" to come lose if you did a tail slide (know someone who did that to), however it's a non-event in the Eagle. Snap rolls put a lot of stress on a plane and its parts and would guess most planes aren't stressed for doing that repeatedly.
> 
> ...


Thanks Biff, the Spitfire manual forbids them but I read this
"The Hurricane would drop a wing if you stalled it coming in, but a Spitfire would come wafting down. You couldn't snap it into a spin. Beautiful to fly, although very stiff on the ailerons - you had to jam your elbow against the side to get the leverage to move them. And so fast!!! If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on."

_P/O H.G.Niven 601 & 602 Squadrons
_
Which means some at least tried it.

Cheer pb.

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


----------



## flypaper2222 (Apr 19, 2018)

P-36/H-75....from Finland to North Africa to Thailand used and fought and did really well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Not to ridicule or limit the achievements of the brave men who flew the Lightning in combat, but this type of inflammatory rhetoric is commonplace when your favorite aircraft doesn't have the stats to back up your wild claims. But I guess it's a far easier task to minimize the officially recognized victory record of both the Mustang and Hellcat than to actually bring real statistics to support your claims. That the Lightning some how singlehandedly cleared the sky of all seasoned German and Japanese pilots, only to leave the "dregs" to the two highest scoring American fighter aircraft of the war, sounds like sour grapes to me.....



You just haven't found the right sources and continue to spew the party line. 
Straight statistics don't tell the whole story. It takes a combination of statistics, logic, knowledge of human behavior and precedence to properly interpret history.

1. Can we agree that as the war wore on the Axis powers lost the ability to properly train new fighter pilots to replace their losses due to lack of fuel, safe areas to practice and poor training organizations?
2. That as the war dragged on the Axis lost more and more of their best pilots due to simple attrition an their replacements were increasingly inferior. 

I can provide massive evidence that both these statements are true. 

The subject of the post is "The Most Underrated Plane of World War Two". Your response pretty much says it all about the attitude concerning the P-38. 

The following has been pulled from a old forum and this collection pretty much lays out a pretty convincing argument that the Lightning was the most strategically important fighter of the entire war. 

From: [email protected] (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P38 in Europe? A success?
Date: 17 Dec 1996

Thirteen P-38 FGs were deployed in Europe and Med Theaters:
1, 14, 20, 55, 78, 81, 82, 350, 364, 367, 370, 474, 479.

Photo recon versions of the P-38 (F-4 and F-5) served in Europe and the
Med in five PRGs:
3, 5, 10, 67, 68.

The 1FG and 14FG were first to receive P-38 in spring, 1941.

P-38s equipped a total of 27 FG and 10 PRG.

In Europe, the P-38 flew some 130,000 sorties. That compares with about
214,000 for the P-51 and 423,000 for the P-47.

Aside from about 20 F-4/5s given to the Free French air force, only the
USAAF used P-38s during the war (a handful of non-turbo, non-handed
versions went to and were rejected by the RAF). One of these proved the
coffin of Antoine de Saint Exupery, author of "Wind, Sand and Stars" and
other aviation literature standards, who disappeared on a flight over
southern France, 31 July, 1944.

The first German plane shot down by the USAAF in WWII is generally
credited to a P-38 on 14 Aug., 1942, an FW-200C downed by Elza Shaham of
342 Composite FG.

The first allied fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55FG on 3 March,
1944.

The 1FG was the only USAAF fighter group during the war to win two
Presidential Unit Citations in less than a week, for actions in the MTO.

On two occasions, once in the Pacific and once in the Med, a lone P-38
escorting a group of bombers succeeded in driving off numbers of enemy
fighters attempting to attack the bombers, in each case shooting down one
e/a that got too close. The Pacific incident involved a P-38 from the
475FG, which shot down a Ki-61 from a gaggle going after B-25s, and the
Med incident invoved a P-38 from the 1FG that shot down an Me-109 from a
gaggle going after B-25s. In each case, the lone P-38 had been late off
the runway, missed the rendevous and proceeded on alone hoping to catch up
to the rest of the squadron, which was, in each case, turned back by bad
weather that the late starter missed.

The leading P-38 aces in the Med were Micheal Brezas who shot down 12
German planes (2 Me-210, 4 Me-109, 6 FW-190) while serving with the 14FG,
and William Sloan, who shot down 12 German and Italian a/c (6 Me-109, 2
Mc-200, 1 Mc-202, 1 Re-2001, 1 Ju-88, 1 Do-217) while serving with the
82FG.

The 55FG began operations out of England on 15 Oct., 1943, one day after
Black Thursday when some 60 B-17s were lost on the second Schweinfurt
raid. First encounter with Luftwaffe on 3 Nov., shot down 3 Me-109 with
no loss to selves. On 5 Nov., down five Me-109s with no loss. On 13
Nov., in a sprawling, large-scale battle, shot down 3 FW-190, 2 Ju-88, 1
Me-109, 1 Me-210 but lost 5 P-38s shot down. Two more were lost due to
engine problems. On 29 Nov. 7 P-38s were shot down for the loss of no
German planes.
Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude. The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity. Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced. This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long. This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Another problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a. Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills. Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results. Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38. 55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft. In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards. In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it. The ground crew chief wrote in his
report: "Piss tube to spec. Problem is pilot's dick is too short."

20FG entered N. Euro. combat at the end of Dec, '43. Did not appear to
suffer from the morale and leadership problems of the 55FG. First
contacted Luftwaffe on 29 Jan. '44. Downed 3 FW-190, 3 Me-110, 3 Me-210,
1 Me-109. No P-38s lost. 3 FWs downed by Lindol Graham, who used only
his single 20mm cannon, 12 shots per plane. (Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight. The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props. His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
On 8 Feb. James Morris of 20FG downed 3 FW-190s in a single combat,
involving tight turns (in which the P-38's maneuvering flap setting [8
degrees extension] was used) and an Me-109 as returning home, the first
quadruple kill for an 8AF fighter. All kills were made with dead astern
shots. Morris missed all his deflection shots. Interestingly, two of the
FWs were first encountered head-on and Morris was able to reverse and
maneuver onto their tails while they tried with all their might to get on
his--and failed. Three days later he downed an Me-109, making him the
first P-38 ace flying out of England. (He would score a total of 8
victories before being shot down on 7 July, the highest score of any
UK-based P-38 pilot.)

364FG arrived in UK in Feb., '44. Led by Col John Lowell, who had helped
develop the P-38 at Wright-Pat, on its first mission over Berlin on 6
March, he downed 2 Me-109s, and two more on 8 March. On 9 March he downed
an FW-190. He was eventually to tally 11 kills in the P-38, but several
were downgraded to probables after the war.
Col Mark Hubbel took over the 20th on 17 March. He believed P-38
excellent fighter against Luftwaffe and proved it by promptly shooting
down 2 Me-109 and sharing a third with his wingman. He may have downed a
fourth Me-109 which he was seen pursuing as it streamed smoke in a dive.
He was last seen chasing yet another Me-109, this time through the door
of a church. Neither planes nor church survived the encounter.
During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.

Ultimately 7 P-38 FG were operational in northern Europe. The 474th was
the only one to retain the P-38 till the end of the war. As pilots grew
used to the plane and developed confidence in it, it successes against the
Luftwaffe grew. On 7 July, '44, P-38s of the 20FG downed 25 out of 77 e/a
destroyed that day, the highest of any group.
The last UK-based P-38 ace was Robin Olds of the 479FG. On 14 Aug., '44,
while flying alone, he encountered two FW-190s and engaged them in a
dogfight, shooting both down.
On 25 Aug, P-38s from 367 encountered FW-190s of JG-6, a top Luftwaffe
unit. Wild, low-level battle ensued in which 8 P-38s and 20 FW-190s were
down. Five of the FWs were shot down by Capt. Lawrence Blumer. 367
received a Presidential Unit Citation as a result of this battle.
On the same day, P-38s from 474 shot down 21 FW-190s for the loss of 11
P-38s. The same day Olds' of 479 downed three Me-109s in a running battle
that saw his canopy shot off.
On 26 Sept., P-38s of the 479 downed 19 e/a near Munster. Shortly after
that most P-38s were gradually replaced by P-51s.
The last long-range bomber escort in northern Europe by P-38s was on 19
Nov. '44 when 367FG escorted bombers to Merzig, Germany. FW-190s
attempted to intercept. P-38s downed six with no losses. No bombers were
lost either. It was a good way to end the P-38s air-superiority role in
northern Europe."


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.


Maybe this was the inspiration behind the closing scene in the movie "Dunkirk", where the Spitfire carries on fighting even after its fuel has run out, and shoots down the Stuka before carrying on to a low pass over the troops and a deadstick landing on the sand.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 20, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> pbehn,
> 
> The OV-10 Bronco forbade them although I knew guys who did them. My bet would be the reasons varied by plane. The Eagle doesn't like negative G flight for other than short periods. The Bronco didn't like hammerhead stalls, caused the exhaust "pipe" to come lose if you did a tail slide (know someone who did that to), however it's a non-event in the Eagle. Snap rolls put a lot of stress on a plane and its parts and would guess most planes aren't stressed for doing that repeatedly.
> 
> ...


Biff pretty well covers it here, but I might add that depending on speed and configuration, some a/c could diverge into an ass-over-teakettle tumble that would put stresses on various parts unanticipated by the designers. While not necessarily leading to immediate collapse, undetected damage could (and did) start fatigue cracking and eventual catastrophic failure.
I've read that the G loads imposed by a snap roll in a high performance a/c tend to be more of a sharp onset "impact" variety than the pilot-induced maneuvering kind, thus inducing greater fatigue effects.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Maybe this was the inspiration behind the closing scene in the movie "Dunkirk", where the Spitfire carries on fighting even after its fuel has run out, and shoots down the Stuka before carrying on to a low pass over the troops and a deadstick landing on the sand.


Maybe, but movie makers always want everything to be like a "Die Hard" movie. I didn't see the movie but read about that scene. If all pilots ran out of fuel over Dunkerque the RAF would have lost most of its fighters in a day. There was a Spitfire lost and recovered from the beach at Dunkerque then restored, but it was piloted by a stockbroker and hit by return fire from a Dornier which doesn't suit todays "narrative".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

Hairog said:


> The subject of the post is "The Most Underrated Plane of World War Two". Your response pretty much says it all about the attitude concerning the P-38.



Unlike yourself, nobody here is trying to cheapen the heroism and sacrifices that these men displayed during war. But you Sir decided to sh--t on those that happened to fly a different aircraft than the one you so admire. That's where I take issue with your position. I for one am as proud an American as you will find and I'm insulted by your demeaning rhetoric so I will end our conversation hence forth before this turns into another locked thread, all because it devolved into a war of wits between two seemingly grown men who didn't know when to shut their big traps. Good day to you!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 20, 2018)

Using the conventional definition of “under-rated,” the P-38 wasn’t that. One only needs to read popular histories written for most of the post-war era to see that. It was, however, both technically flawed and adversely impacted by insufficient pilot training, issues that became better known with more competent histories. 

A lot of factors, many of them not technological, contribute to an aircraft’s combat success. Similarly, many non-technological factors contribute to an aircraft’s reputation.

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 20, 2018)

I'm not sure how the P-38 could ever be seen as under rated, like swamp says, popular histories treat it quite well, now the P-39 on the other hand...

And I do think the P-39 does get a bit of the short end of the stick, always consider what it did with the VVS, they sure seemed to make it work in their theater.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Using the conventional definition of “under-rated,” the P-38 wasn’t that.



Yes and besides, listing aerial engagements where the Lightning made a good showing doesn't prove squat. I can go on and on for months and months posting the same sort of stuff about the Mustang and Hellcat and only scratch the surface of what's available to us, but how would that really strengthen my argument? All of the top American fighters had a role to play during the war and ALL have stories of bravery and sacrifice, and for me to weigh in on which one deserves more credit for the destruction of the Nazi war machine or the Imperial Japanese military is something I wish not to be a part of. And we should also never ignore the contributions made by the other allied nations to this cause, as it most definitely was a coordinated effort.

Of course the Lightning was an outstanding aircraft which deserves the recognition it has received and maybe more so, but not at the expense of the two fighters which garnered the lion's share of aerial victories credited to US pilots. Claiming that it's "underrated" because it's true legacy was somehow stolen by the Mustang and Hellcat is pure idiocy and from that point forward one's credibility has to be seriously questioned. To me it smells like trolling and we all know what that sort of behavior normally leads to here.....


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2018)

Personally my definition of underrated is where an aircraft did excellent work but was overshadowed by another aircraft hence my first choice would be Beaufighter which was overshadowed by the Mosquito. Or just not given credit normally because they were on the Axis side.
A second choice of mine is the Halifax which is overshadowed by the Lancaster but from the Mk III version onwards was almost a match for the Lancaster in performance.
Third is the Baltimore which was quite a decent aircraft and well used in the Middle East but outside areas such as this forum no one has ever heard of.
Fourth the Do217 always, always overlooked
Equal fifth almost any Japanese aircraft outside the Zero, their seaplanes were exceptional equal to anything in any allied airforce take your pick

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


----------



## Timppa (Apr 21, 2018)

cheddar cheese said:


> In contrast to the other topic what do you think the most underrated aircraft of WW2 was?


My shortlist :F2A, Bf-110, I-153, I-16, Il-4, Ki-43, P-39, C-47.
Of these, I would choose the I-153, Il-4(DB-3F ) being the close second.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Apr 22, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Unlike yourself, nobody here is trying to cheapen the heroism and sacrifices that these men displayed during war. But you Sir decided to sh--t on those that happened to fly a different aircraft than the one you so admire. That's where I take issue with your position. I for one am as proud an American as you will find and I'm insulted by your demeaning rhetoric so I will end our conversation hence forth before this turns into another locked thread, all because it devolved into a war of wits between two seemingly grown men who didn't know when to shut their big traps. Good day to you!



I guess we'll just have to chalk this up to a miscommunication. I did not intend to denigrate the pilots who flew other planes. I certainly did not try "to cheapen the heroism and sacrifices that these men displayed during war." 

I'm sorry you misunderstood my intent.


----------



## Hairog (Apr 23, 2018)

> "Claiming that it's "underrated" because it's true legacy was somehow stolen by the Mustang and Hellcat is pure idiocy and from that point forward one's credibility has to be seriously questioned. To me it smells like trolling and we all know what that sort of behavior normally leads to here....."



What does calling someone an idiot, questioning their credibility, calling them a troll and putting words in their mouth lead to in here...? I guess we'll see. 

To me the monumental snub the Lightning has received is what makes it the most underrated aircraft. Before the Mustang took over, the introduction of the P-38 as a long range escort brought the Luftwaffe to a point where defeat was inevitable. 



> Combat radius helps to win air wars. This simple observation sums up much of what distinguished the P-38 from its contemporaries, and also why this aircraft must be considered the single most significant fighter in the US inventory in W.W.II. The critical air battles, when Allied strength was still building up and Axis strength was at its peak, were fought by the P-38 force, deep inside hostile airspace against a numerically superior enemy.
> 
> All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2018)

Alright guys, calm down, have a beer and relax.


----------



## GregP (Apr 23, 2018)

Another thing that contributes to combat success is opportunity. If you assign a fighter to a role where it will see many less enemy planes, it will have less success, even if it is a better fighter with equal pilots.

Not saying that the case for anything, but it is true nonetheless. For instance, the FM-2 Wildcat was assigned to Jeep carriers and was used to mop up what the main fleets bypassed. It did a great job, but also didn't generally fight the quality of opponent that the F6F did in anywhere NEAR the numbers. I am not implying anything bad about the Wildcat or its pilots except that it wasn't exactly on the front lines after the Hellcat and Corsair showed up and took over from the Wildcat, and it fought less than first line aircraft in many cases. Still, someone and some plane had to do the job, and the Wildcat did it quite well, acquiring an outstanding record along the way. No slight intended or stated ... just observing the situation from the vantage of decades later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 23, 2018)

The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.

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


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.



Weren't the first P-38 squadrons originally sent to Britain diverted to North Africa?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.



Mostly the escort missions prior to that were by RAF Spitfires (short distances) and P-47s (slightly longer distances).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 23, 2018)

IMHO the P-38 didn't achieve the ultimate fame of the Mustang and the Hellcat because it didn't rate it. Yes it was an impressive aircraft for its time, but it was a design generation older than the other two, and due to its protracted development, its time was almost over by the time it saw combat. It's main asset was range, but like any heavy, complex twin, it suffered a nimbleness deficit in the air superiority arena against single engine fighters. In both the ETO and the PTO, it was the first Army fighter on the scene with the range to do the job right, but its effectiveness was limited by teething problems and training issues. Consequently, its head start over its more renowned contemporaries turned out to be rather short.
The attrition of veteran pilots issue was a structural problem with our opponents in both theaters and would have occurred regardless of what we flew against them. (Except maybe P-shooters.)
So in a nutshell, the Lightning got what it deserved: some good press and praise for its strengths, but not the acclaim EARNED by its contemporaries. A great plane, but not the world-beater claimed by a certain fanboy around here.
Cheers.
Wes

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


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 23, 2018)

Timppa said:


> My shortlist :F2A, Bf-110, I-153, I-16, Il-4, Ki-43, P-39, C-47.
> Of these, I would choose the I-153, Il-4(DB-3F ) being the close second.



Speaking about VVS, I'd suggest Li-2 (DC-3 licensed and heavily modified) as a bomber. It was certainly "overshadowed" as per Glider's definition. Li-2 played significant role in ADD (long range aviation) and in its successor 18th VA (air force army) up to raids on Koenigsberg in April 1945. Little known fact: Li-2 was the most numerous long range bomber ("long range" in VVS terms) in USSR in 1945.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IMHO the P-38 didn't achieve the ultimate fame of the Mustang and the Hellcat because it didn't rate it. Yes it was an impressive aircraft for its time, but it was a design generation older than the other two, and due to its protracted development, *its time was almost over by the time it saw combat.* It's main asset was range, but like any heavy, complex twin, it suffered a nimbleness deficit in the air superiority arena against single engine fighters. In both the ETO and the PTO, it was the first Army fighter on the scene with the range to do the job right, but its effectiveness was limited by teething problems and training issues. Consequently, its head start over its more renowned contemporaries turned out to be rather short.
> The attrition of veteran pilots issue was a structural problem with our opponents in both theaters and would have occurred regardless of what we flew against them. (Except maybe P-shooters.)
> So in a nutshell, the Lightning got what it deserved: some good press and praise for its strengths, but not the acclaim EARNED by its contemporaries. A great plane, but not the world-beater claimed by a certain fanboy around here.
> Cheers.
> Wes



I agree with most of the post in General. In regards to the bolded part, it's time stretched for almost a year and half. From some point in 1942 up to about January of 1944, give or take a few weeks. Due to the small numbers it never dominated any theater it was in during that time but in several theaters it allowed other US fighters to do their lower altitude "thing" (and or shorter range"thing") with less interference and thus allowed a _greater total effort_ to be made. 

Once you get into 1944 I think they were trying to dream up new roles for the P-38. Formation bombing, ground attack with rockets, etc. Which tends to show they were no longer needed as long range high altitude fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 23, 2018)

The reason for the "time almost over" comment was that the design contemporaries of the P-38, the Zero, P-39, P-40, FW-190, etc, were in service well before it, and already in danger of being overshadowed by newer designs by the time the Lightning was sorted out and becoming effective. As happened to it in short order, with their groups moving on to Mustangs.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Hairog (Apr 23, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.



Emphasis and underlining added by me:

_*



"it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944

Click to expand...

*_


> , which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944."



Worth repeating apparently..._*"it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944*_,

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 23, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Speaking about VVS, I'd suggest Li-2 (DC-3 licensed and heavily modified) as a bomber. It was certainly "overshadowed" as per Glider's definition. Li-2 played significant role in ADD (long range aviation) and in its successor 18th VA (air force army) up to raids on Koenigsberg in April 1945. Little known fact: Li-2 was the most numerous long range bomber ("long range" in VVS terms) in USSR in 1945.



I was not aware that the Li-2 was used by a bomber by the USSR. This further supports the my suggestion in post 410 on page 21 that the DC3 and its derivatives was the most under-rated aircraft in WW2.

In the USA transport, glider, glider tug, paratroop transport, supply dropper and general multi-purpose aircraft.
Stayed in US military inventory past the end of the Vietnam war where it was still a potent weapon in roles the designers never contemplated

Russian long range bomber.
Licenced production in Japan of the Daks older/smaller brother, the DC-2
Also used by many other forces and roles


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 23, 2018)

maxmwill said:


> Could the Griffon be used in a future mark of the P51, after the H?



I believe it could be done in a service aircraft. It was done in _Precious Metal_


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I believe it could be done in a service aircraft. It was done in _Precious Metal_



At the time of the development of the Mustang X and the XP-51B, there were discussions between Rolls-Royce and NAA about adapting the Griffon 60 series into the Mustang airframe.

NAA felt there would be too much rework for it to be worthwhile. 

I'm guessing that work would revolve around the strengthening of the fuselage (as was required of the Spitfire) and the increase in cooling requirements.


----------



## Hairog (Apr 23, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IMHO the P-38 didn't achieve the ultimate fame of the Mustang and the Hellcat because it didn't rate it. Yes it was an impressive aircraft for its time, but it was a design generation older than the other two, and due to its protracted development,



The L model was arguably the best piston engine fighter of WWII. With all the fixes in, the true design genius of the Lightning came to the fore. Imagine a two engine ( how may pilots did that save) plane that could out turn and out maneuver the 109 and 190 as well as the vaunted Zero and Spitfire. 



> its time was almost over by the time it saw combat.





> Even during the war, the P-38, P-47 and P-51 each had adherents who argued the
> favorable points of each, sometimes quite vehemently, and, obviously, the
> arguments continue today. Capt. Jim Tapp was training supervisor of the 78FS
> of the 21FG temporarily based at Bellows while it transitioned from P-47s to
> ...





> It's main asset was range, but like any heavy, complex twin, it suffered a nimbleness deficit in the air superiority arena against single engine fighters. In both the ETO and the PTO, it was the first Army fighter on the scene with the range to do the job right, but its effectiveness was limited by teething problems and training issues. Consequently, its head start over its more renowned contemporaries turned out to be rather short.
> The attrition of veteran pilots issue was a structural problem with our opponents in both theaters and would have occurred regardless of what we flew against them. (Except maybe P-shooters.)



The Lightning was very nimble and could easily out turn/out maneuver the 109, 190 as well as most Japanese aircraft.
It was certainly a better dog fighter than the Jug and Mustang.



> Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
> turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
> What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
> P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
> ...





> So in a nutshell, the Lightning got what it deserved: some good press and praise for its strengths, but not the acclaim EARNED by its contemporaries. A great plane, but not the world-beater claimed by a certain fanboy around here.
> Cheers.
> Wes



I find that people who resort to name calling and trying to label others in a debate, consciously or, in most cases, unconscious know they are losing the discussion. It's kind of ...I'm losing so I'm going to take my ball and go home.

And I obviously disagree with your last statement.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2018)

Hairog said:


> The L model was arguably the best piston engine fighter of WWII. With all the fixes in, the true design genius of the Lightning came to the fore. Imagine a two engine ( how may pilots did that save) plane that could out turn and out maneuver the 109 and 190 as well as the vaunted Zero and Spitfire.



I doubt that very much.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 24, 2018)

Hairog said:


> easily out turn/out maneuver the 109, 190 as well as most Japanese aircraft.
> It was certainly a better dog fighter than the Jug and Mustang.


EVENTUALLY it could do all those things, by the time it gained more horsepower, boosted ailerons, combat flaps, paddle props, etc. But by then its time was up and it was being superseded by newer designs that could do the same job at less logistical, organizational, and economic cost.
Well, it's clear no one is going to shake you loose from your obsession, and equally clear you're not going to convince me of it, so in the interests of domestic tranquility, I think I'll just "take my ball and go home". Y'all have fun now, hear?
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 24, 2018)

Hairog said:


> _*"it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944*_,



In all theatres? That may be right; but in the ETO by the end of '44, P-38's in the 8th AAF had been replaced by Mustangs.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> EVENTUALLY it could do all those things, by the time it gained more horsepower, boosted ailerons, combat flaps, paddle props, etc. But by then its time was up and it was being superseded by newer designs that could do the same job at less logistical, organizational, and economic cost.
> Well, it's clear no one is going to shake you loose from your obsession, and equally clear you're not going to convince me of it, so in the interests of domestic tranquility, I think I'll just "take my ball and go home". Y'all have fun now, hear?
> Cheers,
> Wes



I don't think it could do _all_ of those things.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2018)

Hairog said:


> The L model was arguably the best piston engine fighter of WWII.
> ...



Perhaps you'd be so kind to back up your opinion with facts?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2018)

As the war ended the USA ordered long range P-47s and the P51-H, when a twin seat fighter was needed they chose a twin Mustang


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2018)

This conversation should be good...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 24, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> I was not aware that the Li-2 was used by a bomber by the USSR. This further supports the my suggestion in post 410 on page 21 that the DC3 and its derivatives was the most under-rated aircraft in WW2.
> 
> In the USA transport, glider, glider tug, paratroop transport, supply dropper and general multi-purpose aircraft.
> Stayed in US military inventory past the end of the Vietnam war where it was still a potent weapon in roles the designers never contemplated
> ...



I had no idea either, I have to vote for the DC-3 as well.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 24, 2018)

I know of a couple DC-3's still flying. One of them for skydiving service.

There's another really sad and pitiful one at the end of the taxiway in Port-au-Prince... not sure if it's still there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> I know of a couple DC-3's still flying. One of them for skydiving service.
> 
> There's another really sad and pitiful one at the end of the taxiway in Port-au-Prince... not sure if it's still there.



There are lots of DC-3/C-47’s flying.

We have 3 C-47’s built in 1944 right here at my airfield.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 24, 2018)

Yes, I know there are (testament to the airframe). I was only speaking to those I see regularly still. My post was lacking of course.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 24, 2018)

Two things about the Lightning:

They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang. 

They were complicated. A true state of the art airplane for it's time with twin turbochargers but it didn't get into combat until late '42 because of the complexity of the turbo. Complicated to maintain, and really complicated to fly. Too much for a 200HR army pilot. It was said that it took a pilot twice as long to become proficient in a P-38. 

And the initial combat models, the F and G were no better performance wise than their Luftwaffe opponents and had many disadvantages including dive restrictions and less maneuverability. If you agree that the Luftwaffe was beaten by mid '44 then the best models (L) hadn't even started production. Granted an L with an experienced pilot might be the best combo, it was just too late. Just my opinion.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2018)

From another thread:



wuzak said:


> Then again....
> 
> From Francis Dean, _America's Hundred Thousand_:
> 
> ...



Doesn't sound like it would be out-manoeuvering aircraft such as a Fw 190.

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


----------



## eagledad (Apr 25, 2018)

Wuzak, Hairog, et al

Whether the P-38 is the best USAAF fighter of WWII will always be debated. Certainly the criticisms leveled against the aircraft were warranted, the cold cockpits, requiring twice the training hours to master compared to a single engine fighter, the dive limits, slow initial roll, and distinctive silhouette. Zemke and Rau did not appear to be great fans of the aircraft, and even Olds, who made ace in the P-38 in northern Europe, liked the P-51 a little bit more. 

However, outside northern Europe, there were probably more supporters than detractors. OB Taylor a 5 victory ace in the MTO, appreciated the P-38.

“Kenny” Giroux was a 10 victory ace (all in the P-38) who flew the P-39, P-47 and P-38 in combat with the 8th Fighter Group 5th Air Force . He summed up his time in the P-38 with the following:
“In my opinion, it (the P-38) was the greatest fighter airplane of its time. Yes, I’ve flown the P-51.”Giroux statement taken from Pacific Sweep by William N Hess, page 235.

As for rolling with a FW-190A, the attached graph confirms about the low speed rates of roll between the P-38 and the FW.

Just another view.

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Apr 27, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Two things about the Lightning:
> 
> They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang.
> 
> ...





P-39 Expert said:


> Two things about the Lightning:
> 
> They were expensive, about 2.4X what a Hellcat or early Mustang cost. For the 9500 P-38s produced, you could have had 22,800 single engine fighters. Expensive to maintain also. That is the main reason they were phased out of the 8th AF in favor of the Mustang.


At the time they lost faith with the P 38 the commanders of the 8th were desperate for an aircraft to protect their bombers all the way to the target and back again, they weren't consernrd


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2018)

redcoat said:


> At the time they lost faith with the P 38 the commanders of the 8th were desperate for an aircraft to protect their bombers all the way to the target and back again, they weren't consernrd


The P-38 did not have the range of the P51 on escort missions anyway.


----------



## Greyman (Apr 27, 2018)

eagledad said:


> As for rolling with a FW-190A, the attached graph confirms about the low speed rates of roll between the P-38 and the FW.



Hi eagledad - do you know if the source for that P-38 data is available online? Do you know the stick forces used for the unboosted P-38 test?

For what it's worth I added RAE data from their testing of a boosted P-38J.

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


----------



## eagledad (Apr 27, 2018)

Greyman,
The data was on the net and was taken from an article by Dr Carlo Kopp. An updated version of the article can be found at the following link:
Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Unfortunately, the updated version does not have the graphs from the earlier versions. However, before the old version was replaced, I did capture 2 other charts along with the roll chart previously presented.

Please note that the data was supplied by the Lockheed Corp, so draw what conclusions you want.


I am also attaching another roll chart that I found on the net along time ago for the P-38L-1.



Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Apr 27, 2018)

Greyman,

Being OAP (Old and Pathetic) I did not answer your question on stick forces. No data on stick force was given for any of the graphs I have. Over at Mike Williams and Niel Stirling's site they have a document that shows the stick force used was in the vicinity of 80 pounds. See the report at 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

Eagledad


----------



## Greyman (Apr 29, 2018)

Whoops, I didn't realize your chart was in TAS. Re-uploaded the chart with the updated RAE curve, assuming:

10,000 feet altitude (RAE test makes no mention of altitude, but they seem to test all other roll rates there, large assumption I know)
+2% mph per 1000 feet for IAS to TAS conversion


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 30, 2018)

Eagledad was generous enough to compile the total claims made by P-38 pilots from the start of combat operations in the Pacific until the Hellcat's arrival at Guadalcanal. In my opinion, the idea that the destruction of roughly 350 Japanese aircraft somehow singlehandedly cleared the skies of all skilled aerial opposition from that point forward is ludicrous to say the least. 

Questions About Japanese Air Power - 1943


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The Whirlwind was a way to bring 4 cannons in the air and still perform. Spitfire and Hurricane with 4 cannons were bad proposals before 1942 - Hurricane with 4 cannons and couple of bombs flying against the targets in occupied France?
> Beaufighter was probably an even more expensive way to carry 4 cannons in the war, and it was a wrong machine to both fight against and run from the LW.
> Let's recall that Whirlwind was an aircraft of 1939/40 flying against the LW of 1941 and '42. Sending Hurricane I or Spitfire I to do the same? And that RAF was not sending it's P-39s and P-40s against the LW in ETO.



Decisions on which fighters to use in ETO / Northwest was dictated, as air combat typically was, by the bombers. Level bombers dropping strings of bombs on Coventry from 22,000 feet are better attacked by planes with a performance ceiling above 20k. Though given the performance of the Hurricane in North Africa I wonder if the Brits would have benefited from having P-40s (and maybe for BoB, P-36/Hawk 75) in their defensive force. There is absolutely no doubt that P-40s had a much better record than any mark of the Hurricane against Bf 109s and other enemy aircraft in the Med, and Hurricanes seemed to have a ceiling problem of their own.

Interestingly, the numbers from Shores book series "Mediterranean Air War" make the Beaufighter look pretty good - he points this out himself. They were constantly taking down enemy aircraft and sinking ships, seemed to have both a lower overclaiming rate and a much lower loss rate than Hurricanes. A major factor here is probably the relatively short range of Bf 109s, but it by no means seems to have been a foregone conclusion that you would lose a Beaufighter if it encountered LW fighters.

S


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure if anybody has the true number of tail failures and there seem to be several causes and/or contributing factors.
> 
> Point is that _many _aircraft had problems upon introduction with the first few dozen (or several hundred) built. P-36 had structural problems. P-40 had engine problems, P-47Bs caught fire in flight among other problems for instance, early FW 190s were hardly trouble free. Since there was never a MK II Whirlwind it's initial problems never really had a chance to get straightened out. How many of it's problems were fundamental flaws or were the fault of components/sub assemblies that could have been fixed in a later production run, like the tail wheel strut. Much more likely than not a bought in part/assembly from an outside supplier.
> Since the manufacturing program was effectively canceled _before _a single squadron came close to being equipped with it and continued production was allowed only to use up already manufactured (or close to completed) parts there was zero incentive to design any "fixes" that would require major new parts/assemblies.
> ...



You make a good point - the Whirlwind was clearly a very promising design and many of the minor flaws it had were normal teething issues for a new plane, especially one with such an advanced design for when it came on scene. I think the main issue with the Whirlwind was a design problem - it had a very short range which in some senses, defeats the purpose of a twin engined fighter. They may have been able to pack more fuel into it, but basically the problem was also related to why it's performance was so good - it was a small plane for two motors. It had a 45' wingspan which is barely 5 feet more than a Hurricane. P-38 by contrast was 55' and Bf 110 was 53'

So to me that is the main question on the Whirlwind - could they fit more fuel in it?

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Merlin can only be considered to be _over-produced _if you can point to reports of hundreds of extra engines just laying around in crates waiting for somebody to order them. Please remember that it was quite customary to order about 50% more engines than airframes to ensure an adequate number of spare engines.



Not sure what time period this would be but if this was in the 1942-1943 period they should have gone into P-40s! Or even P-38s. Not sure how easily a P-38 could have been modified to take a Merlin 60 but I think it could have been very beneficial and helped address at least some of the major problems plaguing that aircraft.

Send some to the Russians to put in LaGG-3 and Yak-7s and so forth.

Might have even helped the P-39.

S


----------



## tomo pauk (May 3, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Decisions on which fighters to use in ETO / Northwest was dictated, as air combat typically was, by the bombers. Level bombers dropping strings of bombs on Coventry from 22,000 feet are better attacked by planes with a performance ceiling above 20k. Though given the performance of the Hurricane in North Africa I wonder if the Brits would have benefited from having P-40s (and maybe for BoB, P-36/Hawk 75) in their defensive force. There is absolutely no doubt that P-40s had a much better record than any mark of the Hurricane against Bf 109s and other enemy aircraft in the Med, and Hurricanes seemed to have a ceiling problem of their own.
> ...



I don't think that level bombers were bombing Coventry from 20000 ft, the 'best altitude' for the typical Jumo 211B/D was at around 12000-14000 ft (depending on amount of ram and power setting choosen). P-40 was a better performer than Hurricane, quirk beng that Hurricane was available earlier, in greater numbers, in 1940 it was better armed and it's engine was rated for greater power, and it was cheaper. P-36 instead of a Hurricane or Spitfore does not bring any new advatage to the RAF. 
I'd say that Hurricane held a better exchange ratio in ETO + MTO than P-40, as well as better total of kills, it's timing was vastly better than of the P-40, let alone the importance for the ww2.

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


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> *I'd say that Hurricane held a better exchange ratio in ETO + MTO than P-40, as well as better total of kills*, it's timing was vastly better than of the P-40, let alone the importance for the ww2.



That post rings with the sound of a gauntlet thrown down into the dirt! Do you have any numbers to back that up?

I would definitely challenge the MTO side of that statement. Its possible Hurricanes had a greater number of kills in ETO+MTO if you add the ~550 they got in the BoB with however many (not that many) they got in the MED, but once P-40s were on scene the ratio tipped dramatically in their favor in the MTO.

Unless Christopher Shores MAW is completely wrong, by 1942 Hurricanes were probably scoring something like 1/10th of the victories (both claimed and actual) than the P-40s were, and still taking very high casualties. Without a doubt the Hurricanes were suffering a higher per-sortie loss ratio particularly in air to air combat. Losses to flak were probably equivalent.

I'll try to count it tonight for 1942 through the end of the Tunisian campaign based on Shores numbers.

As for the P-36, I think the P-36 had a better victory/loss ratio than the Hurricane did in the Battle of France right? The main advantage of a P-36 over a Hurricane would be an ability to disengage (via high speed dive / split S) from German fighters which the Hurricane could not do. I know the P-36 squadrons had the best record for the French forces.

As for the altitude of typical bombers during the Blitz, does anyone have stats on that? I honestly don't know, I had assumed ~20k feet would be pretty normal for say He 111s etc. because it increases the time and to some extent, difficulty for an intercept and it is about the same altitude often flown by G4M and so on in the Pacific. But I really don't know. I'm sure someone here does.

S


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Probably because Camm had bought the RAE's flawed 'thick wing - is the go' malakey,
> & since the Air Min had duly deemed..
> 
> ' For future fighters, fuel tanks have to be mounted in the wings, away from the pilot'
> ...



Appreciate this as I've always been a bit confused by the precise differences between the Tempest and the Typhoon. Would love to see a more thorough side by side comparison.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

Based on this thread that google found for me on this here great forum, I see somewhat surprising numbers. I'll summarize, these are for the Battle of France but also including activities in Belgium and The Netherlands:

*Total losses*

Spits ----------67
Hurricanes --386
P-36-----------33

*Victory claims*

Spits----------??
Hurricanes--299
P-36----------200

This thread (mostly user Delcyros) also mentioned there were 4 squadrons of P-36, vs.16 with Ms406 (half later got Dewotine D520),8 had Bloch 151 and 152s. I couldn't find where it indicated how many Hurricanes and Spits were actually deployed (I had actually thought Spits were not used in France).

So based on this, the Hurricanes did get more total victories, but had a much worse ratio. Based on the above, P-36 had 6 victory claims for every loss, while Hurricanes had .77 victory claims for every loss. I assume that the number quoted on the P-36 is off, I think that may actually be the number of pilots killed. Still, even if you double or triple the number of shot down vs. crashed with pilot, it still looks like the P-36 is a much more effective fighter than the Hurricane just on those numbers. Certainly (if those numbers are right) a much better victory to loss ratio. Can't say for sure though since I doubt those numbers are correct.

Amazingly, the Me 110 apparently had the best sortie to loss rate of the whole battle.

Too bad for France they never did get those first 100 P-40Bs they had ordered, might have made a difference.

Its also amazing that the French actually had more aircraft and were producing more aircraft during the war than the Germans. Baffling. Obviously logistics were a problem, the German momentum was a problem. But I think the planes were too. The Ms 406 were very obsolete, draggy, over complicated, slow and definitely two steps behind the Bf 109 (probably a step or two behind the Bf 110. More appropriate for say 1936).

The Bloch 151 and 152 had potential, but were new designs which suffered from major teething issues and were difficult to fly. The Dewoitine were good but also somewhat difficult to fly and obviously the pilots had no time to familiarize themselves with the type. So out of 28 squadrons really only the 4 P-36s and whatever Hurricanes and Spits they had were really ready for prime time, and that was probably the main problem. The 8 squadrons of D.520s were good too but the timing ...

Actual German losses were:

close recon: 124 (66)
long range recon: 87 (47)
sea planes: 37 (6)
Bf-109: 250 (126)
Bf-110: 121 (50)
Ju-87: 123 (43)
Hs-123: 5 (14)
Ju-52 and othe transportation planes: 140 (74)
Fi-167 and other couriers: 33 (32)
Ju-88, Do-17, Do-15, He-111: 477 (214)
other planes: 4 (2)

Total 1,401 totally written off + 674 sent back to Germany for repairs. Probably a bit more than that if you count planes force-landed for a bullet hole in a radiator etc. (which had little tactical significance but would still count as a "victory" for the pilot who fired the bullet).

S


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Not sure what time period this would be but if this was in the *1942-1943* period they should have gone into P-40s! Or even P-38s. Not sure how easily a P-38 could have been modified to take a Merlin 60 but I think it could have been very beneficial and helped address at least some of the major problems plaguing that aircraft.
> 
> Send some to the Russians to put in LaGG-3 and Yak-7s and so forth.
> 
> Might have even helped the P-39.



Bolded part, 2 years was a heck of long time during WW II and Guess what.

P-40Fs had two speed Merlins in Jan/Feb of 1942, only trouble was there weren't very many coming out of Packard at the time. WHile Packard built 801 engines in July of 1942 (2/3 for the British, remember) they had only built 109 in Jan 1942 and only 26 in Dec of 1941.

By May/June of 1943 there were hundreds of P-51B airframes waiting for 2 stage Merlins. 
There simply (unless someone has *real* proof) not 100s of engines sitting around in crates waiting to be used. 

I would note that US planners only supplied about 20% spare engines for the P-40F & L fighters used in North africa, due to the dirt/sand engines didn't last as long and this lead to the British giving the US up to 600 used engines, either for use or to be broken down for parts to overhaul the US engines. 
Simply because someone has a photo or an acount/story of 100s of engines sitting in crates doesn't mean those engines weren't allocated or accounted for. 
Please remember that most long distance shipping was done by rail and the number of engines sitting on loading docks/storage areas could vary considerably as a line of rail cars was loaded. 
Rail movements were also carefully worked out to maximize total through put so perhaps engines were not shipped one or two rail cars at a time but in large batches. 
"Just on time inventory" was not a wide spread practice in WW II.


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Too bad for France they never did get those first 100 P-40Bs they had ordered, might have made a difference.



There may have been good reason why they didn't arrive in time:



> The first P-40B flew on *March 13, 1941*.



Curtiss P-40B

Edit:
The P-40 was not going to be available for the battle of France either:



> The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on *April 4, 1940*.



And:



> Deliveries of the P-40 to Army units *began in June of 1940*.



Curtiss P-40

In June 1940 France was in the midst of being invaded.

Initial deliveries of production aircraft to stateside US units that month does not bode well for getting them to France in time, or in any numbers.


----------



## Schweik (May 3, 2018)

wuzak said:


> There may have been good reason why they didn't arrive in time:
> 
> In June 1940 France was in the midst of being invaded.
> 
> Initial deliveries of production aircraft to stateside US units that month does not bode well for getting them to France in time, or in any numbers.



Yes I know. Well aware! There was a famous batch of 100 P-40s which were intended for France but were sent to AVG or Java or Darwin I forget which. France was right on the cusp of modernizing their air forces. The first D.520s arrived in the middle of the war, the VG 33 was entering production, and the P-40s were on the way. If they had managed to draw it out another few months it could have made a major difference, though how that would happen I have no idea. Probably no way to manage it.

I doubt the Germans realized how close they were to defeat. Their invasion hinged to a large extent on air power (especially Stukas in the tactical support role). If the French had a few hundred more good quality fighters instead of MS. 406s and Bloch 152s they might have achieved air superiority. 

Coulda woulda shoulda...

S


----------



## wuzak (May 3, 2018)

Schweik said:


> There was a famous batch of 100 P-40s which were intended for France but were sent to AVG or Java or Darwin I forget which.



The AVG's aircraft seem to have come from a batch originally intended for the RAF in North Africa. In 1941.




Schweik said:


> If they had managed to draw it out another few months it could have made a major difference, though how that would happen I have no idea. Probably no way to manage it.



Another few months? More like another year, if France was to get any P-40s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 4, 2018)

If the French had P-39s they could have swept the Luftwaffe from the skies over France.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 4, 2018)

... the problem(s) with the French Air Force were far more profound than what AC they did or did not have in their hands ..  doctrine and leadership ... bad corporate culture. The Germans who attacked France were well equipped, well led, and daring. The French were none of these ... and divided.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 4, 2018)

Milosh said:


> If the French had P-39s they could have swept the Luftwaffe from the skies over France.



Well, I would have settled for three more months to train on the D.520s, a couple of squadrons of VG.33s, and maybe 4 more P-36 squadrons....

S


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2018)

The French had insufficient pilots and the ones they did have were over age. Many were in their 30s and even 40s.
The French were also short of mechanics and ground crew.
The French also had a truly crappy communication system. Many airfields being connected by using the national telephone system. No radio and no dedicated phone line. Urgent phone calls could take up to 4 hours. Not a way to run a fast paced war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 4, 2018)

Interesting. But all of these issues sound like basic teething problems that all nations faced when ramping up very rapidly from a small peacetime army to a large wartime army, as France was in the process of doing. The Germans had been able to work out a lot of the bugs in their systems during the Spanish Civil War and of course, the series of large scale maneuvers over two years including the Anschluss in Austria in 1938 and the (sadly uncontested) annexation of Czechoslovakia in 39.

And then of course the invasion of Poland also in 39, which while more painful than most realize (10,000 killed I believe, with 285 aircraft totally destroyed and 279 badly damaged) taught the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe many of the lessons they needed to learn about communications, logistics, combined arms and coordination between air and land power. Particularly using Stukas as flying artillery which they did to such good effect in France.

Sufficient to turn the German armed forces into a fairly efficient war machine though they still had quite a few issues when they invaded Belgium.

France may not have had the caliber of leadership provided by the Prussian war colleges, their tactics were antiquated and they may have needed more young pilots and more ground crew and better C3I, supplies and so on, but they were smart and competent. They had good tanks and artillery. They had good pilots and good soldiers, some very good planes just coming online (like the D.520 and VG33 / 39), and were already undergoing a very rapid ramping up to a full state of military readiness. They just hadn't quite gotten there yet.

Think of the US in the early days of the war. Pearl Harbor where they were caught with their pants down, and the Philippines - incredibly even though they were not hit until a week later, _still_ had most of their fighters caught on the ground, troops unready, scouting inadequate, AAA unprepared and so on. In other words they suffered from the same kind of leadership paralysis, communications and logistics problems and so forth which led to the rapid conquest of that Pacific nation by the Japanese Empire. And we all know what happened on Java.

But with just a few more months of serious preparation, with essentially the same aircraft, the AVG did well in Burma. The Marines on Wake Island did well. The Americans didn't take long to shake off the cobwebs and adjust to the new reality. Coral Sea was only 5 months after Pearl Harbor and only a few days after the end of the conquest of the Philippines, but by then the Yanks had re-organized sufficiently to check the Japanese advance. Still not perfect, still not as warlike as the Japanese or the Germans who had already made the decision to go to war years earlier, but enough to rally and survive long enough to finish the transformation.

For France, the problem perhaps was that the Rhine was not as wide as the Pacific (or the English Channel), and maybe that they just declared war three months too early. The Germans may have realized their window was closing, certainly they saw that with regard to the Soviets, and decided to move before it was too late.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2018)

These are things that should have been addressed in 1937-38.
Especially the crappy communication. The commander of the French army didn't even have a single radio at his headquarters. 
The communications of WWI , national telephone system, motorcycle messengers and carrier pigeons weren't going to work and show a complete disregard for the changes in command and control that even the simplest prewar exercises would have shown to be necessary.


----------



## Schweik (May 4, 2018)

Anyway, apologies for the derail - maybe we should resurrect the Battle of France thread and put that stuff in there.

Per the OP, here is my list:







*Douglas SBD Dauntless*
Sunk more enemy ships in the critical period of the war than any other type, and pressed into service as a fighter, even shot down a respectable number of enemy aircraft, such that it was critical to the defeat of the Japanese and the salvation of the United States. With the grotesque failure of the American torpedo program, the SBD dive bomber was the main ship killer in the American arsenal. The B-17 was supposed to do the job but early war-planners, including some pretty smart ones, failed to realize how hard it was to hit ships with bombs dropped from 20,000 feet (or even 10,000 feet). Turns out they can see the bombers and turn away. The SBD was maneuverable, carried a respectable bomb load, was rugged and well armed enough to survive sorties at a pretty good rate (much better than the TBD or TBF I believe)

I think the SBD is underrated because it's often portrayed as an obsolete plane (name a better dive bomber deployed in any numbers in 1942?) and generally as an underdog in most literature I've read. And yet, if you sent a squadron of these against an enemy fleet, you could expect enemy ships sunk that day and most of them to come back. This is not something you could say about the Fairey Barracuda or the Blackburn Skua, or even the Helldiver for that matter. The Aichi D3A does come close to this, it certainly sunk a lot of American ships, but it's vulnerability was just a little to high to make my list.






*Ki-43 Oscar*
The Zero gets the glory, at least to some extent (though also a certain amount of sneering again these days) but according to the Japanese themselves, it was actually the Ki-43 "Hayabusa" that shot down the most allied planes. The Ki-43 may not have achieved 400 mph speeds, was lightly armed, a lack of pilot armor and unprotected fuel systems left them vulnerable to damage particularly in the early models, but the phenomenal maneuverability of the plane put it almost in a class of it's own. It was a major part of the "shock and awe" of early Japanese victories throughout the Pacific and Asia. To me it's a beautiful and deadly aircraft that does not get the respect it deserves.

I think the Ki-43 is underrated because it's typically depicted as flimsy and the Zeros poor cousin, so to speak.






*A6M2-N*
While it's significance in the war was somewhat limited - this was really the only true float plane fighter ever deployed in any numbers during the war. The closest match would probably be the Curtiss SC Seahawk, also an excellent plane (and probably at least partly inspired by the A6M2-N) but it came too late to make much of a difference. The Nakajima A6M2-N performed remarkably well in spite of the weight and drag of the floats, and it extended the already extraordinary range of the A6M series of fighters by being deployable to very remote bases that lacked airfields. I don't think the Japanese fully exploited the potential of this aircraft so it's impact on the war was limited, but as a design it was remarkable. Nobody else was able to accomplish this design feat within the still contested periods of the war.

I think the A6M2-N is underrated because almost nobody even knows about it, and it tends to be considered an inferior one-off to the Zero.






*P-40*
The P-40 was the most important land based fighter in the Anglo-American arsenal in numerous Theaters in 1942 and well into 1943, and played a small but crucial role for the Soviets in the same period, particularly in the defense of Leningrad and Moscow. Though it did have a major flaw in the performance ceiling imposed by the engine, and was disliked by the War Department, plans to phase out the P-40 kept having to be put on hold as it's ostensible replacements and rivals such as the Hurricane, P-39, and P-38 failed to live up to expectations or proved unable to do the job. Heavily armed, maneuverable, and capable of escaping (or catching) enemies in very high speed dives, the P-40 gave Allied pilots a chance where other types failed. The P-40 took control over the skies over China, Burma and India, it held the line at Darwin and Milne Bay (Australias "Battle of Britain"), faced the wrath of the Luftwaffe in North Africa and ended the lives of several of their top Aces. P-40 pilots themselves had a hue number of Aces, over 200 by my last count.

I think the P-40 is underrated because while it is popular with neophytes largely due to its looks and therefore gets some grudging respect, the 'experten' of the aviation history community tend to almost universally deride it. For decades, every book on aviation history reported that the P-40 was unmaneuverable, slow, and obsolete before the war began and totally outclassed by the Zero and the Bf 109. None of these things were true. We now know that the P-40 was one of the most maneuverable (fastest rolling and tightest turning) Allied monoplane fighters, probably second only to the Spitfire, and we know that P-40s shot down more enemy fighters than any other land based type in the Pacific in 1942, and probably in the Med as well. We now know that American, Australian, New Zealand, and Russian aces praised it and considered it more than equal to the A6M and the Bf 109. But the revision lags, and most websites still repeat the same "rugged but obsolete / unmaneuverable" Trope from the 1960s.







*Yak-1, 1B, 7, 7B*
The Yak series was one of the great fighters of WW2. Its performance was limited to low altitude and build quality was often poor especially in the most crucial war year of 1942. But as a design, this plane was one of the greats. It was fast, well streamlined, made largely of wood so cheap to manufacture, reasonably well armed (nose cannon plus a couple of MGs was sufficient for the excellent Bf 109F series so yeah, I think it's good armament) and extremely agile. By the end of 1942 as the manufacturing problems caused by evacuating most of the factories across the Urals were being worked out, this aircraft became an increasingly deadly menace to the Luftwaffe and probably bore the brunt of destroying German aircraft in that crucial tipping point of the war just after Stalingrad.

I think the Yak series, up to the 9 and the 3, are underrated because they are Russian, and people in the English speaking world and the "West" tend to dismiss their victory claims and all things Russian in general, unfairly I believe. Only the Yak 3 really gets respect because that was the plane the Germans said scared them. The Yak was a design tailored to the Theater and the circumstances, it was a low altitude fighter, it's main job was to shoot down Bf 109s and protect the Sturmoviks and Pe-2s, so it was armed appropriately. But it did the job and it's a beautiful looking aircraft to boot.






*Pe-2*
I've explained why I like this plane so much. Fast, accurate, versatile. yes it had some limitations and the death of the main designer in an accident probably helped prevent it from being further developed, but it was a very advanced design initially and did the damage the Soviets needed to do to the German war machine in the critical years of the war.

I think the Pe-2 is underrated again, because Russian. And because it didn't carry ten tons of bombs, but neither did the Stuka and look how important that was to the German war machine. Like the Stuka, the Pe-2 was a precision dive bomber, but unlike the Stuka it was fast and well armed with heavy defensive guns. It is also a beautiful aircraft. It deserves more respect than it gets.





*A-20*
Fastest Anglo-American bomber until the Mosquito. This aircraft was agile, versatile and did the job really well. What took it from a good to a great design in my eyes was its use as a strafer and skip-bomber in the Pacific (and to some extent also in the Med) and it's wide adaptation by many Allies (English, Australians and Soviets) to a wide variety of tasks, especially in the Maritime Theaters, such as where the Soviets used it as a torpedo bomber, and also as a night-fighter and intruder.

I think the A-20 is underrated in the English-speaking world because we put too much emphasis on the four engined heavy bombers and on heavy bomb loads vs. precision and versatility. The A-20 didn't carry 10,000 lb bombs or fly at 35,000 feet, but it probably did more actual harm to the Axis War Machines than those aircraft which did.

S

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


----------



## soulezoo (May 4, 2018)

Your list Schweik... I respect it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 4, 2018)

The Philippines were hit within a day after Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Schweik (May 4, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Philippines were hit within a day after Pearl Harbor.



You are right, my bad... I don't know why I thought it was a week later. This debacle sounds similar to the problems the French had:

Philippines Campaign (1941–42) - Wikipedia

_At 11:27 am and 11:29 am, the radar post at Iba Field detected two incoming raids while the closest was still 130 miles out. It alerted FEAF headquarters and the command post at Clark Field, a warning that reached only the pursuit group commander, Major Orrin L. Grover, who apparently became confused by multiple and conflicting reports.[34][36] The 3rd Pursuit Squadron took off from Iba at 11:45 with instructions to intercept the western force, which was thought to have Manila as its target, but dust problems during its takeoff resulted in the fragmentation of its flights. Two flights of the 21st Pursuit Squadron (PS) at Nichols Field, six P-40Es, took off at 11:45, led by 1st Lt. William Dyess. They started for Clark but were diverted to Manila Bay as a second line of defense if the 3rd PS failed to intercept its force. The 21st's third flight, taking off five minutes later, headed toward Clark, although engine problems with its brand-new P-40Es reduced its numbers by two. The 17th Pursuit Squadron took off at 12:15 pm from Clark, ordered to patrol Bataan and Manila Bay, while the 34th PS at Del Carmen never received its orders to protect Clark Field and did not launch.[40] The 20th PS, dispersed at Clark, was ready to take off but did not receive orders from group headquarters. Instead a line chief saw the incoming formation of Japanese bombers and the section commander, 1st Lt. Joseph H. Moore,[41] ordered the scramble himself._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Philippines were hit within a day after Pearl Harbor.



Same day.

The Philippines are on the other side of the International Date Line from Hawaii.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> he B-17 was supposed to do the job but early war-planners, including some pretty smart ones, failed to realize how hard it was to hit ships with bombs dropped from 20,000 feet (or even 10,000 feet). Turns out they can see the bombers and turn away.



Not really.

The B-17 was demonstrated to be able to intercept ships at sea in order to provide a reason for its procurement in isolationist United States.

The Army planners had in mind a much bigger, more offensive, role.


----------



## Schweik (May 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not really.
> 
> The B-17 was demonstrated to be able to intercept ships at sea in order to provide a reason for its procurement in isolationist United States.
> 
> The Army planners had in mind a much bigger, more offensive, role.



Be that as it may - they still kept trying to sink ships with B-17s throughout the first couple of years of the Pacific campaign - including around the same time as the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway- and it never worked as far as I know.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not really.
> 
> The B-17 was demonstrated to be able to intercept ships at sea in order to provide a reason for its procurement in isolationist United States.
> 
> The Army planners had in mind a much bigger, more offensive, role.


The interception of an ocean liner in the Atlantic by a formation of B-17s for a low level photo op is a far cry from achieving a successful attack on a defended warship that's free to maneuver.
I suspect there was also a touch of "Norden mania" involved.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 5, 2018)

Matt308 said:


> Fiat G.55, P-39 Airacobra or Hawker Tempest MkIV
> 
> Matt


Fiat G-55/P-39&Tempest lV???

The Tempest Mk III and IV, both earmarked for installation of Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, diverged significantly from the Sabre engined Tempest program. Only the Mk III prototype (LA610) was actually converted (Mk IV prototype LA614 was cancelled in Feb 1943). The aircraft was test flown during September 1944 as a "lightweight" Tempest powered by a Griffon 85 engine. Later it was re-engined with the final version of the Sabre, the Mk VIII, which developed over 3000hp, and in this form it achieved 483mph making it the fastest of the Hawker piston-engined fighters. And that claim about being the fastest Mk of Tempest is dubious at best. Did the Mk lV even see combat?


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 5, 2018)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah I thought that, but I wasnt sure.


Both aircraft were absolutely terrible.....


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 5, 2018)

mosquitoman said:


> Name a British carrier torpedo bomber apart from those three then?


Vickers Vildebeest. Vultee Vengeance. Bristol Beaufort. Blackburn Roc (Modified, limited success) Grumman Tarpon/Avenger (Ok so that last one is not strictly British)


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 5, 2018)

Most underrated WW2 Aircraft? Hmmmmm
Handley Page Halifax. Curtis P-40. Hawker Hurricane. Aichi D3A "Val". Yak 9. PBY Catalina. Junkers Ju 52.


----------



## Ascent (May 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Vickers Vildebeest. Vultee Vengeance. Bristol Beaufort. Blackburn Roc (Modified, limited success) Grumman Tarpon/Avenger (Ok so that last one is not strictly British)



Vildebeest, Vengeance's and Beaufort's never flew from carriers, the Vengeance never carried a torpedo and was technically American.


----------



## wuzak (May 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Fiat G-55/P-39&Tempest lV???
> 
> The Tempest Mk III and IV, both earmarked for installation of Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, diverged significantly from the Sabre engined Tempest program. Only the Mk III prototype (LA610) was actually converted (Mk IV prototype LA614 was cancelled in Feb 1943). The aircraft was test flown during September 1944 as a "lightweight" Tempest powered by a Griffon 85 engine. Later it was re-engined with the final version of the Sabre, the Mk VIII, which developed over 3000hp, and in this form it achieved 483mph making it the fastest of the Hawker piston-engined fighters. And that claim about being the fastest Mk of Tempest is dubious at best. Did the Mk lV even see combat?



I believe the confusion was that the aircraft described was the Tempest I, which was fitted with the Sabre IV. Neither went into production.


----------



## Dimlee (May 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Anyway, apologies for the derail - maybe we should resurrect the Battle of France thread and put that stuff in there.
> 
> Per the OP, here is my list:
> ...........
> ...



I don't consider both above mentioned as underrated. They might be less known in English speaking world indeed, but only less known if compared to P-51 and B-17, etc. Early Yaks and Peshkas as mass produced types are mentioned in all serious publications related to Eastern Front. In Russian (Soviet and many post Soviet) works both belong to almost untouchable holy list of "sacred cows" along with IL-2.
Actually, in my humble opinion, I'd place whole Yak family in "over-rated" category. It was real workhorse, of course. Were they better than contenders? Did they deserve so much production capacity on the cost of other prospected types? Could Yaks production become first priority for the factories if A.Yakovlev was not Stalin's favourite and high rank bureaucrat - who (surprise surprise) had powers to allocate production lines and to approve or shut down other projects? I'm not sure.

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


----------



## Schweik (May 5, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> I don't consider both above mentioned as underrated. They might be less known in English speaking world indeed, but only less known if compared to P-51 and B-17, etc. Early Yaks and Peshkas as mass produced types are mentioned in all serious publications related to Eastern Front. In Russian (Soviet and many post Soviet) works both belong to almost untouchable holy list of "sacred cows" along with IL-2.
> Actually, in my humble opinion, I'd place whole Yak family in "over-rated" category. It was real workhorse, of course. Were they better than contenders? Did they deserve so much production capacity on the cost of other prospected types? Could Yaks production become first priority for the factories if A.Yakovlev was not Stalin's favourite and high rank bureaucrat - who (surprise surprise) had powers to allocate production lines and to approve or shut down other projects? I'm not sure.




Well that's interesting Dimlee, but I would chalk that up to the difference in perception within the Russian-speaking world from the Anglophone.

In the Anglophone world the Yak, and any other Soviet types, are essentially given 'honorable mention' as in, these are the aircraft being shot down in droves by the Luftwaffe on the Russian Front. while in Aviation circles the top 20 experten are practically household names - who doesn't know who Gunther Rall or Erik Hartmann or Hans Joachim Marseilles were etc., as were the top 5 or 10 American and British / Commonwealth aces- Richard Bong, Pappy Boyington, Gabby Gabreski, Marmaduke Thomas Pattle, Clive Caldwell, Johnny Johnson and so on, and even the top Japanese aces like Nishizawa and Saburo Sakai and so forth. But precious few know who Kozhedub, Shestakov, or Rechkalov are - Pokrushkin is probably the only name widely known due to the curiosity that he flew P-39s.

The wikipedia article on WW2 Aces barely has any Russians on it, for that matter.

When they have top ten WW2 aircraft or fighters on History Channel the only Russian one you usually ever see is the Il2.

As for Yakovlevs political connections landing him contracts, well trust me that kind of thing happened in the West too, though granted we didn't have any major aircraft designed from prison. The contracts awarded to outfits like Fairey and Curtiss, the continued manufacture of of Hurricanes into 1944, debacles like the Helldiver, the Seamew, the Me 110 / 210 , He 177 and frankly the P-38 (which would go on my list of most overrated fighters) speaks to the effects of corruption and the abuse of political influence in every nation in WW2.

At least the Yaks could do the job. What would the alternative have been in 1941 and 1942? The I-153 and I-16 were obsolete, the LaGG-3 was inferior to the Yak 1 or Yak 7 (but were produced in large numbers anyway) the La 5 was produced I think as fast as possible once they became available in spite of some ongoing problems... the MiG 1 and MiG 3 were basically useless at low altitude.

What alternative were you thinking of?

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well that's interesting Dimlee, but I would chalk that up to the difference in perception within the Russian-speaking world from the Anglophone.
> 
> In the Anglophone world the Yak, and any other Soviet types, are essentially given 'honorable mention' as in, these are the aircraft being shot down in droves by the Luftwaffe on the Russian Front. while in Aviation circles the top 20 experten are practically household names - who doesn't know who Gunther Rall or Erik Hartmann or Hans Joachim Marseilles were etc., as were the top 5 or 10 American and British / Commonwealth aces- Richard Bong, Pappy Boyington, Gabby Gabreski, Marmaduke Thomas Pattle, Clive Caldwell, Johnny Johnson and so on, and even the top Japanese aces like Nishizawa and Saburo Sakai and so forth. But precious few know who Kozhedub, Shestakov, or Rechkalov are - Pokrushkin is probably the only name widely known due to the curiosity that he flew P-39s.
> 
> ...


Difference in perception exists at both sides, of course. Not as significant as 20-25 years ago, but still there.

Political connections and contracts... I do trust you  and my knowledge and own life/work experience.
But lobbying in communist system is something *completely* different. You already mentioned "aircraft designed from prison", so you were aware what happened to many (too many, over 100 names in just TsKB-29) aviation/rocket engineers and leading designers. Unfortunately, some aircraft were designed "from grave" as well. The list of people executed was long. Management of TsAGI, of KhAI and of several aviation factories, staff of aviation ministry, several designers as Kalinin, Langemak, Kleymyonov, Mikhelson - to name just a few.
To lose the contract because of your competitor's connections in War Department. Or to lose your freedom or life due to falsified accusation of treason or _vreditelstvo_. Feel the difference. And please note that Yakovlev was no. 2 in aviation ministry and de-facto main decision maker (before the final verdict of Stalin) in everything related to new aircraft. Imagine Kelly Jonson in War Production Board...

Early Yaks were good as stop gap measure, no doubt. Especially for less experienced pilots who were not able to handle MiG-3. (Anyway, MiG-3 has fallen a victim to IL-2 mass production - engines from the same factory).
Alternative for Yaks was I-185 which could be ready for mass production:
- as early as autumn 1941 if engine M-71 is improved (or engine M-82 is available for Polikarpov)
or
- in spring 1942 - if Polikarpov is given adequate facilities in Novosibirsk after evacuation
or
- as late as Jan-Feb 1943 if someone in aviation ministry does not decide to postpone production launch indefinitely.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 6, 2018)

Stalin was frequently the USSR's worst enemy; his personal paranoia, seeing threats to his rule in every подстака́нник probably added months to the war. Now, I don't think a resurgent czarist regime would have behaved that much differently than did the soviet one -- reconquering territories removed by Brest-Litovsk would be just as much a czarist goal as a bolshevik one, although they'd cloak the reasons in different rhetoric --but a leader with a lesser tendency to imagine threats is likely to have done much better for the USSR or Russia.

Between the USSR's obsessive secrecy and Cold War politics, very little (positive and negative) about the Soviet contribution towards victory in Europe was in many history books in, at least, the US.

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


----------



## pbehn (May 6, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Stalin was frequently the USSR's worst enemy; his personal paranoia, seeing threats to his rule in every подстака́нник probably added months to the war. Now, I don't think a resurgent czarist regime would have behaved that much differently than did the soviet one -- reconquering territories removed by Brest-Litovsk would be just as much a czarist goal as a bolshevik one, although they'd cloak the reasons in different rhetoric --but a leader with a lesser tendency to imagine threats is likely to have done much better for the USSR or Russia.
> 
> Between the USSR's obsessive secrecy and Cold War politics, very little (positive and negative) about the Soviet contribution towards victory in Europe was in many history books in, at least, the US.


As a child in the 60s it was difficult to be sympathetic to the Soviet Union when you see early warning stations on top of the moors and endless talk of "two minute warnings" and "what to do if we have a nuclear attack" on the TV.

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


----------



## swampyankee (May 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> As a child in the 60s it was difficult to be sympathetic to the Soviet Union when you see early warning stations on top of the moors and endless talk of "two minute warnings" and "what to do if we have a nuclear attack" on the TV.



...or watching the range circles from the ballistic missiles Khrushchev put in Cuba, which included the town where I was busily going to elementary school.

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


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 6, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> I don't consider both above mentioned as underrated. They might be less known in English speaking world indeed, but only less known if compared to P-51 and B-17, etc. Early Yaks and Peshkas as mass produced types are mentioned in all serious publications related to Eastern Front. In Russian (Soviet and many post Soviet) works both belong to almost untouchable holy list of "sacred cows" along with IL-2.
> Actually, in my humble opinion, I'd place whole Yak family in "over-rated" category. It was real workhorse, of course. Were they better than contenders? Did they deserve so much production capacity on the cost of other prospected types? Could Yaks production become first priority for the factories if A.Yakovlev was not Stalin's favourite and high rank bureaucrat - who (surprise surprise) had powers to allocate production lines and to approve or shut down other projects? I'm not sure.


I think that's a matter of opinion and with respect maybe a little ignorance. From luftwaffe pilot reports i have seen the Yak 9 was very much respected. And if your talking about overrated aircraft then maybe we should add the P-51, which in all fairness was nothing more than a flying gastank. The Russians didn't think much of it either. Especially as many Mustang pilots who came into contact with Russian fighters attacked them without hesitation. Albeit miss identification, 2 P-51D's attacked a La -5. Long story short both mustangs were shot out of the sky.


----------



## Schweik (May 6, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> I think that's a matter of opinion and with respect maybe a little ignorance. From luftwaffe pilot reports i have seen the Yak 9 was very much respected. And if your talking about overrated aircraft then maybe we should add the P-51, which in all fairness was nothing more than a flying gastank. The Russians didn't think much of it either. Especially as many Mustang pilots who came into contact with Russian fighters attacked them without hesitation. Albeit miss identification, 2 P-51D's attacked a La -5. Long story short both mustangs were shot out of the sky.




Yeah let me be clear - I am not arguing for sympathy for Stalin or for the Soviet system. Both were abhorrent. But somehow we (in the West so to speak) are easily able to make the separation between the atrocities of the Nazi regime on the one hand and the skill and courage of their pilots and troops, and quality of their aircraft, tanks and other kit, on the other.

The truth is, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were Totalitarian regimes in which a great deal of their equipment, including fighter planes, were manufactured at least in part by slave labor. Both wasted resources in the war to persecute their own and foreign populations. But this has relatively little to do with the merits of the aircraft they flew. Corruption of Curtiss aircraft company in the US may not have as many sinister details as corruption by Yakovlev in Russia, but the results were the same - sometimes inferior or badly flawed aircraft made it into combat. So on that level it is equivalent. Whether its nominally a democracy, a monarchy or a Fascist state, ultimately either some meritocratic aspects begin to get established in the military or else it just goes under. The Germans and the Soviets, the Italians and Japanese may have valued loyalty to the State over competence, but they had to also respect competence to some extent. That is why V.M. Petlyakov was let out of prison when he designed the Pe-2.

For the record, I also think the reaction against the P-51 has gone a bit too far. It wasn't the be-all end-all but neither was it just a flying gas-tank. It was remarkably fast and caused tactical as well as operational problems for the Luftwaffe.

S


----------



## Dimlee (May 6, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Stalin was frequently the USSR's worst enemy; his personal paranoia, seeing threats to his rule in every подстака́нник probably added months to the war. Now, I don't think a resurgent czarist regime would have behaved that much differently than did the soviet one -- reconquering territories removed by Brest-Litovsk would be just as much a czarist goal as a bolshevik one, although they'd cloak the reasons in different rhetoric --but a leader with a lesser tendency to imagine threats is likely to have done much better for the USSR or Russia.
> ...


He was the worst enemy of the people who found themselves under his rule, of course. But USSR was designed by him and his team and despite the catastrophe of 1941, they has achieved a lot in 1945. Half of the continent under Communist rule de facto, Red China emerging in the East and fantastic propaganda achievements which recruited many new spies and "useful idiots" in the West and has created strong sympathies in colonies all over the world. In this respect Stalin was the best friend of USSR as he brought it close to the peak of power and prepared foundation for further expansion (continued by Khruschev and Brezhenev yet in different manner). Just to clarify: I mean USSR as a state machine created and managed for one ultimate goal: world dominance.
Regarding Czarist regime...there are many interesting alt-history scenarios. But that regime was dismantled before the Bolsheviks. So the nearest alternative to Lenin/Stalin clique was Russian republic of 1917- short lived in real life.

Sorry to digress.


----------



## Dimlee (May 6, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> I think that's a matter of opinion and with respect maybe a little ignorance. From luftwaffe pilot reports i have seen the Yak 9 was very much respected. And if your talking about overrated aircraft then maybe we should add the P-51, which in all fairness was nothing more than a flying gastank. The Russians didn't think much of it either. Especially as many Mustang pilots who came into contact with Russian fighters attacked them without hesitation. Albeit miss identification, 2 P-51D's attacked a La -5. Long story short both mustangs were shot out of the sky.



La-7, not La-5. With Ivan Kozhedub in the cockpit. Just for the sake of clarity.

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


----------



## Dimlee (May 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That is why V.M. Petlyakov was let out of prison when he designed the Pe-2.



Some "trivia"...
He was let out of prison but was neither paroled nor acquitted. So he remained the convict de-jure until his death.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 6, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Some "trivia"...
> He was let out of prison but was neither paroled nor acquitted. So he remained the convict de-jure until his death.



The very fact that they had prison design bureaus is horrifying- I think most of his colleagues he was working side by side with were executed.

But the Pe-2 was a great bomber and a beautiful aircraft. The Yak-1B was a superb fighter. So was the Yak 9, the Yak 3, the La 5 and 5FN, the La 7. The IS-2 was a mighty tank. The Su-100 was a fearsome tank destroyer.

Stalin, like Hitler, was a serial killer in control of a State, if that doesn't terrify us then we are incapable of rational thought. But that doesn't stop us from admiring the Fw 190 or the Tiger I. Or the Zero or the G.55.

I was a soldier myself for a few years in my youth, and I love war machines especially aircraft. And yet I am against war unless absolutely necessary. (I think most of the ones we engage in aren't). These are contradictions but inherent to human nature and to the study of these things. We have to understand war in part to be safe. We _want_ to understand war because conflict is in our blood.

Switzerland was simultaneously one of the most warlike and most peaceful nations in history. They are routinely criticized for their policy of neutrality but I think they threaded the needle of military preparation with avoidance of war pretty well, at least so far as the benefit of their own citizens is concerned.

Other than that one small country I can't think of anyone who has figured this out or even come close.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (May 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the record, I also think the reaction against the P-51 has gone a bit too far. It wasn't the be-all end-all but neither was it just a flying gas-tank. It was remarkably fast and caused tactical as well as operational problems for the Luftwaffe.



Couldn't have said it better myself!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 6, 2018)

The most under rated would have to be the p40 in my opinion. Volumes have been written about how it was not a good long range escort fighter. Well that's not what it was designed for. It was designed to fill requirements for an aicraft to give support to and air cover for ground forces while oparating from short unimprooved runways. At this it excelled and I would argue was one of the best right up until the end of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 6, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> The most under rated would have to be the p40 in my opinion. Volumes have been written about how it was not a good long range escort fighter. Well that's not what it was designed for. It was designed to fill requirements for an aicraft to give support to and air cover for ground forces while oparating from short unimprooved runways. At this it excelled and I would argue was one of the best right up until the end of the war.



No, it was not designed for long range escort.

Nor was it designed for ground support.

It was designed as a pursuit type aeroplane, the goal of which was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, primarily bombers.

At that role it was shit, so it turned to ground pounding. As was common for fighters that had gone past their use by date.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> No, it was not designed for long range escort.
> 
> Nor was it designed for ground support.
> 
> ...



I think he meant it was intended to intercept tactical bombers, like Stukas or Ju 88s, or Ki-21s, or G4Ms, or Val dive bombers, which it did do - shooting them down in droves, but it was in actual use forced into more of an air-supremacy, anti-fighter mission since the other available aircraft - Hawker Hurricanes, P-39s, F2A Buffaloes, P-35s, Gladiators and so forth weren't up to the task. This is why so many of the Zeros and Bf 109s shot down in 1942 were by P-40s, and so few by the other aircraft mentioned.

This continued by the way long after Spitfires, Corsairs and P-38s arrived on the scene. Well into mid 1943 P-40s were still flying a significant number of the fighter sweeps, escorts, interception, combat air patrol and armed recon missions in the Pacific, CBI, and Mediterranean Theaters - and in Russia- and shooting down large numbers of enemy aircraft in the process.






Including by your countrymen incidentally, who did exceedingly well with the type (at least 6 double P-40 aces and one quadruple ace came out of Australia), and the humble New Zealanders who did even better statistically, claiming a 5-1 ratio of confirmed victories to combat losses (to all causes) with the P-40. in fact the man pictured above, the New Zealander Geoff Fisken was the Commonwealths leading Ace in the Pacific Theater- and he scored his last 5 victories flying P-40s from Guadalcanal in June of 1943.





This fellow, Clive Caldwell (on the left with the cigarette), was Australias top fighter ace with 28 victories, scored 22 of those flying P-40 Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa, shooting down 3 "experten" in the process: Hauptmann Wolfgang Lippert (25 victories - Group Commander of the famous II. JG 27), Erbo Graf von Kageneck (67 victories), and Arnold Stahlschmidt (59 victories) all while flying a P-40. He also survived a 2on 1 fight against Werner Schorer (114 kills by the end of the war) and shot down his wingman in the process.

S

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


----------



## gumbyk (May 6, 2018)

This is about as close as you're going to get a side-by-side comparison of the Yak3 and P-51. Not dog-fighting, I know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think he meant it was intended to intercept tactical bombers, like Stukas or Ju 88s, or Ki-21s, or G4Ms, or Val dive bombers, which it did do - shooting them down in droves, but it was in actual use forced into more of an air-supremacy, anti-fighter mission since the other available aircraft - Hawker Hurricanes, P-39s, F2A Buffaloes, P-35s, Gladiators and so forth weren't up to the task. This is why so many of the Zeros and Bf 109s shot down in 1942 were by P-40s, and so few by the other aircraft mentioned.



It wasn't designed to do that specifically. It was designed to defend against all enemy aircraft.


----------



## michael rauls (May 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> No, it was not designed for long range escort.
> 
> Nor was it designed for ground support.
> 
> ...





wuzak said:


> No, it was not designed for long range escort.
> 
> Nor was it designed for ground support.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was designed strictly for ground support. It was like all pre war army fighter types with the exception of the p38 designed primarily to give air cover to and secondarily direct support to ground forces over tfhe battle field as that was the envisioned purpose of army fighter air craft at the time. Army airforce doctrine at the time was that the bomber would always get through. Nobody, or at least verry few invisioned the need for long range escort fighters.


----------



## michael rauls (May 7, 2018)

Also contrary to what most think and even what many ww2 history books will tell your there were front line P40 units in all theaters right up untill the end of the war. The 450th " desert harrasers" and two other RAAF groups were still fully equipped with p40s on ve day and at least one us and several Chinese groups on vj day.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> This is about as close as you're going to get a side-by-side comparison of the Yak3 and P-51. Not dog-fighting, I know.
> View attachment 492438



The Yak was using an Allison engine. Power rating unknown. Race engine was pulled due to cooling problems and "stock" Allison (whatever that is) replaced.


----------



## gumbyk (May 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Yak was using an Allison engine. Power rating unknown. Race engine was pulled due to cooling problems and "stock" Allison (whatever that is) replaced.


And running with other minor problems...
But, again, it's as close to a side-by-side comparison as you'll get.


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 7, 2018)

Russian fighters generally, and the YAK especially, excelled in manoeuveribility. Where Soviet fighter's fell behind was in engine design, especially in supercharger technology in comparison to German, and indeed Western, designers. The only really competitive Soviet engine was the big radial ASh-82 which equipped late La-5 and all La-7 fighters.

Given that the Russian Front was very much a 'tactical' air war, this did not have such a detrimental effect on Soviet air tactics as one would suppose. Soviet missions were invariably flown at mid-altitudes or lower, allowing the Soviets to make best use of their aircraft relative strength's. So the Germans were forced to fight on the Soviets terms, as from roughly Stalingrad they were on the defensive. And at these lower altitudes the YAK-9 especially was the more manoeuverable fighter, in both the vertical and horizontal. It should be noted though that in almost all cases the 109G and the 190A were faster at all altitudes.

Although people often show highest scoring german acess, they also forget that some of those actually did get hit by soviet fighters. Some of them got either shot up or shot down on more occasions, the highest scoring german ace killed in combat was killed by Il 2 (Kittel), Nowotny was shot down twice on Eastern front, first time by I 153 (and i have some doubts that Nowotnys story about confusing I 153 for his wingmans is true), Barkhorn was almost killed by an aircobra etc. Rall was shot down numerous times and infact had his flying career ended or he probably would have been dead. Even Hartmann had problems narrowly escaping from Russian guards after being shot down/crash landing. It was no picnic for germans on eastern front, although post war propaganda tried to show it like a walk in the park for germans.

Infact there is a huge bias towards allied aircraft and pilots over German and Russian. What so many people fail to understand or even admit is the luftwaffe wasnt set up for dogfighting allied escort fighters. The majority of german machines were so weighed down with huge and heavy armament for trying to combat the formations of bombers. The effects of extra gunpods usually 20mm added to the standard array of 20/30mm cannon and even rocket projectiles. Being bounced by allied fighters that had used up any extra fuel or simply dropped tanks and with a better power to weight ratio not to mention handling. Plus german pilots would fly till they died, so many novice pilots towards the end of the war simply weren't capable of putting up a fight.

Russia on the other hand learned from their mistakes and began to adopt red banner units made up of highly skilled pilots and aces, many of which had much higher kill rates than allied pilots. We all know the Russian airforce (which was practically obsolete or useless anyway) was wiped out in the early months of ww2. The problem for germany was once Russia did start to adopt better tactics and field equal or better aircraft there was only ever going to be one outcome.

As for the Yak -9/Yak series, it was the most highly produced aircraft by Russia second only to the Il-2 stormovik. Around 30,000 units. And to say they were shot out of the sky in droves is simply rubbish. The high altitude Mig 3 suffered the most losses. German aviators also noted the advantage of the Yak over other Soviet fighter types. In the report on the JG54 combat experience it was noted:
“The Yak model was considered the best Soviet fighter plane. It had even better climbing performance and was faster than the I-18 (MiG-3 – authors), and approached the performance of the Bf 109F although it was not as fast. It was more difficult to set on fire when attacking from the rear than the Mig-3. Up to 19,100 feet it still climbed well but showed poor maneuverability”. Some Luftwaffe pilots even considered the new Soviet fighters not inferior to their mounts:
“Major Rall confirms the above statements on the properties of the more modern Soviet fighter aircraft and also mentions their water-cooled engines and their closed cockpits. Rall himself declared the Yak -9 to be the best Russian fighter he had been in combat with.

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


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2018)

You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really. 

The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.

It should also not be overlooked that in the final two years of the war, the soviets gave up trying to win front wide air superiority. frontages were so extensive and german fighters so few, that the best tactic was simply to swamp the defenders with broad front attacks . Fighters were there to keep the VVS strike aircraft alive long enough to help the ground battle . An air victory was a good outcome, but a successful mission was more important. and the successful mission was always related to the ground battle, not control of the skies for the VVS. If the air mission was a success, it heightened the extent of breakthrough achieved, and would lead to more losses for the enemy on the ground 9including grounded a/c) than could ever be hoped to be achieved by a more conventional application of airpower

Success ought to be measured against those criteria. For the germans, their bombers were reduced to inconsequence, whilst their fighters were shown to be quite unable to stop the Russians from dominating the land battle, and the skies immediately above it. .

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 8, 2018)

parsifal said:


> You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. *most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else*. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really.



I don't know who Grohler and Caldwell are but I think you really nailed it here. I've seen this in many other places far beyond this forum for decades. Somehow we can remember all too well that the Soviets were totalitarian, engaged in propaganda, and so on, but we tend to forget that the Germans were nearly the same. The Soviets did have that extra bit of internal repression - the prison design bureaus already mentioned, the jails for troops who had the misfortune of being captured by the enemy or shot down behind enemy lines.

But the Germans had their sinister side too, and not just toward the enemy. They too had their punishment battalions. They too had their forced "volunteers", they too had their secret police, their political officers, their slave labor, their firing squads, not to mention the Enisatzgruppen. The Soviets threatened their own troops with being sent to Siberia, but the Germans openly threatened to send their guys to The Russian Front - where they were supposedly scything away vast hordes of defenseless Slavs and creating acres of Liebensraum every day - Goering specifically made this threat to the German fighter squadrons in the Med more than once. If it was such a cakewalk why was it so feared (and so early on).



> The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.



This was a frightening point made by the historian David Glantz when he was pointing out that the reason we never heard of some of the largest tank battles of WW2 is because neither the Germans nor the Soviets decided to use the events as propaganda vehicles, so they being totalitarian regimes, nothing came out about it. Almost as if the battles had been fought in silence. An eerie concept.



> It should also not be overlooked that in the final two years of the war, the soviets gave up trying to win front wide air superiority. frontages were so extensive and german fighters so few, that the best tactic was simply to swamp the defenders with broad front attacks . Fighters were there to keep the VVS strike aircraft alive long enough to help the ground battle . An air victory was a good outcome, but a successful mission was more important. and the successful mission was always related to the ground battle, not control of the skies for the VVS. If the air mission was a success, it heightened the extent of breakthrough achieved, and would lead to more losses for the enemy on the ground (including grounded a/c) than could ever be hoped to be achieved by a more conventional application of airpower.



Astute description. This is essentially the same exact policy the DAF consciously decided to pursue in North Africa - at great hardship to their pilots, while the Germans ala JG 27 etc. pursued almost the opposite tactic - to maximize their kill ratios, and in particular, the kill counts of the experten, at the expense of protecting the ground forces.



> Success ought to be measured against those criteria. For the germans, their bombers were reduced to inconsequence, whilst their fighters were shown to be quite unable to stop the Russians from dominating the land battle, and the skies immediately above it. .



Well put. The power of German propaganda is truly more formidable than a Tiger Tank or a Ta 152. After all these years and in spite of all we know, many people are still drawn to it and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

S

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 8, 2018)

_O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978).

Caldwell

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

(Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944)
_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 8, 2018)

parsifal said:


> You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really.
> 
> The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.
> 
> ...


I agree, and we know from as early as the battle of britain german pilots were wildly over inflating the amount of kills scored. Incorrect figures/over claiming was rife on both sides RAF included, but where the luftwaffe fell short was a lot of Georing's info was based on the fact german pilots were giving him wildly innacurate figures, therefore when the number crunching was done he was convinced the RAF was down to just 60 fighters by late September and on the brink of destruction. When in fact the british production figures were well above german aircraft production. We all know it was pilot shortage on the british side. But i dont think the german pilots ever got out of that habit of wild and innacurate figures of aircraft kills and this was simply transferred to the eastern front. Soviet claims are the most hardest to call accurately because of the nature of their secrecy/propaganda agencies not allowing bad news.


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't know who Grohler and Caldwell are but I think you really nailed it here. I've seen this in many other places far beyond this forum for decades. Somehow we can remember all too well that the Soviets were totalitarian, engaged in propaganda, and so on, but we tend to forget that the Germans were nearly the same. The Soviets did have that extra bit of internal repression - the prison design bureaus already mentioned, the jails for troops who had the misfortune of being captured by the enemy or shot down behind enemy lines.
> 
> But the Germans had their sinister side too, and not just toward the enemy. They too had their punishment battalions. They too had their forced "volunteers", they too had their secret police, their political officers, their slave labor, their firing squads, not to mention the Enisatzgruppen. The Soviets threatened their own troops with being sent to Siberia, but the Germans openly threatened to send their guys to The Russian Front - where they were supposedly scything away vast hordes of defenseless Slavs and creating acres of Liebensraum every day - Goering specifically made this threat to the German fighter squadrons in the Med more than once. If it was such a cakewalk why was it so feared (and so early on).
> 
> ...


These last few comments are some of the most common sense i've seen here. Your correct sir, people always talk about The battle of Kursk as being the biggest and most destructive tank battle in history. But i have reason to believe this is far from the truth and there were at least one other huge tank battle between germany and russia in 1941/42. Im still researching this as its long and lengthy trying to find accurate data. But im convinced there were huge battles and losses on both sides we dont even know about still to this day. Mixed in with the inaccurate data we have propaganda and deception from a lot of historians that simply were tying to either further their own careers or just muddy the waters until nothing can be made sense of. Either way we have never been told the whole truth not by a long shot....


----------



## Dimlee (May 11, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> ...people always talk about The battle of Kursk as being the biggest and most destructive tank battle in history. But i have reason to believe this is far from the truth...


Far from the truth, indeed. The biggest was probably near Dubno in June 1941.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 13, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Far from the truth, indeed. The biggest was probably near Dubno in June 1941.


I,ve been looking into the battle of Brody.
The general accepted historical facts, The Battle of Brody, which has been called “the largest tank battle of World War II until the Battle of Kursk two years later,” saw 800 Axis tanks line up against 2,500 of their Russian opposite numbers. The German victory was partly due to their air force, the Luftwaffe, flying over the Polish war fields, destroying up to 201 Soviet tanks. However, the tank battle was incredibly fierce, with the German forces finding that the new Soviet T-34 tanks were virtually impervious to their firepower. It was mainly due to the Red Army’s supply chain drying up that the Germans were allowed to continue their offensive and press home their advantage.

I think it was a little more complicated than this, although research is still in progress.


----------



## Milosh (May 13, 2018)

Wiki says 750 German and 3500 Soviet tanks at Brody and 5,128 German and 2,928 Soviet tanks at Kursk.


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2018)

I suspect the debate is trying to exclude certain numbers from Kursk, arguing they were not part of Kursk....like the reserves and certain flanling forces, while including everything that could move and was within cooee of the battlefield for these other fights. Just my 0.02 worth.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2018)

I believe that the 'Po-2' was indeed one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 - I am really enjoying reading all of your most astute dissertations & discussions and I should like to add what I can...
The Polikarpov U-2 first appeared in early 1927, it became the Po-2 on 30 July 1944 in honour of it's designer after his death on that date. The Po-2 was built in the greatest number and in more variants than any other aircraft in history, in excess of 33,000 aircraft. - At a rough count in front of me there over 35 different variants.- Not bad for a 100 hp biplane that served in a variety of different roles, most notably were the night 'nuisance' raids over German lines in Russia.- In particular those performed by the 46th Guards Night Bomber Regiment, who received 18 of the highest military honour of 'the Hero of the Soviet Union', 18 women pilots and 6 women navigators. It was the only regiment of 3 that was entirely of women, in the others, men also served - Polina Gelman, one of these HSU recipients stated that the 46th "was not only equal to the men's regiments according to effectiveness and other indices, but was among the first"- In further explanation, "the effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the hits from bombing and shooting. After completing a mission everyone had to report their results and the results of others, as they saw them, what and where it happened. Crews from other regiments reported on our results, as did ground reconnaissance - in fact, we worked for them. It was easy to verify everything, everything was recorded: the number of combat flights, of bombs dropped, of rounds fired... In the 4th Air Army our regiment was always first or among the first." 
- August/September 1942 it got really hard, renewed German offensive pushing into Stalingrad, they were attacking columns of tanks who were advancing so fast they had no time to change bases, shortage of maps, they couldn't harvest the grain so it was torched by Stalin's old order of "scorched earth" policy. It was at this time they read Stalin's new Order No. 227: "not one more step back"... As I too know, duty and patriotism come first in wartime...

Although the Po-2 carried only a light bomb load {120-200kgs & also 4x RS-82 rockets], the rugged reliability and it being based right behind the front lines enabled it to maintain continuous harassment of German troops throughout the year, even in bad weather. The Germans themselves admitted that it would be "wrong to underestimate the effects of the attacks, since they were so unpredictable and therefore were extremely disturbing...[they] reduced the already short rest of the troops and had an adverse effect on supply operations, although the actual physical damage done in the raids was small." - In actual fact, it appears from the two books I've recently read on Russian WW2 Aviation victory claims etc. they were most accurate. The first one was written by a IL-2 pilot who claimed they recorded everything as described above, and this book on the Women pilots, including the Po-2 'Night Witches', was written in 1993 by an American woman called Reina Pennington who went over there and intensely viewed records and interveiwed surviving veterans...

I agree also that the Swordfish was also greatly under-rated especially if you factor-in Taranto, and we should mention 'Hope, Faith & Charity,' these Gloster Gladiators who 'saved' Malta in the early WW2 Mediterranean conflict...

I also agree the P.40 was under-rated [by some], but they were a sight for sore-eyes when passing through Singapore off to join the AVG while RAF, RAAF & RNZAF had to make do with the most useless piece of crap that flew, the Brewster Buffalo. The US Navy couldn't get rid of their first monoplane fighter fast enough, dumping it on the British who promptly sent it to Singapore where they sent all their potty Senior Air Staff. - Should also add the Grumman Wildcat to the Most Under-rated list too, it saved our arse in the South Pacific along with the P.40's - And finally, the Hurricane was the first with 4 cannon, first with rockets, first effective Nightfighter during the Blitz [until the Beaufighter got it's gremlins sorted-out] and the Hurricane was certainly better at Singapore than nothing, the Ki-43 was definately under-rated by both the Brits & US initially, they kept mis-identifying it as a Zero, it just lacked the latter's cannons ~
I can recommend a REAL book about the Singapore debacle - ''Last Stand In Singapore - The story of 488 Squadron RNZAF'' by Graham Clayton ISBN 978 1 86979 033 2 -It's quite an eye-opener on what really happened... 

Cheers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (May 16, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Wiki says 750 German and 3500 Soviet tanks at Brody and 5,128 German and 2,928 Soviet tanks at Kursk.


On Kursk, even Wiki put it outher way around, 5,128 Soviet and 2,928 German tanks.


----------



## Milosh (May 16, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> On Kursk, even Wiki put it outher way around, 5,128 Soviet and 2,928 German tanks.



*oops BIG blush*


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2018)

Brody is larger than Prokorovhka but only if you compare apples to oranges. brody, fought in late June 1941, was actually a composite of several battles fought over and extensive battlefield.







Prokorovhka was just one battle in a series .

To compare fairly one would either have to break down Brody into its component parts or combine Prokorovhka with all of the forces that are associated with Kursk. Applying things that way, so bananas are compared with bananas, Kursk easily outshines the earlier battle.


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 16, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> I believe that the 'Po-2' was indeed one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 - I am really enjoying reading all of your most astute dissertations & discussions and I should like to add what I can...
> The Polikarpov U-2 first appeared in early 1927, it became the Po-2 on 30 July 1944 in honour of it's designer after his death on that date. The Po-2 was built in the greatest number and in more variants than any other aircraft in history, in excess of 33,000 aircraft. - At a rough count in front of me there over 35 different variants.- Not bad for a 100 hp biplane that served in a variety of different roles, most notably were the night 'nuisance' raids over German lines in Russia.- In particular those performed by the 46th Guards Night Bomber Regiment, who received 18 of the highest military honour of 'the Hero of the Soviet Union', 18 women pilots and 6 women navigators. It was the only regiment of 3 that was entirely of women, in the others, men also served - Polina Gelman, one of these HSU recipients stated that the 46th "was not only equal to the men's regiments according to effectiveness and other indices, but was among the first"- In further explanation, "the effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the hits from bombing and shooting. After completing a mission everyone had to report their results and the results of others, as they saw them, what and where it happened. Crews from other regiments reported on our results, as did ground reconnaissance - in fact, we worked for them. It was easy to verify everything, everything was recorded: the number of combat flights, of bombs dropped, of rounds fired... In the 4th Air Army our regiment was always first or among the first."
> - August/September 1942 it got really hard, renewed German offensive pushing into Stalingrad, they were attacking columns of tanks who were advancing so fast they had no time to change bases, shortage of maps, they couldn't harvest the grain so it was torched by Stalin's old order of "scorched earth" policy. It was at this time they read Stalin's new Order No. 227: "not one more step back"... As I too know, duty and patriotism come first in wartime...
> 
> ...


Without wanting to nitpick the Bristol Blenheim was fitted with the very first night fighter A.I. radar unit. The early radar units were big bulky pieces of equipment and only a twin engine aircraft was suitable. The Blenheim of 25 squadron which was equipped during the b.o.b also achieved the first night intercept, shooting down a Dornier Do -17. After modifications were made on the early A.I sets they were able to fit into single engine aircraft such as the Boulton Paul Defiant, which was useless as a day interceptor but gained some success as a night fighter. Hurricanes came a little later in 1940, around Nov/Dec.
And just one more mention regarding the Russian "night witches". Im not totally convinced they were quite as successful as the official Russian records show. And certainly more aircraft were lost than admitted. Imo, it was more of a propaganda/psychological tactic. The machines they flew were after all totally obsolete and maintenance was very poor leading to many accidents/losses.


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 16, 2018)

I didnt say Brody was a bigger battle than Kursk, i said one of the biggest battles up to Kursk. If you put all your faith in the numbers for Brody, Kursk or any other major tank battle of WW2 thats just not being objective. And i certainly wouldnt rely on wiki for accurate numbers/details. The whole concept of it is flawed, therefore the data cannot be taken as anything other than a rough guide. And not even a good one at that. It's so difficult to find true Russian and German documents that can be used as genuine evidence of battlefield losses. One thing is for sure though, Kursk was noway near the biggest tank battle of WW2
How anyone can be so assured of history without either being there to witness it, or seeing genuine proof of what really happened worries me a little. All we can do is stay open to argument/evidence, as long as its genuine and not just pulled from an online site. Although im not presenting this as absolute proof. But it might maybe show everyone just how many people are divided when it comes to these events/claims. Idk what the truth is, but im just not buying the accepted history we have been spoon fed all these years. After all, wasnt it Goering (among others) who said history is written by the victors....

The Battle of Brody: The Biggest Tank Battle Ever (And It's Been Completely Forgotten)

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


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2018)

It depends on the terms of reference. If you want to just look at one battlefield, Kursk is not the largest battle. However if you want to group battles to some specific criteria, say the destruction of the Kursk salient, then Kursk is the bigger battle of WWII. Kursk pales compared to some of the other battles fought later on. Destruction Of Army Group Centre involved about 8500 AFVs in total, though it is stretching the concept of a single battle to breaking point. Similarly the advance from the vistula to the Oder-Niesse involed approximately 8500 AFVs 

if you want to group Brody as part of the encirclement of Dubno, or Rovno as it is sometimes then it is a big battle, ivolving no less than 8 Soviet mechanized corps and an entire Panzer group (the forerunner of a Panzer Army), then you have a big battle. In troop numbers it was relatively small, but in the numbers of AFVs nvolved it was a biggie, but still not as big as Kursk.

Relying on Wiki is fine so long as the claims its makes can be cross referenced to some other more reliable source. A lot of people love Jentz, but I don't like him. far too pro-German for my taste. I prefer someone like Zaloga because he is more balanced. The advantage of a wiki source is that its easy to access and free.

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


----------



## Dimlee (May 17, 2018)

The article mentioned by Smokey Stover is short but it nailed down some important points. That battle was chaotic indeed and historical maps are not very helpful. If you look in related Russian works of the last 15-20 years you can find a lot of conflicting information. Some historians became eternal enemies of each other because they could not agree on loss figures in day this or that or on disposition of certain units, etc.
Serious unbiased study of Jun-Aug 1941 catastrophe has never been done in Soviet period. Post Soviet historians had to begin from scratch trying to figure out events of certain dates. This work is not completed yet. It became more difficult probably due to ideological shifts in the last 10-13 years, changes in archives policies, restrictions on external financing of historical societies and subsequent bankruptcy of some of them, etc. (Recent example of the latter: closure of Moscow based Foundation "Demokratia" which published extensive and probably the most complete library of USSR documents).
I'd recommend to retain of "final" conclusions here. Tomorrow another bunch of papers will be discovered and it will turn earlier assumptions about Brody or another 1941 battle upside down - once again. Or of 1942, 1943... Debunking of some "Kursk" myths was good example.

Sorry for off-topic but could not restrain myself.

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


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 23, 2018)

parsifal said:


> It depends on the terms of reference. If you want to just look at one battlefield, Kursk is not the largest battle. However if you want to group battles to some specific criteria, say the destruction of the Kursk salient, then Kursk is the bigger battle of WWII. Kursk pales compared to some of the other battles fought later on. Destruction Of Army Group Centre involved about 8500 AFVs in total, though it is stretching the concept of a single battle to breaking point. Similarly the advance from the vistula to the Oder-Niesse involed approximately 8500 AFVs
> 
> if you want to group Brody as part of the encirclement of Dubno, or Rovno as it is sometimes then it is a big battle, ivolving no less than 8 Soviet mechanized corps and an entire Panzer group (the forerunner of a Panzer Army), then you have a big battle. In troop numbers it was relatively small, but in the numbers of AFVs nvolved it was a biggie, but still not as big as Kursk.
> 
> Relying on Wiki is fine so long as the claims its makes can be cross referenced to some other more reliable source. A lot of people love Jentz, but I don't like him. far too pro-German for my taste. I prefer someone like Zaloga because he is more balanced. The advantage of a wiki source is that its easy to access and free.



I know of jentz but have heard very mixed opinions about his claims so agree with you there. Zaloga im not familiar enough with to make comment. But do you mind me asking where or how you source your data? Just purely out of interest....


----------



## Smokey Stover (May 23, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> The article mentioned by Smokey Stover is short but it nailed down some important points. That battle was chaotic indeed and historical maps are not very helpful. If you look in related Russian works of the last 15-20 years you can find a lot of conflicting information. Some historians became eternal enemies of each other because they could not agree on loss figures in day this or that or on disposition of certain units, etc.
> Serious unbiased study of Jun-Aug 1941 catastrophe has never been done in Soviet period. Post Soviet historians had to begin from scratch trying to figure out events of certain dates. This work is not completed yet. It became more difficult probably due to ideological shifts in the last 10-13 years, changes in archives policies, restrictions on external financing of historical societies and subsequent bankruptcy of some of them, etc. (Recent example of the latter: closure of Moscow based Foundation "Demokratia" which published extensive and probably the most complete library of USSR documents).
> I'd recommend to retain of "final" conclusions here. Tomorrow another bunch of papers will be discovered and it will turn earlier assumptions about Brody or another 1941 battle upside down - once again. Or of 1942, 1943... Debunking of some "Kursk" myths was good example.
> 
> Sorry for off-topic but could not restrain myself.


 I totally agree with your statement. One simply must keep an open mind whenever it comes to any major historical data/accounts. To not be objective and to just say "this is what happened, end of story" is simply wrong. And until we have a better understanding/release of authentic stats/data all we can do is speculate. However there is enough evidence on some actions that warrant educated guess. But even then, it's hard to know within an acceptable margin of error the truth. My feelings, i dont think we will ever find out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (May 23, 2018)

Smokey Stover,
It's many years since I read about the BoB nightfighting, but the Hurricane was up there with a piece of metal on each side of the cockpit forward fuselage that was blocking the exhaust glare from the pilot, there's plenty of period photos around to see of that - Experienced pilots early in the War that had night-flying ability were sent-up above the AA gun height during raids to patrol, largely acting as a deterrent that often resulted in 'unexplained jettisoning of bomb loads' on open ground or the sea, before reaching their targets. RAF 85 Sqn. when lead by Sqn.Ldr. Peter Townsend were 'Night Stalkers', sitting around with 'dimmer goggles' on to preserve night vision, before flying. One of the greatest Hurricane night aces was Sqn.Ldr. Richard Playne Stevens, DSO, DFC. He claimed a total of 14 night victories with RAF 151 Sqn. without the benefit of any radar. He was lost in action on 15th Dec. 1941 whilst serving with RAF 253 Sqn. A lot of the aircraft were painted black, as were the Defiants. I have never heard of Defiants with radar, who the hell was going to operate that !? There was only a pilot to fly it, with no forward-firing guns, and the turret-gunner with 4x.303's !? - 

I don't really like talking about the Blenheim, so many lives were lost in them, but yes the Mk.1's did have 4 x.303's in a box under the fuselage which gave more drag to an already slow aircraft,and yes, they were the first to get early AI and may have been the first to shoot something down with it. As a day bomber though, it was seriously flawed, and like the Defiant it was better put to use at night, as with so many enemy bombers blitzing, they had to get-up there and grapple with it any way they could - 

I read Bob Braham's book many years ago, [1970's] telling us how he started knocking down bombers with RAF 29 Sqn. [ Guy Gibson was at it too in the same Sqn.] but the great legacy of the Blenheim was it's stablemate, the Beaufighter, which Braham & Co were flying - Also I read John Cunningham's book years ago too, and they were using Mk.IV AI in all their Beau's too.

Russian record-keeping appears to be quite exemplary, compared to other country's air forces - As Parsifal pointed-out earlier there appears that Russian losses are inconclusive - But, both of these books have appendixes' that list all those aircrew that were lost. - Sure, there were high losses, happened with most ground-attack aircraft, but I wouldn't say it was excessive, and yes, some were used as ''propaganda aircraft'', complete with microphone & loudspeakers ! - They were also very popular with the Soviet troops and nicknamed_ Kukuruznik _or corncutters - Indeed, it was a ''psychological'' warfare tactic, night-bombing at low-level those tired enemy troops ! - It was done by all sides in WW2 - These "Night Witches" Po-2's proper designation at the time was ''U-2LSH -light Shturmovik''- By all description it wasn't mean't to be a Warplane but it became one and fought from Stalingrad to Crimea, up past your 'Kursk' to Smolensk, past Minsk fighting on through to Buchgoltz, northwest of Berlin. The Regiment was disbanded on 15 Oct. 1945 - Given the conditions, the aircraft maintenance was as high as it could be with dedicated groundcrew - I'd hate to think we are being a misogynist_, _Smokey_, _and I know Russia isn't the 'flavour' at the moment, but you can read the books for yourself_ - _

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2018)

There are photos of Defiants with radar antenna, perhaps not a lot and in some cases a photo may have been "edited/censored" during WW II to eliminate the aerials. 
The division of duties in the Defiant night fighter with radar may have been far from ideal but there is little doubt that some flew with radar and achieved some success with it _but not during the BoB. _

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> I have never heard of Defiants with radar, who the hell was going to operate that !? There was only a pilot to fly it, *with no forward-firing guns*, and the turret-gunner with 4x.303's !? -


The Defiant's turret could be locked forward with the Pilot being able to fire the MGs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (May 23, 2018)

My candidate for the most underrated plane of WWII is the PBY. Although the PBY was not objectively better than the Short Sunderland or Martin PBM, it was more versatile than either of those planes because most PBYs of WWII were amphibians. The PBY was interchangable with both the Sunderland and the PBM for most missions, and it ws more economical with just two 1,200 horsepower class-engines. 

Of the 10 aircraft that make up my Top 10 of WWII, only one would probably not make the list of the majority of the members of this forum, and for that reason, I think it is the most under-rated aircraft of WWII. 

The PBY (Catalina in British service) first made its mark six months before Pearl Harbor in May 1941 when a (some sources say ASV Mk-II radar equipped) Catalina spotted and tracked the battleship Bismark to the point the Royal Navy could overwhelm it. A year later, the PBY played a crucial role in the Battle of Midway, finding enemy fleet elements and conducting some attacks. 

In the Solomons campaign not only was the PBY a constant thorn in the side of the Japanese navy with its maritime attacks, it also acted as an amphibious C-47-like transport, providing emergency supplies to Henderson field. With time, radar-equipped PBY's became "Black Cats", attacking enemy shipping at night. PBYs were involved in the sinking of 38 U-boats, PBYs and Catalinas rescued thousands of airmen, sailers and others, including 56 sailors rescued by one plane after the sinking of the cruiser USS Indianapolis. 

In the famous "double sunrise" missions, the Catalina's long range was crucial in re-establishing a link between Ceylon and Australlia. Planes with crews of Quantas veterans flew from Ceylon to Perth, Australia in 28 hour non-stop missions, 5,652 kilometers or over 3,511 miles one way. 

In summary, the PBY was effective as a patrol plane, a medium bomber, a torpedo bomber, a night intruder, a transport plane, a search and rescue seaplane, an antisubmarine warfare aircraft, and as a long-range transport. Only the Mosquito ablely filled as many roles.

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


----------



## Schweik (May 23, 2018)

Maritime aircraft are a very interesting "subgenre" of WW2 military planes. I think they don't, generally, reach the critical level of importance of say, a Spitfire, a Zero or a Bf 109, they could be very crucial for many areas, especially in interfering with or protecting the vital supply chains, in naval reconnaissance, ASW and rescue of pilots which was so important (and such an asset for the Americans / Allies for example in the Pacific, with major benefits in the attrition War against the Japanese) and also as navigational guides to land based aircraft.

In reading about the various convoy battles such as leading to Malta and to Russia, as well as the invasion fleets in the Pacific (particularly locating and defeating Japanese invasion fleets), it really is a dramatic, fraught business. Lots of boring interminable hours of droning along through the clouds with nothing whatsoever going on, then storms and navigation troubles and engine issues, but then also very dramatic fights for the survival / elimination of convoys, and even a surprisingly common level of air to air combat between such airplanes as Sunderlands, Ju 88s, H8Ks, Beaufighters and He 115s.

The importance of the convoys is hard to overstate- Malta for example was certainly saved by the arrival of the survivors from at most a handful of battered / beleaguered convoys, and if Malta had fallen so perhaps would the English supply chain. And Russia without a doubt desperately needed the supplies and war machines brought there by very hard pressed northern convoys of course. In the Pacific the entire course of major Strategic operations was decided by a few small fleets of transport ships and carriers, and they couldn't be sunk until they were found.

The really important maritime aircraft in my mind:


*AR 196 *- the humble German float plane was surprisingly formidable in combat, two 20mm cannons didn't hurt. Very important for recon and air-sea rescue, it was also used more aggressively.

*BV 138* - a much more exotic three-engined German seaplane, in spite of the unusual configuration, heavily armed and quite versatile.
*FW 200 Condor *- Though it's often described as a structurally weak design, this big four-engined plane was to a large extent the terror of the Atlantic.
*He 115* - Another versatile and at times quite dangerous seaplane, the He -115 did a lot of damage to quite a few convoys especially in the far North.
*BV 222 *- Another exotic Blohm & Voss design, built in small numbers but it did have an impact. This massive 4 engined seaplane had very long endurance, and heavy armament plus radar etc. made it dangerous both in anti-shipping and air-to-air roles.
*Do. 24 -* German seaplane, three engined but roughly equivalent to PBY Catalina. I think their main impact on the war was on the allied side in the hands of the Dutch who used it effectively in the recon role in the Pacific.

*CANT Z.506 *- another three-engined aircraft, this one doubled as a pretty effective torpedo bomber as well as the usual recon and rescue functions. It may not have been the most lethal aircraft in the war but it was certainly one of the more interesting.

*A6M2-N* - the Nakajima built seaplane version of the Zero, which I have brought up before here. Certainly the best float-plane fighter of the most active years of the war (rivaled perhaps only by the *Curtiss SC Seahawk* which was excellent but came too late to see any real action). The A6M2-N couldn't be used for rescue and wasn't so great for bombing, but it was a dangerous fighter, and the reality of maritime warfare seems to be that long range aircraft were often clashing.
*JU 88 -* the versatile German dive bomber was also heavily involved in maritime activities. Used as a dive bomber, for recon, for torpedo bombing, and even as a fighter since the Germans lacked a long range fighter plane. It performed remarkably well in all these roles.
*He 111 *- Also sometimes used as a torpedo bomber. Not as effective as the Ju 88 but could also sink ships without a doubt.
*Ju 87 - *Shorter ranged dive bomber but by far the most lethal ship killer in the German arsenal. Deadly in the coastal areas against ships.
*Short Sunderland - *The biggest (I think) seaplane in the Allied arsenal, tough airplane with an incredible endurance and a heavy defensive armament. Didn't carry a heavy bomb load but useful in protecting convoys and for recon. Got into some duels with FW 200s and so forth.

*B-24 / PB4Y-2 - *Under various designations, maritime patrol may have been what this plane was best suited for. Extremely long endurance, heavy armament and could carry a substantial load of bombs or depth charges. Made a strategic difference in the Battle of the Atlantic without a doubt.
*B-17 - *used a lot in the maritime role particularly in the Pacific. Didn't sink many ships but it was useful for recon and very hard to shoot down. But though the B-17 was the better heavy bomber, the B-24 seemed more effective in the maritime role.

*H6K - *Large Japanese seaplane, equivalent to PBY basically. Useful but they could have used more of them, and a bit vulnerable to fighters.

*H8K -* Japaneese equivalent of the Short Sunderland, basically. If anything even more formidable as it had a bit heavier armament (! 5 x20mm cannon and 5 x 7.7 mm mg). Not available in large numbers but it was helpful
*Lockheed Hudson and Ventura *- These rather old fashioned looking planes played surprisingly useful roles as navigation, ASW, recon and bomber / strike aircraft, as well as long range fighters. Also used a lot for pathfinding and navigation for land based fighters and so forth.

*Bristol Beaufighter - *This was the most deadly and most versatile maritime (among other uses) aircraft on the Allied side, IMO. Very dangerous in anti-shipping role and quite respectbale in the fighter role. Sank a lot of ships and shot down a lot of planes, and also valuable in recon. Surprisingly survivable in clashes with enemy land based fighters, absolutely lethal against more lightly armed / slow maritime aircraft.

*Aichi E-13 - *The most modern of the Japanese float planes, main role was as recon from Cruisers and other warships.
*Mitsubishi F1M *- The predecessor of the E-13, biplane seaplane, launched from ships, used for recon and also as a fighter against other slower type planes (it had two 7.7 mm mg for offensive use).
*Fairey Fulmar - *Not great as a fighter but as a long range / maritime fighter it did cause some damage and have some impact. Could certainly give a Ju 88 or Fw 200 something to think about. Not sure what their record in the Pacific was but the long range of the A6M made 'second line' fighters more vulnerable there.

*Supermarine Walrus -* Kind of a simple / crude plane but it rescued a lot of pilots. I'd put the *Grumman Duck *(and a bunch of other smaller seaplanes) in a similar category.
*OS2U Kingfisher -* The main catapult launched American recon plane. Rescue and recon. Though slow it outlasted it's planned replacements by a long shot and many downed pilots owe their lives to this bird. Simple but reliable.

*Sea-Hurricane -* Hurricane may not have been at the top of the heap on land against the very best, but it was certainly a contender. Way out to sea, launched by catapult from a merchant ship, (and flown by a very brave pilot) it was a nasty as hell surprise for enemy maritime or bomber aircraft. Took brass gonads to fly that mission knowing you were going to have to ditch in the frigid and probably not very gentle waters of the North Sea at the end of your flight.
*Wellington* - Very long range made it useful in the maritime role and it could also carry torpedoes.
*Pe-3 - *The fighter variant of the versatile and fast Soviet Pe-2 bomber was used in the far north for Convoy escort and specifically did some damage to rampaging He 115s and Fw 200s.
Of that whole long list I would say the top 10 champions of Maritime aircraft were, in descending order of impact and capabilities:

*Beaufighter*
*Fw 200*
*Ju 88*
*Sunderland*
*B-24 / PB4Y-2*
*PBY*
*AR - 196*
*A6M2-N*
*Sea Hurricane*
*He 115*
I didn't include most of the standard Navy fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers in this specific Maritime list because they are already on the 'main' list of underrated aircraft if they qualify. I see this special "Maritime Combat Zone" to coin a phrase is something that exists beyond the reach of most front-line land based fighters and bombers, though once a Carrier moves into the area that brings the front line to it.

Some of the air battles between these more exotic and unusual types of aircraft need to be better documented! I want to see Osprey titles for Sunderland vs. Ju 88, Pe-3 vs He 115, AR 196 vs Sea Hurricane, A6M2-N vs. PB4Y-2 and so on.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

*BV 222 *- Another exotic Blohm & Voss design, built in small numbers but it did have an impact. *This massive 4 engined seaplane *had very long endurance, and heavy armament plus radar etc. made it dangerous both in anti-shipping and air-to-air roles.

Thought I'd mention that the Bv222 had six engines - originally the Bramo323, then the Jumo207C.

An interesting fact about the 222, is that it's the largest aircraft in WWII to score an aerial victory.
It encountered and shot down a USN PB4Y-1 over the Bay of Biscay.


----------



## Greyman (May 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Defiant's turret could be locked forward with the Pilot being able to fire the MGs.



I don't think so. Sounds like a great way to blast your prop off.


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2018)

Greyman said:


> I don't think so. Sounds like a great way to blast your prop off.


They were locked firing forward and upwards like Schrage music.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

Greyman said:


> I don't think so. Sounds like a great way to blast your prop off.


Ok, you're free to think whatever you like, but the fact remains that the Defiant's turret was designed to lock forward, with the turret's fire controls being enabled at the pilot's controls.
To what extent the MGs elevated, I am not sure, but those clever Brits probably thought about that issue before giving the turret the ability to do so...

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


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, you're free to think whatever you like, but the fact remains that the Defiant's turret was designed to lock forward, with the turret's fire controls being enabled at the pilot's controls.
> To what extent the MGs elevated, I am not sure, but those clever Brits probably thought about that issue before giving the turret the ability to do so...
> 
> View attachment 494588


I presume they slowly raised the guns until the prop didn't get shot off.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I presume they slowly raised the guns until the prop didn't get shot off.


Right?
Took a few propellors in the process, but eventually they got it dialed in!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, you're free to think whatever you like, but the fact remains that the Defiant's turret was designed to lock forward, with the turret's fire controls being enabled at the pilot's controls.
> To what extent the MGs elevated, I am not sure, but those clever Brits probably thought about that issue before giving the turret the ability to do so...



In the forward stowed position the electrical cutout is engaged and the guns cannot fire. Minimum elevation given for forward fire is 17 degrees.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

From "The RAF and Aircraft Design 1935-1939" by Colin Sinott:

_"The P.82 Defiant turret fighters had a license-built SAMM electro-hydraulically powered turret which housed four electrically-fired 7.7-millimeter Browning machine guns. They lacked nose- or wing-mounted forward-firing weapons common to typical fighters; however, the gunners could rotate the turrets directly forward and transfer firing control to the pilot, thus making up this weakness. In the forward-firing mode, however, the guns pointed 19 degrees upward, and the pilots did not have gun sights, thus making accurate firing difficult."_

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


----------



## Greyman (May 23, 2018)

I guess we're talking about different things. The Defiant had a 'stowed' position of the guns where they were locked fully forward. I thought you meant the pilot was firing when the guns were like this:






In terms of the lowest possible angle, I'm seeing a few different figures. AFDU gives 17 degrees, A&AEE gives 22 degrees, 19 degrees from the book above. I imagine it depends how fast and at what altitude the Defiant is flying - the attitude of the aircraft varying a few degrees.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> In the famous "double sunrise" missions, the Catalina's long range was crucial in re-establishing a link between Ceylon and Australlia. Planes with crews of Quantas veterans flew from Ceylon to Perth, Australia in 28 hour non-stop missions, 5,652 kilometers or over 3,511 miles one way.



No 'U' in QANTAS. Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services.


----------



## wuzak (May 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *AR 196 *- the humble German float plane was surprisingly formidable in combat, two 20mm cannons didn't hurt. Very important for recon and air-sea rescue, it was also used more aggressively.
> 
> *BV 138* - a much more exotic three-engined German seaplane, in spite of the unusual configuration, heavily armed and quite versatile.
> *FW 200 Condor *- Though it's often described as a structurally weak design, this big four-engined plane was to a large extent the terror of the Atlantic.
> ...



That list is long with aircraft of varied roles.

Others that you may consider were the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, the de Havilland Mosquito FB.VI and FB.XVIII and the Dornier Do 26.


----------



## Schweik (May 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> *BV 222 *- Another exotic Blohm & Voss design, built in small numbers but it did have an impact. *This massive 4 engined seaplane *had very long endurance, and heavy armament plus radar etc. made it dangerous both in anti-shipping and air-to-air roles.
> 
> Thought I'd mention that the Bv222 had six engines - originally the Bramo323, then the Jumo207C.
> 
> ...



You are right! and my bad! Yeah they were pretty ornery beasts those BV 222s

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (May 24, 2018)

wuzak said:


> No 'U' in QANTAS. Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services.


So noted. Too bad it is a proper noun. It would be useful in Scrabble.


----------



## wuzak (May 24, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> So noted. Too bad it is a proper noun. It would be useful in Scrabble.



Worse than that, it is an acronym.


----------



## Kevin J (May 27, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> The article mentioned by Smokey Stover is short but it nailed down some important points. That battle was chaotic indeed and historical maps are not very helpful. If you look in related Russian works of the last 15-20 years you can find a lot of conflicting information. Some historians became eternal enemies of each other because they could not agree on loss figures in day this or that or on disposition of certain units, etc.
> Serious unbiased study of Jun-Aug 1941 catastrophe has never been done in Soviet period. Post Soviet historians had to begin from scratch trying to figure out events of certain dates. This work is not completed yet. It became more difficult probably due to ideological shifts in the last 10-13 years, changes in archives policies, restrictions on external financing of historical societies and subsequent bankruptcy of some of them, etc. (Recent example of the latter: closure of Moscow based Foundation "Demokratia" which published extensive and probably the most complete library of USSR documents).
> I'd recommend to retain of "final" conclusions here. Tomorrow another bunch of papers will be discovered and it will turn earlier assumptions about Brody or another 1941 battle upside down - once again. Or of 1942, 1943... Debunking of some "Kursk" myths was good example.
> 
> Sorry for off-topic but could not restrain myself.


I imagine a lot of Soviet records were lost or destroyed as they retreated eastwards during June to August 1941.


----------



## Kevin J (May 27, 2018)

Greyman said:


> I don't think so. Sounds like a great way to blast your prop off.


I recall reading that locked forwards that the guns were angled upwards at 19 degrees.


----------



## Greyman (May 27, 2018)

Greyman said:


> In terms of the lowest possible angle, I'm seeing a few different figures. AFDU gives 17 degrees, A&AEE gives 22 degrees, 19 degrees from the book above. I imagine it depends how fast and at what altitude the Defiant is flying - the attitude of the aircraft varying a few degrees.





Kevin J said:


> I recall reading that locked forwards that the guns were angled upwards at 19 degrees.



Found a pretty convincing figure from the Assistant Resident Technical Officer, Messrs. Boulton Paul Aircraft, Ltd. - 24 Jan 1940
_"Guns cannot be fired below an angle of + 18deg. 30min. for 74deg. 55min. each side of forward line (present Type A Mk.IId)"_​
In other words, if the turret is pointed in the forward 32 degrees, 10 min arc of the aircraft, it can't fire below 18.5 degrees.

Although there seems to be continual work messing with the limitations of the turret angles/cut-outs throughout the Defiant's service life. So a figures for the turret at a certain date might not be applicable to an earlier/later date.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 28, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Found a pretty convincing figure from the Assistant Resident Technical Officer, Messrs. Boulton Paul Aircraft, Ltd. - 24 Jan 1940
> _"Guns cannot be fired below an angle of + 18deg. 30min. for 74deg. 55min. each side of forward line (present Type A Mk.IId)"_​
> In other words, if the turret is pointed in the forward 32 degrees, 10 min arc of the aircraft, it can't fire below 18.5 degrees.
> 
> Although there seems to be continual work messing with the limitations of the turret angles/cut-outs throughout the Defiant's service life. So a figures for the turret at a certain date might not be applicable to an earlier/later date.




And I think that settles the issue that Defiant was a pretty useless aircraft. In theory, a turret - especially one which could quickly point in any direction including forward, could be quite useful. But in practice, much like the 'heavy fighter', the blimp as aircraft carrier, 'the bomber will always get through' and other neat but doomed 1930's design theories, it turned out to be a non-starter. Even if you could somehow synchronize the guns - the drag of the guns themselves, the weight of the power turret and the extra gunner, not to mention line of sight challenges, made it a non-starter.

The closest they came to something like this actually working was in the P-61 using a remote controlled power turret, and they eventually deleted the turret from most of those because it didn't really work there either.

If you had some kind of computer controlled software today you might pull it off - on a WW2 era fighter flying at WW2 speeds. Wouldn't want to have four guns waving around in the slipstream going Mach 2 though.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The closest they came to something like this actually working was in the P-61 using a remote controlled power turret, and they eventually deleted the turret from most of those because it didn't really work there either.



I think you'll find that some of the earlier production P-61s, after the initial batches, did away with the turret, but later B models had them fitted.


----------



## adonjr60 (May 28, 2018)

I've read that the Buffalo was at least the equal of the Wildcat, but was inadequately armed, and Brewster couldn't match the production performance of Grumman. The Buffalo was described as a pleasure to fly, and more maneuverable than the F4F. Of course, the Buffalo was hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft it met in combat.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 29, 2018)

The Brewster Buffalo's only notable contribution to Aviation was, as I said, the US Navy's first monoplane carrier aircraft. - Apart from that it was a " flying brick" : for handling, manoeuvering, & critically, gaining altitude, with only 4 machine guns (2x .303 + 2x.50's) that were not reliable - But man, they sure dived well !!... like a brick !! -

As they had no radar warning, they were another other big reason that the Air Defence of Singapore collapsed, as they could not reach interception height quick enough to battle incoming Japanese bombers & were totally outclassed by the Ki-43 escort fighters. - That chap pictured on an earlier page standing in front of a P-40 ( the RNZAF " Waiarapa Wildcat," is Geoff Fisken, a Kiwi pilot who was actually able to knock some Japs down in a Buffalo, a mixture of his great ability and the fact the bloody plane was 'behaving' ok at the time -

The US Navy knew the Buffalo was a bit of a 'lemon', the Grumman Wildcat was in competition & a prototype was ordered of it, then they were asked for an 'improved' version, which came (with a better engine & 4x .50 guns) and this became the F4F-3 and the first 78 were ordered on 8th August 1939 - The rest is history, as together the P-40 & Wildcat took the fight to the Japs and started the wrestle for air superiority in the Pacific ~

The British Purchasing Commission got some in July 1940 and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm used them as the 'Martlet Mk.1' -
Two chaps, Sub-Lieutenants Norris 'Pat' Patterson & Graham Fletcher of FAA 802 Sqn. from the HMS Audacity, Britain's first 'escort' aircraft-carrier, were together the first to shoot down a Focke Wulf Condor 'convoy' bomber during Convoy 'OG74' near Gibraltar on 20 Sept. 1941 -
The first actual fighter vs fighter combat success was by two Martlets from FAA 804 Sqn. on 25th Dec.1940 -
The aircraft were also popular because they were bred for the sea, as they had special immersion switches which tripped in water and operated flotation bags in the wings and kept the cockpit clear of water initially, as behind there just past the aerial, was the stowage of the one-man Mk.1A life-raft - It saved pilots lives ~ 
( It's great to see that Grumman is still going today ! ) ~

With regards to the Defiant, I agree with Schweik that it was pretty useless overall, and despite these 'radar' versions, the gunflash would've blinded the pilot anyway ~

Cheers


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> The Brewster Buffalo's only notable contribution to Aviation was, as I said, the US Navy's first monoplane _FIGHTER_ carrier aircraft. -



Fixed it. 
First US monoplane carrier aircraft was the Douglas Devastator.
Vought Vindicators and Northrop BT-1s also operated from Carrier decks before the Buffalo although th eBT-1 was less than stellar doing so.


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2018)

G
 Gemhorse
, Grumman was absorbed by Northrop. It’s more a zombie than a going concern.


----------



## Juha2 (May 29, 2018)

On Brewster F2A, Finns liked the Model 239 aka de-navalized F2A-1 very much and achieved very enviable exchange rate against the Soviet planes, mostly fighters. And in fact British test facilities seems to agree

In September 1940, *the Royal Aircraft Establishment* at Farnborough tested Brewster serial 430, identified as a Buffalo but undoubtedly a 339B built for Belgium.
..._Ailerons - Tests in the speed range from the approach glide to 400 m.p.h. showed the ailerons to be exceptionally effective; they are crisp and powerful, and the stick forces are not too light at low speeds nor too heavy at the greater speeds. The pilots considered them to be a very definite improvement on the Hurricane and Spitfire fabric covered ailerons.

General - There is no tendency for any control to oscillate snatch or take charge at any speed. The pilots considered that with this aeroplane a definite advance had been made in fighter controls_....

*The Air Fighting Development Unit* at Northolt filed this report on 5 Nov 1940 after testing a 339B
..._Climb and Dive - The climb to 15,000 feet is better than that of the Hurricane, and the aircraft easily out-dives the Hurricane.

Comparative Speed in Level Flight - [The fighters were flown at the rated heights for the two-speed supercharger on the Brewster's Cyclone engine.] At 6,000 feet the Brewster was approximately 15 m.p.h. faster than the Hurricane; while at 14,700 feet the speeds were practically identical. [If similarly equipped,] the Brewster's speed at 6,000 feet would be approximately the same as the Hurricane, whereas at 14,700 feet it would be approximately 12 miles slower.

Maneuverability - In the air the Brewster Fighter is very maneuverable, its aileron and elevator controls being positive and lighter than the Hurricane or Spitfire at all speeds. The rudder is definitively heavy, but only a little movement is required for full control. It can easily turn inside the Hurricane.

Steadiness of aircraft as gun platform - Although the guns were not fitted, it is the opinion of all pilots who flew the aircraft that it should be a steady gun platform_...

So a handy plane up to 15,000 ft but above it degenerates.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (May 29, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> On Brewster F2A, Finns liked the Model 239 aka de-navalized F2A-1 very much and achieved very enviable exchange rate against the Soviet planes, mostly fighters. And in fact British test facilities seems to agree
> .










The Finns of course called the Buffalo the "Pearl of the Sky" and loved it.

"Bufallo", a name based on the great American city where so many US aircraft were produced, had unfortunate connotations of a lumbering beast. Pearl of the Sky sounds a lot better and suits the high morale of the Finnish Air Force.

When you compare the performance of the F2A at Singapore (Geoff Fisken excepted) or Rangoon with the Finns, It's a conundrum, one of many similar ones during the war (P-39 in Soviet vs. Anglo-American use comes quickly to mind, as does the Spitfire in the Pacific) which demonstrate the adage that you can't really judge a WW2 aircraft in a vacuum. The value of the plane is the result of the quality of aircraft + the circumstances of the Theater + training and maintenance.

I suspect (but can't prove so don't ask me to) the Finns got an aircraft which was right on the edge of being too heavy, (like the one in the British test with no guns in it yet) and being a foreign, essentially cast away aircraft like almost every other one they had, they did not hesitate to customize it as much as possible. Fixed a lot of the small issues and stripped weight. "De-Navalizing" helped no doubt. They made it their own, in short, and also found it suited to their Theater.

This is somewhat similar to the changes made to the P-40 B or C (I don't think which precise subtype was ever truly settled ... because it was basically a hybrid) by the AVG in Burma or the 4 month workup the Soviets did on the P-39. Fix all the small but annoying problems which collectively, can doom a good aircraft, and work out tactics and training to maximize the strengths and cope with the weaknesses of the aircraft. And give the pilots suitable time to absorb all these lessons and familiarize themselves with the aircraft.

For example the Soviets didn't do very well with the Spit V because they never fully understood the aircraft and had little time to learn it. New Zealand pilots (like Fisken) did better with the P-40s (in terms of victory claim to loss ratios) than American pilots in the same Theater most likely because they started with a lot of well trained pilots (including instructors) did 'advanced' training like gunnery training, and had plenty of time to familiarize with the type. Also apparently had higher maintenance standards.

The Me 110 was considered the most dangerous opponent in the Battle of France but was knocked down a peg in the Battle of Britain. It later proved valuable again in Russia. The P-38 excelled in the Pacific but came up very short in Europe and the Med. The Spit was the reverse.


Theaters vary enormously. The altitude where combat takes place, the range between forces, the temperature and weather conditions. I've learned on this forum just how much temperature can affect engines and even airfoils. An aircraft great in one Theater may not perform in another, and vice versa. And of course the nature of the enemy aircraft.

Whether an aircraft excels or suffers unacceptable losses, or falls somewhere in between, often hinges on marginal advantages in performance or maneuverability which, once realized, could be consistently exploited by the pilots. The Zero proved terrifyingly effective against nearly all Allied aircraft in 1941 and the first few months of 1942, thanks in part to a marginally superior altitude ceiling (of maybe 4,000 feet) and better turn radius, but once Allied pilots realized they could out dive the Zero they gained the ability to disengage almost at will which evened the odds considerably and began to tip the fight into their favor.






Some time in late 1942 or early 1943, in the Pacific around New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, P-38 pilots in the 49th Fighter Group figured out they were capable of out-climbing the Zero or Hayabusa in a shallow high-speed climb, within a certain altitude band. This narrow window of performance advantage gave experienced "Lightning" pilots the edge they needed to 'hit and run' and they started racking up victories at a rate that quickly became untenable for the Japanese.

Similar techniques, such as a high speed climbing turn, were used with great success with the Bf 109 against a variety of Anglo-American and Soviet aircraft in 1941 through early 1943 (including against P-38s), before more capable engines closed that niche. Luftwaffe pilots during the Battle of Britain also famously used the zero-G capabilities of their fuel injected engine to perform a nose-down dive escape maneuver which saved many German lives (and ultimately cost many English ones) though American and eventually, British aircraft addressed this particular issue with the carbeurator flooding.

I think in general we tend to exaggerate the superiority or inferiority of many wartime aircraft. Truly inferior types were usually taken out of the line pretty quickly. Though tolerance for losses varied, (certainly higher for the Soviets than for Anglo-Americans for example), there was a limit in how lop sided a loss rate you could endure, in terms of pilot training systems, morale, and aircraft production. This is why you don't see Boulton Paul Defiants or Gloster Gladiators fighting in 1944 (as far as I know). Though you did see some B-239s flying in Finland I think which speaks well of the design.

Narrow advantages, when disseminated through training, gave one side or the other the edge .. for a time. Those countries able to stay "in the war" usually closed these gaps quickly either through training, design tweaks, or entirely new designs. The Japanese responded to alarming losses to new American fighters in 1943 by deploying the new, faster and higher flying A6M5 variant of the Zero and other fighters like the Ki-61 and Ki-44. Extreme cases may have lasted 5 or 6 months or more (and this typically meant a change of Strategy in the interim, such as the end of "Rhubarb" raids by Spitfires during the heydey of the Fw 190) but more often these lopsided cases were closed down - or at least substantially narrowed- in a matter of weeks.

Once a given Air Force was no longer capable of answering enemy innovations, that was basically the end - certainly the sharp decline, and beginning of the ultimate destruction of that Air Force. Arguably from the middle of 1943 this was the case for the Italians, Japanese and Germans (roughly in that order, as the German collapse was a bit slower, and the Italians more precipitous). After that changes and adaptations were basically too little, too late.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 29, 2018)

Schweik said:


> "Bufallo", a name based on the great American city where so many US aircraft were produced,



The British named it the Buffalo. The Buccaneer (Bermuda in British service) also began with a 'B'. More like the names began with a 'B' because they were built by Brewster.


----------



## Stig1207 (May 30, 2018)

The Finns were pretty successful with other types of fighters as well. It probably says more about the Finnish pilots than the particular aircraft they flew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (May 30, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The Finns were pretty successful with other types of fighters as well. It probably says more about the Finnish pilots than the particular aircraft they flew.



But the fact that Finnish fighter pilots liked Model 239 very much and that it was the most successful FiAF fighter during the early years of the Continuation War (1941-06-25 - 1944-09-04) says something on the plane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (May 30, 2018)

On the Model 239, it has its early problems e.g. leaking of the integral fuel tanks, so it was good that Finns had time to fix them before Brewsters got into real actions. And of course time to perfect the tactics to be used against VVS fighters and pilots to learn the tricks of the plane. There was still a little room for weight additions, e.g. Finns added the back armour for the pilot and in 1942 began to change the nose .300 to a .5, so the armament went from 3 x .5 + 1 x .300 to 4 x .5.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (May 30, 2018)

Thanks for the comments gentlemen ~

Juha2, your comments are most interesting especially as they come from British sources -

And Schweik, many thanks for your broader view and grasp of the situations respectfully to each nation at the time ~ And thanx for the great photos !

I went and dug-out the book that I read years ago, "Last Stand in Singapore" by Graham Clayton - His father was a member of the groundcrew of RAF 488 (NZ) Sqn. which was formed the day after the bulk of the Squadron arrived in Singapore, on the 11th October 1941- It was essentially a RNZAF Sqn. made up of Kiwis, lead by kiwi Sqn.Ldr. Wilf Clouston DFC, an ex-BoB pilot from RAF 258 Sqn. His flight commanders were also ex-BoB pilots of high calibre. The rest of the aircrew were basically trained - They shared Kallang airfield in Singapore with RAF No. 243 Sqn. and a Netherlands East India Brewster Sqn. - 
They took over from RAF No. 67 Sqn. after they departed for Burma, leaving 21 unserviceable Buffaloes, no tools or spare parts; the only equipment found abandoned with the aircraft were 6 trestles, 6 chocks, one broken ladder and 6 oil-draining drums. The aircraft had originally been crated out from the US to Singapore and assembled at Seletar airbase nearby, earlier in the year - Kiwi ingenuity helped get the planes airworthy, including refitting the armour-plating which had arrived with all the bolted connection holes being drilled in the wrong place. Being hardened steel they could not be re-drilled and considerable improvisation was needed, some being fitted literally using the proverbial Kiwi No.8 fencing wire ! -As test flights began once airworthy, early training wasn't helped by a complete absence of radio gear - So it was hand signals and wing-waggling required with careful judgement. - 

The author states...
"The Brewster Buffaloes really were a sorry saga. Two international publications list them as the worst fighter aircraft in WW2 - The Buffalo story goes back to 1932 when an aeronautical engineer called James Work brought the aircraft division of Brewster and Co in the US.- The US Navy was looking for a carrier-based fighter-bomber. There competition from the Grumman Wildcat but the Buffalo won out due to it's better handling and the fact that many of it's systems were hydraulically controlled, particularly the undercarriage. Amazingly, the Wildcat still had a manual winding system for it's undercarriage. Brewster got the contract and an order from the US Navy for 54 aircraft. - When war broke out with Germany in1939 the US was still neutral and the Brewster factory were exporting their aircraft to Finland. When Finland was overrun by the Russians, the US pushed sales to other European countries, including France, but of course the German invasion beat the delivery to both Belgium & France by a wide margin. Britain took over the Buffaloes and assigned them to RAF 71 Sqn. - The model sold to Britain was the modified Model 339E and were used as trainers, due mainly to the fact they had no armour plate and not enough guns. Worse, the fuel tanks were in the wings and a single bullet hole meant a total rebuild. - Britain ordered more Buffaloes built to new specifications and these acquisitions were sent to the Far East to bolster the Singapore and Malaya defence - Although deemed unsuitable for RAF ETO operations by the Air Ministry, just a few months later they placed an order through the British Purchasing Commision for 170 Model 339E's - they were deemed suitable for use in the Far East -
Despite the criticism levelled at the Buffalo, both 488's flight commanders had earlier described them as 'nice old gentlemen's aeroplanes' so clearly some aircrew found them okay to fly. - Consensus opinion however was they were not the most 'accommodating' aircraft to fly, in fact compared to Harvards these Buffalo beasts were something else ! They had extremely high landing speed due to their brick-like aerodynamics and once on the ground the pilot had a very limited forward vision because of the large radial engine. Taxiing was also fraught with danger due to the series of zigzags, requiring the pilot either standing up or leaning out either side of the cockpit - They were not sleek with their fat little bodies and stubby wings. The propellor appeared ludicrously small for such a heavy-looking aircraft.-The CO of 488, Wilf Clouston reported his concerns about the ability of the Buffalo to do it's job, being particularly critical of it's manoeuvrability and poor armaments. But he did concede that he considered the technical staff provided by the RNZAF for Singapore were of a very high standard -"

But here is the real juice...
"Brewster Buffalo - the 'world's worst fighter aircraft"
The 339E was a variant of the early F2A-2 models designed for carrier use for the US Navy. They were powered by a Wright R-1820-G105 Cyclone engine that developed 1100hp. The British specification increased the weight by 6500 pounds, almost 1000 pounds heavier than the standard F2A-2. The top speed was lowered to 528kph and the rate of climb lowered to only 2600 fpm. The increased weight raised the wing loading, and reduced overall manoeuvrability. One of the modifications was a change to the fuel line pressurisation system, as fuel starvation became a problem above 18,000 ft. The Curtiss Electric cuffed propeller was replaced with a 10 ft 1 inch Hamilton Standard propeller and the small retractable naval-type tail wheel was replaced by a larger fixed tail wheel. - The Cyclone engine installed in the Buffalo Mk.1 had been selected as there were sufficient numbers of engines available to meet the first British contract. Unfortunately, insufficient numbers of these engines were available for the second contract supply and Brewster was forced to purchase used Cyclone engines from commercial airlines which had been using them to power their Douglas DC-3 airliners. Used engines were returned to Wright, which reconditioned them to the G105 standards. - The Buffaloes did have some good characteristics but also considerable deficiencies. There were officially 27 modifications that had to be made to make them battle-worthy. One of the major problems was faulty interrupter gear. This was the device that timed the firing of the guns through the arc of the rotating propeller without shooting it to pieces. The Buffalo had four Colt Browning .50-calibre machine-guns as it's armament. Two were mounted behind the engine and one in each wing. They packed a punch. That is, when they decided to fire. The downside was that they were too heavy, which affected the manoeuvrability and rate of climb of the aircraft. When lighter .303 machine-guns were fitted and the amount of ammunition carried reduced, things improved. - The fuel load was also reduced to try and improve their competitiveness but this had the effect of limiting the time they could spend in action. It was a constant battle to see which would run out first, the ammunition or the fuel. Mostly, the fuel lasted longer as much frustration was reported by many of the aircrew over getting into a good attack position, waiting until the last second before squeezing the fire button and having either nothing happen or, if you were lucky, a very short burst then nothing. Some aircrew were so frustrated that for a split second they considered ramming the target aircraft ! - The Buffalo's (reduced) top speed of 528 kph was seldom reached. It had an operating range of 1400 km, which was exceptional.~"

So, that's what the book's story tells, all these men tried their best with the Buffalo - They also offered air cover for Force Z, the battleships 'Repulse & Prince of Wales' but were refused by the Royal Navy. But despite their aircraft's shortcomings they were still prepared to support & fight.
This is a really moving book, these men who survived felt such shame at their defeat that they never spoke of it over the years, carrying that terrible weight of loss - How 30,000 Japs defeated an Allied force of 100,000 ! - Of all books, this one tells of so many aspects of the Singapore debacle -
(This isn't the only book I've read about Singapore etc- "Bloody Shambles Vols 1 & 2" I 've read and also "Buffaloes over Singapore" by Brian Cull)

So if you were a fighter pilot back then and you were given a Buffalo, how would you feel about it ? - I have read the book which tells much, much more, but the thought of being a Buffalo pilot positively chills me !

Thanks Swampyankee, I was aware of Lockheed/Grumman, although I wasn't aware of how well it was going. Grumman used to make those great seaplanes too, some are still around -

Thanks for letting me vent gents, both 488 & 243 Squadrons were crewed by New Zealanders - They just should have had better war materiel & support.

Cheers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2018)

Milosh said:


> The British named it the Buffalo. The Buccaneer (Bermuda in British service) also began with a 'B'. More like the names began with a 'B' because they were built by Brewster.



Buffalo are not exactly wimpy, lumbering beasts. See, for example 
_View: https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/170510-buffalo-herd-charges-hyena-battle-calf-vin_


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 2, 2018)

I can't see the example


----------



## Milosh (Jun 2, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Buffalo are not exactly wimpy, lumbering beasts.



Whether Cape Buffalo or Bison (NA Buffalo), they are not to be taken lightly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I can't see the example


It's at National Geographic. Apparently, they've mucked up their site. Try this video: Rhino vs. Cape Buffalo


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 3, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> But the fact that Finnish fighter pilots liked Model 239 very much and that it was the most successful FiAF fighter during the early years of the Continuation War (1941-06-25 - 1944-09-04) says something on the plane.



Mostly says right place, right time and in the hands of the right pilots. The question is: would Finnish fighter pilots have liked the B.239 just as much if the quality of their opponents had been on the same level as say the early war Japanese pilots?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 5, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Mostly says right place, right time and in the hands of the right pilots. The question is: would Finnish fighter pilots have liked the B.239 just as much if the quality of their opponents had been on the same level as say the early war Japanese pilots?



You have to be careful with assumptions. I know many people here would assume that Bf 109s would have done great in the Pacific, I have my doubts.

The B.239 was not just functional in the Finnish zone, it was their favorite aircraft and they used the B-239 successfully until 1944. They were credited with 496 kills for 19 losses. Two of their aces scored over 30 kills on the B.239 (Hans Wind and Eino Juutilainen).

Most of the other planes they did well with - the Hawk, G.50 and D.XXI, did at least reasonably well in other Theaters. The Hawk was the most successful Allied fighter in the Battle of France in terms of victories to loss ratios. The G.50 did well in Italian hands on the Russian Front and in North Africa at least initially. The D.XXI acquitted itself reasonably well when the Germans invaded Holland.

Its worth noting that the B.239 were used by the Finns against Germans in the Lapland War in 1944, they did not encounter German fighters but shot down 2 Ju 87s and 1 Ju 88.

They also used the following aircraft (They also used many others in descending order by number available, the main ones in the Continuation War from 1941-1944 in bold):

Bf 109G-6 - 109
*Fokker D.XXI *- 97
*Morane M.S. 406* - 77
*B.239 "Buffalo" - 44*
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2 - 48
VL Myrsky - 47
*Curtiss Hawk 75* (various subtypes) - 37
*Fiat G.50 - 35*
Gloster Gladiator MK II - 30
Gloster Gauntlet Mk II - 24
Polikarpov I-153 - 21
Bristol Bulldog MK IVA - 17
Gloster Gamecock MK II - 16
Hurricane MK I - 12
Morane M.S. $10 - 10
Polikarpov I-16 - 6
Hurricane MK II - 3

S


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 5, 2018)

I don’t think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.

Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 5, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don’t think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.
> 
> Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...


No, but I bet it would have been better than the P-400 defending Port Moresby and Gaudalcanal. (If the pilots ever figured out how to takeoff and landing it!)
Cheers, Wes.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 5, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don’t think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.
> 
> Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...



I shall. I generally do, there is a wealth of technical knowledge here. But I have become wary of assuming what seem to be obvious or uncontroversial statements are just that, often they are aggressively challenged. Which is fine, it's often how you learn.

Brewster Buffalo in squadron service, Finnish Air Force

I found a bit more on the Finnish use of the B-239. This is just "some website" so take it with a grain of salt, it says it's derived from "Suomen Ilmavoimien historia 1: Brewster Model 239" by K. Keskinen, K. Stenman and K. Niska, ISBN 951-9035-16-8 or ISBN 952-5026-02-7," but this person points out that the B-239 was popular partly because it was effective in "Boom and Zoom" attacks against Russian Lufberry circles (of mostly I-153 and I-16) for which the 'Brewsters' were more suited due to heavier (.5 in) guns and good dive characteristics, and they mention when the better Russian fighters (La 5, Yak 1, Yak 9) came out the Soviets stopped using Lufberry circles, dogfights ensued, and the Finns did start having more of an even fight and more casualties.

Sounds a lot like what happened in North Africa from late 1942. Or on the Russian Front starting in early 1943.

Some quotes:

_"There were several instances that when the Brewsters were sighted the Soviet planes retreated. In fact, for some time it seemed that all Soviet planes had completely disappeared, but the mystery was solved when two Soviet partisans with binoculars and a radio set were found near the main Brewster base. Thus the Soviets were so afraid of Brewsters that they didn't risk their planes at all when there was even a slight possibility of confronting Brewsters!"_
...
_"Soviet "Spanish Ring" was countered by the Finns by so called Pendulum tactic which was vertical; dive in from high, climb up and do the same thing again. In numerous prewar exercises it had been proved that this tactic would provide highest kill ratios. The Fokker D.XXI's used during the Winter War couldn't be used this way, since their climb, speed and diving qualities weren't good enough, but the Brewsters were the right planes for it. (This was one of the chief reasons for Brewster's popularity.) 

Later on, more experienced and faster Soviet planes started using similar tactics against Brewsters and of course they were countered by starting a conventional dogfight. This tactic wasn't so succesful, and kill ratios, while always favouring Finns, started getting worse and heavy casualties were sometimes suffered."
...

"In 1943 the new Soviet fighter types began to appear, and combatting them was starting to get hard. Most of the battles were fought in spring and autumn. The biggest battle for Finnish Brewsters ever was in 21st of April 1943 over the Gulf Of Finland, when sixteen Brewsters combatted 35 Soviets. Four LaGG-3's, four LaG-5's and eleven Yak-1's were brought down against the loss of two Brewsters.

During the next winter even more modern fighter types, such as La-5's and Yak-9's appeared. Brewsters managed to shoot down only four of them. This was a clear sign of Brewsters age."

S_


----------



## Schweik (Jun 5, 2018)

A bit more perhaps of interest:

"*Brewster tactics against individual plane models:*
_*I-16, I-153: *Especially suited for Pendulum tactic, use your speed advantagee, try to make the fight quite long, since both of them had very low endurance compared to a Brewster. 

*Hurricane Mk II:* Straight from the Hans Wind, the top-scoring Brewster ace, while keeping a lecture to new fighter pilots: "Hurricane is the easiest enemy plane to shoot down. Under 3000 metres (9000ft) it's no match for us. It's slow and very clumsy and stiff. When you meet a Hurricane, immediately start a dogfight, then it can only depend on our good will. Aim to the front part of it, then it usually flares up" (This was taken from the "Lent{j{n n{k|kulma II")

*SB-2, DB-3: *Easy...You have both the speed and agility + a powerful armament. Usual tactic was to attack from the rear, kill or injure the rear gunner and then lit up the engines.

*LaGG-3, MiG-1, MiG-3 *and other fast Soviet fighters: Dogfight them in low altitude.

*Pe-2, Douglas A-20 Boston: *Dive in from high. They're faster than you, you can't catch them in a level flight.

*Il-2: *("The Agricultural Aeroplane") There's a weak spot in the upper side of the wing's root. It usually ignites if you hit it. Another was to shoot at the cocpit from above.

Normally it was a policy to use only four planes on a patrol flight, but by the end of the 1943 larger formations of 8 to 16 planes, normally schwarms in multiple altitudes, had to be used."_

Sadly they didn't mention anything about B-239 vs P-39 or P-40s which they did encounter (the Finns even captured a P-40).


The *TL : DR* is that the Buffalo, or at least the version they had, seems to be an airframe that was pretty adaptable and ultimately effective. Good tactics and training can explain their wild success rate against biplanes and open cockpit I-16s in the first year or two of the war, but the fact that the Buffalo was still effective in 1943 and 1944 speaks well of it to me.

I don't think the Germans were still using many Bf 109E or F in 1944 for example. The A6M2 was also getting long in the teeth by then.

S


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 7, 2018)

Given how some aircraft that were successful in the ETO and MTO struggled against the Japanese, I think any claims that the Bf109 or FW190 would succeed are difficult to accept.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Given how some aircraft that were successful in the ETO and MTO struggled against the Japanese, I think any claims that the Bf109 or FW190 would succeed are difficult to accept.



What would've been the reasoning for perspective lack of succes of the two German fighters? What era/year, what sub-types?


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 8, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> What would've been the reasoning for perspective lack of succes of the two German fighters? What era/year, what sub-types?


Why did the Spitfire V and P-39 seem to do better in the ETO?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Why did the Spitfire V and P-39 seem to do better in the ETO?



I'm not sure that answers my question in any way - I was questioning the supposed lack of perspective succes for the two German types fighting in Asia/Pacific.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 8, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that answers my question in any way - I was questioning the supposed lack of perspective succes for the two German types fighting in Asia/Pacific.



The Spitfire, primarily against the Luftwaffe was successful, albeit not dominant, as was the P-39 in Soviet hands, also against the Luftwaffe. Neither had comparable success against the Japanese. That would tend to devalue any logic leading to a belief that German aircraft would fare better against the Japanese than would the Spitfire or P-39.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2018)

A lot depends on timing (read pilots) as most of the Japanese successes were against green pilots. Give the Australian and American pilots (or any of the Far East pilots) 109s or 190s in Dec 1941 and the spring/summer of 1942 and I doubt the results would be much different. Bring in several hundred experienced (but not necessarily experten) and the situation might very well change and that may be if the German pilots were flying the allied fighter types. 
Experience and tactics count for quite a lot in actual combat. 
Perhaps the US Army had experienced fighter pilots in small numbers. The US Navy did even if "green" to combat. But it takes training in gunnery and tactics, not just hours in the air. A educational story is the training that John Thach gave Butch O'Hare (O'Hare completed his flight "training" 19 months before he became an Ace), Much later O'Hare took Alex Vraciu as his wingman, Vraciu went on to become the Navy's 4th ranked ace. 

But it takes time for even experienced pilots to get "green" pilots (even with 3-400 hours of training) up to combat speed and the Allies just didn't have that time in much of 1942 in the Pacific. 

If it sounds like I am favoring any nation here that is not my intention. I believe that no nation produced better pilots (or worse ones) due to nationality.
Training and experience were major factors at any given time in any theater. Those could change in a matter of months as could relative strengths of the opposing forces. 
However better planes do give an advantage as shown in the BoB. New Spitfire pilots lasted around a week longer than new Hurricane pilots (something like 3 weeks vs 2 weeks ?) which give the Spitfire pilot at least some edge in getting enough experience to last long. 
I am not sure how many other Countries engaged in a battle with as many planes over a long enough period of time to draw a similar picture until much later. And then we get into discussions of falling standards on the opposing side.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2018)

A point defence interceptor can never prove superiority, it can only ever make the opposition pi$$ed off to varying levels.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 9, 2018)

Thought about this a bit and I think the German planes would have had some utility.

The Bf 109 would only be useful as an interceptor which would be a significant Operational / Strategic limitation but that could be pretty important in the Pacific, such as for defending airfields or ships. Excellent rate of climb, speed and heavy armament would help with that quite a bit. High dive speed would allow it to disengage from Zeroes and Ki-43s. The Ki-61 (when maintenance issues allowed) was considered a good fighter in the Pacific and it had essentially the same engine (slightly less robust version of the DB 601). We know the Bf 109 can hold it's own against Allied types the question is how well would it do against Japanese fighters. 

The Ki61 is slower but much more maneuverable, maybe a bit better in climb and has nearly twice the range at ~680 miles (not clear though if that is with external tanks or not) and probably equivalent in dive.

I think Ki-61 vs. Bf 109 would be an interesting fight.

The Fw 190 would probably be useful too within it's relatively short range. It would have similar problems that P-40s and Spit Vs had in intercepting Japanese formations at 30,000 feet. But with boom and zoom tactics could no doubt contend with A6M and Ki 43 up to medium altitude. Probably do pretty well in CBI.

And I think Ju-87s would be pretty good at sinking ships, probably on par with SBD or D3A.

However the range would be the big problem obviously. The Germans lacked an effective long range fighter. Me 110s would probably suffer against IJA and IJN fighters much as they did against Spitfires, maybe worse. Due to the range limitation the IJA and in particular the IJN would be able to concentrate power where the enemy was weaker and leverage their advantages.


S


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 9, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Spitfire, primarily against the Luftwaffe was successful, albeit not dominant, as was the P-39 in Soviet hands, also against the Luftwaffe. Neither had comparable success against the Japanese. That would tend to devalue any logic leading to a belief that German aircraft would fare better against the Japanese than would the Spitfire or P-39.



Spitfire V and P-39D, the 1st mark of respective fighters that battled Japanese, were of generaly lower performance than contemporary Bf 109 and Fw 190. Thus IMO the results of air combat between Mk.Vs and 39-Ds vs. Zeros cannot be directly applied for the results of what-if combat between the German fighters and Zeros. Both German fighters were roughly of same performance as it was the F4U, while being far smaller (thus a harder thing to spot and act 1st).


----------



## Schweik (Jun 9, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfire V and P-39D, the 1st mark of respective fighters that battled Japanese, were of generaly lower performance than contemporary Bf 109 and Fw 190. Thus IMO the results of air combat between Mk.Vs and 39-Ds vs. Zeros cannot be directly applied for the results of what-if combat between the German fighters and Zeros. Both German fighters were roughly of same performance as it was the F4U, while being far smaller (thus a harder thing to spot and act 1st).



The actual combat record of the Spit V against contemporaneous Bf 109s was pretty good, certainly at or very near parity based on the now published records we have comparing victories and losses on both sides. Performance of the Spit V was roughly equivalent to Bf 109F and early G models and it was much more maneuverable. By the time G-6 comes out it's certainly faster but at that point I think they had Spit VIII and IX (VIII being more important for Pacific). We know Spit V was inferior to the Fw 190A of course.

Per my last post, I suspect Fw 190s would be good against A6M and Ki 43 probably, if flown wisely, but may have had trouble with Ki 61.

P-39 actual combat history against German planes is a bit trickier to nail down unless you know better sources than I do. Combat there is at low altitude which was somewhat mirrored in the CBI where the focus of the Air War was largely on supporting ground forces, CAS etc. so the context was similar, but range was longer. I don't think there were many P-39s deployed there, they only claimed 5 victories as opposed to 288 in the Pacific where they were at a disadvantage due to Altitude.

S


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2018)

109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Fw 190 would probably be useful too within it's relatively short range. It would have similar problems that P-40s and Spit Vs had in intercepting Japanese formations at 30,000 feet. But with boom and zoom tactics could no doubt contend with A6M and Ki 43 up to medium altitude. Probably do pretty well in CBI.



I believe the P-40 had different problems intercepting Japanese fighters at 30,000ft than did the Spitfires.

The Fw 190A could probably haul an auxiliary fuel tanks and still have a performance advantage. Though, maybe not at 30,000ft.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.


I think you'll find that the RAF was already having severe problems with the Bf 109F before the FW190A came along as the F-1/2 were combating and superior to the Spitfire IIa/b plus a handful of Va's which matched them. The F-4 was superior to the Spitfire VB, the FW 190A simply outclassed it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.


 
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

This is not borne out by the data on day to day victories and losses. Bf 109F-4 didn't exactly dominate Spit V or even late model P-40s.

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
> 
> This is not borne out by the data on day to day victories and losses. Bf 109F-4 didn't exactly dominate Spit V or even late model P-40s.
> 
> S


I think you'll find if you read Wikipedia "Fighter Command" that during 1941/42, the RAF was losing 4 fighters for every German one shot down. Below 15000 feet, the P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) was superior to both the Spitfire Vb and the Bf 109F-1/2, and the later models superior to the Bf 109F-4, so both ideally suited to the campaign in the Western Desert. As far as I know the Spitfire Vc was superior to the Bf 109F-4. I'm talking about the RAF's campaign over France in 1941, when most of the Spitfires available until the Summer were Spitfire II's with less than 100 Spitfire V conversions from earlier marks. The production Spitfire Vb's didn't arrive until the Summer, at which point the Bf 109F-4 had arrived. The first production Spitfire Vc wasn't made until October 1941 by which time the campaign over France was over.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I think you'll find that the RAF was already having severe problems with the Bf 109F before the FW190A came along as the F-1/2 were combating and superior to the Spitfire IIa/b plus a handful of Va's which matched them. The F-4 was superior to the Spitfire VB, the FW 190A simply outclassed it.



Based on the actual kill vs. loss numbers on both sides Spit Vb and Vc were holding their own pretty well in North Africa against the F-4 as were the USAAF P-40 squadrons. I can provide specific examples if needed though I recommend to everybody to get the book, for the Spit V stuff especially Volume III

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I think you'll find if you read Wikipedia "Fighter Command" that during 1941/42, the RAF was losing 4 fighters for every German one shot down. Below 15000 feet, the P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) was superior to both the Spitfire Vb and the Bf 109F-1/2, and the later models superior to the Bf 109F-4, so both ideally suited to the campaign in the Western Desert. As far as I know the Spitfire Vc was superior to the Bf 109F-4. I'm talking about the RAF's campaign over France in 1941, when most of the Spitfires available until the Summer were Spitfire II's with less than 100 Spitfire V conversions from earlier marks. The production Spitfire Vb's didn't arrive until the Summer, at which point the Bf 109F-4 had arrived. The first production Spitfire Vc wasn't made until October 1941 by which time the campaign over France was over.



It always went back and forth. For a while one side had the advantage then it shifted the other way.

The Bf 109F of any subtype was definitely superior to a Spit II and maybe a Spit Va. By the time you had substantial numbers of Spit Vb and Vc in North Africa (Summer of 42), they were definitely _not _suffering 4-1 losses against Bf 109s, and there weren't enough Fw 190s to make a difference.

P-40s had some advantages below 15,000 feet and for a short period in 1941 they were doing really well against the early Italian fighters and to some extent, once they got there, the Germans too. But the Germans reacted quickly - they started to retire their older Bf 109E and brought in the F, and particularly JG 27 quickly adopted their tactics to the performance ceiling limitation of the P-40. They routinely climbed above them to attack from above. Thus for most P-40 pilots combat started with an attack from above and behind - something a skilled pilot could survive and adapt to but was by no means a comfortable situation. Only once continued combat caused the Bf 109s to lose sufficient 'E' were the P-40s able to fight back. They also apparently used overboosting their engines as high as 70" Hg which could confer ~1700 HP at some altitudes.

The fact that the Commonwealth was not using finger 4 / pairs of wingmen until late 1942 further exacerbated matters, as did the general lack of training for pilots especially some of the Colonial pilots like the South Africans. As a result, a lot of P-40s got shot down. In the first half of 1942 the Commonwealth was taking heavy casualties of P-40 and Hurricanes.

It came down to certain pilots, like the Australian Ace Clive Caldwell, to reform training standards such as with his shadow shooting, or Nicky Barr who was one of the first to realize that you could turn with P-40s (and Hurricanes) with high G turns. Operational level tactics also shifted in the last quarter of 1942 more toward going after the Germans over their own bases - I think initiated by the Americans. 

Once the P-40F & L showed up, with a performance ceiling up to 20,000, the advantage of the Bf 109F series and early G series was diminished, partly because they didn't have time to climb so high up especially when attacked over their own fields (often the Germans would put 2 or 4 Bf 109s on CAP over their fields but that was not enough) or over tactical battlefields when the main target was a medium bomber flying at 12,000 feet. The Americans were also using 'Finger Four' tactics with two pairs of wingmen which helped considerably.

You also had P-38s in late 1942 and Spit IXs show up in early 1943. The latter in particular clearly meant doom for the Germans, it obviously dominated all the Bf 109 types and was able to handle the Fw 190 as well.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It always went back and forth. For a while one side had the advantage then it shifted the other way.
> 
> The Bf 109F of any subtype was definitely superior to a Spit II and maybe a Spit Va. By the time you had substantial numbers of Spit Vb and Vc in North Africa (Summer of 42), they were definitely _not _suffering 4-1 losses against Bf 109s, and there weren't enough Fw 190s to make a difference.
> 
> ...


The P-40 in Soviet Aviation
Have you read any of this document, the Soviets rated the Warhawk quite highly. There are documents on the Hurricane, Airacobra and Spitfire too. The Hurricane they improved upon, the Airacobra was their favourite and the Spitfire didn't come up to their expectations.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Based on the actual kill vs. loss numbers on both sides Spit Vb and Vc were holding their own pretty well in North Africa against the F-4 as were the USAAF P-40 squadrons. I can provide specific examples if needed though I recommend to everybody to get the book, for the Spit V stuff especially Volume III
> 
> S


I'm aware of the Warhawk squadrons doing very well as well as those equipped with Spitfire VIII's although I've never seen anything on the Spitfire Vc other than reading that it was superior to the Bf 109F-4. My understanding of the Spitfire Vb was that it was a little fragile and best suited as an interceptor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The P-40 in Soviet Aviation
> Have you read any of this document, the Soviets rated the Warhawk quite highly. There are documents on the Hurricane, Airacobra and Spitfire too. The Hurricane they improved upon, the Airacobra was their favourite and the Spitfire didn't come up to their expectations.



Yes I have indeed read it, you should read the interview with Golodnikov on that same site, and then go look for the rest of the interview as you can find it on google books. Very enlightening on the subject of the P-40 vs Bf 109.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes I have indeed read it, you should read the interview with Golodnikov on that same site, and then go look for the rest of the interview as you can find it on google books. Very enlightening on the subject of the P-40 vs Bf 109.
> 
> S


Do you have a web address that I can look for?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Do you have a web address that I can look for?



Google is your friend

Part 2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 10, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I'm aware of the Warhawk squadrons doing very well as well as those equipped with Spitfire VIII's although I've never seen anything on the Spitfire Vc other than reading that it was superior to the Bf 109F-4. My understanding of the Spitfire Vb was that it was a little fragile and best suited as an interceptor.


 
Spit Vc was I think about the same as the Vb except for more ammunition for the 20mm cannon and slightly different ammunition storage. Maybe somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong about that. I would not call the spit 'fragile' though it probably wasn't as suited for ground attack as some other Allied types. It was the best Allied fighter available in the Med during the Desert War because it could fight at high altitude, was well armed and extremely maneuverable.

The USAAF P-40 squadrons seem to have done pretty well in air to air combat based on Shores "Mediterranean Air War" Vol III, but the biggest battles they were involved in (Pantelleria, Sicily, Taranto, and Anzio) in were in a period not yet covered in the day by day, claims vs. losses analysis by Shores (or anyone else I'm aware of). That should be in Volume IV of that book which is due out this fall. I believe Volume IV should give us a more definitive sense of how the P-40F/L did against the Bf 109.

You could crunch the numbers in Vol III and that would I think raise some eyebrows, but I have been too lazy / busy to do it so far.

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Google is your friend
> 
> Part 2


Thanks, I don't know how I missed that one.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Thanks, I don't know how I missed that one.


 
Like i said, if you search a little you can find the rest of that interview in a book on google books (I don't remember the name) where he gets into a few more specific anecdotes about flying P-40s against Bf 109s.

This is another interview I read recently that I found very interesting, from Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes. He gives you a pretty good idea of the realities of fighting against Bf 109s in P-40s in that Theater and it matches what most of the other pilots said - Bf 109 was faster, climbed better and had a higher ceiling, but the P-40 could out-turn and out-dive it.

One part was particularly interesting to me in light of the memos which have come to light related to over-boosting Allison engines. Apparently they overboosted Merlins too but not quite to the same extent. The most powerful Allison engines - the ones which could be overboosted the most, were the V-1710-73 on the P-40K. In RAF / Commonwealth service the P-40K was designated Kittyhawk III*. This interview excerpt gives some insight into how that translated into combat:

_"Well I was a poor shot. Air to ground I think I was a very good shot. I could group my bullets and make sure they didn't run through. I could hold them on target while I went in and strafed. But air to air I certainly missed an awful lot of aeroplanes I fired at. I think the classic example was one day when I had a Kitty Mark III - I had acquired it illegally, I might say - and I had to give it back to the RAF later - but I had a little bit more horsepower than the rest of the squadron and when three 109s passed overhead or ahead of us, if I had waited to take the squadron with me, which normally I would have done, they would have got away.

But seeing them and knowing I had that bit more power I opened the taps and went after them.

I had a look at the three of them and I thought, if I pull a lead on the number one, number three could probably get a deflection shot at me, so I thought, well, I'll get number two first.

So I fired at number two. I must have misjudged their speed completely because the one behind, probably fifty yards behind, flicked over and went down smoking like hell. I looked round to see who else had shot at it but I was the only one in the sky. I then decided, well, I'll go after the number one and number two but, of course, they didn't wait for me. The one, incidentally, number three, did go in.

Yes, it was a successful mission. We had a big celebration that night in the squadron and a few of the 'Yanks' came over and they thought the shooting was quite brilliant and I had only fired very few rounds. However, during the night I managed to get quite a few grogs on board and I decided that I'd confess that I hadn't even aimed at that one, I'd aimed at the one ahead of it. And, of course, when I did tell them of course no one believed me, but it was true."
_
This interview matches similar anecdotes I have read from American WW2 veterans who mentioned overboosting P-40Es and Ks to do a climbing turn to catch Bf 109s after the latter had made an attacking pass. I couldn't use these in research though as they were just emails the guys had sent somebody which were then posted to a forum somewhere. But this is an official interview which was conducted for the Australian War Memorial so it's more valid as an historical record.
_
S
_

* so was the P-40M which had a different engine which was rated for higher altitude but could not be overboosted as much, so that kind of confuses the issue a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2018)

He also mentions this, which I suspect may refer to overboosting (and actually rewiring the throttles which they apparently did according to Allison engine company memo and another war dept memo):

_"Well it was basically the same aeroplane. We were a little disappointed when we first got the Kitty, we thought it'd be way ahead of the Tomahawk. In actual fact, it was a little bit better. One thing I personally didn't like about it was the Tomahawk had fairly high sides and you'd be sitting behind a thin sheet of metal but you felt safer. The Kittyhawk had perspex coming way down and you felt as if you were sitting up, very vulnerable, because you could see out so much. That was one feature I do remember. *However, later when we got our Kittyhawks running properly - were getting better performance - they were a better aeroplane."*_


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I believe the P-40 had different problems intercepting Japanese fighters at 30,000ft than did the Spitfires.
> 
> The Fw 190A could probably haul an auxiliary fuel tanks and still have a performance advantage. Though, maybe not at 30,000ft.



This article explains how the 49th FG was able to use specially adapted tactics to (somewhat) effectively intercept Japanese raids over Darwin at high altitude in spite of their engines being way above their performance ceiling. In a nutshell, the Americans broke up into flights of 4, and kept diving onto the Japanese bombers. By breaking up into small groups, it prevented the Japanese fighters from fully engaging with the Americans, because as soon as they left the bombers the bombers would be attacked. From the article:

_"With time-to-height and operational ceiling limitations, Wurtsmith scrambled his squadrons in small manoeuvrable formations of four aircraft, with each flight leader listening to the No. 5 Fighter Sector broadcast. This ensured each raid was subject to multiple interceptions by flights of P-40s, which effectively tied the escorting Zeros to the bomber formation to ensure unchallenged flights of P-40s did not slip through to engage the G4Ms."_

The P-40s could barely fly at that altitude (25,000 to 27,000 feet) but even with that diminished capacity they could still shoot down bombers. Once the A6Ms attacked, they could dive away to disengage, and if the A6Ms followed, they could defeat them at lower altitude. The Zeros also didn't fly that well at 27,000 feet so it wasn't quite as lopsided as it sounded.

Although the American pilots were inexperienced and not that well trained - 95 out of the 102 pilots in the Group had never even flown P-40s before - the leaders (Lieutenant Colonel Paul Wurtsmith and his XO Major Don Hutchinson) were very experienced veterans - and that made a big difference. They devised a clever strategy.

In the end, the score was even, per Japanese records they lost 19 aircraft (one Ki-46 recon plane, seven A6M fighters and twelve G4M bombers), and the Americans also lost 19 early model P-40Es and 4 pilots. But they did manage to disrupt the raids and prevent extensive damage to Darwin, the ships & harbor and the surrounding airfields, which was their mission.

It's a good example of how good leadership can overcome serious, even crippling technical disadvantages.

I'm not sure what the effective performance ceiling was for the Fw 190s - I guess it depended on how heavily laden they were with rockets etc., but I gather they faced some of the same kind of issues going after B-17s and B-24s.

S

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


----------



## eagledad (Jun 11, 2018)

IIRC, a conversation that I had 40+ years ago with a former LW pilot indicated that the FW-190 with the BMW engine started losing its performance above 8000 meters. FWIW

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 16, 2018)

Most underrated?
...my sig aircraft, The Mighty L-4 Grasshopper!
At the time, thought of as not much more than a motorized kite, its uses were innumerable.
Able to adapt into a wide variety of roles, it really was a _Flying Jeep_.


Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Most underrated?
> ...my sig aircraft, The Mighty L-4 Grasshopper!
> At the time, thought of as not much more than a motorized kite, its uses were innumerable.
> Able to adapt into a wide variety of roles, it really was a _Flying Jeep_.
> ...


And didn't it actually score an air-to-air kill? Something like a wild west shoot out with pistols taking down a Storch?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 17, 2018)

LOL! I WANNA READ THAT STORY! 
In fact, while writing my other post, I had this picture in my head of an L-4 and a Fiesler-Storch doing lazy Susan's around each other, while the passengers were taking pot shots with black powder rifles!.
...thanks XBe02Drvr. I'll have to look that one up. Would be an interesting read, for sure. 


Elvis
P.S. To clarify, though, I really do have the utmost respect for the L-4. It was probably one of the most universally applicable _vehicle's_ (not just aircraft) in the Armed Forces inventory, at that time. Beloved by many GI's, many are still in use today.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2018)

Elvis said:


> LOL! I WANNA READ THAT STORY!


Read it here:
Last Dogfight of WWII in Europe Was Between Two Spotter Planes,Firing Pistols at Each Other. The German Aircraft Was Destroyed
Quite a tale. And Lt. Francis had to wait 22 years for his DFC! Ordinary guys doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times. Never see another generation like that! Amazing that the Grasshopper did the same job as the Storch at half the weight, a third the power, and a quarter the cost.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 18, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Read it here:
> Last Dogfight of WWII in Europe Was Between Two Spotter Planes,Firing Pistols at Each Other. The German Aircraft Was Destroyed
> Quite a tale. And Lt. Francis had to wait 22 years for his DFC! Ordinary guys doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times. Never see another generation like that! Amazing that the Grasshopper did the same job as the Storch at half the weight, a third the power, and a quarter the cost.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,
Have you ever owned a BMW?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2018)

I'm guessing the Fi156 that the Piper encountered was an earlier type, as the later Fieslers were armed with an MG15.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Wes,
> Have you ever owned a BMW?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Does dreaming and drooling count? They're above my pay grade, but I've ridden 'em, driven 'em, and wrenched on 'em, and in my dream world would own and fly a Fokker D-7 with the BMW version of the OHC six-banger.
The "Bavarian Benz" managed to crank out twenty+ more horsepower than the best Mercedes could get out of their own engine, and without increasing RPM and losing that power in the prop. This according to my engines instructor at mechanic school, a wily old cuss with experience back to the '30s, and 8th AF in WII, as well as at Cole Palen's Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Another ordinary guy doing extraordinary things.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm guessing the Fi156 that the Piper encountered was an earlier type, as the later Fieslers were armed with an MG15.


And I'm guessing that given the L4's advantage of surprise and approach angle, even if the Storch was armed, it probably couldn't have gotten its gun to bear before its wingtip collided with the ground. Besides in those desperate days of last stand of the Reich, the gun had probably been stripped off and given to the troops who needed it more.
And according to Wiki (I know, I know, not the best source in the word!), the C2 version equipped with the defensive gun was only built in 1940-41, and then only 200-odd copies.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> in my dream world would own and fly a Fokker D-7 with the BMW version of the OHC six-banger.



_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3RbJtBOhkks_

I wannabe Kermit Weeks when I grow up!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 18, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Read it here:
> Last Dogfight of WWII in Europe Was Between Two Spotter Planes,Firing Pistols at Each Other. The German Aircraft Was Destroyed
> Quite a tale. And Lt. Francis had to wait 22 years for his DFC! Ordinary guys doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times. Never see another generation like that! Amazing that the Grasshopper did the same job as the Storch at half the weight, a third the power, and a quarter the cost.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yeah, but the stall is about 10-20 mph lower with the Storch.
I do remember the story, now that I read your link.
Haven't thought about that in many a year.
Kinda poetic if you think about it. Every other type of plane got into at least one dogfight during the war, why not the spotters too! =)
Thank for posting that.


Elvis

NOTE: now rethinking that "dogfight" comment. C47 in a dogfight? Now I have to research that one!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2018)

Not sure about a "dog fight" but at least one C-47 flying the hump into China may have had passengers firing BARs or Thompsons out the side Windows at attacking planes. 
I beleive some C-47s had gun ports in the windows?


----------



## Elvis (Sep 18, 2018)

...wouldn't be surprised...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Yeah, but the stall is about 10-20 mph lower with the Storch.


But the L-4, being lighter, decelerates and accelerates in only slightly more distance than the Storch. Not enough to make an operational difference.
Some cowboy (who shall remain nameless) made a takeoff across the terminal ramp BETWEEN PARKED AIRCRAFT in a 65 horse J3 as part of a "Flying Farmer" act at a local airshow forty years ago here. Knocked everybody's socks off, and the FAA rep was indoors standing in line for the rest room and none the wiser. I didn't believe my eyes, having at the time never flown one, but later discovered I could takeoff in equivalent distance, though in less irresponsible circumstances.



Shortround6 said:


> Not sure about a "dog fight" but at least one C-47 flying the hump into China may have had passengers firing BARs or Thompsons out the side Windows at attacking planes.
> I beleive some C-47s had gun ports in the windows?


A local air cargo company restored several DC-3s in invasion colors and flew them for awhile on UPS feeder contracts. They had gunports in the windows. I rode in one once. It was originally a civilianized C-53, but they reconfigured it to resemble a C-47, except they retained the uprated "civilian" 1830s rather than reverting to the original 1820s.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure about a "dog fight" but at least one C-47 flying the hump into China may have had passengers firing BARs or Thompsons out the side Windows at attacking planes.
> I beleive some C-47s had gun ports in the windows?


Yes some did. When I was about 10 after building a model I asked my grandfather,who worked at Douglas and helped build them, why C47s didn't have defensive armament like bombers did. He informed me that some did indeed have gun ports.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 19, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But the L-4, being lighter, decelerates and accelerates in only slightly more distance than the Storch. Not enough to make an operational difference.
> Some cowboy (who shall remain nameless) made a takeoff across the terminal ramp BETWEEN PARKED AIRCRAFT in a 65 horse J3 as part of a "Flying Farmer" act at a local airshow forty years ago here. Knocked everybody's socks off, and the FAA rep was indoors standing in line for the rest room and none the wiser. I didn't believe my eyes, having at the time never flown one, but later discovered I could takeoff in equivalent distance, though in less irresponsible circumstances.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wes


True, you can do some surprisingly aerobatic moves in an L-4...



...but it still can't fly as slow as a Storch...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 19, 2018)

...unless you mod the heck out of the Cub's wings...



...granted, the beginning portion of that video was slowed down on purpose, but notice the similarity between the modded wings on that Backcountry Super Cub Rev 2 and the wings on the Fiesler Storch.


Elvis


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2018)

Quite a few Allied and Axis transports (both glider and powered) had gunports to enable the troops inside to help defend the aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 19, 2018)

Elvis said:


> granted, the beginning portion of that video was slowed down on purpose, but notice the similarity between the modded wings on that Backcountry Super Cub Rev 2 and the wings on


TILT! FOUL! OFF TOPIC! By the time you start talking PA-18s it's a whole 'nother ball of wax! Heavier, more powerful, faster, and those primitive Piper zap flaps don't really compensate for the extra speed and weight.
I worked one summer at a little country strip where the local CAP squadron had a PA-18 and one of the members had a J-3 done up as an L-4. Part of every CAP meeting was a landing contest (we weren't much into uniforms and marching and all that military crap. We were all vets and over that stuff). Try as we might, we could never takeoff and land our Super Cub as short as the L-4 in the grass. On pavement it was a little closer, as the Super had much better brakes.
It didn't look to me like the L-4 pilot in the video was making a maximum effort at a short landing. He flew a high and tight pattern and came over the fence in a slip (which requires a bit of a speed cushion for safety), leaving him with a little extra speed over the numbers. Betcha if he flew a longer final, wings level with just a touch of power on, he would come close to rivaling the Storch, which doesn't actually land at its minimum slow flight speed, needing just a little extra for sink rate control.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 19, 2018)

UNCLE! I GIVE! I GIVE! (  )

We were discussing the agility of the two planes, thus the trick flying video (that's the one you mentioned about a shorter landing?)
...and yeah, the last vid is a Super Cub. In fact its a modified Super Cub! The idea of that video was to show that the Storch's _prowess_ really lies in its wing and that a Cub (or rather, "Cub") could do the same or better with a similar wing.

...apologies if those points weren't clear in the original posts.


Elvis


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 20, 2018)

Elvis said:


> the Storch's _prowess_ really lies in its wing and that a Cub (or rather, "Cub") could do the same or better with a similar wing


Yeah, you could add full span Junkers style slotted trailing edge flaps and flaperons and a leading edge slat to your L-4, but that rumble you'd feel underfoot would be Bill Piper and John Taylor rolling over in their graves as you desecrate their sweet, light, and simple little airplane. Heresy risks excommunication.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 20, 2018)

...fair enough. I was thinking more; flip-up leading edge slats and fowler flaps, but there's nothing wrong with the basic design, either.
I gotta wonder though, if they were designing that plane today (assuming nothing similar would be in existence), if they wouldn't offer those, at least as options, to the basic package.


Elvis


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...fair enough. I was thinking more; flip-up leading edge slats and fowler flaps, but there's nothing wrong with the basic design, either.
> I gotta wonder though, if they were designing that plane today (assuming nothing similar would be in existence), if they wouldn't offer those, at least as options, to the basic package.
> 
> 
> Elvis


Have you seen a J3/L4 with its fabric off? I've helped disassemble, strip, re cover, and reassemble them. The wings are so light one guy can pick one up easily if he can get a good grip on it near the CG (damn awkward sumbitch).
Part of the reason they're so light is they don't need much re-enforcing structure on the leading and trailing edges. The aileron is attached directly to the rear spar and a straight flap would be too, if it had one. Check the PA-18.
Now if you go and put a serious fowler flap with its high lift and high drag back there, you're going to introduce all kinds of additional torsional stresses, which is going to require heavier structure and a more robust and better braced actuating system. Ditto for leading edge slats. The pounds add up, and next thing, you're going to need heavier spars to maintain your G limits with the heavier weight, then it's more horsepower, which of course means more fuel, and your sweet, light, simple design has spiralled out of control. Might as well just give up and go buy a Fieseler.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 21, 2018)

Would a non movable leading edge slat add much weight? Sorry, forget the proper word.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Would a non movable leading edge slat add much weight? Sorry, forget the proper word.


SLOTS are a much more complicated shape with more skinned surface and more internal shaping ribs, so yes it will add significant weight, but not as much as retractable slats would. Also wouldn't give as much performance gain.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 21, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Yeah, but the stall is about 10-20 mph lower with the Storch.
> I do remember the story, now that I read your link.
> Haven't thought about that in many a year.
> Kinda poetic if you think about it. Every other type of plane got into at least one dogfight during the war, why not the spotters too! =)
> ...




The US developed, during WWII, three aircraft, the Stinson L-1, the Bellanca YO-50, and the Ryan YO-51, which were at least as capable, and complex, as the Storch. The Stinson was produced in small numbers, but modified civil aircraft like the Cub and similar aircraft from Aeronca and Stinson could do the vast majority of tasks the L-1 could manage much more cheaply.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 21, 2018)

XBe02Drvr,

Didn't think about that...and yes, I have seen those wings with no covering...you make a very good point.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 25, 2018)

Although I am not really a fan of it, since I kind of associate it with "war crimes" in the early years of the war and Spanish Civil War, I really think the Ju 87 series "Stuka" is one of the wars most underrated aircraft. I think it was extremely useful - I would actually argue decisive for the Luftwaffe in the beginning of the war and continued to play a very important role almost to the end, certainly well into 1944.

The way the standard postwar Trope goes, the Stuka was recognized as quite effective in the Spanish Civil War, in Poland, and in the Battle of France, but then ran into a brick wall so to speak in the BoB, after which it was recognized as obsolete.

These things are all basically true but there is more to the story.

When you look at the ground wars in Poland and France, and in the early days of Russia and the North African campaigns, the Stuka was absolutely vital in it's role at knocking out tanks. One thing which tends to be ignored when evaluating WW2 bombers or fighter-bombers, is their actual bombing effectiveness. Most level bombers in WW2 had fairly abysmal accuracy, requiring multiple scores of sorties to neutralize targets. By contrast, as a dive-bomber, the Ju-87 was one of the most accurate bombers available to any army during the war. 

If you read about the nitty gritty details of many of the early tank and infantry battles of WW2, time and time again you see the Stuka coming to the rescue. German armored thrusts would begin to get bogged down due to powerful enemy tanks (like the Matilda, KV-1 or the SOMUA for example) or enemy Anti-tank guns or artillery, or well dug-in infantry... and then the Stukas would come in and wreck the enemy position (or break up their attack) and the Germans would resume their Blitzkrieg.

Often more accurate than artillery and _considerably_ more powerful, they repeatedly changed the course of numerous battles in Russia, Egypt, France and Belgium.

It did fail to some extent in the Battle of Britain for two reasons - it was not particularly useful as a Strategic bomber, so of limited effectiveness (though much more useful for example in bombing specific targets like radar stations or airfields than say, flattening Coventry) and when flying in large formations at medium to high altitude, it proved to be very vulnerable to the large formations of Hurricanes defending Britain, requiring a strong escort to survive.

So after the BoB, so the story goes, the Stuka faded into the background. Only it didn't.

On the Russian Front, in the early years fighter opposition was far less effective and Stukas and other Luftwaffe bombers fairly routinely struck targets without escorts. Due to the usually Tactical nature of the fighting they continued to be very effective, and were still turning the tide of battles all the way through 1942 and on a smaller scale still in 1943 and even 1944. Of all the bombers available to the Germans and their minor allies (Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and Finns) the Stuka was arguably the most effective. Only the pinpoint dedicated CAS planes like the HS 123 and the quite formidable HS -129 were perhaps more accurate.

In North Africa, Stukas were a bit more vulnerable than in Russia but if you look at the day to day mission results, they do not often seem to have suffered the kind of catastrophic losses you see in the BoB, while on the other hand they were still taking out tanks at key moments in many of the battles. They took losses in larger missions but not in the 20's and 30's, more like in the 2's and 3's. In other words really not much worse than the Bf 109s were suffering. Toward the end of the North African campaign in 1943 they started taking heavier losses when attacked by Spitfires P-38's and late model P-40's, but certainly they were still useful in ground combat through the middle of that year.

Both in Russia and in North Africa (and I think Italy? But not certain) cannon-armed tank buster Stuka variants were used with substantial success.

It is worth noting however that the Luftwaffe pilots hated escorting Stuka's due to their slow speed, which they felt made them more vulnerable. Similar complaints about Blenheims etc. led the DAF to switch over to using fighter bombers, relying on the faster or more heavily defended American bomber types once they became available (A-20, B-25, B-24). By 1943 the Germans too were starting to switch over to "Jabos" in the West, the most effective of which were undoubtedly the Fw 190 though they also got some use out of Jabo Bf 109's and Bf 110's.

One other useful trait though became more obvious in both Russia and North Africa - part of why losses were not so devastating as in the BoB was that in smaller engagements, and / or when allowed to break out of formation and evade pursuers, Stukas proved to be pretty good at surviving. Droning along in a tight formation, they really lacked sufficient defensive firepower for safety, and when pounced on by packs of Hurricanes in the BoB, they took heavy losses. 

But the big dive bomber with it's huge wings was a very tight-turner, and being stressed for dive bombing could withstand high G maneuvers. In multiple engagements in Russia and the Med, in a purely evasive mode (albeit often after jettissoning bombs, sometimes over their own troops) Ju-87s proved to be pretty good at desperately twisting and turning to avoid destruction. Also once the Ju-87D emerged, they had pretty hard-hitting guns of their own with which to fight back. Rather like the American SBD, they could sometimes turn the tables on attackers.

Finally as dive bombers Stukas also played a particularly useful role in maritime operations. Many of the convoys which precariously fought their way to Malta for example were nearly smashed, with many ships sunk in particular by Stukas The Ju-88 had a more useful range, and was less vulnerable to fighters thanks to it's high speed, but did not get as many lethal hits on ships, or sink as many ships. And here too, the Stuka did not suffer the kind of crippling losses seen in the BoB.

The Stuka was a hammer that the German panzer generals could use to flatten enemy strong points right up to the tipping point of the war around the winter of 1942 / 43 and was still useful quite a bit beyond that. I think the impact of this aircraft tends to be underestimated. Therefore I grudgingly nominate it for one of the most underrated aircraft of the war.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 25, 2018)

I also want to reiterate my belief that the Zero is one of the most underrated aircraft of the war.

We tend to focus so much on air battles in 1944 or 1945, but by then, was there really any chance that Germany or Japan, let alone Italy, had any chance of winning the war? The crucial parts of the war were the beginning in 1940-41, when the Axis was surging to victory everywhere, then the middle (1942 and into early 1943) when the Allied resistance stiffened and they started to take the offensive.

But I don't believe the Japanese would have ever posed a true existential threat of any kind or taken over nearly the whole Pacific Rim if it hadn't been for the Zero. The A6M series fighters were quite unusual in that, as both a carrier fighter and (for the time) a very long ranged fighter, they were more than capable of handling any enemy opposition they encountered. Most carrier fighters in the war were either a little bit inferior (F4F) or very inferior to land based types (Fulmar, Gladiator etc.)

That isn't to say that Allied pilots didn't have a chance. We all know how in 1942 Allied pilots, especially flying F4F and P-40 fighters, and later P-38s, began to figure out the weaknesses in the A6M (and Ki-43) fighters and gradually learned to exploit them with the strengths of their own aircraft. In hindsight of course this seems decisive, But this was by no means an easy or immediate process. The A6M was still giving trouble to Spitfire, Hellcat and Corsair pilots in 1943 and 1944. This to me speaks strongly of the extreme effectiveness of the original design.

While it's true that Japan suffered many fatal flaws in it's aircraft industry, perhaps the most fatal of which was the inability to really develop their engines, and they no doubt waited far too long to develop effective new fighter types like their Ki-61 series, Ki-84 and N1K1 etc., I think that the Pacific War simply would not have been the contest it really was in 1942 and 1943 if it had not been for the Zero. Without the Zero in fact I believe the Pacific War would have reverted to the mopping up operation it became by 1944 much earlier, probably in 1942.

The Japanese had other weapons in their arsenal besides the Zero- several other effective planes like the Ki-43, the D3A and the G4M, their long lance torpedo, night fighting training, huge battleships, very strong highly motivated ground troops and so on, and their momentum probably would have led to many conquests in the early months of the war regardless, but without the Zero the Americans and their allies the UK, Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese and so on would have seized air superiority much sooner.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Stuka was a hammer that the German panzer generals could use to flatten enemy strong points right up to the tipping point of the war around the winter of 1942 / 43 and was still useful quite a bit beyond that. I think the impact of this aircraft tends to be underestimated. Therefore I grudgingly nominate it for one of the most underrated aircraft of the war.



The Stuka gets a lot credit that should have gone to the German artillery. In Poland there were 340 Stukas available. German Artillery was generation ahead of the Polish artillery both in gun types and fire control. A standard German (if there was such a thing) infantry division carried 230 tons of artillery ammo as it's basic load, well above what a Polish division could carry with their lack of trucks. German resupply was better due to the higher number of trucks (even if nowhere near fully motorized). The Germans had 68 tubes per infantry division (not counting the 75mm and 150m infantry guns) compared to 48 tubes for a Polish infantry division and the Germans were using 105mm howitzers (mostly) compared to the Polish 75mm guns. 
This advantage carried over into the French campaign. Being able to call in artillery fire using radios was huge advantage over field phones in a war of movement. 

The Stukas did do a lot of good work but all too often they get the lion's share of the credit for the "firepower" advantage the Germans had in the early campaigns.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 26, 2018)

actually german infantry division had, the 1/9/39, at the best 48 howitzer (not counting infanterie guns): 36 leFH-18 and 12 sFH-18 (ever at best few had old WWI era howitzer)


----------



## Schweik (Sep 26, 2018)

Shortround I think you are overstating the case for the German artillery.

While Poland - and to some extent really, none of the Allies were truly prepared for the War Germany brought to their doorstep, and Germany did indeed have more and better artillery than the Polish and vastly better organization than the French - heavy artillery was not as rare as you imply, nor is effective use of it. The English artillery was fairly well organized (with radios and forward observers) and their QF 25 pounder was quite effective, and the Soviet, while initially disorganized and inadequate, very quickly reached and surpassed the German both in terms of quantity of available ordinance, and also the power - 152mm and 122mm guns, 122 rockets and 120mm mortars becoming very ubiquitous by 1942. Even in 1941 each Soviet infantry division already had a battalion of 122mm guns.

And of course the American artillery was better than the German both in terms of logistics, accuracy and (especially) response time. And they had plenty of 105 and 155mm guns.

But there are few artillery guns indeed with the power of a 550 lb bomb. When it comes to armor, even 105mm howizters are often unable to destroy medium tanks. You really need 12-15 cm weapons. If you look at the major battles in the French campaign, for example at Arras, Hannut or Abbeville. The Germans could knock out the more heavily armored Allied tanks (Matilda, SOMUA, Char B1, or 2C) with their 88 mm AA / AT guns - especially in defense, but in offense it was the Stuka which smashed the enemy tanks. The Germans in fact used 105mm howitzers against Char B1 and SOMUA tanks at Abbeyville but found them almost as ineffective as their 37mm AT guns.

What the French and British lacked was an aircraft which could hit with pinpoint accuracy on the battlefield and destroy German armor, artillery or strongpoints such as or for example, emplacements of their lethal 88mm guns. The Germans conversely could break almost any strongpoint with their Stukas. The Soviets had their own answer in the Il2, but it probably took a little longer to start bearing fruit as a weapons system (adding the rear gunner helped a lot with survivability). The Anglo-American answer to this was the fighter bomber and they did have fairly good accuracy but not as good as a dive bomber.

My argument is not so much that the Stukas were (in part) the key to the early German successes - I believe they were, but that is common knowledge. I'm pointing out that the Stuka remained effective for more than three years past the Battle of Britain and continued to confer a major advantage up until the point that the Germans truly lost the ability to seize even temporary Tactical air superiority.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2018)

If anything I may have understated the case for German artillery.
Few, if any, nations artillery arm stayed static during WW II. 
And in many countries there was a marked difference between 1st line units and 2nd line when it came to equipment. Perhaps less so when it came to doctrine/tactics?
By the time the American's show up with their artillery park the Stuka had pretty much ceased flying by daylight.
British artillery in France in 1940 was a mixed bag. There were few of the modern 25 pdrs. Most units having the 18/25 pdrs. A few had 18 pdrs and 4.5 in howitzer. Heavy artillery, what there was of it, consisted of WW I guns with rubber tires and brakes suitable for motor towing. By the end of the war the British had one of the best, if not the best, systems of fire control and command that existed, backed up with large amounts of ammunition. Number of radios in the division's artillery net had either tripled or quadrupled.
Germans went from having a good number of guns and a good amount of ammunition to shortages of both. While they may have started the war with a good fire control system it didn't get a lot better during the war and ammunition shortages hampered later operations.
Russian artillery also fluctuated widely. 
And it rarely, if ever, had the flexibility of western artillery, no matter how good it was at pre-planned fire missions.
The Stuka was over publicised by the Germans as part of the propaganda war in the early days. And like many airplanes it depended on well trained pilots to achieve good results. As the quality of pilots declined so did the effectiveness of dive bombers.

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


----------



## Schweik (Sep 26, 2018)

You are probably forgetting that the Americans were in action against the Germans in early 1943, the Stuka was very much in the game at that point - in fact they proved very effective against American forces, and in particular against American Artillery parks (as well as tanks) during the Battle of Kasserine Pass.

By the end of the Tunisian campaign and into the invasion of Sicily American artillery had improved in terms of efficiency to surpass the Germans and the British. It was the strongest part of the American war machine.

But they still made extensive use of fighter bombers, just as the Germans continued to use Stukas, as well as increasingly "Jabos".

One of the reasons for the changing fortunes of the Anglo-Americans in North Africa was due to their going after Axis supply convoys and aircraft, forcing the Luftwaffe more on the defensive and leaving fewer fighters available to escort Stukas.

S


----------



## wuzak (Sep 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> But there are few artillery guns indeed with the power of a 550 lb bomb. When it comes to armor, even 105mm howizters are often unable to destroy medium tanks. You really need 12-15 cm weapons.



Not many tanks carried 12cm-15cm guns, but they still destroyed other tanks.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 26, 2018)

There were so many planes in ww2 that dont get there due its hard to pick one but i would like to throw the A 20 into the mix as under rated.
Actually outright ignored might be a better discription for the attention the A20 gets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 27, 2018)

I am left with the impression, reading this and the sister thread, that just about every plane that flew was either:
a) underrated
b) overrated
C) or in some cases, all of the above!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 27, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I am left with the impression, reading this and the sister thread, that just about every plane that flew was either:
> a) underrated
> b) overrated
> C) or in some cases, all of the above!


I guess it all depends on who's doing the rating

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not many tanks carried 12cm-15cm guns, but they still destroyed other tanks.


 The mechanism of destruction is different. 
However in 1939/40/41 the numbers of tanks that were "shell proof" ( tank would survive a 75mm HE hit as opposed to an AP projectile) was not that great.
The lighter tanks were considered "splinter proof" (crews and vital tank parts were protected against rifle/machinegun bullets and splinters/fragments from shells/bombs). The dividing line is about 30mm. 75mm HE shells could still get mobility "kills" on the larger tanks by blowing tracks/road wheels off. 
Artillery fire can also disrupt an armor attack without "killing" a very high percentage of the tanks involved. 
Some early tanks used radios with rather vulnerable antennas for their radios and many early tanks had rather poor vision when closed up. Some used signal flags to relay orders. Trying to spot and shoot defenders when artillery explosions were obscuring the line/s of sight was a problem. 
And charges/advances by tanks without accompanying infantry generally did not end well for the tanks whatever the initial gains were. 

The larger artillery shells (around 12cm or up) could destroy some of the "middle" (a rather flexible term I know) tanks even using HE, or at least render them unusable or incapacitate the crew. 

This was the most common Polish armored vehicle





You don't need a 550 or 1100 pound bomb to destroy it. A few dozen such bombs dropped into a concentration of such vehicles will certainly disrupt any attack or defensive position but then so will a few hundred artillery shells.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 27, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I am left with the impression, reading this and the sister thread, that just about every plane that flew was either:
> a) underrated
> b) overrated
> C) or in some cases, all of the above!


Bingo !

in most polls for best/worst its funny that the P-51, Spitfire, BF 109 and FW 190 all seem to be near the top of both, go figure !

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


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not many tanks carried 12cm-15cm guns, but they still destroyed other tanks.



Do you really have trouble understanding why? let me help:

Investigate the difference between HE and AP shells in defeating armor
Investigate the rate of direct hits to vehicles in a typical artillery strike vs. direct fire

That should nudge you along toward enlightenment.

S


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> There were so many planes in ww2 that dont get there due its hard to pick one but i would like to throw the A 20 into the mix as under rated.
> Actually outright ignored might be a better discription for the attention the A20 gets.



A20 was definitely one of the best Allied bombers. Fast first and foremost, maneuverable for a bomber, pretty good bomb load for the time, decent range, well protected with armor and self sealing tanks, and heavily armed. Effective as a level bomber, a strafer, or a torpedo bomber-_ and _a pretty good night fighter. They were one of the most survivable Allied bombers (mainly due to speed), and a major asset in the Pacific, the Med, and in Russia.

It's one of those few aircraft that everyone seemed to like and managed to do damage to the enemy for a long time in the war, proving quite versatile for example when re-invented as a strafer and a skip-bomber for the Pacific Theater (which was also done in the Med).

Though the flight envelope and strengths weaknesses are a bit different, I would consider the A-20 roughly the Allied equivalent of the Ju 88.

I think it's probably discounted or ignored for the same reason as a lot of the others, it was an early-war design that had largely been replaced by 1944-1945, and that seems to be the only part of the war that gets attention.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2018)

Let’s tone it down...


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The mechanism of destruction is different.
> However in 1939/40/41 the numbers of tanks that were "shell proof" ( tank would survive a 75mm HE hit as opposed to an AP projectile) was not that great.
> The lighter tanks were considered "splinter proof" (crews and vital tank parts were protected against rifle/machinegun bullets and splinters/fragments from shells/bombs). (snip)
> This was the most common Polish armored vehicle
> ...



The Polish Army was not known for their armor, this is well established. They were struggling to catch up from post WWI era technology and really hadn't gotten there yet. Yes Polish "tankettes" were certainly vulnerable to even medium artillery (75mm and 81mm) but they were also fairly easy to destroy using a variety of means, from grenades to anti-tank rifles and even heavy machine guns. They were certainly well within the kill envelope of the lighter tank and AT guns (37mm on down, for the most part) that the German army had available. That isn't to say that the Polish army was a total pushover- the Germans did suffer ~ 10,000 casualties during their conquest of Poland and they had Soviet help lets not forget. I wouldn't call that negligable. But the Poles had mostly infantry and lighter kit.

We also did see later in the war how good Polish soldiers were, notably in the Air War as I believe they one of the best performing fighter squadrons in the RAF depending on how you measure such things. Not to mention their role in securing ENIGMA equipment and so on. Lets also not forget that most of the German army wasn't not fully mechanized with trucks or half-tracks, and in fact most German artillery was being moved around through horse-drawn rigs to the end of the war.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that German artillery wasn't an important part of their army, in fact I would definitely acknowledge that their artillery was good, I don't think they were unique in that respect. Yes they had different strengths and weaknesses in their artillery than say, the English, Americans and Soviets, but the latter three powers also had formidable artillery as we know from the large number of German and other Axis troops, equipment and material that they destroyed with it and the key role it played in numerous battles. For the Soviets see the isolation and destruction of the 6th Army at the end of Stalingrad.

My point was that in the early battles, as well as later on, it was in fact air assets, and specifically the Ju 87, that helped the German army solve the problem of larger and heavier allied tanks, the type that you could not easily destroy or disable with a 37mm or even 50mm AT gun, let alone with a 75mm howitzer. The Matilda, SOMUA, Char-B1, and KV-1 tanks in the early years. As I pointed out previously, if you read accounts of many of the key battles of the early years of the war, the Ju 87 was indeed the key factor at many crucial points.

Nor did that end with the Battle of Britain. As I pointed out, the Stuka was still playing a very important role in North Africa and Russia in 1942 and 1943, again as I noted, including at Kasserine Pass, as well as during many of the campaigns by Rommel against the British Commonwealth forces. The USAAF changed fighter tactics in part to better prevent German CAS missions from wreaking havoc on American armored formations and artillery parks.

Finally while it's true that even light or medium artillery can cause problems for armored units by doing things like forcing crews to button up, & knocking off radio antennas, semaphore flags or even tracks, these would not for example necessarily prevent them from destroying German tanks and armored vehicles that tried to pass through their position subsequent to an artillery strike. It was generally considered that heavy artillery, meaning 12 - 15 cm on up, was required to significantly damage medium or heavy tanks and even then it often didn't work (in part due to accuracy).

What made the Stuka somewhat unique was that it was one of very few "true" dive bombers that remained in use as a tactical support weapon for land armies through the war. The Americans and Japanese had true dive bombers for use against naval assets, where a high loss ratio was acceptable thanks to the potentially very high value of the targets - and both the D3A and SBD bombers were very important planes in their own right, the Stuka was one of the very few that was available for a land army. Many aircraft described as dive bombers in the war had limited dive angles because either they lacked dive brakes or their airframe couldn't handle the stresses of recovering from an 80-90 degree dive. As a result they were simply not as effective.

So again, somewhat grudgingly, and I know as a bit of an outlier from the consensus in this forum as usual, I would continue to assert that the Stuka was in fact an underrated aircraft, at least for the majority of the war that took place after the Battle of Britain. I have yet to see any argument that convinces me otherwise.

S


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

I should add that the Americans did make some use of the SBD as a land based bomber (as the A-24) but they didn't have a lot of them in play and didn't get as much use out of them. The Allison-engined P-51A (A-36) dive bomber was one of the many that was limited in it's dive angle and eventually after they had a few break up they stopped using the dive brakes altogether IIRC.

The Soviet Pe-2, German Ju-88, and various fighter bombers used by both sides were considered pretty accurate but they did not dive down at true dive bomber angles in most cases, so their accuracy was not as good as the Stuka.

S


----------



## Elvis (Sep 27, 2018)

Not to skew the thread, but now I'm thinking about a dogfight between an A-24 and a Ju-87...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Not to skew the thread, but now I'm thinking about a dogfight between an A-24 and a Ju-87...



Would definitely watch, with popcorn.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Would definitely watch, with popcorn.


I'll man the ticket booth.
Somebody else man the ambulance, my German's not that good.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2018)

Yeah, I would say the Ju 87D is pretty dangerous with those 20mm guns, earlier models though I'd probably give it to the SBD - as we know they did pretty well in air to air combat.

Other than armament it should be pretty even really, both have about the same speed. Anyone know or care to figure out wing loading without bombs? And power to mass? Climb rate? never to exceed speed?

Stuka is a bit bigger and has fixed landing gear so probably has more drag. SBD empty weight is a bit lower too.

Slight edge to the SBD unless the Ju-87 has the 20mm cannon, then I'd give a slight edge to the Ju-87.

But I'm definitely totally guessing. I will have to resolve this in Il2 tonight... lol (sorry just kidding don't fling slings and arrows at me)

Actually I'm not kidding. Definitely going to try that.

S

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 27, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I am left with the impression, reading this and the sister thread, that just about every plane that flew was either:
> a) underrated
> b) overrated
> C) or in some cases, all of the above!


I apreciate the humor in that but in all seriousness there are some planes that tend to be verry much under or over rated, IMHO, depending on who's doing the rating. The p38 would be my pick for plane that gets it from both directions.
I've read articles that claim it was by far the greatest fighter of the war and others claiming it was generaly a failure.
By my estamation it was a good, and versitile plane. Maybe not great at one thing but good at alot of things. 
It seams however, to me at least, that the p38 seems to attract extreme assessments both good and bad like no other plane.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So again, somewhat grudgingly, and I know as a bit of an outlier from the consensus in this forum as usual, I would continue to assert that the Stuka was in fact an underrated aircraft, at least for the majority of the war that took place after the Battle of Britain. I have yet to see any argument that convinces me otherwise.



I still don't think it was underrated or underappreciated.

Saying that the Ju 87 needed to operate with effective fighter cover or in areas with little or no fighter opposition does not make it underrated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 27, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> By my estamation it was a good, and versitile plane. Maybe not great at one thing but good at alot of things.



I agree, and probably no aircraft is flawless anyway. The P-38 is one of those machines that it's difficult to understand that it should be regarded as either under- or overrated.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 28, 2018)

Maybe the reason threads about over and under-rated aircraft are so popular here, and the reason why some planes might even qualify as both - is that so many people tend to oversimplify the stories about these aircraft, apply broad-brush, crude analysis and make hyperbolic claims. So there is plenty of BS out there to debunk. The P-38 is a good example, it was a remarkable and successful fighter design that also had a lot of serious flaws.

Few major aircraft in WW2 don't have at least some completely bogus trope or legend attached to them in the popular imagination.

Exaggerated claims as to how bad this or that fighter was or how good it was tend to nudge the story way beyond the reality. So in some ways these discussions help flesh out a clearer picture of these aircraft.

I deal with many other historical subjects, including conducting research on an academic level. One constant is that modern people seem to inevitably want to simplify and kind of radicalize stories about every historical phenomena that they have heard of. In part I think it's due to the nature of our media, moderate nuanced stories don't sell or entertain as well as extreme claims, or at least so the thinking goes.

S

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2018)

Schweik said:


> My point was that in the early battles, as well as later on, it was in fact air assets, and specifically the Ju 87, that helped the German army solve the problem of larger and heavier allied tanks, the type that you could not easily destroy or disable with a 37mm or even 50mm AT gun, let alone with a 75mm howitzer. The Matilda, SOMUA, Char-B1, and KV-1 tanks in the early years. As I pointed out previously, if you read accounts of many of the key battles of the early years of the war, the Ju 87 was indeed the key factor at many crucial points.
> 
> Nor did that end with the Battle of Britain. As I pointed out, the Stuka was still playing a very important role in North Africa and Russia in 1942 and 1943, again as I noted, including at Kasserine Pass, as well as during many of the campaigns by Rommel against the British Commonwealth forces. The USAAF changed fighter tactics in part to better prevent German CAS missions from wreaking havoc on American armored formations and artillery parks.



The Stukas did perform a lot of good work for the Germans but there were only 340-355 Ju 87 available at the start of the Polish campaign. How many were serviceable on any given day, especially after the first few days, is somewhat less. The Germans used just under 60 divisions during the attack on Poland, 
including 5 Panzer divisions, 4 light divisions (sort of a motor rifle/ motor cavalry ) and 4 motor rifle/infantry divisions. Plus a few odds and sods with the majority being foot infantry divisions. There just aren't enough JU-87s to go around. Yes they could be concentrated at specific points but they could not be everywhere. They flew about 6000 sorties during the Polish campaign, 

In France there were only 370-380 Char-B1/bis tanks total ( and 187 of them were delivered in 1940 meaning the crews were not well trained) and over 1/2 of the ones lost in combat (267?)were due to mechanical breakdown and running out of gas. I am sure that Ju-87s killed some but they were spread out into 8 Battalions and rarely mustered more than about 70 per division. While they did perform a few heroic actions and delayed some German units for a day or two their presence was not enough to make a marked difference to the French 1940 campaign. There were only 23 Matilda IIs in France in 1940 and aside from the Battle of Arras they had little impact on the campaign. 

We also get internet articles like this one "The Sirens of Death – 11 Amazing Facts About the Ju 87 Stuka"
With claims like " During the Norwegian campaign for example, Ju 87 formations sunk two destroyers, crippled a pair of cruisers and posed a deadly threat to Royal Navy surface operations in the region." 
Perhaps they did sink two destroyers, They did sink one cruiser, an old WW I 4200 tonner that had been converted to an AA ship. This ship, The HMS Curlew was in action a number of times against aircraft in the campaign before being hit. it had returned to Scapa flow twice for refueling and re-arming before being hit. 
The British ran another cruiser aground and the The Germans did hit a French cruiser on April 19th but it returned to France for repair and then sailed to Nova Scotia twice before the French Armistice was signed. There is also some dispute about the AA cruiser, some sources say it was sunk by JU-88s. 
another article about the Norwegian campaign says "The French cruiser _Emile Bertin_ was damaged by bombing during the disembarkation (no casualties) and was replaced by the _Montcalm_. " 

SO the Ju-87s score in the Norway campaign was ? 

and we get stuff like this (from wiki) " Later that month she (the Marat) had her bow blown off and sank in shallow water after *two* hits by 1,000-kilogram (2,200 lb) bombs (dropped from *a* Ju-87 Stuka, piloted by Hans Ulrich Rudel) that detonated her forward magazine. She was refloated several months later and became a stationary battery, providing gunfire support during the Siege of Leningrad."

Now this is a pretty amazing feat. Rudel flying a JU-87B (or R) with *two* 1000kg bombs is pretty amazing all by it self. The unnamed 2nd pilot (and aircraft) doesn't seem to get any credit. 

Yes the JU-87 sank a number of ships but many accounts tend to exaggerate it's accomplishments.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I apreciate the humor in that but in all seriousness there are some planes that tend to be verry much under or over rated, IMHO, depending on who's doing the rating. The p38 would be my pick for plane that gets it from both directions.
> I've read articles that claim it was by far the greatest fighter of the war and others claiming it was generaly a failure.
> By my estamation it was a good, and versitile plane. Maybe not great at one thing but good at alot of things.
> It seams however, to me at least, that the p38 seems to attract extreme assessments both good and bad like no other plane.


Interesting how those assessments are usually tied to its propulsion.
Counter rotating propellers neutralizes the plane's want to turn in one direction _better_ than another - a "plus".
The General Electric superchargers didn't work well in colder climates, thus limited performance in certain situations - a "minus".
It was good plane in its day, not to mention an incredibly _forward_ thinking design for the time, and I think we all agree on that. I guess its just how you look at it, that effects your argument.

Elvis


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2018)

Elvis said:


> The electric superchargers didn't work well in colder climates, thus limited performance in certain situations - a "minus".



Electric Superchargers?

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


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 29, 2018)

Possibly General Electric Superchargers?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2018)

The superchargers worked fine in cold weather, the intercoolers (and poor cruise technique ) were the problem, a subtle difference. 
The P-47 (and the B-17/B-24) didn't seem to have anywhere near the same troubles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Possibly General Electric Superchargers?



Could be.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The superchargers worked fine in cold weather, the intercoolers (and poor cruise technique ) were the problem, a subtle difference.
> The P-47 (and the B-17/B-24) didn't seem to have anywhere near the same troubles.



There were some wastegate control issues early on. But I don't know if that was a peculiar setup to the P-38, but it was rectified.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2018)

you are correct, early on there were troubles with the turbo controllers freezing. This was part of the problem with debugging the systems. The airframes were from one company (or a different company/group for each airframe) the engines were from 3 different companies, the turbos were from another company altogether and the turbo controls came from ????? but were to USAAC specification/design and were supplied to the airframe and engine makers by the USAAC. SO there was plenty of room for finger pointing when things went wrong. 
The early turbo controls measured the exhaust back pressure and adjusted the waste gate accordingly. But moisture in the exhaust could freeze on the sensor. The later turbo controls measure the pressure in the intake system and used that value to adjust the exhaust wastegate. Freezing problem solved. P-38 issue with cold temperature cruise in 1943 was unrelated.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 29, 2018)

.........and now it becomes clearer as to why I was having difficulty following this thread(s)


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Electric Superchargers?


*GENERAL* Electric Superchargers!...._Electric Superchargers_ ...LOL! sorry about that. Didn't even see it until you posted that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2018)

Wasn't the first time somebody left out a word..............guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, .......

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 30, 2018)

Elvis said:


> *GENERAL* Electric Superchargers!...._Electric Superchargers_ ...LOL! sorry about that. Didn't even see it until you posted that.


Wasn't that General Electric TURBOchargers? Wasn't the SUPERcharger integral to the engine and gear driven?
Wasn't GE at the forefront of turbocharging because of their experience with electrical generating turbines?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Elvis (Sep 30, 2018)

Was it? You tell me. You seem to have all the answers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2018)

General Electric was at the forefront of _supercharger_ design in the US for at least 20 years due to the work of Sanford Moss who started working on turbo driven superchargers in WW I. Nobody else was doing much of anything with superchargers then. The NACA did some experiments with roots superchargers in the 1920s and that merely proved that roots superchargers weren't a good idea for aircraft. Since GE was building centrifugal compressors to go with the exhaust turbines they branched out and designed (and built) gear driven superchargers for Wright, P & W and Packard. By the late 30s people began to realize the GE compressor/superchargers weren't really that good. This had been masked by, on GE's end, the turbine providing an excess of power to the compressor, and on the users end (engine makers) the low boost allowed by available fuels. It didn't take a very good supercharger to provide all the boost 70-80 octane fuel would allow. 

To show how interwoven everything was and how little actual knowledge in supercharger/compressor design (or number of designers) there were in the 30s Allison made supercharger/compressor parts under sub-contract to GE for use by Wright and P & W. It wasn't until the late 30s that Wright and P & W became dissatisfied with the GE superchargers/compressors and started to design their own. 

In the 20s and early 30s engines that used turbo superchargers did NOT use an engine driven supercharger, they were one stage systems. This changed in the late 30s with better fuel that would allow higher boost pressures. 

There is room for some confusion as to what constitutes a supercharger and what is a turbocharger as it is a PITA to type out the extra words/letters needed to identify each in every instance. 

In WW II nobody used a a single stage turbocharger (at least on a production aircraft).

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 30, 2018)

Thanks, SR! Fills in a few blanks for me, confirming some, and discrediting other "facts" that I've been told over the years. SR, you're really good at filling in the complex details in an understandable way for those of us less technically endowed.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I still don't think it was underrated or underappreciated.
> 
> Saying that the Ju 87 needed to operate with effective fighter cover or in areas with little or no fighter opposition does not make it underrated.



The thing is, I actually said almost the opposite of that.

Stukas were flying unescorted raids in Russia right up to Kursk. Intermittently they flew unescorted raids in the Med up to about mid -1942. That is actually pretty good.

Now it's true these were areas and during times with what I would call "Light or intermittent fighter opposition", but other types of bombers, for example the Russian SB or SU-2 bombers, the German Do 17, Ju 52 or He 111, or the British Blenheim, Hampden or Wellington were really not safe to operate in the same areas without fighter protection if there was_ any_ potential enemy fighter opposition. Even when escorts were provided, many early bomber types (particularly those listed above) still could not operate without prohibitive casualties. Stukas had fairly good surviveability by comparison - both against flak and enemy fighters, they weren't the only bombers that did, but they did pretty well.

What's more important, as I already mentioned a few times, Stukas had by far the best accuracy of any of the bombers in ant Air Force of the first half of the war (with the exception of the other dive bombers which were mostly use in Naval combat and mostly in the Pacific). So they did not need to be sent on dozens of sorties to have an effect on the battlefield, they were quite good at hitting enemy tanks, artillery, bridges, ships and so on. All of this contributes to a battlefield effectiveness which was unusually high. Relatively low casualty to sortie ratio and a relatively high damaged enemy target to sortie ratio.

The Stuka was slow and ultimately did need to be replaced for many missions by Jabos and faster bombers like the Ju 88, though it remained in use to the end of the war. My point was that it played an important role right up to the tipping point of the war and I believe the impact that this dive bomber had - particularly between the Battle of Britain and say Stalingrad or Torch, does tend to be _under_estimated.

I would say in it's own way the Stuka was the equivalent of the 88mm AA gun in terms of it's overall value, at least for the first 2 or 3 years.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 30, 2018)

..turbocharger, supercharger, turbo-supercharger...they're all forced air induction systems. Puh-Tay-Toe, Puh-Tah-Toe...


----------



## wuzak (Sep 30, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The thing is, I actually said almost the opposite of that.



I didn't say that you did.

It is what many people say about the Ju 87 - great plane when there is little or no threat from fighter opposition.

It is why some people may consider the Ju 87 underrated even though, IMO, it is not.

You say:



Schweik said:


> Stukas were flying unescorted raids in Russia right up to Kursk. Intermittently they flew unescorted raids in the Med up to about mid -1942. *That is actually pretty good*.



Then you say:


Schweik said:


> Now it's true these were areas and during times with what I would call "Light or intermittent fighter opposition"



Which isn't quite so good.




Schweik said:


> but other types of bombers, for example the Russian SB or SU-2 bombers, the German Do 17, Ju 52 or He 111, or the British Blenheim, Hampden or Wellington were really not safe to operate in the same areas without fighter protection if there was_ any_ potential enemy fighter opposition. Even when escorts were provided, many early bomber types (particularly those listed above) still could not operate without prohibitive casualties.



I'm not convinced that the other bombers listed could not operate in areas of "light or intermittent opposition".

Take the British bombers. They certainly suffered heavy losses due to strong fighter defences (not as strong as late 1943/1944, but strong for the period of the war). And, as a result, they were withdrawn from daylight operations.

Funnily enough, when the Ju 87 met with strong fighter opposition in the BoB it, too, suffered heavy losses and was withdrawn from the battle.

And the Russian bombers? Aren't the reason why so many _experten_ racked up mammoth victory totals?




Schweik said:


> Stukas had fairly good surviveability by comparison - both against flak and enemy fighters, they weren't the only bombers that did, but they did pretty well.



Is there a way to quantify this?

Do you think that Ju 87s would have been able to persist in attacks against German held areas of France during 1941? I somehow doubt it could.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2018)

The already stipulated facts of the discussion give you everything you need to know. Bristol Benheim basically couldn't do daylight bombing operations on their own in North Africa without suffering heavy losses, and I believe some time in 1941 they even stopped flying escorted missions (or severely curtailed them anyway). The DAF shifted over toward fighter-bombers and their faster available bombers such as the A-20 Boston, the Martin 167 Maryland and the Martin 187 Baltimore (all American made bombers by the way). The Wellington and Beaufort were still in use but basically relegated to maritime operations.

Same for the SB and the Su-2 on the Russian Front. Despite the huge numbers of SB bombers available, the Soviets had to accept the fact that they couldn't survive the Tactical environment. The Russians shifted over to their fast dive bomber the Pe-2, (though it suffered heavy causualties too), the Lend Lease A-20 Boston, and their heavily armored ground attack aircraft the Il-2 though it suffered even worse, as well as also using fighter bombers (LaGG-3s, I-153s and I-16s).

The Stuka by contrast, as I pointed out,was still in use in the Med well into 1943 and a bit beyond. Increasingly by mid 1942 they were being escorted but at least they were still able to use them. For that matter, bomb laden Hurricanes had to be escorted too. In Russia, as I pointed out already, they were still flying unescorted missions right up to Kursk. After that they started taking casualties and definitely required escort as the Yak-9 and La 5 came into wider use (as well as Spitfire V's, P-39s and P-40s) but they were still wrecking tanks well into 1944.

So while yes I agree flying unescorted when only facing "limited or intermittent" fighter opposition doesn't seem like much of a challenge, in the actual war it did work out to be. Few if any bombers _could fly unescorted missions_ against even that fairly weak level of air defense by say, 1941, though it depended on the capabilities of the fighters in the district. Ju-88's for example were able to bomb Malta for a while with relative impunity because the small number of Gladiators and clapped out Hurricanes available for defense couldn't catch them.

But really in the long run in that period from the BoB through Torch / Kursk, only Mosquitoes, early Mustang Fighter bombers, and the occasional Beaufighter had the chops to pull off daylight missions like that _without _escort, unless they were willing to accept very severe casualty rates.

And lets be clear about another thing, in terms of how dangerous of a tactical environment it was, there is a difference in flying missions during the Battle of Britain, flying strikes against Strategic and Operational targets facing very dense, very heavy fighter defenses coordinated by Radar and highly organized defense networks, vs. flying sorties against tactical targets over an area with sporadic air defense. As far as I know, not only could _no_ bombers bomb Britain during the daylight _un_-escorted without suffering prohibitive casualties, no aircraft of any kind could do so escorted either without taking too many losses, except maybe high flying Ju-86p recon planes.


In my opinion, the vulnerability of the Ju 87 was a bit exaggerated because of the BoB. Air defense over England was so good during the BoB that it cannot be really compared to the tactical environment over a battlefield, which is one of the two main contexts the Ju 87 was intended for. Even their much faster and higher flying stablemate, the Ju 88, had a very tough time surviving over England. But both aircraft excelled in the Med and over the Russian Front, at least until the Spitfires, P-40s and the Yak 9s showed up.

I would call the Ju 87 "good" in terms of survivability, (mainly due to their good maneuverability and handling), and "very good" at hitting targets.

Is there really a doubt that the Ju-87 had a _much_ higher rate of accuracy than level bombers? I am definitely interested to see solid numbers myself if there were any statistics available but I think the evidence of individual sortie after sortie and battle after battle does add up to a rather obvious bigger picture. Part of this of course is attributable to the aircraft itself and part to the Luftwaffe's pioneering of Forward Air Controllers and radio controlled spotting.

The other type of target of course was the second main context the Stuka was designed for - Maritime, i.e. destroying ships, which they continued to do in large numbers right to the end of the War. Half of the British Navy and Allied merchant fleet in the Med and off the Coast of Norway was sunk by Stukas, not to mention the Soviet ships in the Baltic.

There is no doubt that the sun did set on the Junkers design, by 1943 German pilots were much, much better off using slightly less accurate but much more survivable Fw 190F's for their ground attack sorties than Stukas, but as I've said before, just because a design didn't work forever does'nt make it a bad design. And after all, pretty much all the Focke Wulfes got shot down too just like the Stukas did.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 1, 2018)

Just for the hell of it, I tossed out some comparable bombers who had to operate in contested airspace - the Stuka is highlighted, of course.

None of these bombers could had a high survival rate without top-cover. None.
Even the fastest of the group, the Pe-8, could not have escaped an Axis fighter.

The survival rate of the Ju87 diminished directly in proportion to the Luftwaffe's ability to command the airspace it operated in.

Dornier Do17Z - 220mph (+/-)
Armstrong AW.38 - 225mph (+/-)
Vickers Wellington - 228mph (+/-)
Handley Page Hampden - 240mph (+/-)
Ilyusin Il-4 - 245mph (+/-)
*Junkers Ju87D - 250mph (+/-)*
Bristol Blenheim - 255mph (+/-)
PZL.37 - 255mph (+/-)
Mitsubishi G4M - 260mph (+/-)
Bristol Beaufort - 265mph (+/-)
Fiat BR.20 - 265mph (+/-)
Ilyushin DB-3 - 265mph (+/-)
North American B-25 - 265mph (+/-)
Tupolev SB - 275mph (+/-)
Martin B-26 - 275mph (+/-)
Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 - 275mph (+/-)
Martin 167 - 285mph (+/-)
LeO451 - 295mph (+/-)
Mitsubishi KI-21 - 295mph (+/-)
Dornier Do217K - 300mph (+/-)
Kawasaki KI-48 - 305mph (+/-)
Arkangelsky Ar-2 - 310mph (+/-)
Douglas A-20 - 310mph (+/-)
Junkers Ju88A - 320mph (+/-)
Tupolev Tu-2 - 320mph (+/-)
Douglas A-26 - 350mph (+/-)
Petlyakov Pe-2 - 352mph (+/-)

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


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2018)

Nice list, some exotic examples in there. Arkhangelsky Ar-2 ... awesome. you left off the Mosquito (top speed, depending on the variant ~375 - 400 mph) the Douglas SBD / A-24 (250 mph), the Aichi D3A (267 mph), the Beaufighter (top speed, again depending on variant, 300- 330 mph) the Martin 187 (Baltimore) which was in wide use by the DAF. (Top speed 305 mph), and the North American A-36 Apache which was in fairly wide use in Italy (top speed 365 mph).

But speed is only one of the four factors that impacted survivability for a bomber, the other three were altitude, maneuverability and defensive guns. For the Stuka, the key factor was maneuverability - if they saw an enemy fighter coming, they could turn to avoid it. Read that nut Rudel.

And aside from the bombers the Theater was a major factor. It was one thing to do a daylight raid over England, or over Germany or Occupied Europe. Quite another to fly a Tactical sortie over a shifting battlefield - especially one of the staggering scope of the Russian Front, and yet another entirely to fly a Maritime sortie over the Med, North Atlantic or Black Sea.

The real point is that regardless of what a given bomber _should _have been able to do safely based on any given factor, there is the issue of what they _did_. You really have to start with the latter and work your way back to your theory rather than the other way around.

So for example as I already pointed out, for a period of several weeks Ju 88's were able to fly raids over Malta without cover because the available fighters defending the Island, Gladiators and worn out Hurricanes, simply could not catch them. Fact. They even flew some unescorted raids against Spitfires later in 1942 (without getting slaughtered, though they did take casualties).

On the Russian Front, Ju 88s and Ju 87s both flew thousands of unescorted sorties. Do I need to start citing some specific examples?

Pe 2 and Tu 2 fast bombers also flew unescorted raids in Russia, as did A-20 Bostons notably in the Baltic, mainly becuase they were faster than the available fighter escorts. They did take pretty high casualties but that was the case across the board for the Soviets.

Same in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia - in 1941 and 1942 Ju-87s flew certainly hundreds of unescorted sorties, as did Ju-88s.. Without suffering catastrophic casualties. If you need me to I can start citing some examples.

For the rest of your list the results are uneven. B-25s and A-20s operated in the Med (usually with escorts) without suffering heavy losses, but in Russia they got shot down in large numbers and the B-25 was quickly relegated to night bombing. In part I think this is because they were being used against different types of targets. SM 79s were used successfully in the Med in Maritime raids (sinking a lot of ships) but also took high casualties including from flak. Blenheims, though not much slower than a B-25, were all but grounded by 1942. Martin 167 and 187 on the other hand were flying alone over the Med and with escorts over the Desert quite successfully (though their bombs didn't hit that often). Ki-21 and G4M in the Pacific, while fast and reasonably well armed, was extremely vulnerable without armor or self sealing tanks and not safe without fighter escort, usually taking heavy losses even with escorts.

Point being, again, there is more to it than just the speed.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2018)

There is a lot more to it than speed, and very few of those bombers were operating at max speed in any case.

However the target area/battle field makes a big difference. Malta being abou 17 miles long and 9 miles wide gave a rather restricted area for the Attackers to operate in. 

It is about 1100 miles From St Petersburg/Leningrad to Odesa. Adjust front line length as you see fit but there was a lot of opportunity for a a short range unescorted raid to reach it's target without being intercepted on the Russian front at certain periods of the war. 

What a great pilot could do with a plane is different than what an average pilot could do let alone pilots with 10-20 hours after flight school. 
If you are doing extreme maneuvers you are no longer flying in formation and it is every pilot/plane for himself, which might work or more often, doesn't. 
The good pilots may get away but the lesser pilots are going to be the ones attacking most of the attention.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a lot more to it than speed, and very few of those bombers were operating at max speed in any case.



I agree, and cruise speed also comes into play. For example when two bombers that have roughly the same top speed of ~260 mph, but one bomber has a normal cruise speed of ~ 100 mph and another is ~220 mph, the latter aircraft is better off. The cruising altitude also makes a difference. Cruise speed affects the speed when attacked, and how long it takes to get to combat speed in an emergency. Then there is another factor - speed with and without bombs. Aircraft carrying bombs internally suffer a lot less drag and therefore can manage a better cruise speed while loaded than planes carrying bombs externally.

Of course, needs and plans change, what they thought was a good (internal) bomb load in the design phase often had to be supplemented by carrying more external bombs on hard points (which kind of defeats the purpose of the internal bomb bay). But if they were in serious trouble, bomber pilots would often jettison the bombs anyway.

Faster speed in general means less time for the defending fighters (or flak) to intercept you. Higher altitude also. It limits the duration of the combat.



> However the target area/battle field makes a big difference. Malta being abou 17 miles long and 9 miles wide gave a rather restricted area for the Attackers to operate in.
> 
> It is about 1100 miles From St Petersburg/Leningrad to Odesa. Adjust front line length as you see fit but there was a lot of opportunity for a a short range unescorted raid to reach it's target without being intercepted on the Russian front at certain periods of the war.



Agreed again, with the Western Desert falling somewhere in between in terms of scale and saturation of aircraft. In both cases, in general, there was a lot more opportunity for bombers to slip through initially, but gradually the defenders tightened up their systems (including for detection, coordination and communication as well as attack) life became much more perilous for bomber crews. On the Russian front, in the first year the Germans had intense momentum and the Soviets flew relatively few sorties and even fewer thawere effective. Later in 1941 the VVS gained some momentum and starting making much more effective use of their bombers like the Pe 2 (which was flying unescorted missions for a while) Tu -2 and the Il-2. The Germans adjusted pretty quickly though and got much better at catching them. By mid 1942 life was short for bomber crews though that did not stop the Soviets from sending them out (and they were still blowing up tanks).



> What a great pilot could do with a plane is different than what an average pilot could do let alone pilots with 10-20 hours after flight school.
> If you are doing extreme maneuvers you are no longer flying in formation and it is every pilot/plane for himself, which might work or more often, doesn't.
> The good pilots may get away but the lesser pilots are going to be the ones attacking most of the attention.



Also true. For a case in point, the Stuka and the B-25.

in the BoB, Stukas were used flying rigid formations and got slaughtered by Hurricanes. Hurricanes by the way, really did seem to be particularly good at shooting down bombers in general and Ju 87s in particular. The Stuka only had one defensive gun position on the dorsal position, which was fairly easy to avoid especially if they were flying in a static formation, for example by attacking from below. Their strength was definitely _not_ defensive guns.

In Russia, and in the Med and North Africa, when Stukas were attacked by fighters, they often jettisoned their bombs and started twisting and turning, avoiding being shot down as best they could, while making their way back to their own lines. Though the less consistent air defense no doubt played a role (allowing them to find routes sometimes for example free of enemy fighters) this defensive Tactic undoubtedly saved a lot of Stuka crews. However, per your comment, I agree it did definitely take a better pilot to successfully take advantage of maneuverability whereas for novices flying in formation was probably the best strategy. It's just one that was better suited for some bombers than others.

But the net result was that if you look at the actual mission loss rates, fewer Ju 87s were lost in air combat than Bf 109s in the Med in some periods.

The B-25 had three different experiences in the Pacific, Russian Front and the Med. In the Pacific they were mainly used in Maritime strikes, usually in the newly developed tactic of low-level "mast-top" bombing and specifically skip-bombing. They were also used in low-level attacks against enemy airfields, harbors and other installations, and sometimes against enemy troops - often using daisy cutter or parafrag bombs, or later napalm. Consensus seems to be that the low-level attacks were possible largely due to the comparatively weak Japanese AAA*, they also relied on increased offensive firepower (some added in the field) to suppress flak on their way in. Defense against fighters was largely by flying in formations and relying on fairly heavy defensive firepower. Escorts were intermittent, but casualties remained pretty low. Japanese fighters had to be careful engaging them due to their limited armor etc. Ten B-25s shooting at an approaching Ki 43 was pretty daunting for the IJA pilot.

In Russia, they tried to use B-25s for Tactical air support, basically to kill tanks. The aircraft were armored & had self sealing tanks, and a lot of guns which were good for strafing and defense, but in practice the Germans were killing them both from the air and from AAA. The Russians quickly relegated them to longer range Operational bombing missions and night bombing.

In the Med they were mostly used as Medium bombers and sometimes to attack shipping. In the former role they typically flew at medium altitude in largeish formations (10-30 bombers) and usually escorted, as well as sometimes at mast-top in Maritime strikes via skip bombing etc. These were somewhat more formidable in terms of armament than the ones used early-on in the Pacific, some had proper tail guns. Usually escorted by P-40s. They suffered low casualties and did seem to destroy some planes on the Axis airfields almost with every raid. The purpose was basically to force the Luftwaffe to fight over their own bases and from a disadvantaged position, and it worked.

So three different Theaters with three different casualty rates and overall level of effectiveness, for the same plane.

S


* similar tactics didn't work against German military units because they had so many more high quality AAA systems like automatic double or quad 20mm guns and so on.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 1, 2018)

I made the quick list of TWINs to contrast against the Ju87 in order to bring up a point. Otherwise, we can start a broad discussion about anything that carried bombs and what was more efficient or had a better camo scheme and so on.

All were supposed to be able to operate without escort as they were (at the time of concept) to be "fast" bombers. I added the Ar-2, because it was supposed to be an improvement on the Tupolev SB - note: improvement.

The Ju87 and Ju88 may have flow "thousands" of unescorted missions, but they paid the price (I can also cite examples).

The much exalted Mosquito was not impervious to interception and I can also "cite examples".

I can appreciate the emotion and enthusiasm for the Ju87 as it was a solid design for a 1930's dive-bombing platform for it's day. But with the rapid advance in technology and shift in doctrine, it was more of a useful anachronism by the later stages of the war.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I made the quick list of TWINs to contrast against the Ju87 in order to bring up a point. Otherwise, we can start a broad discussion about anything that carried bombs and what was more efficient or had a better camo scheme and so on.
> 
> All were supposed to be able to operate without escort as they were (at the time of concept) to be "fast" bombers. I added the Ar-2, because it was supposed to be an improvement on the Tupolev SB - note: improvement.



I see your point but I don't think anyone really thought of the Ju 87 as a "fast bomber" already by 1940, let alone say 1942.

To be clear, I was not being snarky about the Ar-2 - I think it's an interesting plane and I like the exotic ones up to the point that they still had some kind of military role (lose interest of most of the experimental designs that didn't except a few truly exceptional ones)

I think there were different strategies for bomber survival, which is one of my main points. Like I said, defensive guns, altitude, speed, and maneuverability all turned out to matter. For dive bombers - all dive bombers not just the Ju 87, maneuverability tended to be one of their greatest defensive strengths. The other key trait has to do with how the bombing was done of which more in a minute.



> The Ju87 and Ju88 may have flow "thousands" of unescorted missions, but they paid the price (I can also cite examples).
> 
> The much exalted Mosquito was not impervious to interception and I can also "cite examples".



Thousands of unescorted _sorties_, which would mean several hundreds of missions roughly. Maybe it is time to get down into the weeds. I'm not trying to make a bogus argument by bringing up outlier incidents. Yes they did suffer casualties but there was always a threshold of where the casualties got too high to continue using the plane in a particular Theater or for a particular mission - this is why certain planes abruptly got switched to night bombing or to some other mission or removed from the Theater for example. I'm saying that on the Russian Front and in the Med the Ju 87 was still quite effective well into 1943. In Russia they started making changes to the Ju 87 deployments after Kursk (even though they destroyed a lot of Russian armor in that battle, they took too many losses from the new Russian fighters).

Same for the Mosquito of course, to the end of the war. It was able to survive _enough _of it's missions at a high enough rate of success that it was kept in use. That is why it was so famous, few bombers indeed could fly unescorted missions into such a dangerous Tactical environment.



> I can appreciate the emotion and enthusiasm for the Ju87 as it was a solid design for a 1930's dive-bombing platform for it's day. But with the rapid advance in technology and shift in doctrine, it was more of a useful anachronism by the later stages of the war.



The issue with the Ju 87 was that it was a dive bomber. Dive bombing as a concept and dive bombers as a technology were a controversial new technology in the 1930's and in the early years of WW2. The utility of the Stuka was certainly recognized by the Germans themselves and by their enemies, resulting in numerous attempts to design or modify aircraft to perform this difficult mission. The last minute redesign of the Pe 2 for dive bombing was one good example, the requirements for dive bombing abilities for the Ju-88 and infamously, for the He 177 were also good examples.

Dive bombers of course basically saved the American Navy in the early battles in the Pacific when American torpedoes turned out to be all but useless and American torpedo bombers less than stellar. Japanese got much better use out of their torpedoes and torpedo bombers but their D3A "Val" dive bombers certainly sunk a lot of Allied shipping. Compare to say, the Swordfish or the Albacore.

The value of dive bombing was obvious - the accuracy was vastly improved. But implementation turned out to be tricky.

Building an airframe that could dive at near 90 degrees, drop a bomb and then pull out at the maximum G load that the pilot could endure wasn't easy. The Ju 88 and Pe 2 were really only "sort of" dive bombers usually performing their dives at 45 degrees. More than that meant too much strain on engines and airframe. Same for the American A-36. Nevertheless, all three of these aircraft were considered unusually capable as bombers. That is to say unusually capable at _destroying targets _compared to level bombers.

The other challenge is how do you make an aircraft strong enough for the actual dive bombing role, and carrying dive brakes plus at least a 1000- 2000 lb payload, good range, and still be fast enough for the realities of WW2 air combat? Not an easy combination of traits.

What ultimately settled the argument was that _fighters_ turned out to be pretty good at shallow angle dive-bombing. Kittyhawks, Hurricanes, P-47s, Corsairs, Typhoons, Tempests, Fw 190s and Bf 110s were all fairly good at delivering bombs on target and were better at surviving interception than most bombers. They also usually got to the target and back more quickly and easier for the escorts to support due to higher cruise speeds.

Rockets also played a role there but that is another big can of worms.

I should add though, there is another factor which I think contributed to the (true) Dive bombers successes in WW2, and that is the nature of dive bombing itself, flying almost straight down at the target and then pulling up abruptly and flying away seems to be harder to track and intercept than either droning by at medium or high altitude or screaming through at treetop level (the latter Tactic being better against some types of AAA especially with the suppressive fire added but it always left the bombers vulnerable to diving enemy fighters)

One of the worst missions of all of course from a survivability point of view was torpedo bombing, requiring to fly along low and relatively slow (how low and how slow depending on the quality of the torpedo, the American one being again particularly bad here) right at the target until within torpedo range which was usually also well within lethal AAA range and probably too late to turn away... often they would just fly over their target after releasing their 'fish'. So torpedo bombers got shot down at catastrophic rates almost regardless. They were still used because torpedos were so good at sinking ships*

This is what gave new life to the old SM 79 bomber, it proved capable of sinking a lot of Allied shipping in the Med in spite of being an old design and pretty slow. It took high losses but the impact of sinking a ship (and relatively high rate of success in hitting them) made it worth it to keep using them right up to 1943, _long _after it's career as a level bomber was over**.

That kind of re-emphasizes the issue of effectiveness vs. survivability - it's the combination of both that makes a good bomber, IMO.

I am not so much "enthusiastic" about the Ju 87 as I am respectfully acknowledging it's merits. Somewhat reluctantly I might add. I originally believed the Trope. I just noticed from reading all the accounts that the Ju 87s seemed to survive pretty well and continued to do a lot of damage for a long time past the BoB, whereas I was expecting to see huge casualties and little effect, the data seems to show the reverse.

So yes the sun did set on the Ju 87 design, I'm just saying it set a bit later than the Legend tells us. More like spring of 1943 than fall of 1940. Until then it was causing a lot of problems for the Allies, and that makes it an unusually good design in my opinion.

S

* Except American torpedoes...
** This was in part because Italian torpedoes were so good...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 1, 2018)

Schweik said:


> in the BoB, Stukas were used flying rigid formations and got slaughtered by Hurricanes. Hurricanes by the way, really did seem to be particularly good at shooting down bombers in general and Ju 87s in particular. The Stuka only had one defensive gun position on the dorsal position, which was fairly easy to avoid especially if they were flying in a static formation, for example by attacking from below. Their strength was definitely _not_ defensive guns.



They used different formations in the BoB than in France or Poland?

And only Hurricanes slaughtered the Ju 87s?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2018)

wuzak said:


> They used different formations in the BoB than in France or Poland?
> 
> And only Hurricanes slaughtered the Ju 87s?




In France and Poland they were going after Tactical targets, i.e. tanks, infantry, artillery. Targets at locations that changed every day as the battle changed. Both France and Poland also had inadequate air defense and were heavily outnumbered.

In England they were going after Strategic and Operational targets against an integrated air defense. Factories, airfields, radar stations and so on. Trying to destroy a country from the air is very different from fighting an army on a battlefield. I would have thought that was obvious. Battlefield air support - which is really what the Stuka was designed for, involves contending with a different level of air defense than bombing London or the Supermarine factory.

When attacking say, Coventry during the BoB, they were sending in much larger formations and these were remaining in formation while under attack for longer, as a defensive strategy. Conversely when attacking Tactical targets the number of aircraft would be fewer and the formations smaller. & they would typically face less opposition. I don't know for sure how it went in France or Poland but I do know that in the Med and Russia when these formations were attacked they would often scatter and begin to evade, as I already mentioned.

I never said "only" Hurricanes slaughtered the Ju 87. I said they seemed to be particularly effective at it.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2018)

I should also add that, from what I understand about the Bob, as a general strategy, and when it was possible, Spitfires were directed against enemy fighters while Hurricanes were sent to target enemy bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I should also add that, from what I understand about the Bob, as a general strategy, and when it was possible, Spitfires were directed against enemy fighters while Hurricanes were sent to target enemy bombers.



That is an old tale and while it may have been attempted at times it was rare that it worked out in practice. The radar couldn't tell the difference in incoming aircraft for one thing and for another, squadrons were assigned to attack raids almost on a rotation basis. That was the difference between how most of the battle was fought by No 11 group and N0 12 group which tried to use "big wing" tactics, By the time they formed up 3 or more squadrons, especially of different aircraft (Hurricanes and Spitfires climb at different rates and cover different amounts of ground while doing so) the Germans had pretty much come and gone. 
Park's strategy/tactic was to try to break up the German attacks to make them less effective, not to necessarily shoot down German aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Oct 2, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> General Electric was at the forefront of _supercharger_ design in the US for at least 20 years due to the work of Sanford Moss who started working on turbo driven superchargers in WW I. Nobody else was doing much of anything with superchargers then. The NACA did some experiments with roots superchargers in the 1920s and that merely proved that roots superchargers weren't a good idea for aircraft. Since GE was building centrifugal compressors to go with the exhaust turbines they branched out and designed (and built) gear driven superchargers for Wright, P & W and Packard. By the late 30s people began to realize the GE compressor/superchargers weren't really that good. This had been masked by, on GE's end, the turbine providing an excess of power to the compressor, and on the users end (engine makers) the low boost allowed by available fuels. It didn't take a very good supercharger to provide all the boost 70-80 octane fuel would allow.
> 
> To show how interwoven everything was and how little actual knowledge in supercharger/compressor design (or number of designers) there were in the 30s Allison made supercharger/compressor parts under sub-contract to GE for use by Wright and P & W. It wasn't until the late 30s that Wright and P & W became dissatisfied with the GE superchargers/compressors and started to design their own.
> 
> ...


I always get an education when I read your post!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> ..
> I would say in it's own way the Stuka was the equivalent of the 88mm AA gun in terms of it's overall value, at least for the first 2 or 3 years.



Ju-87 was vastly more important to the German war effort in 1939-42 than the 88mm AA gun. That was probably THE most over-rated weapon of ww2, if not on whole 20th century.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2018)

Well, I agree (I was trying to be "diplomatic") but the 88 definitely saved the day during some potential breakthroughs in a few important battles, wouldn't you say?

Of course armored breakthroughs were stopped that way (with artillery in direct fire mode, and AA guns) by many armies in many battles...

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well, I agree (I was trying to be "diplomatic") but the 88 definitely saved the day during some potential breakthroughs in a few important battles, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Of course armored breakthroughs were stopped that way (with artillery in direct fire mode, and AA guns) by many armies in many battles...
> 
> S



No such luck (88 mm stopping armoured breakthroughs) in Poland, in Scandinavia, in Low Countries, in Balkans, even in Russia. In Arras, the 105 mm was also used against British tanks.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2018)

Well, I believe they were used in France and, they certainly did in North Africa and in Normandy a couple of times. Halfaya Pass? Faid? 1st El Alamein? Goodwood?

I think a few times in Russia too right? The famous KV-1 that broke through at Raseiniai in 1941 was disabled by an 88, though finished off with grenades.

I do think the Ju-87 was more valuable overall though.


----------



## GregP (Oct 2, 2018)

Now HERE is a SHORT takeoff and a SHORT landing:



Valdez STOl Competition. Not bad for a 180 HP Cub that has been modified for competition.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 2, 2018)

Pretty cool Greg


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2018)

Holly mackerel !! Dont think id have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself.


----------

