# Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation



## Robert Porter (Nov 4, 2016)

I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes. 

And it does not matter the year they were first delivered from 1938 all the way up to and including 1945. Now I expect bugs, design tweaks based on usage and testing. But underpowered? No. So why? In every case better engines were already available, costs were in many cases comparable, and by 1940 we already knew we needed 2 stage Supercharges to preserve performance at altitude.

Yet over and over again aircraft were delivered with underperforming engines, including all the favorites, the Mustang, Hellcat, Spitfire, you name it. Reading first hand accounts from the pilots that tested these aircraft read like boiler plate. Great maneuverability, great handling, no power, no legs at altitude. Ad nausea. 

I like to think designers are competent people but what was wrong with these idiots all through the war and constantly delivering underpowered aircraft?

Heck a step grandfather I had was a carrier pilot in the pacific and mentioned case after case of aircraft being "beached" until better more powerful engines arrived. The F4U was a classic example, it took the British to figure out how to land the thing on a carrier. And it took a year for better engines to catch up with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2016)

Pilots (and not only them) alyways wanted more power/thrust, that's the trend that continues in 21st century. As for supercharging - every, that is every military aircraft was outfitted with a supercharged engine in ww2, bar some entry-level trainers. Yes, even the vast majority of transport aircraft have has superchargers on their engines. 
The Hurricane, as delivered in 1938, was certainly not underpowered, nor it was the case with Spitfire or Bf 109 or Fw 190. Those flew and fought above 20000 ft if needed. That cannot conceal the fact that some of them were better than some others at hgh altitudes, no aircraft and their engines were created equal.
Problem with 2-stage supercharged engines, and that includes turbocharged ones where turbocharger is the 1st of 2 compressor stages, took some time to refine and make suitable for military aircraft installation and usage. Eg. Soviets were just behind the Americans when it is about turbochaged engines in late 1930s, yet they never fielded a miltary aircraft with such an engine. Junkers experimented with 2- and even 3-stage S/C in 1930s, yet it took them until late 1944/early 1945 to have the 2-stage supercharged engine in production. The turbocharged BMW 801J was produced a bit earlier, it employed the air cooled turbine blades allowing for a compact installation. 
American fighter aircraft have had another problem or two. USAAC/USAAF aircraft were with bigger fuel load and guns/ammo load than most of European or Japanese counterparts, they were with big enough wings so they are safe to fly and easier to land and take off, so both drag and weight will easily go up. US standards on G limit were highest on the world = more weight. More protection than on Japanese aircraft = more wegith. Installing the Russian or Japanese engine on American naval fighter will barely lift it from the runaway, to make a hyperbole.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## aurora-7 (Nov 4, 2016)

While 'underpowered' was a common issue with new aircraft I never came away with the breadth of history I've read that it was consistent on all aircraft. For example, I've never heard of the Spitfire as being referred to as underpowered on delivery.

And for the Corsair and being carrier qualified, I heard it wasn't engine power but the problem with the Oleo struts causing too much bounce on landings. The Royal Navy just took it as it was because they didn't consider it as much as an issue.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 4, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> While 'underpowered' was a common issue with new aircraft I never came away with the breadth of history I've read that it was consistent on all aircraft. For example, I've never heard of the Spitfire as being referred to as underpowered on delivery.
> 
> And for the Corsair and being carrier qualified, I heard it wasn't engine power but the problem with the Oleo struts causing too much bounce on landings. The Royal Navy just took it as it was because they didn't consider it as much as an issue.


Yes the primary issue with Corsair was the struts and lack of forward visibility. However the Navy also complained about lack of power for fully loaded carrier takeoffs. This was addressed later. The landing by approaching in a wide sweeping turn lining up at the last second. The takeoff at full weight by an improved engine and turbo design.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 4, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> While 'underpowered' was a common issue with new aircraft I never came away with the breadth of history I've read that it was consistent on all aircraft. For example, I've never heard of the Spitfire as being referred to as underpowered on delivery.
> 
> And for the Corsair and being carrier qualified, I heard it wasn't engine power but the problem with the Oleo struts causing too much bounce on landings. The Royal Navy just took it as it was because they didn't consider it as much as an issue.


As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change. 

As I say an recurring theme...


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2016)

When the Spitfire and Hurricane Is came into service they had the most powerful engine available the 1030hp Merlin III. It wasnt till late 1938 that the Bf109E caught up with the 1060hp DB601A.

The FAA clipped the Corsairs wingtips to fit in the lower RN hangers and this partly helped with the sinkrate on landing. The FAA also altered the valves in the Oleos to make the compression softer and the rebound slower. These changes with the FAA use of a curved approach to the carrier helped make things safer but never exactly safe.


----------



## rednev (Nov 4, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
> 
> As I say an recurring theme...


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 4, 2016)

And please don't read anything into my post, it was mostly in the form of typical government contractor behavior. Perhaps even rhetorical. I certainly don't think it was anything nefarious. Just struck me again as I was reading a book about the Hellcat development how often developers settled for a poorly performing engine when better were readily available. I know that sometimes there were production issues that constrained an engine choice simply due to not enough of a type being available.


----------



## rednev (Nov 4, 2016)

There is quite a long time between drawing board and entry into service .
do you design around current engine designs or around expected egines ......lets not say sabre


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 4, 2016)

Rob Porter,

Recurring theme, well maybe there is another way to look at it. 

I think it was true then as is now, and that would be the quest for more power. Look at the Spit, Mustang, Fw-190, Bf-109, F-15, F-16, F-18. All were launched with a "given" engine and later upgraded. Also remember that the upgraded engines are for improved excess power (advantage over earlier version as well as over what the enemy has currently fielded) & improved performance (to include a heavier aircraft via production changes or combat load out) as well as improved reliability. You can say the early models were underpowered, but would think that the airframes were aerodynamic stretches to current technology as were the engines. Everybody was working their collective buttocal areas off (airframe & engines), and incremental changes were to follow.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Yes the primary issue with Corsair was the struts and lack of forward visibility. However the Navy also complained about lack of power for fully loaded carrier takeoffs. This was addressed later. The landing by approaching in a wide sweeping turn lining up at the last second. The takeoff at full weight by an improved engine and turbo design.



There was no such thing as 'turbo design'.
Corsair have had the most powerful engine available in the USA (and then some), the 2-stage supercharged R-2800. I don't believe that Navy ever complained about the lack of engine power, even is it is a bomb-laden Corsair from the CV.



Robert Porter said:


> As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
> 
> As I say an recurring theme...



Spitfire's climb rate was on par with anything and much better than majority of fighters from any choosen year. Period. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to install the Merlin XII from 1940 into the Spitfire of 1938 either. Mitchell anticipated the wooden, 2-bladed prop on Spitfire.

Robert - stick around. Take time to read some posts that deal with techincal matter, don't feel that someone will patronize you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
> 
> As I say an recurring theme...



Performance improved from the 2 or 3 blade 2 position props to the 3 blade constant speed props because of the props, not because of additional power.

They weren't incorporated earlier because they weren't available earlier.

Also, I don't think pilots thought the Spitfire XIV, or even the XII, were underpowered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2016)

And it was very possible to over-power an airframe.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 4, 2016)

As a former motorcycle racer my bike had great power until I came across someone with a bike that had a better tune, in the spring of 1982 with my newly tuned RD 250LC I swept all before me winning three races with monotonous ease at Snetterton.....being underpowered was just a comparison to the opposition. The Spitfire had a lower swep volume than the Me109 but had access to better fuel, throughought the war the pair competed for top dog spot....i is still debated as to which one made it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> And please don't read anything into my post, it was mostly in the form of typical government contractor behavior. Perhaps even rhetorical. I certainly don't think it was anything nefarious. Just struck me again as I was reading a book about the Hellcat development how often developers settled for a poorly performing engine when better were readily available. I know that sometimes there were production issues that constrained an engine choice simply due to not enough of a type being available.


Most fighters were designed around the biggest, most powerful engine either in existence or _likely _to be available when the plane went into production, often 2-3 years from pencil being put to paper. 
In the case of the US the only engine bigger (and likely to be built) than the R-2800 in 1940-42 was the Wright R-3350 and that had more than few problems of it's own. It was also bigger in diameter and weighed as much as the R-2800 except it had a single stage supercharger compared to the R-2800s two stage. Performance at altitude without turbo was not good. 
Version/s used in B-29 were a complete re-design from the 1940-42 version and gained around 200lbs in weight. 
For the Hellcat the only poorly performing engine was the R-2600 installed in one prototype for a short period of time. Of course with a 12,000lb fighter (clean) even 2000hp is a bit low 
Adding bombs/drop tanks could push the weight up by another ton or more. The Bombs/drop tanks may not have been part of the original specification. Hellcats got water injected engines not long after they became available and planes in the field were often retro-fitted. 
As has been noted by others the US tended to go a bit overboard in specifying guns and ammo. Few other fighters in the world carried the weight of guns and ammo that US fighters did. A Hellcat carried over 1150lbs of guns and ammo, this does not include mounts, gun heaters, charging systems, ammo bins/chutes,etc. 

Early US fighters suffered from being designed _before _armor and self-sealing tanks became standard. This added 400lbs or more to such planes as the F4F, F2A, P-39 and P-40. Uprated engines didn't always show up in time to handle the weight increase which was not helped by the Army and Navy increasing the number of guns and/or ammo carried. Pre-war _planning_ for the Navy included yanking two of the .50 cal guns when the F2A and F4F carried even a pair of 100lb bombs. Something that never happened in service. 
Blaming the companies that built the aircraft or engines doesn't seem quite fair.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 4, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Most fighters were designed around the biggest, most powerful engine either in existence or _likely _to be available when the plane went into production, often 2-3 years from pencil being put to paper.
> In the case of the US the only engine bigger (and likely to be built) than the R-2800 in 1940-42 was the Wright R-3350 and that had more than few problems of it's own. It was also bigger in diameter and weighed as much as the R-2800 except it had a single stage supercharger compared to the R-2800s two stage. Performance at altitude without turbo was not good.
> Version/s used in B-29 were a complete re-design from the 1940-42 version and gained around 200lbs in weight.
> For the Hellcat the only poorly performing engine was the R-2600 installed in one prototype for a short period of time. Of course with a 12,000lb fighter (clean) even 2000hp is a bit low
> ...


I don't see it as blaming the companies, at least not all of them. I guess the point I was trying to make, and I believe is true to this day, is that typically speaking military equipment is always horrible when it comes to version 1. Often needlessly. Having served myself I can attest to time after time upon receiving new equipment we encountered difficulties that rendered it either useless or far less useful than intended. I cannot think of a single instance where this was necessary or could not have been avoided by simple reality checks of the requirements vs delivered specs. As far as blame, there was plenty of that to go around I am sure. It was unpatriotic to discuss war profiteering during and after the war but in the decades that followed it became readily apparent most manufacturers dined at that trough to some degree or another.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2016)

No fighter pilot complained about Too Much Power - ever.

The designers placed the most powerful powerplant available to them at the time. Mission creep often dictated more power. Performance expectations dictated more power.

The engine manufacturers balanced production requirements of the respective War Board authorities with R&D and Test to enable future increases in existing airframe envelopes.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I don't see it as blaming the companies, at least not all of them. I guess the point I was trying to make, and I believe is true to this day, is that typically speaking military equipment is always horrible when it comes to version 1.
> 
> *I disagree. There are many examples where the 'new' product was a significant improvement over the item it replaced. In the case of high technology many new hardware introductions experienced start up issues that took time and money to fix to acceptable levels. Just to name a few products introduced into the military I would include the Colt 1911 or the Browning M2 or the Garand M-1 or P-51 Mustang or F6F Hellcat or F-16 Lawn Dart or M-1 Abrams tank to name a few*
> 
> ...



Your opinion, you are welcome to it.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes.
> 
> *Pretty silly comment. The aircraft designed was designed selecting the best powerplant available at the time based on the approach (i.e Radial for max power/less fuel economy/high drag vs Inline for minimizing drag and better fuel economy) selected to meet the Specs the contractor believed most important. The AAF/USN accepted the bid based on the design attributes and cost proposed. *
> 
> ...



The F4U quickly found a home in the USMC while carrier trials were on-going. The F4U never had 'an engine problem', nor was it ever underpowered for any mission it was designed for. Ditto the F6F. The R2800 evolved to improve power and altitude performance but the basic airframes when they went into combat were superb.


----------



## Token (Nov 5, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Rob Porter,
> 
> Recurring theme, well maybe there is another way to look at it.
> 
> I think it was true then as is now, and that would be the quest for more power. Look at the Spit, Mustang, Fw-190, Bf-109, F-15, F-16, F-18. All were launched with a "given" engine and later upgraded. Also remember that the upgraded engines are for improved excess power (advantage over earlier version as well as over what the enemy has currently fielded) & improved performance (to include a heavier aircraft via production changes or combat load out) as well as improved reliability. You can say the early models were underpowered, but would think that the airframes were aerodynamic stretches to current technology as were the engines. Everybody was working their collective buttocal areas off (airframe & engines), and incremental changes were to follow.



^^^^this

Probably the only time this would NOT be true is when an aircraft was designed around an existing _*proven*_ engine.

Anytime you are developing a new high performance aircraft (most military aircraft are definitively high performance in some way) you are typically leveraging or counting on developing engines also, not existing engines. Even if the developing engine is based on an existing engine there are engineering risks and timeline issues.

And so a lot of aircraft prototypes or early marks fly with less than desired engines, because the "goal" engine is still coming. But at the same time the engines are being improved so are the airframes. And when the goal engine arrives the airframe has been improved and could benefit from an even further improved engine, so that even when the originally defined power level arrives the airframe could carry/use more power.

It can be a moving target.

Could K5054, as it flew, really have used the Griffon 101?

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 5, 2016)

Token said:


> Could K5054, as it flew, really have used the Griffon 101?
> 
> T!


As I remember when it first flew it didnt even make full use of the power it had and needed a different propeller. There were a lot of lessons needed to be learned very quickly. Between 1940 and 1945 front line planes went from 1000 to 2000+ BHP and in fact reached the limits of what is practically possible with reciprocating engines. The stories of problems on the Corsair are way overblown and seem to assume that making a 2000BHP monoplane that can be landed by an average service pilot on a carrier is an easy task.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2016)

Grumman, in most of their war time contracts, worked on a cost plus 3% profit margin. Costs were gone over by government accountants. Engines, propellers, radios, guns and some other equipment was supplied by the government to Grumman and the other aircraft makers.
P&W charged ONE dollar per engine licence fee for engines made by other contractors and even waived that late in the war. 
I am not saying profiteering didn't happen on WW II but it wasn't done by major contractors, too much scrutiny for one thing. Contracts were also renegotiated and prices adjusted due to production experience for later batches. 
In many of the shadow factories the machinery was owned by the government and sometimes the building while a private company handled the management. At the end of the war the doors were locked, the workers went home or found jobs in private industry, management went back to their old jobs (mostly car industry). Government sometimes sold the building and machinery surplus and sometimes kept them shuttered for years, a few were reopened during Korea. 
There was certainly no incentive or profit advantage to be had by using lower power engines since the government was supplying the engines.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 5, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes.



Robert, how could you have read that much about WWII aviation and not realized what huge changes in technology, combat tactics and strategy, military doctrine, political situation, and resource availability were all happening simultaneously and on various timeframes. Airframes were designed to rapidly changing specs to use projected engine/propeller combinations that didn't always perform as advertised or weren't available when expected. Underperforming engines were "saved" by advances in fuel or propellers. Changing combat requirements dictated production changes, adding weight always and drag usually. Planes came off the assembly line straight into a rework center where the mods were applied that had become effective just since that batch went into production.
It looks needlessly hectic, clumsy, and chaotic to modern eyes, but remember they didn't have the instant communications, especially the conferencing, or the fabulous computation capabilities we enjoy. Pencil, paper, slipstick, and telephone, that's all, folks!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2016)

I would also note that fuel changed dramatically in under 10 years. You went from about 68 PN (87 Oct) to 150 PN fuel which radically changed the power you could get out of certain engines. It changed the amount of allowable boost and the type of superchargers that were needed. 87 Oct didn't really need 2 stage superchargers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 5, 2016)

The Corsair was not dropped from US carrier use due to any problems with the aircraft -- two years of research at the US National Archives has found nothing but glowing reports of the aircraft's carrier capabilities up to the time it was replaced by Hellcats. The carrier restriction was based on the Navy's supply train -- the Fleet found it easier to maintain and supply one fighter type at sea, and there were several Hellcat squadrons in commission with only two Corsair units ready to put to sea.

The decision to move the F4U to land-based operations came in August 1943, after the right wing stall strip had been developed, after the raised cockpit/canopy was in service use, after the raised tail wheel strut had been introduced, and after VF-17 had been declared carrier qualified.

By early 1944, BuAer was pressing the Fleet to reconsider the F4U -- it was faster, and newer versions (initially the F4U-4, with plans for the FG-4 and F3A-4 to follow) could beat the F6F by 20 MPH. But by then the Corsair had received a number of changes to improve its rough field landing capabilities. In mid-1944 carrier qualifications were underway, and it was then that the bounce was discovered. By year's end a main strut inflation system was on the production line and available in kits -- new Corsair units put to sea beginning in late December.

The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.

The early Corsair engine did have a problem at high altitudes -- but this was a came from the ignition system, not the engine. In thinner air the harness, mags, and distributors would short as the spark jumped the gaps. A replacement pressurized ignition ended that problem in late 1943.

Much of the "history" we've read about the Corsair came from authors assembling the facts, then fitting the pieces together to make sense of what happened. The Navy's records give a very different story.

Cheers,


Dana

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2016)

One of the key issues of military (and aviation in general) during the late 1930's, was the rapid rate of aviation development - add the war into the mix (late 1930's theough 1945) and you'll see aircraft that were being developed in order to be an edge against the enemy were nearly outdated by the time they went into service.

A prime example of this would be that Biplanes were in service when the war started and by the end, there were Jet aircraft in the skies. Perhaps one of the few periods in human history where technology took such a hugh leap.

The other thing I wanted to mention, is that the P-47 was a beast when it was first delivered into service and just kept getting meaner as the years went by - I cannot think of any time someone complained that it was underpowered.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 5, 2016)

The Manchester Halifax Typhoon and He177 were all affected by problems developing engines.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 5, 2016)

[QUOTE="Dana Bell, post: 1295200, member: 70521"

The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.

[/QUOTE]
I never understood the source of all this, even in the bi plane era pilots made a curved approach, it is the only way to keep the airfield in view.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The other thing I wanted to mention, is that the P-47 was a beast when it was first delivered into service and just kept getting meaner as the years went by - I cannot think of any time someone complained that it was underpowered.



Robert S. Johnson in "Thunderbolt" complained the early Jugs with their toothpick propellers were badly outclimbed by BFs and FWs. Paddle props fixed that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2016)

That will depend on what altitude we're talkig about. Above 20000 ft the P-47 will outclimb the Fw 190 (and outpace it handily), and the Bf 109 will not be outclimbing the P-47, nor outpacing it, and that is with toothpick props in 1943. Stona/Steve posted several German reports where the Fw 190's drivers declined to attack bomber formations in case they just saw P-47s shepperd them.
Another thing is that neither Fw 190 nor Bf 109 could carry thousand or two pounds worth of guns and ammo 450-600-more miles away from their bases, take it on 1st line enemy fighter opposition, and then came back home to tell about it.

BTW - when paddle blade props were installed, along with water injection kit, both German fighter types also got increase of power under those 15000-20000 ft, so they still were better climbers under 20000 ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I don't see it as blaming the companies, at least not all of them. I guess the point I was trying to make, and I believe is true to this day, is that typically speaking military equipment is always horrible when it comes to version 1. Often needlessly. Having served myself I can attest to time after time upon receiving new equipment we encountered difficulties that rendered it either useless or far less useful than intended. I cannot think of a single instance where this was necessary or could not have been avoided by simple reality checks of the requirements vs delivered specs. As far as blame, there was plenty of that to go around I am sure. It was unpatriotic to discuss war profiteering during and after the war but in the decades that followed it became readily apparent most manufacturers dined at that trough to some degree or another.



If I may add a bit or two about this.
There were several institutions/companies/individuals that were aware their product has this or that fault, yet they continued with practice that warranted trial for treason. The US torpedo scandal is perhaps a prime example, then we have the Wright at Lockland wrongdoings (two links are here), Willy Messerschmitt refusing to change Me 210 fuselage from short to long after the engineers deduced it would've made the 210 a safe aircraft. British have had a host of problems with Castle Bromwich factory where plenty of money was invested to produce Spitfires (link), where a host of individuals, from managers down, were dragging their feet in horrible fashion and what not. We have companies, like Brewster in the USA, that went bankrupt due to producing aircraft of apaling quality.

On the other hand, when boundaries were pushed in a major way, like Corsair, P-47, Typhoon, Fw 190 etc. with their new engines were doing, one can expect a hiccup or two.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 5, 2016)

I believe there was a scandal involving Allison engine sub-contractors ... Arthur Miller wrote a play about it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2016)

Please, do tell.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 5, 2016)

Not much to tell that I know but it is my understanding that this play was based on a real scandal:
All My Sons Summary - eNotes.com


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2016)

Looks to me that the play was based on the Lockwood, Ohio scandal, and historically that was the case involving production of R-2600 engines, not Allison's V-1710s.
All My Sons - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 5, 2016)

Yes but the play makes clear that the son's plane (an Army fighter) was not one that used the defective engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2016)

In the BBC's TV show 'Decisive weapons', the man-who-was-there describes how the Allison-engined Mustang 'have had no supercharging'. Anyone that was here for some time will know that was not the case. However, people that looked the episode named 'Caddilac of the sky' will therefore conclude that Allison engine was without supercharger.

My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 5, 2016)

The BBC lost its place as a serious broadcaster many years ago. There was a time when such documentaries were made by experts, now they are mainly a vehicle for "presenters".

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2016)

When ya wanna improve Rate of Climb you either cut weight or Increase Power Available over Power Required.

Virtually All of the WWII top fighters when tested in early stages reflected a comment by test pilot "Could Use (or Need) More Power to improve Climb.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 6, 2016)

drgondog said:


> When ya wanna improve Rate of Climb you either cut weight or Increase Power Available over Power Required.
> 
> Virtually All of the WWII top fighters when tested in early stages reflected a comment by test pilot "Could Use (or Need) More Power to improve Climb.



And virtually all of those same fighters also first flew with an engine developing less HP than the airframe was intended for. In most cases the engine was as much under development as the airframe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2016)

In some cases fighters went for several years with the same engine. Spitfire was first flown in 1936 and while it didn't fly with a Merlin III the engine used wasn't far off. Production planes went into service in the summer of 1938 with Merlin II engines and the only difference between a II and a III was the prop shaft. Spitfire didn't get a higher powered engine until summer/fall of 1940 with the Merlin XII. Granted better fuel allowed the Merlin III to operate at higher boost for more power but that wasn't really a planned capability. 
P-40s are ordered in April of 1939, First production planes are delivered in May of 1940. British order the equivalent of the P-40D about the same time. First P-40D doesn't fly until a year later with the "New" engine. 
The First F4U production plane flew in June of 1942, the First F4U fitted with a water injection system on the production line was in Nov 1943, the 1551st Corsair built by Vought. Please note that both Brewster and Goodyear were building Corsairs at this point. There was no better performing R-2800 at this time _except _the turbo version in the P-47 and that required a LOT more volume inside the fuselage so it wasn't a "drop in" substitute. It wasn't even possible with out major redesign/modification. 
Some planes seemed to get a new model engine every few months (exaggeration) like the 109 that went through 4 or more versions of the DB 601 from 1939 to 1942 and in 1942 switched to the DB 605 which went through at least 4 more versions by the spring of 1945. Spitfires _after _1940 also seemed to be members of the engine of the month club (joke) with something like 18-19 different Merlins possibly fitted before you even get to the Griffons. Granted some had very small differences between them. 
Fighters were usually designed with the best possible engine _likely_ to be available when production was possible (often 1-2 years away, sometimes 3), sometimes engine development was slow or is some cases canceled which forced substitutions. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 6, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.



Right on Tomo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And virtually all of those same fighters also first flew with an engine developing less HP than the airframe was intended for. In most cases the engine was as much under development as the airframe.


I'm not quite in agreement. The airframe structure, while considering thrust and lateral inertia of the engine in a lateral G load condition (Brits ignored, we tended to use 1 1/2G), only sized the mount scheme. The dominant design loads were for max Angle of Attack loads (dive pullout, max instantaneous Turn rate). That is the reason why eventually other structure (like longerons/bulkhead/spar) in the empennage was beefed up when major increases in torque were introduced with engine/prop system upgrades.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 7, 2016)

drgondog said:


> I'm not quite in agreement. The airframe structure, while considering thrust and lateral inertia of the engine in a lateral G load condition (Brits ignored, we tended to use 1 1/2G), only sized the mount scheme. The dominant design loads were for max Angle of Attack loads (dive pullout, max instantaneous Turn rate). That is the reason why eventually other structure (like longerons/bulkhead/spar) in the empennage was beefed up when major increases in torque were introduced with engine/prop system upgrades.


Quite true when viewed from a structural strength perspective only. But these aircraft were designed to PERFORM, and their designers had to make all of their design choices based on an assumed available thrust, usually for a more advanced version engine than existed at time of design or even first prototype flight. Engines were pushing the technology envelope and frequently didn't meet performance targets by promised date. So the prototype got to fly with a less powerful version. Production aircraft usually got something like the originally intended engine.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 7, 2016)

Might be a case of semantics here. In some contexts "airframe" can be taken to mean the details of aircraft structure, while in others it refers to the entire aircraft for which the manufacturer is responsible, except powerplant and GSE stuff like armament and some of the electronics.
This latter is the context in which I was speaking.


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
> 
> As I say an recurring theme...



You also have to judge the aircraft against its contemporaries. The Spitfire initially didn't have a poor climb, when first issued it could out climb almost everything. It was also faster, more agile and at least as easy to fly as any of its contemporaries.

Its almost unique ability was to absorb significant increases in power and payload with remarkably few alterations.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
> 
> As I say an recurring theme...



You can't deliver a system with updated components if those components aren't ready in sufficient quantity to equip and sustain the front line force. 



Robert Porter said:


> I don't see it as blaming the companies, at least not all of them. I guess the point I was trying to make, and I believe is true to this day, is that typically speaking military equipment is always horrible when it comes to version 1. Often needlessly. Having served myself I can attest to time after time upon receiving new equipment we encountered difficulties that rendered it either useless or far less useful than intended. I cannot think of a single instance where this was necessary or could not have been avoided by simple reality checks of the requirements vs delivered specs. As far as blame, there was plenty of that to go around I am sure. It was unpatriotic to discuss war profiteering during and after the war but in the decades that followed it became readily apparent most manufacturers dined at that trough to some degree or another.



The problem is often a disconnect internal with the Govt between the front-line need and the requirements levied by the procuring organization. Also, the front-line often speaks with more than one voice. Different users place different priorities on needs, and those needs often don't reflect broader capability requirements like sustainability, training etc. Having worked both sides of the procurement fence, there's plenty of blame to go around and issues perceived by the front line are often not "needless" but result from people making the best decisions that they can in the circumstances.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

How did the spitfire ever suffer from a poor rate of climb? You can always improve rate of climb but it was never poor, it only had one contemporary that was possibly better as far as I know. Importantly the one that was better was its main adversary, improvements to the spit in terms of power output and propeller design closed the gap and possibly gave it an advantage in some conditions. Then everyone was pretty happy with the Spit until the Fw190 appeared. It is all purely relative to the opposition, all sides had to run flat out to maximise performance simply because they didnt know what the opposition would come up with. I am sure P51 pilots thought their planes were the dogs balls until they saw a Me262 introducing a new level in speed.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Quite true when viewed from a structural strength perspective only. But these aircraft were designed to PERFORM, and their designers had to make all of their design choices based on an assumed available thrust, usually for a more advanced version engine than existed at time of design or even first prototype flight. Engines were pushing the technology envelope and frequently didn't meet performance targets by promised date. So the prototype got to fly with a less powerful version. Production aircraft usually got something like the originally intended engine.



I tend to disagree for this reason. The P-38, 39, 40, 47, P-61, P-63 and F4U, all started with the same engine as designed for, based on the best performance available at the time based on in-line or radial features. The engine manufacturers were able to keep pace to grow power and reliability without changing the envelope of the engine. The XF4F started with R-2600 delivering same power as the replacement R-2800 for the first production version.

The P-51B is the big exception and that wasn't a HP decision so much as it was altitude performance based on a different required mission than the original design spec. Others actually downgraded from original performance of selected engine - namely the XP-82 when NAA forced to accept Allison 1710 2 speed/2 stage that never could reliably perform to spec at WEP.


To your point there were many aircraft that began with an experimental engine (B-29, XP-47J, XP-75, etc) that took a long gestation period before becoming a reliable powerplant suitable for production reliability and performance as planned.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 8, 2016)

pbehn said:


> How did the spitfire ever suffer from a poor rate of climb? You can always improve rate of climb but it was never poor, it only had one contemporary that was possibly better as far as I know. Importantly the one that was better was its main adversary, improvements to the spit in terms of power output and propeller design closed the gap and possibly gave it an advantage in some conditions. Then everyone was pretty happy with the Spit until the Fw190 appeared. It is all purely relative to the opposition, all sides had to run flat out to maximise performance simply because they didnt know what the opposition would come up with. I am sure P51 pilots thought their planes were the dogs balls until they saw a Me262 introducing a new level in speed.


The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propellor change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propeller change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.


When the Spitfire was first tested it was actually slower than the Hurricane, it turned out that the propeller was wasting power. Later the twin blade props were replaced with 3 blade variable pitch and eventually constant speed propellers with 3,4 and 5 blades. When the MkII was introduced its improved performance was noted by the LW in combat making it a more dangerous adversary.

from wiki
_K5054_ was fitted with a new propeller, and Summers flew the aircraft on 10 March 1936; during this flight the undercarriage was retracted for the first time.[18] After the fourth flight, a new engine was fitted, and Summers left the test-flying to his assistants, Jeffrey Quill and George Pickering. They soon discovered that the Spitfire[nb 4][21] was a very good aircraft, but not perfect. The rudder was over-sensitive and the top speed was just 330 mph (528 km/h), little faster than Sydney Camm's new Merlin-powered Hurricane.[23] A new and better-shaped wooden propeller allowed the Spitfire to reach 348 mph (557 km/h) in level flight in mid-May, when Summers flew _K5054_ to RAF Martlesham Heath and handed the aircraft over to Squadron Leader Anderson of the Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE). Here, Flight Lieutenant Humphrey Edwardes-Jones took over the prototype for the RAF.[24] He had been given orders to fly the aircraft and then to make his report to the Air Ministry on landing. Edwardes-Jones's report was positive; his only request was that the Spitfire be equipped with an undercarriage position indicator.[25] A week later, on 3 June 1936, the Air Ministry placed an order for 310 Spitfires,[26] before any formal report had been issued by the A&AEE; interim reports were later issued on a piecemeal basis.[27]


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propellor change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.



I'm afraid that you'd need to be more specific on the Spit I and II flight tests. Like the date, condition and exact condition of the tested aircraft. And then compare with what contemporary (1936-1940) German fighters were doing.
I'd also like to see what were the 'design changes' in the early Spitfires, apart from prop and protection.

BTW - Robert, please don't take this personally, but since you've mistaken a big time about superchargers of ww2 aircraft, I believe you've mis-remembered other stuff.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 8, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm afraid that you'd need to be more specific on the Spit I and II flight tests. Like the date, condition and exact condition of the tested aircraft. And then compare with what contemporary (1936-1940) German fighters were doing.
> I'd also like to see what were the 'design changes' in the early Spitfires, apart from prop and protection.
> 
> BTW - Robert, please don't take this personally, but since you've mistaken a big time about superchargers of ww2 aircraft, I believe you've mis-remembered other stuff.


Well it is certainly possible, let me find the source documents and go from there.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 8, 2016)

Okay as to my supposed mistake about aircraft being delivered without Super chargers here is just one reference of such. From the book "American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current.

Follow this link for an excerpt about the P-36 American Warplanes of WWII

I quote here: "It's lack of an engine Supercharger handicapped it at high altitudes as well."


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 8, 2016)

Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.

"The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."

This is pretty well illustrated if you read the following RAF Reports. Spitfire Mk I K-5054 Handling Trials 

The reports go model by model and compare all manner of handling characteristics and describe the exact equipment being tested.

I honestly do not believe I misremembered much but am still open to the possibilities.

Finally there is a great PDF Comparing the P-46, Spitfire and two german fighters and featuring prominently in the Spit coverage was its relative poor climb rate this document is available right here in these forums at: P-47 vs Fw-190,Spitfire,P-38,P-51

Hope this helps clarify where my opinion was developed.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.
> 
> "The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."
> 
> ...



Looked through the links and cant find anything saying the spitfire was poor in climb, only one link says the Spitfire could out turn the P47, turn performance is normally an indicator of climb performance. Climb performance had been sen as important as soon as planes were used in combat, the increasing speed of bombers made it more important

part of the report linked says this

Comparitive trials between the Me.109 and "Rotol" Spitfire.

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 8, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Looked through the links and cant find anything saying the spitfire was poor in climb, only one link says the Spitfire could out turn the P47, turn performance is normally an indicator of climb performance. Climb performance had been sen as important as soon as planes were used in combat, the increasing speed of bombers made it more important
> 
> part of the report linked says this
> 
> ...


I do not know what to say, the phrase "poor climb rate" appears twice in conjunction with the Spitfire just in that one link but I am happy to find and share others. This issue was largely addressed by the Mark III and subsequent models but reappeared in the very last model built of which only 100 were made. However its climb rate at altitudes above 16,000 feet was poor throughout all models. Remember this is poor in comparison not saying it was overall.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I do not know what to say, the phrase "poor climb rate" appears twice in conjunction with the Spitfire just in that one link but I am happy to find and share others. This issue was largely addressed by the Mark III and subsequent models but reappeared in the very last model built of which only 100 were made. However its climb rate at altitudes above 16,000 feet was poor throughout all models. Remember this is poor in comparison not saying it was overall.



from the link
The following table gives comparative times in minutes to reach various heights for the best climbing speed and the recommended climbing speed. Also included are the times to height for Spitfires with 2-Pitch and fixed pitch airscrews.

Airscrew Time to Height (Feet.)
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Rotol Best Climb 3.4 5.3 7.7 11.1 16.1
Rotol Recommended 3.5 5.4 7.7 11.0 16.4
2-Pitch Metal 5.5 8 11.3 15.9 23.8
Wooden Fixed Pitch 4.4 6.6 9.4 13.8 22.4
Best climbing speed:- 140 m.p.h. A.S.I. to 12,000' thereafter
decreasing by 1 m.p.h. per 1000 feet.

the difference between best performance with Rotol prop on a Mk one and worst performance with two blade wooden prop is more than 6 minutes to 30,000 ft. The statement that the spitfire was poor in climb throughout all models above 16,000 ft is interesting, I dont agree.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Okay as to my supposed mistake about aircraft being delivered without Super chargers here is just one reference of such. From the book "American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current.
> 
> Follow this link for an excerpt about the P-36 American Warplanes of WWII
> 
> I quote here: "It's lack of an engine Supercharger handicapped it at high altitudes as well."



One myth at time 
The Bible on American fighter aircraft is the "America's hundred thousand". While not without a minor glitch or two, it is a vastly better resource than the copied Wikipedia aricles bundled in a book. Another excellent book is Ray Wagner's "American Combat Planes of the 20th Century", that I unfortunately don't own, unlike the 1st book.
The P-36 was outfitted with supercharged engines in all iterations, whether it was R-1820 or R-1830 in question. Red arrows are my contribution:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.
> 
> "The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."



This quote is an opinion. All fine and good with opinoins, they need to be backed by other informations - who is the person making an opinoin, what actual facts are used to form an opinion, what are the sources for those facts etc. Since there is no factual support for the opinion, I'll be so frank to discard it from a discussion where facts are required.



> This is pretty well illustrated if you read the following RAF Reports. Spitfire Mk I K-5054 Handling Trials
> 
> The reports go model by model and compare all manner of handling characteristics and describe the exact equipment being tested.
> 
> I honestly do not believe I misremembered much but am still open to the possibilities.



Let's not move the goal post. You've described the Spitfire as unable to compete in rate of climb against German opposition, several times now. Please post data.



> Finally there is a great PDF Comparing the P-46, Spitfire and two german fighters and featuring prominently in the Spit coverage was its relative poor climb rate this document is available right here in these forums at: P-47 vs Fw-190,Spitfire,P-38,P-51
> 
> Hope this helps clarify where my opinion was developed.



The comparison of rate of climb on that doc, involving a Spitfire, is the one between P-47 (not P-46, a typo I guess) and Spit IX, where is stated:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

I think it is impossible for a plane to have excellent sustained turn characteristics while having a poor rate of climb, well thats what people who have studied these things have posted.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2016)

Spitfire was with a shortcoming or two. Rate of climb, especially above 15000 ft, was where it excelled.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfire was with a shortcoming or two. Rate of climb, especially above 15000 ft, was where it excelled.


Hardly a surprise it was what it was designed to do, lets move on to the "Me262 was great in most respects just lacking in top speed".

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 8, 2016)

Robert Porter said: ↑
_Okay as to my supposed mistake about aircraft being delivered without Super chargers here is just one reference of such. From the book "American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current.

Follow this link for an excerpt about the P-36 American Warplanes of WWII

I quote here: "It's lack of an engine Supercharger handicapped it at high altitudes as well."
_
To quote Tomo earlier _My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
_
When looking at publications like _American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current _pay attention to the red flags and always cross reference to other publications which are known to be accurate.

Col Current compares the performance on the P-36 with that of the P-40 which came out roughly 30 months later - a very long time at the speed that aircraft design was moving in the late 30's* =* *big red flag because not comparing like with like for the period *






As you and others have noted Current claims the R-1830 was not supercharged but a quick cross reference to a reliable source like _Janes All the World Aircraft 1936 _or any of the hundreds of publications on Pratt engines the shows all R-1830's were supercharged.






Even less reliable sources like Wiki refer to the R-1830 as

*Type:* Fourteen-cylinder two-row supercharged air-cooled radial engine
Mi

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2016)

To second Tomo, ALL large aircraft engines (over 500hp) used superchargers except for a few specific examples of elderly engines that dated from before 1930 or so. The R-1340 radial used in the T-6 trainer was supercharged. using 3.3lb of boost at take-off for example. 
As was the P & W R-985 wasp Junior and even some of the 7 cylinder Wright R-760 Cyclones. 

This site has an amazing amount of information on engines. Reference
with charts for all piston engines used by the US Army/Air force up to 1949 or so. ALL P & W engines, ALL Wright engines and even most Packard engines. 

Climb is relative. What was good in 1936 wasn't so good in 1942 let alone 1945. And while the prop is part of the powerplant it supplied by a different company than the engine and is often supplied by the government as a separate piece of equipment to the airframe maker as was the engine. Rolls and Bristol were under no illusions as to the lack of suitability of fixed pitch props on 800hp and up engines which is why they banded together to form the Rotol propeller company, getting the Air Ministry to buy the variable pitch/constant speed props was the hard part. 
For the Spitfire (and Hurricane) please note the improved performance with essentially an unchanged engine by using different propellers despite gaining hundreds of pounds of weight. Also please note that the 2 pitch prop, while helpful was much like trying to use 1st and 5/6th gear in a manual transmission. Fine Pitch was used for take-off and once a bit of altitude was gained and airspeed reached about 140mph in a Spitfire the prop was changed to course pitch and there it stayed pretty much until the plane landed. 
The fixed pitch prop aircraft had to restrict the throttle opening (RPM) on the engine at low speed (take-off and climb) to keep from over speeding the course pitch prop and essentially thrashing the air to no purpose. This really limited the power that could be used, a bit like trying to drive on snow or ice, doesn't matter how much power the engine has, you can only get the tires to transmit a limited amount before they spin.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 8, 2016)

Deleted


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I do not know what to say, the phrase "poor climb rate" appears twice in conjunction with the Spitfire just in that one link but I am happy to find and share others. This issue was largely addressed by the Mark III and subsequent models but reappeared in the very last model built of which only 100 were made. However its climb rate at altitudes above 16,000 feet was poor throughout all models. Remember this is poor in comparison not saying it was overall.



Robert - every fighter pilot testing a new fighter (except perhaps the A6M) complained about climb rate. Every instance can be traced back to an engine that didn't develop the necessary 'Excess Power' desired to improve. That stated there is also no clarification statement that the 'climb rate would be great if it climbed _____ feet per minute'

Ditto for complaints regarding lack of turbosupercharger when discussing higher altitude performance for supercharged single stage, single speed or two stage/single speed engines that peaked at 12-15K. The answer from the engineering team is 'so, where can we put it? You want me to design a new airframe to insert one?"


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 9, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes.



The basic problem is this: It took 6 years to develop and debug an engine in the 1930s and 40s.

An Air-frame could be gotten into production in just over half the time.

I doesn't matter whether you look at Germany, Britain or the USA it took 6 years. It even took 6 years for the Jumo 004 jet engine.
There were just so many problems to make an engine reliable and to get to power.

The other problem was that as time went on there was a kind of specification creep where more equipment was added. Typical of this would be heavier guns, more armour, bullet proof glass, bigger radios, rescue equipment.

I suspect the Mosquito was one of the few aircraft that avoided spefication drift (basically because preceding attempts had been a disaster for this reason)

A lot of engines with a bad reputation, such as the Napier Sabre seem to have been quite good when they got too 5-6 years.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 9, 2016)

Koopernic said:


> I suspect the Mosquito was one of the few aircraft that avoided spefication drift (basically because preceding attempts had been a disaster for this reason)
> 
> A lot of engines with a bad reputation, such as the Napier Sabre seem to have been quite good when they got too 5-6 years.



The Mosquito was a bit of a freak its basic design of a fast two seater light bomber turned out to have uses that just couldn't have been foreseen in 1936 like night figher and long range recon, these things happen in wars, the aeroplane was seen as a toy of little use at the outbreak of WW1.

The Sabre shows what can be done when things have to be done, it was made to work through massive injection of resources and huge manpower in airfield maintainance. Hind sight says the Griffon was the better option but that would be laughed at in 1940. Despite all the money and effort put into engine design the Merlin was still being put into new aircraft designs post war (Hornet and York)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 9, 2016)

".... and Twin Mustang"

Allisons not Merlins, IIRC


----------



## pbehn (Nov 9, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... and Twin Mustang"
> 
> Allisons not Merlins, IIRC


Oops edited


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2016)

Candair Northstar

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.
> 
> "The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."
> 
> ...


Its worth remembering that *during* the Battle of Britain the Japanese ( hardly friends of the UK ) considered the Spitfire to be the ideal interceptor due to its climb, speed and firepower.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 13, 2016)

Glider said:


> Its worth remembering that *during* the Battle of Britain the Japanese ( hardly friends of the UK ) considered the Spitfire to be the ideal interceptor due to its climb, speed and firepower.


Go here: Top Ten Fighters at the outbreak of World War II and scroll down to the entry on the Spitfire and you will see what I mean. 

Another great link same site is: Dismantling the Spitfire myth The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills. 

The Hurricane was cheaper and quicker to build at a rate of about 2.5 Hurricanes to one Spitfire.

Later versions of the Spitfire cleared all of its initial teething problems but my whole point was it suffered from them in the first place, especially considering the fact that it had been in development pre-war.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Go here: Top Ten Fighters at the outbreak of World War II and scroll down to the entry on the Spitfire and you will see what I mean.
> 
> Another great link same site is: Dismantling the Spitfire myth The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills.
> 
> ...




What's the point of being a better gun platform if you can't get into position to use your guns because of lack of performance?

And the Hurricane had more kills because the had more in the BoB and were sent overseas before the Spitfire.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 13, 2016)

When someone uses a joke website as the gospel truth

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 13, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> When someone uses a joke website as the gospel truth


I do not think it is a joke website, but again, I have heard the issue of climb rate in many books and other sites. That one just bubbled to the top.

But I am perfectly willing to say I think we have all agreed to disagree on this topic. Let me conclude by saying my Maternal Grandfather was in Europe as an aircraft engineer during the entire war. Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion. And he holds numerous patents related to aircraft design. His name was Einar Westdal if you want to look at the patent database for him.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2016)

Helps if we deal with facts. Which those articles seem to be a bit lacking in. 
As in, sure the Spitfire was short ranged but the so were 2 of the 3 main French fighters and 3rd only achieved long range by filling tanks in the outer wing leading edge which played havoc with the handling. Range difference from the 109 wasn't great, 2 out of 3 Italian fighter monoplanes didn't have much range either. Throw in the terrific range of the Russian I-16 (sarcasm) and criticising the Spitfire for poor range seems to be more unwarranted slur than fact.
Bringing in the HE 100 is a real indication of desperation. A plane without self-sealing fuel tanks, and sever limits to installing them and with only TWO rifle caliber machine guns for armament ( anybody got any proof the engine mounted gun ever worked?) is not a viable alternative.

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


----------



## stona (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills.
> .



This is simply not true. Though many pilots did praise the stability of the Hurricane as a gun platform, and the more concentrated arrangement of the guns in the wings, the actual statistics for the Battle of Britain period, after which the Hurricane started to disappear from front line service, tell a different story.
655 victories were credited to 30 Hurricane squadrons, at 22.5 per Squadron. 530 were credited to 19 Spitfire Squadrons, at 28 per Squadron. For a poor gun platform the Spitfire was a slightly better killer of Luftwaffe aircraft than the allegedly superior Hurricane. The Hurricane did have more kills, but there were a lot more of them involved in the battle. Selective quoting of statistics is a favourite of such authors, hoping to impress those who are ignorant of the context of the figures given.

There is otherwise a lot of nonsense in the article linked to. For example, the prototype MB.3 first flew on 3rd August 1942, just a bit late for the BoB, it crashed on its tenth flight and never reached the A&AEE, so we have no independent assessment of its performance.
There is a lot more rubbish in the article, some of it is hardly new either, but I can't be arsed to address all of it here.

There is a myth built around the Spitfire, but underneath lies one of the great aircraft of WW2. You can't demolish a myth with half truths and outright lies.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## rochie (Nov 13, 2016)

I think we need a Soren button !

So the Spitfire, couldnt climb, was twitchy and unstable, good job it could turn well !

Oh wait we already had it proved to us that any 109 could out turn any spitfire at any speed or altitude.

Jeez what were we thinking building any Spitfires at all ?

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2016)

If the articles on that web site are gospel thruth, it would be fair to link here an article that is a rebuttal of mud-throwing one:
Spitfire’s revenge: A rebuttal of the anti-Spitfire article, by Jon Lake

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

Not only did the spitfire achieve a higher kill rate per squadron it also preserved its pilots lives better, while both could burst into flames the Hurricane was more likely to.

The nonsense about production reflects the differences between the two planes. The Hurricane was tried and tested technology that Hawkers AKA Sopwith knew they could easily produce. The stressed skin thin wing of the Spitfire was harder top produce but was worth approximately 30MPH on top speed and a huge advantage in performance at stall.

I detest people writing sensational "debunking myths" articles which are just trying to stand on the shoulders of giants.

The war broke out in 1939, it may suit your argument to quote the performance with a fixed wooden prop, the Hurricane used the same prop for the same reason. The Spitfire and Seafire were produced in huge numbers for a reason, the British didnt have anything better and for much of the war neither did their enemy.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

The "gun platform" argument applies to when you press the button to fire your guns, I am sure many pilots preffered the concentration of fire of the Hurricane, that does not mean they would swap seats from a Spitfire to a Hurricane. All pilots preferred the cannon which the RAF started to introduce during the BoB and was standard fitment by 1941.

As for range, during the BoB pilots were instructed not to engage over the sea, in the UK it is impossible to be more than 72 miles from the sea (seriously, many people do not realise how small an island it is), it was a point defence fighter, no one wanted more fuel when time to climb was paramount.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 13, 2016)

From that article:

"In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."

Is that true?

Fairey was reluctant to build anything other than his own designs. Did something change for them?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

wuzak said:


> From that article:
> 
> "In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."
> 
> ...


It makes sense, after all what use were the Swordfish and Barracuda?


----------



## stona (Nov 13, 2016)

wuzak said:


> "In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type."



Hardly relevant to the period in question. It might have effected the MB.3 if that had ever got anywhere near production 

The various companies more or less got told what to build by the various Ministries. Avro was very nearly compelled to build the Halifax rather than the Lancaster for example. 

Whether Fairey 'pushed' to build the P-51 I don't know off the top of my head, but given that it was a US built aircraft I rather doubt that it could ever have happened. The British tended to view the United States as a shop which could be raided to meet its needs, and the Americans could build as many P-51s as were needed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Let me conclude by saying my Maternal Grandfather was in Europe as an aircraft engineer during the entire war. Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion.



With all respect to your Grandfather how would he know about these things and how did he compare Apples to Oranges to decide which fighter was better or worse. Did he fly Spitfires against contemporary aircraft from all nations in controlled testing or did he speak to a man in the pub who knew a man who was a pilot. If he was an engineer during the entire war he must have been in the RAF or one of the Commonwealth Air Forces because otherwise I dont see how he could have been involved with Spitfires for the duration of 1939 to 1945> Alternatively he must have worked for a British Aircraft manufacturer involved in Spitfire production or maintenance.

Wherever he worked for those six years unless he actually was a test pilot he was basing his opinion on hearsay. Its an opinion which he was as entitled to hold as any of us and I respect his service but unless he was one of a very very small number of test pilots ( probably numbering in the tens at the absolute outside a hundred or so ) he could not have the real truth of the matter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 13, 2016)

my father mixed it up with a spitfire when he was coming home from a mission in a 51....at the end of the ordeal he had a great bit of respect for the spit and a tad more humility....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

The theme that most frequently recurs on forums is the dissing of great aircraft, laughably the two at the front of the queue are the two produced in greatest numbers and served at the front line from start to finish.

The best engineers in UK and Germany only managed to produce a couple of donkeys like the Bf109 and Spitfire while the pilots were so poor they didn't notice that their planes were complete rubbish. Or do some people ride their own nationalistic hobby horse while discussing what is actually engineering and quantifiable physical performance.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 13, 2016)

It is amusing to contemplate the mindset of an engineer that stated the Spitfire was over rated. I begs the question "Versus what"?

Exactly what did Mr Porter's maternal Grandfather design and which company did he work for?


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 13, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The best engineers in UK and Germany only managed to produce a couple of donkeys like the Bf109 and Spitfire



I dont know much about the 109 but if it was similar to the Spitfire it must have been a stinker. I bet no one managed to even make Ace in the 109.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

drgondog said:


> It is amusing to contemplate the mindset of an engineer that stated the Spitfire was over rated. I begs the question "Versus what"?


Another question is "rated by whom" I have heard people on television and radio discussing "Spitfire pilots in the Battle of Britain" as if it was the only RAF plane in the conflict. Similarly, for some, the only escort fighter in Europe was the P51D, it is more photogenic than the P51 B/C and so despite the fact that the LW was broken by the time it arrived and some (not all) pilots preferred the B/C version whatever the P38 and P47 did is forgotten and the prettiest plane is handed history's crown.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I dont know much about the 109 but if it was similar to the Spitfire it must have been a stinker. I bet no one managed to even make Ace in the 109.


The only pilots who became aces in 109s did so against Spitfires, they gave thanks to God that they didnt encounter Hurricanes Dfiants Blenheims or Gladiators.


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Go here: Top Ten Fighters at the outbreak of World War II and scroll down to the entry on the Spitfire and you will see what I mean.
> 
> Another great link same site is: Dismantling the Spitfire myth The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills.
> 
> ...



To be honest my first reaction to your evidence is 'is that the best you can do?'.

Only the first 78 Spitfires had the much maligned wooden two bladed prop so you are being very selective with your choice of versions. Re the performance of the Spit as a gun platform. I agree that the Hurricane was a better gun platform but that doesn't automatically make the Spitfire a bad one. Most would agree that the BMW 5 is a better car than the Mondeo, but that doesn't make the Ford a bad car.
As we are talking abut the first 78 Spitfires you really should compare those against the Me109D and they are so far behind the first Spits its almost embarrassing.

The Spitfire in 1939 by the time the shooting had begun in earnest was much improved as good as the Me109E and its also worth remembering that the Me109E was the peak of its development, as the 109F was a very different machine. So if you want to discuss which was fundamentally the best design, feel free.

There are reasons why the Hurricane was cheaper and quicker to build, and there are reason why the Spitfire was in front line service at the end of the war in its original role plus others, and the Hurricane wasn't. There are reasons why the Spitfire operated with more success in more roles than the Me109 or any other fighter, of any nation in 1939 or later. 

PS, I note that you don't disagree that the German allies Japan, considered the Spitfire to be the best interceptor. Suggest you read The Burning Blue to get their perspective


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion. And he holds numerous patents related to aircraft design. His name was Einar Westdal if you want to look at the patent database for him.



I certainly respect your grandfathers service and would ask you to thank him from me because without the assistance of the USA we would have been in serious danger. The price they paid in lives to assist us, on today of all days, should be acknowledged.

However it is a fact that whenever US pilots were equipped with the Spitfire they were loath to give them up for P47's or P51's. Indeed the PR versions were actively used by the USAF until the end of the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I read, a LOT, and I have read probably 200+ books dedicated to WW2 aircraft. I also read about modern aircraft. And I have noticed over the years a constant refrain. Without any exception I can find every aircraft ever delivered during WW2 was initially underpowered or had no Super or Turbo chargers and therefor was restricted to lower level performance envelopes.
> 
> And it does not matter the year they were first delivered from 1938 all the way up to and including 1945. Now I expect bugs, design tweaks based on usage and testing. But underpowered? No. So why? In every case better engines were already available, costs were in many cases comparable, and by 1940 we already knew we needed 2 stage Supercharges to preserve performance at altitude.
> 
> Yet over and over again aircraft were delivered with underperforming engines, including all the favorites, the Mustang, Hellcat, Spitfire, you name it.



Knowing what was needed and and getting it a week later are two very different things. 
In the case of the Spitfire it got the best engine available in 1938 when introduced. First squadron was being issued production aircraft in Aug of 1938. The Merlin II was the best engine RR was making at the time. The Merlin II/III (no difference in power) being the highest altitude engine available in Europe if not the world at the time (the Y1B-17A with turbo chargers flew for the first time less than 4 months earlier), In late 1938 the Merlin X engine (1st two speed Merlin) was announced at the Paris air show. that means most testing was done and they were looking for orders, not that the engine was actually in production. In mid 1938 there were only 2-3 engines outside of Germany using 2 speed superchargers. England had the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger and the US had the Wright R-1820 in certain models and _perhaps _a version of the R-2600. Germany had the Jumo 210 but information on the Jumo 211 and DB601 was rather sketchy outside of Germany. Fuel injection NOT being on public display. 
RR announced power levels for the Merlin II/III/IV and Merlin X using 100 octane fuel at the Dec 1938 show but since _quantity _deliveries of 100 octane fuel were still months away faulting the British for going into production of the Merlin II/III back in 1937 seems a bit harsh. 

ALL single speed supercharger engines had a problem in trading power at altitude for power at sea level. Since the power to run a supercharger varies with the square of the impeller speed that means a 7.00:1 gear ratio needs *1/2* the power to drive than a 10.0:1 ratio. It also heats the intake charge much less which results in a higher charge destiny and more power. 
In the Merlin the Supercharger was good for about 6lbs boost at 16,250ft. but with 87 octane fuel the max boost that could be used was 6lbs at any altitude without wrecking the engine unless a lower gear was used on the supercharger (see Merlin VIII or Melrin X In low gear) but that meant a lower altitude for the max power (worse altitude performance). With the initial 100 octane fuel blends 12lbs of boost could be used. 
Spitfires were fitted with better versions of the Merlin (or boost limits raised) pretty much as soon as they become available, Spitfire III with Merlin XX being an exception as the Merlin XXs were needed to keep the Hurricane competitive (which failed by a huge margin when the 109F showed up). 
BoB 100 octane fuel was actually 100/115-120 with the upper number varying from batch to batch as during the BoB they had no way of measuring the upper number (rich response). Once the Performance Number scale was developed and testing procedures established specifications for 100/130 could be issued and fuel blended/issued. The 100/130 fuel allowed boost pressures of up to 18lbs to be used in certain engines. 
Claiming the Spitfire was under-powered in it's early years before the fuel became available to support the higher boost levels shows a lack of understanding of what was going on. 

Adding two stage superchargers was not as easy at it sounds. One WW II text book estimated that a 1000hp class engine would need at least 10 cu ft of volume to fit a turbo charger, the inter-cooler and the ducting. The further apart the components are place the more volume is needed and higher power level engines need more volume.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 13, 2016)

I have tried to keep out of this discussion but just cannot help myself.

The Spitfire deserves its great reputation as a fighter (even though I personally do not like the type - but then again I have worked on them).

Although by far the best allied aircraft the Brits (and others) had during the most critical time in Britain's history it could have been much much better from day one if the British aircraft industry had not been so rigidly locked in to WW1 thinking like fixed pitch wooden props and wood technology.

If we look at many other designs that pre-dated the Spitfire it is easy to see why the Spitfire 1 was at least five years behind even airliner design in other countries, and why the man-hours to build them were so grossly excessive. For the chart below I have used American aircraft but the French, Germans and Italians had comparable aircraft, and probably other nations as well. One would have thought that having their purpose built race aircraft almost beaten in the London-Melbourne air race of 1934 by a KLM DC-2 carrying passengers (and flying the regular KLM passenger route to Indonesia rather than the absolute shortest possible route) would have opened a few British eyes but obviously not.

For those not familiar with the race the DC-2 was well in the lead until the KLM pilot decided to make a night landing at the waterlogged Albury airport rather than risk his passengers and aircraft going through a storm. After the passengers and crew had a good nights sleep and got the aircraft moving again they came is a close second to the DeH88 and its exhausted crew.







The number one performance block for the early Spitfires was the two blade fixed pitch propeller and yet even the DC-1 which flew three years before the design of the Spitfire *even commenced *had a three blade controllable pitch prop.

WW1 aircraft used wooden ribs built up from dozens of little bits of wood glued together.
The Spitfire wing used metal ribs built up of dozens of little bits of aluminium, each requiring a significant portion of the man-hours to build a complete DC-2 or P-36 wing rib, all riveted together - again requiring lots of man-hours. See dwg 33108 sht 10 which will only attach as a thumbnail for part of a typical Spitfire wing rib. As you can see there are at least 287 different parts to just one pair of this one full rib assembly. Many of the parts are used in multiple locations with part 287 used in six marked locations for each of this section of this rib. Where an arrow shows two numbers for the one part that means one is for the left hand and the other the right hand wing. If you look at Note C (C in the triangle) that strongly suggests that there are actually 16 item 287's in each of these rib sub-assemblies.

The DC-2 and P-36 had mainly one piece ribs that were cut out in a stack using a router (one person, one action, up to 25 ribs) and then pressed and completed in a single action, with many ribs being able to be pressed in each action of the press. See the P-36 tailplane ribs below






For the DC-2 and P-36 the long one piece stringer meant that the fuselage skins were mainly machine riveted to the stringers and then the skin hand riveted to the frame. On the Spitfire a dolly holder had to spend hours cramped up inside the fuselage riveting hundreds of individual intercostals and gussets and the frame to the skin. On the P-36 the fuselage was built in upper and lower halves so that ONLY the final fuselage joining required a riveter to get inside.

Etc
Etc
Etc

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 14, 2016)

rochie said:


> I think we need a Soren button !
> 
> So the Spitfire, couldnt climb, was twitchy and unstable, good job it could turn well !
> 
> ...


You know, Karl...if the Brits were smart, they could have purchased Bf109s long before the war started.

Then would have saved everyone the grief of arguing over "spit versus Bf109" or "what was better?" 70 years later!

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


----------



## stona (Nov 14, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> Although by far the best allied aircraft the Brits (and others) had during the most critical time in Britain's history it could have been much much better from day one if the British aircraft industry had not been so rigidly locked in to WW1 thinking like fixed pitch wooden props and wood technology.
> Etc
> Etc
> Etc



This is all true and is a reflection of the culture in the British aircraft industry of the 1920s/30s, and on both sides of the boardroom door and shop floor.

It is well known that the Bf 109, for example, was designed in a way that made it far more sympathetic to mass production techniques, which were just barely starting to evolve in the European aircraft industries by the mid 1930s.

In the end, none of this mattered. It was the performance of the finished product that was important and in the case of the Spitfire, whatever the construction techniques, the same lack of compromise that gave it a competitive advantage made it more difficult to build.
The British, eventually, managed to build enough of them, (everyone would have liked more of course), even in the dark days of 1940, It wasn't aircraft that were in short supply, it was properly trained men to fly them. There is no point in having hundreds of aircraft at the MUs when you have no one to fly them, ask a German 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2016)

Many things are easy with hind sight. Wiki history of ROTIOL says this
The Company was formed as *Rotol Airscrews* in 1937 by Rolls-Royce and Bristol Engines to take over both companies' propeller development,[1] the market being too small to support more than one company.

In 1937 the war was not a certainty. The first orders for Spitfires were in their hundreds. It is all very well to say how fast the P51 could be produced, when it was designed there was a war on. If the total orders for P51s was going to be 1000 then you wouldnt set up a production line for it. The site for the new Spitfire factory was bought in July 1938 and started producing in June 1940.

Many of the comments about the Spitfire are actually just comments on a nation at peace changing to a nation at war and a design by a small specialist racing plane design/sea plane company getting the job of producing the UKs front line fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Many things are easy with hind sight. Wiki history of ROTIOL says this
> The Company was formed as *Rotol Airscrews* in 1937 by Rolls-Royce and Bristol Engines to take over both companies' propeller development,[1] the market being too small to support more than one company.



De Havilland was in the Market too. The engine makers knew what was needed, it was the Air Ministry that had to dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the 1920s and into the 1930s in regards to propellers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2016)

stona said:


> Whether Fairey 'pushed' to build the P-51 I don't know off the top of my head, but given that it was a US built aircraft I rather doubt that it could ever have happened. The British tended to view the United States as a shop which could be raided to meet its needs, and the Americans could build as many P-51s as were needed.



What may have been brought up in a meeting, or two, and what was seriously considered can two very different things. Anybody want to try to redraw ALL the drawings for the P-51 from 3rd angle projection to 1st angle (reverse of what was done to make the Merlin by Packard). It took 75 men 4 months to do the Merlin drawings. How many men, how long, to make the drawings for a British built Mustang? What else doesn't get done? 

All manor of schemes were thought up and few actually acted upon (the long cable aerial mine and turbinlite are two that never should have made it) but obviously some ideas weren't really that good.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 14, 2016)

The structure of the Spitfire airframe was certainly not optimised for production. Having been originally built by hand in part of a small manufacturers works and mostly using hand tools by extremely skilled workmen. The wonder is that it was ever made in huge numbers but it was and very well. The Hurricane was made by a major manufacturer who could source and build machine tools for their production system. It is significant that the Spitfire was only made in the UK whereas factories were set up in Belgium, Yugoslavia and Canada as well as the UK for the Hurricane. The key item is specialised rolling machines for the spars etc. to be made from strip. Once you have these the Hurricane structure is more easily made with lesser skills.

The Hurricane was the right answer at the time it was introduced but was being overtaken by the next generation into 1940 as indeed Hawkers and the RAF expected it to be. For production optimising it might be better to compare the Typhoon as that was built as a next generation mass production aeroplane. I am not that familiar with the details of the Typhoon structure to comment myself. Hawkers expected the Hurricane to leave production in 1941 but their wonder machine, the Typhoon, was delayed and the Hurricane II & IV were the interim holding response. They never expected that the RAF would still have Hurricanes in service as fighter bombers into 1946 .

Ironically the hand made type of structure of the Spitfire made it easier for small restoration companies to restore Spitfires (almost from the name plate at times) and the need for specialised rolling machinery and strip made restoring Hurricanes near impossible until (IIRC) a set was found in South Africa just as Russia started coughing up abandoned Hurricanes.

The fixed pitch wooden prop was beloved of the Air Ministry I understand for it's lightness and optimised for the climb to interception. With it a Spitfire could still take off within existing UK airfields. The VP and CS types were much heavier I believe and required some attention to the CofG. Was this not the reason for the lead ballast in the tail of Spitfires? The engine manufacturers were not at all convinced that they could get their new heavy bomber designs off the ground in the same way thus Rolls Royce and Bristol were forced to set up a joint company Rotol to make CS units which were then fitted to fighters. The De Havilland licence made Hamilton Standard VP propellors came through the route of civil aviation and suited them better with take off and cruising settings. Lighter of course than the whole CS arrangement for optimum thrust for all revs.

Martin Bakers were champions at maintenance access having deduced that stiffness was not the same as strength in a structure and aerodynamic and structural design could cope with the lesser torsional stiffness for even a good steel tube spaceframe structure and then add removable metal panels allowing supreme access. The Swedish FFVS 22 fighter also had such an approach but with plywood panels.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2016)

The fixed pitch props on the Spitfire and Hurricane seem to have optimized for speed. at least there was only a minor improvement when fitted with 2 pitch or variable pitch/constant speed props. 
Take-off and climb were severely comprised however as some of the trial reports show;
Spitfire Mk I K.9787 Trials Report
engine is held hundreds of rpm below max allowable (2600rpm for climb) which obviously affects power. 
Same for Hurricane.
Hurricane K-5083 Trials Report
it even affected the top speed. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/k5083-level.jpg

Having a propeller that allowed 2600rpm and full boost to be used at ANY altitude for a long duration climb certainly helped. 
As did being able to use 3000rpm and 6lbs boost at any altitude for high speed flight.

Please note that in combat it would have been possiable to use 3000rpm and 6lbs for climb at altitudes that allowed it .


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> De Havilland was in the Market too. The engine makers knew what was needed, it was the Air Ministry that had to dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the 1920s and into the 1930s in regards to propellers.


I have some sympathy for the Air Ministry, we now know what works and what doesnt, in the 1920s and 30s there were all sorts of ideas, early RADAR research was actually into the possibility of a death ray FFS. Telling the ministry in 1935 that special fuels and a better supercharger would be the best interim solution until an engine with one moving part makes the whole lot obsolete would have a lot of people laughing.


----------



## stona (Nov 14, 2016)

Cairncross in 'Planning in Wartime' makes the point that the Air Ministry had been_ 'backward' _in propeller development.
When the need was finally identified 1,050 aircraft were fitted with variable pitch propellers and CSUs in just two months, starting in June 1940.
What makes this even more idiotic is that a variable pitch propeller with a primitive CSU had first been fitted to a British aircraft in 1928!
Cairncross' comment on the MAP is damning.
_"The official attitude can be judged from the fact that the staff of MAP dealing with propellers at the end of 1940 consisted of two men and a young girl."_
The patronising attitude towards this unfortunate young girl we may put down to the attitudes of the time 

Remarkably the British only suffered one serious propeller shortage after 1940, of Rotol electric units, this led to 300 Wellingtons _"accumulating propellerless on the beach at Blackpool."_
There were less serious shortages of Rotol hydraulic propellers (effecting Halifax, Whitley production) and de Havilland hydraulic propellers (effecting Stirling, Beaufighter, Albermarle and Typhoon production_) _but the impact was ameliorated by the arrival of propellers from America.

What is even more remarkable is that in all the discussions, from 1930-36, from Bulldog to Spitfire, about the performance and armament of the new RAF fighters there is rarely a mention of propellers. The advantages of variable pitch propellers, in combination with a CSU, doesn't seem to have occurred to the decision makers of the time. It is a fact that the units fitted to the relatively low performance biplanes in the late 1920s did not much enhance their performance, but this is a poor excuse.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2016)

stona said:


> Remarkably the British only suffered one serious propeller shortage after 1940, of Rotol electric units, this led to 300 Wellingtons _"accumulating propellerless on the beach at Blackpool."_



Where they equipped with anchors to stop them floating away at high tide


----------



## yulzari (Nov 14, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Where they equipped with anchors to stop them floating away at high tide


Now you see the cunningness of the geodesic system in being made up of lots of holes to let the water in and out freely.......

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I have some sympathy for the Air Ministry, we now know what works and what doesnt, in the 1920s and 30s there were all sorts of ideas, early RADAR research was actually into the possibility of a death ray FFS. Telling the ministry in 1935 that special fuels and a better supercharger would be the best interim solution until an engine with one moving part makes the whole lot obsolete would have a lot of people laughing.




I have very little sympathy for the Air Ministry in this regard (although a lot in the areas you mention) as at the beginning of 1939 there were 21 airlines using fully feathering propellers on aircraft, not just variable pitch or constant speed. The improvement in aircraft safety was widely known to those who didn't have their heads firmly and deeply buried in the sand.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The fixed pitch props on the Spitfire and Hurricane seem to have optimized for speed. at least there was only a minor improvement when fitted with 2 pitch or variable pitch/constant speed props.



I stand corrected. Thank you Shortround. 

IIRC the Blenheim VP propellors and engines fitted to Sea Gladiators in Malta gave a very marked improvement in the rate of climb.


----------



## stona (Nov 14, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Where they equipped with anchors to stop them floating away at high tide



I doubt that they were literally 'on the beach'. The aircraft would have been at the Squire's Gate and/or Stanley Park sites. It would be rather difficult to get them down onto that beach, one I know well as I have family in Blackburn. I think Cairncross was just making a point.

It was not unknown to fly aircraft away from the factories using 'slave' or substitute propellers, but presumably this did not happen in this case.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2016)

some interesting stuff here

Stories of the Battle of Britain 1940 – Constant-Speed Propellers — Battle of Britain | 1940 | Reference | Spitfire Mk. I


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2016)

stona said:


> I think Cairncross was just making a point.



I agree but taking something written as a throw away line in a book written for effect then becomes a fact. Author A asked Pilot Officer P about the Spitfire as a gun platform, "Oh it was a terrible fighter wandered all over the place compared to plane X and it cant climb as fast as plane Y" witten down for effect then taken out of context it becomes internet gospel truth that the Spitfire was a rotten aircraft. No one quotes the bit about Plane X was a P47D and Plane Y was a Gloster Meteor F8.


----------



## stona (Nov 14, 2016)

Fair enough, but even minimal investigation would reveal the impracticality of storing aircraft on Blackpool beach. It's not just the small matter of the Irish Sea, a sandy beach is hardly an ideal staging post for an 18,000lb aircraft, even if you can get it onto it 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 14, 2016)

the truly sad thing about it is... all of these outlandish and down right erroneous notions will end up prevailing in the end. in the not too distant future they will the historical facts and the youth of the day will not have one clue about the truth. all you have to do is peek in on a gaming forum where tomorrow's "experts" are already tutoring others in fantasy ww2. the way history is being rewritten has me wondering how much of most of what I do know is total BS. as each vet who was there passes so does our ability to correct the path which history is written. When the last one is gone...it will be a sad day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> the truly sad thing about it is... all of these outlandish and down right erroneous notions will end up prevailing in the end. .



They are already prevalent. However, the information to enable a more informed opinion is available.

The essential fact in Cairncross' statement is that 300 Wellingtons were without propellers due to a lack of foresight on the part of MAP. The number and type of the aircraft is most important. Whether they were on Blackpool beach, or at the two production sites I mentioned above, both within 2 or 3 miles of the beach, is not of primary importance.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

I think it is harsh to criticise the Spitfire for its performance in 1939/40 especially on the basis of its propeller. There was only one plane better and that was owned by the nation that fired the starting gun to re arm. The twin pitch propellers were available when conflict began and the constant speed props were installed before the height of the BoB. Things can always be done better, but how were the French Russians and US planes getting along at the same time?


The Spitfire was designed by Supermarine, the engine and propellers are down to other parties, same with the Hurricane. However bad they were they somehow managed to stop the LW.



fastmongrel said:


> Where they equipped with anchors to stop them floating away at high tide



Off topic, three times in my life I have had to explain what tides are and why they are dangerous. Working in China with Chinese who had never seen the sea they couldnt understand how the Morcambe Bay disaster happened, even those who had seen the sea presume all tides and seas are the same.
2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster - Wikipedia. The UK has some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world and the sea is cold enough to overcome those with no experience in minutes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

stona said:


> The essential fact in Cairncross' statement is that 300 Wellingtons were without propellers due to a lack of foresight on the part of MAP. The number and type of the aircraft is most important. Whether they were on Blackpool beach, or at the two production sites I mentioned above, both within 2 or 3 miles of the beach, is not of primary importance.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Unfortunately the line about parking on the beach becomes the story. We both know thats not true nor even possible where the story originated was Blackpool Golf Club built in 1894 was taken over and became part of Squires Gate factory and airfield (now Blackpool Airport) planes were parked on what had once been the course. It had been a Links course and Links courses are usualy next to a beach.

My point was the beach story which was a local joke will probably turn up on something like warhistoryonline.com as proof that the Germans were so close to winning the RAF planes had no propellors and were parked on a beach.

I dont know if the MAP was responsible for the lack of props, maybe the prop factory was bombed or the ship they were on from the US was sunk or even something as simple as the clerk responsible sent them to the wrong Squires Gate I know there is one in Edinburgh.


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2016)

Lack of foresight was probably an unfortunate phrase on my part. To quote Cairncross in full.

_"When the heavy bomber programme was under discussion in September 1941 a review was undertaken of prospective shortages in key components, including propellers. The full calculation is not available and it is very doubtful whether it made any sense. For example, the only type of propeller that was expected to be in surplus in 1942 was the Rotol electric propeller - the shortage of which was so notorious three months later, with 300 Wellingtons accumulating propellerless on the beach at Blackpool."_

There is a clue as to what went wrong in the next paragraph.

_"Rotol hydraulic propellers were expected to be in rough balance; and the big shortage, intensified by the heavy bomber programme, looked like being in de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The mystery is how, without a production programme, any estimate was possible; but perhaps the two main firms were able to provide some indication of their likely output for the year as a whole."
_
Total British production of propellers (excluding fixed pitch) in 1942 was, Q1 2641, Q2 2992, Q3 3529, Q4 3908, a total of 13070.

The electric propellers were UK built. There were numerous factories and I don't know which built this particular type.
In any case the shortage soon eased.

_"The Rotol electric shortage eased fairly rapidly. Production rose from 19 in the second quarter of 1941 to 481 in the second quarter of 1942 and reached a peak of 800 a month by May 1943. Meanwhile the propeller was denied new applications (the pitch change was slow), the Hercules engined Lancaster II, which was fitted with the Rotol electric propellers, was limited to 300 aeroplanes, and almost the sole requirement was thus for the Wellington III."_

Cheers

Steve

.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I think it is harsh to criticise the Spitfire for its performance in 1939/40 especially on the basis of its propeller. There was only one plane better and that was owned by the nation that fired the starting gun to re arm. The twin pitch propellers were available when conflict began and the constant speed props were installed before the height of the BoB. Things can always be done better, but how were the French Russians and US planes getting along at the same time?



The Hamilton Standard constant speed prop was introduced in 1935 and the full feathering prop in 1937. 
See this website: Hamilton Standard Hydromatic Propeller History

American fighters were most certainly NOT using fixed pitch or 2 pitch props in the late 30s. 
Hamilton Standard was part of the United Aircraft group (which included Pratt&Whitney). Curtiss Wright Corporation had their own propeller company but used electric operation rather than hydraulic. US fighters as far back as the consolidated P-30 had used variable pitch props of some sort. The P-26 used ground adjustable propellers.




The French flew the First Ms 405 prototype with a two pitch prop in 1935. Production planes _may _have had constant speed or variable pitch. The MB 150, when it did fly in October 1937 had a constant speed prop. While the D520 prototype fist flew with a fixed pitch prop it was soon changed to a constant speed prop. 

The Macchi 200 seems to have had a variable pitch prop of some sort. 




The Fiat CR 42 biplane used a licensed Hamilton Standard propeller of some sort. Variable pitch or constant speed I don't know. 

Basically England was alone in 1938/39 using fixed pitch props on _new_ fighters out of the major nations. 
I wold say that using 2 pitch props on bombers at that time (Battle and Blenheim at least) was also behind the curve or world trends.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

I think the problem was Rotol or maybe others not wanting to use a licensed product, de Havilland were making them.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

I know the French were having trouble with producing propellors they had some very advanced designs but quite a lot of aircraft were without working or any kind of props. 

It does seem odd that British planes were so far behind the curve re props even more when you realise a variable pitch prop had been designed as far back as 1917 by the British. I can only think there had been problems with early types which set the Air Ministry against them. I have read that one early model of iirc a US prop had the habit of jumping into a flat pitch when climbing which must have done wonders for the pilots heart rate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

The Problem was probably the Air Ministry. 
Rotol did licence the Curtiss electric propeller.
Fedden had Bristol take out an option on the Hamilton propeller in the Early 30s but the Bristol Board of directors dragged their feet to such an extent (and Fedden was so desperate to get better propellers) that they relinquished the license option to DeHavilland who at some point in 1935, was tooled up for quantity production,or what passed for quantity production in the mid 30s. Fedden fitted ALL production Bristol engines with a control valve for the Hamilton propellers from the summer of 1934 on. Bristol engines used in foreign countries (up to 9 out of 10 in Europe) being fitted with Hamilton propeller, The Bristol board of directors not being happy with the lost business. 
Dowding had given contracts for 2 prototype propellers to both Bristol and RR about this time, both based off the Hele-Shaw propeller. 
The Bristol modification had a very successful trial but once again, the Bristol Board of directors couldn't see the potential market and thought that DeHavilland had it. Fedden was interested in getting ONE design of propeller for mass production, not two leaving Dehavilland out of it and goes directly to RR in a private meeting suggesting a joint company. With RR on board he goes back to the Bristol board of directors who now sign on to the propeller project/joint company. Small scale production starts in the winter of 1936/7 and a new site is found in 1937 and the factory construction was in progress in the summer of 1937 with first production propellers built by the end of 1937. Obviously production was a fraction of what it would be latter let alone what was needed in 1942-44. 
Had the Air Ministry demanded better propellers or at least shown there was a sizable market for them perhaps larger production could have been achieved earlier. 

The time line is from pages 85-86 of "BY Jupiter" a biography of Sir Roy Fedden. corrections welcome.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2016)

An unwillingness to invest without some kind of guarantee of future orders was not limited just to propeller manufacture. It impinged on engine production as well. Merlin production was cut back in 1938!
We know that the war would start in late 1939 and that there would be a hugely increased demand for aircraft, engines and all their accessories. This was not self evident until the late 1930s and most firms were working to the various and frequently changing rearmament schemes.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

What we needed was someone to take control of the country around 1934 and put it on a war footing (like the people we were fighting) as I said before, much of this is having small peace time companies suddenly thrust into defending the nation. In the link posted earlier it describes de Havilland fitting constant speed props at very short notice and no written contract, they very nearly were not paid for doing something vital in one of the UKs most vital battles. Until war is declared things are run on business lines which are inclined to be messy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2016)

Even during the war companies had some autonomy. De Havilland decided to convert two of its factories to produce a 'rack type' variable pitch propeller, with a view to producing 1260 a month. This was a supposedly simpler system (though drawings I've seen of a similar system designed by an Italian don't look to be) and as many as three times as many of this type could be made. Unfortunately there was no demand for such a propeller, particularly as it was only developed with three blades, and as fighter engine power was increasing more and more required four blade units. the Lancaster was a prospective candidate, but the arrival of substantial numbers of propellers from the US satisfied the Lancaster requirement and avoided fitting a unit which could not be feathered. This had already had disastrous consequences for at least one Sunderland. In the end only 700 of this type of propeller were manufactured, less than one month's initial planned production, and interest was only maintained as it was considered to have potential in a contra rotating system.
One wonders what exactly de Havilland thought they were doing.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

I believe I left an impression I did not mean too. This all started as a result of reading re-reading, 3 books in my collection all of which made mention of the fact the in the 30's most of the material and equipment being produced for the military of the US, and the UK lagged in quality and performance from the original specs mentioned in the RFP's. 

I was not, and am not, deriding manufactures or casting aspersions on the industry as a whole. It was just a fact mentioned to varying degrees by each author more as an aside. It struck a nerve with me and in the moment I made a comment. Which obviously stuck several nerves. It was not my intention.

Anyway, the thread seems to have narrowed down to my questioning of the early fixed pitch wooden prop'ed Spitfire having poor climb performance. This is a simple fact not open to questioning, its documented all over if you just search a bit. This issue was largely addressed by addition of a variable pitch propellor and several ever more powerful engines as its design continued both pre-war and during the war, indeed even after the war. 

It was a fine aircraft well loved by its pilots I am not trying to say otherwise. Was it the best? I honestly do not know. Lots of opinions both pro and con out there from those that flew it and those that flew against it. Probably true of any aircraft.

So with all that being said, I probably should have thought a little more before making such a post because obviously it was both poorly thought out and because of that it engendered some rather energetic responses. All of which I found educational by the way. 

I think we can all agree, cars, trucks, planes, trains, practically anything made by man often is under realized in its first iterations. All things tend to improve over time both as a function of refinement of design and as technology improves or availability of better technology catches up to demands.

Thanks to all that took the time to reply, often with insightful well thought out responses. I appreciate all of your contributions.

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


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 15, 2016)

I was reading a book written, or ghost written, by a German WW2 pilot. He said he slid back the canopy of his Bf109.
Anyone with just a little knowledge about me Bf109 knows no model of the 109 had a sliding canopy, but they did have a sliding panel in the side of the canopy. That was no doubt what he was meaning. His exact meaning might have been lost in translation, or just a simple mistake not caught by proofreading, or by the printer.

But if i had took what he wrote literally, i'd think there was models of 109s out there with sliding canopies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I was reading a book written, or ghost written, by a German WW2 pilot. He said he slid back the canopy of his Bf109.
> Anyone with just a little knowledge about me Bf109 knows no model of the 109 had a sliding canopy, but they did have a sliding panel in the side of the canopy. That was no doubt what he was meaning. His exact meaning might have been lost in translation, or just a simple mistake not caught by proofreading, or by the printer.
> 
> But if i had took what he wrote literally, i'd think there was models of 109s out there with sliding canopies.


Ha! Agreed! Remind's me of the time a local auto repair shop charged my Mom for a new carburetor on her fuel injected VW Rabbit. I drove it back down there with the receipt in hand and asked him to show me exactly where he placed the carburetor. Got her money back.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2016)

Even the Me309 with it's "bubble" style canopy had the righ-hand hinged setup.

I wonder if that Luftwaffe pilot was thinking Fw190 while recalling his experience in the Bf109?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

Here we go again first off there was no performance specs that the Spitfire failed as the specification was written around the prototype K5054.

As for poor prefromance again compared to what. The *first production* Spit MkI K9787 was tested at Martlesham Heath August 1938 it had a Merlin II rated at 990hp at 2,600rpm at 12,250 +6.25lbs boost max horsepower 1030hp at 3,000rpm at 16,250 +6.25lbs of boost on 87 Octane at a weight of 5,819 lbs (service weight with all equipment) it returned the following figures. It had an Airscrew Company 2 blade wooden fixed pitch prop.

height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 295 1m 0s 2,195
10,000 328 4m 18s 2,490
15,000 348 6m 30s 2,065
18,500 362 8m 25s 1,700
20,000 360 9m 25s 1,480
30,000 315 22m 25s 0,325

The equivalent Bf109 model the D had a 670hp Junkers 210D engine a 2 position 2 blade prop and a max speed of 295mph and a time to 6,000 metres at a weight of 5,345lbs of 11m 30s. Yet the Spitfire is somehow a failure because it didnt meet a non existent set of original specs.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Here we go again first off there was no performance specs that the Spitfire failed as the specification was written around the prototype K5054.
> 
> As for poor prefromance again compared to what. The *first production* Spit MkI K9787 was tested at Martlesham Heath August 1938 it had a Merlin II rated at 990hp at 2,600rpm at 12,250 +6.25lbs boost max horsepower 1030hp at 3,000rpm at 16,250 +6.25lbs of boost on 87 Octane at a weight of 5,819 lbs (service weight with all equipment) it returned the following figures. It had an Airscrew Company 2 blade wooden fixed pitch prop.
> 
> ...


I honestly am not trying to argue about this. A two bladed wooden fixed pitch propellor will yield poor performance in almost every category compared to a variable pitch metal or composite propellor period. Especially in climb performance. As far as failed against what, nothing that I know of specifically. As far as compared to what, compared to a 3 or 4 propellor non fixed pitch propellor. Or are you now claiming that the Spitfire somehow defied the laws of physics and aerodynamics?


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

In March 1940 Spitfire MkI N3171 was tested at Boscombe Down with a Rotol Constant speed propellor. It had a Merlin III running on 87 octane for camparison purposes this was the same engine as the Merlin II apart from the propellor shaft. It weighed 6,050lbs the extra 115lbs of weight weight over K9787 was due to the Propellor and its accompanying equipment plus an Armoured Windscreen and some Lead ballast in the tail. 

height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 , 295 ,0m 42s ,2,820
10,000 , 320 ,3m 30s ,2,895
15,000 ,339 , 5m 18s , 2,430
18,500 ,348 ,.........................source doesnt say what the climb figures were
20,000 ,353 ,7m 42s ,1,840
30,000 ,319 ,16m 42s ,660

Speed was 14mph down but rate of climb with the Rotol prop was increased by almost 50% and take off run was reduced by 30%


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

> I honestly am not trying to argue about this. A two bladed wooden fixed pitch propellor will yield poor performance in almost every category compared to a variable pitch metal or composite propellor period. Especially in climb performance. As far as failed against what, nothing that I know of specifically. As far as compared to what, compared to a 3 or 4 propellor non fixed pitch propellor. Or are you now claiming that the Spitfire somehow defied the laws of physics and aerodynamics?



No I and everyone else is trying every way we can think of to tell you that the Spitfire didnt fail its original specs (there were non) and was far and away the best climbing and fastest fighter plane of its age. Even with a 2 blade wooden prop it outclimbed and was over 60mph faster than its contemporary the Bf109D. By March 1940 a Constant speed equipped Spitfire was slightly slower by around 5 or 10mph (depends on source) than the 109E and climbed slightly faster or about the same depending on altitude.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Okay here is what I mean, until the Spitfire XIV it was not competitive in climb rates. From there onwards it most certainly was. But the Mark I, II were just plain not and never could be with a fixed pitch prop. 

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft Great link which DOES award the Spit the fastest climb but NOT until XIV.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Okay here is what I mean, until the Spitfire XIV it was not competitive in climb rates. From there onwards it most certainly was. But the Mark I, II were just plain not and never could be with a fixed pitch prop.
> 
> Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft Great link which DOES award the Spit the fastest climb but NOT until XIV.



I really want to swear at this point but For Flips Sake will have to do on this forum. How does that link relate to anything in any way shape or form to a discussion on the Spitfire MkI. Meteor MkIII yes I am not sure what their record against the Luftwaffe in 1939 to 1940 was.

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


----------



## wuzak (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft Great link which DOES award the Spit the fastest climb but NOT until XIV.



But that only compared late model fighters, and the only Spitfire compared was the XIV.

It does not compare earlier Spitfires with their contemporaries.

The IX, for example, was a pretty decent climber.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 15, 2016)

The chart fastmongrel posted shows the IX as the second best climber at most altitudes.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Yes and I am ONLY saying that until the fixed pitch wooden prop was replaced in later variants it sucked at climbing like any aircraft would with that propellor. Nothing more. Which is expected with that prop. For goodness sake I am not an idiot and not arguing against later performance or even comparative performance other than against itself. 

Unless you strapped rockets and or a jet engine on it, the plane with a fixed pitch wooden propellor did not climb well at all, nor did any other so equipped aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 15, 2016)

What you have been told, repeatedly, is that with the fixed pitch 2 blade wooden prop it climbed as well or better than most of its contemporaries.


----------



## BLine22 (Nov 15, 2016)

Even with the two bladed fixed pitch wooden prop the Spitfire I is the best performing fighter in the world at the time of its introduction in 1938. Hurricane is probably number 2. I don't think that the Jumo powered Bf-109 could compete with either. just compare it to what other nations were operating at the time; P-35, P-36, F3F, MS.406, Fiat G.50, I-16, Ki-27 and A5M.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Yes and I am ONLY saying that until the fixed pitch wooden prop was replaced in later variants it sucked at climbing like any aircraft would with that propellor. Nothing more. Which is expected with that prop. For goodness sake I am not an idiot and not arguing against later performance or even comparative performance other than against itself.
> 
> Unless you strapped rockets and or a jet engine on it, the plane with a fixed pitch wooden propellor did not climb well at all, nor did any other so equipped aircraft.


Robert you are seriously starting to push my buttons. Your first post said you read a lot and then "I like to think designers are competent people but what was wrong with these idiots all through the war and constantly delivering underpowered aircraft?"

Your next post deflected the thread onto Spitfire climb performance. Your opinion on the Spitfire has changed during the course of this thread there is no "Spitfire Mk I performance or Mk II performance, there was a bloody war on. The Spitfire Mk I had a wooden fixed prop, a course fine prop and various CS props it used two different fuels and levels of boost while adding cannons armour and all sorts of other bits which add weight. My opinion is that in performance the advantages of a fixed prop against CS were marginal at 900 to 1000BHP but cleat at 1200BHP.


from wiki
In early 1940 Spitfire Is of 54 and 66 Squadrons were fitted with Rotol manufactured wide-bladed propellers of 10 ft 9 in (3.27 m) diameter, which were recognisable by a bigger, more rounded spinner: the decision was made that the new propeller would also be used exclusively by the Mk II. This engine/propeller combination increased top speed over the late Mk I by about 6-7 mph below 17,000 feet (5,200 m), and improved climb rate.[70] Due to all of the weight increases maximum speed performance was still lower than that of early Mk Is, but combat capability was far better.[33] The Mk II was produced in *IIA* eight-gun and *IIB* cannon armed versions. Deliveries were very rapid, and they quickly replaced all remaining Mk Is in service, which were then sent to Operational Training Units. The RAF had re-equipped with the new version by April 1941.[33] The Rotol propeller units were later supplemented by de Havilland constant-speed units similar to those fitted to Mk Is.
Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia


Your link says the Spitfire MkXIV was good in climb

The Spit MK I could match its adversary at the time, the Spit MkV could until the Fw190 arrived then The RAF got the MkIX 


It was a war, keenly fought with fine margins, your earlier link "debunking the "myth" of the Spitfire matters as much to me as saying Churchill was an alcoholic (Hitler was tea total so make your choice) or Kennedy was a womaniser (show me a man who wouldnt have an affair with Monroe).

Now a serious question, in 1940 the French who had a huge aviation industry put 75 Dewotine 520s in front line service in the Battle of France, the Dewotine was between the Spitfire and Hurricane in performance. Of all the other major world powers who had any aircraft AT ALL that could have assisted the UK in the Battle of Britain?

Now a final question, the spitfire entered service with a "Malcolm hood" type canopy which everyone agrees was a boon to the pilot, these were still being retro fitted to Mustangs in late 1943, how was that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I believe I left an impression I did not mean too. This all started as a result of reading re-reading, 3 books in my collection all of which made mention of the fact the in the 30's most of the material and equipment being produced for the military of the US, and the UK lagged in quality and performance from the original specs mentioned in the RFP's.
> 
> I was not, and am not, deriding manufactures or casting aspersions on the industry as a whole. It was just a fact mentioned to varying degrees by each author more as an aside. It struck a nerve with me and in the moment I made a comment. Which obviously stuck several nerves. It was not my intention.



In many cases the performance asked for in the initial invitations to bid was simply unobtainable at the time. Manufacturers came as close as they could and some shaded their design more to one requirement or another (top speed vs stall speed for example) . In some cases they were given a free hand in engine selection and in others they were told (or it was strongly suggested) to use a particular engine. Please look at the proceeding aircraft to see the jumps in performance sometimes being requested. 
The jump from the B-18 bomber to the B-26 called for about 40% more top speed and carrying almost 20% more bomb-load 74% further. The Cube law says that to get a B-18 up to 300mph you needed 2330 hp per engine at 10,000ft instead of the 850hp that engines it had. Something had to give, top speed or bomb-load or range. 
Please remember that much of the research equipment we take for granted now didn't exist. There was only ONE Wind tunnel in the US that would fit a full sized fighter fighter plane and it's wind speed was well short of 300mph. 
British had NO full sized wind tunnel which lead to all the absurd (with hindsight) predictions of 370mph Beaufighters and 460mph Typhoons. 

I would note that most other nations built a few clangers also. Not just the US and England.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Even with the two bladed fixed pitch wooden prop the Spitfire I is the best performing fighter in the world at the time of its introduction in 1938. Hurricane is probably number 2. I don't think that the Jumo powered Bf-109 could compete with either. just compare it to what other nations were operating at the time; P-35, P-36, F3F, MS.406, Fiat G.50, I-16, Ki-27 and A5M.


In 1940 (generally) the 109 had an advantage over the Hurricane but on par with the Spitfire, apart from armament (RAF pilots would have loved cannon) the opposing pilots would normally have liked to change planes The Spits climb and turn performance is better for escort fighters while the 109s speed and dive performance is better for an interceptor.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> In many cases the performance asked for in the initial invitations to bid was simply unobtainable at the time.


And also small matters like doubling of machine guns from 4 to 8 were introduced along with pilot armour bullet proof windshields self sealing tanks, ariels lights sensors alarms and other "stuff" As previously posted the MK II was slower than the early MKis but a much better fighting machine.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> In many cases the performance asked for in the initial invitations to bid was simply unobtainable at the time. Manufacturers came as close as they could and some shaded their design more to one requirement or another (top speed vs stall speed for example) . In some cases they were given a free hand in engine selection and in others they were told (or it was strongly suggested) to use a particular engine. Please look at the proceeding aircraft to see the jumps in performance sometimes being requested.
> The jump from the B-18 bomber to the B-26 called for about 40% more top speed and carrying almost 20% more bomb-load 74% further. The Cube law says that to get a B-18 up to 300mph you needed 2330 hp per engine at 10,000ft instead of the 850hp that engines it had. Something had to give, top speed or bomb-load or range.
> Please remember that much of the research equipment we take for granted now didn't exist. There was only ONE Wind tunnel in the US that would fit a full sized fighter fighter plane and it's wind speed was well short of 300mph.
> British had NO full sized wind tunnel which lead to all the absurd (with hindsight) predictions of 370mph Beaufighters and 460mph Typhoons.
> ...


Could not agree more. Most initial deliveries of a weapons platform suffer from some form of poor performance in respect to their initial specs. F-35 is a prime example, I am pretty sure catching fire while landing was not a desired performance spec. 

And the Osprey has had more than its share of teething woes. Less frequently we see it in commercial aircraft like the Boing Dreamliner catching fire from runaway batteries.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Robert you are seriously starting to push my buttons. Your first post said you read a lot and then "I like to think designers are competent people but what was wrong with these idiots all through the war and constantly delivering underpowered aircraft?"
> 
> Your next post deflected the thread onto Spitfire climb performance. Your opinion on the Spitfire has changed during the course of this thread there is no "Spitfire Mk I performance or Mk II performance, there was a bloody war on. The Spitfire Mk I had a wooden fixed prop, a course fine prop and various CS props it used two different fuels and levels of boost while adding cannons armour and all sorts of other bits which add weight. My opinion is that in performance the advantages of a fixed prop against CS were marginal at 900 to 1000BHP but cleat at 1200BHP.
> 
> ...


I am in total agreement, don't understand why being in agreement is pushing your buttons. I agree that each generation improved and their was a war on. Nothing I said would seem to contradict that. However in Eisenhowers own memoirs he lamented the quality and delivery performance of lots of weapons systems. He spoke of endemic supply chain issues that resulted, in his view, of unnecessary compromises. Now I don't pretend to have his insight into the economies in play then, nor would I attempt to argue either way without that knowledge. I made a statement in response to reading the same type of complaint from multiple sources and authors. I provided references where I could. 

I really think you and others are reading more into what I said than is there. It was an observation coupled with a question. Sources state A, which lead me to question B. Sorry if somehow that pushes your buttons. Was not my intention at all. But somehow I seem to have caused a lot of emotional response when I did not intend to.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

wuzak said:


> What you have been told, repeatedly, is that with the fixed pitch 2 blade wooden prop it climbed as well or better than most of its contemporaries.


And I have never disputed that, not once. But I did say that its climb performance was poor compared to what was desired, maybe not clearly but that is and was my belief. And it is not untrue. Its climb performance increased rather dramatically once it was re-equipped with better propellors and engines. 

So telling me something I agree with time and again would seem to me to not be very pertinent. In any case as I said, sorry if I caused a problem it was not my intention.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

While the F-35 saga is depressing it also points out a major difference between then and now. The F-35 taking around 10 years from start of program (issuing requirement?) to first flight and another 9-10 years to go into service. "Progress" was much faster in the 1930s. Planes took about 3-4 years to go from requirement to squadron service and their successor was being speced about the time they first went onto squadron service. Aerodynamics, structures, materials were all changing very rapidly and sometimes new advances could only be incorporated into a new design and not just added to an existing one. 
It took the US just 10 years to go from this.





to this.




Engine power went up 3.33 times


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> And I have never disputed that, not once. But I did say that its climb performance was poor compared to what was desired, maybe not clearly but that is and was my belief.



OK, what was the _desired _climb performance?
What did the Specification call for? 
That is specification F10/35? 
How many feet per minute was specified or how many minutes to a given altitude?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, what was the _desired _climb performance?
> What did the Specification call for?
> That is specification F10/35?
> How many feet per minute was specified or how many minutes to a given altitude?


I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially. Remember, this is an observation I came to over reading dozens of books. Not someone specifically pointing at the Spitfire and saying it was a terrible plane. 

Again, recurring theme. Not an indictment of the Spitfire.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> While the F-35 saga is depressing it also points out a major difference between then and now. The F-35 taking around 10 years from start of program (issuing requirement?) to first flight and another 9-10 years to go into service. "Progress" was much faster in the 1930s. Planes took about 3-4 years to go from requirement to squadron service and their successor was being speced about the time they first went onto squadron service. Aerodynamics, structures, materials were all changing very rapidly and sometimes new advances could only be incorporated into a new design and not just added to an existing one.
> It took the US just 10 years to go from this.
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, I agree wholeheartedly. And the timeframe from conception to delivery has further compressed. But and this has been my point all along. We still get aircraft that underperform specs, kill pilots and crews AFTER the initial test phase. This very rarely happens in the commercial side. If the 777 had the same failure rate as the Osprey it would never have entered service. 

The military demands aircraft that operate at the edge of the envelope where commercial aircraft tend to stick mostly to tried and true and innovation cycles are somewhat slower. In fact military development is often the source of commercial innovation, just delayed. 

So I don't understand why I am being so taken to task, I don't think anything I am asking about is that inflammatory or even unreasonable. The Spitfire had a poor climb rate initially that was improved upon. Poor when compared to its own successors if no other. And if you speak to a fighter pilot they don't want aircraft that just has an edge on its competition they want one that exceeds in significant fashion its competition. Heck we routinely operate aircraft today that literally can survive conditions that would kill their pilots and we still want more. 

Plus and this is where I am really confused, I ASKED, I was not stating a purported fact. I said I had read many books that made the same observation that I did, and I ASKED if anyone had an idea. Last time I checked asking is not a capital crime? Is that not still the preferred method of learning? I cited what examples I could and that was the best I can do. 

Not sure why some folks seem to be reading more into what was a question based on an observation than was really there. Heck I served myself, we often got first generation products that did not meet the RFP, especially during the Carter years. We did what we could to field service stuff to make it meet our needs. As has been the case since there have been armed forces I am sure.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially. Remember, this is an observation I came to over reading dozens of books. Not someone specifically pointing at the Spitfire and saying it was a terrible plane.
> 
> Again, recurring theme. Not an indictment of the Spitfire.




A lot of crap has appeared in print and even more on the internet. A lot of this "misinformation" seems to come from some authors _interpreting _things without printing/posting the actual facts. 
I would note that climb _rates_ can be all over the place. One can pick and choose the climb rate _even from the same aircraft_ to bias an argument considerably. Like climb rate at sea level or climb rate at 15,000ft? or climb rate at 25,000ft? 
Instantaneous climb rate at low level or time to 20,000ft or higher? 
British made their climb charts using their definition of max continuous power, or a 30 minute rating. Yes the fixed pitch prop/s really hurt the low altitude climb and forced the engine to be throttled back even more at low altitudes. 
The US used Military power (basically Take-off limits) for the first 5 minutes and then dropped to the US definition of max continuous power which was different than the British. US max continuous was a one hour rating or sometimes the power level that was OK to use as long as the fuel lasted. It was higher than max cruise however and sucked fuel like crazy. 
Basic effect however is that the US planes would show a higher rate of climb for the 1st 5 minutes and then a slightly lower rate of climb after that than using British "rules". Please note however that the American climb rates, at least at altitudes that could be reached in 5 minutes are very close to the *combat* rate of climb ( at least for early war airplanes, ie before WER ratings) while the British climb rates are NEVER the climb rate that would be used in *combat* (fixed pitch props excepted?). US climb rates at higher altitudes (over 5 minutes to altitude) are also under stated in regards to* combat.*
British climb rate when given as time to altitude is useful for figuring the time it would take for an operational plane or small group to reach a certain intercept altitude. The US time to altitude is a bit less accurate. I could be wrong, it _might_ have been standard procedure to use max power on many climbs for first 5 minutes but I tend to doubt it. 
Other nations had similar rules for figuring climb which makes it hard to figure. What was the climb rate of a Bf 109 when fitted with the clockwork mechanism that limited max power to one minute? Or are the times to altitude done at the 30 minute rating? 
Planes with single speed superchargers had to pick their performance altitude or area. Even with a constant speed prop the Spitfire I when limited to 6lb boost was trading low altitude climb for high altitude climb. even going to a "combat" setting of 3000rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost at low altitude the plane was limited to 880hp at sea level. This was a result of the supercharge being set to give max power at 16,250ft without ram, which was the highest full throttle height (or critical altitude) of *ANY *mass produced engine in 1939 or early 1940. RR could have used different supercharger gear and gotten 1000hp for take-off and 1085hp at 9750ft using 6lb boost and 87 octane fuel but it would have cost them around 120-130hp at 16,250ft. With the constant speed prop it would have given them better climb at low levels (under 10-12,000ft) but really cost them climb rate at higher levels (over 15,000ft) and cost service ceiling. 
Now in 1938-39 P&W was working on a two stage supercharger, two planes in the US 1939 fighter trials had it, but it took until early 1941 to really get it sorted out and into production, The two speed R-1820 used in the Martlet I & IV had a FTH (full throttle height) of 13500ft, in high gear, low gear was used to get more power for take-off. The two speed R-1830 use in the F4F-3A and the Martlet II & III had a FTH of 14500ft in high gear. 
Maybe the Spitfire I (even with constant speed prop) didn't have the low altitude climb "desired" but since the specification didn't say with numbers what that was it is certainly _subject to interpretation_. But without going to a 2 speed engine (no two stage Merlins existed at the time) performance at low altitude had to be sacrificed. The adoption of 100 octane fuel solved the problem at least for combat. 
Around 300hp more was available from sea level to just under 10,000ft and from there to 16,250ft the power fell to the same as teh 87 octane fuel ratings. At 13,000ft an extra 150hp or so was available. While not normally used for climbing to combat height the extra power would have a rather startling effect on climb even if no tests are available showing the difference. 

I believe some of the flak you are taking comes from trying to use the website you listed as a source. There is just so much wrong with it I don't know where to begin and don't have the time at present.


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of crap has appeared in print and even more on the internet. A lot of this "misinformation" seems to come from some authors _interpreting _things without printing/posting the actual facts.
> I would note that climb _rates_ can be all over the place. One can pick and choose the climb rate _even from the same aircraft_ to bias an argument considerably. Like climb rate at sea level or climb rate at 15,000ft? or climb rate at 25,000ft?
> Instantaneous climb rate at low level or time to 20,000ft or higher?
> British made their climb charts using their definition of max continuous power, or a 30 minute rating. Yes the fixed pitch prop/s really hurt the low altitude climb and forced the engine to be throttled back even more at low altitudes.
> ...


Thank you! Very concise! I believe from my Grandfathers journals that he spent time on loan to the RAF in part working with Merlin on Turbo/Super charger designs. I know he worked extensively with 2 different fighter groups in 1941 and 42, and in his opinion early Merlins were as he put it "shite" but he was a P&W guy so that may have been professional jealousy talking. He spoke extensively of the trade offs between low level climb to altitude (I have yet to see anywhere in his Journals _what altitude_ he was speaking of), and performance and combat _at_ altitude. 

The website I used was only one of many, which on the points I was making agreed. I have no specific knowledge of the author. However my Grandfather is a first person source, he was there, and he did not like the early Spitfires and he and others fought a loosing battle to have production resources switched to planes like the Hurricane which had much longer legs than the Spit, was cheaper and quicker to build, and had similar performance characteristics to the early Spits. It was outclassed in a few areas but in the end its track record is on par at least during the Battle of Britain. The P-51 was his personal favorite but he said it even had serious teething problems especially with engines. 

However in his exact words "Until they changed the Spit to a variable pitch propellor it could not get out of its own way." 

Now what exactly he meant by that I don't know. He spoke of a similar issue with I think it was the original props on the Mosquito? 2 engine all wood bomber if I recall? And while I am not sure, I believe fixed pitch propellors were at one point in time common on German aircraft in the same period?

He had a single piece propellor mounted over his fireplace, it was a fixed pitch prop. In his workshop he had some type of radial engine on a stand and used it to explain how variable pitch props worked to me when I was a kid. I have of course forgotten most of it. But I do remember him demonstrating feathering! That was actually pretty cool! 

He and a bunch of his contemporaries acquired and sponsored a P-51 in races during the early 70's I used to love going to the hanger and seeing them work on it! Gramps was as they say everything in front of the firewall!


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Thank you! Very concise! I believe from my Grandfathers journals that he spent time on loan to the RAF in part working with Merlin on Turbo/Super charger designs. I know he worked extensively with 2 different fighter groups in 1941 and 42, and in his opinion early Merlins were as he put it "shite" but he was a P&W guy so that may have been professional jealousy talking. He spoke extensively of the trade offs between low level climb to altitude (I have yet to see anywhere in his Journals _what altitude_ he was speaking of), and performance and combat _at_ altitude.
> 
> However in his exact words "Until they changed the Spit to a variable pitch propellor it could not get out of its own way."



If you're grandfather was working with RAF squadrons in 1941/42 it is unlikely that he ever saw a Spitfire with a fixed pitch prop.

It is unlikely that he was working with Spitfire Is, possibly he worked with Spitfire IIs but he was most likely working with Spitfire Vs.

And a Spitfire V could, most certainly, "get out of its own way".

The trade-offs between climb and all-out level speed and performance at altitude were there for every aircraft built.

The Spitfire was optimised around higher altitudes, so suffered a little at low altitudes, but not a lot compared to contemporaries.




Robert Porter said:


> The website I used was only one of many, which on the points I was making agreed. I have no specific knowledge of the author. However my Grandfather is a first person source, he was there, and he did not like the early Spitfires and he and others fought a loosing battle to have production resources switched to planes like the Hurricane which had much longer legs than the Spit, was cheaper and quicker to build, and had similar performance characteristics to the early Spits. It was outclassed in a few areas but in the end its track record is on par at least during the Battle of Britain.



The Hurricane did have a longer range, but I would hardly say that it had "much longer legs".

I am actually very glad that your grandfather and the others failed to have the Spitfire replaced by the Hurricane.

In fact, the Spitfire (and Hurricane) were to be replaced by the Hawker Tornado (Vulture) and Typhoon (Sabre). This was a decision made in 1938. Those particular aircraft were _supposed_ to do 460mph, but didn't get close (Supermarine submitted the Type 324 and Type 325 for that competition, both with twin Merlins, the 324 had a tractor layout, the 325 a pusher layout - the Type 327 was submitted no long after, and was similar to the 324).

The Typhoon and Tornado were also not available when needed most. So they had to rely on the Spitfire and Hurricane, and it was soon determined that the Typhoon could not actually replace the Spitfire.

In terms of performance, the Hurricane II with the Merlin XX, using the improved "Hooker" twos-speed supercharger and intake, 100 octane fuel, +9psi boost and constant speed prop was slower than the Spitfire I with the Merlin II, 87 Octane fuel and fixed pitch 2 blade wooden prop. The Hurricane had better climb rates, particularly at low altitude, but that's what better power gives you.




Robert Porter said:


> Now what exactly he meant by that I don't know. He spoke of a similar issue with I think it was the original props on the Mosquito? 2 engine all wood bomber if I recall?



At no point in time was the Mosquito ever fitted with a fixed or 2 position prop. The prototype flew in late 1940, And de Havilland made Hamilton Standard constant speed props under licence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I really think you and others are reading more into what I said than is there. It was an observation coupled with a question. Sources state A, which lead me to question B. Sorry if somehow that pushes your buttons. Was not my intention at all. But somehow I seem to have caused a lot of emotional response when I did not intend to.


You say you are in complete agreement but other posts say that you aren't. I think the mistake you are making is reading that a fixed prop was replaced by a variable pitch and then by a constant speed prop means that the Spitfires performance was poor, it wasnt. There is no maximum to desired climb performance everyone would love to get to 30,000ft in 10 seconds but that isnt physically possible. The desired rate of climb is always the best you can do and in WW2 "can we have that yesterday please".

Your poss only show that late spitfires were better than early ones, in rate of climb it was briefly inferior to some new German marques but that is engineering, later versions closed the gap and sometimes produced an advantage. The Spitfire never went into combat with a fixed prop so your Grandfather was comparing it to other Spitfires. Ditto with Merlin engines, what were they shite compared to? Later Merlins?

I suspect that since your Grandfather had the P51 as his favourite plane, he had the Packard Merlin as his favourite engine and the 4 blade prop fitted to the P51 as his favourite prop. Remind me again what was the P51s rate of climb in 1939 with a 1000BHP engine, you can use any prop your heart desires.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 16, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially.



IF the Air Ministry Specification demanded 8.25 minutes to reach 15,000 ft - then K5054 blitzed it in 6.25 minutes. 
From Morgan and Shacklady pp 30...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

The idea of discontinuing Spitfires for Hurricanes is absolute nonsense, The Hurricane was approx 30MPH slower than the Spit and the 109, 30MPH is as much as a plane can get away with without being completely outclassed. Operating over France they would be unable to break of combat and end up in the RAF version of a Stuka party, at Dunkerque they were lucky not to be caught out in the same way simply because the German airforce had not caught up with their army, they were a long way from base too.


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, what was the _desired _climb performance?
> What did the Specification call for?
> That is specification F10/35?
> How many feet per minute was specified or how many minutes to a given altitude?



I can't go into the converging concepts of zone and interceptor fighters here, but each had different requirements (never specified by numbers but by desired 'time to altitude') for rates of climb.
When the 'Operational Requirements Committee' met on 29th March 1935 to consider the new day/night fighter to replace F.7/30, which would become the F.10/35 Specification, it continued the policies adopted for the Fury replacement, giving speed and firepower priority over manoeuvrability and rate of climb.
All aircraft are a compromise of various factors and the Air Ministry, in the form of DCAS Courtney also had a chart which related endurance to maximum speed. For F.10/35 the desired endurance was first decided and this gave a speed, pessimistically as it turned out, of 330mph. This might not seem very fast, but in four years the maximum speed of RAF fighters had increased from 195 mph (F.7/30 a zone fighter) to 330 mph.

The Spitfire was being built to a modified version of Specification F.7/30, Specification F.37/34 for an 'Experimental High Speed Single Seater Fighter'.
The Hurricane was being built to the similar Specification F.36/34
Neither of these specifications had directly involved the Air Staff in their development. They were both products of the Air Member for Supply and Research's high speed aircraft research program. His name will be familiar, Hugh Dowding. But, Dowding was not happy that these aircraft were being absorbed into other Air Ministry specifications. With hindsight he was probably wrong to worry, after all they became the Spitfire and Hurricane, yet he issued a new specification for an 'Experimental High Speed Aircraft' (F.35/35) in December 1935.

_"1. Since the time of the Schneider Trophy Race the problem of producing an aircraft in which all other qualities are to some extent sacrificed for speed has always been a matter of great importance, and aircraft have been ordered under conditions in which speed has been the primary consideration._ [F.36/34 Hawker Fighter/Hurricane and F.37/34 Supermarine/Spitfire]

_2. But, as the process of development work has gone on, these aircraft have tended to become absorbed among those designed to meet Air Staff requirements for the Royal Air Force. It is felt that the time has now come for a further step forward with the object of stimulation high speed development."

"Boldness and originality" _were asked for, not just bolting a bigger engine on existing designs. A maximum speed of _"not less than 400 mph" _was asked for. When tenders were received they showed little advance over the Spitfire, and in 1937 the project was quietly abandoned.

How both the Hawker and Supermarine high speed aircraft came to be related to F.10/35 is a grey area, and some people's memories seem to have failed them. Sorley, credited with relating both to F.10/35, actually seems to have related them to the Fury day fighter replacement (F.5/34). In any event both were eventually built to a modified F.10/35, but that is NOT where there origins lay.

In conclusion, the British at this time were developing aircraft to confront a new threat, Germany rather than France. ADGB exercises had already shown the shortcomings of the zone/interceptor fighter system. The bombers likely to arrive from the continent were becoming faster and faster, they had maximum speeds higher that the contemporary generation of British fighters in some cases.
It was these factors that compelled the British to concentrate on speed and firepower, even at the expense of manoeuvrability, endurance and rate of climb. The British wanted 330 mph fighters armed with 8 machine guns (a very heavy armament in 1935, we have the benefit of hindsight) or cannon (when they decided to ignore the ban on explosive ammunition along with everyone else).
It is actually remarkable that the two fighters developed from this period, the Spitfire and Hurricane, were not only fast and heavily armed, but that they were also more manoeuvrable than almost all their contemporaries, and also possessed comparable or better rates of climb. Endurance was NOT an issue in the role for which they were designed. The Operational Requirements Committee more or less got the endurance which it had specified. The short legs of both aircraft were not an oversight, they were designed that way. Endurance only became an issue when they were forced into a role for which they were not designed.

British Fighter Specifications = Minefield 

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

I should add on the matter of rate of climb, that the requirements for an interceptor and zone fighter were different and seem to have confused some at the Ministry in the mid 1030s, certainly Burnett, as Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (DCAS), didn't appreciate the finer points of the two.
A zone fighter required a high rate of climb to reach its patrol altitude as quickly as possible.
For interception fighter, speed and distance covered in a pursuit climb were important.
Clearly the two types would be optimised for these different roles. The confusion over the 'Fury replacement' seems to stem from this aircraft's switch from its original, intended role. The Fury was designed as interception fighter, but the 1931 air exercises showed that this system was unworkable and the Fury was withdrawn to the Air Fighting Zone to serve as a zone fighter.
Burnett put rate of climb as a priority for the new fighter to replace the Fury but the Director of Technical Development (DTD), Cave, did understand the issue. He asked whether this was to be at best climbing speed or that to give the quickest interception of an enemy at a given height and speed. The Air Ministry reply was that the climb requirement was for the best to 20,000ft. This small detail actually implied a significant change of policy, though I don't believe that the decision was made in the full understanding that this was the case.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2016)

Robert - simply stated, you keep stepping into factual poo-poo due to a lack of knowledge about the subjects you are pontificating on.

Recommendation - study this site and the aircraft performance documents in lieu of anecdotal 'theories' that you apparently hold in higher esteem. There are other sites but this one will touch on both models and contemporary time comparisons.

WWII Aircraft Performance

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2016)

I would note that the Prototype Spitfire held 75 imp gallons, this was changed to 84 Imp gallons on the first production models. Most sources say the Hurricane held 97 imp gallons. How much further you can fly on 13 gallons I don't know, especially in a plane with more drag.
Hurricane I data sheet.





In testing a Spitfire I with fixed pitch prop could do 240mph at 15,000ft using 29,1 gallons an hour and getting 8.26miles per gallon. 
even assuming 8 miles per gallon and deducting the same 20 gallon allowance in the chart above that leaves the Spitfire with 64 gallons and a range of 512 miles. In all probability the Spitfires in combat trim didn't do quite as well but then the air at 20,000ft is a bit thinner too. The longer legs of the Hurricane seem to be about 20 minutes flight time at economical cruising speed.
When fitted with the same propellers the Spitfire could out climb the Hurricane and had a higher ceiling. 

As for "The website I used was only one of many, which on the points I was making agreed. I have no specific knowledge of the author."
I have no specific knowledge of the author either but when he makes statements like "Manoeuvrable, *well armed*, fairly fast and long ranged, the A5M was..." he starts loosing credibility. The A5M had about 50% more firepower than a Sopwith Camel. In 1939 two Vickers Machine guns firing through the prop, even if firing faster than WW I guns is hardly well armed. 

Or "and was dubbed _La Faucheur _(the Reaper) by the French press due to its unheard of armament of eight nose-mounted machine guns......" when talking about the Fokker G1. Guess the french missed the memo on the Hurricane and Spitfire having eight guns even if not nose mounted and flying about a year before the G1. 

Really loved this one "Having said that, the 110 could outclimb any other European fighter in 1940". Yeah we are back to what do you mean exactly by climb but 1940 covers a lot of time and the idea of a Bf110 outclimbing a Spitfire using 12lbs boost low altitudes takes a lot of faith, not fact. Actually the Spitifires (MK I or II ) don't even have to use 12lbs boost.
Spec sheet for a Bf110 C :http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me110C_data-sheet.jpg
Climb to 6000 meters was 9 minutes even with reduced fuel and carrying less than 1/2 ammo. A Spit II could hit 20,000ft in 7 minutes using 2850 rpm and 9lbs boost. A Spit I could do it in 7.7 minutes with CS prop. 

He seems to make too many errors of fact to be reliable.

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


----------



## Robert Porter (Nov 16, 2016)

Very much appreciate all the info, learned a lot! There is a lot for me to learn about WW2 aviation in general but hey, thats why I read. And I have found over the years that you can sometimes pick 5 books about the same historical subject, and get 5 divergent opinions on that subject. All seemingly based on solid facts etc. So in the end, like most of history, its fairly open to subjective reporting as it were by authors. 

But thats why I try to read many sources. As a kid growing up I was fortunate in having a neighbor that was a retired History Chair from SUNY in Albany. He while retired, was often sent books for review by various and sundry companies, schools, so forth. He used to delight in proving that what I "knew" for a fact was often a subjective opinion. He would do this by letting me pick a subject, the one I remember best was the American Civil war. He then selected 20 odd books from his library and we selected a particular battle, or person, or whatever. We would then look each one up in each book. 

Amazingly to my young mind, all 20 would be different, some just slight differences, others seriously different in detail. He would look at me and say whose correct? I could not answer well and he would laugh and say all of them and none of them. He pointed out that all of history including last week was totally subjective because it was told from the observers point of view influenced by their background, education, perception etc. 

Thats where I learned about reading multiple sources, tracing source documents where possible, and thats what I have always done. Or at least tried to do. So thanks for contributing to my knowledge. I will keep reading, hope everyone else does as well. Remember, in the late 1800's it was *known *that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because such speed would generate a vacuum around the head leading to the suffocation death of the person attempting such an audacious deed.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> Thats where I learned about reading multiple sources, tracing source documents where possible, and thats what I have always done. Or at least tried to do. So thanks for contributing to my knowledge. I will keep reading, hope everyone else does as well. Remember, in the late 1800's it was *known *that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because such speed would generate a vacuum around the head leading to the suffocation death of the person attempting such an audacious deed.


The UK chose 30MPH as speed limit in part because that is the speed of a galloping horse.

If you want to criticize the Spitfires rate of roll, short range, vulnerability to small arms fire, narrow track undercarriage few would disagree. When discussing its performance be very specific, its engine doubled in power in 4 years and it doubled its weight in the same period. It had extended wings clipped wings a change of engine internal fuel added and various changes of props wings tails ......It was like murphy's favourite hammer three new shafts and two new heads. If it wasnt for its distinctive wing shape I am sure it would have had two or three new names, but it didnt because all of them look like spitfires.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2016)

Uh, Rob, you might want to check that "Remember, in the late 1800's it was *known *that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because......"
Typo when you meant 1700's or _very early_ 1800's? See *Stephenson's Rocket.*


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, Rob, you might want to check that "Remember, in the late 1800's it was *known *that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because......"
> Typo when you meant 1700's or _very early_ 1800's? See *Stephenson's Rocket.*


Stephensons rocket did 28MPH the later Patentee did 40MPH one was sold to Germany and named as the Adler (after a forum moderator)

Adler (locomotive) - Wikipedia
Stephenson's Rocket - Wikipedia

I was born a matter of yards from where Stephensons first loco "Locomotion No1 finished its journey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotion_No._1

Having ridden on a replica it was very strange, the operating pressure is so low it makes less sound than a kettle, all you heard was the wheels rubbing the track.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2016)

To keep from picking on the Spitfire and to show how even a single source can come up with some conflicting performance numbers try looking at the American XP-77 fighter, most of what is on the internet is pure garbage and even print books list things like.

"Maximum speed 330 mph at 4000 feet, 328 mph at 12,600 feet. Initial climb rate was 3600 feet per minute, and an altitude of 9000 feet could be attained in 3.7 minutes."

Now 3.7 minutes to 9,000ft is an average of 2432fpm and even a mis-print of 2.7 minutes gives 3333. fpm. However there may be some doubt about the engines ability to run at full power for several minutes. One minute at 3600fpm and 1.7 minutes at 3176fpm? or 2.7 minutes at 2000fpm?
Or initial climb was actually 2600fpm? and the 3600 is a typo/misprint?
Something is way out of wack and is never explained.

If something seems too good to be true it probably is and if one author's (or more than one) statements seem to run against "common" knowledge it is a very good thing to try to get back to the actual test numbers (and make note of the conditions of the test). In some cases the few authors do make a very good case against what is common knowledge, like the 390mph XP-39. Often quoted but never with a date of the test flight or name of the pilot who made the flight. The XP-39 actually did very limited test flying before being shipped off to the NACA wind tunnel and was plagued with over heating problems and due to a vibration problem (or potential problem) in the drive shaft was never run at full rpm during the period in question. Makes the 390mph test flight look _very _dubious.


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

The Spitfire I, with Merlin II and two blade, fixed pitch, wooden airscrew, as 'advertised' in Specification 456 for foreign buyers must have been a right old dog.
Only France, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Japan, Egypt, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia, China, Finland, Norway, Romania and Portugal expressed an interest by the start of the war.
Most of these countries either placed orders or entered negotiations to build the Spitfire under licence. Many sent pilots to test fly the aircraft. In September 1939, on the brink of war, the 12th saw the Belgians fly the type, the 13th the Yugoslavs, 15th was set aside for the French followed by pilots from Holland, Switzerland, Romania, Turkey and Greece. In the event only the first two groups got to fly the aircraft. The Yugoslavs, somewhat presciently, were unhappy with the fixed pitch propeller and asked that a CSU be made available, they thought the take off run with the fixed pitch propeller was too long, and they were right.
Of course the airmen and experts from all these different nations were incapable of seeing the Spitfire for the POS it was and convinced their governments to order it. or negotiate to build it, anyway 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

I conclude that the Spitfire was like democracy, it had faults and room for improvement but was better than the alternatives tried up to that point in time.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> If you want to criticize the Spitfires rate of roll, short range, vulnerability to small arms fire, narrow track undercarriage few would disagree



Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.


The take off and landing accidents story of the Me109 is a myth and gets some posters here on the verge of exploding. The Spitfire was tricky only compared to the Hurricane which some Germans saw as childishly easy to land. There are quite a few threads here about that particular myth, they make interesting reading. 

I read only yesterday that the Dewotine 520 was a beast on the ground needing 100% attention at all times until the engine stopped.


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.



There are various reasons why two aircraft with similar undercarriage tracks should have such differing ground handling characteristics, but the most important is different geometry.











You don't need a protractor.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The take off and landing accidents story of the Me109 is a myth and gets some posters here on the verge of exploding.



It's not a myth. In conjunction with various other factors the geometry did lead to a lot of landing and to a lesser extent take off accidents.

When Bf 109s were first sent to Norway they had to use 'hard' runways rather than grass and the absence of a lockable tail wheel led to so many accidents that a local fix was manufactured in Norway.
Hans-Curt Graf von Sponeck flew to Norway with fourteen other pilots from 10./JG 53 (soon to be integrated into JG 5) lost five of fifteen aircraft to landing accidents on that day. He blamed ice as a contributing factor, but a tail wheel lock was devised at the Stavanger-Forus repair facility for the Norwegian based aircraft.

Ernst Schroder (disliked the Bf 109 and considered it _"a crime that it was manufactured until 1945"):_

_"The students at the school were told all about the negative characteristics of the Bf 109, including its tendency to swerve on take off or landing along the movement of the wings axis. The aces from the Eastern Front had no problems taking off or landing as they could use the torque to their advantage, but inexperienced pilots often found themselves being pulled brutally to the left, which caused many accidents."_

Heinz Lange (who rather liked the Bf 109, but acknowledged its faults):

_"First of all, I must say that I much appreciated flying the Bf 109 , I was as confident in this aircraft, as I was later in the Fw 190. The Bf 109 had several advantages, but also several weaknesses, one of the being the narrow landing gear which made starts and landings difficult and often dangerous in windy conditions (above all a lateral wind) or on a not well prepared airfield or strip, especially for young trainee pilots. This weakness led to an incredible number of accidents, many of them resulting in the pilots death."_

Now, when you ask for pilots' opinions on an aircraft you will get as many opinions as pilots you ask, but, the bad ground handling of the Bf 109 is a common theme. One British test pilot, obviously inexperienced on what was an enemy aircraft, described it as _"malicious"_, as if the aircraft was actively trying to kill him!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

It has been discussed at length, most trainees killed were killed during take off and landing. If you take off and land in a 109 in the same way as other aircraft that is a mistake. There were many german aces flew the 109 throughout the war in all theatres, it is a question of training not the aircraft itself (from what I have read)


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> There were many german aces flew the 109 throughout the war in all theatres, it is a question of training not the aircraft itself (from what I have read)



That is true, but having an aircraft with fewer potentially dangerous characteristics obviously makes training accidents fewer. Experienced pilots certainly had no difficulty handling the Bf 109, the same was true of the first version of the Me 210, but it killed a lot of less experienced men.
The comparison here is with the Spitfire, and its undercarriage geometry made it a simpler aircraft to master. It was less likely to kill an inexperienced pilot.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

stona said:


> The comparison here is with the Spitfire, and its undercarriage geometry made it a simpler aircraft to master. It was less likely to kill an inexperienced pilot.
> Cheers
> Steve


All planes can kill an inexperienced pilot, as I understand it the 109 must be landed on all three wheels which is a skill learned in training, a pilot ties to land on two wheels as they did on some aircraft he is in trouble. Its like saying that the Spitfire was a danger to Polish pilots used to fixed undercarriage. Lack of training is not the fault of the aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2016)

The 109 flew from fields on the Eastern front that made a ploughed field look like a Billiard table and would have given a US or British pilot a heart attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I understand it the 109 must be landed on all three wheels



And that is the fault of the aircraft. Other aircraft, with a similar undercarriage track could make 'wheeler' landings without bicycling around into a ground loop. That's the point. 

The Bf 109 had this compromised undercarriage design because the gear attached to a truss which was part of the fuselage, also acting as an attachment for the lower end of the engine bearers. This had the advantage that the wings could be removed whilst the rest of the aircraft stood on its wheels, and this was supposedly part of a requirement for ease of transport on the railway. It had the disadvantage of imposing a less than ideal geometry on the undercarriage and that is what made it more difficult than some contemporary types to handle on the ground.
Incidentally it also sat nose high, at a high angle of attack on the ground, severely limiting forward visibility, even by the standards of the time, and the tail had to be raised early in the take off run, not ideal given the tendency to bicycle around. On the other hand the CoG was well behind the wheels, meaning the brakes could be used more aggressively than in many contemporaries, 'experten' used them to steer the aircraft on the ground. 

Every aircraft has strengths and weaknesses, but the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage was certainly a weakness. It is of note that subsequent Messerschmitt designs did not continue with this system.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2016)

In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.



The most malicious handling aircraft ever to take to the air could be landed safely. It's all relative and the landing (and take off) characteristics of the Bf 109 were worse than many contemporary aircraft, particularly in direct comparison to the Spitfire, an aircraft of overall similar performance (through most wartime versions until late 1944).
Cheers
Steve

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


----------



## BLine22 (Nov 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.


If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.


Not if it made the 109 a more compact lighter faster machine. No 109 pilot would trade the undercarriage for a fixed one that took away its advantage in speed and handling. Of all the planes in the war the 109 was the most dangerous to the opposition from 1939 to 45. The Spitfire was much easier to fly in 1940 than it was in 1945, no pilot would want to get rid of the weight and power unless they were having a pleasure flight post war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Not if it made the 109 a more compact lighter faster machine.



Why would a more conventional undercarriage attachment make the machine heavier or reduce performance? Even Messerschmitt abandoned the system on subsequent designs, a tacit acknowledgement that it could be improved. It's also why, though no paper trail exists, some involved with the original design of the Bf 109 blame the unconventional system on the transport requirement mentioned above. It was a compromise and I'm struggling to think whether the He 112 met the same requirement and if so how.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> The most malicious handling aircraft ever to take to the air could be landed safely. It's all relative and the landing (and take off) characteristics of the Bf 109 were worse than many contemporary aircraft, particularly in direct comparison to the Spitfire, an aircraft of overall similar performance (through most wartime versions until late 1944).
> Cheers
> Steve


But we are talking about fighting a war. During the BoB accidents increased partly due to starting night time flights, bothe the Hurricane and Spitfire were supposed to be day/night fighters. The other reason was put down to poor cockpit drill or discipline for which you can read lack of experience. When pilots start crashing on Ops because they are insufficiently trained it is a sign that they are losing the battle. Having a poorly trained pilot flying a plane is not part of the designers brief, the Germans started off giving good training but couldnt keep it up, the RAF was in the same situation in 1940, there were plenty of pilots but few who could take the fight to Germany.

If you have a 109 or Buchon today you can fly it as it was flown in the war (with safety devices fitted) if you have a P51 you can fly it also but not loaded up with the rear fuel tank filled and 100 gal wing tanks, the plane is so marginal in that condition special instructions were given and the permission was purely for the duration of the war, despite this some pilots were lost and there were no inexperienced US pilots arriving in UK in 1944 all had hundreds of hours before they set off.

If the RAF was forced to fight in France and was losing pilots then putting inexperienced pilots in a fully laded Typhoons would result in accidents on take off and landing.

A nice wide track or fixed landing gear would result in something 20/30mph slower.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> Why would a more conventional undercarriage attachment make the machine heavier or reduce performance? Even Messerschmitt abandoned the system on subsequent designs, a tacit acknowledgement that it could be improved. It's also why, though no paper trail exists, some involved with the original design of the Bf 109 blame the unconventional system on the transport requirement mentioned above. It was a compromise and I'm struggling to think whether the He 112 met the same requirement and if so how.
> Cheers
> Steve


The advantage to the 109 was the undercarriage was in principle fixed to the engine mounting. It was a smaller lighter thin winged structure, the Spitfire had the elliptical wings to allow the landing gear and armament to be housed while the Hurricane had a box structure and thick wings, no German pilot would swap places with a Hurricane pilot because the Hurricane was easier to take off and land. The 109s landing gear wasnt continued but neither was the Spitfires, other better solutions were found because its easier to find those solutions when you have 2000 BHP to start the design with.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

In Laura Hillenbrand's book, _Unbroken_, she notes that during WWII, "In the air corps, 35,946 personnel died in non-battle situations, the vast majority of them in accidental crashes." It seems that the US produced a huge number of dangerous aircraft, or alternatively accidents happen when a nation is put under pressure to do something more quickly than is safe to do so.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> A nice wide track or fixed landing gear would result in something 20/30mph slower.



What, like the Fw 190?

A wide track undercarriage does not necessarily imply a reduction in performance. It was a design compromise allegedly to meet a requirement of the specification. All aircraft and all specifications demand some compromises, it's just that this one made the Bf 109 much more tricky for inexperienced pilots to fly.

Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?
Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

The FW 190 was a later design with a more powerful engine, the 109 first flew with a Kestrel engine. I have already said I consider the "inexperienced pilot" argument to be misleading, I guarantee that I would crash all of them. The 109s centre of gravity was further behind the front wheels than that of a spitfire, it was tail heavy and much less likely to "nose over". 

Ray Hanna flew one and said it was easier than many aircraft to make a three point landing, maybe that was because it was designed to do just that. He also said that on the ground it was much different to other planes, you should not roll off the runway after landing but come to a halt and slowly taxi.

Pilots were killed taking off and landing in all sorts of aircraft, statistics would probably "prove" that basic trainers were more dangerous than some combat aircraft, I would think the most difficult flight a pilot ever makes is his first solo and every pilots remembers it My opinion is that given correct training the 109 was safe to fly, its record shows that, with incorrect training it was dangerous but they all are. The B26 gained a terrible reputation for landing crashes purely because of its high landing speed, pilots ignored the manual tried to land too slow and crashed, is that the fault of the plane or its designer? It went on to have one of the best safety records of any bomber.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Ray Hanna flew one and said it was easier than many aircraft to make a three point landing, maybe that was because it was designed to do just that. .



Or maybe that is because he was one of the most experienced warbird pilots in the world, never mind his experience on more modern types. The men who lead the Red Arrows tend to be fairly competent pilots..

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> What, like the Fw 190?
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?
> Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?


The geometry of the landing gear required training and procedures to keep it safe, the forward vision on the ground was chronic which also required procedures to operate it safely, if safety in take off and landing, pilot vision on the ground and general docility were priorities then the RAF would have gone to war in Texans.

The 109 may have had a higher accident rate with inexperienced pilots, the spitfire may have had a higher accident rate than the Hurricane and the Hurricane higher than a Hawker Fury what does that mean? There were a large number of pilots survived the war flying 109s saying it was dangerous for inexperienced pilots, to me they are saying that very quickly Germany was forced to put pilots into 109s that had insufficient training.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> Or maybe that is because he was one of the most experienced warbird pilots in the world, never mind his experience on more modern types. The men who lead the Red Arrows tend to be fairly competent pilots..


Yes he was a fantastic pilot, I saw him fly. He was a fantastic pilot in a Spitfire and a 109 and he said that the 109 was easier than most to make the required three point landing. In Germany, in the war the 109 was normal, other set ups were unusual. In the UK the Spitfire and Hurricane were the norm and they had a tendency to nose over.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?

Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?
> 
> Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?
> 
> ...


Do you read my posts, I replied in #189

Your questions run close to the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of thought

Cheers


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Do you read my posts, I replied in #189
> 
> Your questions run close to the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of thought
> 
> Cheers



I don't see the answers. 

Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?

This is a fairly simple question requiring a straightforward answer. Either, in your opinion, it did or it didn't. There is no right or wrong answer, and certainly no incriminating answer; I fail to see an analogy with the wife beating question, incriminating whichever answer is given.

If you believe that the geometry of the Bf 109s undercarriage did NOT have a deleterious effect on certain aspects of its handling then that is fine by me, but we will have to agree to differ.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

I don't see the answers.

Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?

This is a fairly simple question requiring a straightforward answer. Either, in your opinion, it did or it didn't. There is no right or wrong answer, and certainly no incriminating answer; I fail to see an analogy with the wife beating question, incriminating whichever answer is given.

If you believe that the geometry of the Bf 109s undercarriage did NOT have a deleterious effect on certain aspects of its handling then that is fine by me, but we will have to agree to differ. It is quite possible for two people to weigh the same evidence and come to different conclusions 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The advantage to the 109 was the undercarriage was in principle fixed to the engine mounting. *It was a smaller lighter thin winged structure*, the Spitfire had the elliptical wings to allow the landing gear and armament to be housed while the Hurricane had a box structure and thick wings, no German pilot would swap places with a Hurricane pilot because the Hurricane was easier to take off and land. The 109s landing gear wasnt continued but neither was the Spitfires, other better solutions were found because its easier to find those solutions when you have 2000 BHP to start the design with.



This is actually false, or perhaps, it became false. Sticking a wheel and tire part way out the wing put it in a thinner section of the wing than using inward retracting gear. Hurricane didn't use a thick wing to house the landing gear.





The wheels/tires were technically in the wing structure but in the thickest part and space in the fuselage could have been used. 

You also have the fact/s that the Hurricane and Spitfire wings were huge compared to a 109 wing. The often quoted % of thickness is the percentage of the cord. If one wing is 20% longer in cord at the wing root than another that means it is 20% thicker in actual dimensions even if the percentage stays the same. 

Yes the structure may have to be heaver to take the landing loads further out from the fuselage but the thinnest wing could be made with the wheels almost touching on the center line.

The Geometry on the 109 also caused to wheel to tilted in the wing when retracted. taking up more depth than a wheel laying parallel to the wing. Not a problem in the early light versions. Became a problem on later versions when bumps/bulges had to used to cover the larger tires. On the early versions it points out that the wing thickness was NOT tailored to the size of the wheel/tire. A hinge/pivot could have been provided to make the wheel lay flat, or to keep the wheel more upright in the landing position. It would have been more expensive to make and possibly heavier. 

And the differences between early and late versions is part of the problem with the 109, or at least evaluating it from 80 years later. 
It gained over 40% in weight from the Jumo Powered versions to the K series. Changes in CG may be compounded by changes in movement arms or inertia. As the plane got heavier the weight spread out from the center of gravity do even if the CG stayed the same (or close to it) the control response did not. Obviously the torque reaction to a 700hp engine is mcu different than the reaction to a 1400-1500hp engine. 
The B-C-D may have been perfectly delightful to fly, I don't know, The E may have had a few more tricks up it's sleeve. The F not much different (in most models) the G in later models seems to be where the bad reputation kicks in. 

Pilot evaluations have to be tempered with the pilot in question's experience/expectations. A bit of reading between the lines may be needed too. The Series of books U.S. Civil Aircraft by Joseph Juptner is fun to read times because there wasn't a single plane he didn't like. A lot comments like "it kept a pilot on his toes" or "forced you to pay attention" are scattered through it, especially on the higher performing/powered models of certain aircraft (some panes could have a 225hp Lycoming or a 400hp Wasp Junior).
About the last thing a tired,cold and possibly wounded pilot needs when returning from a combat mission is a plane that kept him on his toes. Unfortunately all too often in many air forces, that is what he got.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

stona said:


> I don't see the answers.
> 
> Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?
> 
> ...




It is not a straightforward answer, as I previously posted the Spitfire was more prone to nose over so it is a question of which attribute you choose. The Hurricane had much better vision and was much more stable on take off and landing the Spitfire. This was not a consideration when choosing to make the Spitfire the front line fighter, they just made sure pilots were trained to fly it. In 1940 in Germany the 109 was the norm for a monoplane fighter it is what they were and did and they were trained for it. 33,000 were produced and 2,500 pilots became aces. 

As posted previously 36,000 US air personell were killed in training, training people to fly in war time was danegerous especially without dual controls. The lack of basic training for 109 pilots is not the fault of the 109.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> This is actually false, or perhaps, it became false. Sticking a wheel and tire part way out the wing put it in a thinner section of the wing than using inward retracting gear. Hurricane didn't use a thick wing to house the landing gear.
> 
> 
> Yes the structure may have to be heaver to take the landing loads further out from the fuselage but the thinnest wing could be made with the wheels almost touching on the center line..


I had in mind a previous post explaining why thin wings could not be fixed to the Hurricane, It was explained with photos how big the box structure was to contain the undercart mechanism. I believe the Spitfire needed a new type of tyre to fit its wing.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.



A negative on one hand, versus a very strong positive relative to portability, weight and performance on the other hand. Most pilots would prefer the latter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> It is not a straightforward answer.



Again, we will agree to differ.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

drgondog said:


> A negative on one hand, versus a very strong positive relative to portability, weight and performance on the other hand. Most pilots would prefer the latter


2,500 LW pilots who made 5 kills or more would agree I am sure.

Swept wings were discovered to suffer from "pitch up" causing the "sabre dance". Were planes re designed without swept wings or were training and flying procedures changed to allow swept wings to be flown safely?


----------



## BLine22 (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Not if it made the 109 a more compact lighter faster machine. No 109 pilot would trade the undercarriage for a fixed one that took away its advantage in speed and handling. Of all the planes in the war the 109 was the most dangerous to the opposition from 1939 to 45. The Spitfire was much easier to fly in 1940 than it was in 1945, no pilot would want to get rid of the weight and power unless they were having a pleasure flight post war.



pbehn, I agree with you, every design is the outcome of give and take. I don't think LW pilots would want to give away any of their power to weight ratio for beefier wide track landing gear.

I think a good comparison is Hellcat and Corsair. Hellcat was very easy to fly and had a great combat record. Corsair had much better performance but was a hand full for less experienced pilots. After the war, the Corsair remained operational while the Hellcat was relegated to the Reserves or for use as drones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Corsair had much better performance but was a hand full for less experienced pilots. After the war, the Corsair remained operational while the Hellcat was relegated to the Reserves or for use as drones.


The Corsair was such a handful that it took the British to teach the Americans how to land it on a carrier!












He He He I know its a myth, I dont really know where it came from, but it still runs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I had in mind a previous post explaining why thin wings could not be fixed to the Hurricane, It was explained with photos how big the box structure was to contain the undercart mechanism. I believe the Spitfire needed a new type of tyre to fit its wing.



In the design stage when most things are "rubber" or at least just pencil lines on paper you can do quite a bit of changing. Once you have an established structure in production changes are a LOT harder to make. Like trying to make thinner wings to stick on the existing center structure. IF the undercart mechanism (legs and piston/s and linkages) was designed for the thick wing space you could certainly design a new mechanism to fit a thinner wing. But that is just more work (man hours) added to the conversion scheme and means that many fewer interchangeable parts/spares with the old airframe. 






While you can't really move the bottom of the wing up you might have been able to move the top of the wing down to make it thinner. I would note that the pilots feet and rudder pedals are on top of the wheel wells so I am not sure how much you can squish things there. 


Depending on the the load on the tire they could sometimes just use a higher load range tire of the same size. Usually meant increasing the number of ply's. Like going from a 4 ply to a 6 ply. The tire would be heavier but pretty much the same size. Down side is that the contact patch (area where the rubber meets the road/grass/dirt) stays the same size and the tire sinks further into the dirt. Other choice is use a larger size tire that is wider and slightly larger in diameter even if it fits on the same rim. Tire still weighs more but spreads the weight out over a larger area preventing (or lessening) the tires sinking into soft ground. 
I don't know what they used on the Spitfire but apparently on the 109 they fitted the bigger tires.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2016)

Here is a table of US losses in training 1942-45
United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training

Fatalities
Primary trainers =439
Basic trainers =1,175
Advanced trainers =1.888
P40 =350
P47 =455
P51 =137


The A36 had the highest rate with 274 crashes per 100,000 flying hours while the P51 was 105.
Are there any figures for the Bf109

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Swept wings were discovered to suffer from "pitch up" causing the "sabre dance". Were planes re designed without swept wings or were training and flying procedures changed to allow swept wings to be flown safely?



Procedures, man! The "Sabre dance" resulted from pilots using take-off techniques learned in straight wing aircraft that were inappropriate in the Sabre. Early jets were REALLY slow accelerators on the runway, consequently designed with minimal pitch attitude when sitting on the wheels, to keep drag to a minimum and ram effect maximum. This could lead to a situation where the near-symmetrical airfoil would produce enough NEGATIVE lift to pin the aircraft to the ground and make rotation and liftoff impossible. By this time there's not much runway left, and the ejection seat doesn't have zero altitude capability.
So at some point well before take-off speed the stick goes back to full up elevator, then as the nose gets "light" and starts to rise, the stick goes forward some to prevent an over-rotation. Elevator effectiveness is increasing rapidly at this point, so timing is critical. A little delay or not enough forward stick pressure, and the pitch-up takes over. This whole song-and-dance was not an issue with straight wing aircraft as their center of lift didn't migrate so much with pitch attitude in ground effect. M.A.C.murphy strikes again!
Later jets with afterburners and positive AOAs on the ground were less susceptible. (Except McDonnell products!)

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 20, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Procedures, man! !)



Exactly my point, no one suggested doing away with swept wings, they identified the problem, found a solution and changed procedures and training.


----------



## stona (Nov 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Exactly my point, no one suggested doing away with swept wings,.



No, because they were a huge aerodynamic advantage, all subsequent high performance aircraft adopted swept wings.

There was no advantage to attaching the Bf 109 chassis to the fuselage, other than to met a transport specification. No subsequent German aircraft (or other nationality off the top of my head) adopted this system and its inherently dodgy geometry. There were some other chassis attached in a somewhat similar way, but they used some very complicated construction to overcome the geometric problem (think F-4F, which despite better geometry still had less than ideal ground handling characteristics, described variously as 'tricky' and 'terrible' and everything between.)

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BLine22 (Nov 20, 2016)

The advantage of attached the landing gear to the fuselage is that the landing forces are transmitted from the landing gear directly to the fuselage and therefore the wing structure doesn't have to be reinforce as much. The further outboard on the wing that landing gear are mounted equals a longer lever arm between the landing gear and fuselage and the wing must be designed to withstand.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 20, 2016)

stona said:


> No, because they were a huge aerodynamic advantage, all subsequent high performance aircraft adopted swept wings.
> 
> There was no advantage to attaching the Bf 109 chassis to the fuselage, other than to met a transport specification. No subsequent German aircraft (or other nationality off the top of my head) adopted this system and its inherently dodgy geometry. There were some other chassis attached in a somewhat similar way, but they used some very complicated construction to overcome the geometric problem (think F-4F, which despite better geometry still had less than ideal ground handling characteristics, described variously as 'tricky' and 'terrible' and everything between.)
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## stona (Nov 21, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The advantage of attached the landing gear to the fuselage is that the landing forces are transmitted from the landing gear directly to the fuselage and therefore the wing structure doesn't have to be reinforce as much. The further outboard on the wing that landing gear are mounted equals a longer lever arm between the landing gear and fuselage and the wing must be designed to withstand.



True. But what is the penalty compared to the advantage? No subsequent Messerschmitt design did the same, nor did any contemporary British designs or subsequent British or German designs. This suggests that the disadvantage in handling of such an ungainly design outweighed the advantages.
The F-4F was designed that way to absorb the very much heavier loads of carrier landings, particularly given the designed sink rate of all WW2 US carrier aircraft, and might in that way be a justifiable compromise, but not the Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Elmas (Nov 21, 2016)

At the time when Mitchell and Messerschmitt started to design Spit & Bf 109 the theory of bending and stretching of plates was in its infancy, so structural designers were very conservative about the loads that wing could support, also because calculation, with just a slide rule as an aid, was very difficult. Very soon, hovever, they did realize that thin wing with stressed skin were much stronger that expected, and they act consequently.

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


----------



## wuzak (Nov 21, 2016)

Is it not the case that the wings have to resist similar bending loads in flight as they do in the landing gear?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2016)

In part it may be due to the suddenness of the load being applied and strength of the whole wing vs local portions of the wing. 
The Spar or Spars may be the main source of strength for bending loads but the skin contributes a certain amount as the entire wing is trying to bend in flight. In a hard landing the landing gear is trying to rip it's attachment points loose (attachment points on spar/s) and punch through the top surface of the wing. Or bend the spar in a specific location, not across it's entire length. It may even be a bit of a double wammy. fuselage and outer wings are trying to go down (inertia of decent) while the resistance (upward force) is being applied at only two points. It may depend on the design load factor used for the landing calculations. some planes were designed for a 4.5 G impact. others used a different limit.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2016)

The primary design limits for the wings were Angle of Attack loads imposed by high G pullout from a dive, but could be approached by a very hard/high G turn maneuver.

The Naval aircraft also considered landing loads to test Limit G/Ultimate G applied loads - but most design landing loads were less than high AoA loads.

Elmas explanation was correct. Conservative approach to bending loads was to consider a beam with a 'wider' flange - top and bottom due to skin riveted over the spar as neither the theory nor the computational methods were adequate to calculate bending stresses of complex boxes created by spar/rib/longeron connected to shear panels.

In addition to the complex analytical requirements imposed by looking at such structure with assumed rigitdity, airframe structures are elastic under applied loads - which adds another layer of complexity to the analysis as both deformation of the structure as well as frequency response must be taken into account.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 21, 2016)

Elmas said:


> At the time when Mitchell and Messerschmitt started to design Spit & Bf 109 the theory of bending and stretching of plates was in its infancy, so structural designers were very conservative about the loads that wing could support,



Just to be clear, a Spitfire undercarriage leg rotates on a pintle which is attached to the wing (effectively the back of the main spar) and not the fuselage, though close to it. It is the angle of this pintle that allows the undercarriage to fold up and back so that the wheel clears the spar/D-box.
Though the track of the undercarriage is very similar to the Bf 109, the geometry is therefore quite different.






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Nov 21, 2016)




----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 21, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The FW 190 was a later design with a more powerful engine, the 109 first flew with a Kestrel engine. I have already said I consider the "inexperienced pilot" argument to be misleading, I guarantee that I would crash all of them. The 109s centre of gravity was further behind the front wheels than that of a spitfire, it was tail heavy and much less likely to "nose over".
> 
> Ray Hanna flew one and said it was easier than many aircraft to make a three point landing, maybe that was because it was designed to do just that. He also said that on the ground it was much different to other planes, you should not roll off the runway after landing but come to a halt and slowly taxi.
> 
> Pilots were killed taking off and landing in all sorts of aircraft, statistics would probably "prove" that basic trainers were more dangerous than some combat aircraft, I would think the most difficult flight a pilot ever makes is his first solo and every pilots remembers it My opinion is that given correct training the 109 was safe to fly, its record shows that, with incorrect training it was dangerous but they all are. The B26 gained a terrible reputation for landing crashes purely because of its high landing speed, pilots ignored the manual tried to land too slow and crashed, is that the fault of the plane or its designer? It went on to have one of the best safety records of any bomber.


The b26 still had a higher accident rate (and fatality rate) than the b17,b24 and b25 right up to the end. Only the b29 was worse.


----------



## MiTasol (May 21, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Procedures, man! The "Sabre dance" resulted from pilots using take-off techniques learned in straight wing aircraft that were inappropriate in the Sabre.



And that was the cause when the Sabre crashed into the Sacramento ice cream parlour in 72. The pilot over-rotated and stayed nose very high and on the runway right up until he hit the berm. From the Bee Archives: Old jet plane kills 22 in crash into Crossroads ice cream shop

Bob Hoover and the NTSB watched the news video at Leroy Penhalls Fighter Imports. Leroy's team put the aircraft on the register and sold it to a middleman who passed it on to the guy that crashed it. Leroy had refused to sell him the aircraft because he failed the T-33 training program.

Hoover said during flight trials at Edwards?? he travelled over-rotated the full length of that very long runway and there was no way the Sabre was ever going to fly.


----------



## pbehn (May 21, 2017)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The b26 still had a higher accident rate (and fatality rate) than the b17,b24 and b25 right up to the end. Only the b29 was worse.


That depends on whether you consider a pilot landing at an airspeed that guarantees a crash to be an accident. Crashes caused by lack of training cannot be attributed to the aircraft in my opinion.


----------



## MiTasol (May 21, 2017)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The b26 still had a higher accident rate (and fatality rate) than the b17 ,b24 and b25 right up to the end. Only the b29 was worse.



The Martin B-26 had an excellent safety record starting before D-day. Some sources I saw in about the 70's said the turning point was a petite female ferry pilot showed up at several bases flying a B-26 with one engine feathered and did low level aerobatics before landing with the engine still feathered. The good old _if a small woman is not scared of this airplane then nor am I _factor at work. Urban myth or true I do not know but I do know there were magazine adverts that said the B-26s did 4,000 missions during June 44 with not a single aircraft being lost.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 23, 2017)

There's a difference between a safety record and a combat loss record. A high performance plane with an atrocious accident rate early on in training has more than once matured into a combat survivor once training techniques and design modifications have caught up with its performance. The Martin Marauder is a good example. (In the heyday of the Twin Otter the Beech 99 was considered a "hot ship", as its Vref was [GASP!] OVER 100 knots! Better not send that one out in the boonies!)
A jump in aircraft performance often preceded the necessary jump in pilot performance by many lives lost, especially in wartime.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 23, 2017)

pbehn said:


> That depends on whether you consider a pilot landing at an airspeed that guarantees a crash to be an accident. Crashes caused by lack of training cannot be attributed to the aircraft in my opinion.


Good question! Philosophically, I agree with you, you can't blame a pilot for the failings of his instructors, but it IS an operational loss, not combat, so statistically you've got to consider it an accident. And let's face it, if the airplane in question has quirks or performance parameters outside the comfort zone of the pilot community, those statistics will be needed in order to advocate for the necessary changes.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 23, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Here is a table of US losses in training 1942-45
> United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training
> 
> Fatalities
> ...




I'm confused (shocking I know) but looking over the link and reviewing the numbers where does the following stat come from? 

*"In Laura Hillenbrand's book, Unbroken, she notes that during WWII, "In the air corps, 35,946 personnel died in non-battle situations, the vast majority of them in accidental crashes."."*

Either I'm really bad at math... I'm not, or I'm missing something in this equation. I looked over the table in the link pbehn posted and there's nothing like 35,000+ deaths, or am I looking in the wrong place? Or is Laura Hillenbrand looking in the wrong place?


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm confused (shocking I know) but looking over the link and reviewing the numbers where does the following stat come from?
> 
> *"In Laura Hillenbrand's book, Unbroken, she notes that during WWII, "In the air corps, 35,946 personnel died in non-battle situations, the vast majority of them in accidental crashes."."*



I presume there were a lot of other causes of death that weren't training or in battle. Glenn Miller and Leigh Mallory are two famous examples. Losses on take off and landing may have been on a mission but they are non battle situations. Fog, running out of fuel, getting lost and wing icing caused many losses.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 23, 2017)

The table only list accidents in the Continental USA. 1942 - 1945. There were a LOT of operational fatalities outside the USA and a startling number on delivery flights that happened after they left the USA and before they got to wherever they were going. As I recall, the losses on delivery flights were high. You might check the Statistical Digest of WWII. It is available as a pdf download on the web. I attached it below.

Check tables 99 and 100 as a good starting spot.

From it, I show 43,581 overseas fatalities, of which 22,948 were combat fatalities. That leaves 20,633 lost in non-combat accidents/incidents. If you add 13,621 fatalities in the Continental USA, you get 36,569 fatalities in accidents, both in the USA and overseas.

That's a lot of fatalities to accidents and would have shut down ANY peacetime Air Force. War makes casualties a bit easier to swallow as the result, but does not make them any less tragic.

Some in here aren't very enamored of the Statistical Digest of WWII, but it has tables and data I have seen no place else. If you can't find data to contradict it, then maybe these data are the best we have on some subjects. I believe the Digest on things like hours flown, casulaties, etc.

I kind of disagree on aerial victories, but that subject has been a bone of contention since the middle of the war and isn't likely to be settled anytime soon. I 'm NOT a revisionist, myself. If the scores were good enough for the people of the day, they are good enough for me.

I have no issue with trying to find out EXACTLY how many were shot down, but resist "updating" the scores for the U.S.A. only and ignoring the rest. Unfortunately, we are seemingly the only country that funded a study of same after the war, so the revisionists go after the US scores only and simply disparage the rest as fantasy. To me, when they correct ALL the scores, that would be a table worth having. Otherwise, let's compare what they had right when the war ended and be done with it. At least that way, we're comparing WW2 scores, instead of correcting US scores and comparing the corrected list against uncorrected scores from other countries. That is just NOT the way to do it.

That's why I still list Boyington at 28. That was his score when the war ended. When every other US pilot gets the same attention he did, then we might have something to talk about. There is an entire argument here that just doesn't fit the topic, so I'll forego it.

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


----------



## stona (May 24, 2017)

GregP said:


> If the scores were good enough for the people of the day, they are good enough for me.



Then what's the point of doing any historical research? What's the point on looking in previously unopened or unavailable archives when they become available? In fact what's the point in history as a subject at all if it is left set in stone at some random point in time with no chance of correction in the light of new facts and factors?
It isn't a matter of ignoring new information on US figures and refusing to acknowledge the new data generated, it should be a matter of attempting to do the same for all other nations too, find the information, continue research, continue the debate.
Figures that are provably incorrect should never be good enough for anyone.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 24, 2017)

I believe I have stated before that my reading comprehension seems lacking of late, right at the top of the table it CLEARLY states, and I quote:

"Table 214 -- _*Airplane Accidents in Continental US*_, By Principal Model of Airplane - Number and Rate: 1942 to 1945"

Emphasis mine.

Sorry guys, my error, many thanks to both of you for setting me straight.


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 24, 2017)

GregP said:


> The table only list accidents in the Continental USA. 1942 - 1945. There were a LOT of operational fatalities outside the USA and a startling number on delivery flights that happened after they left the USA and before they got to wherever they were going. As I recall, the losses on delivery flights were high. You might check the Statistical Digest of WWII. It is available as a pdf download on the web. I attached it below.
> 
> Check tables 99 and 100 as a good starting spot.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link, I downloaded it but that's going to take some time to go through, just a little light reading. I'll just say I agree with you on the issue of revised scores for all nations, what's good for the goose and all. But I think if you can revise through postwar records where available I see no reason not to. Eh, that's all I'll say as you're right, not the thread for this topic. Thanks again for the info.


----------



## Robert Porter (May 24, 2017)

With absolutely no offense to anyone intended, I think it can be definitively stated that there will NEVER be a 100% accurate and provable data record produced. Records produced in the last Gulf War are already being disputed and gaps found. During wartime every effort is made to generate good record keeping but it is never 100% nor is it even consistent. Different units often collected data using different methodologies. Sometimes primary records were destroyed in fire/water/loss even before those records made their way up the chain. Records retention was and is an issue. Often the source records are degraded beyond recovery by age and poor storage. Transcription errors creep in and sometimes even tertiary aggregate records, especially from WW2 and before degrade. I work in IT and my sub speciality for the last 25 years has been document management and archival management. I can tell you for a fact there is no all inclusive source for a lot of the information we seek. Speak to research historians and they will, grudgingly, tell you that most of the data we argue about is an educated guess with a lot of gaps filled in with statistics. 

Where records do exist, there are often conflicting records sometimes even from the same source. Ask Dana about this I am sure he can attest. The example that comes immediately to mind was from the 80's when the Iran Contra scandal was in full bloom. Attempts to determine just what munitions may be involved failed mostly because of either missing records or outright lack of proper record keeping. In 1980 at FE Warren AFB my unit, the 90th MSS was tasked with performing an audit of hand guns, rifles, LAWS rockets and other weapons we had in our possession. Just our unit mind you, and at the end the best we could tell was we were either missing over 100 M-16's or we had 23 more than we should. Reason was bad record keeping. For instance when an armourer uses parts from a weapon slated to be destroyed to repair a weapon also slated to be destroyed and does not properly amend the records to show that combining two otherwise unserviceable weapon into one that was serviceable.

Then we have the fact that some of the records from the RAF and the Luftwaffe among others, were outright destroyed in battle. Or in the case of Germany, lost to deliberate destruction, or lost due to neglect before they could be properly cataloged. Not even mentioning the fate of the records held in the Soviet sectors prior to reunification. It is why I take records that do exist with a huge grain of salt and won't debate records accuracy because honestly there is NO accurate source now, and even in the day there was none. Human error, failure to file a report correctly, loss in transit, etc.

We have a lot of information, but to argue about numbers other than on a very large scale seems meaningless to me. I value anyones input, am I crazy or does it just seem a little disingenuous to argue if 34,519 people died in accidents or was 33,917? Honestly the best answer in my book would be prefaced by saying the best estimate is somewhere in the low to mid 30,000 range.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (May 24, 2017)

Great post. Mr Porter...and all of that occurs without factoring in those occasions when reports are deliberately fudged to hide an unpleasant truth or score a political point. It all comes down to what are we measuring/counting, how we are measuring/counting and why we are measuring/counting....and those all change over time, often in a very short space of time as opposed to the long-view historical perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 24, 2017)

Valid points which all need to be taken into account when dealing with any kind of data, not just the historical kind. But none of it means that we shouldn't keep looking and trying to establish better numbers to work from.

The post also reminded me how meticulous and accurate the records of the various Einsatzgruppen were, they were used as a basis for the trials of some of the members of those units at Nuremberg. Almost every murdered man, woman and child accounted for. A year or so after the 'Aktions' through the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belorus etc., when the Germans sought to cover their tracks and destroy the evidence of their crimes they knew exactly where the bodies were buried, literally, _but they never destroyed the incriminating records._

An extreme example admittedly, but it's why we dig in the archives and why history is an ever evolving discipline. I have books from the 1970s, written with the knowledge of the time, and representing a snap shot of our understanding at the time. Much of their content is as valid today as it was then, but a significant amount is not, having been superseded by developments over the last 40 years or so. _
_
Steve


----------



## Robert Porter (May 24, 2017)

Agreed! My thrust was not so much that we just wring our hands and say oh well, we of course should do all we can to preserve and uncover as much history as we can. My real observation is that sometimes we get bogged down in arguments about whose particular numbers are correct and argue heatedly for and against specific sources when the sources may only differ by a very small amount. To me that is wasted time, energy, and emotion. I think it is our version of arm chair quarterbacking but with a defective instant replay system. Things like assuring men and women that served receive all recognition due them is one of those areas I think we should pursue vigorously, but I am not terribly impressed or worried about exactly what defines a non combat loss vs a training loss vs an accident vs an equipment failure. Since those terms are often redefined over time and since not all units necessarily agreed on how to apply the definitions at any given point of time, including purposely fudged records to get or keep a unit fitness report in acceptable bounds etc. It seems somewhat pointless to dismiss or accept a given author based solely on their use of available data. And often I see an author slammed over a trivial difference in numbers when the rest of their work appears to be well researched and presented. 

Just cautioning against painting with a broad brush when the underlying data is suspect and incomplete to begin with. Also new information is constantly coming to light, which while it may cause, as mentioned above, a book written in the 70's to appear to be wrong, it does not mean the rest of the material in the book is instantly questionable or worthless. When I was a young lad growing up I was fortunate to have as a next door neighbor a retired History Chair from SUNY. He even though retired was constantly being sent history books for review etc. He taught me a very valuable lesson about history. It is 90% opinion, 8% bias and standing on 2% of fact. As an example he had me pick a civil war battle, which was his personal area of expertise. Then we went to his extensive library and he would pull out a dozen books written about that battle. He made me draw up notes from each book on specific aspects of the battle, which units were involved, the artillery used, the numbers of troops, the physical layout of the battle field, the commanders, the weather, casualties, etc etc. In the end it was pretty obvious that no 2 books agreed on much of anything. So I asked him, if they are all different which is correct. He just looked at me with a smile and said "None of them... and all of them."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 24, 2017)

Data reliability is also dependent on who compiled it. For example, as published by the Air Ministry in 1947, we can be fairly sure that the casualty figures for RAF Bomber Command are accurate, or as accurate as is reasonably possible. 
For those interested, 47,268 were killed in action or died as prisoners of war, 8,195 were killed in flying or ground accidents and 37 died in 'ground battle action'. We also know the number of various wounded and injured, which brings the total number of casualties to 73,741, about 60% of those who served the Command. We can therefore safely say that approximately 85% of Bomber Command casualties were suffered on operations, and 15% in training and other accidents.
I'm actually surprised that the figures for the USAAFs are not so clear cut, I find it hard to believe that the data wasn't kept, maybe it was never processed?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (May 24, 2017)

Records of wrong data can be as important as the correct figures. For example the LW made decisions based on their incorrect estimates of RAF strength and losses during the BoB. Leigh Mallory also believed in the effect of his big wing based on incorrect claims

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (May 24, 2017)

More stats.This time from *The Official Pictorial History of the Army Air Forces* - printed in 1947...

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


----------



## pbehn (May 24, 2017)

I remember an exchange of views on here discussing the courage (or lack of) a German ace pilot who bailed out when surrounded by allied fighters over Germany. With the losses in training and accidents on operations I think all pilots had a profound sense of their own mortality. The books I have read by renowned pilots who were exceptional at flying all conveyed somewhere or other that to survive the war they were above all lucky. Some, indeed many of the 35,000 US airmen and women killed in accidents would have been avoidable given more time training resources etc but some were not, in any case they were all accustomed to their fellow airmen dying long before they met the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 25, 2017)

Actually, Stona, my point above was not to stop doing historical research at all. The point is to either give attention to the entire list or let it go. To pick and choose who you decide to "audit" smacks of bias. By "bias," I mean experimental bias, not emotional bias, though that is sometimes involved, too. Let's look at so-and-so because I want to discredit him or because I want to add to his score.

If you're going to review the record, then review the entire record and hold off on results until it is done, and publish all at once as a study. Also, don't review just the U.S.A. Either review aerial victories for some particular conflict or don't. If so, do the best you can. The rules should be, "if there is no solid evidence otherwise, then WW2 scores stand as recorded. No guessing."

Picking some individual(s) out for review is classic bias and skews the picture, which was complete with WW2 numbers and is now skewed when less than 1% of all awarded U.S. aerial victories receive hot attention but the rest are deemed "OK" without any scrutiny whatsoever. That's NOT OK. It's classic discrimination. By discrimination, I simply mean treating someone different from someone else. If Boyington is OK to look at with a critical eye and a change pencil ready, then everyone else is, too, and should absolutely get the same attention to detail.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

It's an impossible task to review every claim for every pilot, even of one nationality, in a lifetime. For many it's impossible because the material to support such a review does not exist or is lost. Cross referencing claims against enemy losses is a thankless task. It is inevitable that the high scorers and high claimers will fall under the spotlight. Basically nobody cares to investigate an RAF pilot with a 1/2 victory from the BoB, no matter how spurious the award is likely to prove, whereas a Luftwaffe ace with hundreds of claims acknowledged is far more interesting to those that actually care about these things. 

ALL claims have to be taken with a huge bowl of salt, I don't see them as a reliable statistical data base for any serious investigation, nor do I pay much attention to them. The only way to gauge how a battle or campaign proceeded is to look at the losses acknowledged by each side. For example, generally the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General's reports give an accurate picture of Luftwaffe losses (though when reported, not when they occurred) as such a report was the only way a unit could acquire a replacement aircraft. Allied victory claims certainly do not. The same applies for other air force's which had equivalent systems.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Records of wrong data can be as important as the correct figures. For example the LW made decisions based on their incorrect estimates of RAF strength and losses during the BoB. Leigh Mallory also believed in the effect of his big wing based on incorrect claims



The entire early British bomber offensive was based on a combination of wishful thinking and bad statistics, long before the Butt report.

In October 1940 Peirse told Portal that he thought between one in three and one in five aircraft despatched actually found the target, depending on range, yet in the 'Oil Plan' it was assumed that 50% of bombers despatched would actually bomb the target.
An oil plant could supposedly be put out of action for four months by just two hundred sorties aiming four hundred 500lb bombs at it, despite the fact that an early analysis of attacks on the two plants at Gelsenkirchen (by the Photographic Interpretation Section) which showed neither had received any significant damage despite being attacked by 162 and 134 aircraft and 159 tons and 103 tons of bombs (both excluding incendiaries) respectively.
Poor intelligence, like pilot claims, no matter how well filtered by intelligence officers at the time, leads to bad data. If the bad data is then combined with blinkered or wishful thinking by those empowered to act upon it the errors are compounded and can be very costly.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2017)

stona said:


> An oil plant could supposedly be put out of action for four months by just two hundred sorties aiming four hundred 500lb bombs at it, despite the fact that an early analysis of attacks on the two plants at Gelsenkirchen (by the Photographic Interpretation Section) which showed neither had received any significant damage despite being attacked by 162 and 134 aircraft and 159 tons and 103 tons of bombs (both excluding incendiaries) respectively.


Did anyone ask an oil plant manager how easily pipe racks are to repair and how difficult a reactor vessel is to destroy. The vessels I worked on were between 1 inch and 2 inches thick anything other than a direct hit may blow the pipe work valves and gauges off but it can be back up and running in days.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

I guess that they didn't.
It's an unfortunate fact that two of the target systems considered most vital to Germany's war effort, oil and transport, were also two of the most difficult to hit and most easily repaired. The effort finally required to inflict substantial and long term damage on them was far, far greater than envisaged in 1940.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2017)

Well, they never tested either the 100lb or 250lb anti-sub bombs on any sort of target until well after the war started. 
Not a scrapped WW I sub or dummy hull section although torpedoes or warheads had been test that way for years.

The real wonder is that the British had plenty of experience being on the receiving end during 1940 and it still took time to come up with realistic bomb damage estimates. 

BTW : "two hundred sorties aiming four hundred 500lb bombs at it,"

Is that two 500lb bombs per plane for a total of 100 tons?


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2017)

stona said:


> I guess that they didn't.
> It's an unfortunate fact that two of the target systems considered most vital to Germany's war effort, oil and transport, were also two of the most difficult to hit and most easily repaired. The effort finally required to inflict substantial and long term damage on them was far, far greater than envisaged in 1940.
> Cheers
> Steve



To add to that, I read an interview with Albert Speer done in the early eighties I believe where he was mystified why the Allies didn't go after the power grid. His opinion was it was a vulnerable asset that was the most critical. Now first I figure a power grid is pretty hard to target and knock out, you more learned gentlemen can enlighten me on that. The other issue is Speer, whom I find fascinating in a way but wouldn't trust any further than I could throw a Peterbilt.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> The other issue is Speer, whom I find fascinating in a way but wouldn't trust any further than I could throw a Peterbilt.



If you haven't already read it, I would highly recommend 'Albert Speer: His Battle With The Truth' by Gitta Sereny (ISBN 0-333-64519-7).
It is sympathetic whilst also being revealing. The clue is in the title.

Sereny is no longer with us, she died in 2012, but others may remember her for her thorough debunking, along with Chester Lewis, of David Irving's odious 'Hitler's War', the premise of which should hardly need explaining here. It was after the Sunday Times first published this debunking of Irving's revisionism, in 1977, that Speer first made contact with her, and from this the book developed.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

Power grids in developed countries are large and resilient, and not all parts of it might be within range. The British looked at the German power grid in 1918 but in the end did not target it.They concentrated on what they perceived as more concentrated systems, like the chemical industry, 80% of which was concentrated in just 12 plants all of which were within range (from Nancy).
None of the Western Air Plans of 1st September 1939 even specifically mentions Germany's power grid. Power stations are not mentioned, though they might come under W.A.5(a), "The attack of German war industry".
Speer was an architect who seems to have had a grasp of economics, but he was not an airman who might have a concept of how difficult it would be to cause substantial damage to such a diffuse system. There were tactical attacks against electrical installations, not by Bomber Command, in 1941/42. Operation Chastise was effectively an attack on the German power grid, but the destruction, at huge cost, of a couple of hydro-electric stations had little lasting impact.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2017)

The Huge cost of Operation Chastise was eight aircraft and crew, A very percentage of the aircraft involved and unsustainable on an ongoing campaign but small in the overall scheme of things or the sometimes dozens of aircraft lost in large raids. While the results were not anywhere near as long lasting as hoped for many raids of the time didn't accomplish as much and had higher losses. Difference _may _be the the amount of training an preparation put into the raid. A lot of the other raids using much less trained aircrew or aircrew that didn't speed a considerable amount of time training for one mission.

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


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

I'm not arguing whether the raid was worth it or not. It was successful in many terms, a recent analysis suggested it cost the Germans £5.9 billion in today's money. That seems a lot to me, but there was a significant cost to the Germans. I'm simply stating that in terms of the German power grid it had little effect, largely because of the nature of such a target.

In terms of training, there were just 56 days between the formation of 617 squadron and the raids, which is remarkable.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2017)

Well, that is the nature of a "grid", taking out several points does not collapse a grid unless it is already operating at near max capacity. 
However taking out a number of points will either collapse or fragment the grid. How many that is or was in the case of Germany I don't know but it is a bit like bombing just one or two oil refineries and expecting the oil system to collapse. Run at reduced output yes but not paralyze the whole the system.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, that is the nature of a "grid", taking out several points does not collapse a grid unless it is already operating at near max capacity.
> However taking out a number of points will either collapse or fragment the grid. How many that is or was in the case of Germany I don't know but it is a bit like bombing just one or two oil refineries and expecting the oil system to collapse. Run at reduced output yes but not paralyze the whole the system.



Of course, all economic targets are actually systems. The nature of a power grid makes it far more resilient than some other systems. I gave the example of 80% of the German chemical industry in 1918 being concentrated in just 12 plants. Later, the German synthetic fuel production was concentrated in just 21 plants. In 1940 Germany had 8,200 power plants of various types and sizes, clearly not a viable target. Post war analysis concluded that of these the 400 major plants comprised a vital target system. Some have argued, like Speer, that this was a missed opportunity, but to take out 400 different power plants (if you could identify them correctly), in order to collapse the grid, was I believe beyond the capability of the combined bombing offensive.
Most German power production was coal fired, around 80%, and stopping the coal getting to the plants did prove effective as part of the Transport Plan. It was this, not direct attacks on the plants, that caused the black outs that were a reflection of a power shortage.
I have seen the argument that destroying just two major power stations would have crippled Berlin. Maybe, but when the bombers were struggling to hit a specific area of Berlin how could they find or hit a power station? Much modern analysis simply ignores the limitations of WW2 bombing and the effort needed to ensure the destruction of such a target, in a suburb of the most heavily defended city on earth.
Cheers
Steve

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2017)

stona said:


> If you haven't already read it, I would highly recommend 'Albert Speer: His Battle With The Truth' by Gitta Sereny (ISBN 0-333-64519-7).
> It is sympathetic whilst also being revealing. The clue is in the title.
> 
> Sereny is no longer with us, she died in 2012, but others may remember her for her thorough debunking, along with Chester Lewis, of David Irving's odious 'Hitler's War', the premise of which should hardly need explaining here. It was after the Sunday Times first published this debunking of Irving's revisionism, in 1977, that Speer first made contact with her, and from this the book developed.
> ...



Many thanks Steve, ordered the Speer book just now, looking forward to reading it.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Many thanks Steve, ordered the Speer book just now, looking forward to reading it.



I've dug my original copy out and may have a re-read 

If you need an antidote to Irving's version of history, apart from Sereny, then Richard Evans 'Lying About Hitler' is also a good, though not a terribly fun read. It is, in book form, the dossier compiled over three years which served as the factual defence against the libel suit launched by Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books. Irving lost, the comments of the judge about Irving are public record now, a racist and holocaust denier among other things.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (May 27, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Where records do exist, there are often conflicting records sometimes even from the same source.



Agreed. Visiting the Subritsky Spitfire A58-178 a few years ago in NZ he had a letter and photos provided by the pilot who flew it on its last flight. That pilot said he was taxiing after landing at Kiriwina in New Guinea (where the aircraft was recovered from) when another aircraft taxied over the top of him. The aircraft was reduced to spares. The photo showed the tail and fuselage up to the radio door well and truly damaged and the aircraft serial.
He also had the official RAAF history card for this aircraft which says it was lost during a ferry flight inside Australia. See Aus Archives file barcode 3046008
The file covering RAAF Spitfire accidents says it was one of three that collided on the runway at Merauke in Indonesia and burned, killing one of the pilots. See Aus Archives file 6950510

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> Actually, Stona, my point above was not to stop doing historical research at all. The point is to either give attention to the entire list or let it go. To pick and choose who you decide to "audit" smacks of bias. By "bias," I mean experimental bias, not emotional bias, though that is sometimes involved, too. Let's look at so-and-so because I want to discredit him or because I want to add to his score.
> 
> If you're going to review the record, then review the entire record and hold off on results until it is done, and publish all at once as a study. Also, don't review just the U.S.A. Either review aerial victories for some particular conflict or don't. If so, do the best you can. The rules should be, "if there is no solid evidence otherwise, then WW2 scores stand as recorded. No guessing."
> 
> Picking some individual(s) out for review is classic bias and skews the picture, which was complete with WW2 numbers and is now skewed when less than 1% of all awarded U.S. aerial victories receive hot attention but the rest are deemed "OK" without any scrutiny whatsoever. That's NOT OK. It's classic discrimination. By discrimination, I simply mean treating someone different from someone else. If Boyington is OK to look at with a critical eye and a change pencil ready, then everyone else is, too, and should absolutely get the same attention to detail.



No single person can audit/rewiev all of the ww2 aerial claims.
Thus people pick a person, and/or unit, and/or specific battle or battlefiled and try to come out with numbers that are based on research of docs from all sides involved. Persons with big number of claims will receive particular attention, and a honest scholar will try to give it's best to either prove or disprove the claims. The scholar will not jump into conclusion that 'his' pilot scored more or less, while accepting other peoples scores as set into stone.
Also, the 'don't rewiev just USA' order?? Scholars do the reserch based on their preferences, available money and time. Should we expect from a British researcher to rewiev claims from USA, Germany, Japan, Italy, SU, China, Finland if we, in our infinite wisdom, will allow him to publish the research about the RAF caims? Failing to do all of these reserachs will make his research about RAF invalid? I don't think so.


----------



## Robert Porter (May 28, 2017)

Again, I would ask Dana about this as he is directly experienced with this specific subject. But I believe research is expensive, in terms of time, travel, etc. I don't think anyone could afford to do research or even have the time, to exhaustively visit all the locations necessary to research all sides and angles. I think there is plenty of research for the major participants, US, UK, Germany, Italy, etc. Russia not as much but more and more is coming out about that as well. Japan is also starting to develop more in terms of historical research and books being written. (Other than Japanese language) So there is hope that the exposed knowledge will continue to grow and be revealed. A common misperception is researchers just google around for info. I don't have exact numbers but I have heard the number "less than 5%" of WW2 history is available on the internet in ANY form often thrown around. Source documents are largely dispersed physically in numerous archives, some of which are in an truly horrendous state. A LOT of that history is not in official documentation at all but rather letters, diary's, notebooks, reports etc. 

As a funny note about how difficult it is to document claims of combat kills, the Japanese claim to have sunk the US Carrier Yorktown over 12 times. I know it was propaganda mostly but no few claims for air combat and naval combat on all sides were based on "I think" as opposed to "I know" even when regulations required corroboration from others etc, it was largely a gentlemen's agreement in essence. But it is an intensely interesting subject to study and I love reading about it. 

As for the Yorktown, and many of her sisters, I think the propaganda backfired, I recall reading an excerpt from the diary of a sailor that participated in the occupation of Japan and his recollections of being tentatively asked by Japanese civilians how American Aircraft carriers and ships could be so quickly raised and refurbished after being sunk. Especially when they had been sunk so many times!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

I've just been in my library and though I mentioned her name I did not mention Deborah Lipstadt's book by name (honestly, I had forgotten I owned a copy).
Anyway, it is "Denying The Holocaust - The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory", The paperback can be found at very reasonable prices, around a tenner in the UK.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Robert Porter (Jun 10, 2017)

It is shameful that a book like even needs to be written. No one in my family saw the concentration camps at the end of the war, but several knew GI's that did and they universally were haunted by what they saw for the rest of their lives. Mans inhumanity seems to know no limits.


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> It is shameful that a book like even needs to be written. No one in my family saw the concentration camps at the end of the war, but several knew GI's that did and they universally were haunted by what they saw for the rest of their lives. Mans inhumanity seems to know no limits.



It is another book which has origins in the libel suit launched David Irving against Penguin books and the author herself. Irving was of course thoroughly discredited, researchers showing, in a British Court, that he had misrepresented his sources and knowingly used forged documents to make his case. The judge, in a three hundred page written judgement agreed. His summary was,

_"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism... therefore the defence of justification succeeds... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants."_

It is quite intemperate language from a British judge, but it pretty much nailed the bast*rd.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2017)

I think a further caveat should be given here. Some still consider some of Irving's work to be relevant. In particular 'Hitler's War' even today receives positive reviews.
Professor Evans, engaged as an expert witness, and aided by Thomas Skelton Robinson and Nicholas Waschmann (whose later book on the history and development of the Nazi concentration camp system I cannot recommend highly enough) was initially somewhat guarded about Irving and definitely considered the jury to be out, somewhat to Lipstadt's discomfort. After he had completed his research into Irving's writings he had made something of a volte face. He would write the following about Irving's 'history'.

_"If we mean by a historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past and to give us as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian...Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history in order to further his own political purposes.
Not one of Irving's books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history."_

No history or historian is perfect they all make mistakes, we amateurs more than most! If I had a pound for every example of 'presentism' I read on historical forums I would be living on some tropical paradise island ! What historians cannot do is willfully falsify their sources to promote their own agenda, and Irving, provably, did so as a matter of course.
Bear this in mind if you are ever tempted to read or listen to some of his twaddle.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------

