1930s British modern fighters.

[Rivet]

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

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

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

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

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

So there is part of the issue, Shortround.

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[stona]

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

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

 

[Readie]

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

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

Cheers
John

 

[Rivet]

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

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

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

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

 

[fastmongrel]

The CAM merchantmen came into use in 1943,

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rivet]

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

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

Regards

 

[stona]

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

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

 

[Rivet]

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

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

 

[Rivet]

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

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

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

Further into the article:

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

regards

 

[Shortround6]

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

from Wiki.

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

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

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

 

[Rivet]

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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