British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

[33k in the air]

There's plenty of evidence, simply look at the non combat related losses compared to combat loses.

So you won't post data supporting your position? All right, then.

 

[PAT303]

So you won't post data supporting your position? All right, then.

We have been here before, it took a lot of development work to get it right but it injured and killed a lot of it's pilots before it did, if you don't want to accept that fair enough. I was originally responding to the claims the P51 was a dangerous aircraft to fly, it was when loaded to it's limit for escort missions which was true for any aircraft whether it be fuel or ordinance.

 

[33k in the air]

We have been here before, it took a lot of development work to get it right but it injured and killed a lot of it's pilots before it did, if you don't want to accept that fair enough. I was originally responding to the claims the P51 was a dangerous aircraft to fly, it was when loaded to it's limit for escort missions which was true for any aircraft whether it be fuel or ordinance.

Claim made, no data shown. That's your prerogative, of course.

In my experience, people who are passionate on a particular point usually have the data to hand to support their arguments so as to make their point forcefully and fully. As it regards the current claim, I am not sufficiently motivated to care deeply one way or the other to continue beyond the observation made above.

 

[GrauGeist]

All combat fighters took their toll on new pilots - Axis and Allied both.
Going from a Basic Trainer to an Advanced Trainer is one thing, but going from an Advanced Trainer to the actual fighter was an entirely different matter.

The F4U and P-47 for example, had torque and horsepower well beyond an advanced trainer and could be unforgiving.

Several restored USN aircraft in museums and private collections are courtesy of practice mistakes by new pilots, recovered from the Great Lakes.

The list goes on, but absolutely no fighter (or bomber) aircraft ever made was fool proof.

 

[don4331]

Whirlwind with Kestrels would lack performance.

I am not sure why unsupercharged engines would make converting to reverse rotation easier?

Whirlwind with Kestrels would absolutely lack performance, but it would be flying months (6?) earlier. There were 250 changes to Whirlwind between prototype and production (From changing exhaust - not running over aileron controls to extending rudder height/counter balance, to infamous acorn to leading edge slat failures) most of which show up with a short run of Whirlwinds with Kestrels. Some, like propeller root issue with need increased power at altitude of the Peregrine.

An un-supercharged engine is simpler: You don't need to worry about either making a. a reverse rotation impeller/housing or b. additional gear train to run supercharge reversed to standard rotation engine. Changing oil and water pumps only requires flipping 1 gear.

Advantage Allison - they reduced swapping to reverse rotation a field modification with aforementioned 1 extra gear.

Aside: Reverse rotation SBC in our boat - so 2 motors turned opposite directions and torque was counteracted - was down on power despite everything else being as identical as we could make them. Not really a problem, you just needed extra power and/or rudder input to go perfectly straight.

 

[wuzak]

Whirlwind with Kestrels would absolutely lack performance, but it would be flying months (6?) earlier. There were 250 changes to Whirlwind between prototype and production (From changing exhaust - not running over aileron controls to extending rudder height/counter balance, to infamous acorn to leading edge slat failures) most of which show up with a short run of Whirlwinds with Kestrels. Some, like propeller root issue with need increased power at altitude of the Peregrine.

Fitting Kestrels would not have changed those timelines.

I am not sure you could have got a prototype out any quicker with the Kestrels.

An un-supercharged engine is simpler: You don't need to worry about either making a. a reverse rotation impeller/housing or b. additional gear train to run supercharge reversed to standard rotation engine. Changing oil and water pumps only requires flipping 1 gear.

You just have to reverse most major rotating components in the engine.

Some pumps can be run either way, so may just require changing input and output lines.

Advantage Allison - they reduced swapping to reverse rotation a field modification with aforementioned 1 extra gear.

Above it was too much of a chore to put an extra gear in to reverse rotation of the supercharger, now it it is a great feature of the V-1710?

Reversing the V-1710 required more than adding the extra idler gear for the accessories section. It also required taking the cams out and flipping them, and maybe the crankshaft too.

An easier method would be what Merlins eventually used - add an idler gear in the propeller reduction gearbox. For the Merlin, this required a redesign of the front of the crankcase. The Allison's modular design meant that it may have just required changing teh gearbox, if this was the route they chose.

Aside: Reverse rotation SBC in our boat - so 2 motors turned opposite directions and torque was counteracted - was down on power despite everything else being as identical as we could make them. Not really a problem, you just needed extra power and/or rudder input to go perfectly straight.

The Merlin method would have been beneficial. The engine remains the same, just the output gear ratio is changed slightly (from 0.42:1 to 0.422:1 in the Merlin, IIRC)..

 

[don4331]

Fitting Kestrels would not have changed those timelines.

I am not sure you could have got a prototype out any quicker with the Kestrels.




You just have to reverse most major rotating components in the engine.

Some pumps can be run either way, so may just require changing input and output lines.




Above it was too much of a chore to put an extra gear in to reverse rotation of the supercharger, now it it is a great feature of the V-1710?

Reversing the V-1710 required more than adding the extra idler gear for the accessories section. It also required taking the cams out and flipping them, and maybe the crankshaft too.

An easier method would be what Merlins eventually used - add an idler gear in the propeller reduction gearbox. For the Merlin, this required a redesign of the front of the crankcase. The Allison's modular design meant that it may have just required changing teh gearbox, if this was the route they chose.




The Merlin method would have been beneficial. The engine remains the same, just the output gear ratio is changed slightly (from 0.42:1 to 0.422:1 in the Merlin, IIRC)..

Prototype sat for significant time awaiting the reverse rotation Peregrine. If you have engines, you can push the other suppliers.

RR needed the failure of the Peregrine with all its handed components for the success of the Merlin implementation - one occasionally learns from one's mistakes.
Redesign of front of crankcase, means different casting and different tooling both for crankcase and for reduction housing. You also need 3 additional gears and couple bearings.
(not that reversed crank, supercharger, etc didn't).

Allison did a lot of engineering (gov't paid $2,900) to make it possible to reverse rotation (paraphrased for Vee's for Victory)
Swap the bare crank in crankcase end for end (means crank flanges need to be identical at both ends)
Flip fork rods from right to left block; vice versa for blade rods
Rewire distributor heads
Flip oil pump and generator drive shafts end for end
Additional gear in supercharger drive
Flip oil nozzle in reduction gearbox
Reassemble reduction pump in reduction gearbox bass ackwards.
Reverse starter dog.
Valve train can be left alone!

A Admiral Beez I had started my post and didn't see yours until later.

Issues with fuel and throttle control won't become apparent until planes are flying - hence my wanting to get Whirlwind flying sooner.

Limitation of the 60 round drum won't apprear until fighter is in combat. 60 - 20mm rounds was supposed to lots when HS cannon was being developed; who needed belt feed of 100s of rounds. p.s. 90 round drums don't work well as the difference between full and empty is too much for spring to provide reliable feed. I do wonder if a saddle magazine with 2-45 round drums could have been made work as interim along with say trio of belt fed 0.303s.

The issue with 2 speed pre-war is Farman owns the patent and RR (UK) is loathe to pay it if it hasn't been proven required. (Like CS propellers, it is required for bombers, so RR is designing it into Merlin) After France falls, Farman waives royalties; post war, the patent is expired. Again it comes to a casting/tooling issue - can you afford the downtime to modify tooling to add the ~7.5 cm to fit Farman 2 speed drive. Faster drive ratio/larger supercharger is similar - who knows in '37 that fighting will be taking place at over 25k'.

Lockheed P-38, Me.110, etc were using 2k+ hp and 300% fuel to get 50% more range than Whirlwind. Westland's fighter seems like a bargain.

 

[tomo pauk]

The issue with 2 speed pre-war is Farman owns the patent

Have Wright and Armstrong paid the money for Farman's 2-speed drive?

 

[ThomasP]

RR purchased the license for the Farman design in early-1937, and incorporated a slightly modified version as the basis for the early Merlins, beginning in 1937 with the Merlin II (1-speed) and Merlin X (2-speed) superchargers. Merlin II production began in late-1937(?), Merlin X in late-1938.

Siddeley and Bristol both had fairly good 2-speed superchargers in production in the same time period.

I do not think a lack of available 2-speed supercharger designs was why the Pegasus/Whirlwind did not get one.

 

[tomo pauk]

I know that there'll be some variables here, namely time period and such, but what if the British had their own long range escort fighter? Naturally, it can't really be a Spitfire or a Hurricane since they're too short legged early war (and Spitfire for most of the war). But, from say 39-42, 42-45, what would a single seat, long range high performance escort fighter be like? The biggest thing as far as spec is enough fuel internally to have a 700-800 mile range, and the ability to use drop tanks. It also has to be heavily armed for the period (which from 42-45 basically means 4x20mm cannons), and be a great dogfighter per tactics of the period. This will address one of the few shortcomings of the P-51, given that it was a bit heavy due to being built to outdated USAAF load requirements (largely resolved with the H variant, but that doesn't really count here).

So I'll open the floor to the forum members to discuss.

British have the money and technology to produce and use a good 2-engined fighter, even for 1939-42. A compact twin (~300 sq ft), sorta British Fw 187 with Merlins, or a big Whirlwind. Don't go over 15% t-t-c, can carry a lots of fuel + DTs and convincing firepower.
Also much cheaper than the Beaufighter, and of much better performance.

 

[don4331]

British have the money and technology to produce and use a good 2-engined fighter, even for 1939-42. A compact twin (~300 sq ft), sorta British Fw 187 with Merlins, or a big Whirlwind. Don't go over 15% t-t-c, can carry a lots of fuel + DTs and convincing firepower.
Also much cheaper than the Beaufighter, and of much better performance.

But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.

And a 300+ ft^2 wing hurts performance if you are limited to Kestrel size engine (not being sure engine is going to be just higher mark Kestrel (Mk. 26 was original code number) and is just going to produce 10% more power (750hp/0.58 hp/in^3 like Merlin C was)*. Or if Peregrine justified the new name (and would produce 30% more power than Kestrel V).

The need for 2 speed supercharger wasn't seen as required in '37 when Kestrel was being upgraded to Peregrine. The increase from 1.5 psi/36% efficient supercharger to the 9+psi/60% efficient was supposed to be enough.

I don't see need for bigger Whirlwind. It needs to be available for BoB so it gets credentials like Hurricane - making it harder to cease production on. It needs fuel and throttle systems corrected, but given development they are not insurmountable issues. With DT, range similar to P-38/P-47 is definitely possible.

It does have same issues as Fw.187 - there's no room in fuselage for long range radios/radar & operator, so I'm not convinced it is Beaufighter replacement.

*We will note:
1. Peregrine makes 885hp @ 9 psi boost on 87 octane, but it was cleared for 12 psi on 100 octane (at lower altitude). No one seems to have recorded that power.
2. Merlin was supposed to only be interim engine; Vulture/Sabre were seen as future. If war hadn't intervened, they might have been.

 

[tomo pauk]

But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.

?
Requirements are specified in the 1st post here. Neither Whirlwind nor Reaper are mentioned.

I don't see need for bigger Whirlwind. It needs to be available for BoB so it gets credentials like Hurricane - making it harder to cease production on. It needs fuel and throttle systems corrected, but given development they are not insurmountable issues. With DT, range similar to P-38/P-47 is definitely possible.

As above - it is about the 'British escort fighter', not about BoB and shooting down German aircraft over Kent.

It does have same issues as Fw.187 - there's no room in fuselage for long range radios/radar & operator, so I'm not convinced it is Beaufighter replacement.

Short range radios are sufficient to talk with other escort aircraft and bombers they are escorting. Requirement for a radar on a ww2 escort fighter is a news to me.

*We will note:
1. Peregrine makes 885hp @ 9 psi boost on 87 octane, but it was cleared for 12 psi on 100 octane (at lower altitude). No one seems to have recorded that power.
2. Merlin was supposed to only be interim engine; Vulture/Sabre were seen as future. If war hadn't intervened, they might have been.

1. It was +9 psi on 100 oct fuel, not +12; not ever engine was a Merlin. The +9 psi boost and 3000 rpm gives probably 1000 HP to the prop by the Peregrine.
2. Napier intervened in case of Sabre, RR intervened in case of Vulture - both engines required a lot of work to make them work. Granted, nothing prevents Hawker to make a 430 mph Sabre-powered fighter by 1942, but unfortunately Sir Sidney made bet on the wrong horse with the choice of wing profile for the Typhoon.

 

[pbehn]

Claim made, no data shown. That's your prerogative, of course.

In my experience, people who are passionate on a particular point usually have the data to hand to support their arguments so as to make their point forcefully and fully. As it regards the current claim, I am not sufficiently motivated to care deeply one way or the other to continue beyond the observation made above.

There were losses when converting for use as a dive bomber, and also when starting to fit extra fuel inside and out it was prone to doing a snap roll from what I read. However I don't know if the losses were "a lot" compared to what happened with other types.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Granted, we know now that the RAF got P-51B/C and D/K models as the Mustang III and Mustang IV, and used them as escort fighters on daylight heavy bomber raids in 1944-45, and planned to use the DH Hornet and the Hawker Tempest II (as well as presumably Mustangs) in the Pacific Theater as escort fighters for Tiger Force.

What I'm kind of interested in is the referred to predecessor to the DH Hornet that de Havilland was working on after the DH 102 medium bomber got cancelled (regular Mosquito was by then fitted with two stage Merlins and could carry 4000 lbs of bombs by then) prior to the DH 103 (which would become the Hornet), and lead to or evolved into the Hornet.

 

[PAT303]

You all need to remember the time frame, MkV's were being mauled when they crossed the channel in the idiotic ''lean on the enemy'' debacle, if MkV's can't survive against the higher dash number 109's and the FW190A a two engined fighter like the Whirlwind won't either. What the RAF needed was the MkIII Spitfire then MkVIII and Merlin 66 engined MkIX using the available airframes, it was engine and fuel development not new aircraft were the time should have been spent, the LF MkV would have been a very handy aircraft against the Anton from '41 onwards if the interim development models were to be continued.

 

[wuzak]

But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.

F.18/37, which resulted in the Typhoon, saw the proposed Supermarine Type 324 and Type 325 (pusher version) with either 2 Merlins or 2 Taurus (IIRC).

Supermarine would propose the Type 327 as a cannon armed fighter as backup to the Whirlwind (this particular specification gave us the Beaufighter).

The 324, 325 and 327 were about the size of the Typhoon, so smaller than the Fw 187 or Whirlwind.

 

[Shortround6]

The 324, 325 and 327 were about the size of the Typhoon, so smaller than the Fw 187 or Whirlwind.

Fixed it.

I like the Whirlwind, I really do. BUT it was a 7,840lb airplane (empty) with a 250sq ft wing. Smaller than a Hurricane and within 2 ft of a Spitfire with extend tips.
The Typhoon was a 1/2 ton heavier when empty and had 29 sq feet more wing.

Supermarine ?

Unless those work benches in the back are for use by the famous Garden Gnomes this was NOT a small aircraft.
Some of the figures in a few of the proposals are optimistic, to put it kindly. Granted I have 20/20 hindsight but the Whirlwind weighed 10,800lbs all up clean.
The Supermarine 324 (12 machine guns) was supposed be 10,766lbs with a pair of Merlins and 290 sq ft wing.
The Supermarine 327 (SIX cannon) was supposed to be 11,312lbs with the pair of Merlins, 304sq ft of wing and 170 gallons of fuel.
Magic Garden Gnomes?

The Whirlwind might have a had a place, Long range fighter was not it. Night fighter was not it.

 

[Shortround6]

You all need to remember the time frame, MkV's were being mauled when they crossed the channel in the idiotic ''lean on the enemy'' debacle, if MkV's can't survive against the higher dash number 109's and the FW190A a two engined fighter like the Whirlwind won't either.

In part due to tactics.
When did the British give up on the 3 plane Vic and shift to the finger-four formation?
When did the Air Ministry issue guidance for high speed cruise in enemy territory?
One set of instructions was from Aug 1942 which is about a year late.

Granted if the Whirlwinds had been flown in the same way they would have been mauled in the same way.
They survived by doing small fast tip and run raids.

 

[MikeMeech]

In part due to tactics.
When did the British give up on the 3 plane Vic and shift to the finger-four formation?
When did the Air Ministry issue guidance for high speed cruise in enemy territory?
One set of instructions was from Aug 1942 which is about a year late.

Granted if the Whirlwinds had been flown in the same way they would have been mauled in the same way.
They survived by doing small fast tip and run raids.

Hi
Mike Spick in 'Allied Fighter Aces, The Air Combat Tactics and Techniques of World War II' states that it was Douglas Bader/ 'Cocky' Dundas that introduced the 'finger four' formation into the RAF Fighter Command during 1941 (probably in the spring). However, other formations other than the three plane 'Vic' were already in use during the BoB, for example Malan's three four aircraft flights (two pairs) flying in a line astern, which he also imposed on the squadrons under his command when he was a in charge of a Wing. See below:

There were other variations including Bob Tuck and 92 Sqn. who were flying in loose pairs after their fighting over Dunkirk, so change from 'Vics' before the BoB.

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you.

Was this individual units or the whole RAF?
I could well be wrong but I thought that some units in North Africa or Far East were using the 3 plane Vic in late 1941 or into 1942?