Canada and Australia: what would you build?

parsifal said:

A comment no doubt designed to insult an inflame...right up there with todays news of the desecration of war graves in Libya, and every bit as senseless. anybody describing the spit in those terms has the same either wants to be controversial or doesnt know the true value of the spit on its multipple roles and marks. Go and do some real reseaarch, and try to be a little less offensive

Click to expand...

Please illuminate me into the many outstanding facets of the Spitfire other then the fact it was a superb short ranged interceptor and a very good recce bird . Could it do what it needed to do from late 40 to mid 44 take the fight to the enemy and hold its own .

pbfoot said:

Please illuminate me into the many outstanding facets of the Spitfire other then the fact it was a superb short ranged interceptor and a very good recce bird . Could it do what it needed to do from late 40 to mid 44 take the fight to the enemy and hold its own .

Click to expand...

So those Fw190s and Bf109s in France Belgium and Holland were shot down by American fighters then?

Milosh said:

So those Fw190s and Bf109s in France Belgium and Holland were shot down by American fighters then?

Click to expand...

not at all but the numbers certainly favoured the AXIS , Dieppe being a prime example late 42
from wiki

The Allied air operations supporting Operation Jubilee resulted in some of the fiercest air battles since 1940. The RAF's main objectives were to throw a protective umbrella over the amphibious force and beach heads and also to force the Luftwaffe forces into a battle of attrition on the Allies's own terms. Some 51 fighter squadrons of Spitfires were committed, with eight squadrons of Hurricane fighter-bombers, four squadrons of reconnaissance Mustang Mk Is and seven squadrons of No. 2 Group light bombers involved. Opposing these forces were some 120 operational fighters of Jagdgeschwadern 2 and 26 (JG 2 and JG 26), the Dornier Do 217s of Kampfgeschwader 2 and various anti-shipping bomber elements of III./KG 53, II./KG 40 and I./KG 77.

Although initially slow to respond to the raid, the German fighters soon made their presence felt over the port as the day wore on. While the Allied fighters were moderately successful in protecting the ground and sea forces from aerial bombing, the RAF came off second best versus the experienced and well-equipped Jagdgeschwaders.

While Fighter Command claimed to have inflicted heavy casualties on the Luftwaffe the ultimate balance sheet showed Allied aircraft losses amounted to 106, including 88 RAF fighters destroyed or damaged. Of this number, 44 Spitfires were lost in aerial combat and a further three were destroyed by Flak. A further 23 were destroyed or damaged by Flak, or in accidents. The overall figure for destroyed and damaged Spitfires is 70.[2] Around 18 bombers were also lost. Against this, 48 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost. Included in that total were 28 bombers, half of them Dornier Do 217s from KG2. One of the two Jagdgeschwadern, JG 2, lost 14 Fw 190s and eight pilots killed. JG26 lost six Fw 190s with their pilots.[25

Spits appeared in over twenty different marks and served in just about every role possible for an SE fighter. They were used by over twenty differnt countries at one time or another, and were in front line service for the best part of 20 years.

My particular pet area is in the fleet air arm. seafires were often labelled as having a high accident rate, which in 1943, operating off escort carriers, with crews not trained for the purpose and in weather conditions not suited to the type they certainly did. In 1945, whilst operating off japan they had reversed that situation such that they had the lowest loss rate of any type in the allied navies. and they were considered the best point defence inteceptor by the BPf who were also operating corsairs and Hellcats at that time.

Spits, despite their short range carried the fight to the germans in 1941-2 to the point that they wer able to achieve air superiority eventually over britain, the channel and many parts of th coast. that was a critical achievement that permitted freedom of action in a wide range of roles and mission types for other aircraft.

Spitfires, moreover, did this with virtually no help from other fighter types, except hurricanes, but hurricanes were pretty badly outclassed by 1942 . I am not saying the spits did this with resounding one sided loss sheets. but they were there, at a time when the later, more capable Us types were simply dreams on a drawing board. without the sustained pressure maintained by mstly spitfires 1940-42, the Germans would not have suffered the constant attrition that made the later victories possible, would not have been distracted to the extent they were during the first two years of the great war in the east. There were no substantial american fighter operations until july 1942,and even then, for the best part of a year, their efforts in fighters were minisculee. The americans used the Spitfire themselves for a considerable time, because of the performance shortcomings of their own types. US types did overtake the spit eventually, but from 1941 through to 1943 (the first half) spittfires were virtually the only type in the allied inventory with the performance to take on the germans with equivalent performance.

that is not a one trick pony. thats being there when your needed, and filling a critical gap in many roles.

The Spitfire is cursed by many "what might have Beens". While it would never have the range of a Mustang, it was often seen by "planners" as a "last generation" aircraft that needed replacing. Joe Smith being responsible for pulling a number of rabbits out of the hat to keep the Spitfire competitive. As a result many of the most produced Spitfires were "interim" models that did not actually reflect the true potential of the design. Perhaps because of the losses in 1942 or perhaps because of the failure of one or more successors (the Typhoon, while good at low altitude, turned out to be a big disappointment as an interceptor/fighter because of the thick wing and lack of altitude performance of the Sabre) there was an obsession with numbers that did not allow the large shift of production to only slightly more advanced versions rather than the MK V and MK IX. Combine that with several anticipated threats not materializing ( more high altitude raids by the Germans) and the planners kept thinking that what was in production was " good enough".
It was entirely possible to build a Spitfire with internal tankage for 140-150imp gallons. 95gal main tanks, 28 gallons in the wings and a rear tank of just 17-27 gallons. This would have allowed for a combat radius of 200-250 miles more than a standard MK IX. Certainly not a Berlin escort but a quite useful ability In bringing the fight to the enemy.

How big was the biggest drop tank for Spitfire, discounting the ferry-only tanks here? Was it possible to use the 90 imp gals tank in that role?

Seafires in 1945 could operate out to just under 200 miles. The combat radius of the Hellcats operating alongside them was 220 miles, the corsair was about 240 miles.

There was not nearly the difference in range that is so often given to the Seafire. What they couldnt do was carry as useful a bombload

We're straying a little off topic here. Start a thread on the merits/vices of the Spitfire somewhere else, please.

The Woomera was an interesting 'What if', but I guess with aircraft like the B-25 and Boston in RAAF service - not to forget the Mosquito and Beaufighter, was it necessary? (I just love the adverts in that piece! )

I remember when I was doing my apprenticeship on the UH-1, underneath the floor were wires going between the cockpit and rear avionics bay and during major servicings these cable looms always got filled with swarf, so we had to get it all out very carefully because some of the cables were fibre optic and broke real easily. Wires everywhere in the Huey. We had to do a 'course' on wire loom safety because a P-3 caught fire somewhere because of swarf in the wire looms.

We need a little more performance data on the woomera so that we can compare it to the appropriate US type. I dont think the woomera was in the same weifgt/capability class at a glance. It was a jack of all trades really, similar in concept really to the German Ju88....divebombing, torpedo bombing, level bombing, recon. Its bombload appears more in line with a beaufort rather than a B-25.

it would be neat to do a model of this prototype if it was at all available

The Woomera was definately an interesting aircraft. One can only wonder if it would have had more success in the torpedo role than the Beaufort, with is two torpedoes and heavier fire power.

parsifal said:

We need a little more performance data on the woomera so that we can compare it to the appropriate US type. I dont think the woomera was in the same weifgt/capability class at a glance. It was a jack of all trades really, similar in concept really to the German Ju88....divebombing, torpedo bombing, level bombing, recon. Its bombload appears more in line with a beaufort rather than a B-25.

it would be neat to do a model of this prototype if it was at all available

Click to expand...

The problem with the Woomera was clearly the weak R-1830 engines.

That was a problem but not the only one. It had vibration issues in the rear fuselage and unresponsive elevators and rudder i think. All of these issues were quite solvable, including the engine issue. R 1830s were not ideal, but they were used in the Beaufort which actually mproved performance compared to the Taurus engined Beauforts. RAAF Beauforts were survivable, effective bombers, there is not reason to not draw the same conclusion about the Woomera. Its probably more accurate to describe the use of the low powered engines as unlikley to bring out the full potential of the airframe, not that the thing would not fly (or not fly operationally).

I think it was a mistake not to prioritise the Woomera. Not so much from a war winning strategic sense, so much as a narrow national self interest point of view. If we had pressed ahead with the CA-15 and the woomera, we would havehad the makings of a very competitive post war aero industry. government support would have been needed for a number of year, in much the same way they subsidised our motor vehicle industry, but if we had, we may well have established a competitive hi-tech, high quality aircraft manufacturing base in this country. I see these two aircraft as major missed opportunities

Based on what you're saying Parsifal, it appears to be more akin to the Beaufighter, perhaps? After all, it was designed to replace the Beaufort.

On second thoughts, I have my doubts about this aeroplane. I don't believe it could have offered any advantage over existing types in the same roles, nor any that appeared later. It was too clever by half, but not in the right areas and (in my opinion) had too many people on board. Even if the engine issues had been solved, it would have been obsolete by 1943. The standard by which such aircraft were measured was the Mosquito and it is hard to believe that the Woomera could have bettered that aircraft.

You might be right about the Australian aircraft industry, but I don't believe the Woomera was the right choice of aircraft by which to achieve what you hoped might have happened (if that makes sense). The CA-15 was a worthy demostration of what could be done in Australia, but even then, it was considered obsolescent because of the rise of the jet.

Canada was moving into larger realm , they shifted from the PBY Canso/OA10 and were undertaking manufacture of DC4/DC6 hybrid with merlin power which was according to wiki 35mph faster then C54, called the North Star used a fair piece crossing N pacific in Korean war doing it approx 600 times , this was closely followed on by the Iconic Chipmunk , even if they uglied it up with the canopy over in the UK. Tough little trainer pretty spry also can remember Art Scholl used it pretty well.

parsifal said:

I think it was a mistake not to prioritise the Woomera. Not so much from a war winning strategic sense, so much as a narrow national self interest point of view. If we had pressed ahead with the CA-15 and the woomera, we would havehad the makings of a very competitive post war aero industry. government support would have been needed for a number of year, in much the same way they subsidised our motor vehicle industry, but if we had, we may well have established a competitive hi-tech, high quality aircraft manufacturing base in this country. I see these two aircraft as major missed opportunities

Click to expand...

The quandry for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun buying books. Our engineering tends to be based around the minning and construction sectors, specialist high tech work, systems work etc.

Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export building our own will be more expensive than buying in but has the knock on effect of building our capabillities.

One problem is that the military types want the best equipment and are intollerant of delays and less than the best equipment that comes out of the risk of building locally.
It takes serious and consistant commitment. The usual solution is to take an existing design, modify it and build locally. This has backfired somewhat with Collins class subs which despite their advanced nature were an unproven Sweddish design compared to the more experience alterantive design offered by a German consortium. Another problem was the Seasprite program which collapsed. Insider tells me it was all over a fly by wire rotor hub control system the pilot types didn't like. It degenerated into personality issues. When safety is at stake you know what we are like, rather officious, due to the laws in this country.

I've therefore suggested that both countries build design that is either simple (trainer) or based on a proven thing from another friendly/allied country. The looming of a war that is bound to involve both countries makes perfect sense to produce the military stuff to equip it's forces, and, if/when a surplus can be produced, to equip Allies with that - pretty much that was made historically.

The Womera with 2 torpedoes is really pushing things, though

".... The quandary for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun ... Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export ... It takes serious and consistant commitment. The usual solution is to take an existing design, modify it and build locally. This has backfired somewhat ..."

Very true. Describes Canada's situation more or less. Australia - thankfully - has been more honest with itself about how much it should be spending (% GDP) on Defense. Canada, until the current Government, has been happy to exist in soma-land.

".. serious and consistant commitment .." are the key words.

Great post, Siegfried

MM

tomo pauk said:

The Womera with 2 torpedoes is really pushing things, though

Click to expand...

What do you mean Tomo?

I mean that a plane that is basically a 'better Beaufort' would've been okay if the intended target has close to none defence and it's near to Woomera's airbase (assuming a 2 torpedo payload). A target that has some defence, or that is in some distance cancels out the feasible attack by Woomeras that are carrying 2 torpedoes.
Far more potent torpedo bomber, the Beaufighter (Torbeau), was using a single torpedo; the SM-79 rarely carried more than one.

nuuumannn said:

Based on what you're saying Parsifal, it appears to be more akin to the Beaufighter, perhaps? After all, it was designed to replace the Beaufort.

On second thoughts, I have my doubts about this aeroplane. I don't believe it could have offered any advantage over existing types in the same roles,.

Click to expand...

It had exceptional range, with internal armament and it offered remote controlled guns in the rear of the engine nacelles, these were able to protect the rear of the aircraft without the need of a tail gunner and all the weight and drag that entails.