Why did the P-46 have so much problems? It seemed to deliver such little performance? As for the P-53/60 and XP-62, I'm curious what went wrong.
It was strange...
What problems dogged Supermarine?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did the P-46 have so much problems? It seemed to deliver such little performance? As for the P-53/60 and XP-62, I'm curious what went wrong.The XP-46 was oversold and under-delivered and the XP-60 series were of indifferent design.
It was strange...The XP-75 was arguably the worst design of all
What problems dogged Supermarine?Bluntly, both these cases indicate serious management and cultural problems in these companies.
Why did the P-46 have so much problems? It seemed to deliver such little performance? As for the P-53/60 and XP-62, I'm curious what went wrong.
It was strange...
What problems dogged Supermarine?
I was just curious what problems affected Supermarine.If a single employee leaves a large company, it shouldn't go downhill as a result
Drag is the curse of performance. P-40, P-46, P-60 cursed by excess drag - wing and fuselage.Why did the P-46 have so much problems? It seemed to deliver such little performance? As for the P-53/60 and XP-62, I'm curious what went wrong.
It was strange...
What problems dogged Supermarine?
Drag is the curse of performance. P-40, P-46, P-60 cursed by excess drag - wing and fuselage.
Their 1929 acquisition by Vickers seems to be the beginning of their downfall, with the precipice being the 1937 death of Mitchell and the 1938 reorg of Supermarine into Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Ltd. From then onwards, any new Supermarine aircraft designs were dogs.I was just curious what problems affected Supermarine.
The P-46 is a real puzzle as it is no faster, using the same engine, as the P-40D/E despite being smaller and lighter. Something (or more likely many little somethings) were creating a lot of drag.
The P-60 Saga also has a lot of drag, but perhaps not as much as we suppose if published performance is to be believed as one prototype using the same engine as a P-40F was a bit faster than the P-40F while using a larger wing and weighing more. However having less drag than the P-40 in the fall of 1941 was no longer good enough.
Why did the P-46 have so much problems? It seemed to deliver such little performance? As for the P-53/60 and XP-62, I'm curious
It didn't require a genius to install Merlin 45 in the Spitfire II - it was basically the same engine as the Merlin XII. That Spitfire was conductive to receive installation of ever-heavier and more powerful engines is a testament to the excellence of the basic design, and for that we can credit far more Mitchell than Smith. Mitchell also designed the Supermarine racers, the Spitfire was not a thing of just 'getting lucky'.
We can also give credit to Beverly Shenstone here, the creator of the wing of Spitfire.
IF the accounts can be believed the XP-46A managed 410mph and flew months ahead of the XP-60. However the XP-60 flew a few weeks ahead of the XP-46, confused yet?I believe the XP-46 was no faster without military equipment than the P-40D was with.
The P-40 still performed pretty well: Able to reach around 340-370 mph @ 13000-15000'. That wasn't actually bad, as it actually outperformed the Hurricane Mk.I, possibly the Mk.II's at those altitudes. Considering the performance could be achieved at those lower altitudes, that could also imply the plane was cleaner than the Hurricanes.Drag is the curse of performance. P-40, P-46, P-60 cursed by excess drag - wing and fuselage.
If I recall, they were starting out with a propeller design that they decided to modify into a jet-fighter. That said, it is strange that they would ignore suggestions to put a tricycle-gear in.More or less ( I have not the book in my hands) when Geoffrey Quill tested P-39 was amazed by the handling on the ground due to his tricycle landing gear: " I could not understand why a factory like Vickers, with a tradition in oleopneumatics, did not implement a tricycle landing gear in the Attacker, that I had strongly suggested..." states in his memories.
I'm not sure what produced the increase in drag. The only thing I could think of was the belly radiator design, it seemed that Curtiss couldn't quite get that one right, though Donovan Berlin might have gotten that right on the XP-75 (he got everything else wrong, but...)The P-46 is a real puzzle as it is no faster, using the same engine, as the P-40D/E despite being smaller and lighter.
What was wrong with Vickers? They produced many top-notch aircraft including the Vickers Wellington, and some other proposals.Their 1929 acquisition by Vickers seems to be the beginning of their downfall, with the precipice being the 1937 death of Mitchell and the 1938 reorg of Supermarine into Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Ltd. From then onwards, any new Supermarine aircraft designs were dogs.
The performance of the XP-60 was disappointing as well, with a top speed of only 387 mph at 22,000 feet. It took 7.3 minutes to reach an altitude of 15,000 feet, and service ceiling of 29,000 feet. Some of the reason for the disappointing performance was due to the wing surface not being finished to the degree of smoothness required for the laminar flow wing. Another factor was the fact that the Merlin {Rolls-Royce Merlin 28} engine did not deliver the guaranteed output.
Empty weight was 7008 pounds, gross weight was 9277 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 9700 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 45 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 33 feet 7 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 275 square feet.
Weights: 6433 lbs empty, 8600 lbs normal loaded, and 10,600 lbs maximum loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 2 1/2 inches, height was 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.
Weights were 9900 pounds empty, 13,500 pounds normal loaded, 14,925 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 40 feet 9 5/16 inches, length was 36 feet 1 3/16 inches, height was 14 feet 3 5/16 inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.
So it had gotten too big and heavy, as well as the wings not being designed to adequate tolerances. I guess North American had a greater attention to detail than Curtiss did -- they also managed to make the belly-radiator work, where Curtiss couldn't pull it off.That may explain the poor performance of the XP-60, as well as having a large wing
It's a good question. On fighters, Vickers seemed to be behind the curve. At the same time their Supermarine subsidiary was flying the Spitfire prototype in 1936, the mother company's Vickers Venom first took flight.What was wrong with Vickers? They produced many top-notch aircraft including the Vickers Wellington, and some other proposals.
The Venom would have whooped a lot of Japanese arses.It's a good question. On fighters, Vickers seemed to be behind the curve. At the same time their Supermarine subsidiary was flying the Spitfire prototype in 1936, the mother company's Vickers Venom first took flight.
How can the same company make this....
View attachment 575109
....and this? I hope Smith didn't pen this one.
View attachment 575110
Clarence Johnson and Edward Heinemann didn't start out as "managers". At what point they became managers I don't know. At what point they transitioned from just another engineer to design leader on a project to overseeing several projects took a number of years. Upper management at times was responsible for letting them take an idea and running with it.
Alas, true. An article I read about the V-bomber development stated that the UK had fewer engineers working on all the V-bombers than Boeing had working on B-47 hydraulics. I'm not sure I believe that; I suspect that there is a problem with job titles, which don't necessarily correspond between two US companies, let alone US and UK companies.Yes, once the initial concept/rough design is figured out then a team should be assembled and "leader" be relieved of detail work.
British were at a disadvantage in there was a general shortage of engineers. At times it wasn't a question of picking the best and brightest but just getting enough people to move a project forward. Design offices often didn't have enough draftsmen let alone real real engineers.
Not to pick on the British too much, the Book "The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: a technical history" by Jack Connors has one engineer remembering that the P&W supercharger design dept had 5 men in it before WW II after P & W decided to build their own superchargers and stop buying designs/parts from GE. I wonder how many were in that dept in 1945?
What if's that say P & W (or insert another company) should have just done XXXX overlook this part.