Did We Really Think It Was A Good Idea?

Freebird · Mar 12, 2009

tomo pauk said:
Why do you think that "aerodinamic design" would've act prohibitevly against mounting radial engines (like the Taurus I propose)?

I'm not really an expert, but if substituting Merlins was so difficult, would not radials be even more prohibitive?

trackend said:
At low level performing better than its rivals the Whirlwind was let down by production problems.
200 units were order but in the end only 114 saw completion the Peregrine engines were not as reliable as the Merlin and Rolls Royce production concentrated mainly on these so delivery times fell behind. It was proposed that Merlins be fitted into the Whirlwind but the airframe alterations need were prohibitive.

Sources: Fighters by William Green Gordon Swanborough Reap the Whirlwind by Tony Buttler

The problem was not about finding alternative engines, it was the design changes

tomo pauk · Mar 12, 2009

freebird said:
I'm not really an expert, but if substituting Merlins was so difficult, would not radials be even more prohibitive?
...

There are radials and radials. I suggest instalation of an engine of modest size weight (=Taurus; Twin wasp would do too I hope), not something like Hercules or R-2800.

Now, the brits did have a WORKING plane in 1939 that could do anyting Whirlwind could do in 1940: the Gloster F.9/37. It was the 2nd fastest combat-worthy plane of the world back then, even faster then Whirly by some 20 km/h.
Again, just too bad Bristol (and Australia) wasnt building them instead of Blenheim-Beeaufort-Beaufighter line.

Graeme · Mar 12, 2009

Colin1 said:
On Westland's part, they
failed to produce on time
failed to accept the need for improvements and quickly

Sources
WHIRLWIND The Westland Whirlwind Fighter
Victor Bingham
Airlife Publishing Ltd
ISBN: 1 85310 004 8

Good book Colin. Re-reading pages 40-42, I get the impression that 'Teddy' Petter was a brilliant but uncompromising designer who believed fiercely that "small was best." Good attributes for a designer but lousy when it comes to business and the art of selling aeroplanes especially if you're rubbing officialdom the wrong way.

Sir Roy Fedden was hopeful that Westland would try Bristol engines on the Whirlwind, but to quote Bingham;

…"but Petter felt that this would defeat the object of having small compact engine nacelles and negate his concept of a small compact fighter."

Westland's joint Managing Director, Eric Mensworths was more diplomatic writing to Shoto Douglas explaining that with design changes, Merlin 20 engines could be installed offering a top speed of 410 mph, but by now Douglas, Beaverbrook and Dowding had had a gutful of Westland and the Whirlwind.

There's a good entry in Gunston's "Fighters of the Fifties" book where he heaps praise on Petter's sticking to his "smaller is better" approach regarding the Gnat but reading between the lines I wouldn't have liked to have been a shareholder in Folland at the time.

michaelmaltby said:
If I'm not mistaken, weren't the French making a version of the Fw-190 by war's end - or did I pull that out of thin air?

The SNCAC NC 900 fighter-bomber produced in "caves" at Cravant, near Auxerre. The BMW 801D/2 were completely stripped and rebuilt by Voisin but proved unreliable...

Flyboy2 · Mar 12, 2009

Hi Graeme, you were right, it just was flown once and had to be ditched, but glided very smoothly.
Still, once the designers realized it wouldn't have been able to be flown with armament, and only a limited amount of fuel, it kinda becomes useless

michaelmaltby · Mar 12, 2009

Thanks for that, Graeme. Did SNCAC make them after the war briefly ..?

Michael

HoHun · Mar 13, 2009

Hi Graeme,

>There's a good entry in Gunston's "Fighters of the Fifties" book where he heaps praise on Petter's sticking to his "smaller is better" approach regarding the Gnat but reading between the lines I wouldn't have liked to have been a shareholder in Folland at the time.

Hooker in "Not of of an Engineer" mentions that Petter defended the Gnat airframe against performance-degrading modifications so fiercely that he did not provide the type with low-pressure tyres for the NATO light-weight fighter-bomber competition though poor-field capability was a stated objective. The competition was won by the Fiat G.91 ... I'm not even sure that the Gnat was officially entered.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Graeme · Mar 13, 2009

michaelmaltby said:
Did SNCAC make them after the war briefly ..?

Yep. They built 64 of them but service life was less than two years and several were sold to Argentina. A little more here, close to the top...

Non-Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf 190s

Njaco · Mar 13, 2009

My only contribution - personnally - would be the Mistel combinations. Always thought too much effort for little return.

michaelmaltby · Mar 13, 2009

Thank you, Graeme

MM

Downwind.Maddl-Land · Mar 14, 2009

Ref the Defiant; Old Wife's Tales never die or even simply fade away! Please see my #29 post "http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/boulton-paul-defiant-7448-2.html"

It ain't wot u got - its the way that u use it!

Demetrious · Mar 14, 2009

michaelmaltby said:
I ask: if the P-38 was so good, why did the USAAF use Mosquitos instead of P-38's? (The USAAF tried bombing with the P-38 - "on my mark" type stategic bombing but discontinued it)
MM

Gee call me crazy, but that's probably because the P-38 was a fighter and the Mosquito was a bomber. A bomber doing better in a ground attack role then a fighter? Mysteries never cease, huh?

I am honestly mystified as to where you think the Mosquito was a superior fighter, or even all-rounder, then the P-38. The P-38 was faster, turned better, climbed better, rolled better, etc- as one would expect from a fighter aircraft being compared to a light bomber. The Mossie was a fantastic bomber interceptor and strike aircraft, but it was no fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

I think you're getting the P-38 designation confused with an entirely different aircraft. Perhaps you're thinking of the A-20 Havok light bomber? I think you must, because I find it extremely unlikely that the USAF ever tried to use an air superiority fighter as a strategic level bomber.

michaelmaltby · Mar 14, 2009

Demitrious - I'm not confusing the A-20 and the P-38 at all. The USSAF fried a number a bombing missions where one P-38 was a Pathfinder and the rest dropped "on clue" - they carried a reasonable pay load - but then the B-17 didn't exactly carry an impressive bomb payload - compared to for example the Lancaster. When you think of some of the pin-point missions the Mosquito pulled off for the RAF, the P-38 could have done much the same kind of missions ...

MM

Graeme · Mar 15, 2009

Njaco said:
the Christmas "Bullet" comes quickly to mind

Dr Christmas needed a Bullet - between the eyes, but unfortunately lived to the grand old age of ninety-four, eventually dying in 1960.
Captain Allington Jolly flew the second bullet, straight into a farmer's barn and killed.

Cuthbert Mills was the first to die...

("The World's Worst Aircraft" by James Gilbert)

michaelmaltby · Mar 15, 2009

Demitrious ..

"Although the Lightning didn't do so well in the air-to-air combat role in Northern Europe, it was regarded as an excellent strafer and light fast bomber aircraft. To capitalize on this capability, a number of P-38Js and P-38Ls were field-modified in the UK as formation bombing "pathfinders", fitted with a glazed nose with a Norden bombsight, with the machine guns and cannon deleted and a hatch under the nose for the bombardier. They were called "Droop Snoot" machines. A Droop Snoot pathfinder would lead a formation of other P-38s, each overloaded with two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) bombs, and the entire formation would release when the pathfinder did. The rest would then go on to strafe the target..."

MM

Demetrious · Mar 15, 2009

michaelmaltby said:
Demitrious ..

"Although the Lightning didn't do so well in the air-to-air combat role in Northern Europe, it was regarded as an excellent strafer and light fast bomber aircraft. To capitalize on this capability, a number of P-38Js and P-38Ls were field-modified in the UK as formation bombing "pathfinders", fitted with a glazed nose with a Norden bombsight, with the machine guns and cannon deleted and a hatch under the nose for the bombardier. They were called "Droop Snoot" machines. A Droop Snoot pathfinder would lead a formation of other P-38s, each overloaded with two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) bombs, and the entire formation would release when the pathfinder did. The rest would then go on to strafe the target..."

MM

Wow. I stand corrected. I'd also like to know who the genius was who thought the P-38 would make a good level bomber. Also from Wikipedia:

Standard Lightnings were even used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position, or cargo. This was a very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods weren't even fitted with a window to let the passenger see out or bring in light, and one fellow who hitched a lift on a P-38 in one of these pods later said that "whoever designed the damn thing should have been forced to ride in it."

Wow, I hope they didn't have any automated release mechanism incorporated the way bombs or drop tanks did...

Dr Christmas needed a Bullet - between the eyes, but unfortunately lived to the grand old age of ninety-four, eventually dying in 1960.
Captain Allington Jolly flew the second bullet, straight into a farmer's barn and killed.

Well said. I just read up on that on Wikipedia and had a hearty laugh. A biplane without any bracing struts whatsoever? And the wings fell off? Wow, what a surprise!

FLYBOYJ · Mar 15, 2009

Demetrious said:
Wow. I stand corrected. I'd also like to know who the genius was who thought the P-38 would make a good level bomber.

It was actaully a great idea and probably should of been used more in the ETO.

"The Droop Snoot first saw service on April 19, 1944. The first mission was to attack the Florennes airfield in Belgium. Bad weather halted this mission, and a different mission was scheduled for later in the day. Lt. Col. Harold Rau led 38 P-38s to Gutersloh, Germany. The formation of P-38s managed to drop 26,000 lbs. of bombs in a concentrated area with good observable results. Droop Snoots and Pathfinders were successfully used by the 8th, 9th, and 15th air forces.

In theory this version of the P-38 seemed to be an idea of limitless utilization. The idea of using fighters to deliver significant amounts of ordinance in saturation bombing was tremendous. They would be able to drop their loads, and then act as fighters on the way back home. They would be able to destroy ground targets, and possibly destroy significant numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft and pilots. However, in practice, the Droop Snoot/Pathfinder variations saw only limited action. The idea was never really taken seriously by Gen. Doolittle and his staff. The romantic idea of heavy bombers being able to carry out the daylight bombing practice was prevalent in the minds of the American leaders. Tremendous amounts of heavy bombers were being produced, and nobody wanted to change that. Also, many of these people were preaching the idea of heavy bombers to such an extent, they would not allow themselves to go back on their ideas. After all, the B-17 was the symbol of the Allied effort in the ETO. One very realistic problem encountered by the P-38s was questions about the range. A B-17 would not have to sacrifice range to carry a full load. Even though a P-38 was capable of carrying two 2,000 lb. bombs, it would have to operate on a limited range. P-38s normally carried one 2,000 lb. bomb, and one 310-gallon drop tank. Still, it would not have the range similar to a B-17 or B-24. After the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, the P-38s would have been able to operate out of the liberated areas of France, which would have been very favorable to their range problems. However, at this point in the war, B-17s and B-24 were being produced in large numbers, crews were readily available, and the P-51 Mustang was able to escort bombers deep into Germany. The P-38 was already being phased out in Europe. Even though the operational records do not show the Droop Snoot/Pathfinder versions of the P-38 to be significant, it still showed the P-38 to be used in almost any role imaginable. No other fighter had this ability at this stage in the war."

457th Bomb Group Message Board: Re: P-38 Droop Snoot Aircraft.

Graeme · Mar 16, 2009

Flyboy2 said:
A-40

G'day Flyboy2. Found this today. It looks like that famous image is the Antonov KT. It's erroneously captioned as the Antonov A-40 on Wikipedia. Looks like the A-40 was never built?...

(Letter to the editor. AI 1972)

Colin1 · Mar 16, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
It was actually a great idea...

It was and it should have been used more
the reasons it wasn't were precisely those outlined in the piece although it's difficult to know why tactically-bombing 'B-38s' could prove a threat to the production of strategically-bombing B-17s. It should have looked more attractive to the people who should have been looking, a measured, tactical raid hitting the enemy in the teeth and then shooting him up on the way home, in the air or on the ground; its effect on the Luftwaffe's ability to put up fighters to meet the strategic bomber streams if those fighter airfields were being regularly disrupted by B-38s doesn't seem to have been something that was considered.

I can conceivably see a parallel in Vietnam where B-66s lead F-105s on similar runs, so the USAF must have seen something in it that the USAAF didn't.

Greater implementation in this role would have cemented the P-38's place as the supreme MRCA of WWII, although I tend to think it held that title anyway.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 16, 2009

Colin1 said:
It was and it should have been used more
the reasons it wasn't were precisely those outlined in the piece although it's difficult to know why tactically-bombing 'B-38s' could prove a threat to the production of strategically-bombing B-17s. It should have looked more attractive to the people who should have been looking, a measured, tactical raid hitting the enemy in the teeth and then shooting him up on the way home, in the air or on the ground; its effect on the Luftwaffe's ability to put up fighters to meet the strategic bomber streams if those fighter airfields were being regularly disrupted by B-38s doesn't seem to have been something that was considered.

I can conceivably see a parallel in Vietnam where B-66s lead F-105s on similar runs, so the USAF must have seen something in it that the USAAF didn't.

Greater implementation in this role would have cemented the P-38's place as the supreme MRCA of WWII, although I tend to think it held that title anyway.

Good points.

From that site I posted...

"The idea was never really taken seriously by Gen. Doolittle and his staff. The romantic idea of heavy bombers being able to carry out the daylight bombing practice was prevalent in the minds of the American leaders. Tremendous amounts of heavy bombers were being produced, and nobody wanted to change that. Also, many of these people were preaching the idea of heavy bombers to such an extent, they would not allow themselves to go back on their ideas. After all, the B-17 was the symbol of the Allied effort in the ETO."

Demetrious · Mar 17, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
It was actaully a great idea and probably should of been used more in the ETO.

Hmm. You raise an interesting point. The P-38 (like the P-51) could carry 2,000lbs of bombs, which was pretty tremendous for a fighter. By contrast, the B-17 could only carry 8,000 pounds meaning a mere three-ship fighter formation had the same effective bomb load as a B-17, while being about a fraction as vulnerable from either fighters or flack. And since the configuration of the P-38 allowed them to carry a Norden bombsight, accuracy should have been on par with the heavy bombers.

That is incredible versatility from a fighter. A shame it was not used more.

Did We Really Think It Was A Good Idea?

Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Sergeant

Senior Airman

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

1st Sergeant

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

1st Sergeant

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads