Hawkers and Vickers/Supermarine

Shortround6 said:

Another Photo;

Note group of men standing next to wing root. In the diagram in the previous post the 3 areas in the leading edge of the wing with large Xs may have been fuel tanks. Granted they seem to have shifted to a more elliptical shaped wing but depending on spars going through fuselage the bomb bay in the fuselage may have been rather restricted in size.

Click to expand...

Thats a very thick wing, looks to be around 7 feet it would have taken a lot of power to get to the claimed 360mph and 30,000ft max altitude

Well, this was the era when they were predicting 370mph for the Beaufighter and over 400mph for the Typhoon
One of the Alternate engines was the Napier Dagger so large amounts of power don't seem to have been in the plans.

Air ministry may have called for a bomb load of seven 2,000lb bombs but since no such ordinary bomb actually existed in 1936-37 trying to design bomb bays around it called for a very good crystal ball. One source claims that a preliminary sketch of a 1900lb GP bomb was a completed in Feb 1939.only in Dec 1939 was was an order placed for 12 trial bombs. The 2000lb HC bomb seems to date from Oct of 1940.
There was a 2000lb AP bomb that had started design work in in 1928-29 but an AIr Staff July 1932 limit of 500lbs for bombs stopped development for 4 years. The 2000lb AP bomb was only 13.5in in diameter ( a 500lb MC bomb was 13in) but was 112in long (2in longer than a 4000lb cookie). filling was a whopping 166lbs of Shellite.
These were carried by Hampdens and Wellingtons on occasion but even a bomb stowage of 7 such weapons doesn't mean a high capacity bomb bay for later medium or light case bombs. The 1900lb GP bomb was 18.7in in diameter.

Shortround6 said:

Well, this was the era when they were predicting 370mph for the Beaufighter and over 400mph for the Typhoon .

Click to expand...

Actually over 460mph. The Typhoon did manage over 400mph (~412mph IIRC).

Shortround6 said:

Air ministry may have called for a bomb load of seven 2,000lb bombs but since no such ordinary bomb actually existed in 1936-37 trying to design bomb bays around it called for a very good crystal ball. One source claims that a preliminary sketch of a 1900lb GP bomb was a completed in Feb 1939.only in Dec 1939 was was an order placed for 12 trial bombs. The 2000lb HC bomb seems to date from Oct of 1940.
There was a 2000lb AP bomb that had started design work in in 1928-29 but an AIr Staff July 1932 limit of 500lbs for bombs stopped development for 4 years. The 2000lb AP bomb was only 13.5in in diameter ( a 500lb MC bomb was 13in) but was 112in long (2in longer than a 4000lb cookie). filling was a whopping 166lbs of Shellite.
These were carried by Hampdens and Wellingtons on occasion but even a bomb stowage of 7 such weapons doesn't mean a high capacity bomb bay for later medium or light case bombs. The 1900lb GP bomb was 18.7in in diameter.

Click to expand...

As it was a GP bomb, the 1900lb GP had a low charge to weight ratio of around 26%.

The 1000lb Medium Capacity bomb had around the same amount of explosive filling. And it was smaller in diameter and length.

The 2000lb HC bomb had a diameter of 18.5in and a length of 162in (Mk I) or 131in (Mk II).

At the time of design of the 316 all the British general purpose type bombs were of the low charge to weight GP type. The higher capacity MC types did not appear until around 1942, and they came in 500lb, 1000lb and 4000lb sizes.

The requirement to carry 7 x 2000lb AP bombs was first discussed in relation to the requirements for B.12/36 on 27th May 1936.
It was accepted that the requirement to carry the 2,000lb bomb was needed only for attacking ships. It was considered unnecessary to provide for bombs larger than 500lb for attacking land targets. Clearly the Operational Requirements Committee didn't have a crystal ball!
Cheers
Steve

Well, the requirement to attack ships (battleships are the only thing afloat that needs a 2000lb AP bomb) is understandable but obviously due to the size of the 2000lb AP bomb that doesn't translate into a bomb bay capable of holding either a few large HE bombs or large quantities of of medium (500-1000lb) HE bombs.
AS an example the B-17 was rated to carry up to eight 1600lb American AP bombs. They would fit on the racks and in the bay but the bay would only hold from four to ten 1000-1100lbs depending on type.

The Lancaster was a mid-wing aircraft if not a high/mid-wing leaving a lot of room for an unobstructed bomb bay. The Supermarine bomber was a low wing aircraft. Without a major change in layout after the first two prototypes there doesn't seem to be anyway for this plane to challenge the Lancaster for the ability to carry the variety of loads the Lancaster did.

Shortround6 said:

The Lancaster was a mid-wing aircraft if not a high/mid-wing leaving a lot of room for an unobstructed bomb bay. The Supermarine bomber was a low wing aircraft. Without a major change in layout after the first two prototypes there doesn't seem to be anyway for this plane to challenge the Lancaster for the ability to carry the variety of loads the Lancaster did.

Click to expand...

I agree.
If its performance had been anything like that claimed (and it is a big if) It should have been capable of operating in a much superior way to its immediate peer, the Stirling, which was relegated to being an incendiary bomber by the Lancaster and Halifax.
It would never have been as versatile as the Lancaster, though who knows what modifications might have been possible.

The requirement to carry the 2,000lb AP bombs was because in 1936 the Air Ministry envisaged its bombers working in support of the RN, against enemy capital ships, in daylight. To be fair it was tried but with limited success (until late in the war, and then by specialised Lancasters carrying a MUCH bigger bomb).

Cheers

Steve

Shortround6 said:

Or not


There is a diagram in Tony Buttler's book "British secret projects" that shows how the original swept wing version would hold 29 500lb bombs.

Nine were in the fuselage, 3 in line with the leading edge, 3 abreast mid wing and 3 inline with the trailing edge. Ten were in each wing. 3 in each wing root and 7 more side by side once past the landing gear bay with the 2nd to last inline with the outboard engine and last just outboard of that.
Great idea for spreading the load out for minimal structural weight of the wing. Lousy idea once Bomber command decides they want bigger than 500lb bombs.

found it.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that a cannon hit almost anywhere could explode one of the bombs and as others have said, no room for a cookie.

The 2000lb bomb could penetrate a modern Battleships deck and did on occasion, 3 went through the Scharnhorst at La Pallice in July 1941, only one exploded upon exit (accounts differ on types of bombs and number exploding). The two problems are that it requires a certain minimum altitude to do it which is not really that high but it does decrease accuracy and trying to hit maneuvering ships at sea is a lot harder than hitting them in Harbor/in dock. The Bombs dropped on the Scharnhorst were from at least 10,000ft and possiably as high as 16,000ft.
The latter problem was glossed over by many airforces in the 1930s.

I would note that while the Avenger might be able the carry the British 2000lb AP bomb the Barracuda could not and used the American 1600lb AP bomb when such a weapon was needed.
In any case, torpedoes were the main heavy anti-ship weapon of carrier aviation.

The British themselves lost confidence in their ability to sink Germans battleships after the failed attempt to do just that at Wilhelmshaven on September 4th 1939.
Dowding thought that Bomber Command had under estimated the importance of a time delayed fuse, instead favouring an 'expert' opinion that bomb blast effects could significantly damage a capital ship.
It was Dowding that wrote to Wing Commander J Whitworth-Jones at the Air Ministry on 25th November 1939 saying that
"We now have no means by which we can sink a German battleship."
He may have been overstating the case, but his pessimism reflected that of the RAF at large at this very early stage of the war.
Cheers
Steve

Shortround6 said:

I would note that while the Avenger might be able the carry the British 2000lb AP bomb the Barracuda could not and used the American 1600lb AP bomb when such a weapon was needed.
In any case, torpedoes were the main heavy anti-ship weapon of carrier aviation.

Click to expand...

The Mosquito could carry two of them with a twin adaptor designed near the end of the war.

Rear Admiral JJ "Jocko" Clark said to sink a ship you have to let water in. He was big proponent of Torpedo Bombers. When US air groups were being restructured for more VF squadrons, the SBDs and SB2Cs were landed, and the TBFs stayed with the Fleet.

KiwiBiggles said:

The implication that Supermarine produced lots of different designs, and just happened to call them all Spitfire because they liked the name, is far of the mark. Most development of the Spitfire was fairly simple re-engining, from I to II to V to IX to XII without any significant airframe changes. There is an interesting volume in the official British history History of the Second World War, HMSO, on British weapon development (M.M.Postan, D.Hay, J.D.Scott, Design and Development of Weapons (London 1964)). In it they examine Spitfire development in some depth. I don't have the volume in front of me at the moment, but from memory they stated that the initial Spitfire development was about 1,000,000 man-hours, and subsequent development about 100,000 man hours. The aim of their argument was that by starting with a superb initial design, subsequent development became cheap and incremental. All marks of Spitfire until the 21 were essentially the same aircraft, with incremental improvements. I accept that calling the 450-odd marks 21-24 "Spitfire"was probably sentimental. It was a new design; just not a very good one.

I would suggest that the development of the Tempest from the Typhoon was a far larger undertaking than any Spitfire mark upgrade. I think we are often fooled by the lookalike engine installation of the Tempest V into thinking of it as just a cleanup. Of course it involved a completely new wing, a new fuselage, several new engine installations and probably more.

I agree that the Seafire is essentially the same as the Spitfire, which is why I didn't list it as a separate design.

Click to expand...

Between the first and last spitfire there were huge changes, Supermarine could certainly have given the Griffon engined versions a new name but didnt because the Spitfire was a success. Hawkers as a company produced many very similar aircraft all with different names.
http://www.kingstonaviation.org/js/plugins/filemanager/files/Brief_History_Banner__5B_Layout_1.pdf


Whether a plane gets a new name or number is purely a matter of the situation at the time. The P51A was modified with dive brakes stronger wings and hard points to become the A36, the P51D was completely redesigned to produce the P51H.

pbehn said:

Between the first and last spitfire there were huge changes.

Click to expand...

But excluding the 21-series, there weren't huge changes. To repeat, the marks II, V, IX and early XII used substantially the same airframe as the mark I. Early XIIs even retained a fixed tailwheel. There was a modest airframe cleanup for the Mk VII, which flowed through to the Mk VIII and so on to most Griffon marks, but even that was no more of a redesign than that of the Bf 109 between E and F. The only major changes to the Spitfire over its lifetime were the changes in engine. It is of course a testament to a superb initial design that the installed horsepower and weight could almost double without a substantial redesign.

The 21-series should have had a new name - it was about the same level of redesign as Typhoon to Tempest (just not done as well). But even the 21-series still used a Mk VIII fuselage.

Otherwise, all Merlin and earlier Griffon Spitfires were the same aeroplane, just with more power, improving armament fit and relatively minor tweaks.

Supermarine, like Hawker produced many different aircraft apart from the Spitfire and Hurricane, during their existence. Both were very successful companies.

I suggest you order the following documents from the National Archives at Kew.

AIR 2/2833 - F18/37 Tornado and Typhoon
AIR 2/2844 - F37/34 Spitfire

I`ll summarise what the original archive documents state:

1) The Tornado was supposed to be amazing but was basically...not - and the Vulture engine was cancelled (there is some cause and effect there)

2) The Typhoon was basically just the Tornado re-engined for the Sabre, which also proved to be a huge mistake, as it was
a year late in being delivered by Napier, and didnt work reliably when it was delivered. Whole fields of squadron planes were grounded sitting without engines in for long periods. Squadron morale was basically wiped out during this period.

3) The Tempest was basically just a Typhoon but with all the bug-fixes in place that Hawker should have hand in the first place

4) The Spitfire was supposed to have been basically retired in 1941/42, but because its replacements (typhoon/tornado/tempest)
were horrendously delayed/unreliable/substandard in performance it had to soldier on. Luckily it was good enough that it
could be competetive to just about last out the war.

5) Despite being new designs, none of the Hawker planes had endurance much greater than a Spitfire, so were of very limited
use except for harassing locally - until after D-Day when they could operate from bases in France.

These planes were all supposed to totally replace both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and failed to do so - by virtue of just not being better than a Spitfire. In anticipation of the streams of enraged Typhoon fans posting, all I`m doing is summarising the original records, and yes I know it was a very good ground attack plane - but it was horrendously late, and was never even supposed to fulfill that role. The fact it was useful in ground attack was a sort of accidental "saving grace", but yes it was a very good plane in that unintended role.

In Sydney Camm`s defence, its clear that the largest proportion of all the problems he had were engine related - the Sabre
was supposed originally to have excellent high altitude performance, which is why it was chosen as the powerplant to
replace the Spitfire (in the Typhoon). the Hawker planes were never supposed to be just big ground attack planes, they were supposed to be able to mix it up with 109G`s at 35,000 feet - but that was not so.

The performance of the Sabre was so dissaponting at high altitudes, that they considered ADDING two turbochargers to
the Typhoon (in addition to its own crank driven supercharger) just to make it perform as it was supposed to have a high
altitudes.

One can also say that Camm was daft to have entrusted an utterly vital defence aircraft to a completely unproven engine
concept, which took years to iron out as a useful engine. But thats probably not really his fault, and I`d be inclined to
blame Napier for the failure of these aircraft (see the document - 15th April 1943, 60% of Sabres were rejected).

In 1942, the M.A.P said they were "a couple of weeks away from declaring the Typhoon program to be a total failure", at the height
of the Napier problems.

All three of Hawkers aircraft were really the results of massive design compromises that all resulted from constant chopping/and/changing about which engine they were supposed to use. Exactly the same story as the Fw190, with the
801/Jumo213/DB-603 saga.

Nobody "allowed" Camm to design anything - he was submitting proposals to official Air Ministry specifications which had been tendered to industry, and if the Tornado had "done what it said on the tin", we probably would never have had the following Typhoon or Tempest.

Even in mid 1943 the Sabre was a disaster - as the original documents attest to (see attached).

Supermarine, through good fortune at having chosen the Merlin - never had to deal with quite that level of chaos - and hence
didnt develop much else apart from the Spitfire (although the Merlin was almost as unreliable at first, ramp/head, block failues, magneto drive breakages etc etc etc, but luckily that was mostly ironed out before the war really got going properly)

Snowygrouch said:

The performance of the Sabre was so dissaponting at high altitudes, that they considered ADDING two turbochargers to the Typhoon (in addition to its own crank driven supercharger) just to make it perform as it was supposed to have a high altitudes.

Click to expand...

I suspect this was a size and capacity of the turbocharger issue. And/or an installation issue.

An example of the capacity issue was that in the US the C-series turbocharger was sufficient for the R-2800 and provided power of up to 2800hp at high altitude (later in the war). The R-3350, on the other hand, required the use of two smaller, B-series, turbochargers. This could be the reason for using two.

Or it could be that the plumbing for two turbochargers would be simpler, as the exhausts from each half of the engine (left and right) would drive one turbocharger.

I have seen it said that the problem with Supermarine after Mitchell designed the Spitfire was that Joe Smith was a "developer" rather than a designer.
Joseph Smith (aircraft designer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So he was great at improving the Spitfire, but all his subsequent designs tended towards incrementalism and mediocrity.

For example - the Spiteful was a a Spitfire with a laminar wing and terrible stalling characteristics. The Attacker was a jet with the Spiteful wing and still had poor handling and a tailwheel!

But when it counted he fitted the Griffon into the Spit and made the Typhoon unnecessary.

Remember Quill's famous race with a Typhoon and a FW 190!

Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is important to get the timeline for the development of the Tempest correct. It all started earlier than might be expected due to the overlap caused by the problems with the Tornado and Typhoon cited above.

Camm was instructed to transfer all design work associated with the Tornado to the 'thin wing' Typhoon, temporarily designated Typhoon II, in March 1941.

Over the summer of 1941 it was decided to use as much of the fuselage and tail as possible from the Typhoon in the Typhoon II, the intention being to achieve an in service date of December 1943.

F.10/41 was received by Hawker in the second week of August 1941, and on 18th November a contract was awarded for two Typhoon II prototypes.

In January the name was changed to Tempest and the number of prototypes increased to six. Camm argued hard for this. If we look at the tendency to order few, even one, prototype it had severe consequences for the Typhoon and, before the war, very nearly did for the Spitfire.

HM599. Tempest I prototype with Sabre EC.107C (eventually Sabre IV) and wing root radiators.

HM595 Tempest V prototype with Sabre II and chin radiator.

LA602 and LA607 Tempest II prototypes with Centaurus IV engines.

LA610 and LA614 were to be Tempest III prototypes wit Griffon II engines, later to be replaced with the Griffon 61 'power egg' to become Tempest IV. Neither were built as a Tempest, though LA610 eventually became the Fury prototype.

There was certainly some hedging of bets going on, something familiar to anyone who has looked at the relationship between the Air Ministry/RAF and the British aircraft industry.

The decision to push on with the Tempest V prototype was taken on nothing more than calculations and wind tunnel data for the Tempest I. Hawker was instructed to tool up for production in July 1942 and an order for 400 Tempest Is was placed in August before a Tempest of any type had even flown. There are shades of the Me 210 here.

The Tempest V prototype flew in September 1942 (2nd I think). The intention to retain the Typhoon's fuselage had been abandoned. There was no room in the new wing for adequate fuel and the solution was a fuselage tank, forward of the cockpit, increasing the length by 22 inches. This then caused problems of directional stability and every aspect of the tail was progressively enlarged until it was quite different from the Typhoon. This means that the fuselage, tail and wings, even before the change in canopy design, were quite different from the Typhoon and it is not fair to say that the Tempest was a simple development of the Typhoon, though that was certainly the original intention.

The Tempest I prototype didn't fly until February 1943, at least partly due to Napier's inability to provide the Sabre IV engine.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

and the number of prototypes increased to six. Camm argued hard for this. If we look at the tendency to order few, even one, prototype it had severe consequences for the Typhoon and, before the war, very nearly did for the Spitfire

Click to expand...

The prototype issue brings the US P-38 to mind.