Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Rumanians had to modify their version of the Mistral because their original version was underpowered.the Gnome Rhône Mistral powered a lot of aircraft, some of them pretty successful ones: IAR 80
The Rumanians had to modify their version of the Mistral because their original version was underpowered.
Their K14-1000A eventually solved the power issue for the IAR 80/81
I don't believe I said anything about the Yaks or the Pe-2 except perhaps that some of the Yaks were lightly armed compared to some other planes. I do wonder if they would have done better with a better engines.You (Shorthand6) can say what you like about the Yak series fighters or the Pe-2, but the proof is in the pudding.
That depends on how far from the "base" you were willing to go.both the 12Y and the Mistral were clearly viable engines in the early war and both demonstrably had potential as the basis for far more advanced engines.
Well, the context of the discussion was British war planning, right? Or did I miss something? And you said that the Italians didn't have anything which would outclass the Gladiators based on Malta in 1939.
In that case, it doesn't really matter that much that only a few G.50s and MC 200s were deployed in 1939 or how fast they were being produced, (there weren't that many Gladiators on Malta either). The issue is more that they were there and they clearly outclassed the Gladiator (as the British were to learn in North Africa once MC.200s started arriving in significant numbers). So on a Strategic level, they actually did need something better than a Gladiator (or for that matter a Skua, a Roc, or a Fulmar) and they should have been able to extrapolate that need based on the extant enemy fighters which were already flying. G.50 was flying since 1938.
Also, given the fact that Germany and Italy were already very chummy in 1939, had fought together in Spain from 1936, specifically had fought with and developed their aircraft and air combat tactics in Spain. So I don't think it's a huge stretch to expect (and plan for) German aircraft to be flying from Italian bases in say, Sicily or Sardinia.
The fact that fighters in general at that time tended to have very short range was lucky for the RAF and RN, because it meant that a lot of the bomber raids were unescorted, at least initially.
I think I'd like to qualify that Nuuumannn, 'cause I think RAF gets a bum rap here:It doesn't change the point though, British naval aviation policy between the wars believed that the aircraft it had could outclass what the navy might encounter, or at least the Air Ministry in all its wisdom thought. Once the Admiralty regained control of the FAA it made changes. Remember that during the early 30s when the decisions behind the FAA's future were being made with the advent of 'modern' aircraft, the British were not expecting to go to war, which is something we always forget. You're assuming the British would know it would be at war with Italy when the decision was made to put the Gladiators in Malta to begin with. It was peacetime.
I stand by what I state as far as the availability of aircraft to the Italians in 1939, you can have as many modern fighters as you like, but if they are not combat-worthy, they are of no use to you. From 1940 when Italy entered the war the Gladiators in Malta did not encounter these types in combat initially for the simple fact that the Italians didn't believe they needed them; the SM.79 had established a reputation within the RA and the pilots and planners believed they didn't need fighter escort. so they didn't. The Italians were slow to learn and the lessons from the campaign in Europe took a while to sink in because it proved the RA was no match for an organised and well-equipped adversary.
I think I'd like to qualify that Nuuumannn, 'cause I think RAF gets a bum rap here:
Let's not forget these aircraft were built to specifications issued to the admiralty by the Air Ministry. Yes, the Swordfish was excellent, but about the Fulmar and Skua, the Fulmar was designed as an interim until a two-seat turret fighter design was built - it never was, as once the Admiralty took over the FAA the specification was cancelled and a single-seat fighter spec was written, so it wasn't exactly what the navy wanted. The admirals wanted a single-seat fighter but got the Fulmar and Skua.So, RAF delivered exactly what RN wanted, a torpedo bomber - Swordfish and reconnaissance/dive bomber/fighter - Skua/Fulmar that were world class.
I use BB/CA/CL/BB/DD/SS as I am too lazy to type out the full name; sue the Yankees for having convenient abbreviations.I'm not 100 percent certain what criticism you are trying to respond to here. My point has little to do with the RAF at all, so do us a favour and explain...
My original point is about the Air Ministry (not the RAF) making decisions for the FAA regarding the lack of a modern single-seat fighter, which the FAA had in service since the Great War.
Let's not forget these aircraft were built to specifications issued to the admiralty by the Air Ministry. Yes, the Swordfish was excellent, but about the Fulmar and Skua, the Fulmar was designed as an interim until a two-seat turret fighter design was built - it never was, as once the Admiralty took over the FAA the specification was cancelled and a single-seat fighter spec was written, so it wasn't exactly what the navy wanted. The admirals wanted a single-seat fighter but got the Fulmar and Skua.
The Skua was a good dive bomber but it was slow and inadequate as a fighter, except against larger, slower types, even in 1937 before it had entered service admirals stated they thought it would be obsolete. That doesn't inspire much confidence. Not only that, but the haste by which the admiralty attempted to get single-seat fighters into FAA service once they had control of the FAA and experience in the first few years of WW2 backs their suspicions.
Much effort was expended attempting to get single-seat fighters, from canning specifications and issuing new ones - yes, handing it to Blackburn was a big mistake as the Firebrand was terrible and late, but that's not the admiralty's fault, to buying F4Fs from Grumman and getting Hurricane Is carrier-capable, to approaching Fairey to build Spitfires. There was much effort to rectify the shortcoming.
Now, what were we arguing about?
By the way, 'CV' is an American term. The British never applied it to describe their carriers during WW2.
Lobelle meeting the requirement but not delivering a state of the art is different discussion.
Just about everything rolling off the lines in '37 was obsolete by the time it made it to production.
Firebrand is built to N.8/39, the single seat fighter equivalent.
I don't believe I said anything about the Yaks or the Pe-2 except perhaps that some of the Yaks were lightly armed compared to some other planes. I do wonder if they would have done better with a better engines.
That depends on how far from the "base" you were willing to go.
1000hp at 10,500ft was not particularly first rate 1939. It is 6,000ft lower than a Merlin III and about 90 hp less than an early Allison. It is also behind the DB601.
The basic 12Y without a major "Hack" had reached it's limit. It part because it needed a new crankshaft, a bigger, beefer better counterweighted crankshaft. Which may need a new crankcase to hold bigger bearings.
That was part of the Merlin's advantage, for what ever reason/s the basic Merlin of 1938 would hold up to around 1800hp (testing for the Speed Spitfire), the problem was making that amount of power or making it at the desired altitudes. The Hispano would not stand up to those power levels, it had trouble standing up to the power levels they were using.
Changing cylinder heads is not so easy, Hispano kept the same cylinder head design for many many years because they were using old tooling (jigs and fixtures) from their V-8 days to help make the cylinder heads (machining the valve seat areas for one thing).
Mistral was in the same boat. It needed new cylinders, new heads, and new crankshaft and a new crankcase, other than that, yes a marvelous engine to build off of.
They did do this and the engine gained over 400lbs. Obviously you need a lot of new tooling.
Wright did this a number of times in the R-1820 history so obvioulsy it can be done, but it needs a lot of engineers and a machine tool industry that can supply all they new tooling.
Some of the French pre-war (or 1940) and immediately post war power numbers are rather suspect.
Actually, I beleive it was the G-2 that garnered the most praise and was the last of the lightweight Bf109s.the one the pilots liked the best, was the very lightly armed Bf 109 F series.
I can see that there is something endearing about the Fulmar, and I would say this - for a two person fighter it was pretty good.
I view the RAF and the Air Ministry as synonymous, and I really shouldn't in this forum. The Air Ministry didn't issue specifications to the Admiralty is a vacuum - while the FAA had single seat fighters, they also had twin seat fighters in greater numbers.
it was pretty dismal as a fighter and didn't really have the range to be a good recon aircraft.
HiI really don't agree that the Fulmar did well at all - it was pretty dismal as a fighter and didn't really have the range to be a good recon aircraft. I did look into the May 8 combat and it doesn't look as rosy to me as it does to the guy who posted that (not surprisingly). The biggest problem for the Fulmar though was the repeated inability to intercept bombers. It just quite often couldn't catch them. The Fulmar pilots are really lucky they only had the one (catastrophic) run-in with the IJN and rarely came within range of Bf 109s or MC 202s.
I can see that there is something endearing about the Fulmar, and I would say this - for a two person fighter it was pretty good. So IMO the issue may very well have been with the specs. I can't really think of another two-person carrier fighter that was of any use during WW2. For a land based two-person fighter, I'd go with a Beaufighter of course. But FAA pilots seemed to have been really frustrated by not being able to intercept bombers in it. I think they should have made a longer ranged scout plane (with fewer guns and more fuel) and a dedicated fleet defense fighter. In the event they did Ok with Martlets eventually but they could have done something much better.
I'll post some examples later, Mediterranean Air War Volume 1 is really poorly bound and has fallen apart so it's a big nuisance even just leafing through pages, but I found a couple of examples the other day when I was looking up the May 8 thing. Unfortunately Pedestal doesn't seem to be in there. But Fulmars seem to have failed to intercept SM 79s on a few occasions, and (the SM. 79 isn't exactly a state of the art military aircraft in 1941-42) and to have been basically outclassed by the Ju 88.
HiI'll post some examples later, Mediterranean Air War Volume 1 is really poorly bound and has fallen apart so it's a big nuisance even just leafing through pages, but I found a couple of examples the other day when I was looking up the May 8 thing. Unfortunately Pedestal doesn't seem to be in there. But Fulmars seem to have failed to intercept SM 79s on a few occasions, and (the SM. 79 isn't exactly a state of the art military aircraft in 1941-42) and to have been basically outclassed by the Ju 88.
Actually they didn't have any other options. Not ones that would work anyway.We've debated this before - my take is this - there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Soviets had other options than to go the route they did (small, simple, agile fighters made of relatively few strategic materials) rather than something on the other end of the design spectrum like say, a P-47.
Yes, they were transitioning from an agricultural society to a partially industrialized one, not an easy or comfortable process, as we know.Actually they didn't have any other options. Not ones that would work anyway.
In 1933-34 they had licensed the HS 12Y engine, The Gnome-Rhone 9K and 14K, the Wright R-1820F.
These were to replace the Bristol Jupiter.
They were "developing" the AM series of engines starting in 1931, first production in 1934.
The Soviets had a real problem in that while they were very technology minded, with advanced theories and designs their infrastructure was technologically backward.
You also have the fuel problem. A P-47 wouldn't have worked with 87 octane fuel for example.
Some of the later (say 1936-38) Soviet versions of the initial license engines were developed in parallel with improved engines in the home countries, original contracts specifying the Russians would be kept informed of improvements. The Russians improved some of the engines beyond what the home countries did, in part because development in France pretty much stopped in 1940.
With low powered engines you have choice of small, simple fighters or large, slow, ponderous fighters (read targets). That is the choice the Soviets faced.
Considering the large numbers of Hurricanes, P-40s and various other aircraft (including eventually Spitfires and had they wanted them, P-47s) they were receiving by the mid-war (in the thousands) they could have just as easily imported Merlin or Allison engines (and parts, machine tools whatever) to make their own, had they chosen to do so. In the long run, the Yakovlev and Lavochkin aircraft proved better suited to their specific mission. A good indication of this is the famous Normandie Niemen squadron of French volunteers who, offered any fighter they wanted (which included Spitfires) they chose Yak 9 and then Yak 3 fighters.The Soviets were also rather dependent on western nations for machine tooling. Both before the war and during the war. If you are tooled up to make small simple engines then you build small simple fighters (and bombers) to go with them. Not what the Soviet leaders wanted or chose but what they were stuck with, they were smart enough to realize it however and did not go off on hairbrained schemes to the detriment of actual production. They did build a bunch of rather dubious prototype engines and aircraft but rarely, if ever, at a cost to supplying the front lines with equipment. However these prototypes do show what they were thinking or hoping to build.
Ark Royal was offered three Sea Hurricanes in July 1941. Old ex-RAF aircraft, the single-seaters were barely capable of 300kmph at 18,000ft, and although they had the same armament as the Fulmars, they had only half the ammunition capacity and less than half the patrol endurance. Comparative trials showed that the Fulmar II's performance below 10,000ft was rather better than the Hurricane's and so although the latter would have been useful for patrols above the Fulmar's ceiling, the carrier declined the offer.