Least favorite WW II aircraft manufacturer?

[parsifal]

Well, why not? Australia was a part of the British Empire and naturally it would want its commonwealth to support its interests. This was the British Empire after all. As for the Beauforts, the British contributed enormously to the establishment of Australia's aircraft industry
and big firms threw their weight behind the decision to build the Beaufort in Australia. As for the decision not to contribute any further hardware to Australia for production of its aircraft - harden up! Britain had just entered into a war footing! Of course they were not going to be able to send stuff to Australia that it desperately needed for the war effort! Do you not see how silly your claim is in light of that?

Hardne up indeed. If the British had been honest with the Austral;ian Govt, instead of treating us with such contempt as they did, we would not have foregone our own defence to support the british to the extent that we did. Sorry, but lying isnt about hardening up, its about applying basic standards of respect and human decency.

This doesn't actually match with historic events. Post WW2, Aussie built the Lincoln, instead of the B-24, which was serving with the RAAF during WW2 and was up for suggestion as the post-war RAAF heavy bomber to be built locally, not only that, but Australia also built the Canberra, another British bomber, which, I have to add, was named after the Australian capital, also the RAAF received Gloster Meteors, Vampires, the RAN received Sea Furies, Sea Venoms, Fireflies, Gannets, British aircraft carriers, frigates, destroyers, helicopters etc; need I go on. The switch to US equipment and not just US equipment, like the MB-326, Mirage (the F-104 'lost' the contract to the Mirage) etc was down to what was considered to be the best course of action, not because of some misguided anti-British sentiment.

Disnt say the we did not retain links with the British post war, but we never trusted them the same as we had before Singapore. You forgoit, incidentally, to mention that we also built P-51s, like hotcakes, as well as the Avon Sabre, and others. We even assembled the off Mirage of two, doesnt mean we particulalry liked the french....

As for Singapore - really Parsifal? How can you suggest the loss of Singapore was a betrayal to Australia?! Your argument sounds awfully self-centred and whomever orignially came up with that notion was extraordinarily conceited - I suspect it was politically motivated, myself. Again, you don't hear New Zealanders bleating on about the fall of Singapore being a betrayal of British promises to keep NZ safe, and lets face it, New Zealand relied on Britain to a far greater extent than Australia did.

Suggest yopu follow the various imperial ddefence conferences to learn what was really said and who lied to who. Australian officers (not the British appointed yes men that were in charge ) weree more than a little unconvinced of Singapore as a viable defence option, but were overuled, and given certainassurances that privately, the british were unable to keep. We believed those promises, and foregoed our own defence plans because of that.

As for New Zealanders, well, they are free to form whatever view of the world they choose, but w e made decisions based on thigs we were told, and they were tols with bad intent. Thankfully, and unlike New Zealand, we made a choice after being lied to repeatedly to shift allegiances.

I know we've exchanged words about this subject before, Parsifal, but I cannot accept your notion that Britain 'abandoned' Australia. Regardless of what your emotions on the subject are, Britain had ample justification for doing what it did, in hindsight. If Australia went to war against a local power, would you send badly required resources half way round the world to a country that doesn't really need them as immediately as Australia does? Makes perfect sense.

actually, we did, and we didnt lie about what we were doing either. We sent nearly 28000 aircrew to Europe when we should have retained them to fight in the pacific. We bombed Germany, and suffered for it, with no immediate threat to our own shores, because we were told it was in the greater allied good to do so. We drew the line when Churchill tried to hijack the returning AIF to Burma, luckily, and for that I make no apologies.

 

[nuuumannn]

Back to aircraft manufacturers, yep, Blackburn is up there, although the firm did contribute enormously to the war effort by continuing production of the Swordfish from 1940 when Fairey halted it to continue with the likes of the Baccaruda. Blackburn did spend the rest of the war trying to fix the problems with the Firebrand though - wasted a lot of effort and man-hours producing an aircraft that was obsolescent when it finally entered service.

As for the Baccaruda (Barracuda), its problem was it was designed around a large observer's lounge below the wing, which dictated how the rest of the design was going to fit - this was specified by the naval specification, of course - the RN continuing its priority for observer's positions like with its fighter pilots being incapable of flying an aeroplane and operating a radio and finding their way simultaneously, unlike the pilots in the US and Japanese navies. Placing this position below the wing meant the wing had to be high up the fuselage and the torpedo slung below the fuselage, not internally, which created drag and produced an inordinately lanky aeroplane and undesirable aerodynamics; the wing tended to blank out the elevators and thus the hori stab was relocated to further up the fin, which had to be enlarged. Placing the wing high up the fuselage meant stalky undercarriage that was quite robust and one of the better features of the design, but the Youngman flaps/dive brakes looked as if they were an afterthought; they added more complexity and drag. Overall, the Barracuda was another attempt to satisfy an unnecessary RN requirement for a specification that could have been simpler. Why not just put the observer behind the cockpit, like the Firefly?

Parsifal, regarding Singapore, what was the lie about that from Britain's point of view? That they actually wanted Japan to defeat Britain in Singapore? This is silliness. Sure, the British made assurances that Australia would be safe, but that's because the British thought they could guarantee that, but look what they were up against. How can you blame them? Methinks you Australians are behaving spoiled, but I suspect not all your fellow country men share your view, in fact there were very few at the time who thought that despite what was said at conferences etc. The Australian prime Minister certainly made it plainly clear who his allegiances were to when he made this speech:

"We look for a solid and impregnable barrier of the Democracies against the three Axis powers, and we refuse to accept the dictum that the Pacific struggle must be treated as a subordinate segment of the general conflict. By that it is not meant that any one of the other theatres of war is of less importance than the Pacific, but that Australia asks for a concerted plan evoking the greatest strength at the Democracies' disposal, determined upon hurling Japan back. The Australian Government, therefore regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the Democracies' fighting plan. Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go, and we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give to our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy."

Note this part: "We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on."

The Brits were not happy at all with this, in fact even Roosevelt claimed that the Australians might be panicking. Curtin angered a lot of people in Australia and the UK, including Churchill (who didn't think much of him) by the very suggestion that Australia was going to abandon Britain and turn to the United States, and this was before he had made a concrete agreement with the USA (best to do that before spouting off political speeches), so it puts your Britain abandoning Australia into perspective - basically an emotional reaction to events out of control with no rational basis at all.

Post war, accepting equipment from Britain (or France for that matter) and not liking the fact you're doing so - churlish? Yeah, I think so.

 

[parsifal]

No, they didn't; what the government promised (and not only have I read the message, but I also have a copy on my computer) was that, in the event of Japan invading the country, we would then drop everything in the Med, and go to Australia's aid. As they didn't invade, there was no need to come.
There is one underlying misapprehension, in this thread; British manufacturers produced what they were asked for, not what they felt like producing. The Air Ministry produced a specification, companies produced plans, and the Ministry ordered what they felt filled the bill.
The Hurricane was never known as the "Fury Monoplane." On the first (abortive) tender, and on the second, it was titled "High Speed Single Seater Monoplane Interceptor."

Perhaps you should engage a little more in basic geography. the Japanese DID invade Australian territory....the country in fact. New Guinea was a mandated territory under Australian control on behalf of the League, whilst Papua and the Solomons were each part of Australian territory, as was the island of Nauru. We were invaded, and our territory was attacked. Still waiting for the promised fleet to arrive.

 

[parsifal]

While I don't doubt that the UK could have done more for instance in the supply of more modern fighters I don't see what else they could have done. In the Pacific the absolute requirement was for Carriers and the ones we did have were constantly in action.

I agree entirely. This wasnt about what was realistically possible. Realistically, with forces fully engaged in the ETO, the british could do little in the pacific. What this is about is what they told the Australians, and what they were prepred to allow to happen. Despite offers to increase the available defences by Australia, the British actively discouraged such efforts at self sufficiency. The two issues are separate to each other

When the contracts were signed for Australian production, Australia wasn't under any threat as Japan hadn't entered the war. So I don't see the issue

.

Concerns about Japanese intent had been discussed and planned for since at least 1935, and the forward defence option that was Singapore had been in the planning since 1921. It was not a big issue for the British, but it was a big issue for the Australians, and as the historical events show, the big bluff put up by the british failed very badly. the stick just wasnt big enough to be effective.

This bit I don't get at all. Just how stupid do you think the UK authorities were. If you are helping people to build combat aircraft the other side of the world then by default you are accepting that Australia will have a bigger influence than they had originally.

Australian aircraft industry was very small, and very inexperienced. We did need a lot of outside help. Wackett wanted to use American technology from the start, and in some measure he got his way with the Wirraway. but thje british offered repeatedly in the lead up to war to provide assistance, far more promised than they actually gave. When war broke out, they withdrew all support, at least in the critical issue of engines. Okay i can understand that, but what i dont understand is that for months after that decision to impose an embargo, the British authorities also would not allow (by means I dont understand) the licence production of a replacement engine for the hercules. It wasnt even the company objecting, from what i canglean, they wanted to proceed, it was official bloody mindedness, at least on the face of it

I think you are understating the assistance that Australia gave to the war against Japan.

later on, Britain gave a lot of assistance, though australias defence exports still exceeded her imports for most of the war. After 1942, things did return to true alliance warfare, but for that critical period 1938-41, ther was precious little offered by the brits

If this had been the case then the UK would not have paid for everything involved in the build up of the RAAF. The UK paid for all the aircraft, equipment, training, uniforms absolutely everything. This applied to all the commonwealth nations with the exception of Canada who agreed to pay for their heavy bomber squadrons, in I think 1943.

That is simply untrue. Australian defence spending on the the RAAF was 1.7 million pounds in 1935. By 1937-8 this had increased to 12.5 million, and from there it went up exponentially. Perhjaps you are referring to the Article XV squadrons thatserved under RAF control in the ETO and the thousands of Australans serving in RAF squadrons under RAF control. Im not sure about that Not all squadrons, even those serving in the ETO/MTO were article XV squadrons

Defending Singapore was never a realistic thing to do once the Japanese started the war in the East. If there is any criticism, it is that the UK shouldn't have tried so hard to defend it in the first place. The UK sent as many ships as they could spare to fight the Japanese but they never had the carriers or aircraft that were so critical

.

I agree, and serving senior Australian Officers agreed. It was the British who insisted they could defend Malaya, even after their own people were saying it was not. and they used that conviction to comnvince us it was safe enough to leave our home defences whilst we poured our heart and soul into the ETO. Just so long as we were noit too self reliant and too self sufficient

 

[GregP]

Is there an aircraft manufacturer in there somewhere?

 

[parsifal]

point taken

 

[GrauGeist]

Is there an aircraft manufacturer in there somewhere?

Kind of drifted, like the "first generation bomber" thread, didn't it?

 

[GregP]

Point taken ...

I suppose we ALL tend to drift a bit, don't we? Sounds like something to think about over beer.

 

[nuuumannn]

I'll put my hand up to that - sorry guys. Reminds me of a tee shirt that a Scottish mate used to own. In big letters it said "Eat crisps, drink beer, talk shite"

 

[parsifal]

Im going to get a tee shirt made..."stay on topic, stay on topic"

 

[GregP]

Me too ...

 

[buffnut453]

There's a topic?

 

[BiffF15]

While we do every now and then wander on topics, and regardless of where the wandering goes it is providing me with an informative education!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pattern14]

Im going to get a tee shirt made..."stay on topic, stay on topic"

Its all my fault for asking Parsifal the question in the first place. No Idea that the Poms and Kiwis would get their noses out of joint so easy. Then again, infighting amongst the British empire is hardly new..........its just done on the cricket pitch or football field these days. As for worst manufacturer, its both subjective and objective. Some great manufactures built brilliant planes, and also piles of junk. Heinkel comes to mind just for starters.

 

[GregP]

Think of the Fisher (General Motors) P-75 Eagle! What a waste of effort. By the time it was a decent aircraft, interest in it had faded and the performance had been left behind.

Noe the GM (Eastern Aircraft Division of GM) FM-2 was the best Wildcat in the family.

Great and porr all from the same place, as said above.

 

[Aozora]

Think of the Fisher (General Motors) P-75 Eagle! What a waste of effort. By the time it was a decent aircraft, interest in it had faded and the performance had been left behind.

Noe the GM (Eastern Aircraft Division of GM) FM-2 was the best Wildcat in the family.

Great and porr all from the same place, as said above.

Not forgetting GM also manufactured the Allison V-1710 and the TBM Avengers, so, all in all, there was more good than bad from GM.

 

[Aozora]

Im going to get a tee shirt made..."stay on topic, stay on topic"

How about this?

still, nothing wrong with plain white

or white with a tasteful inscription...

or a cream tee-shirt with a tasteful inscription:

Then again there's

Brewster would be my pick for least favourite.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, but the P-75 was a terrible idea that SOMEONE accepted and they actually made one of the "new-plane-from-old-parts" units!

Wings and canopy of a P-40, tail of a Dauntless, etc. Someone was into the mushrooms and convinced others to eat them, too.

Of course, they also gave us the Chevrolet Vega later down the road. So maybe the guy had a son or grandson who worked there. His lack of intelligence might STILL BE there, sort of like Ford's decision to actually make and sell the Edsel. I hope THAT notion had disappeared at least.

It is sort of like a bit of the British cars. With their climate, you'd think they could design a car that could run in an environment of rain. But nobody told Triumph or Austin-Healey that, so they didn't even try! Ever watch Top Gear? How many old British cars catch fire while running in the rain? Of course, Clarkson might be SETTING them on fire for the show ... nnaahhhhhh ..........

 

[GregP]

Let me see the middle one without the damned white T-shirt ... and let's ALL watch the last one ride something. I volunteer for research dummy.

 

[nuuumannn]

Think of the Fisher (General Motors) P-75 Eagle! What a waste of effort. By the time it was a decent aircraft, interest in it had faded and the performance had been left behind.

You can blame the Mustang for that. The P-75 was an ambitious idea, but along comes North American with its "British" airplane and its excellent performance and manages to do the same job that the P-75 was being designed for. I saw the P-75 at the USAF Museum at Dayton; it's a big thing.

One manufacturer I'm tempted to throw in here is Boulton Paul, not necessarily because they wanted the fate they were given, but because the only design they built with any notoriety during WW2 was the Defiant, which was a bit disappointing during the Battle of Britain - even if it wasn't used in the right fashion, it never recovered reputation wise, despite being an excellent night fighter. BP had some great ideas but none of them ever came to fruition; this is largely down to the Air Ministry and the decisions sent its way. BP wanted to build a Defiant derived naval fighter, but was told to build the truly awful Blackburn Roc, which must have peeved J.D.North to no end. BP's desire to enter into naval fighter territory came to nothing, despite some very promising designs with modern features throughout the war.

Boulton Paul is one of the great 'what if' British firms; their designs that were built were of sound quality and were good at what they did. The Sidestrand twin engined bomber alarmed everyone by being as manoeuvrable as the latest fighters in the 1920s - as had the Bourges bomber of Great War vintage, the Overstrand had a power operated gun turret in the nose; the first such installation in a heavy bomber and the Defiant was ingeniously constructed; it could be built in less time than a Spitfire (with the exception of the turret, which proved troublesome) and had fewer parts - that is, before WW2 when Supermarine were still bungling on building everything by hand and taking an age to do it. Quality of build in the Defiant was superb, with parts and panels designed to fit exceptionally well in order to reduce drag; all flush rivetting, highly polished outer surfaces - didn't make much difference; the Defiant was still slow (but faster than a Fulmar! ). Nevertheless; it was a masterfully designed machine, if not the best performer. Boulton Paul had modern production values when British firms were still acting as if they were a cottage industry. So, disappointing in that it was capable of so much more than it ever got the chance to prove.