GregP
Major
I always wondered why they didn't build a single-seat defiant for one crew member with just forward-firing armament (maybe eight .5-inch MG).
Maybe they weren't allowed to do so ...
Maybe they weren't allowed to do so ...
Least favorite WW II aircraft manufacturer?
- Thread starter mexchiwa
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One firm I'd like to put forward for disappointing performance in WW2 is Handley Page. Now, there'll be some blue blooded Brits extracting their breaths at this, but hey, there's logic to my thinking. Prior to WW2 Handley Page had a reputation for building good big bombers and airliners, which they did. During WW2, the Hampden bomber was used extensively, but was found wanting in the defensive armament stakes, and suffered highly in the hands of German fighters and AA as a result. Nevertheless, it was there when it was needed, which is what can be said for the Halifax, the subject of this assessment. A design with promise, the Halifax was widely used and notched up a creditable war record, but, it wasn't until the advent of the Mk.III in November 1943, over halfway through the combat career of the type, that the Halifax became the aeroplane that it was intended on being, and even then, the Mk.III was only intended as an interim step before the definitive Mk.IV, which was not put into production.
So, prior to the end of 1943 - essentially the first three years of its existence, the Halifax was disappointing and exhibited dangerous handling characteristics. Yes, it was widely employed - what choice did Bomber Command have - the Stirling did not live up to expectations - but there were so many different variants and sub-variants as Volkert desperately strove toward curing the handling problems and improving its performance. It was an ambitious design, and in hindsight I think Volkert bit off more than he could chew. The aeroplane was too big and when officially tested, it was recommended that the Halifax lose weight! A serious drag reduction programme was undertaken and the machine lost its front turret, initially the turret went on SOE variants - agent dropping machines used for special forces, but the glased nose was introduced for this reason, the retractable tail wheel was fixed to save weight, the bulbous Boulton Paul C.II turret was removed and a more streamlined A.VIII turret like the one fitted to the Defiant was installed. These and other mods took place through successive production variants, mind, not all at once, so as machines were being rolled off the production line, new changes were being introduced, which forced changes in designation! Production numbers of variants of Mk.Is and IIs were short before new mods were introduced.
The most serious deficiency was, of course the tendency of the rudders to overbalance, from which the aircraft would suddenly flick into an unrecoverable spiral dive. Test pilots and RAF crew lost their lives because of this rather nasty feature and it took the redesign of the fins to cure the problem in yet another production variant. Meanwhile, Avro introduced the Lancaster in service an Handley Page was introducing the first of the Mk.IIs, which were needed as approximately half of the number of Halifax Mk.Is had been lost in either action over Germany or accidents; not a great record for a new type. The new problem for the Halifax was that the Lancaster made it look even worse than perhaps it actually was. The Lancaster Mk.I could carry a heavier load across a greater distance at a higher speed and altitude than the Halifax II could.
With the Mk.III in November 1943, the problems of the Halifax had been largely cured and the mods introduced over successive variants were put in place and it became the new standard Halifax, although it was an interim. Nevertheless, it was put into mass production and became the biggest production variant of the Halifax. it was a decent fighting machine and importantly for its reputation, could match the Lancaster, if not in load carrying capability or speed, but certainly in range and versatility. It was not until the very end of the war that the Halifax could finally out perform the Lancaster in almost every way - except for load in the Special variants, in the Halifax Mk.VI, but it was introduced in late 1944, early 1945. by that time, however, Avro already had the Lincoln in production, which was superior to the Handley Page machine - again.
So, in my opinion - and that's what this is - I invite comment, of course - HP could have done better and spent much of the war trying to improve what was initially a bit of a dog, even if they did succeed in producing a fine combat aircraft, they took their time about it and expended a whole lot of effort in doing so.
So, prior to the end of 1943 - essentially the first three years of its existence, the Halifax was disappointing and exhibited dangerous handling characteristics. Yes, it was widely employed - what choice did Bomber Command have - the Stirling did not live up to expectations - but there were so many different variants and sub-variants as Volkert desperately strove toward curing the handling problems and improving its performance. It was an ambitious design, and in hindsight I think Volkert bit off more than he could chew. The aeroplane was too big and when officially tested, it was recommended that the Halifax lose weight! A serious drag reduction programme was undertaken and the machine lost its front turret, initially the turret went on SOE variants - agent dropping machines used for special forces, but the glased nose was introduced for this reason, the retractable tail wheel was fixed to save weight, the bulbous Boulton Paul C.II turret was removed and a more streamlined A.VIII turret like the one fitted to the Defiant was installed. These and other mods took place through successive production variants, mind, not all at once, so as machines were being rolled off the production line, new changes were being introduced, which forced changes in designation! Production numbers of variants of Mk.Is and IIs were short before new mods were introduced.
The most serious deficiency was, of course the tendency of the rudders to overbalance, from which the aircraft would suddenly flick into an unrecoverable spiral dive. Test pilots and RAF crew lost their lives because of this rather nasty feature and it took the redesign of the fins to cure the problem in yet another production variant. Meanwhile, Avro introduced the Lancaster in service an Handley Page was introducing the first of the Mk.IIs, which were needed as approximately half of the number of Halifax Mk.Is had been lost in either action over Germany or accidents; not a great record for a new type. The new problem for the Halifax was that the Lancaster made it look even worse than perhaps it actually was. The Lancaster Mk.I could carry a heavier load across a greater distance at a higher speed and altitude than the Halifax II could.
With the Mk.III in November 1943, the problems of the Halifax had been largely cured and the mods introduced over successive variants were put in place and it became the new standard Halifax, although it was an interim. Nevertheless, it was put into mass production and became the biggest production variant of the Halifax. it was a decent fighting machine and importantly for its reputation, could match the Lancaster, if not in load carrying capability or speed, but certainly in range and versatility. It was not until the very end of the war that the Halifax could finally out perform the Lancaster in almost every way - except for load in the Special variants, in the Halifax Mk.VI, but it was introduced in late 1944, early 1945. by that time, however, Avro already had the Lincoln in production, which was superior to the Handley Page machine - again.
So, in my opinion - and that's what this is - I invite comment, of course - HP could have done better and spent much of the war trying to improve what was initially a bit of a dog, even if they did succeed in producing a fine combat aircraft, they took their time about it and expended a whole lot of effort in doing so.
I think Boulton Paul concentrated on making turrets they are still in business today as part of the Dowty group, but also I have seen Boulton Paul trucks around the UK
Shortround6
Major General
Without a total redesign what have you got?
There was a single seat version proposed but the performance estimate seems more than just bit optimistic.
as for eight .50s? whose .50 cal guns and when?
Eight American .50s weigh 573lb (as in a P-47) and .50 cal ammo is about 30lbs/100 so even 200rpg is 480lbs. this does not include gun mounts, bracing, ammo boxes/chutes, gun heaters, charging and firing mechanisms and access doors. Granted you are pulling a 600lb turret and 200lb gunner.
British .5 in Vickers guns may NOT have been reliable enough to stick in the wings (the .303 versions weren't which is why they adopted the Browning).
There was a single seat version proposed but the performance estimate seems more than just bit optimistic.
as for eight .50s? whose .50 cal guns and when?
Eight American .50s weigh 573lb (as in a P-47) and .50 cal ammo is about 30lbs/100 so even 200rpg is 480lbs. this does not include gun mounts, bracing, ammo boxes/chutes, gun heaters, charging and firing mechanisms and access doors. Granted you are pulling a 600lb turret and 200lb gunner.
British .5 in Vickers guns may NOT have been reliable enough to stick in the wings (the .303 versions weren't which is why they adopted the Browning).
Harris had a dislike of the Halifax as a plane and HP as a company. The poor Hampden was overtaken by events as every pre war bomber was. One criticism of it that I believe is unfair is defensive armament. No British bomber had satisfactory defense for daylight operations.
Shortround6
Major General
It is a bit unfair to blame a company for building an airplane to an official specification. In a lot of cases the British Air Ministry stated "we want a plane to do XXX and YYY and ZZZ and by the way, we want you to use the AAA engine/s." This rather restricts the manufacturers options. The Hampden actually did rather well with a pair of 900-1000 hp 9 cylinder Pegasus engines.
I agree completely 2 x 1000HP engines and a crew of 4 would always be found wanting when the war broke out, I read it was a nice plane to fly but not a nice plane to fly in. BTW I just read that Boulton Paul now make garden sheds.
Actually, even at the time, the Hampden's defensive armament was considered inadequate; each gun emplacement was fitted with only one gun, but many had modifications to enable a second to increase its firepower because of this. Remember that its contemporaries in the RAF had power operated turrets - the Wellington and Whitley, although the early Whitleys only had a rear power turret, the forward one was hand operated, as did the very first Wellington Is delivered without turrets. Oh, by the way, my rant was not a criticism of the Hampden, a pre-war design.
I have to agree with SR regarding a straight modification of a Defiant without a turret and forward firing guns; the performance estimates were exactly that, and work would have needed to have been done to reduce structural weight to improve its performance, even without a turret. Granted, it is likely that it would have been faster than a Hurricane, but not a Spit or Bf 109.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I would also note that before the Air Ministry pays for/orders prototype aircraft they review drawings and even mock-ups of the companies proposals so the lay-out and number of guns on the Hampden were certainly no surprise to the Air Ministry. If they didn't like them at the time they could simply have refused to buy production aircraft if not the Prototypes.
Hampden was thought to be faster than the similarly powered Wellington and it's extra speed would help keep it out of trouble. A lot to expect for around 20mph
Hampden was thought to be faster than the similarly powered Wellington and it's extra speed would help keep it out of trouble. A lot to expect for around 20mph
DonL
Banned
I will throw in an unusual name on the first sight, Heinkel!
But from the perspective of demand and reality, you can say Heinkel failed.
Reviewer and bad tongues claim that except the He 111, not any other important Heinkel LW aircraft was ever careful elaborated to the ground.
He danced on every wedding of a RLM advertisement and it was claimed that non of his development department realy know, how much a/c's they are realy developing.
I don't deny that the Heinkel air company had sometimes bad luck, or was thwart from the RLM, but I think it was the german company next to Messerschmitt which fritter most.
Heinkel should have had the nuts to end the "impossible" dive project on the He 177 or tell the RLM how idiot it was, but the company continued to fiddle around for 4-5 years without any satisfactory.
To my opinion the He 219 was also an unsatisfactory, development began 1940 and it was developed from beginning to the bigger engine DB 603.
But in reality it had not more or significant more performance then a Ju 88 G6 with Jumo 213 engines (speed armament, range etc.) , which was clearly older from the basic design. And for an a/c which was only produced 280 times, it had an awful lot of variants.
Also at the development of the He 280, the a/c was promising but after the first developments, the company went to other projects and didn't develop it further or to the ground.
So in summary I think Heinkel developed and built very good or state of the art aircrafts, but the management of the company was to my opinion awful.
Much too less concentration and too much fritter, with a very unsatisfactory result in the end.
But from the perspective of demand and reality, you can say Heinkel failed.
Reviewer and bad tongues claim that except the He 111, not any other important Heinkel LW aircraft was ever careful elaborated to the ground.
He danced on every wedding of a RLM advertisement and it was claimed that non of his development department realy know, how much a/c's they are realy developing.
I don't deny that the Heinkel air company had sometimes bad luck, or was thwart from the RLM, but I think it was the german company next to Messerschmitt which fritter most.
Heinkel should have had the nuts to end the "impossible" dive project on the He 177 or tell the RLM how idiot it was, but the company continued to fiddle around for 4-5 years without any satisfactory.
To my opinion the He 219 was also an unsatisfactory, development began 1940 and it was developed from beginning to the bigger engine DB 603.
But in reality it had not more or significant more performance then a Ju 88 G6 with Jumo 213 engines (speed armament, range etc.) , which was clearly older from the basic design. And for an a/c which was only produced 280 times, it had an awful lot of variants.
Also at the development of the He 280, the a/c was promising but after the first developments, the company went to other projects and didn't develop it further or to the ground.
So in summary I think Heinkel developed and built very good or state of the art aircrafts, but the management of the company was to my opinion awful.
Much too less concentration and too much fritter, with a very unsatisfactory result in the end.
Last edited:
I would also note that before the Air Ministry pays for/orders prototype aircraft they review drawings and even mock-ups of the companies proposals so the lay-out and number of guns on the Hampden were certainly no surprise to the Air Ministry. If they didn't like them at the time they could simply have refused to buy production aircraft if not the Prototypes.
Hampden was thought to be faster than the similarly powered Wellington and it's extra speed would help keep it out of trouble. A lot to expect for around 20mph
Agreed nuuuman and SR6. The Hampden may have had inferior defence to its contemporaries but all British bombers were almost equally vulnerable. Powered turrets front and rear dont protect from a single engined A/C. Better save two crew, ditch the guns and increase the speed.
Shortround6
Major General
Trouble is once you have the plane designed and built taking the turrets back out doesn't really buy much.
Lancaster and Halifax transports with fared over gun positions only picked up 10-15mph in top and cruising speeds over the armed versions. Not enough to get them out of trouble.
I am afraid I have a lot of doubts about a "big" Mosquito, especially if it is to show up any sooner than various marks of the Mosquito.
Apparently the "idea" is send in a large airplane with 3-4 times the bomb load of a Mosquito (early ones) and depend on a high cruising speed and altitude to keep it out of trouble?
The snag is what is the minimum cruising speed that will work and and the range desired. Bomber command could have increase the cruising speed of the existing 4 engine bombers on many (but not all) raids by simply using different cruise settings than 'most economical" and accepting the higher fuel burn and shorter range.
A "new" bomber may have and advantage over an "old" fighters but new fighters can be developed faster than new bombers. Bombers that can out run 109Es could be in trouble against the 109F ( same engine-mostly in early versions) with it's aerodynamic cleanup.
And that brings up another question in the "big" Mosquito question. How much of the Mosquito's performance was due to the surface finish the wooden construction offered and could such a surface finish be achieved/maintained on a metal airplane?
Sight down the sides of some metal aircraft, it is not just rivets and joints but some aircraft show "dishing" between frames/ribs/stringers that paint and polish can do little about. The dishing causing turbulence/drag.
Lancaster and Halifax transports with fared over gun positions only picked up 10-15mph in top and cruising speeds over the armed versions. Not enough to get them out of trouble.
I am afraid I have a lot of doubts about a "big" Mosquito, especially if it is to show up any sooner than various marks of the Mosquito.
Apparently the "idea" is send in a large airplane with 3-4 times the bomb load of a Mosquito (early ones) and depend on a high cruising speed and altitude to keep it out of trouble?
The snag is what is the minimum cruising speed that will work and and the range desired. Bomber command could have increase the cruising speed of the existing 4 engine bombers on many (but not all) raids by simply using different cruise settings than 'most economical" and accepting the higher fuel burn and shorter range.
A "new" bomber may have and advantage over an "old" fighters but new fighters can be developed faster than new bombers. Bombers that can out run 109Es could be in trouble against the 109F ( same engine-mostly in early versions) with it's aerodynamic cleanup.
And that brings up another question in the "big" Mosquito question. How much of the Mosquito's performance was due to the surface finish the wooden construction offered and could such a surface finish be achieved/maintained on a metal airplane?
Sight down the sides of some metal aircraft, it is not just rivets and joints but some aircraft show "dishing" between frames/ribs/stringers that paint and polish can do little about. The dishing causing turbulence/drag.
Agreed SR The point I was making was that the defence didnt work and the RAF switched to night raids. Even an increase of 20MPH is useful in evading flak. I dont think anyone advocated a 4 engined unarmed bomber. de Havilland were considered a bit eccentic for proposing the mossie. However in hind sight a "lancaster" designed with no defensive guns may have been a better bet. It would never (I dont think) be faster than a fighter but would make interception much more difficult, a higher speed and altitude would certainly cut down flak losses. Gunners in BC were advised against firing back in many situations in case this drew more fighters, I barely believed that when I first read it.
GregP
Major
Hi Shortround,
Regarding post 84 and later in the Defiant.
I don't really care whose guns they used. The turret had 4 guns in it and you are retaining them without penalty plus losing the turret and the gunner, so there is definitely room for some additional guns and ammo. It is very hard for me to believe that a turret (including a motor) and a gunner aren't heavier than a few guns. The drag reduction alone should add more than just a few mph. And you;d have a nice surprise for the unsuspecting enemy. If the four extra guns ARE so heavy then, by all means, go with six instead of eight.
However, they had eight guns in a Hurricane, why not a defiant?
A Hurricane IIC came in at 5,745 pounds empty with four 20 mm cannons. A Defiant Mk I came in at 6,078 pounds empty with four .303 MG. So lose the MG, turret and gunner and go with four 20 mm cannons. It should easily beat the empty weight of the Hurricane.
I seriously question a single engine without fixed, forward-firing armament anyway. As it turns out, my thinking was right ... they NEEDED the forward-firing guns. The plane flew well and could easily have been turned into a fighter of some import, I think. But, it wasn't to be ... another "what-if."
I was mostly wondering why they didn't even try it. If they HAD, and if they has run them in mixed formations, then the enemy could not attack from head-on without some risk and the same goes from astern. They might figure out which was which, but if they flew together and leader and wingman, one would always have a shot.
Regarding post 84 and later in the Defiant.
I don't really care whose guns they used. The turret had 4 guns in it and you are retaining them without penalty plus losing the turret and the gunner, so there is definitely room for some additional guns and ammo. It is very hard for me to believe that a turret (including a motor) and a gunner aren't heavier than a few guns. The drag reduction alone should add more than just a few mph. And you;d have a nice surprise for the unsuspecting enemy. If the four extra guns ARE so heavy then, by all means, go with six instead of eight.
However, they had eight guns in a Hurricane, why not a defiant?
A Hurricane IIC came in at 5,745 pounds empty with four 20 mm cannons. A Defiant Mk I came in at 6,078 pounds empty with four .303 MG. So lose the MG, turret and gunner and go with four 20 mm cannons. It should easily beat the empty weight of the Hurricane.
I seriously question a single engine without fixed, forward-firing armament anyway. As it turns out, my thinking was right ... they NEEDED the forward-firing guns. The plane flew well and could easily have been turned into a fighter of some import, I think. But, it wasn't to be ... another "what-if."
I was mostly wondering why they didn't even try it. If they HAD, and if they has run them in mixed formations, then the enemy could not attack from head-on without some risk and the same goes from astern. They might figure out which was which, but if they flew together and leader and wingman, one would always have a shot.
Shortround6
Major General
Defiant changed from the Merlin III to the Merlin XX engine and picked up about 13MPH? Due to larger radiator? matt black finish? Radar antenna? combination?
Estimate was for 360mph for the single seat version with Merlin XX engine. a gain of over 40mph by taking out the turret?
First prototype was flown without the turret so they had to know what the difference in drag was and nobody talks about how much slower the turret made the aircraft.
Something seems as bit off with the weights too. A Hurricane IIB went about 5559lbs tare, not including 64lbs ballast. Gun load for twelve .303 guns and ammo was 625lbs. please be sure you are comparing empty to empty and not empty to empty equipped. That 5,745 pounds for the Hurricane IIC might be for the plane without guns installed. 20mm Hispano guns are about 147lbs apiece installed with belt feed adapters other needed accessories. Granted the 1940 aircraft would use drums.
A US .50 cal was over 2 1/2 as a heavy as a .303/30 cal Browning. The ammo was 5 times heavier per round. so you are trading the 4 guns in the turret for 1.6 .50cal guns and the 2400 rounds of .303 ammo are worth 480 rounds of .50 cal ammo. or shall we say two .50 cal guns with 190rpg?
Granted you are getting rid of the turret and gunner. You called for .5in machine guns, using eight .303s in the wings is a whole different matter. .50s are not plug-ins for .303s even on a two for one basis.
BTW the fuel tanks on the Defiant were in the wings just outboard of the propeller disc. Right about where you (or anybody) would want the wing guns to go.Yes things can be moved around but the more "stuff" that has to be moved th elonger it takes and by the time they were done the single seat defiant wasn't needed any more.
The schemes that called for paired 20mm guns to elevate up to 17 degrees from the wing certainly didn't help.
Estimate was for 360mph for the single seat version with Merlin XX engine. a gain of over 40mph by taking out the turret?
First prototype was flown without the turret so they had to know what the difference in drag was and nobody talks about how much slower the turret made the aircraft.
Something seems as bit off with the weights too. A Hurricane IIB went about 5559lbs tare, not including 64lbs ballast. Gun load for twelve .303 guns and ammo was 625lbs. please be sure you are comparing empty to empty and not empty to empty equipped. That 5,745 pounds for the Hurricane IIC might be for the plane without guns installed. 20mm Hispano guns are about 147lbs apiece installed with belt feed adapters other needed accessories. Granted the 1940 aircraft would use drums.
A US .50 cal was over 2 1/2 as a heavy as a .303/30 cal Browning. The ammo was 5 times heavier per round. so you are trading the 4 guns in the turret for 1.6 .50cal guns and the 2400 rounds of .303 ammo are worth 480 rounds of .50 cal ammo. or shall we say two .50 cal guns with 190rpg?
Granted you are getting rid of the turret and gunner. You called for .5in machine guns, using eight .303s in the wings is a whole different matter. .50s are not plug-ins for .303s even on a two for one basis.
BTW the fuel tanks on the Defiant were in the wings just outboard of the propeller disc. Right about where you (or anybody) would want the wing guns to go.Yes things can be moved around but the more "stuff" that has to be moved th elonger it takes and by the time they were done the single seat defiant wasn't needed any more.
The schemes that called for paired 20mm guns to elevate up to 17 degrees from the wing certainly didn't help.
not easy to operate together even spitfires and hurricanes couldnt climb together .....getting defiants and hurricanes together or turreted and none turreted defiants in pairs would take time they didnt have..
GregP
Major
Not sure that is entirely right. but it isn't worth a long diatribe.
I would have tried it.
I would have tried it.
Fair comment I would have had defiants up north freeing up SE fighters ...but at the time a night fighter was just as much needed I think
GregP
Major
Probably so.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,991
- Jun 25, 2013
I would say my least favorite aircraft maker has to be Brewster. It takes a certain amount of management talent for an combat aircraft manufacturer to go bankrupt in a war. Later, the same management team evidently took over the US consumer electronics industry and the US railroads.
Since one of my uncles flew B-24s, I tend to have some level of dislike for the WW2-era incarnations of German aircraft companies. There product may have been used to shoot at him (I can't ask him about his experiences; he died of ALS about 35 years ago)
Since one of my uncles flew B-24s, I tend to have some level of dislike for the WW2-era incarnations of German aircraft companies. There product may have been used to shoot at him (I can't ask him about his experiences; he died of ALS about 35 years ago)
