Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

Admiral Beez · Jan 24, 2022

I assume a lot of it comes down to power to weight ratio, wing loading/span and robust construction. Which were some of the most agile piston-powered four-engine, four-prop (sorry He 177) production aircraft of WW2? The 368 mph Nakajima G8N has the speed, but was it sufficiently robust to throw it about the sky? The Short Stirling with its narrow wingspan might be up to the task.

Admiral Beez · Jan 24, 2022

I just found this thread, Bombers and Agility so we'll see some repeats. Though we can expand beyond bombers, such as the Douglas DC-4 and Avro Lancasterian.

SaparotRob · Jan 24, 2022

This is a question I've wondered about. On a ferry flight, was a B-17 a pilot's joy? Did a Flying Officer get a big toothy grin when ordered to fly a nice unloaded Lanc from Pleasantshire to North Delightfulham? This may have been discussed on another thread but the Sunderland was described as pleasant to fly.

Jabberwocky · Jan 24, 2022

It may help to define what you mean by 'agility', because it could prevent people talking at cross purposes.

Are we talking about general flying characteristics and performance (speed, rate of climb, rate of roll, ease of initiating a dive/roll/yaw/turn), or something more like the ability to perform aerobatic maneuvers (rolls, hard turns, dives, climbs) or the ability of the airframe to sustain/survive hard maneuvering (like a crash dive and pull out, corkscrew or even a split S) and then keep flying?

Jabberwocky · Jan 24, 2022

From my reading (which is admittedly very RAF-centric), the Lancaster was always praised for both its general flying characteristics and its agility - particularly its ability to perform hard maneuvers to take the aircraft out of the line of fire of German night fighters.

Admiral Beez · Jan 24, 2022

Jabberwocky said:
It may help to define what you mean by 'agility',

First one to barrel roll without pancaking wins.

special ed · Jan 24, 2022

Boeing 707-80

GrauGeist · Jan 24, 2022

I have read several accounts where the Stirling was able to out maneuver attacking twins, like the Ju88.
Additionally, it's been said that the Stirling pilots stated that it was a great handling aircraft for it's size.

Admiral Beez · Jan 24, 2022

GrauGeist said:
I have read several accounts where the Stirling was able to out maneuver attacking twins, like the Ju88.
Additionally, it's been said that the Stirling pilots stated that it was a great handling aircraft for it's size.

When empty but for fuel, oil and crew the Stirling IV transport, powered by four Bristol Hercules XVI engines might have been a hoot to push about.

nuuumannn · Jan 24, 2022

Well, it wasn't the Halifax, which restrictions were placed on manoeuvring the type under certain conditions because of its rudders' tendency to overbalance. When carrying out a steep diving turn, in putting in rudder deflection the rudders would swing to their maximum angle and stay there, defying attempts by pilots to wrestle control back, which invariably led to the aircraft plowing into the ground. Restrictions on rudder deflection were put in place until the problem was cured. This affected the type for around two years until a field modification of an entirely new vertical stabiliser/rudder was concocted in 1943 and first fitted to B.II Series 1A Halifaxes, and became standard fit on the Mk.III onwards.

Admiral Beez · Jan 24, 2022

nuuumannn said:
Well, it wasn't the Halifax, which restrictions were placed on manoeuvring the type under certain conditions because of its rudders' tendency to overbalance.

Wasn't there a violent evasive manoeuvre the Lancaster used to escape night fighters? I recall it was a corkscrew dive. That must have tested the agility and strength of the aircraft.

Edit, here we go. Corkscrew Port – Go!

Mike Williams · Jan 25, 2022

Jabberwocky said:
From my reading (which is admittedly very RAF-centric), the Lancaster was always praised for both its general flying characteristics and its agility - particularly its ability to perform hard maneuvers to take the aircraft out of the line of fire of German night fighters.

I was impressed by the pilot's comments in the USAAF Materiel Command Report of the Lancaster: Memorandum Report on Lancaster III, British Bombardment Airplane - Pilot's Comments

SaparotRob · Jan 25, 2022

Great post, Mike. This is the information about planes I'm most interested in. What was a plane like? Did pilots hate flying a given plane, even if it had spectacular numbers? I would have liked to have read a USAAF comparison of pilot impressions between the Lanc and the B-17 (and other bombers as well). As it would be subjective, there would be no lengthy list of numbers to argue about. Reading literature, not a phone book.

BlackSheep · Jan 25, 2022

I wish I had the quotes handy, but, Col. Tibbits was extremely empresses with the flying ability of the stripped down B-29s his group was given.

Admiral Beez · Jan 26, 2022

Mike Williams said:
I was impressed by the pilot's comments in the USAAF Materiel Command Report of the Lancaster: Memorandum Report on Lancaster III, British Bombardment Airplane - Pilot's Comments

Now that's the type of positive product review Avro would want to include in their sales brochure.

nuuumannn · Jan 26, 2022

Yes indeed, a good write up.

"Maneuvrability is excellent for the type. Radius of turn is short. Visibility for maneuvring is superior."

Usually these reports refrain from using words like "excellent" to describe aircraft characteristics. "Satisfactory" and "good" are common praiseworthy words, with the odd "very" or "highly" added for emphasis...

It seems our writer was "most pleased" with his assignment of testing the Lanc, alright.

"The Lancaster is one of those rare airplanes in which the pilot feels at home immediately. This feature makes transitioning a pleasure by inspiring confidence.

Flying qualities were considered excellent and no bad features were found."

It can be understood why Harris wanted the Lancaster as the RAF's primary heavy bomber with production of the Halifax and Stirling to end in its favour, particularly with both types - for different reasons - killing aircrew.

Admiral Beez · Jan 26, 2022

nuuumannn said:
Harris wanted the Lancaster as the RAF's primary heavy bomber with production of the Halifax and Stirling to end in its favour...

Maybe why they never got critically-needed Merlins.

nuuumannn · Jan 26, 2022

Admiral Beez said:
Maybe why they never got critically-needed Merlins.

The Halifax had Merlins, it didn't like them, or the Merlins didn't like the Halifax. The installation produced drag and there was much talk between Rolls-Royce and Handley Page about this. In the Halifax, the Merlin sat higher on the leading edge compared to the Lancaster, for some reason this produced drag.

David Birch, the RRHT historian followed up his excellent Rolls-Royce and the Mustang book with a similarly titled one about the Halifax. The issues are dealt with in there.

RRHT46 Rolls-Royce and the Halifax

This book tells the story of the difficulties encountered with the Handley Page Halifax bomber and the involvement of Rolls-Royce in correcting them. Although not all problems were engine-related, there were some functional design flaws for which Rolls-Royce helped find solutions.

www.aviationbookcentre.com

BlackSheep · Jan 27, 2022

Mike Williams said:
I was impressed by the pilot's comments in the USAAF Materiel Command Report of the Lancaster: Memorandum Report on Lancaster III, British Bombardment Airplane - Pilot's Comments

I think the pilot that wrote the paper works with me, lol. He sounds like that one guy in every work group who complains about the obvious obstacles to a job that everyone else knows about but also realize their bellyaching won't change a thing.

Seriously though, I wonder who he was and his background because it sounds like he has seen a lot of otherwise preventable tragedy. Either that or he is just "that guy".

Mike Williams · Jan 27, 2022

BlackSheep said:
I think the pilot that wrote the paper works with me, lol. He sounds like that one guy in every work group who complains about the obvious obstacles to a job that everyone else knows about but also realize their bellyaching won't change a thing.

Seriously though, I wonder who he was and his background because it sounds like he has seen a lot of otherwise preventable tragedy. Either that or he is just "that guy".

Possibly these Materiel Command, Flight Section guys that signed off on the report:

Captain Emil L. Sorenson (Also participated in Compressibility Dive Test on P-51D at Wright Field).

Col. (later Brig. General) Ernest K. Warburton

The same guys also wrote: Materiel Command Memorandum Report on Typhoon I, British Fighter Plane

Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

Major

Major

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Major

Senior Airman

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Banned

Major

Major

Major

Major

Banned

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads