MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[gumbyk]

[

Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate. If you are only reacting then you are behind the aircraft. its not a big deal, its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.

A bit of both, really. You anticipate swing on take-off, but you still have to react to things like wind gusts

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ, it has to do with the general way the human brain is trained, & values ingrained, & not about particular aspects of tail-draggers,
- except in relation to the Merlin/Griffon Spitfire take-off opposite trimming issue.

Obviously, the fundamental familiarity of being in a Spitfire caught some pilots out, which would've been less likely,
if they'd been doing a take off in a completely different aircraft, even with opposite rotation, such as a Typhoon.

And again, a matter of training and situational awareness. I've flown aircraft with "opposite rotating propellers." Once the feel for the required right rudder in lieu of left rudder was established, all else was easy - and I'll concede these were aircraft with ALOT LESS HP when a WW2 fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

[

Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate.

Admitting both but mainly anticipate, especially if it's a taildragger that could bite you real quick - I've flown 180 HP Supercubs - you're flying the aircraft the minute you crank the engine up! Cubs and Citabrias are a little more forgiving IMO

its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.

Driving on the opposite side of the road compared to flying an "opposite rotating propeller" taildragger? Not even close! Those British drivers are crazy!!!

 

[Shortround6]

(o) Marked decrease in number of parts, and consequent reduced production and maintenance costs.
(p) Relative simplicity of all major parts, permitting accurate repetition machining.

I really love point O. While the sleeve valve certainly cut down on the number of parts per cylinder outside the crankcase in the valve train, inside things were not quite so simple.

Push rods and rocker arms or gears and shafts?
They also had just a wee bit of trouble with that point (p). for a while (also after Fedden's presentation). Mass production of sleeves with an acceptable scrap rate was a lot harder than they thought. Yes they did get it fixed.

(q) Probability of easier operation when exhaust turboblowers are used.
(r) Greater Reliability due to most of the causes mentioned above.
(s) Any desired control of cylinder turbulence with its possible application to stratified charges and abnormally weak mixtures with petrol injection.

Point (q) turned out to be a non-issue and the Americans didn't seem to have much trouble putting turbo blowers on poppet valve engines.
(r) turned out to be true but it took until several years after the paper was read to become reality. Post war the Bristol sleeve valve radials did establish a very good reputation for reliability and long life. But then the post war R-2800 engines established a very good reputation also.
(s) also tuned out to be a non-issue as it was never used in a production engine.

 

[Shortround6]

Be serious SR6, as if Fedden would've tried to bullshit his peers..

& the lame cigarette ad is a poor analogy, the type-testing/rating figures were published too, no need to go 'strawman'..

What evidence do you have of "erks having to swap engines in 20 hours..."?

Call it what you will. Many of the advantages in that list were either minor or of little practical difference.

I am am NOT the one who first used a magazine ad as PROOF of a position. If you have the "type-testing/rating figures" then post them instead of having us chase magazine ads.

 

[Shortround6]

SR6 Try not to conflate the oddities of radial engine architecture with the sleeve valve itself, since to a liquid-cooled inline,
many of these things are meaningless. I'll find & post a NACA S-V port flow paper, that confirms those Ricardo/Fedden points.

Hey, you brought up Feddens presentation and Fedden was working on radials. Or does the sleeve valve only work on in line engines?
Air cooled engines present the toughest cooling problems. If the sleeve valve did what was claimed why did it take so long to sort out the air cooled version?

The sleeve valve did solve a number of problems that existed with poppet valve engines in the 20s. Trouble is that the poppet valve camp also spent millions solving most of the problems and by the time the sleeve valve was really ready most of the real problems with the poppet valve had already been solved.

 

[Shortround6]

That clockwork looking timing chest serves 14 individual cylinders, & yet the parts count is way less than pushrods/rockers/poppet valves/springs/collars/collets/oil feeds/ & etc. The S-V had nothing moving/clattering about in the cylinder head.

Quite true but then the comparison pictures and articles about the advantages of sleeve valves always mention the parts count of the cylinders and tend to neglect (or ignore) the complexity of the gear train needed. Gears also need a lot more machining than pushrods.

 

[gumbyk]

Driving on the opposite side of the road compared to flying an "opposite rotating propeller" taildragger? Not even close! Those British drivers are crazy!!!

HEY!!! I resemble that remark!!!

As for flying LH vs. RH turning propellers, I'm pretty happy to get out of one and into the other, but then again, Like FBJ, I'm not getting out of one mark of spitfire and into another. To be honest, after a while you don't really even think about what rudder inputs you need. As long as you don't give it a big burst of power, which isn't good for the engine, I haven't had any problems, and I'm just an average pilot...

 

[GregP]

One last time James, in an attempt to set you straight on motorcycles. The law you are referring to was passed in 1968 and addresses only motorcycles that are licensed for street use in the USA.

Hate to tell you, but I purchased motorcycles with non-standard shift patterns from 1968 through 1995. Some even with shifters on the opposite side. They were, one and all, for racing or off-road use, with no possibility for being licensed on the street. Like I said, Eddie Lawson would laugh at you, just like I am laughing.

My Bultaco Sherpa T trials bikes had shifters on the opposite side in stock configuration. So did an Ossa I rode for awhile. Both from Barcelona, opposite sides of the city. Moving the shifter to the other side made the shifter on the familiar side, but the pattern was backwards since changing the shifter does nothing to the internal gears. It was all perfectly legal since they were not street motorcycles. It still IS legal.

I even purchased a STREET motorcycle with a non-standard shift pattern in 1971! It was a Norton with first gear up and the rest down. Seems they "got around" the "law" that year due to being a low-volume brand. I sold it before I got it home because I encountered a real Norton lover and he wanted THAT model. He let me ride it before he took it, and I made $500 on it.

With that, I will refrain from posting anything further on the subject of motorcycles with you. Your knowledge of motorcycles is as awesome as your knowledge and understanding of WWII aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

Off-road/racing-wise, well, of course, like mil-spec machines, those are exempt from regular road vehicle reg's...

Are you referring to Harley-Davidson or Indians here?

Because they haven't made military motorcycles for decades.

And my 1939 Indian Messenger 74 had an asswipe-shifter - not shift "pegs"

Just curious...

 

[GrauGeist]

No, not bikes G-G,
Detroit Diesels.. banned for civil sale by the EPA - for being filthy 2-strokes, their value/utility to the military keeps them in production/use.

wait, J-W

how did Detroit Diesels get into that motorcycle conversation?

 

[GrauGeist]

Any vehicle (or machine) that is imported into the U.S. had to follow current Federal laws of the day, regardless of emissions or safety standards.

If something is deemed "for offroad use only" that applies to aftermarket modifications of existing vehicles ONLY. Otherwise, it's "gray market" and can be confiscated if there's an infraction while the said vehicle is in use.

The 1975 Dodge Powerwagon I was assigned while at NWS Seal Beach had Federal smog equipment, not California smog equipment, so *technically* it was in violation of State law, but it was primarily intended for use aboard the weapons station, which is Federal jurisdiction, so it wasn't an issue.

However, any vehicle imported into the United States that does not comply with Federal law is illegal.

 

[stona]

& yes tourists not used to driving on the left do cause an inordinate number of crashes, rental cars here
have face level advisories about it posted in them.

This doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK. There are prominent signs at the exits to ports and the 'Chunnel' advising drivers to drive on the left, but I've never seen an eye level advisory in any hire car I've picked up, usually from airports where the majority of hirers would be from overseas.
I've also driven on the right a lot, both in Europe and North America, and it is less of an issue than remembering to put a foot on the brake to start a car with an automatic transmission (something I never drive at home). I have never, even for a second, had the urge to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

Without wishing to be misrepresented as 'anti-Asian' I would point out that 'downunder' at least,
quite a few drivers here - from Asia demonstrate sub-standard driving abilities to actuarial significance levels...

All people are equally capable of driving cars safely. The statistically significant fact that people from some countries drive less well than others would indicate failings in their driver training programmes, just as accidents involving aircraft with a different direction of torque would imply failings in pilot training programmes. It's got nothing to do with the car or aircraft.
Cheers
Steve

 

[gumbyk]

Without wishing to be misrepresented as 'anti-Asian' I would point out that 'downunder' at least,
quite a few drivers here - from Asia demonstrate sub-standard driving abilities to actuarial significance levels...

Actually - they don't have an increased number of accidents, at least here in NZ, but somehow they seem to get more media attention.

 

[gumbyk]

What did they say?
I've never seen any warnings, other than the "keep left" arrow, which isn't aimed at our Asian cousins, since they mostly drive on the left too.

 

[stona]

I meant in a general sense. Obviously individuals will have different capacities to learn and varying driving abilities, but Asian people, African people or European people are all equally capable of driving cars safely. The same can be said for people from individual countries.
Some drivers and some pilots will always be better than others, but there is no reason, given proper training that ,say, European pilots should be statistically better or worse than African pilots. Again, the same can apply to different countries.
You said that people from other countries can be shown statistically (that's what actuaries work from) to have more accidents and that can only be a result of the driver training they have received in their home country. Poor training makes for more accidents, for drivers as well as pilots.
Not acknowledging the point I'm making, because it is at odds with your position, and making spurious and diversionary observations based on the logical semantics of the word 'people' is not really helpful.
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

Well I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm not.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Steve

 

[pbehn]

How many incidents/accidents this predictable matter caused? Even one was too many, IMO.
.

How many people died just trying to take to the air?
How many died flying at night?
How many died landing with wheels up?
How many died developing the jet engine and then supersonic flight?



My opinion is that the problem stemmed from both planes being spitfires, the pilot therefore is in a comfort zone, the griffon plane my have seemed familiar but in one respect was substantially different. There must have been thousands of pilots transitioned from Merlin engined planes to planes with props turning the other direction but it only seems to be discussed on spitfires.

A designer cannot think about pilot ignoring instructions when he designs a plane or anything else for that matter.


As I recall standardisation of motorcycles started with a batch of 250/350 yamahas being shipped with no stop on the selector drum, it was therefore possible to shift directly from 6th to 1st almost certain to cause a crash., this set up an investigation into all types of accidents where gear selection/braking was the cause and it was agreed to standardise. At one time some "Indian" police motorcycles had the throttle on the left side to allow an officer to ride and shoot, though I suspect it must be easier to learn to shoot left handed, outside the movies how many cops actually do open fire while riding?

 

[Hiromachi]

Coming back to the main topic point I think one of the more underrated aircraft, not really the most, but still is Army Type 1 fighter, also known as Ki-43 or called by its opponents Oscar.
Machine that probably is responsible for more aerial victories than any other Japanese Army and Navy fighter, a pure ace maker, since flying on it more than 50 pilots reached Ace status.

Machine is generally recognized for its outstanding maneuverability, many Allied pilots underestimated it only to find themselves in the sights of the fighter. However its also worth noting for the fact that it was a first mass produced Japanese fighter with fuel tank protection (since late 1942) and one of the first Japanese fighters to be equipped with pilot protection (armored plate, since 1943).

Overall the design went through major changes, starting with 900 HP engine with single stage, single-speed supercharger but ending with a 1150 HP engine with a two-speed supercharger, doubling its effective combat altitude. I've recently came across the South West Pacific Area Intelligence Summary No. 238 which included a description of "Impressions of Oscar Mark II" which contains a description of combat trials against four Allied fighters given by four Allied pilots. Thus I have decided to bring a few quotes just for the pleasure of reading:

It is easy on the controls and requires very little rudder pressure between 140 and 350 m.p.h. A person can hold the rudder pressure needed for an hour and probably not notice it. I had a complete confidence in its flying characteristics after only a few minutes of flight. The smallness of the cockpit is about the only thing that bothersome. (...)

In Lieut. Jackson's opinion: "Oscar Mk. 2 is the easiest aircraft to handle that I have ever flown. All the controls are very sensitive at low speeds and aircraft is definitely one which can be flown by 'the seat of the pants.' Only in one or two instances during flight did I check the needle and ball, and then only to verify that it was flying so nicely."
"The aircraft has no vicious characteristics. At one time in a hammerhead stall the airspeed indicated 30 m.p.h and in falling off, Oscar simply rolled on its back and fell through nicely. Loops can be done at 170 m.p.h. Battle flaps increase the rate of turn and are handily operated on the stick.

Lieut. Ray said, "After flying Oscar, I can understand why so many Japanese pilots use the Split S for evasive action. I flew the Oscar through aerobatics and it seems to me the Split S would be the quickest and safest evasive action against our P-40, P-47, P-38 and Spitfire, as the airspeed drops fast when you pull the nose up."
"Comparing the Oscar with our first-line fighters, I would say it was far inferior, its normal cruising speed being 40 to 60 m.p.h. slower than that of our fighters. Oscar handles very well in the air and can be looped and immelmanned at airspeeds of 170 m.p.h. or lower. I found no freezing tendency of the controls at 300 m.p.h. airspeed at 9,000 feet."

Lieut. Strand said, "The Oscar is highly maneuverable - that I knew before flying the aircraft, but after being in it several times, I found out just where the aircraft performs best and what were its bad spots."
"I would recommend that in combat with an Oscar, ou keep your airspeed above 250 m.p.h. and the Oscar will not be able to get above you at any time. In straight and level flight, the enemy aircraft is pretty slow, but if you put it in a steep dive it will pick up a good speed and hold it. Stay away from the Oscar at low airspeeds because he can accelerate from 150 to 250 m.p.h. too fast."

And one of my favorites, also from SWPA, but this time related to Oscar I compared against a P-47, printed somewhere in the spring of 1944:

The captured Oscar's AAF pilot, identified in the report only as Captain Stanton, described his initial encounter with the Thunderbolt: "Met the P-47 at 3,000 feet and outclimbed it to 5,000 feet. It dove on my tail from 6,000 feet and in a steep bank to the left I easily got out of the gun range in 90 degrees. In a 360 degrees I was behind the P-47 but its circle was so large that it was one-and-a-half turns to the right before I was in effective gun range."
Stanton continued: "The circle was so large that it took half a turn for the Oscar to cross it to the P-47s tail after getting behind it."