MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Deleted duplicate post.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

It proves the Sabre was a sound design, when properly built & maintained..

& for sure, there were sufficient numbers of Tempests available for post-war RAF needs.

Typhoons were thus deemed surplus to requirements, & so the *whole bloody lot - were duly scrapped!

Gloster went on to make multitudes of 'Meatboxes', so Hawker built about 550 Tempests - for postwar use..

*No action was taken in Britain to preserve even one!
( & ten years later, this was also done - to every Tempest in RAF hands)
& that's a mark of being "under-rated", surely...

pbehn · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
It proves the Sabre was a sound design, when properly built & maintained..

& for sure, there were sufficient numbers of Tempests available for post-war RAF needs.

Typhoons were thus deemed surplus to requirements, & so the *whole bloody lot - were duly scrapped!

Gloster went on to make multitudes of 'Meatboxes', so Hawker built about 550 Tempests - for postwar use..
QUOTE]
How many Tempests with Sabre engines remained in service, the Sabre engine is no argument for sleeve valve engines. The Tempest wasn't built post war because of the performance of the Meteor.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

In fact 140 odd Sabre powered Tempest F.6's were built & flown post-war,
being the RAF's primary fighter in Africa/Middle-East through the 2nd 1/2 of the `40s.

& numbers of older Mk V's continued to serve too, with some 50 or so, later converted to TT spec,
- to be flown hard in A2A gunnery training, 'til the mid `50s..

pbehn · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
In fact 140 odd Sabre powered Tempest F.6's were built & flown post-war,
being the RAF's primary fighter in Africa/Middle-East through the 2nd 1/2 of the `40s.

& numbers of older Mk V's continued to serve too, with some 50 or so, later converted to TT spec,
- to be flown hard in A2A gunnery training, 'til the mid `50s..

It was more suited to the middle east because it wasn't suited to Europe at all, almost every make of plane ever made in that era ended up as a target tug. 140 planes in the WW2 era is as close to nothing as it is possible to get.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Incorrect, Tempest F.6's were suited to those climes, indeed having 'clearance',
for 'Tropical' performance.. & the Mk V's in Germany - continued in service like-wise.

Wack · Apr 13, 2018

The pearl of the northern skies aka the Brewster Buffalo.
Could handle anything the russians threw at it until 1944.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

FYI, about the same number of Sabre-Tempests saw wartime service as Spitfire XIV's & outscored them, too..
Ironically the RAF used more Merlin-Mustangs..
- than either of the British fighters which obsoleted the Merlin-Spitfire..

Those post-war F.6's replaced L-L Mustangs, because bankrupt Blighty couldn't afford to buy 'em..

Juha2 · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
Doubtless the rapidly advancing airframe tech ( & size/mass) during the `30s meant that the time had
come for larger more powerful engines. The Dagger had been left behind by this, & Napier acknowledged it,
hence Halford & Tryon commenced work on the Sabre, as a result.

Napier had flown the 1st '1000hp' engine in the `20s, ('Cub') before airframes were able to cope with it.

The sad outcome for Capt Baker was one of the reasons the Air Min prefered such advanced work
to be the province of established makers, who were likely to have a broader outlook design-wise,
esp' for fundamentals such as cooling capacity & in MB's case - fin area/control authority.

As for engines in tanks, many much more bulky aero-engines were fitted to them, even radials!
Liberty engines were 'powering' British 'cruiser' tanks, a large Christie design, ( cousin to the T-34),
so I'd doubt that space considerations would be a significant factor, ( a Merlin would/did fit).

IIRC Napier concentrated to improve the Sabre for better performance not to solve the problems in the basic engine's reliability. In the end the Air Ministry lost its patience and hinted/asked the English Electric to purchase Napier, which happened very late in 1942 and under EE the effords were concentrated to solving the reliability and production problems and Sabre became at least acceptably reliable.

Napier was one of the members of the "old boys' club" which the Air Ministry favoured, the AM believed continuality and believed that it was better to have 3-4 engine and airframe firms which would survive on long run, also through leaner peace times so that there would have competition but not too much. So it pushed Fairey out of a/c engine business before the war and e.g. Metrovick after the war. On airframe side Miles and MB were treated harshly to keep them out of combat plane business. And IMHO Miles got into advanced trainer business only because the favourite, dH, failed with the Don, and there was a desperate need for a new advanced was trainer in late 30s. Miles M.9 Kestrel was there and was modified/redesigned to Master.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Juha, can you kindly credit - the writer of your post?

pbehn · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
FYI, about the same number of Sabre-Tempests saw wartime service as Spitfire XIV's & outscored them, too..
Ironically the RAF used more Merlin-Mustangs..
- than either of the British fighters which obsoleted the Merlin-Spitfire..

Those post-war F.6's replaced L-L Mustangs, because bankrupt Blighty couldn't afford to buy 'em..

The Spitfire XIV was used in a different role and also performed at all altitudes, the most successful squadron used against the V1 was 91 squadron using Spitfires. The Griffon remained in service on the Shackleton until 1991.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Incorrect, Tempests destroyed 800+ V1s, top scoring squadron was No 3, with 288.

Spitfire XIVs were sent to Europe to share A2A/air superiority duties with the Tempest units,
& even flew within the same Wing - however the Tempest pilots could range further/faster on TAF tasks,
with the Sabre's greater power enabling a heavier armament - to bear down on more 'quarry'..

Juha2 · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
Juha, can you kindly credit - the writer of your post?

Me, based on what I have read over decades, at least Gunston et al of the old guard, Giffard in her fairly new Making Jet Engines in WWII might mention something on the EE Napier deal but anyway I had read on it much earlier

Juha2 · Apr 13, 2018

Juha2 said:
.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Juha2 said:
Me, based on what I have read over decades, at least Gunston et al of the old guard, Giffard in her fairly new Making Jet Engines in WWII might mention something on the EE Napier deal but anyway I had read on it much earlier

Ok, that's a marvelous effort for a Finlander, so well done from me,
I've heard that English is as tough to grasp - for you guys,
- as German is - for us native English language users..

pbehn · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
Ok, that's a marvelous effort for a Finlander, so well done from me,
I've heard that English is as tough to grasp - for you guys,
- as German is - for us native English language users..

English is a Germanic language, just about the easiest language for an English speaker to learn, especially if you are born north of Watford, I became good enough to be mistaken for a Dutchman.

J.A.W. · Apr 13, 2018

Yeah, of course you do realise - that is a snide Germanic insult, right?

According to certain haughty Germans I've spoken with, Dutch is a form of 'pig-German',
albeit, ironically - Dutch people say the same thing about Afrikaans speakers..

Plus being an 'eee, by goom' - bloody 'eathen Northerner, you'd barely qualify as a English speaker, at all..

As for uncouth former 'colonials', well.. best not go there, eh..

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Apr 13, 2018

Let's play nice guys...

swampyankee · Apr 13, 2018

J.A.W. said:
Yet, amazingly somehow, the backyard tinkerer, poor bloody Brits did get their 'Hyper' mill into combat,
& usefully so, unlke the mighty US military-industrial complex, which only produced the 'Hype', but not the engines..

Leaving aside your snarkiness, do note that the "Hyper" program was ended because both P&WA and Curtiss-Wright already had engines in development or testing that were close to meeting the specs the "Hyper" program was aiming for. The production version of the R-2800 was rated at 2,000 shp in 1939, before the Sabre was flying.

The Double Wasp and the Duplex Cyclone were the reasons the "Hyper" program died: something better came along.

Back to sleeve valves. Note that I was being negative about Napier, specifically, in that they had not produced a viable aircraft engine between the Lion and the Sabre (the Cub was an interesting engine, and its X-16 configuration may have been a better choice than the H-24 of the Sabre; the reason for its failure was that there was at the time no application for an engine of that size. Similar fates befell the Lorraine-Dietrich 24 and the Allison X-4520. Large, single-engine aircraft fell out of favor, so the market for these engines disappeared.)

Engineering design is a balancing act among theoretical benefits, production costs, and reliability. Napier placed so much weight on the theoretical benefits of high revs and many small cylinders, neither the Dagger nor Rapier could be considered, in any way, successes, and the Sabre only managed to be so after a lot of outside help. Napier's experience may have convinced other companies to eschew them. Of course, Napier didn't produce new piston aircraft engines after the Sabre; although the Nomad may have been a great piece of work, it died from lack of application. Wright, Bristol, Rolls, and Pratt all kept producing their "old-fashioned" engines because these all had one incredibly important attribute: they worked: users don't give a crap about the technology; they care about functionality, e.g., power output, fuel input, maintenance, in-flight failure rate, installed weight, vibration. Hawker wouldn't-- or shouldn't-- care whether the engine used sleeves, poppet valves, or piston ports. The Sabre was used by two related aircraft designs had significant production; it wasn't any better, or at least enough better, in overall functionality, for anybody to imitate. Of course, by 1945, large piston aircraft engines were being seen as obsolescent, so there was very limited effort put into new engines; the best hung around, and got used in some new applications (Double Wasps were used on new aircraft into the late 1970s or early 1980s), but they were kind of zombies.

Napier's management and technical shortcomings are well-documented. With the Sabre, the problem wasn't sleeve valves, per se, it was Napier. I suspect the US government would have told Napier to build R-2800s and give up on the Sabre.

Shortround6 · Apr 13, 2018

swampyankee said:
Napier's management and technical shortcomings are well-documented. With the Sabre, the problem wasn't sleeve valves, per se, it was Napier. I suspect the US government would have told Napier to build R-2800s and give up on the Sabre.

Napier might have been better at making a liquid cooled V-12, it depends on what their production capabilities actually were.
For instance Allison did NOT cast the crankcases and cylinder blocks in house, they were sub-contracted out to aluminium foundries.
Maytag washing machine company did sub-contract work for Packard and made many of the exterior castings for the Merlins, valve covers and the like.
If Napier had the ability to make large complicated castings like cylinder blocks then it may have been better suited to making a simpler liquid cooled engine.

MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

Banned

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Recruit

Banned

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads