MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Well, yes. Or be told to build more its own engines for MTB and air-sea rescue craft. Packard did just that, along with building Merlins.
 
Last edited:
Hawker, in a way, got stuck with Sabre engine. They built Prototypes using the Vulture, the Centaurus and the Sabre. The Centaurus got put on hold while they sorted out the Hercules and the Vulture did it's crash and burn act in the Manchester. Perhaps it was fixed just in time to be canceled, that what some people say. In any case it was a complicated answer (like the Sabre) to the 2000hp question and a better answer (or at least a decent substitute) had snuck in the side door. The Griffon.
Now please note that the 3 big engines had all been designed with 87 octane fuel in mind with 100 octane coming it at some point in the future.
ANd that is pretty much straight 100 octane and not 100/30.
The Air ministry had placed large orders (1000 aircraft) for the Typhoon/Tornado well before 2nd prototypes had flown and had too much invested to back out once the Vulture was canceled and the Sabre ran into trouble.
 
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..
Click to expand...

Stupid statements like this and calling the R-2800's power output "ephemeral" really do nothing as far as taking you and your argument serious. It shows either a lack of historical knowledge on the subject at hand or you're just being a troll on purpose.
 

The Vulture was not completely sorted, but would have been had the manpower and resources been available. Unfortunately the situation of the war dictated that engine production had to be streamlined to maximise production.

The Merlin was in just about anything that mattered in 1940. The Griffon was new and may have faced the chopping block if it were not for the fact that some bright spark figured it could be fitted to the Spitfire, Britain's #1 fighter. The Vulture was left with one airframe, after it was decided to convert the Manchester to 4 Merlins. The Peregrine was required by only one front line aircraft, the Whirlwind. The Exe was too small and quite heavy for most applications.

The only Rolls-Royce program, other than the Merlin and Griffon, was the Crecy. And that was not by Rolls-Royce's choice.
 
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..
Click to expand...

The Double Wasp's ephemeral performance kept it in production almost three decades in dozens of aircraft designs where the designers had a free choice of engines. The Sabre was used on three, on two of which there wasn't a choice and the third, the Firebrand, where it was replaced by the Centaurus early in production.
 
swampyankee said:
Well, yes. Or be told to build more Lions for MTB
Click to expand...


The Lion was well passed it as an MTB engine, unless you want small, slow MTBs.
it was a 24 liter engine that was hard pressed at 2600rpm, if that.

The three engines used to replace it were the Isotta Fraschini W-18s of about 1100hp and 57 liters, then the Hall-Scott Defenders (32.7 and 37.4 liter versions, some with superchargers 500-900hp depending on version and source) ) and finally the 41 liter Packards. The Hall Scotts were souped up workboat engines and heavy for their power.
 
Depending on what one means by "under-rated," which is a term I believe means "performed better in service than it's reputation would indicate," I think, limiting this to US aircraft (not necessarily those in US service), the candidates for most under-rated fighter would include the P-40 and P-39, which were widely decried as useless, and, for bombers, the B-24, which was overshadowed by its stablemate, the B-17, despite being more numerous and having better payload-range characteristics (in fairness, the B-17 was more robust and easier to fly).
 
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..
Click to expand...

Thank You for your compliment.
Yes, Finnish is very different from Germanic or Indo-European languages generally. We used postposition, like in Pori (a town) = Porissa, we have no articles (a, an, the) so to learn to use them correctly is a bit challenge to those like me who are not good in languages, I'm more mathematically oriented. In Finnish we have many long words with many vocals, as an extreme example, valaannahkasaapasrasvarasia = a box of grease for whale skin boots. So we can say it with a fewer words even if not necessarily shorter.
Hän can mean either he or she but we have special words for each type of relationship. Uncle translates either as setä (father's brother) or eno (mother's brother), vävy means son-in-law, appi = father in law, käly = sister in law etc. And we have plenty of f-words, probably because life was very hard here for centuries.

Back to business, One of the first signs of politics in the British aviation industries for me was Bill Sweetman's article on Avro Lancaster in the Great Book of WWII Airplanes, he mentioned RR's attempt to get Sabre cancelled and so to push Napier out of aero-engine business. The Air Ministry didn't accept that. I have liked Buttler's works and also I have found Furse's bio on Wilfrid Freeman, Bowyer's and Goulding's books on British interceptors very helpful on the British aviation industry. Even if I like very much Penrose's memoirs IIRC I was a little disappointed on his British Aviation The Ominous Skies 1935-1939.
 
Wack said:
The pearl of the northern skies aka the Brewster Buffalo.
Could handle anything the russians threw at it until 1944.
Click to expand...

I'd say that already in mid-1943 FiAF Brewster Model 239s had bad problems with newer Soviet planes, one of our top Brewster aces was shot down and killed by a La-5 in April 43 (Kinnunen) and our No 2 ace Wind made grave warning on the superiority of La-5 over Brewster. However Finns were still not overly worried partly because they thought that Kinnunen was killed by heavy Soviet AA. They thought that with better tactics and because of Soviet in average poor shooting they could still handle the situation for a while but the top brass clearly saw that Brewster's time would be soon over.
 
Sgd. Air Vice Marshall J.D. Breakey, DFC. A.C.A.S. (T.R.) Air Ministry

* refers to a previous minute that wasn't available.

March 25, 1944 SECRETARY OF STATE.

When I said in Minute 4 that the TYPHOON troubles had been overcome I referred, of course, to the major problems of the tail structure and the Sabre engine, and it was these problems to which, I believe, Prof. Appleton was referring. The difficulty due to oil leaks from the 4-bladed propeller is a very more recent trouble.

2. Perhaps it will be as well if I give you a brief history of the TYPHOON difficulties. The original aircraft fitted with a three bladed propeller presented two problems; the first was a serious vibration which was very difficult to eradicate, and the second was a failure in the air of a few aircraft, the cause of which could not be attributed to any particular defect. It was apparently due to the sum of several causes of which the vibration may have been one. Individually none of the defects would have caused failure. The failures were few in proportion to the total hours flown and, as the various possible causes were eliminated, the risk of failure became sufficiently remote to be an acceptable risk. Nevertheless, it is our endeavor to eradicate completely from British aircraft any weakness of this nature, however slight risk, and to this end the four bladed propeller and the TEMPEST tail were introduced.

3. When the four bladed propeller came into use it was found to leak oil (from the propeller and not from the engine) to an extent which may be unacceptable for operational use. We have, therefore. Been compelled to revert to the three bladed propeller until such time as we find a satisfactory remedy for the oil leak.

4. In reverting to the three bladed propeller it is necessary also to introduce a modification to the TEMPEST type tail plane in order to prevent recurrence of the vibration trouble. This involves fitting 10-lb., weights in the tail plane tips. There are some 70 TYPHOONS in Maintenance Units with TEMPEST type tail planes which must be modified before the are issued to the Service, and it may be modified before they are issued to the Service, and it may be the hiatus that this will cause which gave rise to the report that the serviceability and operational strength of the TYPHOON Squadrons is seriously low. Special arrangements have been made to modify these aircraft; they are being done at the rate of ten a day and all seventy should be completed by the end of this week. The situation is, therefore, not serious.

5. With regard to curing the leaking oil trouble, the Americans experienced the same thing with their MUSTANG aircraft which have four bladed Hamilton propellers very similar to the four bladed De Havilland propellers on our TYPHOONS. The Americans found a satisfactory cure by fitting a special seal and we were able to obtain from them a small number of these seals, which we are now trying out for our four bladed TYPHOON propellers. It seems likely that they will be successful, but we are unable to obtain from the Americans in this country more than the small number required for trials, as they have only sufficient to meet their own needs. Arrangements have, therefore, been made to obtain a supply from America, but these will not be available in the country before May. Other arrangements have, therefore, been made to manufacture similar seals in the country and sufficient of these should be coming available in tow or three weeks' time to meet requirements of the De Havilland propeller assembly line. I have been unable to obtain any confirmation of the report that seals have been lost in transit.

6. The TYPHOON with the TEMPEST tail and four bladed propeller has been thoroughly tested and will be satisfactory when we have overcome the leaking oil trouble. We believe that the American pattern seal will cure this trouble and trials are in progress, but they have not yet done sufficient flying time for any more definite statement than this.

Sgd. Air Vice Marshall J.D. Breakey, DFC. A.C.A.S. (T.R.) Air Ministry
 
Is there any substance to the below quote about Wilfrid Harman?



Forums / RAF Library / Hawker Typhoon - Axis and Allies Paintworks
Hawker managed to get Air Ministry permission to fit a Bristol Centaurus engine into a Tornado airframe, with this aircraft flying on 23 October 1941. The Centaurus-powered Tornado proved much superior in reliability and performance to either the Vulture-powered Tornado or the Sabre-powered Typhoon. However, although it seemed like a good idea, for whatever reason Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, in charge of aircraft procurement, was against it. In his defense it appears he simply didn't want British aircraft development going off in too many directions at one time. The Centaurus was having development problems of its own, and the Centaurus-powered Tornado was set aside for the time being. It was not, however, forgotten.
 

No, in fact "ephemeral" was the very word for it, as quoted by LJK Setright in his classic aero-engine book,
'The Power to Fly', & it correctly refers to the R-2800's time limits at high power settings.

It is not a matter of "stupid statements", its a matter of fact.

As S-R 6 has pointed out, the R-2800 was substantially redesigned to reduce the propensity to 'wilt',
under the strain of heat soak, when running hard & hot, yet fundamental limitations still applied.
 

Again, it is important to not conflate the functional capabilities of carefully 'fettled', handbuilt prototype engines
with regular production units, esp' those from early in the production runs - as the 'bugs' start to crawl out.

The R-R Vulture for example, apparently behaved itself very well indeed - doing duty in the Tornado,
& yet many early production Centaurus engines reportedly 'misbehaved' in the Tempest Mk II,
this matter being a significant part of the reason why they didn't quite get into WW 2 combat.
 
I was a motorcyclist in the late 70s early 80s, LJK Setright was supposedly a famous M/C journalist with columns in most publications, all completely esoteric and theoretical. He saw the future as bigger bikes (bigger than a gold wing) using the advantages of weight and torque to improve safety and road holding due to the increasing difference between sprung and un-sprung weight. He opined on motorcycles with a CoG below the wheel axle centres.

Wiki says this, strange that even 30 years after the event I remember him extolling the virtues of the Honda Gold Wing.


"After writing for the engineering magazine Machine Age in the early 1960s, Setright became a motoring journalist and author, contributing to Car Magazine for more than 30 years and writing several books on cars and automotive engineering.[2] Setright's writing style polarised readers as some considered it to be pompous and excessively esoteric, while others found his erudite style and engineering knowledge a welcome change from the usual lightweight and largely non-technical journalistic style.[1] He had a strong enthusiasm for Bristol Cars and for Japanese engineering, in particular Honda.
 

Hawker also tried the R-R Griffon, finally flying it in a Fury prototype, after nominally selecting it as the engine to
power the 'Tempest Mk III' - however, compared to the other two 'big' Brit mills, Centaurus & Sabre, the performance
fell short, as shown by the Fury prototype LA 610 - when the Griffon was replaced by a late mark Sabre, it leapt up to
be the top performance Fury, from being the lowest.

That the RAF didn't order any, being jet-bent - is not a direct reflection of the machine itself.
Ironically, the Sea Fury used the Centaurus, rather than the Griffon, even though the R-R mill was
originally developed as 'Naval' powerplant, & was already in service with FAA Seafires & Fireflies..
 
The Napier Sabre was problematic throughout its life from prototype to service, it was only ever fitted to two service aircraft which were different versions of the same basic type and never sold abroad, it needed a military organisation under pressure for results to keep it in service. The Centaurus, despite being sidelined in the early years of the Typhoon Tempest ended up in the Seafury and many other post war designs in the civil military transport roles.
 
One can also note that the Hercules went through something like 7 different cylinder heads between initial versions and the post-war versions. I believe two of them were entirely Post war (although R&D may have started before the war ended).
Late Hercules engines also used larger diameter main bearings than early ones and as a matter of interest, a number of the blockade running missions by aircraft and modified MTBs to Sweden were to bring back ball/roller bearings by the ton as British industry could not meet the demands.

This is a big problem in trying to compare a 'single engine' to another over the course of the war and/or try to use post war versions to try to prove points. Many times (most times) there was no single engine but a rather varied succession of models with greater or lesser modifications.
Picking failures (or successes) from different times can really skew things. Even the same year might need looking at as one engine might be in the last year of a major modification and the other in the first year of such a modification.

The Bristol Sleeve valve engines were powerful, reliable and long lived engines post war but the vast majority of the Post war engines were just that, post way engines with not a lot of interchangeable parts with most of the war time versions.

Please note that even Wright managed to power hundreds of large 4 engine airliners with new versions (without turbos) of the R-3350 that performed so poorly in the B-29. I am not saying there were no failures but certainly a lot fewer than the B-29s suffered.

Fedden had brilliantly succeeded in making much better engines than the Mercury and Pegasus with the Perseus and Hercules. However the Mercury and Pegasus were staggering along on their last legs due to chronic neglect by the end of the 30s. Pratt & Whitney and Wright had long since stopped lubricating the valve gear in the heads with grease guns and zerk fittings for example.
 
pbehn said:
I was a motorcyclist in the late 70s early 80s, LJK Setright was supposedly a famous M/C journalist...
Setright's writing style polarised readers as some considered it to be pompous and excessively esoteric..
Click to expand...

Yeah, ol' Len Setright fostered the image of the archetypal 'eccentric English gentleman' even putting in writing that he
drove/rode more "accurately" after a couple of 'alcoholic beverages'! ( he'd really be 'howled down' for that, now).

He was indeed, a diligent researcher, & understood well - 'sophistications of the technicalities' - engines-wise.

In his day, he was the Brit equivalent of America's Kevin Cameron, another 'rare bird' in being 'right across'
the tech, while expressing himself in an entertaining & very readable way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
Replies
2
Views
107
GTX
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
752
yulzari
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
393
fubar57
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
631
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register