MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[J.A.W.]

Right ben, so while those 'heavies' were conducting a defacto Merlins-to-Germany export program..

Other than PR Mosquitos/Spitfires, plus the 2-stage Merlin-powered 'spoof' & pathfinder Mosquitos,
( just about the only high-altitude RAF missions) the furthest ranging offensive RAF aircraft over Europe,
pre D-day - were low-altitude intruder missions, flown by Typhoons, Mustangs & Mosquitos..

Fighter Spits were just too short ranged, when flown hard..

 

[pbehn]

Right ben, so while those 'heavies' were conducting a defacto Merlins-to-Germany export program..

Other than PR Mosquitos/Spitfires, plus the 2-stage Merlin-powered 'spoof' & pathfinder Mosquitos,
( just about the only high-altitude RAF missions) the furthest ranging offensive RAF aircraft over Europe,
pre D-day - were low-altitude intruder missions, flown by Typhoons, Mustangs & Mosquitos..

Fighter Spits were just too short ranged, when flown hard..

Pre D-Day being from September 1939, your Typhoons in the 2nd TAF had six squadrons of spitfires for high altitude air superiority while 430 Griffon Spitfires were converted to photo recon. The point I am making is that there were a huge number of jobs and theatres that the Sabre couldn't be used for either because it was too late or didn't have the performance.
Your endless discussion of range strange, within days of D-Day being a success teams of engineers were constructing airfields in Normandy so the planes were close to the front. Caen to Falaise is 24 miles.

 

[J.A.W.]

& your point is, ben?
But hey, by all means compare the value of 'trade' gleaned by Tempest units in the 2nd TAF,
compared to Griffon-Spits 'swanning about the stratosphere' - where most Germans were not..

You could also try to gain an understanding of 'close air support' - A2G work, too..
having such assets readily available to scramble & meet emerging issues within minutes,
or loiter, in an aerial 'cab rank' - until ordered into action, is certainly - part of the deal..

 

[pbehn]

& your point is, ben?
But hey, by all means compare the value of 'trade' gleaned by Tempest units in the 2nd TAF,
compared to Griffon-Spits 'swanning about the stratosphere' - where most Germans were not..

You could also try to gain an understanding of 'close air support' - A2G work, too..
having such assets readily available to scramble & meet emerging issues within minutes,
or loiter, in an aerial 'cab rank' - until ordered into action, is certainly - part of the deal..

But you are still using your retrospectometer as if everyone in the whole world knew that D-Day would be in June 1944 and the only aircraft needed from 1939 to D-Day and beyond was a Typhoon or Tempest, with anything not Sabre powered being discounted and any mission that couldn't be done by a Sabre being dismissed.

 

[J.A.W.]

Sorry ben, but your post is so incoherent.. it hurts my brain - just to read it, let alone decipher it - for a reply..

 

[Shortround6]

It doesn't matter to me if Setright actually had any document or not. That piece is such a biased collection of nonsense it deserves to be enshrined in a Wikipedia article on how NOT to write technical articles.

" Power had long been Napier's stock-in-trade. The company's design and development team was tiny but rich in talent. Other riches had escaped them, and their hopes of getting something done about it were not much better, for the aero-engine business at the time was viciously competitive and the Air Ministry persistently refused to give them any encouragement. Rolls-Royce, having since the previous decade considered Napier a very real threat, employed its powerful lobbying facilities to ensure that its competitor was kept at bay."

Bolded part actually tells us nothing and actually goes against the facts. The Lion was a powerful engine in it's day but hardly head an shoulders ahead of some it's competition, Curtiss and Packard V-12s, The Rolls Royce Condor was certainly more powerful, the Mid to late 20s saw Hispano suiza stretch their V-8 into a V-12 of similar HP to the Lion. The Lion stagnated while other engines grew. The Napier Rapier was hardly a power house by anybodies definition so the "stock-in-trade" seems to have left the building. The Dagger was has hardly a front line engine either.

The part in italics needs more than little explaining. The company didn't have much of design and development team. Not to take away anything from the poor guys who did the grunt work but you had Halford in an office in his own design company (with one or more assistants?) designing engines on contract for Napier.
BTW he was also designing engines for De Havilland at the same time. He may have been talented but he may not have been as focused on the Sabre as a designer inbedded in the company might have been.

"Unable to make headway with the production of the Sabre, Napier concentrated on its technical development. Employing a few little twin-cylinder research engines and some very complex and precise instrumentation of their own manufacture, Napier's engineers worked away perfecting the basic design, their ideas running further and further beyond the original concept of 2,000bhp - a remarkable feat when at the time R-R Merlin was just breaking into four figures."

design work started in 1935 according to most accounts. Engine first ran in Jan 1938. Mr. Setright gives no dates so it is hard to judge.
I would note that P & W started work on an R-2600 engine in 1935 and then bumped it to 2800 cu in in march of 1937 when they heard about the Wright R-2600. They had a 9 cylinder test rig running in Feb 1938. Please note this is P & W 4th twin row radial engine and 8th engine from the start of the company. It took until July of 1939 to pass a type test and get an engine into a test bed aircraft. By Feb of 1940 they had 5000 hours on the test engines. This is just to give perspective on the time it took to bring a new engine into service without tales of being blocked or conspiracies.
I would note that the Merlin broke into four figures around 1936-7? and comparing a 37 liter engine to a 27 liter engine? Maybe he is referencing the Merlin because he figures his readers have heard of it but don't know what the Vulture is? RR was aiming for 2000hp at the same time, they just weren't planning on the Merlin to do it. Bristol also had the Centaurus on the drawing boards and in fact ran one in July of 1938 so the concept wasn't exactly novel. Across the pond the americans were working on the R-2800 and R-3350.
By the time the Sabre passed it's first type test the Merlin had held 1600hp for over 10 hours when testing for the Speed Spitfire, and had hit someting over 1800hp?

There seems to be a bit of confusion on how aircraft engines were rated.

"To this day it is fashionable to doubt the supposed power of the Sabre. My information came from the wartime R&D department at Napier, and refutes the popular opinion. In its first production form, for the Hawker Typhoon, the Sabre was modestly rated for combat at 2,615bhp at 3,850rpm and about 151b/in2 boost. Later it was given water/methanol injection, raising that to 3,055bhp at 171b/in2 - still a shadow of its real ability, for it was known to be capable of a sustained 3,750bhp. That was actually the most it was ever set to deliver in service, though there had been experimental engines built (featuring much higher boost from a three-stage supercharger - the production Sabre was quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine) that it could deliver 5,5OObhp at 4,20Orpm, running at a boost of about 451b/in2 and a b.m.e.p. of 4671b/in2.
Nor was that 3,750bhp service a typical combat rating that might be maintained for only 15 minutes. It was a figure that could be sustained hour after hour, day after day: Napier tested the Sabre at that rating for 175 hours non-stop. The company's usual endurance test was more varied: 10 hours at cruise rating, three hours at climb rating, one hour at take-off power, and one hour at combat maximum, with the whole 15-hour cycle being repeated non-stop over and over again."

according to the RAF data card the Sabre II was rated at 2180hp at sea level at 3700rpm at 9lbs boost in 1944. Test of the Typhoon in Nov 1942 used 7lb boost as a limit. By July of 1943 the boost had been changed to 9lbs but rpm remained 3700rpm.
Something over 1200 Typhoons had been built before they got the IIA engine so I have no idea where the Sabre ratings Setright is quoting come from.
ANd the IIA was nowhere near his figures. The IIA was allowed 3750rpm, and the IIB 3850rpm.
I will say that the numbers he quotes match up very well for the Sabre V used in the Tempest?????

However the quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine part takes bit of swallowing (or a rewrite of history).

I would note that in US practice no WEP rating was approved until a test engine had run at that power for 7 1/2 hours, done in 5 minute spurts to allow for cooling in between. I would also note that most companies did NOT set their own test standard/cycle. The government or buying agency TOLD the manufacturer how many hours at each level of power would be required and while a company might choose to exceed those requirements (like run an engine longer at the high levels without using the cooling off period) the total number of hours would not change. The tests were much more severe than one might think because they were trying to ensure that the WORST engine in a batch would meet the standards in service. One can look at any number of engines that failed to make it to overhaul life or stopped running on take-off, etc to see the wisdom of allowing for some head room between test stand results and service ratings.
These are not formula I car engines. You can't walk back to the pits after blowing up an engine on the back straight.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry ben, but your post is so incoherent.. it hurts my brain - just to read it, let alone decipher it - for a reply..

Somewhere there was a post with the "score board" for the the two fighters in NW Europe for several months and depending on how you viewed it it had some interesting statistics. The Typhoons dropped a lot more bombs, fired way more rockets and claimed many more tanks, vehicles, train engines and railcars. however they claimed something like 2 enemy aircraft in the air. The SPits had a much lower record of ground targets but claimed several score of German aircraft in the air, I forget the numbers. One can either guess the Typhoons really sucked at air to air OR that the Typhoons were attacking the stuff on the ground while the Spitfires kept whatever German fighters were in the area off their backs.

 

[J.A.W.]

2nd TAF Typhoons scored few more than 2, SR 6 - & one of them was an Me 262..

Also, USAAF 9th TAF P-47s which were like-wise using their - expensive, dedicated high-altitude optimised
turbo-blown - machines, for A2G duties - were not known for high scores against the anti-JaBo
interception missions conducted by JG 26 & other LW units either..

 

[J.A.W.]

It doesn't matter to me if Setright actually had any document or not. That piece is such a biased collection of nonsense it deserves to be enshrined in a Wikipedia article on how NOT to write technical articles.

" Power had long been Napier's stock-in-trade. The company's design and development team was tiny but rich in talent. Other riches had escaped them, and their hopes of getting something done about it were not much better, for the aero-engine business at the time was viciously competitive and the Air Ministry persistently refused to give them any encouragement. Rolls-Royce, having since the previous decade considered Napier a very real threat, employed its powerful lobbying facilities to ensure that its competitor was kept at bay."

Bolded part actually tells us nothing and actually goes against the facts. The Lion was a powerful engine in it's day but hardly head an shoulders ahead of some it's competition, Curtiss and Packard V-12s, The Rolls Royce Condor was certainly more powerful, the Mid to late 20s saw Hispano suiza stretch their V-8 into a V-12 of similar HP to the Lion. The

Lion stagnated while other engines grew. The Napier Rapier was hardly a power house by anybodies definition so the "stock-in-trade" seems to have left the building. The Dagger was has hardly a front line engine either.

The part in italics needs more than little explaining. The company didn't have much of design and development team. Not to take away anything from the poor guys who did the grunt work but you had Halford in an office in his own design company (with one or more assistants?) designing engines on contract for Napier.
BTW he was also designing engines for De Havilland at the same time. He may have been talented but he may not have been as focused on the Sabre as a designer inbedded in the company might have been.

"Unable to make headway with the production of the Sabre, Napier concentrated on its technical development. Employing a few little twin-cylinder research engines and some very complex and precise instrumentation of their own manufacture, Napier's engineers worked away perfecting the basic design, their ideas running further and further beyond the original concept of 2,000bhp - a remarkable feat when at the time R-R Merlin was just breaking into four figures."


design work started in 1935 according to most accounts. Engine first ran in Jan 1938. Mr. Setright gives no dates so it is hard to judge.
I would note that P & W started work on an R-2600 engine in 1935 and then bumped it to 2800 cu in in march of 1937 when they heard about the Wright R-2600. They had a 9 cylinder test rig running in Feb 1938. Please note this is P & W 4th twin row radial engine and 8th engine from the start of the company. It took until July of 1939 to pass a type test and get an engine into a test bed aircraft. By Feb of 1940 they had 5000 hours on the test engines. This is just to give perspective on the time it took to bring a new engine into service without tales of being blocked or conspiracies.
I would note that the Merlin broke into four figures around 1936-7? and comparing a 37 liter engine to a 27 liter engine? Maybe he is referencing the Merlin because he figures his readers have heard of it but don't know what the Vulture is? RR was aiming for 2000hp at the same time, they just weren't planning on the Merlin to do it. Bristol also had the Centaurus on the drawing boards and in fact ran one in July of 1938 so the concept wasn't exactly novel. Across the pond the americans were working on the R-2800 and R-3350.
By the time the Sabre passed it's first type test the Merlin had held 1600hp for over 10 hours when testing for the Spee
Spitfire, and had hit someting over 1800hp?

There seems to be a bit of confusion on how aircraft engines were rated.

"To this day it is fashionable to doubt the supposed power of the Sabre. My information came from the wartime R&D department at Napier, and refutes the popular opinion. In its first production form, for the Hawker Typhoon, the Sabre was modestly rated for combat at 2,615bhp at 3,850rpm and about 151b/in2 boost. Later it was given water/methanol injection, raising that to 3,055bhp at 171b/in2 - still a shadow of its real ability, for it was known to be capable of a sustained 3,750bhp. That was actually the most it was ever set to deliver in service, though there had been experimental engines built (featuring much higher boost from a three-stage supercharger - the production Sabre was quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine) that it could deliver 5,5OObhp at 4,20Orpm, running at a boost of about 451b/in2 and a b.m.e.p. of 4671b/in2.
Nor was that 3,750bhp service a typical combat rating that might be maintained for only 15 minutes. It w
could be sustained hour after hour, day after day: Napier tested the Sabre at that rating for 175 hours non-stop. The company's usual endurance test was more varied: 10 hours at cruise rating, three hours at climb rating, one hour at take-off power, and one hour at combat maximum, with the whole 15-hour cycle being repeated non-stop over and over again."

according to the RAF data card the Sabre II was rated at 2180hp at sea level at 3700rpm at 9lbs boost in 1944. Test of the Typhoon in Nov 1942 used 7lb boost as a limit. By July of 1943 the boost had been changed to 9lbs but rpm remained 3700rpm.
Something over 1200 Typhoons had been built before they got the IIA engine so I have no idea where the Sabre ratings Setright is quoting come from.
ANd the IIA was nowhere near his figures. The IIA was allowed 3750rpm, and the IIB 3850rpm.
I will say that the numbers he quotes match up very well for the Sabre V used in the Tempest?????

However the quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine part takes bit of swallowing
rewrite of history).

I would note that in US practice no WEP rating was approved until a test engine had run at that power for 7 1/2 hours, done in 5 minute spurts to allow for cooling in between. I would also note that most companies did NOT set their own test standard/cycle. The government or buying agency TOLD the manufacturer how many hours at each level of power woul
be required and while a company might choose to exceed those requirements (like run an engine longer at the high levels without using the cooling off period) the total number of hours would not change. The tests were much more severe than one might think because they were trying to ensure that the WORST engine in a batch would meet the standards in service. One can look at any number of engines that failed to make it to overhaul life or stopped running on take-off, etc to see the wisdom of allowing for some head room between test stand results and service ratings.
These are not formula I car engines. You can't walk back to the pits after blowing up an engine on the back straight.

Yeah SR 6, I did cover much of that ground, back in post 455, on the previous page..

The Napier Lion was a notably well-built & reliable service mill, it proved capable of record breaking with
an increase from 450hp to 800hp N/A ( on a 10 to 1 comp ratio) & even further to ~ 1,400hp blown,
so - not too shabby for a 24 litre design dating to 1918 - even up against a best of `30s Merlin performance.

That US 7.5 hour WEP test, was it run WFO, for the whole time, or was it repeated runs of 5min duration
done consecutively - with a cool-down period in between?

If it was a test bed run, with masses of real cold, dense air being blasted over it, & similarly with
the fuel/ADI - through it, then its a possibility, esp' for an air-cooled radial, but otherwise I doubt
that power could be sustained very long, without inevitable heat-soak/power-fade issues..

 

[wuzak]

That was actually the most it was ever set to deliver in service, though there had been experimental engines built (featuring much higher boost from a three-stage supercharger - the production Sabre was quite modestly boosted, never being envisaged as a high-altitude engine) that it could deliver 5,5OObhp at 4,20Orpm, running at a boost of about 451b/in2 and a b.m.e.p. of 4671b/in2.

That is an odd statement, considering that the Sabre was to power the successor of the Spitfire (and Hurricane), very much a high altitude aircraft, for that time.

Also considering that when English electric took over, Napiers were working on a 2 stage 3 speed supercharger for the Sabre (E122?). EE cancelled that engine so they could concentrate on making reliable production engines.

Also, the Sabre was available from the start with a 2 speed supercharger. Not something one would expect from an engine that is designed for low altitude work.

 

[drewwizard]

I would definitely agree with B-24. Longer range, larger bomb load, and made in much larger numbers than the B-17. It did most of the heavy bombing work for the entire war, but didn't get the movie rights. (No 12 o'clock high B-24s).
After reading the book Stuka I learned how many tanks were destroyed by this ugly and slow airplane. Very under appreciated.

 

[wuzak]

By the time the Sabre passed it's first type test the Merlin had held 1600hp for over 10 hours when testing for the Speed Spitfire, and had hit something over 1800hp?

I believe it was somewhat more than that.

Over 2000hp, but I'd have to check.

 

[J.A.W.]

I would definitely agree with B-24. Longer range, larger bomb load, and made in much larger numbers than the B-17. It did most of the heavy bombing work for the entire war, but didn't get the movie rights. (No 12 o'clock high B-24s).
After reading the book Stuka I learned how many tanks were destroyed by this ugly and slow airplane. Very under appreciated.

I don't think so, Liberators were justly renowned for their maritime patrol prowess, ( if less so for 8th AF duties).

& the Stuka was used so much more capably than the RAF's contemporary Battle/Skua pair, that bagging it for
its its like difficulties in contending with staunch opposition ( just as any bomber had) has become de rigueur..

 

[Shortround6]

The Napier Lion was a notably well-built & reliable service mill, it proved capable of record breaking with
an increase from 450hp to 800hp N/A ( on a 10 to 1 comp ratio) & even further to ~ 1,400hp blown,
so - not too shabby for a 24 litre design dating to 1918 - even up against a best of `30s Merlin performance.

Trouble is those racing engines weren't running on gasoline were they?
Now run that Lion at those power levels or even close to it for the same relative performance as the Merlin for the time needed for a type test.

 

[J.A.W.]

Here's a 'Flight' piece on av-gas which notes the N/A racing Lion,
running on straight run gasoline, with ++TEL, for 880hp, & at good economy, too.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1118.html

& for sure ' The Great White Dyno' - WFO LSR runs across the salt at Bonneville - are a severe engine test.

 

[DarrenW]

2nd TAF Typhoons scored few more than 2, SR 6 - & one of them was an Me 262..
..

Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia

Some 246 Axis aircraft were claimed by Typhoon pilots during the war.....

Yes they did but according to a Wikipedia article they scored far less than one would expect of a fighter aircraft that was in service for practically three and one-half years. But I'm sure it had more to do with a lack of opportunity than anything else (being for the most part utilized in a home defense or ground attack role).

 

[J.A.W.]

Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia

Some 246 Axis aircraft were claimed by Typhoon pilots during the war.....

Yes they did but according to a Wikipedia article they scored far less than one would expect of a fighter aircraft that was in service for practically three and one-half years. But I'm sure it had more to do with a lack of opportunity than anything else (being for the most used in a home defense or ground attack role) :



Yeah D-W, Johnny Baldwin was top scoring Typhoon ace with 16 victories credited,
& when the opportunity was there,
those quad 20mm Hispanos could sure bang out a deadly drumbeat..


On a 4th December `43 'Ramrod' ( USAAF 8th AF support) mission,
No's 198 & 609 Squadron Typhoons, 'lurking with intent' in proximity of
LW occupied Dutch airbases, overhauled & hacked down eleven
of KG 2's fast-fleeing Do 217 bombers..

 

[DarrenW]

"Yeah D-W, Johnny Baldwin was top scoring Typhoon ace with 16 victories credited,
& when the opportunity was there,
those quad 20mm Hispanos could sure bang out a deadly drumbeat..


On a 4th December `43 'Ramrod' ( USAAF 8th AF support) mission,
No's 198 & 609 Squadron Typhoons, 'lurking with intent' in proximity of
LW occupied Dutch airbases, overhauled & hacked down eleven
of KG 2's fast-fleeing Do 217 bombers.."

They sure were deadly in their own right. But from everything I've read there was a protracted and very painful development period for the aircraft, and this is true even if one ignores the controversy surrounding the Sabre engine. With your obvious knowledge of the aircraft and it's engine, do you agree with the oft-held belief that it was rushed into full-scale production well before it had matured into a viable operational fighter aircraft?

 

[KiwiBiggles]

"Yeah D-W, Johnny Baldwin was top scoring Typhoon ace with 16 victories credited,
& when the opportunity was there,
those quad 20mm Hispanos could sure bang out a deadly drumbeat..


On a 4th December `43 'Ramrod' ( USAAF 8th AF support) mission,
No's 198 & 609 Squadron Typhoons, 'lurking with intent' in proximity of
LW occupied Dutch airbases, overhauled & hacked down eleven
of KG 2's fast-fleeing Do 217 bombers.."

They sure were deadly in their own right. But from everything I've read, there was a protracted and very painful development period for the aircraft, and this is true even if one ignores the controversy surrounding the Sabre engine. With your obvious knowledge of the aircraft and it's engine, do you agree with the oft-held belief that it was rushed into full-scale production well before it had matured into a viable operational fighter aircraft?

Typhoon, yes. It was urgently needed and was rushed into production. But not the Tempest, which is in no way the same aircraft. By the time the Tempest entered service it was an extremely capable and well sorted machine. Its combination of high speed, high climb rate, powerful armament and great cockpit visibility were unmatched. To my mind, it was the best mass-production fighter of the war.

 

[J.A.W.]

They sure were deadly in their own right. But from everything I've read, there was a protracted and very painful development period for the aircraft, and this is true even if one ignores the controversy surrounding the Sabre engine. With your obvious knowledge of the aircraft and it's engine, do you agree with the oft-held belief that it was rushed into full-scale production well before it had matured into a viable operational fighter aircraft?

Back in those days DW, often only one, or maybe two prototypes were ordered/flown, so just as in the P-38 incident, so
if one crashed, it would set the whole program back significantly, even as production facilities were being organised
for hundreds of aircraft 'straight off the drawing board'.. & when the R-R Vulture engine failed, all those Tornado
specific jigs & other expensive manufacturing items were just so much scrap..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf

At the time ( late `41) that trial was done, the Typhoon was rushed into service..
(& def' prematurely, it was 'crawling with bugs') under wartime urgency measures,
due to the fact that the only other service fighter with a performance that humbled
the Spitfire V so effectively - was based just across the English Channel.. FW 190..
( albeit still suffering 'bugs' of its own).

As matter of interest DW, have you yet seen an F6F service test showing any
more impressive speed/height graphs than achieved - by those Typhoons?
They were - very likely - preciously hand-fettled 'production' jobs..

Edit: Fixed typos.