MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

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

Huh?
That was Camm's point, R-R didn't like him rejecting the Griffon for his Tempest/Fury,
& the 'go slow' at Rotol - in producing props for the Sabre - was R-R 'payback'..

( & I did also - already note - what the R-R Rotol connection was, too)
 

The Supermarine S.5 was also Lion powered.

Supermarine s5 (replica) by Tom Wigley, on Flickr
 
J.A.W. said:
Huh?
That was Camm's point, R-R didn't like him rejecting the Griffon for his Tempest/Fury,
& the 'go slow' at Rotol - in producing props for the Sabre - was R-R 'payback'..

( & I did also - already note - what the R-R Rotol connection was, too)
Click to expand...

You have proof that Rolls-Royce gave two hoots about the Tempest/Fury?

Any evidence there was a "go slow". Maybe they were already at capacity making props for other aircraft?

I couldn't say. But it stands to reason that Rotol would concentrate on props for the many thousands of aircraft that weren't powered by Sabres.
 
I have posted two statements by the UK secretary of state at the time that explained the "go slow". It was caused by oil leaks and was cured with oil seals obtained initially from the US military and then from USA suppliers, P-51s were having the same trouble. I would say both RR and Bristol would be a little "peeved" at another engine maker making demands on the company they set up to solve propeller supply issues.
 
The "proof" is plain - & is noted in the offical Air Min records..

R-R were embarassed about losing the Tornado business (due to their own Vulture debacle),
& pushed to have the Sabre dropped too, in favour of a Griffon -Typhoon, but frank ol' Camm
retorted that he'd put the Griffon in 'his' Hurricane, but it wasn't up to hauling 'his' Typhoon about..

& as I noted earlier, Camm was annoyed that he'd had plenty of Rotol props delivered for Centaurus
powered Tempest Mk IIs, ( but - no engines to fit them to) but none for Sabres, even though they
were urgently required for combat ops.. & this was in 1944..
 

Different issue altogether.. & it does not matter - how many times you post it..
The problem wasn't oil leaks or even dangerous CSU 'run-away' - it was a structural problem..

Analogous to your car - snapping drive axle half-shafts - when you wind up the turbo-boost,
& so a higher-spec shaft is required, to transmit the added power..
 


The "Vulture debacle" was called the second world war, which included the Battle of Britain and Beaverbrook as minister of aircraft production. . Many companies were ordered to cancel or postpone projects. RR were told to concentrate on the Merlin cancelling the Vulture and Peregrine, Napier were told to reduce activity on the Sabre. However RR had already delivered two Vultures to Hawker and the Manchester did go into service.
 

Don't they apply to the de Havilland/Hamilton Standard propeller?

Whereas J.A.W. was bitching and moaning about Rotol.
 

You have those Air Ministry records?

Rolls-Royce pushed to have several of their programs cut back or cancelled - including the Vulture.
 
wuzak said:
Don't they apply to the de Havilland/Hamilton Standard propeller?

Whereas J.A.W. was bitching and moaning about Rotol.
Click to expand...

Wayne, be advised, pejorative use of emotive terms "Bitching & moaning" is likely 'crossing the line of snark'..

& yes, that is the point, there were a number of problems with the de Havilland prop, one of which an oil seal
spec revision would not solve, hence the need for the Rotol replacement.

( & to be fair the Sabre was turning a big 14ft prop, did any other WW2 fighter spin a larger one?,
plus AFAIR, Rotol utilized the lighter 'Jablo' composite blades, not metal ones like DH).
 

There were planes splitting apart in mid-air and test pilots killed well before and after it entered service. And they never seemed to have solved the problems with the tail section:

Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia

In August 1942, Hawker's second test pilot, Ken Seth-Smith, while deputising for Chief Test Pilot Philip Lucas, carried out a straight and level speed test from Hawker's test centre at Langley, and the aircraft broke up over Thorpe, killing the pilot. Sydney Camm and the design team immediately ruled out pilot error, which had been suspected in earlier crashes...... Mod 286, which involved fastening external fishplates, or reinforcing plates, around the tail of the aircraft, and eventually internal strengthening, was only a partial remedy, and there were still failures right up to the end of the Typhoon's service life. The Sabre engine was also a constant source of problems, notably in colder weather, when it was very difficult to start, and it suffered problems with wear of its sleeve valves, with consequently high oil consumption. The 24-cylinder engine also produced a very high-pitched engine note, which pilots found very fatiguing....

Let's be frank - ALL fighter aircraft of WWII were physically stressed while performing their duties. Their innate mission required them to hold together during violent and demanding maneuvers. The Typhoon may have been fast but it surely wasn't flying at such speeds to cause the catastrophic failures of the tail section. This wasn't normal flying fatigue. Obviously there were "bad aerodynamics" at play here.

Being a Typhoon fanatic, do you happen to have any information which refutes this article, as I'm fully aware that Wikipedia isn't the "best" source in town. And how exactly is "pushing the envelop" different than "pushing" an airframe beyond reasonable limits????
 
I am def' not a "Typhoon fanatic" DW, I recognize both the -ve & +ve aspects of the big Hawker machine..

But I'd caution you about putting too much store in what's on wiki, too - its only as good as its cited references..
The accounts by the men who flew them to the limit, in testing & in combat, certainly refute the tone of that wiki entry,
it was likely 'done over' by an F4U fanatic, since the 'ensign killer' had more'n a few 'entry into service' issues too.

If you re-read my posts noting 'metal fatigue' caused by 'Mach buzz' & how these matters
were poorly understood at the time, you'll get the idea..

& FYI search for the thread (on this site) 'Structure weight & drag analysis' - it'll give you
some more interesting data on the subject.



Edit: P-51's also had problems with tail empenages departing in flight, & received a remedial
strengthening fin-fillet, prior to a major redesign to P-51H specs, but you don't hear much
about that, do you?

& check your F6F flight manual, does it mention 'flick rolls', & forbid them?
The F6F had large tail surfaces & such coarse evolutions could put considerable
forces through the rear fuselage, & if weakened by cumulative fatigue, it could 'let go'..
 
Last edited:
J.A.W. said:
& check your F6F flight manual, does it mention 'flick rolls', & forbid them?
The F6F had large tail surfaces & such coarse evolutions could put considerable
forces through the rear fuselage, & if weakened by cumulative fatigue, it could 'let go'..
Click to expand...



Nope, no mention of any such limitations in the Hellcat pilot handbooks that I possess. I do agree though that there are inherent weaknesses in most any airframe, but unfortunately the Typhoon seemed to have had more than it's fair share. It got so bad that it was official suggested to have the Tiffy withdrawn from service until the problems could be resolved. That's pretty serious if you ask me.

And I hope you don't think that I lack access to other, more reputable sources than Wiki lol. I just find it easier to copy and past from what I find on-line. But this is not to say that there aren't any well-researched and written articles to be found there because they do exist as well. I was also trying not to insult your intelligence by quoting things that you are most likely already aware of as my knowledge of the Typhoon is obviously of a lesser degree than yours. So I came here to learn more.

Could you elaborate further concerning the P-51D tail issues? I've read that the fillet was eventually added to strengthen the tail section as it lost some bulk due to the cut-down rear fuselage and there was worry regarding it's ability to hold up in regular service, but never heard of any serious accidents resulting from it.
 
"A short term reprieve from cancellation meant that the major problems could be addressed. Engine seizures were subsequently found to be exacerbated when the fitters realised that they could adjust the limits for the throttle thus giving the pilot a little extra speed however; after investigation by Napier engineers on an aircraft exhibiting some unusual engine faults (It was pure luck that this aircraft was sent for investigation as it happened to have had the throttle adjusted and survived) it was discovered that this unauthorised modification weakened the engine with dramatic results. Modifications to the throttle and with Bristol 'encouraged' to help with the development of the sleeve valves the Sabre engine became very reliable and could regularly reach its service life without issue.

The separation of the tail from the rest of the aircraft was a more pressing issue. Pilots could deal with engine failure in normal operational conditions however; loss of the tail was catastrophic with a near 0% survival rate for pilots which meant that there were no symptoms that could be reported to Hawker engineers to enable the problem to be diagnosed. With the very real possibility that they would refuse to fly the aircraft Hawker engineers fitted fish plates to the transport joint to provide extra strength. This bought them some additional time as the number of incidents greatly reduced, but were not entirely eliminated as a result of the modification. This changed when in October 1943 a Typhoon returned from a sortie after the pilot reported severe, at times violent, elevator 'flutter'. This information combined with the detail given by a pilot who survived the tail separating from the fuselage of a Typhoon (the only known survivor), the engineers soon realised that elevator 'flutter' weakened the tail which could result in failure. A redesign of the elevator mass balances and regular monitoring of the control cable runs eliminated failure's in service. The plates added earlier in the Typhoons life were never removed, it was realised that the pilots viewed these as the reason why the failures were reduced. Removal of these plates, which did not affect the aircraft's performance to any noticeable degree, could potentially affect pilot confidence so they were left in place with all new Typhoons continuing to have them fitted before leaving the factory."

The Typhoon not only had a high pitched exhaust note but also high pitch vibration, especially with a three bladed propeller. When fitting a four bladed propeller the balance weights were removed from the tail elevators, this meant that they must be fitted if a four blade prop wasn't available, and that was a problem for Hawker.
 
Ted Major, Defects Dept Head for Hawker, has his say concerning Camm & the Typhoon.

"He held the chief designer's post at Hakers for more than 40 years, & during all that time,
the only aircraft which suffered structural failure was the Typhoon.
This could've happened to any aeroplane at a time when so little was known about metal fatigue,
esp' one with a great thick wing, which was pushing against the 'sonic barrier' for the 1st time
- & the Americans were encountering similar problems with their P-38 Lightning."

I'll add this, the P-38's diving speed limitation for 10,000ft on down was 420-440mph IAS,
whereas for the Typhoon, it was 525mph IAS, 'Mach-buzz' & all,
nor did it need 'dive flaps' - to recover from that dive-speed either..
 
. "Owing to the size and weight of the Sabre and the need to preserve c.g. balance, the Typhoon's engine was fitted so close to the leading edge of the wing that severe vibration was experienced as the slipstream buffeted the thick wing roots. On an early test flight the stressed-skin covering began to tear away from its rivets and the Typhoon's pilot, Philip G. Lucas, only just succeeded in bringing the prototype in to a landing. "

"Several test pilots were killed in the Typhoon. Of the first 142 delivered, only seven were not involved in serious non-combat accidents due to engine or airframe failures at one time or another. The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war. Since nobody knew what was causing the trouble before that time, a distinctive row of "fish plates" was attached in a ring around the fuselage just ahead of the tailplane as an interim measure to keep the tail on. "


To my knowledge a solution was found to the structural problems with the Typhoon without ever fully understanding the cause of the problem.
 
If you do a search through Cranfield's Aerade for ARC publications with the tem "flutter," (AERADE), about 140 papers show up, with one in 1931, then a bunch starting in 1942. The ARC has ben characterized as a bit less application-oriented than the contemporary NACA, but it's obvious that flutter was known. Why did Hawker have so much more trouble with the Typhoon, especially when contemporaries did not? [aside: don't bring up anything that's not relevant; flutter is not the phenomenon that caused the P-38 dive speed restrictions, nor is it the same as structural failures due to sudden control motions]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
687
yulzari
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
408
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
897
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
547
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register