MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

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

James W. said:
No Steve,
Sydney Camm repeatedly rejected the Griffon as a Sabre substitute,
Click to expand...

But Supermarine didn't. Remember that they were supposed to convert from Spitfire to Beaufighter production in 1941 when the Sabre engined Typhoon was expected to enter service. There was a scheme for installing the Griffon in the Spitfire by October 1939. This was to produce a fighter equal in performance to the Typhoon, lighter with a lower powered engine. It would also be more economical both in terms of man hours and materials than the Typhoon. Supermarins were not keen to give up the Spitfire. We have the benefit of hindsight, we know this wouldn't happen, the board of Vickers-Supermarine did not.
The Griffon was never intended to compete with the Sabre in the Typhoon, which was designed around that engine. It was intended as a competitor for other types. It's development was a commercial decision, taken with an eye on the competition, in this case Napiers, who Rolls Royce would have gladly seen the back of in the mid 1930s.
Rolls Royce offered this engine to the air Ministry despite their own professed intention to concentrate on fewer models.

The inter war years saw huge advances in aero engine performance and in 1939 many thought that the trend would be continued by developing larger engines. The same assumption was made by other powers. In fact reciprocating engines were nearing the end of their economical development, something only made clear with the arrival of jets in the next decade.
Extravagant claims were made for engines like the Sabre and although work did continue on the Merlin the important breakthroughs were in the future. In April 1940 a memorandum on research and development (Freeman to Secretary of State for Air) listed two Hercules variants, the Sabre, Griffon and Centaurus, but made no mention of the Merlin. The arguments made by Rolls Royce (see my post above) for development of the Griffon were actually even more applicable to the Merlin, with its large production capacity.
By late 1940 both the Air ministry and the aircraft industry were revising many earlier assumptions about the aircraft production programme, not least with the realisation that the most direct path to increased fighter performance (and others) lay in the development of the Merlin.

Cheers

Steve
 

Thank you Steve,

See Shooter, it was that hard to do.
 
James W. said:
Crikey Steve, good research skills, but I only included a fraction of the list - from the prototype Mk IV on to end of production.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to establish? Total Hurricane production, all types?

I don't have the will or time to give all the serial groups, but in simplified terms

Hawker Block 1, delivered 12/37-10/39, 600 aircraft
Hawker Block 2, delivered 9/39-5-40, 300 aircraft
Gloster Block 1, delivered 11/39-4/40, 500 aircraft
Hawker Block 3, delivered 2/40-7/40, 544 aircraft
Canadian Car and Foundry (CFF) Block 1, shipped to UK 2/40-10/40, 40 aircraft
Gloster Block 2, delivered 5/40-7/40, 100 aircraft
Gloster Block 3, delivered 7/40-2/41, 1,700 aircraft
Hawker Block 4, delivered 7/40-2/41, 195 aircraft
Hawker Block 5, delivered , 1/41-7/41, 1,000 aircraft
CFF Block 2, shipped to UK 7/40-4/41, 340 aircraft
CFF Block 3 ??????, 100 aircraft (these may have gone to Soviet Union, but I can't be arsed to check all the serials)
Hawker Block 6, delivered 7/41-3/42, 1,350 aircraft
Gloster Block 4, delivered 9/41-12-41, 450 aircraft
Hawker Block 7, delivered 3/42-11/42, 1,888 aircraft
Hawker Block 8, delivered 11/42-4-43, 1,200 aircraft
Hawker Block 9, delivered 4/43-9/43, 1,184 aircraft
Hawker Block 10, delivered 9/43-5/44, 1,357 aircraft

Now we have some odd anomalies and fragmented production.

Austin Block I, all except three sent to Soviet Union, 300 aircraft

Four CFF Blocks, many to Soviet Union, some not clear, most delivered in 1941/2 a few in 1943, total of 598 aircraft.

Hawker/Rolls Royce produced one new built Mk V, there was no production order.

Not all these aircraft went to the British and Commonwealth Air Forces or Navies (it includes Sea Hurricanes).

You can add that up, but it will be around the 14,000 generally accepted. Production for the first six years was of course of a competitive fighter, after 1942 other roles or less contested theatres had to be found.

Cheers

Steve
 

Don't be ridiculous, it's why pilots are trained. I don't know what practical or engineering factors influenced the change, but pilots simply have to deal with it. Any drama is down to their own lack of attention or stupidity.

Extravagant claims were made by manufacturers of just about all the engines in development from the late 1930s. If you re-read my post you will see that it was the failure of most (all?) of them to live up to expectation that led to the serious re-think around late 1940/early 1941.
At the end of the day the British had the Merlin. It powered two of the best four or five fighters operating in the ETO on all sides and the best allied bomber of the war. The decision to develop it at the expense of others was clearly the correct one. Things could have been a lot worse.

Cheers

Steve
 
That claim of more power had been around from the 20s.
As a practical matter instead of theory it rather falls apart. In the 20s or early 30s it did have some merit. That was when cylinder cooling was still more art than science and before sodium cooled valves became common.
The idea was that the sleeve valve engine could use more compression. The Sabre and Hercules used 7.0 compression ratios, while better than the Merlin's 6.0 compression ratio it isn't enough better than the Allison's 6.65 or P & W using 6.5 to 7.0 on their engines or Wright using 6.5 and above to make a real difference. It also falls apart when higher boost pressures are used. you can only use a certain amount of compression and boost before detonation sets in. The higher the compression the less boost you can use. While more compression extracts more power from the fuel higher boost means you are burning more fuel to begin with. This is a reason RR stayed with the 6.0 compression on the Merlin and kept increasing the boost pressure.
Basically just about all the problems the sleeve valve was supposed to cure had been solved by other means by the late 30s or 1940 and the Sleeve valve offered no real advantage.

If you really believe the RR Eagle was a "Chinese copy" of the Sabre then you have to believe the Merlin, Allison and Junkers and DB engines were "Chinese copies" of the Curtiss D-12 engine.

As for your list of "passe" aircraft please quit padding things. Production of P-40s with Merlin's stopped at the end of April 1943. Spitfire VIIIs, IXs and XVIs were hardly "passe" in 1943/44. Bumping the boost pressure up in the later versions certainly kept them close to the front runners or at least competitive with their opponents. How many Merlin-Spitfire pilots in 1944/45 felt they were at a disadvantage against Bf 109s or Fw 190s?
How many of the Hurricanes produced in 1943/44 were sent to the Russians as lend lease?
 

I would note that not just the British engine makers were making extravagant claims. The list of failed big engines in the late 30s and early 40s is a long, long one and includes all seven major Countries. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan. Each country had more than one failed engine and most had several.
I am puzzled however by the claim that the Merlin powered the best bomber of the war, I don't recall seeing a Merlin powered B-29
 

That is entirely his own fault. He made a mistake.

My own father was one of thousands who trained and later flew operationally aircraft with different directions of rotation of the propeller and they all dealt with it.
Aircraft are designed any number of ways, pilots train to fly them.

I don't see any evidence for the 'glut' of Merlins. There don't seem to have been hundreds of them lying around waiting for air frames at any time during the war as far as I can see. I can't find any evidence in any British Air Ministry references to any such situation. Maybe in America? Provide some evidence for your assertion.

I was clearly referring to the ETO and I don't recall seeing any B-29s there.

Cheers

Steve
 
So they went into aircraft serving in a variety of roles in various air forces. Just because an aircraft isn't a state of the art front line fighter doesn't mean that it is not required.
This does not show a 'glut' of Merlins. If the Air Ministry chose to produce these aircraft then it would also have taken the requisite steps to provide engines for them. I don't think you have any understanding of how the system worked.

Incidentally, was the cause of the accident suffered by the person who somehow mistook his Mk XIV for a Mk IX established by the investigating authority or is it just another of your opinions?

Cheers

Steve
 

really???? Superior oil consumption? I almost blew my tea out my nose on that one. That is one of the areas that took quite a loooong while for actual practice (service in the field) to come up to predictions/promises. Many early Sabres and Hercules engines being taken out of service for overhaul due to excessive oil consumption after only a few dozen hours of service.
The big problem with most of the sleeve valve to poppet valve comparisons is that Bristol (Fedden) was comparing the sleeve valve engine to their own poppet valve engine instead of the poppet valve engines made by other companies or countries. Most other companies had gone to enclosed valve gear by the end of the 30s and not leaving valve stems, springs and rocker arms all flapping around in the Breeze.

enclosed valve gear was not exactly rocket science, Other companies had been doing it for years.

It does wonders for oil tightness.
You can also cut way down on the number of moving parts by using two valves per cylinder instead of 4 valves per cylinder.
A lot of the cooling problems go away when you learn to make close spaced fins instead of fins that look like they were made by a blacksmith apprentice.
BTW it only took Bristol about 5-7 different cylinder head designs (each one with more fin area) to get the Hercules to teh 2000hp level. And the last ones used a copper alloy head for better heat transfer than aluminum alloy.
The two valve head also allows for a hemispherical combustion chamber and spark plugs.

And lets see,let me do a little selecting of specifications of my own.
Hercules XI engine of 1590 hp take-off. gets 0.67 hp per cubic in and weighs 1.16lbs per hp.
Wright R-2600B gives 1700 hp for take-off and has 0.65 hp per cubic in and weighs 1.16lbs per hp.
Yep, it is easy to see just how superior the Sleeve valve was.
 
James W. said:
Check your copy of Wilkinson's 1947 book for the Sabre VII rated at 3,500 hp for take off, on + 20lbs boost ( with ADI) & on lowly 100/130 juice.
Click to expand...

Merlins with ADI were using +30psi boost. Not that the British used ADI on Merlins during the war.

3500hp is not much more than the 3200hp the Eagle 22 was making without 10 years of development. On +18psi without ADI.
 
According to the TAIC report he had applied only 2 degrees of left rudder trim (tab deflection) of the 14 degrees available. A previous injury meant that his ability to apply left rudder directly was limited, though this was not considered significant.
The report also notes that the take off check list for the type calls for the rudder to be trimmed full left. The final conclusion was that

"Inadvertent mis-selection of less than fully left rudder, prior to take off, was the probable predominant factor in the accident."

The pilot made a mistake which very nearly cost him his life. 'Inadvertent' is about as close to apportioning blame as this sort of report will come, that is not their function.
The report does mention that the pilot had been flying a Merlin powered Mk XVI previously, though he had 5.5 hours on the Griffon powered Mk XIV.

Cheers

Steve
 
Its not ridiculous to question why RR would change the direction of rotation of their engines. Its a big deal. Imagine a fledgling pilot going through training in a Harvard then older Merlin Spit conditioned to apply right rudder on takeoff then have to relearn the opposite procedure when transitioning to Griffon powered machines. So many fighters were lost to accidents anyway, remember the majority of these guys are low-time pilots.
 
The merlin was produced in huge numbers because it powered the two most produced British fighters, its two heavy bombers and the best multi role aircraft, It powered the P40 and P51 for which they were not designed. Its "overproduction" was because of the failure of types that were due to replace it coupled with the success of RR in getting more power from it, it ended up as a 2000BHP engine on max power.

Of the Lancaster Halifax Spitfire Mosquito Hurricane and P51 which should we have had less of and when?
 
Last edited:
I believe the rotation of the Griffon was a navy requirement, it was preferable because the torque took the plane away from the tower not into it.

When the Griffon was introduced the RAF was no longer flying the BoB pilots had more than 50 hours before combat. When you fly a plane for the first time you always have zero hours.
 
BLine22 said:
Its not ridiculous to question why RR would change the direction of rotation of their engines.
Click to expand...

I don't know why. Does anyone else? I doubt they did it for the hell of it.
Pilots have to learn to fly different types. They aren't just thrust into a strange aircraft and told to get on with it. My father trained in the US and finished with 91 hours day/8.6 night on the 'Harvard', 36.4 hours day/10.3 night on the 'Bearcat' and 84.9 hours day on the 'Hellcat'.
When he returned to the UK the FAA sent him off in an Oxford with an instructor, presumably to check the Americans had actually taught him to fly and to familiarise himself with British instruments, radio etc.
Following that he flew dual in a Firefly, specifically noted in his logbook "Fam with handbrake and opposite torque to USN a/c"
After that they let him loose on a Sea Fury.
Cheers
Steve
 
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