MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

pbehn said:

When you fly a plane for the first time you always have zero hours.

Click to expand...

I will remember this the next time I transition to a new aircraft.

BLine22 said:

So many fighters were lost to accidents anyway, remember the majority of these guys are low-time pilots.

Click to expand...

Let's look at some facts.

In mid 1944, which is the earliest we can be looking at, the average British pilot in training received 340 hours on all types and this included 90 hours on operational types. This is NOT low time. They were competent flyers, needing only to survive long enough to become competent fighters. By this stage of the war they had a good chance.

At the end of the war the RAF had a pool of nearly 50,000 (you read that correctly) trained pilots and more at various stages of training. There was no need to rush them through the programmes.
I have no idea how many were available to the USAAF, but I bet it was plenty.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

Let's look at some facts.

In mid 1944, which is the earliest we can be looking at, the average British pilot in training received 340 hours on all types and this included 90 hours on operational types. This is NOT low time. They were competent flyers, needing only to survive long enough to become competent fighters. By this stage of the war they had a good chance.

At the end of the war the RAF had a pool of nearly 50,000 (you read that correctly) trained pilots and more at various stages of training. There was no need to rush them through the programmes.
I have no idea how many were available to the USAAF, but I bet it was plenty.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

340 hours is indicative of a very thorough training pipeline. A current U.S. military pilot has about 250 after training in an operational type. However, it is relatively low time compared to a veteran pilot and the majority of the pilots in a squadron were on the first operational assignment.

BLine22 said:

However, it is relatively low time compared to a veteran pilot and the majority of the pilots in a squadron were on the first operational assignment.

Click to expand...

What's your point? Everyone but another veteran pilot will have relatively low time by comparison. In English we say that's stating the bleeding obvious
The majority of pilots in an RAF squadron in 1944 were not on their first operational assignment.
Cheers
Steve

Is flying a plane with a prop turning in the opposite direction to what you trained on difficult? I would say only if no one told you and you were too dopey to notice it.
I routinely changed from right hand drive cars in England to left hand drive in other countries, I have driven a right hand drive car all around Europe and once drove a left hand car in England. Its a bit strange at first but I and 10s of thousands each year do it. I used to have a Triumph and a Suzuki at the same time, Triumph right hand gear change up for first down for other gears, Suzuki Left hand change down for first up for other gears. After a few weks I could switch between them without a thought.

Actually it is the switching that can cause problems. If, for instance you are a high time pilot (hundreds of hours in Merlin Spitfires) and switch to the Griffon you are doing a lot of things from habit. A low time pilot may only have a few dozen hours in Spitfires in an operational training unit before being posted to a Griffon Squadron. After a few weeks of flying a Griffon only how likely is he to make a mistake? He actually doesn't have as much to "Unlearn".
Flying 4-6 different aircraft in a few weeks takes a lot of concentration and sticking to check lists.

The opposite rotation seems to making a mountain out a mole hill unless somebody can come up with actual statistics that show otherwise.

It's a matter of directional control and understanding how much rudder input is needed, especially during take off. Once the pilot understands the required rudder force and direction required, the rest should be instinctive, especially if said pilot has some good tailwheel time under his belt.

Mike Crosley gives a list of issues which he and 801 Sqn. discovered with the first Griffon engined Seafires and he does mention issues arising from the increased torque of the Griffon. It is the the magnitude of the torque which caused problems, particularly for carrier take offs. The direction, opposite the Merlin, doesn't even get a mention or seem to have been relevant.
Cheers
Steve

FLYBOYJ said:

It's a matter of directional control and understanding how much rudder input is needed, especially during take off. Once the pilot understands the required rudder force and direction required, the rest should be instinctive, especially if said pilot has some good tailwheel time under his belt.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If a Spitfire XIV pilot reads the take off check list in the pilot's notes he will see.

"Part II Handling

Check list before take off

T- Trimming tabs

Rudder: fully left (hand wheel fully back)

Elevator: a) At typical service load, but no fuel in the rear fuselage tank, 8,376 lb; Neutral..."

My bold.

Of course if he ignores this or inadvertently sets up a different aircraft he might find himself in a world of ****.

Cheers

Steve

From what I read, the British Ministry of Defense mandated the change in prop rotation for standardization. They let the Merlin go because it was already in production, but had all new large piston developments rotate the other way. Fortunately, most pilots hold the rudder that corrects the drift rather than blindly crash by using wrong rudder, and not many new large pistons were started after the rotation change seeing as how jets were the up and coming "thing." I have never investigated whether they had jets turning the "other way" or both ways since it would most likely be an issue only at or about stall speed.

When I flew a Soviet Yak-18, I used left rudder because it was trying to turn right and that turned out to be correct. I suspect it wasn't all that hard once you started flying it. The real issue would be developing the left leg muscles to HOLD left rudder when you HAD been using right rudder prior to the transition.

Most aerobatic pilots don't have any trouble flying a Sukhoi 26/29/31 and it turns the "other way."

Wrong James.

They were required to have the shifter on the left, but the gear pattern was and IS up to the manufacturer, unless the laws have changed in the last 10 years or so. I was riding quite regularly when that came into being, and I had some 5 friends who owned dealerships at the time. The only bike that gave me trouble was when I had a traffic emergency while on a Triumph 650 Tiger ... I downshifted instead of hitting the brake.

After that, I din't have any more trouble with it since once burned is learned.

James W. said:

SR6, here is Roy Fedden's S-V attributes list, 1941 | 2830 | Flight Archive

Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941 - 2830.html
You didn't really think Roy Fedden was going to read a paper at the Royal Aeronautical Society bashing the crap out of what he had been working on for around 10 years (and spending millions of pounds on) did you?

& as shown in an ad, noting those economies. advertisements fligh | bristol england | alii ax | 1945 | 1244 | Flight Archive

Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1244.html
I never realized that advertising copy was a reliable source before?



Guess I should take up smoking?

FYI the Napier Lion had fully enclosed its DOHC 4V heads 'bout a century ago.

Click to expand...

And Bristol was still letting the valve gear flap around in mid air 20 plus years later and complaining about oil tightness. Go figure.

Lets go through Feddens list shall we?
(a) Total absence of maintenance except for plug and magneto servicing.
Ok, tell that to the erks who had to swap engines with under 20 hours on them due to excessive oil consumption. We have a disconnect between what was promised and what was delivered.

(b) Elimination of hot spots in the combustion chamber.
Nice theory, lets see how it worked.
1. Prototype engines used single piece sand cast heads that reached 540in2 of finning.
2. first production engines used a single piece die cast head with 581in2 of finning.
3. Main wartime heads were two piece with fore and aft fins integral with the base to reduce heat in the area of the spark plugs. Fin area had gone to 728 in2.
4. Late war engines used a two piece head with 777 in2 of fining which was allowed by improved casting technique.
Please note that the these last two heads were developed after Fedden gave his talk/paper.
They were followed by several more designs of cylinder head including a one piece with cast in spikes and a two-piece with shrunk-in copper insert. Next came a fabricated copper based head and then a machined copper-base head, this one was the first post war cylinder head on the Hercules.
5. Final head design was was a copper base with close pitch fins with a steel skirt with an inner face (combustion chamber) coated with nickel. This head ran 25 degrees C cooler than the previous production head which had run 15 degrees cooler than the one before it.
I would note that P&W and Wright didn't seem to need copper cylinder heads or nickel facings even in their post war engines.

(c) Use of higher compression ratios or boost pressure.
We have been over this before. The Hercules didn't use much higher compression that other radial engines and it didn't use much higher boost. The Hercules XI Used 6.75 compression and 43..7in pressure for take off. A 1200hp P & W R-1830 had 6.7 compression and used 48in of manifold pressure for take off. The R-1830 was making 0.66hp per cu in and Hercules was making 0.67 hp per cu in.
I am just not seeing a practical difference despite what theory said.

More in next post

You rather obviously weren't around when that went down. Like most young people, you assume something that makes sense to you and state it is right. lol. I know Eddie Lawson would be amused to hear that.

Loved the Kawa 500 and 750 triple except the frame was made out of mild steel and you got a LOT of frame flex under acceleration out of a turn at hard throttle, not to mention head shake going into the turn. The 900 did the same on a track until it got "fixed." Our fix was welding in steel plate about 1/4" thick ... and new bushings. The "fix" for head shake was a good steering dampener ... but they tended to get "soft" after 20 - 25 minutes, so you started getting some head shake after that until they finally figured out the dampeners and then, ultimately, better steering geometry. Tanks slappers at 80 mph are NOT fun.

I have an idea, James. This is an aircraft forum and you aren't going to convince me of something I KNOW to be false, so why not let's just say we have a difference of opinion and get back to airplanes? OK?

Just for your information, I was 4-time Arizona state champion in in Observed Trials (with Central Arizona Trials), Advanced class, and have been riding since 1964. There's not a lot about motorcycles including frame geometry, engines, shocks, forks, tires, or 2-stroke carburetors you can say that I didn't live for decades. I could use some pointers in 4-stroke carburetors except that if I were riding one today, it would be injected, not running carbs. Last time I even SAW carbs on a 1-liter+ bike was a LONG time ago.

I still don't like Bing carbs, even with the fog of time making them seem better than they were. I had 2 of them stick wide open while on Montesa Cota 247s and swore off forever. I used the last one as a shooting target. So at least it then had a reason to leak. I ordered Mikunis on my Cota 348 and later Cota 349s.

Never owned a Norton and only rode one about 4 - 5 times. Seemed like neat bikes except for all the gas weeping in and around the carbs.

Favorite "exotics" were always from Ducati. The Dellortos didn't weep or leak.

James W. said:

The rotation direction was official policy, that the Merlin had predated the promulgation of the policy meant it wasn't
required to comply. 'Blind Freddy' could see this was going to be an issue, with cocky, or 'operationally tired'
fighter jocks jumping into a Spit & automatically doing the take-off trim settings, but in the wrong direction.

How many incidents/accidents this predictable matter caused? Even one was too many, IMO.

& yes tourists not used to driving on the left do cause an inordinate number of crashes, rental cars here
have face level advisories about it posted in them.

From 1976, all new motorcycles sold in USA were required to standardise their controls, left foot shift, down for 1st, the rest up.

Click to expand...

Comparing driving on opposite sides of the road to flying tail wheel aircraft with different engine rotations is nonsense. As stated, there is a natural instinct to make required directional corrections during takeoff. Anyone who has flown a tail dragger knows you are continually "dancing" on the rudders. It would take a really green or extremely inattentive pilot to groundloop (or worse) because they forgot the required rudder input on the aircraft below their fanny.

James W. said:

I think you are missing the point about 'conditioned responses', these are well documented as both useful & harmful,
depending on the situation. Air safety has long since mandated standard cockpit instrument/control layouts to reduce such errors.

Click to expand...

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with flying a tail wheel aircraft, regardless of propeller rotation. If you believe otherwise, let's hear about YOUR experience on this!!!

FLYBOYJ said:

Comparing driving on opposite sides of the road to flying tail wheel aircraft with different engine rotations is nonsense. As stated, there is a natural instinct to make required directional corrections during takeoff. Anyone who has flown a tail dragger knows you are continually "dancing" on the rudders. It would take a really green or extremely inattentive pilot to groundloop (or worse) because they forgot the required rudder input on the aircraft below their fanny.

Click to expand...

It's not only the working the correct pedals. We've got a very highly respected pilot down here who owned a MkIX and a MkXIV spitfire. He wound the trim the wrong way in the XIV and almost killed himself.
There have been many accidents - even two-crew, where a conditioned response has been incorrect, and it isn't due to inattention or greenness.

[

FLYBOYJ said:

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with flying a tail wheel aircraft, regardless of propeller rotation. If you believe otherwise, let's hear about YOUR experience on this!!!

Click to expand...

Question? When you are flying a tailwheel aircraft, to you react, or do you anticipate. If you are only reacting then you are behind the aircraft. its not a big deal, its a discussion, but its not "Ridiculous" as a previous poster stated.

Continued:

(d) Improved volumetric efficiency due to greater effective port areas.
In theory yes, in practice it is much harder to figure out but the Americans certainly had no trouble developing the same or higher power outputs per unit of volume than the Hercules (development of the Perseus was pretty much put on hold during the war and nobody wanted 1000hp engines after the war). Perhaps the Americans simply used higher boost pressure to get around the breathing problem and paid for it with slightly higher power going to the supercharger. In any case a P & W R-2800 giving 1850hp was running at 0.66hp per cubic in. Later ones just got better.

(e) Centrally situated plugs, giving, if necessary, good performance on single ignition.

While not in the center of the head these plugs are well into the combustion chamber and not going through the cylinder wall or edge of the chamber. Practical difference between ideal and this arrangement is?? And again, Fedden is comparing his Sleeve valve engine to Bristols own poppet valve radials.

Spark plugs about as far from the center as you can get.

(/) Very flat mixture loops, permitting smooth running under conditions of extreme economy.
(g) Smooth running due to good combustion chamber shape, and to the accurate and simple valve timing.
(h) More silent operation
Well, two valves may be simpler to "time" than four valves. as to the other "benefits" I can't really say.

(i) Good accessibility and clean exterior appearance
(j) Complete enclosure of all working parts, absence of external oil leads, and impossibility of oil leakage
Look at An American ( or newer french or Italian or.....) engine for accessibility and clean appearance.
I would note there are 5 grease fittings visible in the picture of the Mercury engine on just one cylinder (and others out of view??)
There is no doubt the Sleeve valve engine offered a big advantage over the Bristol poppet valve engines. But over other possibel arrangements???
And the Hercules wound up hardly being leak free. Stories of columns of smoke rising from the cowls of Hercules powered glider tugs after landing are common.

(k) Cooler exhaust.
(l) Freedom from lead corrosion.
(m) Greater freedom from cold corrosion.
All quite possible but how big a problem were some of these points? Enough to justify the 2 million pounds spent in development by the mid 30s let alone the rest of the development cycle?

(n) Regular cylinder shape, permitting the simplest form of baffling.
Really??? Millions of pounds so you can simplify stamped sheet metal baffles?
And then they would up devising all sorts of baffles to get the air down inside the junk head.

Next post

gumbyk said:

It's not only the working the correct pedals. We've got a very highly respected pilot down here who owned a MkIX and a MkXIV spitfire. He wound the trim the wrong way in the XIV and almost killed himself.
There have been many accidents - even two-crew, where a conditioned response has been incorrect, and it isn't due to inattention or greenness.

Click to expand...

Point taken - but I think we both know (and been there) that propeller rotation on tail wheel ops should be a relative non-event with a bit of training and situational awareness.

Good pics Shortround! Enjoy seeing good pics.