Napier's best possible contribution for the UK war effort?

[tomo pauk]

Napier was not making a lot of engines when compare with Bristol, let alone RR, with Sabre production being about 5000+ copies; Dagger being both unremarkable and produced in very low numbers. Lack of Napier's contribution in the dark days of early ww2 is especially notable.

So how to use the Napier's facilities and manpower best, so the output can be much better, particularly for 1938-42? Planning can start perhaps in 1935 so there is enough of time to shift in the high gear once rearmament starts.

 

[PAT303]

If all the aircraft and engine manufacturers focused on Spitfire production the RAF could have ended the BoB with Merlin XX engined MkIII's and gone up against FW190's with MkXII's, likewise Malta/Africa/Australia could've gone up against Fiesla's and A6M's with MkVII's instead of dated MkV's and obsolete Hurricanes/P40's. Napier could put the Typhoon/Tempest on low priority as to get the Fury post war.

 

[SplitRz]

If all the aircraft and engine manufacturers focused on Spitfire production the RAF could have ended the BoB with Merlin XX engined MkIII's and gone up against FW190's with MkXII's, likewise Malta/Africa/Australia could've gone up against Fiesla's and A6M's with MkVII's instead of dated MkV's and obsolete Hurricanes/P40's. Napier could put the Typhoon/Tempest on low priority as to get the Fury post war."

Big leap there. The above scenarios would undoubtedly have helped the RAF, but ALL aircraft and airframe manufacturers from the spits in service date - 1938ish...?

Some of the airframe manufacturers would be able to subcontract to make Spitfire components for sure... but at what cost for all of the stalled development of countless other aircraft? The Spitfire was critical for 36 months in Europe - but its importance beyond then arguably diminished for the whole of the rest of the war. This policy would have out back development of all kinds of aircraft that were pretty critical in the overall mix: Wellington, Stirling, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter (the Merlin version was a dog), Sunderland et al.

Post DDay without Typhoon....? Battle of Atlantic without sufficient Sunderlands? V1 interception without Tempest?

... And thats just the engine manufacturers not supplying developed engines for the above... What if you included the impact of 'defocussing' on the aircraft manufacturers? Mosquito? Lancaster? Jet engine programme? You could go on in the same vein for sometime

I get the thrust of what you're saying - but 'all eggs in one basket' was something the Air Ministry specifically strived to avoid. We have the advantage of hindsight of course.

 

[swampyankee]

Napier was not making a lot of engines when compare with Bristol, let alone RR, with Sabre production being about 5000+ copies; Dagger being both unremarkable and produced in very low numbers. Lack of Napier's contribution in the dark days of early ww2 is especially notable.

So how to use the Napier's facilities and manpower best, so the output can be much better, particularly for 1938-42? Planning can start perhaps in 1935 so there is enough of time to shift in the high gear once rearmament starts.

From everything I've read, Napier's production facilities were, delicately, outdated. Two areas where the UK was not well-served were engines for high speed small vessels, like MTBs, and for armored vehicles. Having Napier specialize in these may be worthwhile.

 

[Shortround6]

From everything I've read, Napier's production facilities were, delicately, outdated. Two areas where the UK was not well-served were engines for high speed small vessels, like MTBs, and for armored vehicles. Having Napier specialize in these may be worthwhile.

two different engines.
MTB engines needed to be bigger than aircraft engines or at least as big as the largest aircraft engines and needed to last longer.

AFVs needed (at the time of WW II) engines closer to engines in training aircraft in size/power. Perhaps Napier could have used the old Lion as a tank engine (or used two cylinder banks instead of three?) but even though some were used in rescue launches the Lion was too small (by half) to be a good MTB engine.

The duty cycle of an MTB engine is pretty severe. Forget 5 minute ratings, it is more like a one hour rating for max power and a pretty high cruise power rating.

 

[fastmongrel]

Napier's were good at building hand built advanced one off prototypes so hand them the responsibility of developing gas turbines.

The Lion was a craftsman style engine every part hand fitted by a man with a box of files and scrapers. The RAF stopped ordering designs with Lions in 1928 and got rid of them in 1933. Yet somehow it's a good engine for use in a a tank that would be maintained in the desert. The Liberty was a poor choice for tanks but at least it had universal parts the Lion would be a nightmare.

 

[Shortround6]

Liberty aircraft engines had a varied reputation, depending on who built them. Some manufacturers made very good engines, others made engines that should have broken up for scrap before being crated for shipment.

It is possible to productionize hand built engines.
Using Napiers as a development shop has the disadvantage of anything they design/develop will have to be productionized anyway.

If you are having trouble with 3500-4000rpm piston engines then 10,000rpm turbines might not be what you want them working on?
The Lion was at least a 1/2 generation ahead of the Liberty.

 

[wuzak]

Napier's were good at building hand built advanced one off prototypes so hand them the responsibility of developing gas turbines.

I think one of the problems with Napier was that the main designer was, essentially, a contractor.

Frank Halford was already working on the Halford H.1 jet engine in 1941. This was around the time that the Sabre was transitioning from the hand-built prototypes to the production models.

I don't think that Napier had the depth of engineering talent that Rolls-Royce or Bristol possessed. I'm not sure them doing prototype development was going to be viable.

de Havilland bought Halford's business in 1943 and the H.1 became the Goblin.

 

[SplitRz]

AFVs needed (at the time of WW II) engines closer to engines in training aircraft in size/power.

.... Only in the pre-war designs, UK tanks from 1942 onward were based on the Meteor - a de-rated Merlin.

HOWEVER one of the big drawbacks for using the otherwise excellent Meteor for tank or MTBs was that it used petrol (gasoline) - not the best fuel for wooden MTBs or small metal boxes filled with humanity. But Napier *did* have an alternative diesel engine which could perhaps have been usefully developed (and potentially saved a significant number of lives)

The Culverin diesel engine

 

[SplitRz]

.... Only in the pre-war designs, UK tanks from 1942 onward were based on the Meteor - a de-rated Merlin.

HOWEVER one of the big drawbacks for using the otherwise excellent Meteor for tank or MTBs was that it used petrol (gasoline) - not the best fuel for wooden MTBs or small metal boxes filled with humanity. But Napier *did* have an alternative diesel engine which could perhaps have been usefully developed (and potentially saved a significant number of lives)

The Culverin diesel engine

.... There's some more here which indicates where Napier might have benefitted the war effort a little more impactfully

More about the Napier Culverin

"Initially Vickers were approached however the Ministry turned its attention to Napiers who were asked to produce seven prototype engines under licence from Junkers. This they completed in 1936 and were fitted in Hawker Horsley J8620 and three in Blackburn Iris seaplane S-1593. Unfortunately the build up to WWII meant that this engine was swept away to prepare for wartime requirements. Whilst the Culverin ceased production after only seven engines had been produced all was not lost for the Company. In 1946 Napiers started to design a revolutionary marine engine based on three Culverin in a triangular layout, This was the famous "Deltic" engine...."

and theres More about the Deltic here

"In 1943 the Admiralty convened a committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Roy Fedden to advise them on the future diesel engine for Fast Patrol Boats. The 1939 - 45 war having proved the vulnerability of petrol engined boats.

The findings of the Committee recommended a 2-stroke Sleeve Valved Engine similar to the Napier Sabre in configuration. A variety of companies were approached to tender for the design and manufacture of the engine.

The English Electric Company offered an alternative proposal which was to become the "Deltic" having had various technical arguments against the Fedden proposition. In the E.E.Co. offer, it statated precisely that D. Napier & Son would undertake the design, development and manufacture.

Napier's unique solution was derived from the Napier Culverin aero-engine from of 10 years earlier, and design of the E130 Deltic commenced in 1946. The engine is a two-stroke opposed piston compression ignition (diesel) engine having three or six banks of three cylinders in a triangular arrangement. At each corner of this equilateral triangle is situated a crankshaft, each crank having an exhaust (fork) and inlet (blade) connecting rod from the two adjacent cylinders."

.... Looks like Deltics were widely used post war - from Uk diesel trains to US MTBS!

That was an interesting rabbit hole!

 

[PAT303]

Big leap there. The above scenarios would undoubtedly have helped the RAF, but ALL aircraft and airframe manufacturers from the spits in service date - 1938ish...?

Some of the airframe manufacturers would be able to subcontract to make Spitfire components for sure... but at what cost for all of the stalled development of countless other aircraft? The Spitfire was critical for 36 months in Europe - but its importance beyond then arguably diminished for the whole of the rest of the war. This policy would have out back development of all kinds of aircraft that were pretty critical in the overall mix: Wellington, Stirling, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter (the Merlin version was a dog), Sunderland et al.

Post DDay without Typhoon....? Battle of Atlantic without sufficient Sunderlands? V1 interception without Tempest?

... And thats just the engine manufacturers not supplying developed engines for the above... What if you included the impact of 'defocussing' on the aircraft manufacturers? Mosquito? Lancaster? Jet engine programme? You could go on in the same vein for sometime

I get the thrust of what you're saying - but 'all eggs in one basket' was something the Air Ministry specifically strived to avoid. We have the advantage of hindsight of course.

What worthwhile aircraft did Fairy, Blackburn, Handley Page etc make?, what engines did anyone other than RR make that where suitable for front line service?, why was Hawker still making totally obsolete Hurricanes in 1944?. If you look at all the suppliers of aircraft and engines only about 5 made anything worthwhile, the rest were making absolute crap or like Martin Baker spent the whole war designing a plane that finally flew after the war had ended, at least by making Spitfires the RAF would have got MkIII MkVIII, MkXXII and MkXIV's instead of the interim MkV's and IX's, maybe, just maybe they would have had time to incorporate 66G rear aux tanks and plumbing for drop tanks off the production line, instead of slippers.

 

[SplitRz]

What worthwhile aircraft did Fairy, Blackburn, Handley Page etc make?, what engines did anyone other than RR make that where suitable for front line service?, why was Hawker still making totally obsolete Hurricanes in 1944?. If you look at all the suppliers of aircraft and engines only about 5 made anything worthwhile, the rest were making absolute crap or like Martin Baker spent the whole war designing a plane that finally flew after the war had ended, at least by making Spitfires the RAF would have got MkIII MkVIII, MkXXII and MkXIV's instead of the interim MkV's and IX's, maybe, just maybe they would have had time to incorporate 66G rear aux tanks and plumbing for drop tanks off the production line, instead of slippers.

Is or has anyone argued against the importance of the merlin? Rhetorical question that, you know the answer

In your scenario, there would/could have been...

No Swordfish (or a massively compromised one with a less developed engine). Highly likely no sinking of Bismark. No crippling of the Italian fleet at Taranto... and thousands of unsunk ships, and a lot of detected, deflected or unsunk subs too.... oh and no 'woolworth' carriers as there'd be nothing to fly off them - and a big loss of anti-sub capability for the convoys later in the war. No torpedo bomber at all until the arrival of the Avenger and/or the awful Barracuda if you'll allow that to slip through on the grounds that its powered by the holy Merlin.

In fact, a world without 'the crap' leaves the FAA with nothing in the early stages until the arrival of the Sea Hurricane. So, no Sea Gladiator, no Skua, No Albacore, and no Fulmar. Without the latter, you massively up the chances of Malta falling too, as it provided most of the aircover in the Mediterranean in the early years of war

No Wellington or Stirling or Hampden. So no early bomber campaign - apart from the most vulnerable of all of the early heavies, the Whitley, if you'll excuse it on the basis that it has merlin engines. So that puts back both the campaign and the development of technology and technique by at least two years. It also gives the Germans the opportunity to divert significant numbers of aircraft, manpower and munitions to other fronts for a critical couple of years. (The Vickers Wellington with Bristol Hercules engines was the *most* produced UK bomber in WW2 - 600 of the bombers in the Thousand Bomber raid on Cologne were Wellingtons...) Wellingtons and Hampdens were also very useful torpedo bombers later in the war. Again, the Wellingtons were critical in helping cutting Rommel's supplies across the med.

No unsung but vital early transports - no Harrow, no Bombay, no converted Stirlings or Halifaxes and no Albermarle. So no glider tugs for DDay either. Nowt to see until the DC3 starts to arrive in significant numbers.

Coastal command has to basically give up on tackling the subs and protecting convoys - no (or massively compromised) Sunderland, no Anson, no maritime Whitleys or Halifaxes... All they've got left is a handful of Hudsons and Catalinas and a thin dribble of Liberators arriving piecemeal later on. The impact on the Atlantic war is probably going to be critical. Hows Harris going to react for a request for Lancasters...

Post DDay, no developed Typhoon with the sabre issues largely cured. So thats a massive compromise to the fighter-bomber campaign. What are the RAF going to do instead? Labour on with totally obsolete Hurricanes? For all its strengths and the fact that it was used occasionally as a fighter bomber, the spit is neither long ranged or rugged enough to entirely suit these operations - neither was it successfully adapted to take 8 x 60lb rockets.... You also lose the Tempest, a useful late war fighter bomber, and also the most successful aircraft for intercepting the V1s...

No Blenheim and no Beaufighter, so there's no early development of AI and technique for the nightfighters beyond the Defiant and Havoc

Why was the 'obsolete' Hurricane being produced until 1944? Because it was not obsolete in the far east and Burma; its construction and performance suited the low tech, harsh and spartan environment there - besides which, there were not spare more advanced types to be had

.... I think I could carry on in this vein for sometime...

The fact was that Merlin production and development WAS prioritised - lots of other engines were side-lined or abandoned; Peregrine for RR, Taurus for Bristol etc. The same with scores of designs and prototype airframes too - not because they weren't promising, but because the Ministries at least had a strategy for production prioritisation. You also seen to be ignoring that the manufacturers you mention WERE subcontracted to produce components and parts for many other aircraft than their on types anyway.

Going b@lls out for spitfire and merlin production leaves a small island well protected from a by a mid-war pretty much non-existent German bomber force (that would only have operated by night anyway), but pretty much unable to conduct a global war in all theatres. It also ignores hindsight - no one realised how well the Spit was going to be able to cope with being continually updated and improved.

Anyhoo, thats my take.

 

[PAT303]

Your talking about mostly obsolete aircraft, if other manufacturers made Spits it free's up Joe Smith so he could have designed the Seafire he wanted to make instead of modifying Spitfires he had, with a well designed Seafire the FAA doesn't need Albacores Skua's and Fulmars, if the likes of Napier made Griffins the RAF would have had MkXII Spits to counter the FW190 and the RAF would have had MkIII's and VIII's instead of MkII's and V's, as for Hawker making Hurricanes until 1944 it was a total and complete waste of resources, imagine Emil's or P40C's over Europe in 1944.

 

[Shortround6]

Except they weren't using Hurricanes over Europe in 1944 (except maybe the Balkans?).

The Hurricane IVs sure weren't using Merlin III engines so that comparison is more than a bit off.

Wait a minute.................weren't they using P-40Ls in Italy in 1943/44. same basic engine as a Hurricane II.

I still want to see even a Joe Smith Sea Fire with a torpedo
or six 250lb depth charges
so it can replace the Albacore/Swordfish.

 

[PAT303]

Except they weren't using Hurricanes over Europe in 1944 (except maybe the Balkans?).

The Hurricane IVs sure weren't using Merlin III engines so that comparison is more than a bit off.

Wait a minute.................weren't they using P-40Ls in Italy in 1943/44. same basic engine as a Hurricane II.

I still want to see even a Joe Smith Sea Fire with a torpedo
or six 250lb depth charges
so it can replace the Albacore/Swordfish.

Just because the RAF gets more Spitfires it doesn't mean every other plane is cancelled, Fairy is a good point in proving the total waste or resources most of the manufactures were guilty of, the swordfish replaced the plane built to replace it, how can you make a replacement plane worse than it's predecessor, my point about the Hurricane is also why make them, they were obsolete, Spit XII's would have been more useful until the Typhoon was sorted

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the Albacore was replaced by the Swordfish because of other demands on the manufacturer. The Albacore was better than the Swordfish, though not by much. My info comes from what my faulty memory remembers from others posting here.

 

[swampyankee]

One important consideration is where, and against what, the Swordfish was being operated, which was over the ocean against surface vessels and submarines which were basically unsupported fighter aircraft. The question isn't how well the Swordfish would do against a force with air cover -- that wasn't something that it had to do often, if at all -- but how it does against U-boats and surface ships.

 

[SplitRz]

Your talking about mostly obsolete aircraft

According to what criteria?

Most of the aircraft listed were built to specifications issued within 24 months of those of the spitfire... some later! And even then, 'obsolete' can become a pejorative and unobjective word. What do you replace a Swordfish with? The fact that they couldn't explains why it served right up until the end of hostilities. The Hampden and Wellington were contemporaneous with the HE111 and Dornier 17 and frankly, comparable in most important respects. Were they any more obsolete than any other nations in service front line bombers in 1939/40?

(The only Griffin with an affinity to WW2 I know of is modern day, some would say wannabe blackshirt, Nick Griffin ) If Napier's were making RR Griffons instead of Sabres, you'd be minus 3,317 Typhoon aircraft which proved a vital component in the defeat of Germany in Europe. So what then? Demand that Hawkers who used completely different construction methods to Supermarine and Vickers, attempt to produce yet more Spitfires instead?.... Retool, retrain and expend incredible amounts of time, resource and effort.... An for what? After mid war, was there EVER a perceived shortage of Spitfire XIIs anyway?? Who wants these extra Spitfires? Certainly not Transport, Bomber or Coastal Command.

By that stage of the war, the UK wanted better performing fighter bombers, better aircraft for the FAA and ever more bombers. Fighter interceptors, however good, weren't top of the list. The relatively small amount of air-combat in Europe post D-DAY is proof of that pudding. Air superiority bordering on supremacy had already been achieved over the western front - and only the shadow of the 262 seriously threatened that. And no Spit, however good would have seriously challenged it if the Germans had pulled their fingers out and had overcome the problem of fuel. (But again, irony of ironies, one of the aircraft with the best record against the 262 when it rarely showed its face was.... The Tempest...!)

Eric Brown was a huge fan of the Seafire. But he was first in line to note that however good it was in the air, it was only ever going to make a poor deck aircraft because of its narrow track undercarriage and lightweight construction.

Upon reflection, in complete contradiction to your suggestion, perhaps it might have been better for the allied cause if Britain HADNT put so much effort into the merlin and Spitfire post 1942, and had instead worked harder to put the Ghost into a production fighter a year early. And its chief designer? A certain Mr Halford, recent design engineer working on the Napier Sabre. And the airframe designers of the first generation of jet fighters? De Havilland. Gloster..... What of Supermarine? They managed post war to produce the mediocre Attacker and the distinctly disappointing Swift. Two arguable 'crap' (to use your phrase ) aircraft. Even Joe Smith was clearly not infallible... which kinda shows why an 'all eggs in one basket' approach to aircraft production is best avoided if you can afford to.

So no, I don't buy your concept at all, lol!

Just because the RAF gets more Spitfires it doesn't mean every other plane is cancelled, Fairy is a good point in proving the total waste or resources most of the manufactures were guilty of, the swordfish replaced the plane built to replace it, how can you make a replacement plane worse than it's predecessor, my point about the Hurricane is also why make them, they were obsolete, Spit XII's would have been more useful until the Typhoon was sorted

 

[SplitRz]

The Albacore was better than the Swordfish, though not by much.

It carried a bit more, a tiny bit faster, a little further and with an enclosed cockpit. And tacked on a single extra 303 for the gunner. But it was far less manoeuvrable and had a worse power to weight ratio. In Duels In The Sky, Eric Brown rates it less survivable or versatile than the Swordfish.

Besides, rating the Swordfish in pure performance terms - speed, climb rate, ceiling etc, ignores that by mid war, its was operating either under fighter cover or far from interceptors. Being able to fly low and slow, in filthy weather by day or night and still have a reasonable chance of making a good deck landing even on the smallest carriers was key. As was the fantastic reliability of its well developed Bristol Pegasus engine. Something which we'd be expected to forgo it seems, if we adopted the merlin-o-centric Spitfirotorium battle plan (?)

The Swordfish was probably about as close in capability that you were going to get to a helicopter out of a fixed wing aircraft. And that made it indispensable.

That its wasn't replaced by The Albacore doesn't denigrate the Swordfish

 

[SaparotRob]

I became a fan of the Stringbag after reading posts about it here. Fairey didn't decide to just go out and build a relic as I had previously assumed. That was the airframe that met the specs as called for. And it did it's job well. I like The Admiral's "what if" of Swordfish night attack on the Kido Butai at Midway.
Don't tell "uffalo-Bay". I don't want it to get jealous.