SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Oh yeah, before I forget; very informative post about the Albacore.
Napier's best possible contribution for the UK war effort?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Stringbag is one of the most important and underrated aircraft of WW2 in my opinion, Any aircraft which has the rare distinction of being in service from 1939 all the way through to the end of hostilities puts it into a very select category. Especially when, unlike the 109, 88, Spitfire etc, the airframe and engine were essentially the same from beginning to end bar a few tweaks.
Shortround6
Major General
As far as making a plane worse than the one your trying to replace, ask Curtiss, they managed it at least once.
The Fulmar gets a bad rap, Try replacing it with a Spitfire I or II, now double the number of rounds per gun and put in enough fuel for around a 4 hour patrol. Won't push the fact that the Fulmar was supposed to be the fleet recon/search plane.
The Swordfish might have gone the way of the Dodo if they weren't trying to find a plane that could fly off of small, slow carriers in absolutely crappy weather with the parts of the flight deck moving up and down between 30-40 feet at times. Nobody put that kind of take-off/landing performance into aircraft specs before or even during the war and yet that was what was needed for convoy escort in the North Atlantic. Useres often asked for more stable aircraft for long range flying as they are less tiring for the pilots to fly. However that stability makes them harder to land on small, pitching carriers or play dodge the fighters that have a 200mph speed advantage game. I will bet a lot of Swordfish crewmen who never saw an enemy fighter would have sold their grandmother for enclosed cockpit after 2-3 hours anti-sub patrol on a Russian convoy run. The only people who thought brisk invigorating air made for alert crewmen were sitting at desks in heated offices.
They made Hurricanes because they had factories tooled up for them (and workers that knew how to make them) AND they had factories tooled up and making Merlins in large quantities.
You want to save Britain a lot of trouble??
Ditch the Sabre and the Typhoon. Take your thousands of freed up workers and build Griffon engines and Spitfire XIIs. You might actually come out ahead.
...except the same issue as your point about the Hurricane occurs:, surely? -
"They made
3300 Typhoons is not insignificant. Neither was the role they performed in '44 /45 - one which the spit XII was far less suited to from range through to armament and structure.
The only role at which the XII excelled was low altitude interception and air combat. Useful against the 'tip and run' FW190s and V1s- but what utility beyond that?
That only 100 were built would seem to answer the question...
Totally agree with the rest of your post.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
The idea that the Swordfish was some obsolete-from-birth piece of crap should be hanged, guillotined, and buried in tons of refractory concrete. It was not. It was a competent, well-executed design built to a very demanding specification.
26 squadrons of what was considered 2TAFs most effective fighter bomber.
Whatever its teething problems, the impact and significance of the Typhoon is marked. There was no other aircraft in the RAF inventory to slot readily into that role.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Part of the reason for that is, of course, that Napier had not produced a decemt engine since the Lion, instead it designed overly complex engines of dubious serviceability.
wuzak
Captain
The question being "do you continue to build XIIs or change to building XIVs?".
Shortround6
Major General
The question about the Typhoon is complicated. It did do good work, but it took a long time to sort out. Also nobody knows how much they cost. They may know how much the Typhoon airframe costs but the cost of the Sabre engine seems to still be covered by the official secrets act. A British official could tell how much was paid 80 years ago but then he would have to kill you.
So we will never know if the British got a good return for their pounds Stirling spent.
Could they have gotten 4800 MK XII Spitfires for the cost of 3300 Typhoons? More?? Less???
Could a Spit XII 'improved' made up some of the difference in capability?
The Typhoon did not spring into being full formed and ready to go.
It wasn't until part way through the 4th production batch that it got the Sabre IIb engine and the bubble canopy (not exactly at the same time.)
While they started slinging a pair of 500lb bombs under the wing in late 1942 the Rockets didn't show up until Aug 1943 and the ability to carry a pair of 1000lbs was also much later than the 500lb bombs. Bombaphoons had a number of modifications from regular Typhoons even on the production lines and the Typhoons in 1944 that carried a pair of 1000lb bombs usually had such modifications as a four bladed prop and larger horizontal stabilizers, not mention modified tail wheel (solid?) and the already standard Bombaphoon bigger wheel brakes.
Since some of the Spitfire XIIs are supposed to have used MK VIII airframes according to some sources(false?) part of the fuel difference could have been solved fairly easily.
A special single stage Griffon ground attack Spitfire doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility (don't need two stage superchargers for ground attack) and while such a plane would not equal the Typhoon on a one for one basis it might well not be only 1/2 as effective (fitting four 20mm guns would not be a problem for instance) .
wuzak
Captain
And 1,700 Tempests, of which 450 were the Tempest II with the Centaurus.
And they only made 5,000 Sabres all up. So not a great number of spares.
Build your Fulmar if you have too but the reason the Spit never matured into the plane it could have been is because so much time was wasted on lesser aircraft. If supermarine was free to develop the Spit we would have got the MkIII and it's development line from 1940, that means faster, better rolling longer ranged interceptors for both the RAF and FAA instead of the interim models, it's not hard at all to make the Spitfire/Seafire longer ranged, they just needed time to be developed, time Joe Smith and Supermarine didn't have because they alone were making the only front line fighter the British had. As for the Hurricane I am a huge fan of that plane but it could not survive anywhere after 1940, it wasn't fast enough to catch anything or fast enough to run away. I know I'm sounding like a one eyed fan boy but many pilots died because they fought in planes they had instead of planes that should have been, you only have to read from pilots like Johnny Johnson who often mentioned flying pointless short ranged sorties mid war over France because the Spit didn't have factory fitted aux tanks or plumbing for DT's, all of which was available from 1940-41, the blooding the RAF received ''leaning on the enemy'' would not have happened if the MkIII was in front line service.
No one said the Swordfish was any of those things, it was the only aircraft suitable for it's environment and it was an environment it excelled in, but lets be honest, would you fight Midway, Coral Sea or Pearl Harbour with it, no.
What do you think is more important, MkIII/VIII/XII's Spitfires gaining air superiority over the channel, Med, Australia and middle East in 1941-2 or Typhoons doing ground attack in 43-44?.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,638
- Dec 6, 2006
According to Robertson in Spitfire Story of a Famous Fighter the first 45 XIIs used Vc airframes and had a 48 gallon upper fuel tank and A 37 gallon lower tank. The lower mounting of the Griffon meant that there was no room for the oil tank under the engine so it was moved to the rear fuselage. The last 55 used the VIII airframe and had a 36 gallon upper tank and a 49 gallon lower tank. The upper tank was downsized to make room for the oil tank. In either case the total was 85. The XIIs did not have the VIIIs wing tanks but I would presume that would be an easy add.
Why not? The TBD Devastators did as well as expected. Let's not forget Taranto.
Both, actually, which is what happened.
The Typhoon was a case of terrible made good and it certainly wasn't through official channels that the idea germinated of the Typhoon becoming the efficient strike aircraft it eventually became. It was designed as a high altitude fighter to replace the Hurricane and while that type was blasting about in the Battle of Britain, Typhoon and Tornado prototypes were putting up excellent speeds and rates of climb in testing, so initially they looked real good for 1940 era aircraft, but it all came unstuck as the Typhoon suffered problems right from the start. During trials there was far too much carbon monoxide contamination of the cockpit, which was a big problem, then the tails started falling off. It was about to be canned, but it was the likes of Roland Beamont (who eventually became test pilot for English Electric and was involved in the development of the Canberra, Lightning and TSR.2 programmes) CO of 609 Sqn who took to the design and saw its potential and with a lot of rework, the Typhoon eventually saw service as an efficient strike aircraft, but it was a close run thing.
wuzak
Captain
Not sure how high altitude it was intended to be, since neither the Sabre or Vulture were particularly high altitude engines at that time.
Also, the Tornado/Typhoon was designed to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire. That it did not replace the Spitfire is an indication of its failings.
