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

[nuuumannn]

Not sure how high altitude it was intended to be, since neither the Sabre or Vulture were particularly high altitude engines at that time.

The original specification for F.18/37 called for a service ceiling of "not less than 35,000 feet", and the first example to be trialled, P5212 recorded a maximum altitude of 32,300 ft.

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.

Yup, I know this. Its failings became evident pretty quickly, although the report prepared by the A&AEE in September 1940 after flying it was generally praiseworthy, containing the phrase "It is quiet, and though fast, gets along without any obvious effort and as a result has a good psychological effect on the pilot." On evaluating the first production model the problems made themselves known, the excessive vibration from the Sabre and the cockpit filling up with exhaust gases.

 

[MiTasol]

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.

You left out that other wonderful Merlin success story - the Fairey Battle

 

[MiTasol]

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

Why make Hurricanes you say
It is low tech for manufacture and maintenance. Does not require stretch presses or close tolerance alloy tube manufacture or extruded sections for wing ribs or the proverbial hundred other problems that Spitfire manufacture had.
It is low man-hours for manufacture - the Spitfire man-hours were obscene. MkII on had pressed ribs - a few minutes to make each rib instead of the multiple hours that each Spitfire wing rib took.
Major structural repairs can be done without a large workshop full of fancy tooling and highly skilled metal workers
It does not break its back or bend its tailplane during high G manoeuvres like the Spitfire does
It can carry anti tank guns, etc
It can operate off rough and sodden airfields
It can carry a decent bomb load
It does not have the very unreliable and high maintenance Rotol prop
It has multi position flaps on the wings - not two position like the Spitfire - and that makes approach and landing at difficult aerodromes far far easier.
It is easy to maintain and repair as the whole belly and large side panels come off providing good clear access
Etc
Etc
Etc
And it could still do jobs that were needed and that the Spitfire could not.

 

[wuzak]

Why make Hurricanes you say
It is low tech for manufacture and maintenance. Does not require stretch presses or close tolerance alloy tube manufacture or extruded sections for wing ribs or the proverbial hundred other problems that Spitfire manufacture had.
It is low man-hours for manufacture - the Spitfire man-hours were obscene. MkII on had pressed ribs - a few minutes to make each rib instead of the multiple hours that each Spitfire wing rib took.
Major structural repairs can be done without a large workshop full of fancy tooling and highly skilled metal workers
It does not break its back or bend its tailplane during high G manoeuvres like the Spitfire does
It can carry anti tank guns, etc
It can operate off rough and sodden airfields
It can carry a decent bomb load
It does not have the very unreliable and high maintenance Rotol prop
It has multi position flaps on the wings - not two position like the Spitfire - and that makes approach and landing at difficult aerodromes far far easier.
It is easy to maintain and repair as the whole belly and large side panels come off providing good clear access
Etc
Etc
Etc
And it could still do jobs that were needed and that the Spitfire could not.

The Hurricane continued in production because of its construction. The factories building it weren't suited to building many other types - certainly not Spitfires or Typhoons.

You pointed out yourself that as production went on the hours to make Spitfires was reduced. The Spitfire was using construction techniques new to its manufacturer, so it took a while to get a handle on production.

Never heard of the Spitfire breaking its back maneuvering, nor bending its tail plane. Though neither would be unique to the Spitfire, if it were the case.

The Hurricane was adapted to carry (self contained) anti-tank guns. Why couldn't the Spitfire? Just because the Spitfire didn't do it doesn't mean that it couldn't do it. The Hurricane's main advantage in doing the job was the use of the Merlin XX, which gave better low altitude performance. A low altitude Merlin could have been fitted to the Spitfire, even the XX could have been fitted, eventually. But I suspect the reason the Hurricane was chosen for anti-tank duties was that the RAF were looking for roles for the Hurricane, since it was no longer competitive as a fighter in Europe.

Pretty sure Spitfires operated where Hurricanes did, though usually delayed by a year due to the Spitfire being prioritized for home defence.

The Hurricane bomb load seems to have been only slightly better than the Mk V Spitfire - 2 x 500lb max. vs 1 x 500lb or 2 x 250lb.

The Hurricane I and II both used the Rotol prop.

Wouldn't full flaps be required for landing at "difficult aerodromes" anyway? I think the Spitfire's 2 position flaps were more a problem for take-off.

What other jobs could the Hurricane do that the Spitfire could not?

 

[Shortround6]

Never heard of the Spitfire breaking its back maneuvering, nor bending its tail plane. Though neither would be unique to the Spitfire, if it were the case.

There may have been problems with the early Spits. The elevators were overly sensitive (powerful) and precise control was difficult. This was noted in flight tests against a Hawk 75 and may have been noted earlier?
It was also fixed fairly easily by installing a bob weight in the control circuit. This may not have been a 100% fix but it did go a long way in reducing over controlling. Later versions may have used something a bit different?

Please note that I am making no claims as to broken backs or or bent tail planes, Just that the issue of over control (which is different than structural weakness) was found early and acted on. Evaluating planes that had production runs of years and had major modifications done becomes difficult as a certain problem may have only lasted for a comparatively short period of time. Then people try to use some of these problems to criticize the entire production run.

Going to the other extreme, Hawker Typhoons that carried 1000lb bombs instead of 500lb bombs very often had the larger tail plane of the Tempest fitted. Exactly why I don't know but it seems to have become universal for later Typhoons coming off the production lines and some earlier ones were refitted with the larger tail planes. The Typhoon required several modifications in order to be effective with two 1000lb bombs. It was more than beefing up the bomb racks from the two 500lb load standard.

 

[wuzak]

Going to the other extreme, Hawker Typhoons that carried 1000lb bombs instead of 500lb bombs very often had the larger tail plane of the Tempest fitted. Exactly why I don't know but it seems to have become universal for later Typhoons coming off the production lines and some earlier ones were refitted with the larger tail planes. The Typhoon required several modifications in order to be effective with two 1000lb bombs. It was more than beefing up the bomb racks from the two 500lb load standard.

Was the larger tail plane to do with stability?

Were they used when they swapped from 3 to 4 blade props?

 

[Shortround6]

I am not sure about the reasons why they got the larger tail planes.
I know they got them, I know (have read) that some older planes were refitted (at what level of maintenance I don't know).

Point is that that Typhoon was not really ready to go ground pounding in 1942/43 like it did in 1944.

A lot of planes needed tweaks to reach full potential.

 

[wuzak]

I am not sure about the reasons why they got the larger tail planes.
I know they got them, I know (have read) that some older planes were refitted (at what level of maintenance I don't know).

Point is that that Typhoon was not really ready to go ground pounding in 1942/43 like it did in 1944.

A lot of planes needed tweaks to reach full potential.

Some quick research seems to confirm that the larger tail plane was fitted at the same time as the 4 blade prop.

 

[MikeMeech]

Some quick research seems to confirm that the larger tail plane was fitted at the same time as the 4 blade prop.

Hi
During 1999 Stephen Fochuk put some of the Minutes of Air Ministry Meeting on Problems with Aircraft Production, reference 'Typhoon Modifications' on-line (fairly easy to find), one of the minutes is below:

It is interesting to note that the Mustang had similar problems with its four bladed propeller.
Ely Devons in his book 'Planning in Practice - Essays in Aircraft Planning in War-Time', 1950 (reprint 2013) indicates that de Havilland must have overcome these problems and were producing 'surplus':

Devons also comments on the Sabre and problems of how many would be needed, which depended on various other decisions:

Mike

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

The Devastators job at Midway was cannon fodder. The Swordfish could do that equally well. The bonus for the Swordfish is that British torpedoes actually worked so if by some remote chance a Swordfish was able to launch a torpedo it might do damage. As for the Avengers at Midway, 6 went out 5 came back and that one never flew again. 16 of 18 crew dead, no damage to the enemy. The Swordfish couldn't have done much worse .

 

[Ovod]

The Devastators job at Midway was cannon fodder. The Swordfish could do that equally well. The bonus for the Swordfish is that British torpedoes actually worked so if by some remote chance a Swordfish was able to launch a torpedo it might do damage. As for the Avengers at Midway, 6 went out 5 came back and that one never flew again. 16 of 18 crew dead, no damage to the enemy. The Swordfish couldn't have done much worse .

If an Avenger proved vulnerable under those conditions - what chance the Swordfish? The Grumman Avenger had twice the speed and much heavier defensive armament than the Swordfish, as well as a greater combat radius.

 

[SaparotRob]

Still, I like the Admiral's "what if" of radar equipped Swordfish making a night attack at Midway. Don't think Admiral Fletcher would be too thrilled to close with the IJN at night though.

 

[stona]

You have to look at the history of Napier. Military aero-engine manufacturing in the inter-war years was dominated by just four companies (Armstrong Siddeley, Napier, Rolls-Royce and Bristol). Two of those companies failed to commit sufficient resources to research and development meaning their engines were rarely selected for front line aircraft in the 1930s.

Armstrong Siddeley relied on a sort of internal market for its engines, companies like A.V. Roe which were within the group (think of the successful Tutor trainer).

Napier's Lion engine dominated the military market until 1930. The Air Ministry paid the company £5.4 million between 1923 and 1930, more than double the sums paid to any of the other three. In that period average annual profits averaged £190,000. In 1933 the company declared a loss, having failed to develop a successor to the Lion. It's just bad management. Napier was asked by the Air Ministry to develop a new engine similar to the Curtiss D-12 and refused. Rolls-Royce took on the project and the result was the Kestrel. So why was Napier not allowed to continue down the slippery slope to its timely demise? Because the Air Ministry would not allow it. When re-armament got under way almost all the RAF's front line aircraft were powered by engines from just two companies (Rolls-Royce and Bristol) and both had what would become successful engines in development. Between April 1936 and May 1939 these two companies accounted for 83% of British aero-engine production in terms of horse power. Napier had next to nothing. In 1931 the Air Member for Supply as well as Research was a certain Dowding, who noted that Napier had no orders for the following year.

Jump forward a few years and war is on the horizon. Napier is known to be developing the Sabre, with potential performance far better than the Merlin. The aero-engine business had been contracting for years and this gave the Air Ministry serious cause for concern. The Ministry believed that competition between firms was vital to maintain quality. Faced with the prospect of just two companies in the market some felt that something had to be done. In 1935 the Secretary of State for Air was explicitly arguing that it was,

"essential that Messrs. Napiers should be kept alive as a separate entity, in order to prevent the engine industry being constituted on too restricted a basis."

In February 1937 Freeman was writing that,

"The loss of the experienced personnel making up the technical organisation [of Napier] would be a serious loss to the RAF."

In May 1939 he was expressing concern that both Napier and Armstrong-Siddeley were on the verge of leaving the aero-engine business, this at a time when the Sabre was already being developed.

"It was a most unhealthy position for the Air Ministry to be dependent substantially on two firms only."

What could be done? A development order for six Sabre engines had been placed in 1935 and it ran in 1937, the same year as plans for a Sabre engined fighter (Typhoon) were drawn up. Rolls-Royce ran into well known problems with their Vulture and the Bristol Centaurus was still barely off the drawing board. The Air Ministry was not certain that the Hercules would be a success and production plans were still incomplete. The decision to order the Sabre was taken on two grounds. First, it would provide a third string if the Vulture and Centaurus failed. Second, it would keep Napier in the aero-engine business. With hindsight it was a decision which brought a lot of trouble, but at the time it was reasonable enough.

Given the parlous state of Napier at the time it is difficult to see what else could have been done with them. The Sabre was type tested at 2,200 h.p. in 1940, it looked like a reasonable bet to the Air Ministry. In retrospect the effort to make it work (and it was a 3,000 h.p. engine by 1944) might have been better made elsewhere, but elsewhere would not have been with Napier. Napier's next engine was the Nomad, for which no market was found, and that didn't run until 1950! The Sabre probably was the best contribution that Napier could have made.

During the war Hives was wary of the potential success and rejuvenation of Napier. He need not have worried. The company was eventually divided and Napier Aero Engines Ltd became a subsidiary of Rolls-Royce in 1962, losing its identity shortly thereafter.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

If an Avenger proved vulnerable under those conditions - what chance the Swordfish? The Grumman Avenger had twice the speed and much heavier defensive armament than the Swordfish, as well as a greater combat radius.

I not saying the Swordfish would have done better than the Avenger, I am saying that any unescorted torpedo bomber was easy meat. In fact, the loss rate of all torpedo bombers in 1942 was horrendous, even with escorts. As for a comparison with the Devastator, from what I have been able to ascertain a torpedo laden Devastator actually cruised at a slower speed than a similarly laden Swordfish. The Devastator was a monoplane with the performance of a biplane. Even the much maligned Fairey Battle was a much faster aircraft.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

There may have been problems with the early Spits. The elevators were overly sensitive (powerful) and precise control was difficult. This was noted in flight tests against a Hawk 75 and may have been noted earlier?
It was also fixed fairly easily by installing a bob weight in the control circuit. This may not have been a 100% fix but it did go a long way in reducing over controlling. Later versions may have used something a bit different?

The elevator shape was changed

 

[Ovod]

As for a comparison with the Devastator, from what I have been able to ascertain a torpedo laden Devastator actually cruised at a slower speed than a similarly laden Swordfish.

You may need to come up with a reference for that, sounds unlikely to me. One monoplane that the Swordfish biplane might be able to outrun would be the Fieseler Storch, or the L-4 Cub maybe?

 

[SaparotRob]

I was curious about that myself. I've been thinking about the possibility of mounting the radar that the Swordfish carried. I could look it up but what fun is that?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

You may need to come up with a reference for that, sounds unlikely to me. One monoplane that the Swordfish biplane might be able to outrun would be the Fieseler Storch, or the L-4 Cub maybe?

According to Eric Browns "Wings of the Navy" the Swordfish maximum cruise speed was 128 mph. Its econ cruise was 104 mph at 5,000 feet (with 1,500 lb bomb load)
According to Lundstrom in "The First Team" "The Devastators at cruised at 105 knots." This was on their way to attack the Japanese at Midway. Note that the way the Devastator carried a torpedo was extremely unaerodynamic.
Basically the Swordfish and the Devastator were in the same ballpark.

 

[stona]

Note that the way the Devastator carried a torpedo was extremely aerodynamic.

I'm pretty sure you meant UN-aerodynamic, with that curious nose-down attitude.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I'm pretty sure you meant UN-aerodynamic, with that curious nose-down attitude.

Yes!