Pioneer STOL - the Westland Lysander (1 Viewer)

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

michaelmaltby

Colonel
12,473
18,939
Jan 22, 2009
Toronto
Like others here, I have always been a great admirer of the Westland Lysander. Officially an "Army Co-operation aircraft" - that term covers a lot of ground. The RAF P-51's were also lumped into the same category yet clearly were very different aircraft.

I've admired the Lysander in part because - like Lancs, Mosquitos, Hurricanes, Ansons and Cansos - they were built in Canada as part of the Canadian war effort - all started before the USA became involved in 1941.

Canada was opened up after WW1 by aircraft and came to depend on planes that were rugged and that could get in and out of tight places. The RCAF must have found the Lysander a great asset - and there may well have been RCAF pilots who flew the Lysander in safety in Canada and went on to fly covert blackout missions into occupied Europe and/or SE Asia - ferrying agents, arms and supplies in and agents and perhaps high value human assets out.

Was the Lysander the precursor of modern STOL aircraft?

Ironically - when I think of amazing STOL performance I think of the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch and the resue mission by Otto Skorzeni's troops to rescue Musollini. Both were designed at roughly the same time though of different sizes and purposes.

Without detracting from USSAF planes like the Grasshopper and such, I don't think there's a technical comparision between the Storch, Lysander and the US machines.

And finally, lets remember that Glenn Miller disappeared in a USAAF Norseman - another Canadian-built machine that was the first post-WW2 Canadian bush plane and STOL pioneer.

My nationalism is showing here, but there's lots to chew on here: especially the graceful Lysander and the amazing Storch (built post-war by the Swiss if I'm not mistaken.

Anyone ...

Chairs,

michaelmaltby
 
Last edited:
Hi Michael,

>Was the Lysander the precursor of modern STOL aircraft?

No. The Lysander was a compromise between poor-field capability and stable flight characteristics required from an observation plane. As a result, it is somewhat lacking in controllability, quite different from a true STOL aircraft like the Storch.

Read more here: PilotWeb

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Thanks Henning - clear answer.

It sounds like quite a handful - landing that at night must have been a challenge - as my Dad used to say: "all in the way you hold you mouth".

MM
 
Officially an "Army Co-operation aircraft" - that term covers a lot of ground.

G'day Michael.

A concept that was outdated by the time it flew so different roles were sought. Petter and Davenport were constantly trying to improve the Lysander's armament especially in light of the BEF experience. Lysander I (project) L4673- was an attempt to provide a ventral gunners position by enlarging the fuselage, dubbed the "Pregnant Perch," and it was planned to be involved in anti-invasion duties. Unfortunately engine failure resulted it it crashing and the project was abandoned...




(Great site HoHun, Thanks!)
 
When I think of early bush/stol planes, designed for that purpose the early Bellancas come to mind, the Skyrocket and the Airbus/Cruiser.

Slaterat
 
Heres a few shot of one the airworthy 'Lizzies' we have here in the UK. Its actually quite a big plane when you're up close, wth the cockpit looking like you need an 'ology' in mountaineering to reach !

I havent seen that 'Perch' version before. I thought the poor old girl with the four gun powered turret was bizarre enough !
 

Attachments

  • l1.jpg
    l1.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 295
  • l2.jpg
    l2.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 218
  • l3.jpg
    l3.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 202
  • l4.JPG
    l4.JPG
    28.2 KB · Views: 205
The Lysander was big and over powered for what it was. Other aircraft like the Storch did the same on less power, smaller airframe and could land almost vertically...so the Lysander does nothing for me.
 
I thought the poor old girl with the four gun powered turret was bizarre enough !

Yeah, it was subjected to a lot of experimentation. Another trial involved fitting seven foot bench-type dive brakes to the wings of R9126 for the possible role of dive-bomber. 260mph could not be exceeded in the steepest dive but the trim change was so violent it was deemed totally unacceptable...



A four-gun dorsal gun turret was considered but only reached the mock-up stage...


 
For anti invasion duties I believe that they had twin 20mm's to attach to the wheel struts for night straffing.

I've read this as well Glider but I don't know how extensively it was used or fitted. It was first fitted to K6127 and evaluated by No.40 squadron where it was shown to reduce the maximum speed by 12 mph. Green and Swanborough mention that the appropriate mountings for the cannons were supplied to half the front-line strength of UK Lysander Squadrons, but I don't know how many were ever fitted. Most sources describe it as an anti-tank weapon, but that depends on the caption (others describe it as an anti-barge weapon)...




Normal wheel spat armament was two 0.303 inch Browning's with the ammunition feeding down the undercarriage pylon leg...



Another alteration to the Lysander was the application of Blackburn's high lift constant chord wing with 9 degrees of forward sweep..

 
I had also heard that there were enough kits for half the squadrons but have never heard of them being used. Personally I don't fancy their chances of penetrating a Pz III or IV but the Germans had a high proportion of Pz II's which may well have been vulnerable. Again against the barges they could well have been effective or even the tugs pulling the barges.

Never seen a photo of one before, thanks for that.

Its another indication as to what effort the RAF were going to put into attacking the beches. Even Tiger Moths were being armed with small bombs for night raids.
 
medic relief version
source (of all places...) Der Adler

pdf for readability
 

Attachments

  • lysander medic relief.pdf
    4 MB · Views: 187
Hi Michael,

>Was the Lysander the precursor of modern STOL aircraft?

No. The Lysander was a compromise between poor-field capability and stable flight characteristics required from an observation plane. As a result, it is somewhat lacking in controllability, quite different from a true STOL aircraft like the Storch.

Read more here: PilotWeb

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
...and this is probably part of the reason why the UK moved to the more "Grasshopper-like" Auster, later in the war.

FWIW, when I think of early, Large "Bush" planes, I think of the Farichild 100/Pilgrim, the Stinson Detroiter and the single engined version of the JU-52.
All pioneered the use of air service in rugged, under developed regions.


Elvis
 

Attachments

  • AusterMk.V_1944.jpg
    AusterMk.V_1944.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 157

Users who are viewing this thread

Back