Planes that just were not needed
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even the Skua?Peter C. Smith never met a dive bomber he didn't like.
Shortround6
Major General
What if the US Navy had a torpedo that worked in 1942/43?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Agreed...that would have at least validated the efforts and sacrifices of those TB crews.
wuzak
Captain
Why not throw in a Griffon III or VI, if they are available, install 4 cannon instead of 2, clip the wing, add 4 blade prop. Oh wait - they did that already (except for the 4 cannon)!
Would mean more delays in Firefly production.
wuzak
Captain
Shortround6
Major General
Skua, like some other British aircraft, never really got developed versions.Even the Skua?
They built around 1700-1800 SBDs before it got the 1200hp engine in the SBD-5.
A Skua MK III with a a 1050-11hp Taurus engine instead of the 890hp Perseus might have been interesting.
buffnut453
Captain
I'm not sure that Spitfire would've fit the Typhoons shoes when it is about air-to-ground payload. One bomb of 500 lbs vs. two? Four cannons on Spitfire V make for a slow aircraft, with further dent on RoC. Up-armoring the Spitfire V reduces not just performance, but also payload. We already know that Spitfire V is a dog vs. Fw 190 or Bf 109F4/G2 at any altitude.
Then it is range/radius - Typhoon carried more fuel per engine HP than Spitfire, bar Spitfire VII/VIII.
Then it is range/radius - Typhoon carried more fuel per engine HP than Spitfire, bar Spitfire VII/VIII.
Shortround6
Major General
By the time the Typhoon was flying in numbers as a ground attack plane the MK V Spitfire was getting long in the tooth. being around 2 years old. Stick a Merlin cleared for 18lbs of boost in it even if single stage and single speed and the improvement in low altitude performance might be substantial. The Folke Wolf scourge being against Spitfires with 12lb boost limit for the most part if not 9lbs boost.
See performance of a MK V using a Melrin 50 with cropped impeller and 18lb boost limit.
Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance
The fitting of four 20mm cannon is going to have a marginal impact on performance at low levels with that kind of power available compared to the first MKs fitted with four cannon and using 9lb boost.
A dedicated ground attack version might well have a slightly boosted bomb load. Like 3 or 4 250lb bombs?
If you are going to build several thousand on their own production line different fuel tankage might be fitted. Larger tires?
Comparing a 1941 Spitfire MK V to 1943 Typhoon (let alone a 1944 version) doesn't seem quite fair.
A Griffon engine version would be even better but the point is that it might be possible to assemble a Spitfire using exiting parts that could do 75-80% of the typhoons job at much lower cost.
Typhoons engine is also going to suck down fuel at a higher rate than the Merlin so extra fuel capacity doesn't give anywhere near the extra radius the difference in fuel implies.
See performance of a MK V using a Melrin 50 with cropped impeller and 18lb boost limit.
Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance
The fitting of four 20mm cannon is going to have a marginal impact on performance at low levels with that kind of power available compared to the first MKs fitted with four cannon and using 9lb boost.
A dedicated ground attack version might well have a slightly boosted bomb load. Like 3 or 4 250lb bombs?
If you are going to build several thousand on their own production line different fuel tankage might be fitted. Larger tires?
Comparing a 1941 Spitfire MK V to 1943 Typhoon (let alone a 1944 version) doesn't seem quite fair.
A Griffon engine version would be even better but the point is that it might be possible to assemble a Spitfire using exiting parts that could do 75-80% of the typhoons job at much lower cost.
Typhoons engine is also going to suck down fuel at a higher rate than the Merlin so extra fuel capacity doesn't give anywhere near the extra radius the difference in fuel implies.
The usual Spitfire (engines Merin 45 or 50) was not allowed for +18 psig boost, like it was the case for the low level variants with cropped S/C (engines with 'M' suffix). But even with +16 psig, Spitfire V will still do 370 mph, give or take; that is with 'kidney' exhausts, ice guard, and historical fit & finish. Pressure carb might add some speed, though.
Low level Spit V, decent as it was, was still slower than Typhoon at low level by 20+ mph. Fw 190A falls between the two there. Low level Spit is just another P-40 or P-39 prior mid-1943, performance-wise. If even that much.
Carrying 3x250 lbs bombs means something must be removed from Spitfire, and we still did haven't added additional armor or installed full 4 cannons. That have had less rpg than Typhoons historically. Rate of roll, already not that good, also takes a dip with weight added away from centreline. Typhoon, P-39/40 and Fw 190 at least can roll fast as speed goes up.
Four 250 lbs bombs, or twice the max bomb load - chances are slim to none, and Slim has already left the town. Spitfire V's max bomb load was 500 lbs even in 1944.
Fuel: 84 gals/1510 HP = 0.0556; 154/2050=0.0751. Typhoon has 35% more fuel per installed HP (emergency power) than Spitfire V.
Low level Spit V, decent as it was, was still slower than Typhoon at low level by 20+ mph. Fw 190A falls between the two there. Low level Spit is just another P-40 or P-39 prior mid-1943, performance-wise. If even that much.
Carrying 3x250 lbs bombs means something must be removed from Spitfire, and we still did haven't added additional armor or installed full 4 cannons. That have had less rpg than Typhoons historically. Rate of roll, already not that good, also takes a dip with weight added away from centreline. Typhoon, P-39/40 and Fw 190 at least can roll fast as speed goes up.
Four 250 lbs bombs, or twice the max bomb load - chances are slim to none, and Slim has already left the town. Spitfire V's max bomb load was 500 lbs even in 1944.
Fuel: 84 gals/1510 HP = 0.0556; 154/2050=0.0751. Typhoon has 35% more fuel per installed HP (emergency power) than Spitfire V.
Ascent
Senior Airman
There is an ex vengeance pilot who writes on another forum who has put down a lot of his memories. It's really interesting to read and makes you realise what work they actually did in the far East.
His description of how they carried out there attacks is brilliant, rolling over to dive vertically using a yellow line painted on the cowling as a sight.
His description of how they carried out there attacks is brilliant, rolling over to dive vertically using a yellow line painted on the cowling as a sight.
Why bother? The Typhoon was a proven and effective ground attack aircraft, one of the best of the war. The Spitfire, like almost any fighter, could 'do' ground attack, but was far better suited to other roles which the Typhoon could not do.
Cheers
Steve
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 504
- Apr 23, 2007
It is strange that nobody seems to have mentioned high altitude interceptors such as the Westland Welkin of which according to Wikipedia "77 complete Welkins were produced, plus a further 26 as engine-less airframes" or the Vickers Type 432. The Germans had equally little use for the Bv 155.
Another unsuccessful type was the light fighter, with failures including the Bell XP-77, Caudron C.714, Miles M.20 and perhaps the designs leading to the Ambrosini SAI.403, although the last might have just worked had it entered service. The light fighter concept missed the problem that fighters were never in such short supply as good pilots.
Requirements specifying non-strategic materials also tended to produce turkeys. A British example was the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle, although it was the first British bomber with a nose wheel. The Finns produced the Myrsky and Germany the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 and instead of replacing the Ju 52 by the excellent Ju 252, developed the Ju 352. Determined to have the biggest failure, the Americans built the Spruce Goose. Of course, the La 5 was OK and the Mosquito was not too bad!
The Japanese, uniquely, wasted time developing a float plane fighter, the Kawanishi N1K1.
Another unsuccessful type was the light fighter, with failures including the Bell XP-77, Caudron C.714, Miles M.20 and perhaps the designs leading to the Ambrosini SAI.403, although the last might have just worked had it entered service. The light fighter concept missed the problem that fighters were never in such short supply as good pilots.
Requirements specifying non-strategic materials also tended to produce turkeys. A British example was the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle, although it was the first British bomber with a nose wheel. The Finns produced the Myrsky and Germany the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 and instead of replacing the Ju 52 by the excellent Ju 252, developed the Ju 352. Determined to have the biggest failure, the Americans built the Spruce Goose. Of course, the La 5 was OK and the Mosquito was not too bad!
The Japanese, uniquely, wasted time developing a float plane fighter, the Kawanishi N1K1.
Again, the Welkin was needed, it's why Specification F.4/40 was issued. There is always a lag between issuing a specification to meet a threat, in this case high altitude German reconnaissance, and the delivery of an aircraft. The first prototype didn't fly until November 1942, and the first production aircraft not until June 1943. By this time the RAF had lost interest in the project. High flying German reconnaissance aircraft never posed the anticipated risk and by now the RAF had the de Havilland Mosquito, a superior aircraft built from non-strategic materials. The use of such materials had been vital to the establishment of the project. De Havilland's chief development engineer (C.G.Long) showed Beaverbrook the material schedule for the Mosquito in June 1940, proving that it required minimal strategic materials, in a successful effort to revive the project. Quite apart from the well known use of wood he also showed that even forgings were largely replaced by high strength castings and that machining was minimised.
The Mosquito was certainly not a Turkey
The Vickers Type 432, of which only one was completed in any case, had its roots in the quest for firepower which exercised the minds of men in the Ministry during the pre-war period. The Type 432 can trace its origins, through various specifications and types all the way back to F.6/39. It looked a lot like the proposed 40mm armed Type 414 (to F22./39) but with 6 x 20mm cannon instead.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Actually it was more a perceived need as the Germans, British and Americans all thought that combat altitudes would continue to rise as the war/time went on. However combat with piston powered aircraft was a lot more difficult at 40,000ft and up than they thought and the planes required too much in the way of specialized features to be much good at anything else. The research came in handy for jets (pressure cabins, etc) and while a few combats did take place at over 40,000ft (Stipped Spits vs JU-86) neither side managed to come up with enough (or good enough) high altitude bombers to make production of a high altitude interceptor worthwhile.
The Mosquito is one of the few exceptions to the non-strategic materiel generalization. For the most part other attempts went from dismal failures to perhaps adequate aircraft. Japanese tried to build a wooden Ki 84. it gained 600lbs in weight.
The light fighter concept was mythical creature. BTW the Miles M.20 was NOT a light fighter.
Light fighters are planes that use a smaller than normal engine and smaller than normal airframe and often lighter than normal armament in order to keep performance. Gross weight was often 1/2-2/3 the weight of "Normal" fighters of the time.
The French were particularly enamored of the concept with 6 different prototypes (including the Caudron C.714 as a prototype although over 50 were built) existing in 1940.
It never proved out in practice using piston engines.
The Mosquito is one of the few exceptions to the non-strategic materiel generalization. For the most part other attempts went from dismal failures to perhaps adequate aircraft. Japanese tried to build a wooden Ki 84. it gained 600lbs in weight.
The light fighter concept was mythical creature. BTW the Miles M.20 was NOT a light fighter.
Light fighters are planes that use a smaller than normal engine and smaller than normal airframe and often lighter than normal armament in order to keep performance. Gross weight was often 1/2-2/3 the weight of "Normal" fighters of the time.
The French were particularly enamored of the concept with 6 different prototypes (including the Caudron C.714 as a prototype although over 50 were built) existing in 1940.
It never proved out in practice using piston engines.
F.4/40 was raised in direct response to the arrival of Ju 86 Ps in British air space, which the RAF was supposed to protect, at altitudes that made them effectively invulnerable.
By the time the Welkin became available this very real threat had proved to be just that, a threat and not a problem. If the Air Ministry had ignored these intrusions in 1940, not raised the specification, and then had the Luftwaffe arrive in force at these altitudes it would rightly have been charged with negligence.
Once again we have hindsight, whereas the decision makers at the time did not.
Cheers
Steve
Attachments
I would take those claims, all of them, regardless of type, with a very large grain of salt.
It is a well established fact that cannon/machine gun were by far the most accurate weapons that fighter-bomber aircraft carried. The Spitfire had no other option, whereas the Typhoon and others did.
Evidence collected on the battlefield by the 2nd TAF's own Operational Research Section did not support anything like the level of claiming in those tables.
Cheers
Steve
It is a well established fact that cannon/machine gun were by far the most accurate weapons that fighter-bomber aircraft carried. The Spitfire had no other option, whereas the Typhoon and others did.
Evidence collected on the battlefield by the 2nd TAF's own Operational Research Section did not support anything like the level of claiming in those tables.
Cheers
Steve
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
