Polish AF: preparing for 1939
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK. .. How did the Poland control the city then?
You might ask why the Poles built and developed the sea port at Gdynia if they had such control of Gdansk
Cheers
Steve
A good question here Steve.
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
You might ask why the Poles built and developed the sea port at Gdynia if they had such control of Gdansk
Cheers
Steve
Because they did not have complete control of the seaport and needed a naval base.
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
They had a binding customs union with the "Free City" essentially owning it.
Interesting... The first naval base in Poland was set in Puck at the beginning of 1920. In the same year a decisson was made to start building of a new port in Gdynia. Untill 1926 the Polish Navy HQ was just in Puck.
It was on paper only. In fact the Polish rights were sabotaged by the the Free City's government from the beginning of the existing of the "Free City". The German population deeply resented being separated from Germany, and subjected the Polish minority to discrimination and ethnically based harassment. This was specially true after the Nazi Party got political control in 1935-36 and later.
By the way do you know to whom the city had belonged before it became the German one?
A customs union is not ownership. It was exactly what it said, a customs union between Poland and Danzig. It is only in the modern era that this might be seen as a first step on a road to closer economic (not political) union.
Many of the conditions laid down or implemented (as part of the Versailles treaty conditions in the case of Danzig) under the auspices of the League of Nations were being ignored or worse by the 1930s, and not just by Germany.
Cheers
Steve
Many of the conditions laid down or implemented (as part of the Versailles treaty conditions in the case of Danzig) under the auspices of the League of Nations were being ignored or worse by the 1930s, and not just by Germany.
Cheers
Steve
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
It was Polish, but how is that relevant?
Last edited:
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
But the Poles must have had some power over Danzig "behind the scenes", as I don't understand why if there wasn't any, then why didn't Danzig join Germany sooner, and why did the Nazi government ask/demand Poland, Danzig?
Just I was curious.
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
Just to be clear I'm not advocating that the Nazi's should've been given Danzig or anything like that. I always thought and heard that Poland de facto owned Danzig and this is the first time that I've heard that Nazi Germany was in-fact the de facto ruler of Danzig, and I'm just curious as to the "how".
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
A non-export variant of the P.11 with similar armament and engine power to the P.24 would be a similarly useful stopgap. The proposed P.11G lacked the heavier 20 mm cannon armament of the P.24 though. A Pegasus powered P.11/24 variant might also have been useful as an interim solution. (though I still think standardizing production of 14K derivatives with Romania might be the most useful -further, those exported and license built Romanian P.24Es would have been more mutually useful had Poland managed to establish an alliance with Romania)
Production cost seems to be the most valid criticism over the PZL.38 and up-engining it (or a similar design) would likely worsen that drawback, but it might still be a more interesting option if some of the military spending was redirected to the air force.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Huh, something I missed before was how similar the PZL.50 ended up being to Gloster's F.5/34 in size and appearance, yet it ended up roughly 50 MPH slower using a similar engine. (also flew a couple years after the gloster monoplane.
Aside from that I'd forgotten to suggest one other option (though obviously most of these suggestions require additional military funding and interest). Go for middleground between the P.24 (and P.11g) and PZL.50 project with something that maintains more commonality with the existing P.11/24 wings and fuselage while adopting a low-wing configruation with retractable landing gear. (possibly retaining the existing outer wings and gun mounts and mating them to a new -likely fairly thick- low wing center section carrying the landing gear) With similar engines, they should be at least somewhat faster or as fast with some weight gain from heavier armament and/or armor (if such modifications were actually undertaken). With the existing fuselage and wing you could have 6 LMGs (with fuselage guns) and possibilities for 2 or possibly 4 20 mm Oerlikon FF cannons in the wings. (4 LMGs and 2 20 mm cannons seems more likely due to weight and due to the 4 cannon armament being limited to the P.24H -also an interesting possibility but hinging on use of the more powerful 14N engine)
In terms of fighter vs fighter combat, the 6 LMG configuration seems like the most attractive option.
Alternately, a low-wing configuration with streamlined fixed landing gear using the P.11/24 fuselage (and portions of the wing) might be a better option than licensing or importing the D.XXI. If not any better performing, it might at least be faster to set up for production with PZL (if they started development soon enough) and would avoid license overhead. The low-wing arrangement should also improve forward-side visibility significantly over the P.11 and P.24.
Aside from that I'd forgotten to suggest one other option (though obviously most of these suggestions require additional military funding and interest). Go for middleground between the P.24 (and P.11g) and PZL.50 project with something that maintains more commonality with the existing P.11/24 wings and fuselage while adopting a low-wing configruation with retractable landing gear. (possibly retaining the existing outer wings and gun mounts and mating them to a new -likely fairly thick- low wing center section carrying the landing gear) With similar engines, they should be at least somewhat faster or as fast with some weight gain from heavier armament and/or armor (if such modifications were actually undertaken). With the existing fuselage and wing you could have 6 LMGs (with fuselage guns) and possibilities for 2 or possibly 4 20 mm Oerlikon FF cannons in the wings. (4 LMGs and 2 20 mm cannons seems more likely due to weight and due to the 4 cannon armament being limited to the P.24H -also an interesting possibility but hinging on use of the more powerful 14N engine)
In terms of fighter vs fighter combat, the 6 LMG configuration seems like the most attractive option.
Alternately, a low-wing configuration with streamlined fixed landing gear using the P.11/24 fuselage (and portions of the wing) might be a better option than licensing or importing the D.XXI. If not any better performing, it might at least be faster to set up for production with PZL (if they started development soon enough) and would avoid license overhead. The low-wing arrangement should also improve forward-side visibility significantly over the P.11 and P.24.
parsifal
Colonel
The constraint holding the Poles back was engines and money, but after 1937 it was also time working against them. Basically the Poles had to have their engine manufacture bedded down by the end of 1936. If they didnt have an airframe ready to go by the beginning of 1937, they might get about 1 year more, if they just went for someone elses design off the shelf. Problem is, that by 1937, their major allies, the French and the brits are going gangbusters themselves trying to rearm, and the Americans are over priced and not fully matured as aircraft manufacturers. Indigenous production has basically the P-24 and the P-50. P-50 design began at the end of 1936, progressed through to the middle of 1938. But the engine delivery for the prototype and the retracs were badly delayed until the end of the year and this basically meant the type was by then too late for squadron entry by September 1939.
For the P-24, it first flew in June 1933, then with the Gnome Rhone 14KD engine (930hp) towards the end of 1934. It was an evolutionary progression of the p-11, which made its development a lot easier. Its the engine that attracts my eye. The KD Gnome Rhone was under licence production in Poland from 1935 (I think) and there is not a lot technologically with the 1050hp rated 14N. 14N was available from the beginning of 1937, at which time it was immediately pressed into the design of several aircraft foregn to the French. The 14N powered a number of aircraft, including some Dutch designs like the FK58, which was commissioned by the FAF, progressed very slowly and basically went nowhere. But as a design it was ready by the middle of 1938. If the Poles had opted to build the 14N engine and licence build the FK58 from the middle of 1938, they may have just been able have that aircraft in squadron service by May 1939....maybe. It was an aircraft better than the MS406, roughly on par with the MB 152, so a good step up from p-11, and a better solution than the p-24, and ahead in the timeline to the P-50. but there are a lot of ifs and maybes between concept and delivery.......
For the P-24, it first flew in June 1933, then with the Gnome Rhone 14KD engine (930hp) towards the end of 1934. It was an evolutionary progression of the p-11, which made its development a lot easier. Its the engine that attracts my eye. The KD Gnome Rhone was under licence production in Poland from 1935 (I think) and there is not a lot technologically with the 1050hp rated 14N. 14N was available from the beginning of 1937, at which time it was immediately pressed into the design of several aircraft foregn to the French. The 14N powered a number of aircraft, including some Dutch designs like the FK58, which was commissioned by the FAF, progressed very slowly and basically went nowhere. But as a design it was ready by the middle of 1938. If the Poles had opted to build the 14N engine and licence build the FK58 from the middle of 1938, they may have just been able have that aircraft in squadron service by May 1939....maybe. It was an aircraft better than the MS406, roughly on par with the MB 152, so a good step up from p-11, and a better solution than the p-24, and ahead in the timeline to the P-50. but there are a lot of ifs and maybes between concept and delivery.......
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The prototypes engine came direct from Bristol so should have been up to the standards of the F5/34s engine but I have read in several places that the carburetor inlet was very badly designed robbing power.
Shortround6
Major General
The outside of the carb inlet looks close to the one on the F.5/34 but it is the twists and turns that lead to the carb inlet that matter. I believe the Mercury used a updraft carb so the passage to the carb shouldn't have been too bad.
The Gloster number just seems too good to be true compared to many other planes of it's era and power.
The Gloster number just seems too good to be true compared to many other planes of it's era and power.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Again, you also have the Pegasus under license powering the PZL.37, but the smaller diameter 14K and 14N seems a better direction to go in. Given the performance the 14K derivatives were giving, those would seem more attractive than getting the Mercury VIII into production. Transitioning to 14N production or further 14K derivatives would certainly be a possibility. (even without more power, working on the supercharger might have been more useful for improving altitude performance -one of the advantages of the Mercury)
Still, the Pegasus was in production well before the Mercury VIII, so it would be a real option to consider for a P.11 derivative or for the P.50 prototype. (doing initial testing with fixed landing gear might expedite development of the latter too) The Gnome Rhone engines retained the advantage of flexibility for export and smaller diameter. (and high-power 14K derivatives were being built in Romania)
It might be possible to upgrade the existing P.11C fleet to something closer to P.24 standards with new engines and modified armament. (adopting a 6 LMG arrangement might be simpler than adding cannon mounts)
The PZL.38 still seems interesting. The PZL.37 was the most advanced warplane the Poles had in service and one of the more impressive medium bombers around leading up to the war. The PZL.38's route of scaling down the PZL.37 seems rather sound there (though internal structural redesign is obviously needed for the strains a fighter goes though) and adapting the 2-seat configuration to a single-seat one also seems fairly straightforward while also more advantageous than some contemporary heavy fighters. (the PZL.38 was a pretty small/compact twin more in the range of the Hurricane or P-36's size, somewhat akin to the later Whirlwind) Given the engine logistics involved, I still say using the older 645 hp Mercury VI.S2 should be a serious consideration, including engines potentially pulled from P.11Cs.
Obviously, larger plans for adapting the more powerful 14K or Mercury VIII (again 14K seems preferable) but working with limited resources and aiming at having as many capable combat aircraft as possible, reserving more of the higher powered engines to single-engined fighters seems feasible, especially if that combined 1290 hp at 15,500 ft the Mercury offered managed to push the little 'heavy' fighter into the 300 mph range. (the Pegasus would seem like a worse idea to try on the P.38, it might be useful on a single engine fighter but the added weight and drag of twin 55 inch radials seems less worthwhile, especially on such a small twin) The 14M would actually be really interesting to use, but that breaks into the issue of limited engine production and the ideal situation of streamlined/unified engine production with as few distinct models as possible. (and new bore/stroke and tooling)
Those 645 HP mercuries are going to be pretty much useless otherwise anyway, at least as far as combat aircraft are concerned (possibly better for training) but might be effective used in pairs.
The Gloster figures match up fairly well with the IAR 80 prototype with roughly similar size and power IAR K14-III C32. (somewhat lower critical altitude as well) Like the F.5/34 prototype, this would have been without full military load.
There might also have just been a variety of aerodynamic problems with the PZL.50 holding it back. Plenty of aircraft had dramatic performance increases after a number of (often visually superficial) modifications were made. The XP-40 and XF2A-1 come to mind. They'd have needed a good deal earlier start on the PZL.50 to give enough time to make such modifications, though.
The IAR 80 itself is obviously a compelling choice for Poland, but it comes too late to be relevant for something able to be fielded (or at least in production) by late 1938. (granted, the PZL.50 didn't fly much sooner, so an earlier project would be needed in any case)
net_sailor
Senior Airman
There is one big hole in your idea. The outer parts of wing in section containing the gun bays were designed with struts. There were no possible jut to fit it with a new center section, without serious changes. Generally the Polish constructors of P.50 followed the best and easy way. They took P.11 semi-monocoque fuselage and merged with new truss structure section containing cockpit and engine compartment. To this tubular section a new wing center section with retractable landing gear was fitted. General idea was to use the most existing parts as they could. However the tubular section was made of steel, and was too heavy for kite with Mercury VIII cause airframe has enough strength to adopt much heavier engines. The more powerful GR 14N was considered for export purposes only, and the second prototype with this powerplant was under construction. Why they didn't took GR as the standard equipment for the PAF? It is a long and interesting story. In short words the French were considered as totally unreliable parters. An GR engines bought for the test failed on the testbed, large quantities of engines (for export partners) were delivered ALWAYS behind schedule sometimes damaged or with some essential parts missing (starters, propeller hubs etc.). If the export partner wanted to risk his time and money Poles din't care about that. The second factor was the Bristol licence agreement did'n allow to sell Polish licence copy of engines abroad. That's why P.11b and P.24 were sold with GR engines, as well P.37 Łoś was offered with GR's.
About P.50 with Pegasus engine. This was not suitable choice for the fighter. Pegasus was typical bomber engine with more power on the ground level, and poor high altitude performances. The full-throttle hight was 3,5 km only, and the power decreased rapidly above that level.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Thanks, so the gun bays are all in line with or inboard of the support struts and the free-standing outboard portion of the wing wouldn't carry any of them. One idea that might have worked is a low wing with struts attaching to the top of the wing. That might not be very useful though between the lack of gains in drag and engineering effort needed. Probably just better to focus on the all-new wing design.
I think my point about starting with fixed landing gear on the P.50 to speed up initial testing would still be useful. Getting something on par or superior to the D.XXI would have been a very useful step forward. (seems like that would have been a good compromise to work towards in place of the earlier P.39 light fighter efforts)
Do you have any idea why the fuselage machine guns were dropped from the P.24? Offering 6 gun versions seems like an attractive option and they did consider 4 canons, so unless there was some problem with the synchronized guns, it seems odd to remove them. (6 7.92 mm Brownings would be lighter than the 2 LMG + 2 20 mm armament and arguably more useful against other fighters -given the slightly more powerful ammunition and I believe slightly higher rate of fire than the .303 browning, it might not be too far from the Hurricane's armament)
The added steel tube structure was too weak to cope with the stress from the more powerful engine, but the fuselage itself was strong enough? (and the older P.11 and P.24 airframes that didn't have that steel tube truss section had already been strong enough to handle more power?)
I was suggesting licensed production of the Gnome Rhone 14K (or N, but mostly directing it towards the earlier K) like the Romanians did and focusing on models of that engine rather than adopting the newer mercury, or building the Pegasus for that matter. If it was cheaper to expand their licenses with Bristol than get one for GR engines, that would certainly be a good counter argument. (in which case, more effort to get the Mercury VIII into production sooner would have been the most practical option)
I was actually thinking more of using the Pegasus for an upgrade for the P.11 more like the P.24 already did and the P.11G was intended to do with the Mercury VIII. Unless I'm mistaken, the Pegasus was in production in Poland under license already (unlike the Mercury VIII) and at least gave significantly more power than the older Mercury VI used in the P.11c.
It seems the 2 most powerful aircraft engines Poland had in production by 1938 were the Pegasus XX (powering the PZL.37) and the older Mercury VI.S2, with the Mercury VIII planned but not yet in volume production. (unless I'm mistaken and all those Pegasus engines were imported) So the only options for a more powerful fighter using existing engine production would be using the Pegasus or adopting a twin-engine configuration with those older Mercury engines.
net_sailor
Senior Airman
The landing gear originally was developed by Dowty, but contractor failed and finally PZL had to built own gear. The delay takes few months and the provisional fixed gear would be highly recommended.
If you reefer to P.24 prototype I have to check the problem.
All PZL gullwings had front sections with tubular structure but in different range:
on P.7 - from the wing joint section to the engine strut
on P.11c - from the cokcpit, along the wing joint to the engine strut
on P.24 - again from the wing joint to the engine strut
Rear fuselage section was semi-monocoque and strong enough to take more powerful engines. That's why it could be used for further development. In Romania they took P.24 fuselage with integral cockpit section, so the wing joint on IAR.80 was in front of the cockpit. On Polish P.50 the wing joint was located under cockpit section, cause rear fuselage belonged to P.11c and all cockpit tubular structure was redesigned to take new wing center section. This tubular part on P.50 was very heavy for two reasons: use of steel against aluminium tubes to gain more strength for further GR 14N engines and wrong stress distribution (tube truss was too low in side view - that made all parts oversized).
When licence production of GR 14K was possible in Polish high command there were no interest in high power engine for the fighters. Till 1938 the PZL.38 Wilk was under development with pair of Foka engines - both should produce no less power as one powerful engine (2 x 420HP). Moreover, the Foka engines could be used solely for other types: P.39 lightweight fighter and LWS-3 Mewa reconnaissance aircraft. After the Foka fiasco a new engine was necessary. For the classic pursuit fighter (P.50) the Mercury VIII was chosen, as well GR 14M for other types (PZL.45 Sokół lightweight fighter, LWS-3 Mewa, PZL.48 Lampart two engine destroyer).
OK, but again Pegasus engines was not suitable for a fighters. Mercury VI was not considered any more for the future aircraft due an obsolete construction. On summer 1939 a licence production of Mercury VIII has begun and few dozen engines were produced before the war broke (captured engines Germans sold to Finland). After the summer tests of the P.50 prototype, this aircraft was found underpowered and PZL started looking for another powerplant. All Mercury VIII production was directed to P.11g "emergency fighter program".
Balljoint
Senior Airman
Treaty Of Versailles - Poland, East Prussia and Danzig
Also, it didn't help that Poland took more territory from Germany during –I think- 1919. And then they were attacked by Russia about the same period and unexpectedly kicked Russia's butt.
Poor Poland. Twenty years later the memories were still fresh with Stalin and Hitler.
Of course Poland was the invasion route between Germany and USSR.
