RAF BoB Fighters OTL ATL v Me-109

[Shortround6]

The Beaufighter was the first British cannon armed fighter to go into service and it rather illustrates the problems of the time and "estimates" of performance.

It went into production in July of 1940 and a few over 100 were completed by the end of December. Production would follow normal lines, a handful of planes per month with general increase each month. Granted it is a twin but you need planes by the hundreds for the BoB, not dozens per month or handfuls.
The Beaufighter was also slower than expected. Good as it was at some jobs it's performance was a disappointment and the expected performance is part of the reason some of the other planes (like the Gloster) were canceled.

It is also a bit of a stretch to claim that the 1941 Hawker Typhoon was "successful". It took until the end of 1942 for the Typhoon to become reliable.

One has to wonder what a 1942 Whirlwind would have been like?

 

[davparlr]

What the heck is OTL and ATL?

Doesn't compute.

Thanks for asking, Greg.

 

[pbehn]

Merlin, based on your comment on the Defiant, I suspect you have little to say about it. The fact was that it was not being used in the role for which it was designed. Its failure was also down to tactics. It could have played a different part in the BoB had it been employed in the role for which it was designed - as a bomber destroyer and it was based in 13 Group in the north and Scotland, where LW bombers did not have single-seat fighter escort. This would also make RAF single-seat fighters based in the north available down south. The other problem with the Defiant was not just its low speed, but also its numbers, there weren't that many of them; only two squadrons, of which only one was active in more than one day's combat. As a nightfighter the Defiant performed admirably and became the RAF's night fighter of choice until the Beaufighters and Mossies entered service in suitable numbers in 1942.

It had always puzzled me why the defiant wasn't put up in the north. But it puzzles me how it got into service, I presume no one thought of France falling.

 

[Shortround6]

But it puzzles me how it got into service, I presume no one thought of France falling.

Probably not. By the thinking of the day (1937-39) France was one of the most powerful Nations on Earth, at least in the size of it's army. It took WW II (and after) to bring out the fact that simple counts of bayonets, tanks or artillery tubes weren't the best way of rating a countries power but only a start.

 

[Juha]

...There was no way the P-36 was going to be ready in time for the BoB. The first French examples arrived in the UK in August 1940, but it took many months before they were made serviceable for RAF/SAAF squadron service, not until the very end of the year...

There was a simple way to get Hawk 75As used by France, Holland, Iran and Norway, simply order them from Curtiss. Would that have been a wise thing to do is another question.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

In OTL in the BoB the RAF had three single-engine fighters, the Hurricane, the Spitfire Defiant - the less said about the latter as possible.
Where possible the tactics were for the Spits to take on the 109s, but in practice it didn't always happen that way.
Any German 109 pilot that was shot down always insisted it was by a Spit - such was the low regard they held the Hurricane!

So, given that the Spit v 109 was a close call, they both had their advantages, and the Hurricane v 109 whilst the 109 was superior it didn't 'win' all the encounters! How would ATL aircraft cope?

Gloster f.5/34 - could depend on the engine fitted, but has the best cockpit canopy for all round vision, is said to be easy to fly, slower yes than the 109 but similar to the Hurricane; its problem maybe altitude performance!?

Boulton-Paul P.94 - plausible to get some in service, said to be almost as fast as the Spit., but would the length impair combat performance!?

Curtis P-36 - said to have done quite well in France, personally I'm not convinced - BoB combat was at higher altitude than in France.

Grumman Martlet - again plausible to get some in service, but dubious that this early (export) version could cope e.g. rate of climb!?

Boulton-Paul P.88a - could've been available, again depends what hp the Hercules engine it has goes up to. A big machine, robust, IMO likely to be a little faster than the Hurricane - and with those cannon once you get hit your down out!!?

Gloster F.9/37 - again could've been available with earlier PODs, granted it's a 'twin' but Blenheim 1Fs were in 109 range, the Gloster twin was much faster and said to handle well?

Westland Whirlwind - problems with manufacture and the engine, long take-off, nevertheless maybe some could've been available earlier, it was best at low to medium altitude!?

Others ?

I have posted this elsewhere, curious what everyone here thinks.

Other alternatives, if UK aero industry was freed to work on them:

The MB-2: Martin-Baker MB 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hawker Tornado: Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)

Hawker Typhoon: Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)

Gloster Gladiator: Gloster Gladiator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with uprated engine, CS prop and 6 x .303 MGs?)

Fairey Fulmar: Fairey Fulmar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with Merlin X or XII engine or better still, the RR Griffon?)

Fairey Fantome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fantôme

Gregor FDB-1: Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (with uprated engines?)

last, but not least, the Vickers Venom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Venom

(by no means an exhaustive list - I'm sure there were many other potential alternatives)

 

[Shortround6]

The main problem here is what was the production capacity of Curtiss and how fast could it be expanded? The US had ordered over 500 P-40s in April of 1939. Since an early P-40 is a Hawk 75 from the firewall back they are made using a LOT of the Hawk 75 (P-36) production tooling, floor space and workers. There was some swapping around of US deliveries (delayed) to accommodate French and British orders but Curtiss was working pretty much flat out to deliver what was already ordered. To the extent of working on planes outdoors in Buffalo, New York. Not much different than Toronto Canada.

 

[Shortround6]

Other alternatives, if UK aero industry was freed to work on them:

The MB-2: Martin-Baker MB 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs a new engine and landing gear.

Hawker Tornado: Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)

Hawker Typhoon: Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with earlier Griffon?)

For an early Griffon you need R-R to keep developing the Buzzard/ "R" engine during the 30s which might have slowed down the Melrin. And sticking a 1400-1500hp engine (87-100 octane fuel not 100/130)in air-frame meant for a 2000hp engine may not get the results you want.

Gloster Gladiator: Gloster Gladiator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with uprated engine, CS prop and 6 x .303 MGs?)

Pick one direction or the other, higher performance or more fire power. Even with 100 octane (which will NOT change power at altitude) and a CS prop you won't really get both. Keep 4 guns and go for a bit of extra performance or add two more guns, ammo and equipment and use up a fair amount of the the performance.

Fairey Fulmar: Fairey Fulmar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (maybe with Merlin X or XII engine or better still, the RR Griffon?)

The Merlin XII allowed the Spitfire II to hang on to Early Spitfire performance despite weight gains due to increased operational equipment. Don't expect much sticking it in a two seat aircraft. Merlin X will improve things at low altitude ( already pretty much covered by the 12lbs of boost) but only raises combat altitude over a Merlin III by around 1,000ft.

Fairey Fantome: Fairey Fantôme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gregor FDB-1: Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (with uprated engines?)

The Biplanes won't stop either the 109 or the 110. Lacking in speed and firepower. P&W was stopping production of the R-1535 and the R-1830 weighed several hundred pounds more, needed a bigger prop and still won't be fast enough.

 

[RCAFson]

For an early Griffon you need R-R to keep developing the Buzzard/ "R" engine during the 30s which might have slowed down the Melrin. And sticking a 1400-1500hp engine (87-100 octane fuel not 100/130)in air-frame meant for a 2000hp engine may not get the results you want.

Given that there's a lot less demand for the Merlin (sans Hurricane and Spitfire), I think RR would have more time for the Griffon. The Griffon IIB produced 1730/1490hp with 100 octane fuel, which should get the Tornado/Typhoon to Spit MK 1 levels of performance.

Pick one direction or the other, higher performance or more fire power. Even with 100 octane (which will NOT change power at altitude) and a CS prop you won't really get both. Keep 4 guns and go for a bit of extra performance or add two more guns, ammo and equipment and use up a fair amount of the the performance.

In Malta, the Gladiator was field modded with ex-Blenheim engines and props for an increase in performance showing that there was still unused potential in the design.

The Merlin XII allowed the Spitfire II to hang on to Early Spitfire performance despite weight gains due to increased operational equipment. Don't expect much sticking it in a two seat aircraft. Merlin X will improve things at low altitude ( already pretty much covered by the 12lbs of boost) but only raises combat altitude over a Merlin III by around 1,000ft.

The Fulmar was handicapped as an interceptor by the low altitude rated engines; a high altitude rated engine (even the Merlin III) will considerably boost high altitude performance allowing the Fulmar to act as a bomber killer, especially in areas out of reach by the 109 and a non-naval Fulmar will be somewhat lighter because there's no need for folding wings.

The Biplanes won't stop either the 109 or the 110. Lacking in speed and firepower. P&W was stopping production of the R-1535 and the R-1830 weighed several hundred pounds more, needed a bigger prop and still won't be fast enough.

Biplanes are much lighter (and cheaper) than monoplanes, meaning there can be more off them. They just have to hold the fort until the next generation of high speed monoplanes can be put into production. The Gladiator actually had a pretty good record against the 109 and 110, and an improved Gladiator or other biplane should do even better.

 

[Shortround6]

Given that there's a lot less demand for the Merlin (sans Hurricane and Spitfire), I think RR would have more time for the Griffon. The Griffon IIB produced 1730/1490hp with 100 octane fuel, which should get the Tornado/Typhoon to Spit MK 1 levels of performance.

Those numbers are with 100/130 fuel which was not available in 1940. The Fuel available in 1940 was 100/115-120 or so depending on batch. In 1940 they had no scale or standardized test to measure rich mixture response. Initial testing of the engines up until 1939 would have been done with 87 octane fuel which is why R-R built the Vulture and Napier went for the Sabre engine ( and Bristol was working on the Centaurus). (P&W R-2800 was originally supposed to be a 1650 hp engine on 87 octane fuel).

In Malta, the Gladiator was field modded with ex-Blenheim engines and props for an increase in performance showing that there was still unused potential in the design.

Picking a margin of performance against Fiat CR 42s or even MC 200s whose engines were very similar in power to the Mercury is rather different than trying to fight against Bf 109Es.

The Fulmar was handicapped as an interceptor by the low altitude rated engines; a high altitude rated engine (even the Merlin III) will considerably boost high altitude performance allowing the Fulmar to act as a bomber killer, especially in areas out of reach by the 109 and a non-naval Fulmar will be somewhat lighter because there's no need for folding wings.

Using a single speed Merlin would trade high altitude performance for low altitude performance. Please note that the Fulmar is a large/ heavy single engine aircraft for the time. Empty (no guns or radio) it weighs more than a Hurricane or Spitfire loaded with ammo fuel and pilot. Leaving out the wing hinges is NOT going to correct that. Engine availability or allowable boost limits in Aug/Sept of 1940 are not what they would be in the Spring of 1941.

Biplanes are much lighter (and cheaper) than monoplanes, meaning there can be more off them. They just have to hold the fort until the next generation of high speed monoplanes can be put into production. The Gladiator actually had a pretty good record against the 109 and 110, and an improved Gladiator or other biplane should do even better.

They may be lighter but a large part of that is the lighter/less powerful engine, the lighter armament, less fuel for the less powerful engine. Also few 1930s biplanes carried armor or self sealing tanks.

If your real problem is a shortage of trained pilots, putting the pilots you do have into combat in second (or third) rate fighters just means you loose your pilots even faster no matter how many of these second rate fighters you can build.

 

[nuuumannn]

Martin Baker MB.2 - designed to F.5/34; obsolescent even before the war began. The other problem is getting it into production and service; much modification would have needed to be done to make it a viable service machine, but a big hindrance to continuing with it was that MB did not have the resources for mass production.

Hawker Tornado and Typhoon, both designed to F.18/37, a Spitfire and Hurricane replacement. Time is not on these two aircraft's side for the BoB, even with Griffons. The other problem was that neither were very good interceptors, but they were modern and if they were all the British could have fielded, then they would have had to do. Probably the most suitable, but not within the time frame.

Fairey Fulmar, even if you put a big block V-8 in a camper van, it's still a camper van. You might as well redesign it from scratch. Too big, too heavy, too slow - even without folding wings and anchors and Admiral's cabin and all the extra amenities required for naval service.

Vickers Venom, a smart little machine with good performance and armament for a pre-war monoplane, but like the opening paragraph in Wikipedia states, its engine lacked the power and potential for development; it was too small and with measures required for service its performance would have been reduced.

As for biplanes, yes, the Gladiator did well for itself, but was there because the BoB was about numbers and Dowding, Park et al realised that, so decisions were made to enforce the number of worthy fighters in front line service by using sub par fighters like the Gladiator, Defiant and Blenheim. If these guys had a choice, I'm pretty certain biplanes would not have made their list of aircraft likely to enter front line service, let alone combat. An anachronistic option that would not have been contemplated, realistically speaking.

 

[parsifal]

It is a misconception to believe the hawk 75 was a single monlithic type, devoid of armour and tuned only to run on 87 octane rated fuel ("standard" in British vernacular). in fact there were at least 6 subtypes , not including the weird and wonderful such as the Hawak 75N and M. im talking the mainstream Hawk 75A series . in 1938 first deliveries were of the A-1 subtype. these were indeed unarmoured and of lower performance, but the later A-4s were much better protected and much more powerful

The largest foreign operator of the Hawk was the Armee de l'Air, the French Air Force. Next to the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, the Curtiss Hawk was numerically the most important fighter in French service during the German onslaught into Western Europe in May of 1940.

In February 1938, two months before the first P-36A had rolled off the Buffalo assembly lines for the USAAC, the French government entered into negotiations with the Curtiss company for the supply of 300 fighters of the Hawk 75A type which Curtiss had offered to the Armee de l'Air. The Hawk 75A was an export version of the P-36A, and was being offered for sale with either the Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp or the Wright Cyclone engine.

However, the unit price asked by Curtiss was considered exorbitant by the French--almost twice as high as that of the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. In addition, the proposed delivery schedule commencing in March of 1939 with 20 planes and continuing at a rate of 30 planes per month was considered totally unacceptable. Furthermore, the USAAC was itself unhappy with the Curtiss company's inability to meet delivery schedules for its P-36As, and felt that the French sale would only slow things up still more. Consequently, the USAAC opposed the French sale.

Nevertheless, the rapidity of German rearmament made the modernization of the Armee de l'Air's equipment a matter of the utmost urgency, so the French persisted with the negotiations. As a result of the direct intervention of President Roosevelt, a leading French test pilot, Michel Detroyat was permitted to fly a Y1P-36 service test prototype at Wright Field in March of 1938. He submitted a thoroughly enthusiastic report. In addition, Curtiss suggested that more acceptable delivery schedules could be offered if the French government would finance the construction and equipping of supplementary assembly facilities.

The French still felt that the unit price was too high, and on April 28, 1938 they decided to delay their decision until the completion of the test trials of the Bloch MB-150, the quoted price of which was scarcely half that of the Curtiss fighter. However, the MB-150 was suffering an extensive series of teething troubles (the first prototype couldn't even fly!) and had been subjected to a succession of modifications for nearly two years. By mid-1938, it was felt that the Bloch fighter's main problems had been overcome. However, it was soon realized that in order to adapt the design for mass production, a complete structural redesign would have to take place.

The rework of the Bloch MB-150 would obviously be a costly and time- consuming process, and time was something the Armee de l'Air did not have. Consequently, on May 17, 1938 the Minister for Air announced that the French would acquire the Curtiss Hawk, and that a French purchasing commission was instructed to order 100 Hawk airframes and 173 Pratt Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines. The contract stipulated that the first Hawk should be flown at Buffalo by November 25, 1938 and that the 100-th plane should be delivered by April 10, 1939.

The initial production version of the Hawk was designated Hawk 75A-1 by Curtiss, of which 100 had been ordered by France. According to the original plan, the majority of the Hawk 75A-1s were to be shipped by Curtiss in disassembled form to France, with assembly being completed in France by the Societe Nationale de Constructions Aeronautiques du Centre (SNCAC) at Bourges. The first Hawk 75A-1 was flown at Buffalo early in December 1938, only a few days after the committed date. The first Hawk 75A-1s (actually the fourth and fifth examples off the line) were delivered by ship to France on December 14, 1938. Fourteen more Hawk 75A-1s were delivered in fully-assembled form for Armee de l'Air trials, but the rest were delivered in disassembled form. The first assembly was commenced by SNCAC in February 1939.

During March and April of 1939, the 4e and 5e Escadres de Chasse had initiated conversion from the Dewoitine 500 and 501, and by July 1, 1939 the 4e Escadre had 54 Curtiss fighters on strength and the 5e Escadre had 41. The conversion had not been without problems, one Hawk 75A-1 having crash- landed when an over-speeding propeller had caused the engine to overheat, and another one had been destroyed in a fatal crash as a result of a flat spin that developed during aerobatic trials with full fuel tanks. Throughout the entire service history of the Hawk 75A, there were problems with maneuverability and handling when all the fuel tanks were completely full.

The Hawk 75A-1 was powered by the Pratt Whitney R-1830-SC-G engine, with an international rating of 900 hp at 12,000 feet and 950 hp for takeoff. Armament comprised four 7.5 mm machine guns, two mounted in the upper decking of the fuselage nose and two in the wings. Apart from the altitude indicator, all instruments were metric calibrated. A modified seat was fitted to accommodate the French Lemercier back parachute. The throttle operated in the "French fashion", i.e. in the reverse direction to the throttles of British or US aircraft.

Following the placing of the initial French order for the Hawk 75A in May of 1938, an option had been taken for 100 more machines. This option was converted into a firm order on March 8, 1939. These aircraft differed from the A-1 in having an additional 7.5 mm machine gun in each wing, some structural reinforcement of the rear fuselage, and the minor modifications necessary to permit interchangeability between the R-1830-SC-G and the more powerful R-1830-SC2-G, the latter affording 1050 hp for takeoff.

The new model was designated Hawk 75A-2 by Curtiss. The four wing guns and the new engine made the Hawk 75A-2 more or less equivalent to the US Army's XP-36D. The first A-2 was delivered to France at the end of May, 1939. The first 40 of these were basically similar to the A-1 in both powerplant and armament. The first A-2 to have both the uprated engine and the increased armament was actually the 48th off the Buffalo line. French Air Force numbering continued from the Hawk 75A-1, the first Hawk 75A-2 being numbered 101.

One hundred and thirty-five of the Hawk 75A-3 version were ordered by France on October 9, 1939, with improved 1200 hp R-1830-S1C3G engines and armament similar to that of the A-2 (six 7.5-mm machine guns). Maximum speed was 311 mph at 10,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2350 feet per minute, service ceiling was 33,700 feet, and range was 820 miles. Wingspan was 37 feet 3 1/2 inches, length was 28 feet 7 inches, and wing area was 236 square feet. Weights were 4483 lbs empty, 5692 lbs gross. About sixty Hawk 75A-3s reached France before the surrender, with the rest being diverted to Britain.

The last French order before the Armistice was for 395 Hawk 75A-4 aircraft. These were armed like the A-3s but were fitted with 1200 hp Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone engines. Cyclone-powered 75s could be distinguished from Twin Wasp models by their short-chord cowlings of slightly greater diameter and by the absence of engine cowling flaps and bulbous nose gun port covers. Maximum speed was 323 mph at 15,100 feet. Initial climb rate was 2820 feet per minute, service ceiling was 32,700 feet, and range was 670 miles. Weights were 4541 lbs empty, 5750 lbs gross. Wingspan was 27 feet 3 1/2 inches and length was 28 feet 10 inches. Only two hundred and eighty-four of these A-4s were actually built, and of these, only six A-4s actually reached France before the surrender. these aircracraft were fitted with back armour and were rated for 100 Octane fuel. If the RAF had taken up its option to buy the Hawk, it would have been these aircraft that stepped up.

There was nothig wrong with the Curtiss as a fighter. against the LW, under FAF colours it had outperformed all other Armee d' la Air fighters. partly because Unlike most french suppliers, Curtiss was a relaiable supplier, but the aircraft itself was capable of quite a bit. Its biggest problem was its cost and this may have affected numbers, and numbers in the BoB was THE critical issue

 

[Greyman]

Those figures seem a bit optimistic, at least compared to what the A&AEE tested. Quick and dirty graph here:

The red is Mohawk AR645 -
Cyclone GR1820 G205A
6,330 pounds
110cm low gear, 115 cm high gear
2500 rpm

Other two curves are a Spitfire and Hurricane using +12 boost.

A&AEE climb figures for the Curtiss fighter are slightly worse than the Hurricane I.

 

[The Basket]

Single seat Battle?
Techinically meets timeframes and available. Fulmar is basically a Battle

 

[Juha]

Single seat Battle?
Techinically meets timeframes and available. Fulmar is basically a Battle

Fulmar was based on Fairey's P.4/34 not on Battle.

Juha

 

[Juha]

IIRC 1200 hp R-1830-S1C3G engine and probably also R-1830-SC2-G needed 100oct fuel to deliver 1200/1050hp. Finns tried to hoard a small amount of 100oct/C3 fuel for some of its Hawks to give them a slightly better chances to catch VVS Pe-2s. Admittedly Hawk was a slowish fighter, they were almost useless as escorts to FiAF Blenheim IV PR planes because high up Blemheim was as fast if not a bit faster than Twin Wasp Hawk using 87oct fuel, Finns as others had problems with Cyclones and they converted all their Hawks to PW engine already in 1941, we got our first Hawks in June 1941. Cyclones after some mods were used as spare engines for Brewster 239s.

Juha

 

[The Basket]

Fulmar was based on Fairey's P.4/34 not on Battle.

Juha

P4/34 was based on the Battle.

 

[Shortround6]

"Based on" can mean a slightly modified air-frame or it can mean taking what was learned form one air-frame and applying to a new air-frame by scaling up or down but keeping NO parts the same and this is pretty much the story with the Battle and the P4/34/Fulmar.

The P4/34 had 6ft 7 1/2 in less wig span and was 2ft 4 1/2 shorter in the fuselage than the Battle. The fuselage was also thinner with no provision for a prone position for a bomb aimer under the pilot.

The Fulmar cut about 1 ft from the wing of the P4/34 and actually the 2nd P4/34 was used as the prototype of the Fulmar. Fulmar had a 342sq ft wing compared to the Battles 422sq ft wing. The P4/34 got rid of the bomb cells in the wing of the Battle and carried it's bombs under wing and also used inward retracting landing gear that fit flush instead of the Battle's rearward retracting semi-exposed landing gear.

 

[yulzari]

True, but holding back pilots to assault an invasion had nothing to do with it. By August 1940 all the Fighter Command squadrons outside 11 and 12 Groups were undermanned and many were barely operational. They certainly weren't being held back against an invasion. .

My take on this has been formed by conversations with an ex BoB period RAF pilot. He was flying targets for anti aircraft guns. He, and all his (experienced) colleagues, applied to move to Fighter Command during the BoB but were told they were being held back to fly sorties against German ground forces were there to be an invasion.

Now, this could be internal politics in the RAF, but he felt sure it was exactly what was meant to happen. At the same time his unit was receiving the bomb racks back from central stores together with a stock of bombs ready for use in an invasion.

On another tack; the fighter air training model to use for comparison was the Finnish one. To compensate for low numbers of expensive fighters they instituted rigorous and thorough air to air combat training and ruthlessly weeded out the competent but mediocre to ensure their few fighters would be used to their best. Firing accuracy and close engagement before firing had the same purpose.

 

[stona]

My take on this has been formed by conversations with an ex BoB period RAF pilot. He was flying targets for anti aircraft guns. He, and all his (experienced) colleagues, applied to move to Fighter Command during the BoB but were told they were being held back to fly sorties against German ground forces were there to be an invasion.

Now, this could be internal politics in the RAF, but he felt sure it was exactly what was meant to happen. At the same time his unit was receiving the bomb racks back from central stores together with a stock of bombs ready for use in an invasion.

Now you are referring to pilots in Bomber Command. Bomber Command may well have held units and pilots back against a supposed invasion, I don't know. It was actually quite busy on cross Channel operations against the gathering invasion barges amongst other things in any case.

Fighter Command did not hold pilots in reserve for anti invasion operations because it couldn't. It didn't have enough combat ready pilots to allow it such a luxury.

Cheers

Steve