Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation
- Thread starter Robert Porter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I know the French were having trouble with producing propellors they had some very advanced designs but quite a lot of aircraft were without working or any kind of props.
It does seem odd that British planes were so far behind the curve re props even more when you realise a variable pitch prop had been designed as far back as 1917 by the British. I can only think there had been problems with early types which set the Air Ministry against them. I have read that one early model of iirc a US prop had the habit of jumping into a flat pitch when climbing which must have done wonders for the pilots heart rate.
It does seem odd that British planes were so far behind the curve re props even more when you realise a variable pitch prop had been designed as far back as 1917 by the British. I can only think there had been problems with early types which set the Air Ministry against them. I have read that one early model of iirc a US prop had the habit of jumping into a flat pitch when climbing which must have done wonders for the pilots heart rate.
Shortround6
Major General
The Problem was probably the Air Ministry.
Rotol did licence the Curtiss electric propeller.
Fedden had Bristol take out an option on the Hamilton propeller in the Early 30s but the Bristol Board of directors dragged their feet to such an extent (and Fedden was so desperate to get better propellers) that they relinquished the license option to DeHavilland who at some point in 1935, was tooled up for quantity production,or what passed for quantity production in the mid 30s. Fedden fitted ALL production Bristol engines with a control valve for the Hamilton propellers from the summer of 1934 on. Bristol engines used in foreign countries (up to 9 out of 10 in Europe) being fitted with Hamilton propeller, The Bristol board of directors not being happy with the lost business.
Dowding had given contracts for 2 prototype propellers to both Bristol and RR about this time, both based off the Hele-Shaw propeller.
The Bristol modification had a very successful trial but once again, the Bristol Board of directors couldn't see the potential market and thought that DeHavilland had it. Fedden was interested in getting ONE design of propeller for mass production, not two leaving Dehavilland out of it and goes directly to RR in a private meeting suggesting a joint company. With RR on board he goes back to the Bristol board of directors who now sign on to the propeller project/joint company. Small scale production starts in the winter of 1936/7 and a new site is found in 1937 and the factory construction was in progress in the summer of 1937 with first production propellers built by the end of 1937. Obviously production was a fraction of what it would be latter let alone what was needed in 1942-44.
Had the Air Ministry demanded better propellers or at least shown there was a sizable market for them perhaps larger production could have been achieved earlier.
The time line is from pages 85-86 of "BY Jupiter" a biography of Sir Roy Fedden. corrections welcome.
Rotol did licence the Curtiss electric propeller.
Fedden had Bristol take out an option on the Hamilton propeller in the Early 30s but the Bristol Board of directors dragged their feet to such an extent (and Fedden was so desperate to get better propellers) that they relinquished the license option to DeHavilland who at some point in 1935, was tooled up for quantity production,or what passed for quantity production in the mid 30s. Fedden fitted ALL production Bristol engines with a control valve for the Hamilton propellers from the summer of 1934 on. Bristol engines used in foreign countries (up to 9 out of 10 in Europe) being fitted with Hamilton propeller, The Bristol board of directors not being happy with the lost business.
Dowding had given contracts for 2 prototype propellers to both Bristol and RR about this time, both based off the Hele-Shaw propeller.
The Bristol modification had a very successful trial but once again, the Bristol Board of directors couldn't see the potential market and thought that DeHavilland had it. Fedden was interested in getting ONE design of propeller for mass production, not two leaving Dehavilland out of it and goes directly to RR in a private meeting suggesting a joint company. With RR on board he goes back to the Bristol board of directors who now sign on to the propeller project/joint company. Small scale production starts in the winter of 1936/7 and a new site is found in 1937 and the factory construction was in progress in the summer of 1937 with first production propellers built by the end of 1937. Obviously production was a fraction of what it would be latter let alone what was needed in 1942-44.
Had the Air Ministry demanded better propellers or at least shown there was a sizable market for them perhaps larger production could have been achieved earlier.
The time line is from pages 85-86 of "BY Jupiter" a biography of Sir Roy Fedden. corrections welcome.
An unwillingness to invest without some kind of guarantee of future orders was not limited just to propeller manufacture. It impinged on engine production as well. Merlin production was cut back in 1938!
We know that the war would start in late 1939 and that there would be a hugely increased demand for aircraft, engines and all their accessories. This was not self evident until the late 1930s and most firms were working to the various and frequently changing rearmament schemes.
Cheers
Steve
We know that the war would start in late 1939 and that there would be a hugely increased demand for aircraft, engines and all their accessories. This was not self evident until the late 1930s and most firms were working to the various and frequently changing rearmament schemes.
Cheers
Steve
What we needed was someone to take control of the country around 1934 and put it on a war footing (like the people we were fighting) as I said before, much of this is having small peace time companies suddenly thrust into defending the nation. In the link posted earlier it describes de Havilland fitting constant speed props at very short notice and no written contract, they very nearly were not paid for doing something vital in one of the UKs most vital battles. Until war is declared things are run on business lines which are inclined to be messy.
Even during the war companies had some autonomy. De Havilland decided to convert two of its factories to produce a 'rack type' variable pitch propeller, with a view to producing 1260 a month. This was a supposedly simpler system (though drawings I've seen of a similar system designed by an Italian don't look to be) and as many as three times as many of this type could be made. Unfortunately there was no demand for such a propeller, particularly as it was only developed with three blades, and as fighter engine power was increasing more and more required four blade units. the Lancaster was a prospective candidate, but the arrival of substantial numbers of propellers from the US satisfied the Lancaster requirement and avoided fitting a unit which could not be feathered. This had already had disastrous consequences for at least one Sunderland. In the end only 700 of this type of propeller were manufactured, less than one month's initial planned production, and interest was only maintained as it was considered to have potential in a contra rotating system.
One wonders what exactly de Havilland thought they were doing.
Cheers
Steve
One wonders what exactly de Havilland thought they were doing.
Cheers
Steve
- Thread starter
- #127
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe I left an impression I did not mean too. This all started as a result of reading re-reading, 3 books in my collection all of which made mention of the fact the in the 30's most of the material and equipment being produced for the military of the US, and the UK lagged in quality and performance from the original specs mentioned in the RFP's.
I was not, and am not, deriding manufactures or casting aspersions on the industry as a whole. It was just a fact mentioned to varying degrees by each author more as an aside. It struck a nerve with me and in the moment I made a comment. Which obviously stuck several nerves. It was not my intention.
Anyway, the thread seems to have narrowed down to my questioning of the early fixed pitch wooden prop'ed Spitfire having poor climb performance. This is a simple fact not open to questioning, its documented all over if you just search a bit. This issue was largely addressed by addition of a variable pitch propellor and several ever more powerful engines as its design continued both pre-war and during the war, indeed even after the war.
It was a fine aircraft well loved by its pilots I am not trying to say otherwise. Was it the best? I honestly do not know. Lots of opinions both pro and con out there from those that flew it and those that flew against it. Probably true of any aircraft.
So with all that being said, I probably should have thought a little more before making such a post because obviously it was both poorly thought out and because of that it engendered some rather energetic responses. All of which I found educational by the way.
I think we can all agree, cars, trucks, planes, trains, practically anything made by man often is under realized in its first iterations. All things tend to improve over time both as a function of refinement of design and as technology improves or availability of better technology catches up to demands.
Thanks to all that took the time to reply, often with insightful well thought out responses. I appreciate all of your contributions.
I was not, and am not, deriding manufactures or casting aspersions on the industry as a whole. It was just a fact mentioned to varying degrees by each author more as an aside. It struck a nerve with me and in the moment I made a comment. Which obviously stuck several nerves. It was not my intention.
Anyway, the thread seems to have narrowed down to my questioning of the early fixed pitch wooden prop'ed Spitfire having poor climb performance. This is a simple fact not open to questioning, its documented all over if you just search a bit. This issue was largely addressed by addition of a variable pitch propellor and several ever more powerful engines as its design continued both pre-war and during the war, indeed even after the war.
It was a fine aircraft well loved by its pilots I am not trying to say otherwise. Was it the best? I honestly do not know. Lots of opinions both pro and con out there from those that flew it and those that flew against it. Probably true of any aircraft.
So with all that being said, I probably should have thought a little more before making such a post because obviously it was both poorly thought out and because of that it engendered some rather energetic responses. All of which I found educational by the way.
I think we can all agree, cars, trucks, planes, trains, practically anything made by man often is under realized in its first iterations. All things tend to improve over time both as a function of refinement of design and as technology improves or availability of better technology catches up to demands.
Thanks to all that took the time to reply, often with insightful well thought out responses. I appreciate all of your contributions.
I was reading a book written, or ghost written, by a German WW2 pilot. He said he slid back the canopy of his Bf109.
Anyone with just a little knowledge about me Bf109 knows no model of the 109 had a sliding canopy, but they did have a sliding panel in the side of the canopy. That was no doubt what he was meaning. His exact meaning might have been lost in translation, or just a simple mistake not caught by proofreading, or by the printer.
But if i had took what he wrote literally, i'd think there was models of 109s out there with sliding canopies.
Anyone with just a little knowledge about me Bf109 knows no model of the 109 had a sliding canopy, but they did have a sliding panel in the side of the canopy. That was no doubt what he was meaning. His exact meaning might have been lost in translation, or just a simple mistake not caught by proofreading, or by the printer.
But if i had took what he wrote literally, i'd think there was models of 109s out there with sliding canopies.
- Thread starter
- #129
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Ha! Agreed! Remind's me of the time a local auto repair shop charged my Mom for a new carburetor on her fuel injected VW Rabbit. I drove it back down there with the receipt in hand and asked him to show me exactly where he placed the carburetor. Got her money back.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even the Me309 with it's "bubble" style canopy had the righ-hand hinged setup.
I wonder if that Luftwaffe pilot was thinking Fw190 while recalling his experience in the Bf109?
I wonder if that Luftwaffe pilot was thinking Fw190 while recalling his experience in the Bf109?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Here we go again first off there was no performance specs that the Spitfire failed as the specification was written around the prototype K5054.
As for poor prefromance again compared to what. The first production Spit MkI K9787 was tested at Martlesham Heath August 1938 it had a Merlin II rated at 990hp at 2,600rpm at 12,250 +6.25lbs boost max horsepower 1030hp at 3,000rpm at 16,250 +6.25lbs of boost on 87 Octane at a weight of 5,819 lbs (service weight with all equipment) it returned the following figures. It had an Airscrew Company 2 blade wooden fixed pitch prop.
height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 295 1m 0s 2,195
10,000 328 4m 18s 2,490
15,000 348 6m 30s 2,065
18,500 362 8m 25s 1,700
20,000 360 9m 25s 1,480
30,000 315 22m 25s 0,325
The equivalent Bf109 model the D had a 670hp Junkers 210D engine a 2 position 2 blade prop and a max speed of 295mph and a time to 6,000 metres at a weight of 5,345lbs of 11m 30s. Yet the Spitfire is somehow a failure because it didnt meet a non existent set of original specs.
As for poor prefromance again compared to what. The first production Spit MkI K9787 was tested at Martlesham Heath August 1938 it had a Merlin II rated at 990hp at 2,600rpm at 12,250 +6.25lbs boost max horsepower 1030hp at 3,000rpm at 16,250 +6.25lbs of boost on 87 Octane at a weight of 5,819 lbs (service weight with all equipment) it returned the following figures. It had an Airscrew Company 2 blade wooden fixed pitch prop.
height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 295 1m 0s 2,195
10,000 328 4m 18s 2,490
15,000 348 6m 30s 2,065
18,500 362 8m 25s 1,700
20,000 360 9m 25s 1,480
30,000 315 22m 25s 0,325
The equivalent Bf109 model the D had a 670hp Junkers 210D engine a 2 position 2 blade prop and a max speed of 295mph and a time to 6,000 metres at a weight of 5,345lbs of 11m 30s. Yet the Spitfire is somehow a failure because it didnt meet a non existent set of original specs.
- Thread starter
- #132
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I honestly am not trying to argue about this. A two bladed wooden fixed pitch propellor will yield poor performance in almost every category compared to a variable pitch metal or composite propellor period. Especially in climb performance. As far as failed against what, nothing that I know of specifically. As far as compared to what, compared to a 3 or 4 propellor non fixed pitch propellor. Or are you now claiming that the Spitfire somehow defied the laws of physics and aerodynamics?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
In March 1940 Spitfire MkI N3171 was tested at Boscombe Down with a Rotol Constant speed propellor. It had a Merlin III running on 87 octane for camparison purposes this was the same engine as the Merlin II apart from the propellor shaft. It weighed 6,050lbs the extra 115lbs of weight weight over K9787 was due to the Propellor and its accompanying equipment plus an Armoured Windscreen and some Lead ballast in the tail.
height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 , 295 ,0m 42s ,2,820
10,000 , 320 ,3m 30s ,2,895
15,000 ,339 , 5m 18s , 2,430
18,500 ,348 ,.........................source doesnt say what the climb figures were
20,000 ,353 ,7m 42s ,1,840
30,000 ,319 ,16m 42s ,660
Speed was 14mph down but rate of climb with the Rotol prop was increased by almost 50% and take off run was reduced by 30%
height, speed, time to climb, rate of climb
2,000 , 295 ,0m 42s ,2,820
10,000 , 320 ,3m 30s ,2,895
15,000 ,339 , 5m 18s , 2,430
18,500 ,348 ,.........................source doesnt say what the climb figures were
20,000 ,353 ,7m 42s ,1,840
30,000 ,319 ,16m 42s ,660
Speed was 14mph down but rate of climb with the Rotol prop was increased by almost 50% and take off run was reduced by 30%
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
No I and everyone else is trying every way we can think of to tell you that the Spitfire didnt fail its original specs (there were non) and was far and away the best climbing and fastest fighter plane of its age. Even with a 2 blade wooden prop it outclimbed and was over 60mph faster than its contemporary the Bf109D. By March 1940 a Constant speed equipped Spitfire was slightly slower by around 5 or 10mph (depends on source) than the 109E and climbed slightly faster or about the same depending on altitude.
- Thread starter
- #135
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Okay here is what I mean, until the Spitfire XIV it was not competitive in climb rates. From there onwards it most certainly was. But the Mark I, II were just plain not and never could be with a fixed pitch prop.
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft Great link which DOES award the Spit the fastest climb but NOT until XIV.
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft Great link which DOES award the Spit the fastest climb but NOT until XIV.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I really want to swear at this point but For Flips Sake will have to do on this forum. How does that link relate to anything in any way shape or form to a discussion on the Spitfire MkI. Meteor MkIII yes I am not sure what their record against the Luftwaffe in 1939 to 1940 was.
wuzak
Captain
But that only compared late model fighters, and the only Spitfire compared was the XIV.
It does not compare earlier Spitfires with their contemporaries.
The IX, for example, was a pretty decent climber.
wuzak
Captain
The chart fastmongrel posted shows the IX as the second best climber at most altitudes.
- Thread starter
- #139
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Yes and I am ONLY saying that until the fixed pitch wooden prop was replaced in later variants it sucked at climbing like any aircraft would with that propellor. Nothing more. Which is expected with that prop. For goodness sake I am not an idiot and not arguing against later performance or even comparative performance other than against itself.
Unless you strapped rockets and or a jet engine on it, the plane with a fixed pitch wooden propellor did not climb well at all, nor did any other so equipped aircraft.
Unless you strapped rockets and or a jet engine on it, the plane with a fixed pitch wooden propellor did not climb well at all, nor did any other so equipped aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
What you have been told, repeatedly, is that with the fixed pitch 2 blade wooden prop it climbed as well or better than most of its contemporaries.
