The 10 Best Aircraft of World War II That Never Saw Service

[GrauGeist]

But we could make a really long word out of it,

Ok...how's this?

"großerarschfliegenderdrückenziehenmaschine mit waffen"

(added "with guns" for emphasis)

 

[Dimlee]

What is Pushmepullyou in Russian and German?
View attachment 655356

Tyanitolkai Тянитолкай.

 

[Dimlee]

Ok...how's this?

"großerarschfliegenderdrückenziehenmaschine mit waffen"

(added "with guns" for emphasis)

mit großer Bombe!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Der Püschenpullenluftmaschinen.



If not, it should be...

Schleppen sie Deutsch?

 

[don4331]

If we're adding to list:
Hawker Henley, Hawker Tornado. Both IMNSHO could have actually made a difference in the war.

When the runway is a muddy field in Russia or a sandy desert strip in Libya, a tricycle gear jet doesn't make sense. Add in the horrendous fuel efficiency of an early turbine engines when Germany is already tight for petroleum and putting He.280 on back burner makes sense.

 

[GrauGeist]

The thrust-to-weight ratio of the Hirth engines were far superior to the 003 or 004 engines.
Plus the Hirth engines burned Kerosene, thus not infringing on the much needed gasoline stocks.

Having the He280 (and/or other jets) operating in Europe proper meant that air superiority could be maintained as well as freeing up other (piston) types for the East or Africa.

 

[Tkdog]

Air superiority could be maintained? When did the Germans have air superiority? Certainly not by the BOB and never after. Not beyond a transitory local level anyway.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thrust-to-weight ratio of the Hirth engines were far superior to the 003 or 004 engines.
Plus the Hirth engines burned Kerosene, thus not infringing on the much needed gasoline stocks.

Having the He280 (and/or other jets) operating in Europe proper meant that air superiority could be maintained as well as freeing up other (piston) types for the East or Africa.

Exactly -- how much harder would the daylight portion of Pointblank have become with -280s leading the charge?

Air superiority could be maintained? When did the Germans have air superiority?

Throughout 1943 when it came to daylight bomber raids.

 

[nuuumannn]

Until the end of the war, from the MkIII which is still on the top of the heap up to 1942 we go to the MkVIII, a MkIII with a merlin 60 series in '42 then the MkXIV in '43, a MkVIII with Griffon power. The Spit needed it's internal fuel capacity increased, the 2 speed then 2 speed 2 stage Merlin gives it the power to have that.

Yup, the prototype did see conversion, but it wasn't a production aircraft and was not rolling along the production lines, so was hand converted each time into each variant. Under those conditions, anything can be achieved. That doesn't disprove anything I've stated. As I did mention, the expediency of plopping engines into aircraft on the production line was deemed a better solution and arguably it was because we see that the V, IX and XIV were the most mass produced variants and each of their earlier production runs were airframes already on the production line. The IX flew before the VIII and this is evident that an expedient solution was quicker to meet emerging threats rather than beginning production of a new fighter, simply because the 60 Series Merlin could be put into the V airframe.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yup, the prototype did see conversion, but it wasn't a production aircraft and was not rolling along the production lines, so was hand converted each time into each variant. Under those conditions, anything can be achieved. That doesn't disprove anything I've stated. As I did mention, the expediency of plopping engines into aircraft on the production line was deemed a better solution and arguably it was because we see that the V, IX and XIV were the most mass produced variants and each of their earlier production runs were airframes already on the production line. The IX flew before the VIII and this is evident that an expedient solution was quicker to meet emerging threats rather than beginning production of a new fighter, simply because the 60 Series Merlin could be put into the V airframe.

Both Spitfire III prototypes started their life as Spitfire I. Additions were internal BP glass, fully covered U/C, clipped wings on the 1st prototype (thus a bit shorter span), Merlin XX in the nose (thus the longer length), plus the necessary stregthening due to the heavier engine.
Merlin 60s can't help in 1941 or in 1st half of 1942. Here the better performing Mk.III fits. It can be also powered by Merlin 45 and still perform better than the Mk.V due to the lower drag. Plopping the engines is great until we recall that actual pilots will be in the aircraft, that are supposed to do the missions with reasonably losses - again the problem with the Mk.V from Summer of 1941 on in the ETO.
Thing with Merlin 60s in the Spitfire was not that only Mk V will accept it easily, but the low production of the engines themselves. That led to the ... funny situation (or not funny of you're a pilot) of Spitfire V making one half of RAF fighters in December of 1943, two years past the sell date.

Westland can be tasked to produce the Mk.III. So can the C-B factory.

 

[nuuumannn]

Here the better performing Mk.III fits.

So, why wasn't it done?

It's all very well second guessing the decision, when yes, the performance would have been better, we know that, but it wouldn't have for much longer. Expediency, not performance drove the decision to not produce the Mk.III. As proven with the Mk. IX and VIII, the latter became the next major production variant, yet it was the IX that entered service first and went on to greater production.

 

[tomo pauk]

So, why wasn't it done?

It's all very well second guessing the decision, when yes, the performance would have been better, we know that, but it wouldn't have for much longer. Expediency, not performance drove the decision to not produce the Mk.III. As proven with the Mk. IX and VIII, the latter became the next major production variant, yet it was the IX that entered service first and went on to greater production.

Why it was not done? There is no clear-cut explanation in the 'Spitfire, the history' book (the long take-off run was noted, that will hamper the night-fighting ability; the clipped wings were noted as a shortcoming since it will be hard to diferentiate the Mk.III with Bf 109, so the 'normal' wings were suggested for series-produced examples). There was 1000 of the Mk.IIIs ordered from the C-B factory (later cancelled). My take on why the Mk.III was not proceeded with, probably a combination of things:
- Hurricane and Defiant needing any Merlin XX that is being made so the performance difference vs. Bf 109E is lessened as much as possible (it worked, the Hurricane IIA was barely slower than the 109E with DB 601A), plus the perceived need for the Merlin XX for the Beaufighter
- hope that Spitfire II with Merlin XII will bring an improvement over the Spitfire I this instant (didn't worked)

BTW - there was also a request (dated March 22th 1940) that 200 Mk.I Spitfires is to be modified into Mk.IIIs; request was later cancelled.

I'm not sure why the Mk.IX or VIII is always tossed in. Those do not help in the dark days of 1941 and better part of 1942.

 

[nuuumannn]

I'm not sure why the Mk.IX or VIII is always tossed in. Those do not help in the dark days of 1941 and better part of 1942.

It's pretty obvious if you read what I've written. Again, Tomo, you are ignoring the fact the decision was made based on expediency not performance. Again, as I've mentioned, how long would the Mk.III remain superior? It took a 60 Series Merlin fitted to the Mk.V to best the Fw 190, so would the Mk.III in production have been able to do it? Not unless a 60 Series Merlin was put into it. The time it took to get Mk.IXs into production meant that a lead could be clawed back from the V before the Mk.VIII production ramped up.

Remember, the British industry didn't do anything in a hurry, so putting new engines into existing types on the production line made much more sense when it came to responding to emerging threats. The Manchester became the Lancaster by modifying an existing airframe on the production line, The Brits were getting real good at this stuff.

 

[PAT303]

Both Spitfire III prototypes started their life as Spitfire I.

Are you sure about that?, the reason the MkIII didn't go into production was because it was a totally different airframe, the first one started test flying in March 1940 but was stopped because war was brewing and the decision was taken to put the MkII into continuous production, same for the engine, the Merlin XX was halted to make more XII's.

 

[PAT303]

Westland can be tasked to produce the Mk.III. So can the C-B factory.

Don't know why companies like Westland Boulton Paul etc weren't used to make Spits

 

[PAT303]

the clipped wings were noted as a shortcoming since it will be hard to diferentiate the Mk.III

An improvement you mean, the MkIX had it's wings shortened and the Merlin 61 blower drive gears modified to make the Merlin 66 powered LF MkIXc which had it's best performance around 20,000ft which was the altitude the FW190 had the advantage over it.

 

[tomo pauk]

Are you sure about that?, the reason the MkIII didn't go into production was because it was a totally different airframe, the first one started test flying in March 1940 but was stopped because war was brewing and the decision was taken to put the MkII into continuous production, same for the engine, the Merlin XX was halted to make more XII's.

See pg. 127 of the 'Spitfire, the history' book by Morgan and Shacklady, where it is noted that "Air Ministry agreed to the Supermarine proposal to take Mk I airframe off the normal production line and modify it to the required specification." All in order to "avoid a lengthily development period"

Don't know why companies like Westland Boulton Paul etc weren't used to make Spits

Westland produced Spitfires from winter of 1940/41 on. Too bad they weren't making them already by 1939.
B-P was making the Defiants. Why? Because the turret fighter was deemed necessary.

 

[tomo pauk]

An improvement you mean, the MkIX had it's wings shortened and the Merlin 61 blower drive gears modified to make the Merlin 66 powered LF MkIXc which had it's best performance around 20,000ft which was the altitude the FW190 had the advantage over it.

Not my words

 

[nuuumannn]

Don't know why companies like Westland Boulton Paul etc weren't used to make Spits

Because these companies were separate entities. Ask yourself why Curtiss didn't give up P-40 production and simply build P-51s?

Each firm had their own management and specialisation and workforce. The Air Ministry offered contracts to firms, but nothing happened in a vacuum and existing orders didn't just begin or end as soon as war was declared. The Brits got the hang of satellite production, with firms like Gloster building Hurricanes ordered before the outbreak of war, English Electric and Shorts licence building other firms' types during the war, but each of these firms had orders to fulfil and chopping and changing production was not a quick or easy thing (hence the whole discussion surrounding the Spitfire Mk.III) - it couldn't be done overnight and took quite a bit of effort to begin with.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

The Top Ten US Navy Aircraft of World War II

Obviously it’s in there but is it number one? It is striking both how few different types the US Navy operated during World War II, particularly from carriers, and how nearly all of them were…

hushkit.net

Under TBF says that "the TBF managed to shoot down a V-1 'doodlebug' ". Never heard about that, anyone have any info about that?