Which aircraft would you cancel? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

While the Komet wasn't as successful in it's intended role as they hoped, it actually did provide a great deal of research information in a realm of aviation that hadn't been achieved before.

It did, but that is hardly what the Luftwaffe needed in 1944/5. All that research and development, then about 300 aircraft built...for what? You could say the same about other projects like the V-2.

What the Luftwaffe needed was fighters that could oppose the Anglo-American assault by day and night. The Me 162, Ba 349, Ta 154 and others were not the answer.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Very true if Hawkers refused to build what the Air Ministry wanted who were they going to build for.
The only problem with that theory is that the Air Ministry wanted the Typhoon, so the question's completely academic; yet again you're using 20:20 hindsight on an aircraft which was ordered 2.5 years before the war started. It was originally given 12 Browning .303" (hence the thick wing everyone decries) to enable it to shoot down the expected onslaught from heavily-armoured German bombers, with cannon following once the Hispano was being built and was acceptable.
YOU/WE all know that France ceased to be a force in mid-1940, but that wasn't even contemplated in 1937, so talk of cancelling the Typhoon because of (allegedly better) fighters attacking from there, is way off beam. The defenders of this country needed aircraft armed with (at least) 4 cannon, which could defeat bombers' armour; any thought, in 1937, of coming up against fighters more manoeuvrable than the Me110 would have been dismissed as sheer fantasy.
Plus the shadow factories and the tools and workers in them didnt belong to Hawkers they simply ran them on Air Ministry contract.
The Hawker Group owned Hawker, Gloster, Armstrong-Siddeley and Avro (all bought by Tommy Sopwith, in fact,) their factories and the machine tools, and paid the workers' wages; the Air Ministry's only involvement was to issue contracts and provide Resident Technical Officers as overseers.
 
Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly. You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.

Now we are not just canceling production programs, we are changing doctrine, tactics and training to suit our view of the problem. As has been mentioned, the RN was anticipating operating in worse weather conditions than the US and Japanese Navies. The radio homing beacon on the carrier was considered a secret at the time (it operated in such a way that would be extremely difficult for an enemy to home in on it unlike many other "homing" beacons in use at the time. This means that the capability of the homing system was rarely mentioned and in fact the actual duties of the rear seat man were glossed over or misrepresented.

Then let the Sterling have a redesign to increase its altitude and do without the Halifax. The RAF didn't need three four engine bombers.

Maybe not but when the Stirling production lines were being built and the first Sterlings being delivered The RAF didn't have three four engine bombers. It had two. First Stirling Squadron got it's first few planes about one month before the contract was signed to even build the first 2 Lancaster prototypes. 1st Lancaster prototype makes it's first flight about 1 month before Stirlings go on first operational raid. 1st operational bombing mission by Lancasters is 13 months after the combat debut of the Sterling. And BOTH Stirling production lines had been hit by bombs in Aug of 1940 taking out 11 aircraft on the production lines (almost a squadrons worth) and delaying production by weeks if not a few months.

I would suggest that you build more Wellingtons and add the Hampden to the list.

Kind of the same thing. Sounds good using the retrospectroscope but in actuality Whitleys made up about 1/3 of the RAFs heavy/medium bomber strength in 1939. And which Wellingtons? The MK Is weren't really all that good.
The Whitley was alwayscalled a night bomber even if the crews couldn't find the right country at times. The Wellington was day bomber for several months in 1939 until Bomber command had to face the fact that it couldn't survive in daylight. You don't get the Hercules engines until the MK III and you don't get the four gun tail turret until well over 3300 Wellingtons are built.
A Whitley could carry a 4500lb bomb load about 33% further than a Wellington MK I could.
Killing the Whitley means giving up the best 'bomb truck' (not necessarily the best bomber) the British have in 1939 and 1940 and for a good part of 1941 in regards to numbers.

I couldn't think of anything the Sea Otter could do that the Walrus couldn't so that is why it was on the list.

SO do you build the 292 Sea Otters or do you build an additional 292 Walruses?

According to one website "The new aircraft was also faster, could fly farther and handled better in the water that its predecessor."
The last bit might be more important than the first two, it depends on how much better it was in the water.
BTW the Otter could also carry four 250lb bombs instead of the Walruses six 100lb or two 250lbs bombs.
 
We'll have to disagree on that one,Kool Kitty, but that's OK. If we agreed on everything, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.
On the P-40Q ... the major benefit over the P-51 would be suitability of the 2-stage allison. So it's more a matter of whether the P-63 or P-40Q is more useful, and ignoring the shortcomings of the P-63 tied directly to low emphasis on fuel capacity. (lots of empty space in the wings that might have been engineered for fuel tank age had that been a priority -ie had the design goals been similar to the P-51)

That and I've argued before that the P-76 shouldn't have been canceled with its greater parts commonality with the P-39, earlier development/flight testing, and luck of lack of prototype crashing early on. Speed wasn't as good at the XP-63, but critical development time would be more the issue, and ability to grow along with the 2-stage allison developments.



I don't think any one is really going to argue in favor of the Botha but what are you going to replace the Fulmar with?

Please remember that the guy in the rear seat operated the radio gear (not just the radio) that allowed the plane to home in on a locator beacon on the carrier. It may be doubtful if any single seat fighter could have done that at the time.
The defiant? Remove the turret but retain a second crew position with the added electronics. Might have been closer to the Firefly in performance even with just the Merlin. (griffon power should have made it a more genuinely competitive fighter while still allowing the second seat if necessary -ie if not supplanted by more heavily automated equipment late war)

Sterling? Having the bad luck to have both production lines bombed by May of 1941 rather slowed production and service use.
Plus the Stirling is a better example of forced misguided development imposed by the Ministry rather than a design meriting foregone development. Not allowing the original, longer, thinner wing to be used wouldn't be that much different from not allowing the Manchester to be converted to the Lancaster or forcing a defensive armament on the Mossie.



Buffalo or Wildcat or a proper single seat fighter with the range needed. Or accept the Fulmar as a stop gap and design a single seat fighter instead of the Firefly. You certainly could be right about that but the Japanese and USN managed to find a working solution.
If you're doing that, just go with a properly Navalized Sea Hurricane pre-war and stick with it until the Seafire can replace it. (or not ... given the potential advantages of deck handling and landing accidents in spite of the performance limits)

But you still won't be able to fulfill what the Fulmar did.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes, that famous old saw, which is always trotted out when the Typhoon is mentioned. From 29-7-42 to 24-5-43, the Typhoon suffered 19 accidents, in 3 (only) of which the tail unit broke off, and 7 lost tailplanes, elevators or rudders. There were, in fact, more wing/wingtip failures than tail unit failures. By 1944, 1 failure every 7700 hours had gone out to 1 every 18000 hours, and it was decided that the cause was elevator flutter, largely caused by three-blade propellers.
How does that compare with the Hurricane's early operational record?

It was tried, with the Merlin XX in the Spitfire III, but it involved major airframe changes, which didn't apply to the Merlin 45-series.
The impression I've always gotten was that it was the Hurricane II and various multi-engine bombers (and the Beaufighter) getting priority for the Merlin XX that prevented the Spitfire III from entering production.

Surely, the modifications needed for the XX series were less than the 60/70 series, let alone Griffon, both of which were adapted and pressed into service as soon as possible. (and neither the Hurricane nor P-40 seemed to have trouble adapting to the Merlin XX)


The Typhoon was a lot faster than the 190 at low altitude which is what counts for a GA role and it carried a greater variety of weapons. Re the guns when operating as a GA aircraft the FW190 normally only carried 2 x 20mm and to cap it all the Typhoon was continually up armoured. As a GA fighter the Typhoon didn't have to apologise to anyone.
But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?

And, granted, not available until 1942, but the Allison engined Mustang was faster at low altitudes as well. (P-39 was available sooner though and may have outpaced the Typhoon at low alt with overboost -or once WEP was officially cleared)

Ground attack/FB ability is a separate issue, but possibly one the Mustang could have fared very well in as well. (it managed well enough employed for GA as the A-36)

Non-turbocharged P-38s may have been better for sheer speed as well as fighter/bomber duties, but I don't think we need to go over production delays and shortages with that type again. (it was covered rather well in the discussing regarding producing more P-38s in place of P-40s and P-39s -even if the value was seen for an aircraft nearly 2x as expensive, the production capacity simply wasn't there early enough -unless the XP-38 doesn't crash and they gain a year in development along with a properly optimized unturbocharged version with counter-rotation, ejector exhaust and ram intake optimization on par with the P-40/P-51)


Ideally the He177 would have replaced the Fw200, but it had serious issues that we are not presupposing would be fixed, so simply getting rid of it and using the engines and materials to make more Ju88s would be better (DB605 engined Ju88s....what would that be like?).
More BMW 801 powered Ju 88s would be better ... the value of 605 powered Fw 190s has been disputed before at least without C3 or WM/50. (dubious replies regarding whether weight and drag reduction would be enough to make a DB-605A powered 190 competitive -or more useful than a 109G)

And on that note, cancel the Ju 188, 288, and 388 and focusing on more direct derivatives of the existing Ju 88 (and more on making it faster and better performing -maybe modifying the bomb bay to make external racks less necessary- and less emphasis on making a bigger bomber). Concentrate on the Do 217 as the big/heavy twin engine bomber.




Cancel the order for the Buffalo and martlet I , concentrate on the Fulmar. At least it was ready shot down 114 enemy a/c for the loss of three, and operated from carriers from Day1. Those US imports whilst having greater potential later in the war (at least for the Martlet) could not operate from a carrier, leaked fuel everywhere, had limited multi role capability (a must in the early war for the RN after losing 1/3 of its carrier forces.
I don't believe the RN ever ordered the Buffalo ... they did trial the version purchased/repossessed by the RAF, but those were all de-navalized. A proper, carrier capable Buffalo Mk.I may have been far more useful on RN carriers than it was historically in the middle east. (possibly a better performer than the Martlet)





I agree that Battle should be cancelled, but maybe after 500 produced examples; what should Fairey build instead? The Spitfire produced by Boulton Paul instead of the Defiant should make sense - same powerplant, twice the firepower, half the crew, lower drag and weight for better performance, no turret means cheaper faster production, can carry cannons unlike the Defiant.
I'm not sure the Defiant is that worth being written off, but development limited to turretless operation would be the focus for sure. The larger, thicker wing of the Defiant may have been more suitable for cannons than the hurricane while still having overall drag characteristics better than the Hurricane and possibly better than the spitfire considering the weight and wing area. Maybe a better candidate for fighter-bomber conversion than the Hurricane (especially with the Griffon), but the hurricane still had advantages in manufacturing infrastructure that kept it in production so long historically.

In any case, single-seat defiant derivatives may have had enough merits to not simply throw them away in favor of Spitfire production.

Re. Sydney Camm not willing to produce other people aircraft - others did it, since the costumer wanted so. Mr. Camm was a designer anyway, not the owner of the conglomerate?
Gloster was also a Hawkwer-owned by that point, so there were obviously non-Hawker designs being developed/produced ... though I suppose still ones owned by them. (ie the Gloster F.5/34 and F.9/37 projects might not have conflicted so much -actually, as a multirole interceptor and fighter-bomber, and with only the Merlin and Hercules available, the Gloster twin might have been a better development path than the Typhoon as well, had the ministry showed interest)

And all that said, I still think the Hurricane itself may have had more development potential ... especially considering it ended up staying in production for so long. Investing in heavier modifications/improvements to that machine may have been far more worthwhile than the typhoon in the end. (ie it may not have been better than the typhoon, but at least better on the whole than the existing combinations of Hurricane II/IV and typhoons)


While the Komet wasn't as successful in it's intended role as they hoped, it actually did provide a great deal of research information in a realm of aviation that hadn't been achieved before.
Hence my suggestion that it simply shouldn't have entered mass production. Investing more in adapting the airframe to alternate powerplants would have been much more useful. (while the rocket engine development was useful in its own right and good for pushing the high speed limits of the airframe)
 
Quick estimates - mostly based on data from over at the great WWII Aircraft Performance website.

It's not pixel-perfect to the data but the idea is there:

View attachment 293076

The faster Typhoon is post upgrades: sliding hood, whip aerial, new exhausts, cannon fairings, etc.



374 mph at sea level on just 2200 bhp? That cannot be linked to any aircraft from A&AEE trials.

The two serials speed checked at Boscombe Down (R7700 and R8762) never came close to going that fast at rooftop height, and in both cases the high speed was found to be less than 400 mph. Well below the figures advertised by the makers.

Late build Typhoons were slower on average than previous models. The added racks, rails and other external bits to carry bombs, rockets, and drop tanks also produced more wind resistance.
 
would that not also apply to FW adversaries, given the german propensity to increase war load at the expense of all performance considerations?

Wasnt the first employment of the typhoon to hunt down FW hit and run raids across the channel. After solving the bugs was this assignment not successfully carried out.

I suspect yet another example of over critical anti- british sentiment rising yet again.

Care to share with the rest of us you national background or technological preefernces before we all start jumping to conclusions?
 
would that not also apply to FW adversaries, given the german propensity to increase war load at the expense of all performance considerations?

Wasnt the first employment of the typhoon to hunt down FW hit and run raids across the channel. After solving the bugs was this assignment not successfully carried out.

I suspect yet another example of over critical anti- british sentiment rising yet again.

Care to share with the rest of us you national background or technological preefernces and expertise, along with your references for the above statement before we all start jumping to conclusions?
 
374 mph at sea level on just 2200 bhp? That cannot be linked to any aircraft from A&AEE trials.

The two serials speed checked at Boscombe Down (R7700 and R8762) never came close to going that fast at rooftop height, and in both cases the high speed was found to be less than 400 mph. Well below the figures advertised by the makers.

Late build Typhoons were slower on average than previous models. The added racks, rails and other external bits to carry bombs, rockets, and drop tanks also produced more wind resistance.

The information is from here - Typhoon IB Performance Data

Here is the relevant bit:
Tests at Gloster on a repaired aircraft with a whip aerial and sliding hood fitted have given the following level speeds corrected on the basis of A. A.E.E. Res.170.

M.S. M.P.A 398 m.p.h. at 8,800ft


With that I simply placed the curve from Typhoon Ib R8762 over the given point.

The very early (12 x Browning) Typhoons were very fast. A&AEE test of one gives 396 mph at 8,000 feet and 410 mph at 20,000 feet.

The later Typhoon Ib's were definitely faster than the earlier Ib's. Check out the Typhoon page above - it goes through the upgrades.

A&AEE ran a test on a different aircraft (similar to R.7700) and determined that the effect of faired bomb racks on a Typhoon Ib was approximately 15 mph.

According to data sheets, Mk.III rocket rails took about 10 mph off - but that doesn't seem like enough to me. I'm somewhat sceptical.


EDIT:
With regards to the rails issue, I should say I don't necessarily disbelieve the data on the sheet, it's just that it's entirely possible that there are more factors at play than just the rocket rails when looking at the different speeds.
 
Last edited:
How does that compare with the Hurricane's early operational record?)
The Hurricane had more than 3 years of peace in which to iron out any problems. The (Browning-armed) Typhoon prototype first flew in March 1940; the (cannon-armed) second prototype first flew 15-5-41, with the first aircraft delivered in June, and the first Squadron formed in early September. some might think that was a little rushed.
The impression I've always gotten was that it was the Hurricane II and various multi-engine bombers (and the Beaufighter) getting priority for the Merlin XX that prevented the Spitfire III from entering production.
The (now cannon-armed) Hurricane desperately needed upgrading in 1940, the Spitfire II was faster than the Mk.I, and the Merlin 45 was available in early 1941, in plenty of time for the Mk.V and the expected resumption of the Battle of Britain. The Merlin 45 would also fit into the same airframe as the I/II, while the XX needed changes to the engine compartment and u/c geometry (also later introduced on the Vc.)
Surely, the modifications needed for the XX series were less than the 60/70 series, let alone Griffon, both of which were adapted and pressed into service as soon as possible.
4" longer nose on the III, and a 9" longer nose on the IX, and the conversion to the Mk.IX was as a result of the appearance of the Fw190, which wasn't around when the Mk.V (which could cope with the 109F) appeared.
And, granted, not available until 1942, but the Allison engined Mustang was faster at low altitudes as well.
Wasn't faster than the Spitfire IX at combat altitude, though, was it?
(P-39 was available sooner though and may have outpaced the Typhoon at low alt with overboost -or once WEP was officially cleared)
Might have is guesswork, not history.
In any case, single-seat defiant derivatives may have had enough merits to not simply throw them away in favor of Spitfire production
.
They weren't; it was the Whirlwind that the Spitfire/Seafire replaced, and, without major modifications, i.e. a completely new wing, the Defiant could not carry similar armament to the cannon-armed Spitfire.
the Gloster twin might have been a better development path than the Typhoon as well, had the ministry showed interest)
Two engines, where one would do, never sat well with the Ministry.
And all that said, I still think the Hurricane itself may have had more development potential
It didn't; the Merlin XX was as big an engine as it could take. The Hurricane was also a deathtrap for pilots, if the wing tanks were holed, since the cockpit's open framework drew the flames straight in, and onto them.
 
would that not also apply to FW adversaries. Wasnt the first employment of the typhoon to hunt down FW hit and run raids across the channel..


The tip-and-run FW 190 raiders of 1943 do seem to have out-paced chasing Typhoons on a regular basis. The rocket Typhoons of 1944 were certainly slower and less maneuevrable:

August 1944
" Immediately, our aircraft are refuelled and rearmed. We are ordered off again to the Lisieux area, where convoys are said to be escaping under cover of a swarm of Me109s. Well, well! The Luftwaffe is back! I hope that we can meet them after firing our rockets—a dogfight with full load is no piece of cake.
Before take-off I warn my pilots that, should the Messerschmitts bounce us, they must turn towards the German fighters and keep right down on the deck. Low down we don't have to worry but it would be suicidal to climb towards them:—the rails of our rockets would be a handicap in that manoeuvre."


See p.136
Charles Demoulin. Firebirds!: Flying the Typhoon in Action.
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986.




After solving the bugs was this assignment not successfully carried out.


Could you pinpoint for us the exact date in which these bugs were solved?

There were many problems with the Typhoon and Tempest, but the most serious defect was the Napier Sabre engine. A quick look at the unit history of No. 247 Squadron shows that the safety record was abysmal:

1st March 1943.
Typhoon Mk.I DN445. Engine failure after take-off, force landed near High Ercall.
Sergeant. J. H. Berry injured.

26th July 1943.
Typhoon Mk.I DN338. Engine failure, force landed 1m SW of New Romney.
Flying Officer R. F. Murray OK.

24th September 1943.
Typhoon Mk.I JP653. Engine failure, ditched off Dymchurch.
Flight Lieutenant C. E. Brayshaw OK.

4th October 1943.
Typhoon Mk.I JP729. Engine failure, force landed at New Romney.
Flying Officer J. B. Watchorn killed.

5th January 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP850. Engine failure, crash landed at Itchel Manor, Odiham.
Flying Officer A. S. Aitchison OK.

3rd February 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP927. Engine failure, ditched 2 mi S of Selsey.
Flying Officer R. Walker-Lutz OK.

15th February 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP381. Engine failure, crashed 1m S of Flers.
Flight Sergeant C. E. B. Eckel evaded capture.

28th February 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP730. Engine failure, pilot baled out 3m N of Sark.
Warrant Officer P. S. W. Daniel killed.

16th March 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP672. Engine failure, force landed 1m S of Arundel.
Sergeant S. R. Ryen OK.

5th April 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I MN294. Engine failure, wheels up landing at Dunsfold.
Sergeant E. A. Bolster OK.

26th April 1944.

Typhoon Mk.I MM979. Engine failure, force landed 12m NE of Ferndown.
Pilot not identified.

26th April 1944.

Typhoon Mk.I MN299. Engine failure, force landed 1m N of Ferndown.
Sergeant S. R. Ryen OK.

18th July 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I MN597. Engine failure, crashed at B.14 Amblie.
Sergeant S. R. Ryen killed.

22nd September 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JR208. Engine failure, force landed S of Helmond.
Flight Sergeant J. A. D. Meechan.

4th November 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I EK135. Engine failure on ferry flight, force landed 7m NE of Louvain.
Warrant Officer S. R. Thomas OK.

8th November 1944.

Typhoon Mk.I EK133. Engine failure on take-off, force landed at Eindhoven rail yards.
Flying Officer D. C. Orriss OK.

9th November 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I JP937. Engine failure, crashed at Niewchirke on ferry flight.
Flying Officer W. Osborne killed.

19th November 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I EJ991. Engine failure, force landed SW of Someren.
Flying Officer F. K. Wiersum OK.

27th November 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I PD618. Engine failure on ferry flight, force landed near Brussels.
Flying Officer F. K. Wiersum OK.

29th December 1944.
Typhoon Mk.I MN253. Engine failure on take-off, wheels up landing at B.78 Eindhoven.
Flying Officer G. M. Hill OK.

3rd February 1945.
Typhoon Mk.I MN471. Engine failure, force landed 15m SE of Münster.
Flight Lieutenant E. A. McGee PoW.

7th March 1945.

Typhoon Mk.I RB450. Engine fire on start up at Warmwell, to Taylorcraft for salvage.

17th April 1945.
Typhoon Mk.I R8932. Engine trouble, force landed at B.110 Achmer.
Flight Lieutenant L. R. Barnes OK.

26th April 1945.

Typhoon Mk.I SW513. Engine failure, force landed 5m SW of Boizenburg.
Warrant Officer G. E. T. Lawley OK.

See p.153-155
David John Marchant. Rise From the East: The Story of No.247 (China-British) Squadron Royal Air Force. Turnbridge Well: Air-Britain Historians Ltd., 1996.



I suspect yet another example of over critical anti-british sentiment rising yet again.



So the British test pilots at Boscombe Down were anti-British?


March 1943 - At the end of 1942, there were only Nos. 1, 56, 266 and 609 Squadrons testing the Typhoon in action, 486, 183 and 198 were still being converted to the Tiffy and, like the others, experienced many difficulties in overcoming its faults.
The truth at that time was that the long-awaited fighter, the one planned to replace the Spitfire, was in fact a cruel disappointment for the RAF. Although by far the fastest from ground level to 10,000 feet, the Typhoon lost most of its power at altitude where much of the combat took place. This was an insurmountable set-back for, even with its supercharger, the huge engine of over 2200 hp could not compensate for the seven tons it had to move about the sky—against a mere 3.5 tons for the Spitfire.
Then there was, at that time, its rather bad habit of losing its ailerons in a steep turn and, for good measure, the tail rivets would not stand the stress of a power dive. To add to those problems, the Napier 24 cylinder sleeve-valve engine suffered from a mysterious malady and had an average life of about five hours before it packed up without warning.
It took months to find the remedies and, as far as the engine was concerned, although the cylinder valves causing the trouble were changed more often, and even replaced by another kind of steel, the reliability was never up to the standard of Rolls Royce engines in the Spitfires. No wonder that many pilots asked to be posted back to fight on Spitfires rather than to die accidentally on Typhoons …
Last but not least of its vices, the aircraft had to be held hard with full rudder to counteract the torque and oxygen had to be on at all times because the cockpit filled with exhaust fumes! These may have been minor troubles compared with the others, but nevertheless they required even-tempered pilots to put up with them."


See p.37-38
Charles Demoulin. Firebirds!: Flying the Typhoon in Action.
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986.


April 1944 -" Slowly the new Tempests were ferried in and the Typhoons went. My letter 'R's engine had completed its 240 flying hours which was considered fantastic; fifty hours was the norm at that time for the Napier Sabre engine. I was told they were taking it back to the makers to investigate and find out what the difference was. I reckoned it was the driver."


July 1944 - " The Air Officer Commanding, Air Vice Marshall Harry Broadhurst also paid us a visit, and took up a Tempest to try out his new super plane. Unfortunately the Sabre engine played up with it's old tricks. After sputtering and coughing on take-off, he was glad to get down on earth safely."


October 1944 - " We were still having a good deal of trouble with the engine oiling up. The Napier Sabre didn't really like idling. It was far happier when we were chasing V1s at full bore when serviceability was the best ever. At Volkel there were miles of brick laid perimeter tracks. The ground off the tracks was soft, as Joe Hindley found to his cost when he ran off the perimeter track and the plane tipped up on its nose. This meant that you had to taxi slowly and with a good deal of care. This in turn meant that unburned oil collected around the sleeve valves of the engine, and when you opened up for take off, great blobs of oil came back from the exhausts. At best obscuring the windscreen, at worst causing the engine to cut."

See p.151, 166, 184
Ron Pottinger. Soldier In the Cockpit: From Rifles to Typhoons in WWII.
Stackpole Books, 2007.



Care to share with the rest of us you national background or technological preefernces and expertise, along with your references for the above statement


A&AEE flight test results for Typhoons R7700 and R8762 are online for everyone to see. You know where to find it.


________________

" The Vulture was so bad that it was scrapped in a decision taken at a meeting at Langley attended by, among others, Sydney Camm and senior officials of Rolls Royce . . . The decision was made also to concentrate on the Typhoon with the Sabre; but had it been known how little development had been done on this engine, and the problems which were to come, I wonder whether it would have been proceeded with?
The Typhoon was basically a magnificent aeroplane, very strong structurally. But the main problem was the engine. There was sleeve wear. Sleeves broke, pistons broke, and oil poured out of the engine, blinding the pilot. Another engine trouble was cooling. The oil in the engine had a circulation of 3,000 gallons an hour, and the temperature guage used to go off the clock."


Philip Lucas
Chief Test Pilot
Hawker Aircraft Ltd.
(1939-1946)
________________
 
Last edited:
Looking at this nice and long dissertation that EKB posted regarding the ills of the Typhoon shows us that perhaps ALL of the aircraft of WWII should have been cancelled.

If we discount an aircraft based on things like leaking oil, that would eliminate several radial types. Aircraft force landing because of engine failure...well, that would eliminate several other types. I could probably fill several pages in this thread with MACR listing P-47 and P-51 engine failures.

How about the P-39's sudden and deadly flat-spin?
How about the Corsair's reputation for being fatal to new pilots?
The P-40's passion for overheating while on the ramp?
The P-47's tendancy to fight the pilot with it's engine torque?

So we cancel the Typhoon and what shall we challenge the Fw190 with in a low-level fight? Surely not the Hurricane...

And during the push inland after the Normandy landings, what heavy ground attack aircraft do we use? Was the Spitfire capable of carrying 2,000 pounds of bombs?

And without the Typhoon, there would be no Tempest...

All the contributions to the war effort made by the Typhoon would leave a vacuum if it were removed from the timeline. It may have had problems, but it's contributions far outweighed it's negatives.
 
As above.
Given the problems that the Fw 190 encountered in early operations and development, should that have been cancelled too? Same for any number of WW2 types.
Cheers
Steve
 
Could a Rolls-Royce Griffon powered aircraft have performed these tasks with less fuss?
 
Havent studied the Typhoon losses in enough detail to be that sure, but by comparison, all German types also suffered reliability issues.....if you apply the same logic as is being applied to the tiffy here.

As an example, the Germans crossed in Russia in the last week of 1941 with just under 2700 a/c, not including those of her allies. She had suffered several hundred losses by the end of July, mostly to ground fire and accidents. That still does not explain the attrition rates being suffered by the LW. By the end of July, effectives were down to under 1000 a/c. Does that mean they had lost 1500 a/c in 40 days. No, it does not. It means all aircraft, regardless of type, suffer a certain rate of failures and breakdowns, and the more intense the usage, the higher the unserviceability rates. A high rate of usage means a low serviceability rate. There are no exceptions. Some types are more difficult to keep airborne than others, and some suffer a higher rate of loss than others. I dont think anyone could argue that the Tiffy did not suffer from breakdowns when it was being used. But ive not heard any evidence to suggest it suffered a higher loss rate, or any evidence that it could not do the job it was given to do. That includes chasing hit and run raids by FW 190s.

This line of argument you are attempting really starts to take on a farcical aspect if i wanted to be cynical and compare the uncomparable. In NW Europe, during periods of normal usage, Typhoons, undertaking the most difficult of tasks.....ground support, had an average life expectancy of just under 6 month. By comparison, a P-51, in 1944, had a life span of around 8 months. German fighters over the Reich could expect to last how long? a month? two? In the East, the LW attrition rate skyrocketed in winter from around 15% per month to nearly 40% per month. Does that mean that German aircraft are half as good as allied? Of course it doesnt. I only mention it to try and pusuade you that your logic is flawed. You are approaching this in a totally cockeyed, or more likely one eyed approach.
 
I do like the like the bit about the Typhoon weighing 7 tons. " the huge engine of over 2200 hp could not compensate for the seven tons it had to move about the sky—against a mere 3.5 tons for the Spitfire."

Flight test for the Typhoon R7700 says it weighed 11,070lbs.


and test for R8762 doesn't seem to give a weight.

however other test reports give;

Typhoon 1A. R.8198.......10,402lbs
Typhoon 1A. R8199........10,100lbs
Typhoon 1A. R.7577.......10,350lbs
Typhoon 1B. R.7646.......10,300lbs
Typhoon 1B R.8222........10,630lbs
Typhoon 1B J.R.333........11,295lbs

The Data sheet (27/6/44) gives 11,400lbs as the max weight ( I believe that is without bombs.) either somebody is using rather different "tons" or something is way off.

I am not a real fan of the Typhoon. It didn't do what it was supposed to do, whatever it's contributions wound up being, and the true cost of the Sabre engine program has never been reveled. That is actually two different things. The Typhoon being the airframe is responsible for the thick wing which hurt performance and a fair amount of the structural failures (harmonics with the engine/prop being shared). The engine maker is certainly responsible for the engine woes, including the less than predicted performance at altitude? Poor supercharger plus thick wing really put the wammy on predicted performance.
Unfortunately some programs took on a life of their own as too much got invested in them too soon. Much like the Whirlwind, parts/materials are ordered months in advance of actual use and parts for hundreds of aircraft are already in the supply pipeline makings canceling a program difficult.
 
I too, am not a huge fan of the Typhoon...however, in seeing the historical timeline and the contributions made by each aircraft during the war, I find it difficult to see any other RAF aircraft that could fill in the void if the Tiffy were removed from the line of events.

Yes, it had a thick wing, because it was to have been armed with 12 .303 MGs...in the end, it wound up with 4 20mm cannon...

From Normandy onward, there were only two Allied aircraft that the Wehrmacht truly loathed: the P-47 and the Typhoon. A Mustang or a Spitfire would make the German's put their heads down or dive for cover, but the effective and relentless attacks made by groups such as the 2 TAF during key battles even won admiration from Eisenhower.
 
But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?
To be honest I don't know, but I thought the Mk III maxed at 385 which would be less than the Typhoon but am more than happy to be updated on this as its an area I am not sure of. However no SPit matched the Typhoon as a GA aircraft and cannot see that changing.
And, granted, not available until 1942, but the Allison engined Mustang was faster at low altitudes as well. (P-39 was available sooner though and may have outpaced the Typhoon at low alt with overboost -or once WEP was officially cleared)
There doesn't seem to be a lot between the P51A and the Typhoon, but the P39 didn't come close to the Typhoon. I know of one test which gave the P51a a remarkable speed but that was factory fresh with specially sanded finish. With normal wear it seems to have a speed of approx. 370 at about 4 to 5000 ft. The Typhoon seems to have similar performance.
Ground attack/FB ability is a separate issue, but possibly one the Mustang could have fared very well in as well. (it managed well enough employed for GA as the A-36
First and foremost I do believe that the GA role is the issue for the Typhoon. It had limitations as a fighter but it was the RAF's main GA aircraft. Understandably A lot is made of the A36 as an attack aircraft but I always have one question in the back of my mind and that is, if it was as good as its cracked up to be, why didn't they carry on building them? presumably there was a reason.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back