In mid 1942 NOBODY was going to be catching a V1....yet.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
- Thread starter
- #1,702
And anyway there was still also quite a need in the Med, in the CBI, in the Pacific, and in Russia, where the ground wars were raging. The Hurricane was seriously struggling as a fighter design by 1942. Considering they continued to use it for so long, an improved version would really have helped.
Because the Hurricane, aside from being stable, seemed to have some traits that made it very lethal if it could catch - lots of guns, stable 'platform', well grouped guns, good maneuverability... I'm not sure what the specific trait was, but assuming you didn't lose that entirely by shaving 1.5 -2 feet from each wing, I think that alone would have given it much better outcomes on many fronts, and that could have quite a knock-on affect.
I do hear your argument though about the nature of the wing making it harder or less beneficial to adjust, and of course it's all moot anyway since they didn't do it.
Luckily they had the P-40
Or it could have been that the available resources were already stretched a bit too thin.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #1,704
Perhaps, but lets keep in mind a lot of factories were still cranking out things like Fairey Fulmars, Fairey Fireflies, Fairey Barracudas*, Curtiss Seamews, Lockheed Venturas, TBF Avengers, Bell P-39s, ... and first and foremost old style, (essentially 1941 vintage design) Hurricanes. Some of that capacity may have profitably redirected into making an improved variant of the Hurricane. I know that the Typhoon was supposed to be it's replacement but it took a while to get from that to the Tempest. In the mean time it might have been nice to have something more useful.
Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?
My point is that there were a lot of planes being produced already by say late 1941 or early 1942 that weren't doing the Allied war effort much good.
Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?
My point is that there were a lot of planes being produced already by say late 1941 or early 1942 that weren't doing the Allied war effort much good.
It was bigger and weighed about a ton more than a Spitfire.
But at the time, you'd have been hard pressed to convince the powers that be the these were no good, inertia being what it is.
Cheers,
Wes
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Yes that's what I meant. That it might not have yielded dramatic enough results to justify diverting limited resources from other efforts. If they had unlimited resources then everything is worth trying.
As you may know, the Napier Sabre (the Typhoon engine) was a sleeve valve. There are none of the usual poppet valves used here. Napier was behind on the required metallury for the sleeves, and they often would seize. This improved with time. Also, prep at the factory was poor, with metal filings and shavings left in the engine, which again eventually was addressed. Of course, one cannot blame the inherent sleeve valve design for this problem.
I know, from classic car hobby experience, that when the sleeves wear out, they go quickly, just like an engine with worn out rings. Lots of smoke, suddenly! But I can't say that any of these Sabre engines were run so much (and not properly maintained) to reach this point. Currell
I know, from classic car hobby experience, that when the sleeves wear out, they go quickly, just like an engine with worn out rings. Lots of smoke, suddenly! But I can't say that any of these Sabre engines were run so much (and not properly maintained) to reach this point. Currell
- Thread starter
- #1,709
Wow sounds like a 737-Max 8 assembly plant
Thanks for explaining that it fills in a few gaps.Could you, or somebody explain the basic concept of the sleeve valve in layman's terms? I gather the Beaufighter had them too, would that be Bristol Hercules? And yet they seemed to work out pretty well.
Key problem, they were so heavy they needed fields long enough for them to take off !
Big problem in New Guinee and their use was limited.
Not only that were as maneuverable down low!
They needed speed to be effective and that required altitude !
Quite a lot of engines had them, the sleeve in the cylinder covers and uncovers ports to allow inlet and outlet of the gas. They have advantages and disadvantages. There is a cut away rotating one in The Yorkshire Museum. it makes your head hurt watching it, pieces of metal seem to be moving in every possible direction.Wow sounds like a 737-Max 8 assembly plant
Could you, or somebody explain the basic concept of the sleeve valve in layman's terms? I gather the Beaufighter had them too, would that be Bristol Hercules? And yet they seemed to work out pretty well.
Last edited:
Hind sight is 20/20 and in light of the problems with the sabre engine and the consequent delays with the Typhoon program, it may have been wise for the Air ministry to allow Hawker to further develop the Hurricane. The Griffon equipped Hurricane is one project that could of moved forward. There was also an old IIb Z3687 that was fitted with laminar flow wings as well as a Hurricane with a merlin 45. It really was a question of available resources.
The Hurricane achieved some amazing results for a derivative fighter designed in the 1930s and essentially unchanged from August of 1940. More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.
The Hurricane achieved some amazing results for a derivative fighter designed in the 1930s and essentially unchanged from August of 1940. More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.
Wow! Rube Goldberg would be proud. That sucker most have had a ginormous oil pump with all that slipsliding going on. Wonder how much hosepower that valve mechanism consumed. I notice it has a less than 1:1 power/weight ratio.
Cheers,
Wes
Shortround6
Major General
They were trying for a multi role aircraft but the idea that plane burdened with an internal bomb bay (larger fuselage and more weight) and a power operated rear gun mount and gunner could mix it up with single seat fighters was a non starter.
They didn't need an escort as long as the bombers didn't have an escort. Which they didn't during most of the Me 210s development period. It first flight was 2nd September 1939 but was such a failure that it took years to correct the problems and by that time the tactical situation had changed. The Me 410 made it's first flight March of 14th of 1942, over a year and half before escorted daylight bombers appeared over most of Germany. One could say that changing conditions made them obsolete even as they were being built and deployed but until American escort fighters show up the Big twins didn't need escorts.
Not saying the mount didn't work, however it weighed several hundred pounds. Not what you want if engaging single seat fighters.
And if the single 13mm is daunting for a pursuing fighter then two .50 cal guns in a power turret must have been downright terrifying
There was four years between the BoB and 1944. Large airframes can do more jobs than single seat fighters and their ability to do some of those jobs depends on their accompanying single seat fighters. Both the B-17 and B-24 saw very little improvement in power plants for a number of years and also limited improvement in armament (once large scale production started) for several years. Were they obsolete in 1944 or did the provision of good escort fighters allow them to stay competitive?
For most air forces it was the single engine/single seat fighter that lead the way, Both in technology and in combat. Without a first rate single engine/single seat fighter many other aircraft simply could not survive to do their jobs. So single engine/single seat fighters tended to go obsolete quicker than other planes. Because they were simpler to design, much fewer pieces, it was also easier to design and introduce new single engine/single seat fighters at a faster rate than multi engine aircraft.
There are few other things you don't seem to know but I don't want to get into personal bashing. I will cover one of them in a separate post.
If you ignore the dead-ends and clutter you don't really have good picture of what the higher ups intended or were thinking.
wuzak
Captain
The question is would you have a Griffon Hurricane or a Griffon Spitfire?
When the Griffon was available in quantity, the Typhoon is well into production and the Sabres problems were being sorted. The Spitfire XII started operations in January (?) 1943 and the Firefly in March 1943. Napier had been taken over by English Electric in November 1942,
The Merlin 45 was not a wonder engine. The reason that the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 was because there was not enough Merlin XXs to supply both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the Hurricane needed it more.
With the Merlin 45 the Spitfire had a maximum speed of ~370mph (Spitfire V), while the Merlin XX boosted the speed up to ~400mph (Spitfire III, 399mph with earlier Merlin X).
And when would a Hurricane with laminar flow wings be available?
- Thread starter
- #1,717
They were intended for use over the battlefield, but planes like that were vulnerable to short range Tactical fighters too.
Not saying the mount didn't work, however it weighed several hundred pounds. Not what you want if engaging single seat fighters.
And if the single 13mm is daunting for a pursuing fighter then two .50 cal guns in a power turret must have been downright terrifying
I would say a pair of .50's in a power turret was pretty terrifying (have you ever shot one or seen somebody shooting one?), which is why they would try to attack from directions where there weren't any. They were certainly dangerous to attack especially when you had multiple pairs of them from multiple aircraft all shooting at you at the same time.
Frankly I would say both - it was (they were) probably obsolete in it's initial intended role which was I believe unescorted daylight precision bombing. They never did work out as precision bombers first of all. Second Schweinfurt and Regansburg et al proved they couldn't fly unescorted. So yes, per the previously discussed theme of some kind of spiral of obsolescence with different layers, I'd say they slipped a notch to the second layer - requiring escorts to do their definitely non-precision bombing.
As you know I'm not really a fan of Strategic bombing in general or four engine heavy bombers specifically. I think the B-24 and B-17 made pretty good maritime patrol aircraft, superior to say a Fw 200.
We know that now with the benefit of hindsight, but during the war they did not actually know that for certain and kept trying to make twin engine fighters - and to some extent they succeeded. The P-38 ultimately, by say the J or L version, became (I would say) a fully viable day time high altitude fighter. The Mosquito was an excellent night fighter and intruder. The Beaufighter was a good night fighter for a while and remained a good maritime patrol / fighter -bomber through the end of the war. The Whirlwind was an excellent low altitude fighter. The Bf 110, for all it's flaws, was indeed a good night fighter until the Mosquito started making life risky for it. And the Me 210 / 410 program was supposed to be the successor to the Bf 110 which were going to bring it back up the spiral a turn or two.
So I think the twin engined fighter was perceived as a viable concept in WW2, at least to some people.
Right back at you - I've caught you in quite a few mistakes but I chose not to belabour the point because it just makes people bitter. I'd rather learn from what you are willing to share from where your knowledge is more complete. But isn't it also a little boring to pretend that any one of us knows everything? If that was true what would be the point of having these discussions?
It's not really a matter of ignoring them it's just a matter of priority as to what you learn first. I am trying to learn the complete histories of many if not most WW2 military aircraft, usually it's worth the effort. I find the operational histories more interesting through.
Shortround6
Major General
Actually, I was thinking of moving the ailerons
And before anybody starts to say the A6M5 came late, the speed increase and the shorter wing both actually date back to the A6M3, which entered production in April 1942 Presumably the wing change didn't take that long.
So I figure the British had to be at least nearly as smart as the Japanese right? They should therefore have been able to do it.
You left out a drawing.
The original clip wing Zeke. They basically left off the folding tips.
Although they did have to shorten the ailerons a bit?
The A6M5 kept the shorter span but rounded the ends instead of using the square tips.
The A6M also went through 3 stages of modified wing construction to increase the dive speed.
The new engine in the A6M3 ( two speed supercharger and higher power) and the increase in cannon ammunition had nothing to do with their capability? It was all the wing clip? which was restored on the model 22 (which, confusingly, came after the model 32). The model 22a got a higher velocity 20mm cannon (barrels protrude from the wing)
- Thread starter
- #1,719
Two other comments on that same subject - first, speaking of operational histories, this page, (there are multiple individual pages on that site) which I posted a link to earlier, has some great content on engagements between Ju 88C (yet another pretty successful twin engined combat aircraft that operated without escorts at least some of the time) and various other aircraft from B-24s to Beaufighters to Wellingtons. Quite fascinating if you like those kinds of "exotic" battles. Really enjoying that.
Second, there is another series of books I didn't know about until pretty recently called "First Team" which compares victories and losses from records on both sides in the Pacific - much like Shores has done and did both in the Pacific and in the Med. I just got the first book in the series and it's quite good so far. I'm sure many people here already know it and have it but some may not so I thought I'd mention it.
Second, there is another series of books I didn't know about until pretty recently called "First Team" which compares victories and losses from records on both sides in the Pacific - much like Shores has done and did both in the Pacific and in the Med. I just got the first book in the series and it's quite good so far. I'm sure many people here already know it and have it but some may not so I thought I'd mention it.
- Thread starter
- #1,720
Yes when they first clipped the wings on the A6M3 they lost the folding tips and also for reasons I forget, some of the fuel capacity.
Yes to all of this, but so what?
According to what I read (and this is mentioned on the Wiki) the engine power increase only improved speed by 6.8 miles per hour, hence the wing clip.
- Status
