Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The same as with the Manchester : make them four engined.The British had some twin engined, ICE-powered aircraft that were duds, such as the Avro Manchester. I would include in these the following:
Blackburn Botha
Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn B-20
With effort the twin-engined Manchester was made into the superlative four-engined Lancaster. What can we do to get other British ICE-powered twin-engined duds into successful territory?
They did try to do that and the engines still exist. Sadly over a mile down in the North Atlantic. There are risks in relying upon imported machinery in wartime from a whole ocean away.Beaufort: fix the damn Taurus (this was done by the time the Albacore enters service)! Otherwise, fit US Twin Wasp engines as the Australians did.
Agreed, the Skua is needlessly larger, over 2ft longer, with a 5 ft wider wingspan than the SDB Dauntless. And unless coerced by the Air Ministry, what the heck was Petty thinking with the Roc.It appears the run of less than inspiring designs comes about with George Petty's ascendency as Blackburn's chief engineer, beginning with the Skua, which wasn't a terrible aircraft but was bigger than it needed to be. Petty was also responsible for the Botha and Firebrand.
That's what I always tell my wife at the store, that four beer packs are much better than two!The same as with the Manchester : make them four engined.
Well, the 2ft was a screw up in the CG,Agreed, the Skua is needlessly larger, over 2ft longer, with a 5 ft wider wingspan than the SDB Dauntless.
Define "coercion".And unless coerced by the Air Ministry, what the heck was Petty thinking with the Roc.
Fairey was smart pre-war with the Swordfish. Take a gamble and make what you think the market will want, not what the government has specified, and then proceed to knock the assumed leader in biplane TSRs, Blackburn with their Shark out of the market. Were any other British warplanes created thusly, where the Air Ministry's official Specification was a mere formality to accept an aircraft that already exists? I guess this is trickier during wartime where there's no time for blue sky projects.The Air Ministry had a quite a lot of input into designs. If the designer/company doesn't meet the "requirements" they don't get the contract. Declining the contract because it means a rubbish aircraft may have been patriotic but but your unpaid workers and shareholders are not going to be happy and not necessarily in that order.
How isolated and bored were the first people to try this? I have seen monkeys in cages do similar.
Another case of the sudden rush to rearm from 1936. A contract for 21 (3 prototypes and 18 production aircraft) granted straight off the drawing board. Deliveries from Nov 1938 to May 1941. While the follow on contract for a further 31 production aircraft was cancelled (probably on 24 Oct 1939?), the initial contract was allowed to be (had to be?) completed.The Lerwick was found to be troublesome from the outset, aerodynamics-wise, both the manufacturer and the Marine Armaments Experimental Establishment agreed on its poor qualities. The only solution is to end production early on and task Saro with production of the Sunderland, which was already in production and service by the time the war begins.
.
DH Hornet, Hawker Fury/Sea Fury. Both began as private ventures that the RAF/RN picked up, though they didn't enter service until after the war. The Mosquito also applies here as a private venture the RAF picked up.Fairey was smart pre-war with the Swordfish. Take a gamble and make what you think the market will want, not what the government has specified, and then proceed to knock the assumed leader in biplane TSRs, Blackburn with their Shark out of the market. Were any other British warplanes created thusly, where the Air Ministry's official Specification was a mere formality to accept an aircraft that already exists? I guess this is trickier during wartime where there's no time for blue sky projects.
Except that is not what happened.Fairey was smart pre-war with the Swordfish. Take a gamble and make what you think the market will want, not what the government has specified, and then proceed to knock the assumed leader in biplane TSRs, Blackburn with their Shark out of the market. Were any other British warplanes created thusly, where the Air Ministry's official Specification was a mere formality to accept an aircraft that already exists? I guess this is trickier during wartime where there's no time for blue sky projects.
I think the lack of an airframe manufacturer was a detriment to Armstrong Siddeley. Not that Rolls Royce suffered as was.One can also see in the 30s that some airframe manufacturers that had an associated engine company tended to favor that companies engines, sometimes to the detriment of the airplanes.
Wither the Armstrong Siddeley engines were good or bad in the 1920s may be up for argument. The Problem in the 30s was that A-S didn't make any significant improvements over the 1920s engines while most of the rest of world (or British companies) did.I think the lack of an airframe manufacturer was a detriment to Armstrong Siddeley.
The basic engine was too small.They were on the right path and just needed more money to give Britain a poppet valve 14-cylinder radial equal to that of Curtiss or perhaps P&W.
The basic engine was too small.
Unfortunately it appears that the designers were trying to be a bit too clever and missed or did not take the avenues of bigger and higher boost (and heavier construction).
I mean, who needs a 14 cylinder 250hp two row radial engine?
I'm not suggesting A/S simply upscale the Tiger. But as Britain's only interwar poppet valve 14-cylinder radial it was a good place to start. So, A/S procures through some means a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp and a Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone and tear them down. AIUI, the biggest flaw on the Tiger was insufficient bearing surfaces. By 1938-39, the A/S Super Tiger or whatever is produced.There were definitely design choices that limited the power the Tiger could produce.
The too small was in response toIt was 2,000 cubic inches, bigger than the Wright R-1820 and P&W R-1830.
Some of the choices may have been out of the hands of the designers, limits imposed by plant tooling/facilities or by the plant/facilities of their suppliers/subcontractors.There were definitely design choices that limited the power the Tiger could produce.
The 250hp engine was the Whippet of 1935, it never got off paper. Somebody got smart. Building a 14 cylinder engine when they were developing a 270-330hp 7 cylinder at the same time was a waste of time.Possibly it was a product of its time, i.e. the early 1920s.