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

..
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)

Get Vultee to produce that (non turbo P-38), instead of the Vengenace - per gjs' question re. Vengeance's future?

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.

If we really want a cannon-armed fighter powered by 1-stage Merlin, stick two cannons on the Spitfire as historically :) Four cannons on a single-stage Merlin means quite a big drag weight. Hurricane also have had thick wings (and of greater area than Daffy), maybe even thicker than Defiant. Thin wings were the key to Spitfire's performance, Spitfire was smaller, the Daffy was with wider fuselage because of the turret, so it would be hard pressed to emulate Spitfire's performance on same engine.
The Defiant have had fuel tanks in the wing, those should be relocated in the fuselage (assuming the Daffy is now 1-seater), the weapon bays with extras will be needed to have the guns/cannons installed.

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

Single seat Defiant is a recurring theme, I've even sqetched a long-range fighter based on it. However, once we recall how even the Spitfire was in performance disadvantage in a good part of 1941 and 1942 vs. LW, having yet another aircraft that has 10-20 mph disadvantage does not much good for the RAF and the Allies.
 
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...

It also housed 77imp gallons of fuel in each wing root. About as much as the Mustang. Except the max thickness was a 30% of cord and not further back like the Mustang

3 view.

hawker_typhoon_mk_ia-18336.jpg


Guns are well outboard and by the ejection ports staggered. Wing only had to be thick enough to pass one belt over the gun as the next belt was behind the first belt.

Also note that the landing gear is behind the front spar and the wheel well sucks up a fair amount of the volume where the wings are thickest instead of being in the leading edge kinks and fuselage like a P-51. With the re-designed Tempest wing some of the volume for fuel went away despite the wing being 28% bigger than the Mustang wing.

Not trying to say which was better, just that the thick wing because of 12 small machineguns doesn't seem to hold up. Building Typhoons in late 1944 and into 1945 seems a bit strange with the First Tempest flying 2 September 1942 and first production Tempest flying in June of 1943. Good enough attack plane by that time or they still don't want to take the hit to production to fully convert all production lines? Both?
 
Sir Sydney Camm designed a long line of beautiful and high performing (often above specification) Pilots aircraft from the Hawker Cygnet in 1924 to the Hawker Siddeley P1127 Kestrel (which became the Harrier) in 1963. I think he can be allowed one design that didnt live up to expectations.
 
To be fair to Sir Sydney Camm most of the other British designers believed the boffins at the research establishment that said thick wings were no problem. Beaufighter was supposed to do 370mph. The Firebrand was off by 32mph. Defiant? some of the bombers? Something a bit off with the Fairey Firefly? About 20mph faster than a Curtiss SB2C-4 despite a wing 77% as big, a V-12 engine vs the radial and a skinner fuselage with no bomb bay?

One designer making a "mistake" is one thing. Many designers being off by a large margin pretty much all at the same time (with a few years) on a variety of aircraft means something wrong with the basic drag assumptions they were working with.

Perhaps they were hearing what they wanted to hear as the thick wing/s were lighter than a thin wing AND offered high lift at low speed giving good short field performance (much prized by the Air Ministry) without resorting to the "trick' flaps.
 
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.
I can only pass on what I was told, about 30 years ago, by a former Napier engineer; he said that the main problem was that the groundcrews couldn't resist tinkering with the engine, to "improve" the performance, as they'd always done.
"Once we'd persuaded them to leave the engines at the factory settings, the problems were solved."
 
I can only pass on what I was told, about 30 years ago, by a former Napier engineer; he said that the main problem was that the groundcrews couldn't resist tinkering with the engine, to "improve" the performance, as they'd always done.
"Once we'd persuaded them to leave the engines at the factory settings, the problems were solved."

That's pretty much the standard response you'll get from any factory engineer, aviation, or automotive.
 
There was a 'story' that it got to the point that 'unauthorized' settings being used on a Sabre engine could lead to disciplinary action. Of course the factory men were going to claim it was all the squadrons mechanics fault and the squadron mechanics were going to say they would not have messed with the engines if they ran right in the first place :)

However there is more than a grain of truth in the fact that mid to late war engines running on late 100/130 fuel (high lead) and high boost limits are going to be a lot less tolerate of mis-adjustment than earlier engines. AS engines were operated closer to their limits control settings needed to formed by careful experimentation in almost laboratory settings, not gut feelings or hanger talk about "what 'arry over in #23 squadron did."
And 'adjustments' made on the ground could turn into time bombs when the engine shifted into high supercharger gear in flight.
 
So we cancel the Typhoon and what shall we challenge the Fw190 with in a low-level fight? Surely not the Hurricane...

The Spitfire XII.

Cancel the Firefly, build more Spitfire XIIs for low level work and Seafire XVs for naval duties.

Of course the Spitfire couldn't do the ground attack job that the Typhoon could.

But if the Typhoon was cancelled early, would that necessarily mean the end of the Tempest? Certainly cancelling the Sabre would do that, but would Hawkers and Camm get on with the improved Typhoon if the Sabre was still going to be available?

And if the Sabre is cancelled, what will Napier build?
 
For the Germans strictly, I would cancel the disaster rocket planes such as the Me 163, and halt production of the piston planes and channel a lot of resources and research into the jet engine in order to mass produce jet fighters out on the front. Had production of the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 halt with all the focus going toward the Me 262, the air battle would be radicalized and there would most likely have been combat with the Gloster Meteor and the P-80 Shooting Star.
 
Cancelling the Bf109 and the Fw190 isn't nessecarily going to expedite the Me262's development or the development of the Jet engines. Plus, you can't just throw all your eggs in one basket and pray the Me262 is going to solve the losing airwar against the Allies.

The Fw190 and Bf109 remained formidable adversaries right up to the last days of the war...it was experienced pilots that Germany was in dire need of.
 
Having the Sabre/Typhoon/Tempest in the game makes the RR/Vickers-Supermarine try harder, hence better Spitfires.

It also housed 77imp gallons of fuel in each wing root. About as much as the Mustang. Except the max thickness was a 30% of cord and not further back like the Mustang

The fuel was in four wing tanks, two were indeed in the leading edges, two were behind the well of the U/C strut (cutaway)

Guns are well outboard and by the ejection ports staggered. Wing only had to be thick enough to pass one belt over the gun as the next belt was behind the first belt.

+1 on this.
Also note that the landing gear is behind the front spar and the wheel well sucks up a fair amount of the volume where the wings are thickest instead of being in the leading edge kinks and fuselage like a P-51. With the re-designed Tempest wing some of the volume for fuel went away despite the wing being 28% bigger than the Mustang wing.

Typhoon did not carried any fuel under the pilot (like the Fw 190, Hellcat, P-40, P-51, Bf 109, IIRC Zero, P-47 etc) and/or in the remainder of the fuselage (like the Spitfire, Hurricane, P-51 in 1944+, Bf 109, Tempest, Ki-61, P-47). Soviet fighters, Ki-61 and Ta 152 also have had fuel tanks between the two main spars, with main U/C housed in front of the front spar.

For the Tempest, a fuselage tank of 76 imp gals was added, but the starboard leading edge tanks was dispensed with, so initially the fuel quantity was a bit greater than of Typhoon. From Summer of 1944, that LE position was used for a fuel tank of ~30 imp gals, that brought total internal fuel to ~190 gals (sheets show either 188 or 192) and range to 1770 miles with 2 x 90 drop tanks and with 41 gal of reserve fuel accounted for. Unfortunately, that kind of Tempest was not around in early 1944.

edit: for the earliest Tempest II aircraft, there is a note that says there were some aircraft without even the single leading edge tank (because the Tempest I have had radiators in the LE?)

edit2: sheet for the LR Tempest V
 
Last edited:
For the Germans strictly, I would cancel the disaster rocket planes such as the Me 163, and halt production of the piston planes and channel a lot of resources and research into the jet engine in order to mass produce jet fighters out on the front. Had production of the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 halt with all the focus going toward the Me 262, the air battle would be radicalized and there would most likely have been combat with the Gloster Meteor and the P-80 Shooting Star.

I'd disagree with this. Bf 109 and Fw 190 were not ideal fighters, but were among the best fighters of the world (sometimes the best), with a big number of aerial victories, and were instrumental many LW and Wermacht victories. Cancelling out these does not help out with having the workable Me 262 in numbers in, say, 1943. Cancel the V2 instead, that was the money hole.
 
It's simpler than that. Without the Fw 190 and Bf 109 the Luftwaffe would lose the air war months earlier making the Me 262 and other upcoming designs irrelevant.

I happen to agree that a concentration on developing the one game changing aircraft the Germans had in the Me 262 makes sense, but this was done historically. The Me 262 was afforded the highest priority codes in the German armaments industry, but it was still too little and too late.

Cheers

Steve
 
Doesn't mean it has to be untrue, unless you want it to be; 20 years after the events, what would be his purpose?
It may be true.
But that it's the reply commonly given by any company representative when their products don't do well in the field, that sort of takes the bite out of it.
 
The thing is, if we can engage the retrospectroscope and move forward development of the Me 262, then why can't we do the same for the P-51 and get fully escorted bombing underway earlier?
;) Just sayin'...
 
Last edited:
The thing is, if we can engage the retrospectroscope and move forward development of the Me 262, that why can't we do the same for the P-51 and get fully escorted bombing underway earlier?
;) Just sayin'...
That's the point that's often overlooked...when a new weapon is introduced to the battlefield, there is always a response from the other side.

*IF* the Me262 developed sooner, and performed as hoped (and/or the He280, for that matter), it would have forced the accelerated development of the P-59, P-80, XP-83 and the FH Phantom from the U.S. alone. Britain had their own jet programs and would have also reacted the same, by accelerating their Meteor and Vampire programs.
 
My dad worked at Colt during the Veitnam War, he was an engineer that figured out how to make the gun. They told him they wanted 8 or 9 or 10 parts in a sub-assembly and he figured out how to start with blocks of metal or castings or whatever and turn them into the finished part/s. He had nothing to do with how the gun was designed or what modifications were needed to get it function reliably. All he knew about that is what some other engineer, in a totally separate dept if not building might tell him at lunch or on a visit to the dept where my dad worked. Machine operators would know even less. There aren't that meany parts in an M-16 compared to an aircraft engine. Just because somebody worked at the company at the time, even if they were an engineer, doesn't mean they were working on the problems the engine had.
Mr. Brook's friend/acquaintance might very well have been working in the dept/group tasked with solving the reliability problems. Or he could have been in charge of the coolant pump/s and drive/s and piping and had no idea what the control box ( boost limiting/rpm/altitude,throttle setting, etc) for a single lever (or even two lever) power control did or didn't do. Or he might have been in charge of connecting rod production. If sleeve valves were failing he would know about but not what was done to solve it (unless at the lunch table)Not all engineers are 100% interchangeable.
 
But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?

Added in the Spitfire XII information from WWII Aircraft Performance and Spitfire III information from (I think) an RAE chart.

lows2.jpg


With its Merlin running +16 boost the Spitfire III would probably be similar to the Fw190A3 speeds there - as would the low-altitude 1943 Spitfire V (post upgrades and running +18 boost).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back