Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Polls

Polls Polls and discussion on their results.

View Poll Results: The Best RAF Prototype
Supermarine Spitful 3 27.27%
Short Super Stirling 1 9.09%
Hawker Tornado 1 9.09%
Boulten Paul 92 0 0%
Vickers Type 432 0 0%
Martin-Baker 5 6 54.55%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2008, 08:22 AM   #1
Member
 
TL Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Nuneaton
Posts: 82
Best RAF Prototypes

This a pole to see what the best prototype of the RAF is in this forum eyes.
I voted for the Short Super Stirling Because this was what Stirling could have been if it wasn't for the RAF regulation it could have rivaled the Avro Lancaster with 4 early Bristol Centuras powering the aircraft. It carried more then the Lancaster and could keep up with the Lancaster. When the prototype was finished the RAF had no interest in a new bomber and the project went no further.
__________________

Last edited by TL Blade; 08-02-2008 at 08:52 AM.
TL Blade is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 04:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Oreo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 277
I tried to find some of these, including the Super Stirling, but could not. Please post photos/drawings of it. Google didn't come through for me. I voted for MB 5, but actually Spiteful was pretty good, too.
Oreo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 09:39 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
johnbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London Ontario Canada
Posts: 284
This was very hard to pick between the Spiteful and the MB5.
johnbr is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 01:57 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
kool kitty89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,412
I didn't have any trouble googling these, on the "Super Stirling":

from wikipedia's Stirling page:

Quote:
In 1941, Short proposed an improved version of the Stirling, optimistically called "The Super Stirling" in the company's annals. This Stirling would feature a wing span of 135 ft 9 in (41.38 m), and a powerplant of four Bristol Centaurus radials and a maximum takeoff weight of 104,000 lb (47,174 kg). The performance estimates included 300 mph (483 km/h) speed and a 4,000 mile (6,437 km) range with a weapons load of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg). It was initially accepted for consideration under Specification B.8/41 but the CinC of Bomber Command Arthur Harris felt that, while it would be a better aircraft, actual production would be slower and that effort would be better spent on giving the Stirling improved Hercules engines for a higher ceiling. The project was cancelled shortly after.

The Tornado was similar to the Hawker Typhoon, but with a RR Vulture X-24 engine.

Last edited by kool kitty89; 08-03-2008 at 02:04 AM.
kool kitty89 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:37 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
kool kitty89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,412
I personally like the Boulton Paul P.94. (single seat fighter version of the Defiant)

Would have been a good long range fighter, less maneuverable and poorer climb than the Spitfire or Hurricane (with similar engine) but as fast as the Spit, and with a sturdier airframe and larger load and armament capacity. Would have made a good strike a/c or fighter-bomber.

Last edited by kool kitty89; 08-03-2008 at 04:40 AM.
kool kitty89 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 06:11 PM   #6
Member
 
TL Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Nuneaton
Posts: 82
I agree about the p.94 but the only evidence i could of a existence was on cfs2 so I didn't know if it was fictional or not.
__________________
TL Blade is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 11:38 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
kool kitty89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,412
Huh? Almost any article online about the Defiant will mention the P.94.

Wikipedia: Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
P.94
The first Defiant prototype had not been initially fitted with a turret, and therefore had an impressive top speed. Consequently, in 1940, Boulton Paul developed a conventional, single-seat, turret-less version of the Defiant called the P.94, armed with 12 Browning .303 machine guns (six per wing). By that time, the RAF had sufficient quantities of Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfire and did not require a new single-seat fighter. With a top speed of about 360 mph, the P.94 was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire, although less manoeuvrable.
kool kitty89 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 09:28 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 263
As the tread says 'prototypes' I think it excludes the Super-Stirling as I think it was only a design, and not built. Harris said no to production, because of the reduced no's compared with the standard Stirling - ignoring the saving of less aircraft shot down!
The Spiteful, would be too late to make a difference.
The Vickers 432 - minor benefit compared to Mosquito.
BP P.92 - turret fighter - flawed concept.
Hawker Tornado - unlucky powered by the Vulture, would have been interesting with the Fairey Monarch!
So it has to be the MB.5 - I think it was mainly the Air Ministry's lack of confidence in Martin Baker to be able to handle mass production.
merlin is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 09:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Juha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,361
I agree with Merlin on MB.5, given more resources (engines delivered in time etc) MB.5 might have been ready in time for participating the war.

Juha
Juha is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118