Def. Arm. of Light Aircr. Part III: Turrets

[Romantic Technofreak]

Defensive Armament of Light Aircraft Part III: Turrets

There were a lot of efforts, especially in Allied countries, to equip light aircraft with turrets, despite their weight and probably drag-producing surface. I think the best-known example is the Grumman Avenger:

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/avenger/aven-2.jpg

The Avenger is an airplane not much mentioned here. Maybe we need another thread about the "most mediocre WWII airplane", to include ones that are neither good, bad, beautiful or ugly enough to get some respect, and I think the Avenger will be one of them. There even have been efforts done to include the turret carefully into the canopy structure for to reduce drag:

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/avenger/rb-tbm-01.jpg

Another little-respected sample is the Sukhoi Su-2, although it probably receives a "best" title, as best unarmoured light bomber of WWII. The Su-2 wore its defensive machine gun within a turret:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Pinn/3931L.jpg

There must have been a strange way to enter and leave the turret, see this picture:

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/air/su/sukhoi/05127.jpg

However, the turret didn´t help the Su-2 much. In the initial phase of the German-Russian war, it fell victim to the Bf 109 in bunches, and so the armoured Il-2, which was equipped with a half-open rear gun station, made its way.

One should also include the Boulton-Paul Defiant here, although its impressive turret armament was mainly meant in an offensive way:

http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/Images/Gdefiant-2.jpg

I often wonder if it could have been used as light bomber also, replacing the Fairey Battle. And it is still hard for me to imagine that it is easier and takes less time to bring a whole Bf 109 in a shooting position than just to turn the turret of a Defiant properly...

Finally, I am still not quite sure if the Ilyushin Il-10 is equipped with a turret. If you look at the following picture (taken in the Aviation Museum in Krakov, Poland):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/340c62d1.jpg

you see that the point were the mg starts to protrude from the glass is moved out of the centerline of the airplane to the left. That leads to the conclusion that the Il-10 has a turret. Drawings never perfectly show that, it also could be just a closed station:

http://www.suchoj.com/andere/IL-10/riss/IL-10_05.jpg

So, if this is a turret, it fits perfectly with the canopy surface. And I wonder how this looks in the inside, the other half of the turret must separate the gunner from the pilot, or there is some mechanism I don´t understand.

So, do you know if the Il-10 has a turret or not? And do you think, the perfect redesign of the Defiant as light bomber would result in something like the Il-10?

[Ricky]

The Blackburn ROC and the B-P Defiant had retractable fairings between the cockpit and turret, and turret and fuselage.

As an example - here is a side view of a ROC - the red lines show the plane with fairings retracted.

http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files/Aircraft/roc.JPG

[Double T]

RO:
'Afraid I can't agree with your assessment concerning the Grumman Avenger... nor the Sukhoi Su-2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
RO's quote:
"The Avenger is an airplane not much mentioned here. Maybe we need another thread about the "most mediocre WWII airplane", to include ones that are neither good, bad, beautiful or ugly enough to get some respect, and I think the Avenger will be one of them. There even have been efforts done to include the turret carefully into the canopy structure for to reduce drag."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The TBF Avenger was always a favorite of mine. Besides the .50cal in a power-operated turret, the plane was carrier-rated, carried 4 500lb bombs, depth-charges or an aerial torpedo. It was also a very flexible platform that allowed it to be effective in a multitude of different roles. A crew of three, equipped with Yagi-radar, a .50cal turret, a .30 cal. down below and a .50cal in each wing... what's not to like? More handsome than the Su-2 to boot.
"Most mediocre WW2 airplane?" I think not.

Tim

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi Tim,

this is the GREAT planes forum, so even if aircraft are considered "ugly" or "bad", they are still GREAT!!!:):):)
I only wanted to say that the Avenger here seldom was in the center of attention, and so were other (famous) planes. If I say something like I did, I also want to get some contradiction, and I got it!

OK, if I would start a "most mediocre WWII aircraft" thread, I could imagine what kind of answers I have to expect. I just remember my own reaction to Greg making jokes about aircraft he put before on his own "GOT" list!

Yours, RT

P.S. Anybody likes to return to weaponry?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Finally, I am still not quite sure if the Ilyushin Il-10 is equipped with a turret. If you look at the following picture (taken in the Aviation Museum in Krakov, Poland):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/340c62d1.jpg

you see that the point were the mg starts to protrude from the glass is moved out of the centerline of the airplane to the left. That leads to the conclusion that the Il-10 has a turret. Drawings never perfectly show that, it also could be just a closed station:

It looks like it could be a 'closed' station with a curved piece of glass mounted on a swivel along with the gun. I can't explain it well in words - so I drew a picture!
The long shape is the cockpit, the seperate curve on the left is the gun 'shield', the red dot is the pivot for the gun & shield.
http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files/Aircraft/Il-2%20turret.JPG
If you look at the picture RT posted there is an obvious gap on the far side of the 'turret'...

[Double T]

RO:
If we were all of one mind concerning these "great planes" there really wouldn't be much to debate, eh?
(Big Smile)
I appreciate your comments, and think you should go ahead with the thread you mentioned. I'll chime-in as appropriate. There are many planes I love, and some I just don't care for. Sometimes it is like buying a car... you fall in love with sleek lines--or power-operated turrets--and your emotions run away with you.
Love is rarely objective.
Fire away RO. Let's jump-start this forum!

Tim

[Romantic Technofreak]

Ricky, you have such a good eye! Thank you, also for your drawing! So, how could one call this kind of device? Half-turret?

Tim, to be honest, I didn´t really plan such a thread. But... why not? The only trouble is, there are really a lot of planes that could be seen as mediocre...

Cheers, RT

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Gents,

You have a lot of different ideas weaving through this thread!

1) Avenger.
If I was going to be chased by Zero's I would want a decent turret with twin .5's. The Avenger was by far the best of the Allied carrier born bombers (Dauntless, Helldiver, Albacore, Barracuda). It arrived too late for most of the exciting carrier battles (didn't do too well at Midway!) but it lasted a long time after the war.

2) British Turret fighters
What a daft idea in retrospect. In WW I the Bristol fighter was a superb twin seat fighter and the rear gunners did a lot of the damage. But, the Defiant only succeeded in daylight by surprise and the Roc's abilities were as mythical as it's name. The .303's in the B&P turet did not have the weight of shell to damage bombers and reduced performance so much that they were useless against fighters

3) 'Free' rear guns.
I suspect that in many cases they were fitted to give the navigator something to do when under attack. But, having said that, there is the argument that being shot at does tend to put people off their aim. As I understand it the loss rates on Sturmovic's was dramaticaly reduced when they put in a rear gunners position - even if they did get a lot of them shot.

4) Exceptions to the Rule.
Didn't Rudell's rear gunner get a Knights cross as well because he was a superb shot and took out a considerable number of Russian fighters?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Ricky, you have such a good eye! Thank you, also for your drawing! So, how could one call this kind of device? Half-turret?

A kind of sliding, mostly-closed-station type thing...[:p]
I think that it is still turned by the hand of the gunner, so would it count as a turret, which tend to be power operated?

Thankfully most Il-2s seem to have had open rear stations, which are much easier to classify!

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD
2) British Turret fighters
What a daft idea in retrospect. In WW I the Bristol fighter was a superb twin seat fighter and the rear gunners did a lot of the damage. But, the Defiant only succeeded in daylight by surprise and the Roc's abilities were as mythical as it's name. The .303's in the B&P turet did not have the weight of shell to damage bombers and reduced performance so much that they were useless against fighters


Not really. Gladiators did pretty well in the Med and Africa untill replaced by more modern types, and when you consider the lower rate of fire because two the Gladiator's guns had to be synchronised it had a lower weight of fire than the BP Defiant.

The Defiant's failings were largely its poor speed which made it difficult to intercept the faster bombers that were starting to come onto the scene by 1940 such as the Ju88. Against unescorted older bombers such as the He111 it was more than capable of catching them and inflicting enough damage to down them.

It's so easy to be critical of the Defiant with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time it seemed a pretty good concept.

The Roc on the otherhand... well, there's simply no defence for that! ;)

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD
[1) Avenger.
If I was going to be chased by Zero's I would want a decent turret with twin .5's. The Avenger was by far the best of the Allied carrier born bombers (Dauntless, Helldiver, Albacore, Barracuda). It arrived too late for most of the exciting carrier battles (didn't do too well at Midway!) but it lasted a long time after the war.


The Avenger carried a single .50 cal in its turret, and a pintel mounted .30 in the ventral position. The Dauntless generally had I believe either a single .50 or twin .30s for self defence.

I don't think you can say it arrived too late for the most exciting carrier battles, the only ones the Avenger really missed IIRC was Coral Sea and arguably Midway where the bulk of the Torpedo strikes were carried out by Devastators.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by simon

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD
2) British Turret fighters
What a daft idea in retrospect. In WW I the Bristol fighter was a superb twin seat fighter and the rear gunners did a lot of the damage. But, the Defiant only succeeded in daylight by surprise and the Roc's abilities were as mythical as it's name. The .303's in the B&P turet did not have the weight of shell to damage bombers and reduced performance so much that they were useless against fighters


Not really. Gladiators did pretty well in the Med and Africa untill replaced by more modern types, and when you consider the lower rate of fire because two the Gladiator's guns had to be synchronised it had a lower weight of fire than the BP Defiant.

The Defiant's failings were largely its poor speed which made it difficult to intercept the faster bombers that were starting to come onto the scene by 1940 such as the Ju88. Against unescorted older bombers such as the He111 it was more than capable of catching them and inflicting enough damage to down them.

It's so easy to be critical of the Defiant with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time it seemed a pretty good concept.

The Roc on the otherhand... well, there's simply no defence for that! ;)


Its a Moot point but I guess it was a serious mistake that the Makers were not allowed to add forward firing armament to the Defiant. I have a hunch that given an upgrade in the calibre plus forward firing guns, a larger more powerful engine and the right tactics it would have presented an interesting solution to big raids.

[simon]

Or it would end up needing twin engines and be used as a light-bomber... :D

[DoBravery]

DoBravery's quick fix for the Defiant:

1. Yank out the excess weight of the turret and 2nd crewman. Add a pair of 20mm pointed forward and upward (maybe 30-45 degrees), with a modified gunsight for the pilot. Cover exposed area with fabric and sheet metal. Form a "Vic" by adding 2 Hurricane escort/wingman.

BANG!

The weight savings should bump up the Max speed a little. You'd have a nice bomber killer in time for the BoB.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

DoBravery's quick fix for the Defiant:

1. Yank out the excess weight of the turret and 2nd crewman. Add a pair of 20mm pointed forward and upward (maybe 30-45 degrees), with a modified gunsight for the pilot. Cover exposed area with fabric and sheet metal. Form a "Vic" by adding 2 Hurricane escort/wingman.

BANG!

The weight savings should bump up the Max speed a little. You'd have a nice bomber killer in time for the BoB.


Like the idea of the cannon angled cannon, not sure about the vic, Would it create one or two aces in short time?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Or it would end up needing twin engines and be used as a light-bomber... :D

May be? but a Griffon or a P.16 Queen would fit and counter balance a heavier turret? Just trying to use the basic airframe again, but the concept of how do you deal with a dog that can bite you from both ends?

[Romantic Technofreak]

OK, Chris, remember the WWI Bristol fighter, put on your cap, fix your goggles, get into the cockpit and on we go! [:p] Your mount looks as follows: generally like the Defiant, but it´s a bomber. It has two forward-firing guns and an at least partly with the canopy well-fitting turret, with two movable guns. All barrels are of half-inch calibre. Your machine runs at least 480 kph. Some armour plates are installed, but it´s not a flying tank.

So, what would you say? The others are, of course, also free to comment! Concept variants (like DoBravery´s (night-) fighter version) expressivly not excluded!

BTW, I never heard that Rudel´s gunner(s) were awarded a Knight´s cross. I shall make a corresponding request on luftarchiv.de. I only know one complete Ju 88 crew was decorated with it. But the last member received it in February 1945, when the aircraft was already long time and finally grounded because of lacking fuel...[B)]

[Double T]

I seem to remember Rudel went through 3 or more rear-gunners over the course of his 'career.'

Tim

[Red Admiral]

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/bp_p92.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/p92_2.jpg

The idea of flying gun turrets didn't die with the Defiant and Roc. This was a follow-on to specification F11/37. A twin engined, 2 seat fighter with 4x20mm cannons, 370mph top speed and relatively long range.

Bolton-Paul submitted the P.92, of which a half scale flying model was built, the P.92.2 The second picture isn't very good, I have seen some better ones.

Now what happens when these drop onto a formation of He 111s or Ju 88s? The type even has possibility to be upgraded into a good ground attack aircraft.

[ChrisMcD]

Hello again folks,

To reply to various comments

1) Avenger

Your right Simon - only one .5!

Which may explain Torpedo 8's less than triumphal debut at Midway, to quote 'Winkle Brown', " Of the half dozen torpedo-bombers that took off to attack Nagumo's carrier force. five failed to return and the sixth regained the island with only the trim tab for longitudinal control, one mainwheel dangling, the weapons bay doors agape, and with one gunner dead and the other wounded. Maybe they did need two .5's?

But, where are the exciting Avenger tales to match those of the Dauntless or the Vindicator?

2) Gladiator/Defiant

As I understand it the idea of the Defiant was as a bomber destroyer. I take your point about Gladiators in the Med, but Spitfires and Hurricanes were finding that 8 unsynchronised .303's were failing to bring down He III's and Ju 88's in the BoB. As I remember the Gladiators in France and Norway found it a difficult to catch German bombers let alone shoot them down. Gladiators versus Cr42's are all very romantic but, leaving Faith, Hope and Charity aside they were hardly cutting edge.

What I find very hard to get any information on is the Defiant's career as a nightfighter. I know that the RAF could be amazingly obtuse, but here we have an aircraft almost purpose built for 'shrage musike', making up a huge percentage of the 1940/1 night fighter force and yet apparently leaving very little to history! As DoBravery points out, it looks obvious in hindsight to pull up underneath a bomber and let it have a long burst of four .303's - so where are the stories?

I also agree with Red Admiral the turreted fighter did hang on in there - how about the Northrop Black Widow? That was a nightfighter designed with a massive turret, but they never really seemed to be happy with it. As I understand it, most of the time it was locked forward as a very complex fixed gun mount.

BTW I understand that Bolton and Paul did suggest forward firing guns, but the RAF felt that it would tempt pilots to not use their turrets properly! They also suggested a single seat conversion as an emergency fighter for the BoB, but were turned down. Pity because it would almost certainly have been faster than the Hurricane

3 Rudel

Sorry Romatic Technofreak, I cannot find the reference. As I remember it was more the rhetorical comment that for Rudel to survive the war flying a JU87 for over three years, in daylight, round a battlefield crawling with Russian fighters, at low altitude, weighed down with two 37mm cannons - he must have had a bloody good rear gunner(s) - (I have a feeling he got through them at a rate did he not?). Anyone covering Rudel's back certainly deserved a decoration!

Soemwhere I have his autobigraphy, but he was a better pilot than author. The only bit I remember was his description of hitting the 'Marat' at Kronstadt.

By the way, I have an attachment for the Brisfit - my grandfather flew them.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

What I find very hard to get any information on is the Defiant's career as a nightfighter. I know that the RAF could be amazingly obtuse, but here we have an aircraft almost purpose built for 'shrage musike', making up a huge percentage of the 1940/1 night fighter force and yet apparently leaving very little to history! As DoBravery points out, it looks obvious in hindsight to pull up underneath a bomber and let it have a long burst of four .303's - so where are the stories?
Well, mostly because they had trouble finding the bombers - no airborne radar in the early Defiant nightfighters.
One was based at Luton airport, and would take off night after night... and return without having fired a shot. It caused much derision in the town[:p]

[Romantic Technofreak]

About Rudel´s gunners:

Requesting on luftarchiv. de and evaluating a website about Rudel resulted in the following:

Rudel´s first gunner over long years was Erwin Hentschel. He shared at least 1.200 sorties with his pilot. When Rudel was commanded to Hitler on November 25th, 1943 to receive the Swords to the Knight´s cross, he took Hentschel with him and achieved a spontaneous Knight´s Cross for his gunner.

Hentschel died on March 20th, 1944. After Rudel had done an emergency landing far behind the Soviet lines, they had to swim through the icy river Dnyestr. While Rudel made it to the other bank, Hentschel drowned.

Rudel´s other gunner was Dr. med. Ernst Gadermann, physician of Rudel´s assault wing. When Rudel was shot down on February 9th, 1945, and his leg was badly injured, Dr. Gadermann saved his life because he could treat him properly. Dr. Gadermann received the Knight´s cross too and was the only Luftwaffe physician to do so.

Kill numbers for the gunners are not known.

I only must remark that Dr. Gadermann behaved incorrectly for leaving his non-combattant status as member of a military medical service.

And now to something (completely) different: Chris, the RT Dream Machines Engineering Inc. designed an aircraft for you. You didn´t comment it yet![?]

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Romantic Technofreak,

Your plane sounds good. What about heavier armament? By which I mean rockets or bombs.

The British had a long history of good twin seater fighters from the Brisfit to the Demon - but then seem to have lost the plot about 1938. A good ground attack aircraft would have been very useful in France and in the Desert.

They Lysander and the Battle just show that they didn't know what they needed

I know the Typhoon has it's fans, but that bloody great radiator makes one hell of a target.

But then the Germans had a gap as well. The Henschel 123 was great, but the 129 was a bit of a dissapointment.

Even the Sturmoviks look too much of a target

So you should have been designing aircraft about 1938!!

[Romantic Technofreak]

Thank you, Chris! That´s what I wanted to hear![^][:X][:I][^]*feels very flattered*

Of course, design variants would be possible, in any direction. Yes, aircraft designer in 1938, *sigh*, but the time for the most attractive aircraft, when struts were outdasted and afterburners not yet invented, was too short and stormy... we also can easily afford this fascination because those things don´t kill people any more, and one can correct any mistake done at that time by considerations from hindsight...

[Groggy]

[quote]Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

OK, Chris, remember the WWI Bristol fighter, put on your cap, fix your goggles, get into the cockpit and on we go! [:p] Your mount looks as follows: generally like the Defiant, but it´s a bomber. It has two forward-firing guns and an at least partly with the canopy well-fitting turret, with two movable guns. All barrels are of half-inch calibre. Your machine runs at least 480 kph. Some armour plates are installed, but it´s not a flying tank.


Hi RT, (Romantic…)

I like the image of Chris fixing cap and goggles and stepping in to the Cockpit! Is he in the front or rear???

Brisfit analogy is a good one, and incidentally I think that the Brisfit, Bristol Freighter, Britannia and Concorde were the only class aircraft that Bristols ever produced.

Your concept is good but can I suggest be extended, As an aside, In the dark days of 1940 the Company returned the Defiant prototype back to a single-seat configuration and flight trials indicated that with twelve Brownings and Merlin XX 364 mph (586Km/h) at 23,000 ft (7 162m) was possible. This could be produced as an emergency “rapid production” aircraft. In a shorter time than the standard Defiant.

One variant/proposal that was looked at in this context of the expected Invasion (Seelowe) was the fitting in the wing of Four .303 machine guns and Four 20mm cannon. The wing cannon could be manually selected to point downwards at an angle of 17 degrees for ground attack.

Your idea of extra armour is a point worth taking note of. But the casualties would still have been very high in view of the German provision for AA defence.

The method of its manufacture appears to be superior to many of its British contemporaries; I hope you get the chance to look at the example on display at Hendon.

The original Defiant submission also included bomb racks but these were deleted.

Minimum change variants were looked at the time were based on a change of engine to either Sabre or Centaurus so allowing ideally again the P24 that was of similar size
A cannon turret was tested in three Defiants but I have no other details

Hi Mark,
Was Keith Park a key figure in the Battle of Britain flew in Brisfits in WW1 a Kiwi??

Hi Chris,
You mentioned the Demon--- from my perspective the example that should have been followed was the Hawker Demon which was a different sort of beast to the Defiant. The Demon was a conventional fixed gun fighter that had a rear gunner who could fire up on targets of opportunity; this I would suggest would have been only way to design and use a turret fighter other than in a night fighting scenario. With goggles and cap which would you have chosen front or rear position???

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi Groggy,

you wrote:

quote:I like the image of Chris fixing cap and goggles and stepping in to the Cockpit! Is he in the front or rear???

OK, let´s keep on dreaming! As managing director and chief constructor of RT Dream Machines Engineering Inc., I turn to Chris as the Chief of Technical Air Armament. In this position, he has to be experienced on the controls of an aircraft, in understanding of technical concepts and in administrating services as well. His impression, as pilot of my new plane, will be crucial for my firm to get the contract for manufacturing...
Of course, my chief pilot already successfully flew the plane, but Chris is also offered a flight to check the gunner´s position, if he likes to do so, this time again with my chief pilot on the controls.
The aircraft is standing ready for to start in the condition as I first described it, but in the files I sent to Chris´ office in the Air Ministry there are a lot of design variants described. At least, I have to apply for some money to continue the development...;)

Regards, RT

[ChrisMcD]

HI Gents,

Lots of fun,

I am still keen on the idea from WW I - that a two seater fighter was best fought from the back seat - where the gunner could swing his gun faster than an opponent could manoevre his whole aircraft, and when a single .303 was a worthwhile armament (ie not just Brisfits, but Hannover Cl II's etc. as well) . So both pilot and gunner were able to fight in different ways and the aircraft was an extremely versatile fighter - which I think is Groggy's point.

(Mind you Groggy - in your Bristol favourites list, how could you miss out the Beaufighter, the best lash up of a torpedo bomber into long range fighter and back to torpedo bomber ever!)

Sorry, I am using a Mac and am unable to cut and past photos - but here is a link to a Hawker Demon with the 'Lobsterback' turret http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2864.jpg.

This aircraft was in the tradition of being able to fight at both ends which the Defiant was most definately not and the last one was withdrawn in 1939!

So it was after the Demon that the Brits lost the plot and went for the 'one way' Defiant (mind you the Bell Aerocuda shows we were not the only ones).

Thanks for the promotion Romantic Technofreak, given a chance I would like to be the pilot with some decent forward pointing guns and lots of power. I agree with an earlier comment that the Defiant would have been a lot better with forward firing guns (and .5 in guns replacing the .303's in the turret) and a more powerful engine - what about the Vulture? 1,700 hp at that time of the war would have made for a decent performance!

But, if we are still looking at decent open turrets at the start of the war. My choice for manning one would be in the
Amiot 351 with a power operated Hispano Suiza 20-mm cannon. Now that would give an Me 109 something to think about! I gather that they did shoot one or two down!

Pity that, as far as I know, nobody else fitted such a good weapon in an open turret on either a fighter or a bomber. Does anyone know otherwise?

[Romantic Technofreak]

Chris meant this photo (a bit reduced):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/61ca3eb2.jpg

[ChrisMcD]

Many Thanks RT,

I find it frustrating not to be able to put up photo's - I am probably doing something stupid!

Coming back to our debate about twin seater fighters. I wonder whether it was the critical point of power/performance/workload in the late 30's that allowed the Me109 and Spitfires to beat any twin they came across.

it seems to me that after the WW I exemplars, the first twin seater to really get back into contention is the F4 Phantom.

I know the Firefly looks great, but would it be able to survive in the same sky as say the Ta 152?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

Many Thanks RT,

I find it frustrating not to be able to put up photo's - I am probably doing something stupid!

Coming back to our debate about twin seater fighters. I wonder whether it was the critical point of power/performance/workload in the late 30's that allowed the Me109 and Spitfires to beat any twin they came across.

it seems to me that after the WW I exemplars, the first twin seater to really get back into contention is the F4 Phantom.

I know the Firefly looks great, but would it be able to survive in the same sky as say the Ta 152?


Hi Chris,
When the Whirlwind was in squadron service even with the Peregrines pilots have said that below 15000ft it would and could best a Me109. The performance figures and test reports support this.
Years ago I read a very interesting account by a Polish Fighter Pilot who wrote about his first hand experience in Whirlwind amongst many other types. He seemed well pleased with the Whirlwind and was confident in its ability to deal with 109,s when the occasion arose, but at low to middle altitude. However above the magic 15000ft---20000Ft it was a different story, hence the note of bitterness or regret by some of the Westland men that they were not allowed to fit the Merlin.
I hope one is persuaded that Petter thought the Merlin option was a realistic one.
The more controversial thought would be to fit the Griffon, certainly dimension wise its OK but to cater for the increase in weight over the Merlin would need more work. However in simple terms it’s only about another 5% increase in maximum weight. Any thoughts??? And what would the performance be like????

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi Chris, you wrote:

quote:I find it frustrating not to be able to put up photo's - I am probably doing something stupid!


You must do four things:

1. Get your free picture account on www.photobucket.com

2. Download pictures to your harddisk (you can use a processing program to edit them, I recommend XnView because it is free and easy to handle).

3. Upload the picture to photobucket.com

4. Activate and copy the picture URL photobucket created, in your script here for to create or answer a topic click the "mountain view postcard" symbol to mark the position of the image and paste the picture URL between the two bracketed "img" chunks the clicking created. After you posted the script, the image will appear.

You can also work with the original image URL. Get it by clicking the right mouse key on the picture and then "picture characteristics" with the left one. Activate and copy it, and put it again here between "img" chunks by clicking the "mountain view postcard" symbol. This proceeding is shorter, but has some disadvantages: old pictures are often too dark, pictures are often too big thus hampering the readability of a thread, and if I want to create a more complicated thread I prefer to get control over the pictures first than always to search them in the net over and over again. Also, often pictures have linking barriers (but very seldom downloading barriers!) that prevent you from using the original one, thus showing only the red "x". This all cannot happen if you use the more complicated proceeding I told you above. I also learned to do so by spending my time on tgplanes.com!

you wrote:
quote:Coming back to our debate about twin seater fighters. I wonder whether it was the critical point of power/performance/workload in the late 30's that allowed the Me109 and Spitfires to beat any twin they came across.

The second seat/turret must have always created some additional drag. From one of my books, I read our Hawker Demon runs 293 kph with 584 hp. The one-seated, very similar-looking Hawker Nimrod runs 314 kph with 590 hp! The difference isn´t big, but noticeable.

you wrote:
quote:I know the Firefly looks great, but would it be able to survive in the same sky as say the Ta 152?

There is something peculiar about the Firefly because it runs only 508 kph with a very strong engine (maybe there is a height measuring difference, otherwise it´s also hard to explain why the Consolidated Privateer runs nearly 100 kph less than the Consolidated Liberator, the Ta 152 ran 750 kph, so it´s easily to imagine what a 508 kph Firefly would be able to do...)

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Groggy,

I was a bit vague, but was thinking more of twin seater rather than twin engined fighters!

The Whirlwind is a bit of an oddity. I think Petter was a bit too clever for his own good.

As I understand it the Whirlwind was tailored very closely to the Peregrines and would have required major restressing etc. to take the Merlin, let alone the Griffon.

There is the lovely comment that he originaly designed the exhausts to exit from the reaar of the engine nacelles - which happened to contain petrol tanks! He was told that pilots would not take kindly the idea of internaly heating their petrol supply!

Don't get me wrong I think he was a brilliant designer ( ie Canberra and Gnat) but he did'nt allow for any stretch in the Whirlwind.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/gnat-01.jpg

[ChrisMcD]

Hi RT,

Have signed up with Photobucket as you suggest - many thanks.

Looking at the figures you quote I think you are right. No twin seater fighter was able to compete in the 40's.

I quoted the Firefly because it was a late war British twin seater fighter - but it was a Navy plane and the Royal Navy kept on issuing design specifications that were out of date, which is why the American and Japanes Navy planes are competitive with land based equivalents and the British ones are not.

To answer your question the Firefly is slower because it is weighed down with a navigator and lot of navy spec equipment.

In fact, thinking about it, the only late war, single engined, twin seater fighter I can think of is the Firefly!

[Mark J]

Hi Groggy
Yes, Sir Keith Park was a New Zealander.
cheers