Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Other Forgotten (ignored) Warbird's


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 8 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 15 January 2017 - 09:19 PM

Allison proposed a multi-stage supercharged at least twice to the USAAF and was turned down on both occasions. The USAAF was the customer, and the customer decides whetyher or not to fund a development for a smaller cvompany. Smaller com[anies usually don;t have tyhe independent funding at do it alone, aplus they would themn require the USAAF's approval to sell it.

 

Botom line, the USAAF got exactly what they ordered from Allison, all along the way, inclduing initial production when all the issues hadn't been worked out yet. Could they have been better? Probably, with some funding and decent appreciation of near-future requirements.

 

Allison was a small firm, but at that time they were owned by General Motors, one of the world's biggest corporations. So, there was no shortage of resources had they wanted them.

 

I am not certain if it was an Allison or GM thing, but they were reluctant to develop variants not requested or ordered by the USAAF or USN.


  • CORSNING likes this

#32 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 29 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 15 January 2017 - 09:53 PM

I am not certain if it was an Allison or GM thing, but they were reluctant to develop variants not requested or ordered by the USAAF or USN.

And that is where the money was.


Edited by CORSNING, 15 January 2017 - 09:53 PM.


#33 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 4 Months and 17 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:02 AM

It was an Allison thing according to former employees. But ... and here's the rub, that is second-hand information from former employeers. Who knows for sure? Not me.

 

The story we got out at Joes was that Allison proposed multi-stage S/Cs, but despite being a prt of GM, had no large resource pool. So when the Government declined to fund it, it got shoved into a drawer in case of later interest. It never materialized, and they fulfilled the contracts.

 

The people back then with experince in casting Aluminum were small applicance companies. Many of Joes intakes and other ALuminum parts were done by "Maytag!"



#34 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Joined 6 Years and 27 Days
  • 2 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 16 January 2017 - 10:29 AM

My forgotten warbird would be the Vickers Wellington.

This two engined bomber entered service in late 1938 and was the mainstay of the British bombing force until the more famous four engined planes started to replace it in 1943. A lot of harsh lessons were learned with the early war Wellington operations.

The Wellington then served in other roles including appearances in white in an anti submarine role.

Unusually it was in production for the length of the war, starting as a heavy bomber but being a medium by the end.

It was the most produced British bomber with a surprising number of around 11460 quoted.

The eccentric Barnes Wallis geodesic construction made it resistant to battle damage but hard to build.

Sadly only two survive in UK museums, one having been salvaged from Loch Ness and none have flown in a very long time.

It even had a very good nickname the Wimpy supposedly after a character from the Popeye cartoon


  • GregP and TheArtOfFlight like this

#35 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 4 Months and 17 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 16 January 2017 - 11:26 AM

Love the Welly! Hope you get one to fly.



#36 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined 1 Year and 22 Days
  • 5 topics
  • LocationUK

Posted 16 January 2017 - 01:05 PM

With regards to the Bell P-39 i have to agree that just shoe-horning a Merlin engine into it would by no means turn the aircraft into a better fighter. The P-51 had to be quite extensively modified to accept the Merlin, and as the P-39 was mid engine im not convinced this would have been the answer. I also think the Allison engines have gotten a bit of a bad rep over the years. And i also agree that i dont think the problem lay with the engine itself but more with the superchargers/fuel/air mixture set up. The unpredictability of a dogfight doesnt always mean one aircraft can be labelled as inferior even if it does perform badly at altitude. Most pilots had to fly their birds to the best of their ability and utilize its own strengths and avoid weaknesses. No half sensible pilot would have gotten involved in a dogfight at altitude in a P-39. Just like P-40 pilots wouldnt get into a turning fight with a Zero. I guess its horses for courses. Some aircraft were liked by pilots and some were not. I do believe some/at least one fighter squadron based in England actually gave up their Spitfires/Mustangs to fly P -47s instead of the other way around which is what a lot did. Although most accounts i have read state some units were very much against changing from an agile Spit to a huge and heavy workhorse like the P-47. 

 

My choice of forgotten/underrated aircraft would have to be the Hawker Hurricane. Always linked to the battle of Britain and perceived to be obsolete/out of date by the end of 1940 i feel the Hurricane has had its achievements overshadowed by the more glamorous Spit. I also think had the Shorts Stirling been designed and built to its original spec it would have been a rival to the Lancaster. The Curtis Hawk has been mentioned here, and i have a similar aircraft to name that although really was outdated and suffered heavy loss in action it was flown bravely by airmen in Malta and on standby during the B.O.B. Im talking of course about the Gloster Gladiator. My last forgotten warbird is the Fairey swordfish. That was responsible for crippling the mighty Bismark and allowing the Royal Navy to close in and finish her off. Had the swordfish not crippled the Bismarks rudder there is little doubt she would have escaped back to the safety.



#37 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Joined 6 Years and 27 Days
  • 2 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 16 January 2017 - 02:32 PM

If you are interested in a discussion on where the 100ft span restriction came from and how the problem with the Stirling was largely excessive size and weight.

http://forum.keypubl...Type-B12-36-317


  • TheArtOfFlight likes this

#38 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 8 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 16 January 2017 - 10:56 PM

With regards to the Bell P-39 i have to agree that just shoe-horning a Merlin engine into it would by no means turn the aircraft into a better fighter. The P-51 had to be quite extensively modified to accept the Merlin, and as the P-39 was mid engine im not convinced this would have been the answer. I also think the Allison engines have gotten a bit of a bad rep over the years. And i also agree that i dont think the problem lay with the engine itself but more with the superchargers/fuel/air mixture set up.

 
The main work involved with the P-51 change was increasing the radiator capacity.
 
The conversion could have been done more simply, as Rolls-Royce had done with the Mustang X, but NAA did more optimisation of the installation.
 
The P-39 would not have taken the 2 stage Merlin.
 
The Allison engine was underdeveloped at the time. The supercharger wasn't well developed, and they suffered from not developing their own earlier (originally the supercharger impeller was supplied by General E
 
 

The unpredictability of a dogfight doesnt always mean one aircraft can be labelled as inferior even if it does perform badly at altitude. Most pilots had to fly their birds to the best of their ability and utilize its own strengths and avoid weaknesses. No half sensible pilot would have gotten involved in a dogfight at altitude in a P-39. Just like P-40 pilots wouldnt get into a turning fight with a Zero. I guess its horses for courses. Some aircraft were liked by pilots and some were not. I do believe some/at least one fighter squadron based in England actually gave up their Spitfires/Mustangs to fly P -47s instead of the other way around which is what a lot did. Although most accounts i have read state some units were very much against changing from an agile Spit to a huge and heavy workhorse like the P-47.


Tests were done to aircraft to determine where they performed best.
 
The P-39 was seen as inferior by the RAF because it performed poorly at the typical altitudes at which they fought, particularly for intercepting bombers.
 
 

My choice of forgotten/underrated aircraft would have to be the Hawker Hurricane. Always linked to the battle of Britain and perceived to be obsolete/out of date by the end of 1940 i feel the Hurricane has had its achievements overshadowed by the more glamorous Spit. 

 

The Hurricane was obsolete as a fighter by the end of 1940, if not before. They still kept making them, however, as having an operational aircraft was preferred over having a superior aircraft in design or development.

 

The Tornado/Typhoon twins were supposed to replace the Hurricane and the Spitfire by that time. But it was nowhere close, and, in the end, was incapable of replacing the Spitfire at all.

 

The Hurricane was relegated to secondary theatres and/or secondary roles until its retirement.

 

In the early part of the war, in particular, production was king, and that's why the Hurricane continued as long as it did. If there were sufficient Spitfires at the end of 1940 the Hurricane probably would have disappeared sooner.



#39 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 8 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 16 January 2017 - 11:01 PM

I also think had the Shorts Stirling been designed and built to its original spec it would have been a rival to the Lancaster. 


One of the main reasons why the Lancaster proved so capable was that very long, open bomb bay which allowed the use of many varied and some big bombs. The Stirling was restricted by the size and number of bombs it could carry.

 

It is also useful to note that the original specification for the Manchester (forerunner of the Lancaster) was that it was stressed to cope with catapult take-offs. That gave the Lancaster the strength to cope with carrying the large bombs and also to be flung about the sky.



#40 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Joined 6 Years and 27 Days
  • 2 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 17 January 2017 - 01:26 AM

Manchester design also had to be torpedo capable (why?) hence the long uninterupted bomb bay that became one of the strengths of the Lancaster.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users