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

#41 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

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

Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:06 AM

Sorry for the consecutive posts but my "why" question on the Manchester's requirement to carry torpedoes led me to a internet search and the following extract raises as many questions as it answers. It seems to be a case of trying to get the plane type to do as many roles as possible (sounds familiar?)

I would put the requirement for the Manchester to be stressed for catapulting and capable of carrying a torpedo in the same disaster area as the requirement for the He 177 to dive bomb.

Happily both requirements were relaxed for the British plane but the large bomb bay remained as a benefit in the Manchester and the Halifax.

The largest torpedo capable WW2 plane I can think of was the Martin Marauder with an empty weight of about 2/3s of the Manchester, the Betty and the He 111 were much lighter.

 

https://weaponsandwa...specifications/

A feature of the 1936 bomber specifications that had unlooked for beneficial repercussions was the requirement that the medium bomber P. 13/36 should be capable of modification to carry torpedoes. When tenders to specification P. 13/36 were received, it was found that provision to carry two 18 in. torpedoes (which were 18 ft long) without altering the main structure of the aircraft, or losing performance, was causing design difficulties. This led the DDOR (Oxland) to review the discussion on this issue that had taken place at the two Operational Requirements Committee meetings on P.13/36. He told the DCAS (Peirse) that the Coastal Command representative had given his C-in-C’s view that the aircraft was too large and expensive for a torpedo bomber. Even so, the then DCAS (Courtney) had argued that whilst there was the possibility of a limitation on the numbers of first-line aircraft, it was desirable that every unit should be as effective in war as possible. As we have seen, a muted form of the torpedo-carrying requirement was therefore included in the requirements.

Oxland recommended that as a dedicated torpedo bomber was now under development (B.10/36 — Bristol Beaufort) the torpedo requirement should be deleted from P.13/36. Alternatively, he said, provision could be made for a limited number of the aircraft to have larger bomb doors and so on.

The Operations and Plans branches of the Air Staff did not agree with deletion of the torpedo requirement. They advised Peirse that the Admiralty had yet to be persuaded that, ‘the “B” bomb is in every way a more efficient weapon with which to attack ships’, and that a torpedo bomber version of P. 13/36 should be developed until the Admiralty was convinced otherwise. (The ‘B’ bomb was designed to be dropped in the path of a ship, sink, and then rise to strike the bottom of the ship as it passed over.)

This discussion was made redundant when the Operational Requirements branch announced that it had new information on the size of torpedoes. It now found that the Avro P. 13/36 could carry only one internally, and that in any case existing torpedoes could not be released at 150 mph from 200 ft. If this was relevant, the DCAS (Peirse) must have wondered how the idea of torpedo carrying for P.13/36 had arisen in the first place. It appears that the Operational Requirements branch had given no more thought to the operational problems of torpedo dropping than they were later found to have given to catapult launching. Peirse decided that torpedo carrying would no longer be asked of the P.13/36 bombers. Nevertheless, the long bomb bay that had been required was to prove valuable when bombs larger than the 2,000 lb were found to be needed.



#42 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 17 January 2017 - 09:10 AM

Catalina's dropped torpedoes - but not often.

The largest torpedo bomber in common use that i can think of was the SM.79, and that was a great success.
But, as you say, still a fair bit smaller than a Lanc, or even a Manc.

#43 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 January 2017 - 12:47 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

Thanks for that.

 

I know the design of the bomb bay was another nail in the coffin for the Stirling too. They made compartments instead of just having one huge unrestricted open bay like the Lanc. But obviously they had their reasons. I have heard/read that the Stirling (at least its concept) was specifically designed to bomb the Ruhr valley/Germany. 



#44 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 January 2017 - 01:03 PM

 
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
 
 


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.
 
 

 

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.

The Hurricane was always going to be limited in terms of development because of its design/construction. A halfway house between bi-plane/monoplane technology. It was after all a Hawker Fury without the top wing. Plus a few other mods like cockpit/landing gear. But i still think it doesnt get the recognition it deserves. It was after all a very capable bomber destroyer/night fighter/sea carrier plane/tank buster. There is also the trainer role which can be very valuable as it was an excellent aircraft to learn in. The Typhoon was probably what Hawkers were originally looking for, but there is no doubt that the Tempest was the fighter they eventually aspired to. I think the Tempest V was a match for any mark of Spitfire.



#45 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

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

Posted 17 January 2017 - 09:51 PM

. I think the Tempest V was a match for any mark of Spitfire.

If you would like some material to base your opinion on in the future, over on

www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com is a report titled Tactical Trials - Tempest V,

Comparison with Typhoon IB, Mustang III, Spitfire XIV, FW.190 and Me.109G. This

report is very informative except that it does not give the boost levels of each aircraft

involved. The following is a brief summation of that report.

 

Tempest V vs. Spitfire XIV

 

Range and Endurance

     Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft

(3,150 rpm./+4.5 lbs. of boost for the Tempest and 2,400 rpm./+7 lbs. boost for the Spitfire). The best

cruising height of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:

     The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. from 10,000 to 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at

about 300 mph. I.A.S.

     Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparison can be made

with the Spitfire which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.

 

Maximum Speed

     From 0-10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire. There is (then) little to choose until

22,000 ft. when the Spitfire becomes 30 - 40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about

30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spit's 40,000 ft.

 

Maximum Climb

     Not in the same class as the Spitfire, however has a better zoom climb.

 

Dive

     The Tempest gains on the Spitfire.

 

Turning Circle

     The Spitfire easily gains on the Tempest.

 

Rate of Roll

     The Spitfire rolls faster below 300 mph, but definitely slower at speeds greater than 350 mph.

 

Conclusions

     The Tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling

technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, an Spitfire

squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be

appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handles, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 ft.

and the Spitfire XIV above that height.

 

There is a lot more information on both these aircraft in the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of this

site. B)  :)



#46 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

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

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:18 AM

The SM.79 would be a great subject for a thread. Neat airplane and a successful mixture of old ways and some newer thinking. Wish we had a few on the warbird circuit.



#47 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 January 2017 - 12:10 PM

If you would like some material to base your opinion on in the future, over on

www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com is a report titled Tactical Trials - Tempest V,

Comparison with Typhoon IB, Mustang III, Spitfire XIV, FW.190 and Me.109G. This

report is very informative except that it does not give the boost levels of each aircraft

involved. The following is a brief summation of that report.

 

Tempest V vs. Spitfire XIV

 

Range and Endurance

     Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft

(3,150 rpm./+4.5 lbs. of boost for the Tempest and 2,400 rpm./+7 lbs. boost for the Spitfire). The best

cruising height of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:

     The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. from 10,000 to 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at

about 300 mph. I.A.S.

     Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparison can be made

with the Spitfire which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.

 

Maximum Speed

     From 0-10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire. There is (then) little to choose until

22,000 ft. when the Spitfire becomes 30 - 40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about

30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spit's 40,000 ft.

 

Maximum Climb

     Not in the same class as the Spitfire, however has a better zoom climb.

 

Dive

     The Tempest gains on the Spitfire.

 

Turning Circle

     The Spitfire easily gains on the Tempest.

 

Rate of Roll

     The Spitfire rolls faster below 300 mph, but definitely slower at speeds greater than 350 mph.

 

Conclusions

     The Tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling

technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, an Spitfire

squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be

appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handles, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 ft.

and the Spitfire XIV above that height.

 

There is a lot more information on both these aircraft in the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of this

site. B)  :)

While i do appreciate your research regarding stats/performance in paper. Im sure you will agree that stats alone do not in any way dictate an absolute and accurate account of real combat/dogfighting capabilities and unquestionable fact. With all ww2 aircombat situations there are so many variables such as pilot skill and aircraft performance on said day/actions. It was be nice to have a unbiased and frank account of aircraft comparison without just resorting to stats found online, which in my experience by no means assure the outcome of such a close matched evenly competition between two of the most advanced fighters of their time. Many reports i have seen of Tempest kills/claims suggest to me that the Tempest was indeed (after all the gremlins of the Napier Sabre engine had been ironed out was in need a much faster and more powerful fighter than the Spit IX for example . Im not against Spitfires as i think they were a very integral part of British air power during ww2. But dogfights cannot simply be 100% proven for one or the other aircraft having a major edge on the other. And there are many examples of lesser quality planes downing other aircraft that on paper would suggest they had little chance of out foxing their opponent no matter what aircraft that came up against. For example in 1940 the Hawker Hurricane was perfectly capable of destroying Bf - 109 Es with an experienced pilot at the controls.



#48 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

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

Posted 19 January 2017 - 07:32 PM

While i do appreciate your research regarding stats/performance in paper.

     Your are welcome.

 

Im sure you will agree that stats alone do not in any way dictate an absolute and accurate account of real combat/dogfighting

capabilities and unquestionable fact.

      There is no such thing as an absolute (happening without fail) when it comes to

combat. With that I will agree. If you had said; That stats alone do not dictate the winner in a dogfight I would agree

100%, way to many variables. But if you are saying that the performance figures of individual aircraft and the pilots

knowledge of those figures is not very important, then I would have to disagree. The ignorance of an aircraft's

performance figures and the handling qualities of an aircraft dictate where it should be utilized. Ignoring those facts

has gotten many pilots including high scoring aces like Tommy McGuire killed.


Edited by CORSNING, 19 January 2017 - 07:36 PM.


#49 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

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

Posted 19 January 2017 - 07:57 PM

 For example in 1940 the Hawker Hurricane was perfectly capable of destroying Bf - 109 Es with an experienced pilot at the controls.

Agreed,

 

It was be nice to have a unbiased and frank account of aircraft comparison without just resorting to stats found online, which in my experience by no means assure the outcome of such a close matched evenly competition between two of the most advanced fighters of their time.

     Please clarify this statement. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

 

Many reports i have seen of Tempest kills/claims suggest to me that the Tempest was indeed (after all the gremlins of the Napier Sabre engine had been ironed out was in need (deed?) a much faster and more powerful fighter than the Spit IX for example .

     At low and medium altitudes.

 

Im not against Spitfires as i think they were a very integral part of British air power during ww2.

     You are damn right there sir!

 

But dogfights cannot simply be 100% proven for one or the other aircraft having a major edge on the other.

     Well, that completely depends on how the pilots utilize their aircrafts best abilities and the ability of the

apposing pilot's utilization of his aircraft.

 

And there are many examples of lesser quality planes downing other aircraft that on paper would suggest they had little chance of out foxing their opponent no matter what aircraft that came up against.

   Agreed, see my previous statement.

 

For example in 1940 the Hawker Hurricane was perfectly capable of destroying Bf - 109 Es with an experienced pilot at the controls.

     In 1945 a FM-2 with a Maximum speed of 332 mph. was perfectly capable of destroying a Nakajima Ki.84b in

pristine condition with a maximum speed of 430 mph. if it had an experienced pilot at the controls. What is the

point of that statement AOF?


Edited by CORSNING, 19 January 2017 - 08:01 PM.


#50 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Joined 8 Years
  • 5 topics

Posted 19 January 2017 - 11:57 PM

Performance trials such as those Corsning reports above do help decide which aircraft type should be used for particular areas of operation. They cannot tell us which aircraft will win any individual encounter. What they do give evidence about is averages over large numbers of encounters between adversaries who are, on average, equally well trained. At the beginning of WW2, the Luftwaffe probably had the best trained pilots, while the RAF quickly caught up. During the final years, Allied quality exceeded that of the remaining Luftwaffe pilots (on average).

 

This suggests to me that it was more important for the Allies to have better aircraft up until the end of 1944. After that, there were just not enough good German pilots left.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users