Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
    That is what I said,

    No, what you said was:

    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB


    Which is simply, unambiguously, false.

    Incidentally, I apologise to all those who had already pointed out Mr. Draco's error, I should have read on before replying!

    Trouble is, it is so damned easy to shoot the little fellow down!!!
    It's okay... After all, seal clubbing can create quite the blood lust...

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Two designs, sets of tooling, etc, for the Defiant and Battle, 3,000 Merlin engines, props, fuselages, wings, stabilizers and landing gears and 8,000 aviators, seats and parachutes to fail rapidly and be discarded in 1940 or 2,000 engines and props and 1,000 fuselages, wings, landing gear, stabilizers, pilots, seats and parachutes to fight in France and the BoB and continue and increase production to fight in the USSR (instead of sending Hurricanes), Pantelleria, Malta, Malaya, Ceylon, etc,
    Tough choice.

    It is interesting that the Hurricane was known to be a winner in the early 1930s and then the Spitfire even more so. It would have made a lot of sense to design a twin engine version of the Hurricane in 1934 with a 400 ft2 wing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Instead of realizing that it was idiotic to waste good engines, aviators and industrial capacity in lousy planes and put bad engines in a desperately needed plane.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    That is what I said, the engines were lousy and they neglected its production in favor of reliable engines and Hurricanes and Spitfires, as there was little time to correct lousy engines.

    The Poles, Czechs, etc, had little time to adapt to the Hurricane and did wonderfully in the BoB. Had this plane had Merlins and the absurd Defiant and Battle never been produced, it would have been used in France and the BoB.

    Thanks for the kind suggestion, I would never read a book about a plane with faulty engines and think that RAF ordering a special engine with few uses into production when Britain is producing fabulous numbers of the best plane engine is asenine and wasting those excellents engines and many aviators in Battles and Defiants is even more asenine.
    That is what I said,

    No, what you said was:

    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB


    Which is simply, unambiguously, false.

    Incidentally, I apologise to all those who had already pointed out Mr. Draco's error, I should have read on before replying!

    Trouble is, it is so damned easy to shoot the little fellow down!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB, they only made the mistake of designing it for Peregrines, instead of Merlins.

    Your rule of thumb is BS, yet it states that the Hornet could have been developed in a year, especially with all the experience of the Mossie.
    Designing, debugging and producing a new plane depends more on the amount and quality of the people involved and the resources at hand than on time. For example, with the resources wasted developing simultaneoulsy a large number of single engine fighters each for the navy and air force, a single, excellent fighter can emerge and be easily mass produced and deployed in a very short time for the air force and the marines. The same can be done with a single twin engine fighter.

    The F4U 1st flew long before the Hellcat but entered service in carriers (its intended purpose) a year later.

    The P-51, the best fighter of the war went from design into mass production in record time, but was useless until they simply changed the engine and prop with little effort or expense.
    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB

    Oh no it didn't. The first Whirlwind went to the Grangemouth based 263 Squadron on 6 July 1940, but by 17 August the Squadron had still only received five, none of which were operational.

    The Squadron only moved south, to RAF Exeter, in early December 1940, and was intended for convoy cover and anti S Boat operations.

    Why do you insist upon making things up? Hasn't it dawned upon you that you were exposed as a fraud long ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    I have this one which is excellent.

    http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/airfr...m-no4-72-p.asp

    Paul
    It and the Kookaburra book are 100 times more detailed than Draco's "files" are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    I have this one which is excellent.

    http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/airfr...m-no4-72-p.asp

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    There was a combination of reasons, if you bothered to read the history of the plane. Maybe it'd help if you had some actual books on the subject like this one:



    The squadron had to first work up with the plane as the pilots were unfamiliar with the type. Then there were problems with the engines and the ground crew learning to service the type and whatnot.
    So, the plane was sent to a squadron in a quiet sector of England to work up while also being air defense for that part of the country.
    Once the squadron was ready it was moved to a more active part of England and went into combat operations. That makes considerable sense.

    That is what I said, the engines were lousy and they neglected its production in favor of reliable engines and Hurricanes and Spitfires, as there was little time to correct lousy engines.

    The Poles, Czechs, etc, had little time to adapt to the Hurricane and did wonderfully in the BoB. Had this plane had Merlins and the absurd Defiant and Battle never been produced, it would have been used in France and the BoB.

    Thanks for the kind suggestion, I would never read a book about a plane with faulty engines and think that RAF ordering a special engine with few uses into production when Britain is producing fabulous numbers of the best plane engine is asenine and wasting those excellents engines and many aviators in Battles and Defiants is even more asenine.
    Last edited by Draco; 13 Jun 15, 18:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Do you think the Whirland of squadron 25 delivered in May and the 5 delivered in August to 263 did not fight in the BoB because they just didn't want to use them or because the Peregines were unreliable? Those planes with Merlins would have fought. As would 1,000 more if no useless Defiants or Battles are made.
    No. 25 Squadron got two (2) Whirlwinds for operational testing and never flew them in combat. The squadron equipped instead with Blenheim Mk IF night fighters then the Beaufighter in night fighter configuration.

    From your "files."

    The first two production Whirlwinds were delivered in June to 25 Squadron for night-flying trials. It was then decided, however, to re-equip No. 25 Squadron with the two-seat Bristol Beaufighter night fighter, as it was already an operational night fighter squadron.
    So, guess again.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Do you think the Whirland of squadron 25 delivered in May and the 5 delivered in August to 263 did not fight in the BoB because they just didn't want to use them or because the Peregines were unreliable? Those planes with Merlins would have fought. As would 1,000 more if no useless Defiants or Battles are made.
    There was a combination of reasons, if you bothered to read the history of the plane. Maybe it'd help if you had some actual books on the subject like this one:



    The squadron had to first work up with the plane as the pilots were unfamiliar with the type. Then there were problems with the engines and the ground crew learning to service the type and whatnot.
    So, the plane was sent to a squadron in a quiet sector of England to work up while also being air defense for that part of the country.
    Once the squadron was ready it was moved to a more active part of England and went into combat operations. That makes considerable sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Do you think the Whirland of squadron 25 delivered in May and the 5 delivered in August to 263 did not fight in the BoB because they just didn't want to use them or because the Peregines were unreliable? Those planes with Merlins would have fought. As would 1,000 more if no useless Defiants or Battles are made.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB, they only made the mistake of designing it for Peregrines, instead of Merlins.
    It most certainly did not.

    263 Squadron, the first Whirlwind squadron. became operational on the type December 7 1940.

    Sources:
    263 and 137 Squadrons: The Whirlwind Years

    No. 263 Squadron, R.A.F. Operations Record Book 1939 - 1941


    Dec 7 1940
    “A” Flight, Red and Yellow Sections became operational with Whirlwinds and provided one section
    at readiness during daylight hours.
    1155 Red section – S/Ldr. Eeles, F/Lt. Smith & F/O Hughes – ordered to patrol Plymouth at 15000 feet. A
    1510-) Red Section – F/Lt. Smith & F/O Hughes patrolled Convoy between Start Point and Dartmouth
    The official end of the Battle of Britain was October 31, 1940.

    Once again, poor (or no) research has resulted in another falsehood being added to the encyclopedia of incorrect information you've posted.

    Congratulations on getting so much so wrong so often.

    Last edited by CarpeDiem; 13 Jun 15, 16:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB, they only made the mistake of designing it for Peregrines, instead of Merlins.
    No, it didn't.

    From your favorite set of files:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westla...lwind_(fighter)

    The first production Whirlwind was delivered to No. 263 Squadron by its commander, Squadron Leader H. Eeles on 6 July. Deliveries were slow, with only five on strength with 263 Squadron on 17 August 1940, with none serviceable. (The squadron supplemented its strength with Hawker Hurricanes to allow the squadron's pilots to fly in the meantime.) Despite the Battle of Britain and the consequent urgent need for fighters, 263 Squadron remained in Scotland - Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding, in charge of RAF Fighter Command, stated on 17 October that 263 could not be deployed to the south because "there was no room for 'passengers' in that part of the world".

    No. 263 Squadron moved south to RAF Exeter and was declared operational with the Whirlwind on 7 December 1940.
    So, the Whirlwind took no part in the BoB.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    The Whirlwind fought in the BoB, they only made the mistake of designing it for Peregrines, instead of Merlins.

    Your rule of thumb is BS, yet it states that the Hornet could have been developed in a year, especially with all the experience of the Mossie.
    Designing, debugging and producing a new plane depends more on the amount and quality of the people involved and the resources at hand than on time. For example, with the resources wasted developing simultaneoulsy a large number of single engine fighters each for the navy and air force, a single, excellent fighter can emerge and be easily mass produced and deployed in a very short time for the air force and the marines. The same can be done with a single twin engine fighter.

    The F4U 1st flew long before the Hellcat but entered service in carriers (its intended purpose) a year later.

    The P-51, the best fighter of the war went from design into mass production in record time, but was useless until they simply changed the engine and prop with little effort or expense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nebfer
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    I meant so when I wrote that I didn't understand why the hell they waited until after the war to develop the Hornet.

    However, the Hornet had 2,000 hp Merlins and a 361 ft2 wing (high wing loading, less maneuverability) and is made of wood and IŽm talking about about having 1,000 in service for France and the BoB, instead of the lousy Defiant (1,000) and Battle (2,000), so it has the less powerful Merlins, a 400 ft2 wing, is made of aluminum and can carry four 20 mm cannon with 160 rpg, two 100 lb and two 250 lb bombs externally. So RAF saves a lot of money, 1,000 Merlins (for Hurricanes and Spitfires) and aviators (in training and losses) and kicks butt in France and the BoB. Alas, common sense is not common.

    Such a plane would have shot down a lot of LW bombers and Bf-110s and some Bf 109s over France, blown up the bridges that the Battle couldn't blow up (AAA shot the slow planes by the dozen) and devastated the extremely long and vulnerable WM columns while they spent days in the largest traffic jam by far in European history up to that time.

    Such a plane operating from Britain would have provided excellent cover for the allied navies supporting with naval guns and supplying the 400,000 troops trapped around Dunkirk, preventing an evacuation, holding back the WM and bleeding the LW, while Britain, France and the US produced 3 times more fighters than Germany.

    The French would have been extremely glad to get 100 such planes and the Poles-Czechs 25, so Britain didn't even have to send many aviators to France.
    The first flight of the Hornet was in April of 1944. They only way it would seen action in WW2 is if it had it's first flight in 1941 or early 1942. As most one or two engine aircraft at the time take around two years to develop into a production ready aircraft. Here's a quick rule of thumb, its a bit rough but it should work for most aircraft of this time frame, count the number of engines that is how many years it will take from it's first flight to it's introduced plus or minus a year to a minimum of 1, though many single engined aircraft take two years as well.

    And producing this aircraft earlier one would have to provide evidence that the required engines would of been available (if they are not then it's not going to be built or if it dose it's performance is going to suffer due to the worse engines), and the requirements for it's development and the actual need to produce it.
    Last edited by Nebfer; 13 Jun 15, 15:21.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X