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

  • #91
    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.

    Comment


    • #92
      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.

      Comment


      • #93
        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...

        Comment


        • #94
          So, let's say Westland does redesign the Whirlwind with Merlins. That would have taken about a year or so to do delaying the plane's entry into service.
          Switching to the Merlin adds about 1000 lbs of engine weight alone. So, 1500 lbs to the plane's dry weight would be about the correct minimum. The Merlin is also about 20% longer and somewhat wider. That requires redesigning the engine nacelles completely. Let's say another 500 lbs.
          So, we've added a ton to the airplane. Maybe to retain the same wing loading and maneuverability we increase the wing area some. Another 500 lbs or more?

          Now, we've gone to the point where the whole airplane needs to be looked at. The CG has moved, the weight is greater, maybe the prop diameter has changed so now the nacelles need to be further out from the fuselage...

          Draco's "...quite easy" becomes expensive, difficult, and time consuming. That's the reality here. I'm sure Westland looked at doing the switch and came to that same conclusion. That's why they didn't do it.

          Comment


          • #95
            Draco,could you please for once in your life,admit that all these events are seen and criticized after a 70 years long prisms
            .
            All your statements are the ones of a guy who cannot figure out that at the time when decisions are taken,there is no way to know if they gonna work.
            Obviously,threads after threads,you don't get this specific idea: humans don't know if an idea is the right one.
            They think it will be a good idea.No clues if it succeeds at the end
            That rug really tied the room together

            Comment


            • #96
              Aviation experts must rely above all on common sense. Having the Hurricane years before the war, it makes a lot more sense to develop a twin engine bomber destroyer version with 2 engines, than a single engne plane with a 4 gun turret.

              It also makes a lot more sense to use the twin engine plane as a bomber which can outrun or shoot down fighters after dropping its load, than to develop a slow single engine bomber with a crew of 3 and a ridiculous bomb load and range, which can be easily shot down by fighters and AAA.

              I see no hindsight at all, simply extreme RAF leadership incompetence, resulting in terrible waste of excellent engine, men and production capacity.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Draco View Post
                Aviation experts must rely above all on common sense. Having the Hurricane years before the war, it makes a lot more sense to develop a twin engine bomber destroyer version with 2 engines, than a single engne plane with a 4 gun turret.
                Then, let's see if you can actually think. Working backwards... What was the RAF rationale for the Defiant. How was it intended to work? What made it fail?

                It also makes a lot more sense to use the twin engine plane as a bomber which can outrun or shoot down fighters after dropping its load, than to develop a slow single engine bomber with a crew of 3 and a ridiculous bomb load and range, which can be easily shot down by fighters and AAA.
                Which twin engine aircraft in 1939 could have been used as both a bomber and fighter and have a decent chance against a single engine single seat fighter?

                I see no hindsight at all, simply extreme RAF leadership incompetence, resulting in terrible waste of excellent engine, men and production capacity.
                Without historical context your raving on in hindsight is meaningless.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  So, let's say Westland does redesign the Whirlwind with Merlins. That would have taken about a year or so to do delaying the plane's entry into service.
                  Switching to the Merlin adds about 1000 lbs of engine weight alone. So, 1500 lbs to the plane's dry weight would be about the correct minimum. The Merlin is also about 20% longer and somewhat wider. That requires redesigning the engine nacelles completely. Let's say another 500 lbs.
                  So, we've added a ton to the airplane. Maybe to retain the same wing loading and maneuverability we increase the wing area some. Another 500 lbs or more?

                  Now, we've gone to the point where the whole airplane needs to be looked at. The CG has moved, the weight is greater, maybe the prop diameter has changed so now the nacelles need to be further out from the fuselage...

                  Draco's "...quite easy" becomes expensive, difficult, and time consuming. That's the reality here. I'm sure Westland looked at doing the switch and came to that same conclusion. That's why they didn't do it.
                  The Whirlwind was designed in response to an Air Ministry Specification (F37/35) calling for an aircraft capable of 330 mph at 15000 feet, and mounting four 20mm cannon.

                  At the time, the aircraft was at the cutting edge of aircraft technology, and was designed around two Rolls Royce Peregrine engines. Again, at the time, Rolls Royce envisaged that this engine, together with the Merlin, would be one of their two main production engines, but unfortunately the early promise of the Peregrine was never fulfilled, and, as the Whirlwind was the only aircraft intended to use this engine, development was abandoned.

                  The Whirlwind's Chief Designer, Petter, advised his bosses that it was not possible to use Merlins instead without a complete redesign, and as cannon armed fighters were appearing by now anyway, the project was abandoned. Despite what Mr. Draco may claim, fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind was not possible.

                  Petter, by the way, was far from incompetent. He subsequently led the design teams which produced the English Electric Canberra & Lightning aircraft.

                  Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, Westland should have known that the Peregrine would fail, but sadly only Mr. Draco appears to have such a gift.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    TAG
                    Rather than rationale, I would call distorted reason to create a slower, more expensive and difficult to produce Defiant with a lousy rate of climb and a larger crew, than the Hurricane.

                    I can see no reason for having to develop and produce a less powerful, engine, when Britain has the best engine already in production (and wasting it in lousy designs).

                    On the other hand I can see many advantages in building a twin engine bomber destroyer with a higher speed and rate of climb, longer range and the same engines and crew as the Hurricane. Which can also serve as very effective and survivable a light bomber with a crew of one (instead of dooming 3 men in a slow Battle, carrying a smaller load and having a shorter range)

                    Only an idiot would chose to produce two completely different engines and 3, 200 units of 3 completely different planes and train over 8,000 aviators (and discrad them all), instead of 1,000 identical, excellent planes with 2,000 readily available, excellent Merlins resulting in an excellent heavy fighter-light bomber.

                    The fact the they even wasted a lot of money designing a new engine and plane for it, when they had an excellent and more powerful engine and all the information acquired from the Hurricane to design a twin engine version with a 400 ft2, a more sturdy landing gear, etc,

                    Cheers, another pint please.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                      TAG
                      Rather than rationale, I would call distorted reason to create a slower, more expensive and difficult to produce Defiant with a lousy rate of climb and a larger crew, than the Hurricane.
                      So, you don't know...

                      I can see no reason for having to develop and produce a less powerful, engine, when Britain has the best engine already in production (and wasting it in lousy designs).
                      Because the Peregrine preceded the Merlin in development. That was explained to you by several of us. It was also explained that the Peregrine had issues compared to the Merlin and was only being used in one aircraft so its development was later dropped.

                      But, the biggest reason the Peregrine was selected for the Whirlwind was it was a "handed" engine with left and right rotation, something the Merlin design lacked at the time. Thus, Westland (and Petter) had good reason to select it rather than the Merlin. It improved the handling of the Whirlwind having counter rotating propellers.

                      On the other hand I can see many advantages in building a twin engine bomber destroyer with a higher speed and rate of climb, longer range and the same engines and crew as the Hurricane. Which can also serve as very effective and survivable a light bomber with a crew of one (instead of dooming 3 men in a slow Battle, carrying a smaller load and having a shorter range)
                      Name one such airplane in WW 2 that had a successful record of attacking large bomber formations. NAME ONE!


                      Only an idiot would chose to produce two completely different engines and 3, 200 units of 3 completely different planes and train over 8,000 aviators (and discrad them all), instead of 1,000 identical, excellent planes with 2,000 readily available, excellent Merlins resulting in an excellent heavy fighter-light bomber.
                      Like the Germans making BMW 801 and DB 601 engines or the US making P&W radials and Allison in line engines? Or countries making different fighter aircraft by different manufacturers to fill different roles?
                      Sounds like we know who the "idiot" here is...

                      The fact the they even wasted a lot of money designing a new engine and plane for it, when they had an excellent and more powerful engine and all the information acquired from the Hurricane to design a twin engine version with a 400 ft2, a more sturdy landing gear, etc,

                      Cheers, another pint please.

                      Comment


                      • Yes, but nobody explained to me why the hell design an urgently needed plane with engines proven not to work and less powerful than the Merlin. And at the same time design two aberrations with the Merlin.
                        2 abortions, despite excellent resources, a record in incomeptence.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                          Yes, but nobody explained to me why the hell design an urgently needed plane with engines proven not to work and less powerful than the Merlin. And at the same time design two aberrations with the Merlin.
                          2 abortions, despite excellent resources, a record in incomeptence.
                          Because, as I already pointed out, the Peregrine engine was the only one in Britain at the time with handed operation meaning on a twin engine plane torque was cancelled out by the use of counter rotating engines and airscrews.

                          The Merlin didn't have that feature. The Kestrel was less powerful and didn't have it either.

                          Aside from that "urgently needed" is a aberration. The Beaufighter then Mosquito filled the gap for a cannon armed twin fighter better than the Whirlwind did in the long run as both proved to have the room to take airborne radar and a second crewman to operate it. That's something the Whirlwind wasn't going to do.

                          When the Spitfire and Hurricane both got 20mm cannon installed it was even less relevant to continue Whirlwind production as the original rationale for a single seat cannon armed day fighter was now filled by two production aircraft that were much cheaper than a Whirlwind to produce.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                            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.

                            It is interesting that the Hurricane was known to be a winner in the early 1930s

                            It might be interesting, but, as usual with you, it is also wrong.

                            First test flight - November, 1935

                            Early 1930s.?

                            Comment


                            • RAF wasted incredible allied potential through poor choices, here is an alternate and completely feasible scenario.

                              Hawker designs a Twinhurry in 1935 with Merlins, 400 ft2 Al wings, a sturdier undercarriage, a slightly larger tail. In 1939 it is capable of 368 mph, 3,100 fpm with 3 blade, constant speed props. She carries four 20 mm cannon with 160 rpg and two 250 lb bombs + two 100 lb bombs or detachable fuel tanks to up range.
                              She has better visibility and range, higher speed and rate of climb and can fly on an engine, so she is more effective, versatile and survivable than the Hurricane and Spitfire and easier to produce and to repair her damaged frame than the latter.

                              Britain does not waste time, resources and aviators designing and producing the Defiant, Battle and Whirlwind (3,200 planes).
                              The plane's 1st flight is in early 1937.

                              Instead of wasting 3,000 Merlins on Defiants and Battles, Britain uses2,000 for Twinhurries and sends 500 to France, 350 to Poland and 150 to Belgium and these countries use the engines to produce Twinhurries with undercarriages, etc, made in France(instead of the Hurricanes licenced for construction by Belgium).

                              In Sept 1939 Britain has 1,000 Twinhurries, France has 250, Poland has 175 and Belgium 75 and pilots trained for them.

                              In July 1939 Britain ships all the old Hurricanes with 2 blade props to Poland and France ships all the oudated, underpowered Caudron fighters to Poland, to boost the Twinhurries.

                              Poland bases the Twinhurries away from the German borders, using drop tanks to reach the front and have a decent combat time. So that when the LW attacks, they decimate the slow bombers, the Bf-110 and are immune to the slow Bf-109, of which they even shoot down some. German Flak also has a hard time shooting the Twinhurries with bombs, which wreak havoc in the long German columns. The 20 mm shells of the Twinhurry easily pierce ther amor of the Pz I and II, knocking out hundreds of them.


                              Moreover on 3 Sept, French Twinhurries start destroying on the ground and shooting down large numbers of German planes along the border and deep into German territory (with drop tanks). The fast Twinhurries can even fly over Switzerland, safe from the Swiss fighters.

                              Also on 3 Sept, British Twinhurries start escorting bombing Missions to the German coast and also destroy many German planes.

                              A month into the war the LW has lost 1,350 planes, while German plane production is ridiculous.
                              In contrast, France is producing 75 Twinhurries per month, Britain 180 and Belgium 22.
                              Last edited by Draco; 15 Jun 15, 11:58.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                                RAF wasted incredible allied potential through poor choices, here is an alternate and completely feasible scenario.

                                Hawker designs a Twinhurry in 1935 with Merlins, 400 ft2 Al wings, a sturdier undercarriage, a slightly larger tail. In 1939 it is capable of 368 mph, 3,100 fpm with 3 blade, constant speed props. She carries four 20 mm cannon with 160 rpg and two 250 lb bombs + two 100 lb bombs or detachable fuel tanks to up range.
                                She has better visibility and range, higher speed and rate of climb and can fly on an engine, so she is more effective, versatile and survivable than the Hurricane and Spitfire and easier to produce and to repair her damaged frame than the latter.

                                Britain does not waste time, resources and aviators designing and producing the Defiant, Battle and Whirlwind (3,200 planes).
                                The plane's 1st flight is in early 1937.

                                Instead of wasting 3,000 Merlins on Defiants and Battles, Britain uses2,000 for Twinhurries and sends 500 to France, 350 to Poland and 150 to Belgium and these countries use the engines to produce Twinhurries with undercarriages, etc, made in France(instead of the Hurricanes licenced for construction by Belgium).

                                In Sept 1939 Britain has 1,000 Twinhurries, France has 250, Poland has 175 and Belgium 75 and pilots trained for them.

                                In July 1939 Britain ships all the old Hurricanes with 2 blade props to Poland and France ships all the oudated, underpowered Caudron fighters to Poland, to boost the Twinhurries.

                                Poland bases the Twinhurries away from the German borders, using drop tanks to reach the front and have a decent combat time. So that when the LW attacks, they decimate the slow bombers, the Bf-110 and are immune to the slow Bf-109, of which they even shoot down some. German Flak also has a hard time shooting the Twinhurries with bombs, which wreak havoc in the long German columns. The 20 mm shells of the Twinhurry easily pierce ther amor of the Pz I and II, knocking out hundreds of them.


                                Moreover on 3 Sept, French Twinhurries start destroying on the ground and shooting down large numbers of German planes along the border and deep into German territory (with drop tanks). The fast Twinhurries can even fly over Switzerland, safe from the Swiss fighters.

                                Also on 3 Sept, British Twinhurries start escorting bombing Missions to the German coast and also destroy many German planes.

                                A month into the war the LW has lost 1,350 planes, while German plane production is ridiculous.
                                In contrast, France is producing 75 Twinhurries per month, Britain 180 and Belgium 22.
                                Just for interest, I showed one or two of your recent aircraft posts to some of my pro Light Blue colleagues earlier today. Despite being in the main RAF or ex RAF types, they do have a sense of humour and your posts are always gratefully received.

                                However, they did ask me why you have become fixated on twin engined aircraft, given that there was no such reference in the original Air Ministry Spec., which (F37/35) was simply a development of F36/34, and F37/34, which produced the Hurricane & the Spitfire respectively. All F37/35 required was a single seat fighter capable of mounting four 20mm cannon, and two of the four proposed designs were single engined aircraft.

                                So, why have you suddenly become fixated upon something called a Twinhurry? For myself, I don't really care, but my colleagues are really fascinated.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X