Problems with British wartime high power piston engines

[tartle]

Do we agree that once the terrible unreliability of the Sabre was overcome and the Typhoons structural weakness was sorted the combination of aircraft and engine made for an excellent low level tactical support vehicle; the low tbo gave logistics problems and slowed the build up of operational numbers. Also in chase mode it became an essential tool to counter the V1 missile (silly me! I assumed as it was Bee that it was Typhoon... it was of course later when he formed the first operational wing of Tempests.). Lack of serious supercharger marks meant that higher altitude duties were carried out by other more suitable aircraft but that enabled the Typhoon squadrons to hone their specialist skills at lower altitudes, to the benefit of invading forces as the allies moved back into Europe. Unfortunately for piston engines their days were numbered as a new technology rapidly developed to take their place. The jet era was about to take off.
What the RR, Bristol and Napier development streams tell us is how technical and political skills and networks of interested parties play a major part in determining the direction and rate of travel; forcing the pace of operational introduction can have huge consequences diverting resources to support operations whilst the teams mitigate the effects of insufficient development.

 

[J.A.W.]

Yes T, & worse, since the exemplary piston powered Sabre/Tempest was followed by promising turbo jet mills,
(Frank Halford showed some ability there too..) - but sitting on so many up-engined Meteors - while deferring
the needed F-86/MiG 15 analogues - put Britain's fighter future too far on the back foot..

By the way - R. Beamont also reckoned he had the measure of the Vampire - when he was test piloting a Tempest & tangled with G. De Havilland doing the same in his prototype jet..

 

[JFC Fuller]

tartle,

Strengthening the rear fuselage, a new canopy, more powerful Sabre variants, a bit of armour, tropical filters, its an interesting collection but relatively minor compared to what was being done to other types. The lack of high altitude capability comes down to the basic weaknesses at Napier, only solved by the intervention of EE and the Ministry but for which the Air Ministry must surely take some of the blame. EE dropped the E.118/119 (with two-stage 3-speed supercharger) work.

JAW,

Whirlwind losses in the channel dash were mostly due to being outnumber 5-to-1 by 109s. The type sparred with 190s on a regular basis once they started appearing.

 

[tartle]

Roland Beamont's obit. here. Doesn't mention things we are interested in though!
Transcript of an interview here.
Yes the takeover by EE meant that the small engineering team (that had not designed the Sabre; Halford's lot did that) were told to concentrate on development rather than more radical change such as three speed two stage blowers. Shame though! But the team under Chatterton did get Sabre to Va and start compound engines-Nomad I and II-(also Deltic and production of Sea Lion!).

 

[JFC Fuller]

From a 1952 Aeronautics article on the Folland Fo.108:

Napier was provided with the fifth aircraft P1778 for carrying out experiments in 1943 on the Sabre E118 with three-speed superchargers and intercoolers; a very close cowling was combined with ducted wing radiators.

On that basis this might be the E.118 mounted in Folland Fo.108 P1778:

 

[J.A.W.]

tartle,

Strengthening the rear fuselage, a new canopy, more powerful Sabre variants, a bit of armour, tropical filters, its an interesting collection but relatively minor compared to what was being done to other types. The lack of high altitude capability comes down to the basic weaknesses at Napier, only solved by the intervention of EE and the Ministry but for which the Air Ministry must surely take some of the blame. EE dropped the E.118/119 (with two-stage 3-speed supercharger) work.

JAW,

Whirlwind losses in the channel dash were mostly due to being outnumber 5-to-1 by 109s. The type sparred with 190s on a regular basis once they started appearing.

JFCF,
- the late Typhoons also got the thinner Tempest tailplane which settled some of the compressibility 'burble'..

The poor old Whirlwind was a bit of an orphan, & with no future once R-R stopped supporting Peregrines.
Westland were in bad odour with the MAP/AM too - for shoddy practices.. .. & unlike the Typhoon, which could
unleash its brutish Sabre if raw speed were needed, the WW could not out-pace the FW 190..

It is pretty plain if you compare the Sabre E.118 illustration (as posted by T) with the Eagle 22, the 2-stage supercharger on an H-24 wasn't rocket science, but R-R clearly had the clout to keep those cards well in hand..

The ability of the Sabre to hack its max rating for take off - shows it wasn't a unit strength issue..

 

[J.A.W.]

From a 1952 Aeronautics article on the Folland Fo.108:

Napier was provided with the fifth aircraft P1778 for carrying out experiments in 1943 on the Sabre E118 with three-speed superchargers and intercoolers; a very close cowling was combined with ducted wing radiators.

On that basis this might be the E.118 mounted in Folland Fo.108 P1778:

Thanks for posting that JFCF, it resembles a strangely distorted mutant Hurricane!

I recall reading that the poor old Fairey Battle - when Sabre test powered - got a bit too lively..

 

[JFC Fuller]

And the Typhoon very nearly became a similar orphan....

Hence the similarity. Both aircraft were designed to very similar requirements and resulted in types with very similar capabilities being used in very similar roles. They were both expensive, both took a long time to develop and both used niche engines. Westlands were about as popular as Napier; the Whirlwind had a well managed engine manufacturer but a poor airframer behind it whilst the Typhoon had the reverse. RR tuned a pair of Peregrines to 12lb boost where they achieved 1,000hp at 3,000rpm.

 

[J.A.W.]

And the Typhoon very nearly became a similar orphan....

Hence the similarity. Both aircraft were designed to very similar requirements and resulted in types with very similar capabilities being used in very similar roles. They were both expensive, both took a long time to develop and both used niche engines. Westlands were about as popular as Napier; the Whirlwind had a well managed engine manufacturer but a poor airframer behind it whilst the Typhoon had the reverse. RR tuned a pair of Peregrines to 12lb boost where they achieved 1,000hp at 3,000rpm.

Sidney Camm & H-S had a wee bit more heft than Westland..
Building too many Hurricanes for too long is one thing, but dumping the flagship is another..

Typhoon carried 4 cannon too - with more than twice the ammo, & had more power on less boost - per cylinder..

 

[JFC Fuller]

You have completely misread my post regarding contractor prowess.

Tyhpoon only had more cannon rounds because it was specified later with a continuous feed system, Westlands had a number of proposals to increase the ammunition capacity on Whirlwinds using continuous feed systems.

This is not a Whirlwind versus Typhoon discussion. The point is that two very similar specifications, barely two years part, produced aircraft with very similar characteristics that were used in very similar roles with the latter entering service almost exactly two years after the former.

 

[tartle]

There are two files I accessed at Kew last Wednesday. I was only there for three hours and they were not the primary purpose of the visit; a quick 'riffle' determined they are worth looking at again on another visit. One was a correspondence file on the Sabre... the thing that struck me was the costings for everything a development and production manager would need; the inference being that Napier had not invested in facilities to develop anything for years.
The other file was on the Folland test beds... as I ahdn't done any prior reading I could not pick up the flavour but the stuff you are mentioning now will give me more context to understand how the letters and memos and minutes fit in the general scheme of things. May be in a couple of weeks....?!

 

[JFC Fuller]

I am scheming my own trip to Kew in the next few weeks, unfortunately I am currently constrained to weekends (Saturdays), and consequently I have not been for months and so my "to view" list is absurdly long. My next trip will be focussed on bombsight development.

With regard to engines, sometime in or just before 1935 the Air ministry seems to have decided that its next generation of engines needed 2,000 hp. It is from this that the Sabre, Vulture and Centaurus all seem to have derived from this basic requirement. Curiously, it also the figure used by Lancelot Lw Whyte in his famous turbine quote from the same year.

 

[J.A.W.]

Ok here's my attempt at a thread topic summary..

WW2 showed that the single 2,000+hp engine powered fighter was superior to a twin with 1,000+hp,
for both A2A & A2G roles.

The Merlin Mustang showed it was possible to achieve a good combination of performance on the lower
size/power range of US designs & proved the P-38 to be uncompetitive, as well as far too costly.
(No one else really wanted it & even the USAAF quickly dropped it, post-war)

The British rightly recognised that their P-38 analogue, the Whirlwind, was not up to it either..

The Tornado/Typhoon was intended to replace the Hurricane/Spitfire, but the dual development situation
of unexpected difficulties with getting enough of the big 2000+hp mills built & the like success of the
progressive power increase of the Merlin & the airframe of the Spitfire ( albeit not as successful as the P-51,
- since the Griffon was needed to match Merlin Mustang performance, & its 'development' was dragged out to the diminishing marginal returns/Grandpa's axe level).
& as we have seen - there were various industrial/political indulgences/ramifications at play here too..

The US ploughed on with its workman-like behemoths powered by (exceptionally lively for a radial) R-2800s..

The Germans & Japanese were caught resting on their laurels piston-wise, & the Russians were stuck
with small fighters with limited armament due to low engine powers too, although they showed acceptance
of low TBOs as a trade off for running their engines very hard..

R-R were found wanting with their 2000+hp piston designs & (it appears) wangled a compromise advantage
by exclusive use of its sophisticated multi-stage mechanical supercharging - adoption of which was
(oddly, IMO) absent from its more highly -but slowly- developed British sleeve valve rivals from Bristol & Napier.

The Americans were happy to develop (or accept R-R) & use mechanical & turbo multi-stage supercharging,
although their sole V 12 (Allison, a Merlin analogue) again missed out on a really competitive airframe/supercharger combination..

& by wars end, much to poor ol' Frank Whittle's chagrin, R-R snaffled his gas turbine, while the US did like-wise
with Frank Halford's iteration of it - while holding the purse strings over bankrupt Blighty to justify it..

No real future for the British piston engines post war either, since - even though the sleeve valve mills had come good, the RAF were of course jet-bent & the US had the civil market flooded with its cheaply obtainable radials..

 

[tartle]

Don't agree with the tone of it unless I am missing irony;
RR did not snaffle jet from Whittle but swapped a tank engine factory with Rover to obtain the Barnoldswick jet dev team and other facilities, with the approval of Whittle who had been helped by RR when Rover had difficulties.
The Griffon programme was delayed not by development problems but by priorities in winning the BoB and keeping Hurricane and Spitfire competitive as we have documented elsewhere on this site.
The genesis of the Mustang started nearly a decade later than the Spitfire and Hurricane and the start of real combat rather than exercises had allowed the British Mission to specify a role somewhat different to the spit and Hurri specs and also that of Tornado/Typhoon spec. so direct comparisons are not particularly useful ... studying the evolution of the three families of specs and responses shows how they fit together; it is hard to imagine but RR was concerned but not worried by other manufacturer's engine programmes; its job was to ensure enough Merlins were available from all sources and that performance was kept on par with the ME's engines. When the FW190 appeared extra effort was made to introduce more performance in the form of Spit IX and eventually when it seemed the right moment switching to Griffon enabled the performance enhancement to proceed apace; details elsewhere on the website. The lobbying to keep Spitfire came from Spitfire competent service people and as we have seen Beamont made cogent case for keeping faith with the big Hawker (as the Hurricane was really the last of the 'old fashioned' a/c it was natural that they should get the job of a big fighter); the two stage supercharger was not exclusive to RR; but liquid cooled engines have a better chance of a space efficient system... the intercooler air/liquid is smaller than air/air intercooler so it becomes a challenge (but not impossible) to fit it all in on air cooled systems; RR did an air cooled intercooler on a test installation at Hucknall before the outbreak of WW2 and realised for the range of aircraft underway at that time it was a non-starter.
RR and Pratt and Whitney worked together on Nene and Tay engines; GE and Whittle worked on I-16 series; just as Lombard did the B.26 there was a straightening of flow path and also the single sided impeller was adopted by Allison influenced by aircraft installation and supercharger experience.
Incidentally the Allison V-12 seemed to have every configuration of supercharger known to the world and a few more besides! But lack of focus by its sponsors prevented a decent outcome.

 

[J.A.W.]

T, my understanding is that Whittle was left disgruntled by the R-R take over & advocated nationalisation
of the British aero-industry to accord with the Labour party program then in vogue..

R-R were - as I have previously noted - good at wringing the best out of their conservative
( if not somewhat old-fashioned) - V 12s, it was the innovative stuff & the 2,000+hp jobs that
they found difficult..

That R-R could wield their considerable other skills & powers to advantage - is beyond question..

The Mustang was certainly in the 2nd generation of fast monoplane piston powered fighters, but NAA
were able to both develop it - to use much more power ( then completely redesign it around the Merlin
- as the H model) & mass produce it for decisive use within the duration of the war..

That R-R pumped out masses of useful Merlins is a fact, but it is today - disputable - that many of
the aircraft they powered were in fact of realistic value to an efficacious war machine.

GM could have learned a few needful things from R-R for Allison ( & the reverse also applies),
- ironic that they ended up selling Allison to R-R..

& NAA were not happy with political pressure deeming that the Allison be used for their twin Mustang..

 

[JFC Fuller]

Im not sure that RR found "the innovative stuff & the 2000+hp jobs" difficult- in fact I would say its safe to say they didn't. By all accounts the Vulture problems were virtually solved when it was cancelled and it apparently ran at 2,500hp on the bench. It was dropped because once it was decided the P.13/36 aircraft would have four smaller engines only the Tornado was left as an airframe for it. Thus, rather like the Peregrine, the single role engine died to allow resources to be focussed on the Merlin. Griffons in operational Spitfire units were achieving 2,000hp from January 1944 and that engine went on to power Shackletons until 1991, 30 years after the last Sabre ran.

The Sabre lived because it was Napier's only product- they had nothing else to focus on, and they still made a hash of it until EE took them over.

As for many Merlin powered aircraft not having realistic value? I would be curious to know where you think that applied, all those Mustangs, Spitfires, Seafires, Hurricanes, Mosquitoes and Lancasters were very useful. Total Sabre production may be as low as 6,000, it was certainly well below 10,000. By contrast 150,000 Merlins were produced and a further 57,400 Hercules.

 

[J.A.W.]

All sounds a tad too convenient really, Vulture problems solved & good to go - then cancelled?
Not very likely.. & how many X-type engines actually entered service - anywhere?
Avro had been ready to go with the Tornado, which was scheduled as the R-R powered Spitfire replacement.

The Sabre design was proven sound, but archaic, mouldering, Napier production facilities, not so much..

& as previously requested JFCF, do you have any TBO figures for the 2000+hp Griffon, with its ropy crank issues?

There were probably 5,000 or so Merlin powered Hurricanes & Spitfires that were needless production..
Obsolescent Whitleys, ineffectual early Mk Halifaxes, pointless P-40s,- all soaked up Merlins to no real good.

& if there was a 2-stage Hercules available, there could be more fitted to Lancasters, with higher op altitudes.

Of course, if Sabre production development had been organised properly, then a Super Mosquito &/or Hawker
equivalent may have been built in numbers & made the lumbering Lanc redundant, & spared the lives of many thousands of poor bloody bomber crews so cruelly lost over Europe..

 

[tartle]

Napier production: just over 5000 including prototypes.
168,040 Merlin engines were produce... just over 55,000 by Packard
57,400 Hercules
The RR Eagle 22 was produced in small numbers; when a larger engine to follow on from the Griffon it was felt scaling up the Griffon would be not feasible technically; detonation would probably set in due to the increased flame front travel.
Because of the issues with X configuration engines of smaller power than what was now required- even though Vulture problems had been solved- it was decided that an H configuration similar to what had been once schemed for a Merlin derivative. but rotated 90 degrees. The decision to go for an H-24 was influenced by the Sabre but the Derby design team went in for some simplification. Whilst RR realised poppet valves on a high performance 3,500 hp engine using highly leaded fuels would not allow the development of long life so sleeve valves were chosen.... however RR considerably refined the sleeve drive to increase the potential for reliability compared to Sabre.
First run in March 1944 it first flew in the Wyvern in Dec '46. The only reason it went into the Wyvern was to enable flight testing to get under way in spite of the delayed development of the A-S Python; a short production run (Derby flexibility) was laid down for the prototype Wyverns. It was 22 March 1949 before a Python Wyvern flew, later even than the Cyde version which made it into the air on 18 January 1949.
RR had realised that the prop jet 'fighter' was a dead end and would never fill factories ... so the military emphasis was jets.

 

[tartle]

It is not a tad convenient but a brave decision to ask for in the midst of a war. Why continue with Vulture whose primary aeroplane was to be the Manchester when the RAF had realised two-engined heavy bombers was not a good idea; Hence the Lancaster. As to a tin engine mosquito type bomber... what numbers would be needed to deliver the tonnage of ordnance and in the vein of the what-if game we seem to be in... 'what-if they were confronted by ME 262s with trained pilots'?
I was very lucky to have started my career among the people who worked on these engines in WW2 and I do not recognise the 'tad convenience' view of the period as explained to me then. Without doubt there were political lobbying aspects to the decisions... Firms like Napier deserved better management but the military tried very hard to help them stay in the race over a period of twenty years from 1925 but they did not relate.

 

[JFC Fuller]

If you have Griffon TBO figures feel free to post them, one suspects that they beat the abysmal 25 hours the Sabre was achieving in late 1942.

Vulture cancellation was highly convenient, it allowed RR to focus on lower cost and in production engines- the Merlin and later the Griffon. In fact it was entirely sensible and logical as well as convenient.

All those Spitfires, Hurricanes, Halifaxes, Whitleys and P-40s were far from useless. They were credible aircraft used effectively in front line roles until something better came along. Take the Halifax and Lancaster, the former was flying operational missions 12 months before the latter, the Whitley Mk.V (with Merlins) was flying operational missions a full 12 months before even the Halifax. There is considerable complexity of taking a type from prototypes, to mass production, to operational frontline use whilst ensuring continuity of supply and thus capability.

Why a super Mosquito? The Merlin powered one was perfectly adequate, the decision to use four engined heavies was a product of pre-War policy decisions and the industrial infrastructure built up to support that. It is also not relevant to this thread.

 

[J.A.W.]

Sorry T, but even a cursory look at the 'simplifications' R-R did to their Eagle 22 (Sabre - Chinese copy) show the
poorly thought out/needless design flaws & attempted palliative band aiding - which effectively doomed it,
turbine age or no.. see '...Power to fly' thread.

 

[J.A.W.]

If you have Griffon TBO figures feel free to post them, one suspects that they beat the abysmal 25 hours the Sabre was achieving in late 1942.

Vulture cancellation was highly convenient, it allowed RR to focus on lower cost and in production engines- the Merlin and later the Griffon.

All those Spitfires, Hurricanes, Halifaxes, Whitleys and P-40s were far from useless. They were credible aircraft used effectively in front line roles until something better came along. Take the Halifax and Lancaster, the former was flying operational missions 12 months before the latter. There is considerable complexity of taking a type from prototypes, to mass production, to operational frontline use.

Why a super Mosquito? The Merlin powered one was perfectly adequate, the decision to use four engined heavies was a product of pre-War policy decisions and the industrial infrastructure built up to support that. It is also not relevant to this thread.

JFCF, AFAIR, 2000+hp Griffon TBOs were nil in 1942, & the 'fixed' Vulture was not forthcoming - so the Sabre
had to fly, fully sorted or not..

There was certainly not need for thousands of Hurricanes or single stage Spitfires to be built in 1943/44..

By mid 1944 even Spit IX units were re-equipping with Tempests - for post invasion service..

Britain did very poorly for indigenous medium bombers, & while the Mosquito could be bulged to take a cookie,
if a sufficient supply of British 2000+hp engines had been built ( & not many Griffon Spits made service, either) along the lines of the P&W 2800 availability, then an efficient Lancaster substitute could have been viable..

 

[J.A.W.]

T, ~5,000 Sabres seems a bit low, since they flew about 3,300 Typhoons & 950 Tempests, & likely - given
the severe early & ongoing regular serviceability issues - more than a few spares would have been needed.

The RAF kept operating Sabre Tempests up 'til the mid `50s,
- so either more were built or TBOs must've improved quite markedly..

 

[tartle]

5,000 is the official number from Napier... I guess they should know. Plenty of spares to keep them flying maybe?
I am not going to be drawn into a tit for tat conversation... let us agree to differ. Fred Morley who designed the Eagle 22 did not take a copycat attitude... and did not claim that the prototype was what would have gone into production... there was little development done on the 'beast'. It was at the stage of the Merlin A in the development cycle so will show prototypical characteristics and mistakes. It did have a supercharger using the latest Merlin aerodynamic understandings.
I have looked through major service problems with Griffon and a flaky crankshaft never gets a mention. there were camshaft issues and piston sticking and seizure issues that had to be sorted which meant that the 1945 life was 250 hours going up to 300 shortly after. Anyway 50 years later the last development of the Griffon was to re-engine the RAF BoB Memorial Flight with ex-Shackleton 58s. These were modified to fit in the Spitfire XIX to replace the 60 series (lack of spares) and entailed quite a few changes to fit inside the casing and mounting arrangement. There was also another mod for the Fairey Firefly at Yeovilton.
Incidentally there was a three speed supercharged Griffon.

 

[J.A.W.]

Yes T, the 100 series Griffon used for the Mk XVI Spiteful prototype..

AFAIR, some of the early 2-stage Griffons which were over-boosted to +25lbs for V1 interception duties
ran into a spot of bottom end bother, with main bearings breaking up..

 

[JFC Fuller]

Merlin Spitfires and Hurricanes were still very much in use in the latter years of the war, especially the Far East where Hurricanes were still being used very effectively right through to the end of the war- and their advantage was they were cheap. There is also an issue keeping equipped squadrons supplied with aircraft, wastage required continuous production even when no new squadrons were being converted.

Britain did poorly in medium bombers because it took a policy decision prior to the war that it didn't need any- so the Albemarle was all but sabotaged by the decision to make it out of wood and steel and nothing else was done to produce a new type until the war began. Producing a new type for service use after that was not viable, as both the Whirlwind and the Typhoon (and others, notably for this scenario the Buckingham) show the time from specification to frontline operational use for a new high performance type in this era was 4 years. It is not coincidence or conspiracy that the war was fought almost entirely by types either in/near production, or evolved from such types, by 1940.

RAF squadrons converted in every direction, some units went from Typhoons to Spitfires, some went from Spitfires to Tempests etc, etc. It is total production that is telling.

 

[JFC Fuller]

5,000 Sabres would seem about right, for a long time there were Typhoon airframes waiting for engines such was the shortage. TBO does not mean new engine, it means overhaul. Those post War Tempests would have been very low hour airframe and engine units delivered in late 45 then not used very hard there after. There is also nothing special about the Tempest going on to the mid-50s; Beaufighters went on even longer as did Brigands and Spitfires.

 

[J.A.W.]

Operational service & loss rates also tell a story, Hurricanes weren't fit for duty in the ETO post D-day,
& while the RAF wanted all the Mustangs it could get,( even the Allison powered early models), they
could find no use for any other US fighters there either.

P-47s were sent to replace the Hurricanes for Burma though, & Spit VIIIs also belatedly showed up there to do good work, but there were also large numbers of Spitfire Vs on hand, that if found unsuitable for conversion to Mk IX spec - were basically dead wood..

Spit IXs were pressed into fighter-bomber duties, but although lacking the more warlike capabilities of the Typhoon, some kind of work had to be found for them.

Even Mk XIV Spits were used fairly sparingly, with a significant number held in store - prior to going east too..

 

[tartle]

Should we start another thread on what fighters were good for what and get back to piston engine problems?

 

[J.A.W.]

5,000 Sabres would seem about right, for a long time there were Typhoon airframes waiting for engines such was the shortage. TBO does not mean new engine, it means overhaul. Those post War Tempests would have been very low hour airframe and engine units delivered in late 45 then not used very hard there after. There is also nothing special about the Tempest going on to the mid-50s; Beaufighters went on even longer as did Brigands and Spitfires.

Well there must've been something a bit special about them, if they were so expensive to operate..

I don't suppose those sluggish Bristols or clapped out Spits could have been good enough to provide realistic
A2A gunnery training for the jets..

 

[J.A.W.]

Should we start another thread on what fighters were good for what and get back to piston engine problems?

T, form & function do inter-relate, engine problems could & did make or break fighters..

No tickee, no shirtee,
&
No Vulture, no Tornado..

 

[JFC Fuller]

And ETO wasn't the only theatre, hence my mentioning of the use of Hurricanes in the Far East.

Typhoon was not a viable combat aircraft until May 1942 and only then in low altitude operations and still expensive to procure. A Tempest did not shoot down an enemy aircraft until June 8th 1944, by which time the Luftwaffe was an almost spent force. The Typhoon managed to miss (by a country mile) the big late 1940 air superiority campaign over England and the Tempest managed to miss the major part of the big air superiority campaign over Europe in early 1944.

It was Merlins in Spitfires, Mustangs, and R2800s in Thunderbolts that did the hard A2A work.

I am at a loss as to why you think 1944/45 programme low hour airframe/engine Tempests flying in the mid-50s is "special", so were multitude of other types.

 

[tartle]

The point I am making is not about form and function but that we seem to be getting into generalisations that don't relate back to 'problems with British High Power piston engines... the problem of drift!
Twin Mustang test pilots must have been peeved when the Buy America people got Allison back into the Mustang... also the increasing licence fee for Merlins (cash strapped nation) gave an excuse too.
By the way the Whittle comment you made... He certainly was peeved at what was going on but was not upset at RR who he appreciated were trying to get his engines right. It was the loss of authority over Power Jets that really got to him.
The Mustang was created incredibly fast to a clear spec. with the dubious benefit of having a war to speed things up and the benefit of advances in supporting technologies such as understanding turbulence effects in wind tunnels etc. Whilst Meredith helped the spit team reduce drag; the extra work done in the previous 5 years enabled Edgar Schmued to ensure thrust was generated from the radiator; the mathematics of conics was used to profile the fuselage and wings leading to a much smoother profile plus the use of low drag wing profile (which did not work the way expected... compressibilty was not suppressed to avoid turulence). If the UK had understood turbulence in wind tunnels earlier the Typhoon may not have happened and the Tempest would have been designed in its place... that would have been interesting!

 

[J.A.W.]

And ETO wasn't the only theatre, hence my mentioning of the use of Hurricanes in the Far East.

Typhoon was not a viable combat aircraft until May 1942 and only then in low altitude operations and still expensive to procure. A Tempest did not shoot down an enemy aircraft until June 8th 1944, by which time the Luftwaffe was an almost spent force. The Typhoon managed to miss (by a country mile) the big late 1940 air superiority campaign over England and the Tempest managed to miss the major part of the big air superiority campaign over Europe in early 1944.

It was Merlins in Spitfires, Mustangs, and R2800s in Thunderbolts that did the hard A2A work.

I am at a loss as to why you think 1944/45 programme low hour airframe/engine Tempests flying in the mid-50s is "special", so were multitude of other types.

The ETO was the most technological & intense combat zone however, which is why Hurricane/P-40/Spit V
were past their best by date by 1944 there..

Indeed it wasn't until well into 1942 (when Typhoons were operational) that Spitfires were even based
out of Blighty, & Hurricanes had shouldered that burden since `39..

In June `44 hundreds of futuristic Luftwaffe V1 cruise missiles began streaming towards London, & the
new Tempest was the best performing fighter to intercept them, & certainly - the R-2800 powered jobs
were not.. months later when that task had been done the Tempest was sent to the continent ( replacing
the Merlin Mustangs in 122 Wing) to spearhead the air-superiority duties of the 2nd TAF, since the
Luftwaffe were proving far from spent..

The power available from the Sabre enabled the Tempest to demonstrate the best performance
available to the RAF in these low level roles, & the high airframe Vne allowed the initiative to be
maintained in A2A actions, since the LW fighters could not simply dive away to evade as they had
always been able to do with Spitfires..


& how many other 'British wartime high power piston engine' powered fighters were redesignated TT,
for extensive dedicated use - for realistic A2A jet fighter gunnery training?

 

[robunos]

Gentlemen, I must thank you for the vast amounts of information you've provided in this topic, and the passion with which you've argued your various positions. However. I have to agree with Tartle, that the thread is beginning to drift from it's intended course. So, as a way of bringing things back on course, let me, as the OP, summarise my understanding of things as explained so far.

The Vulture; suffered problems with lubrication, which were effectively solved when the programme was cancelled in favour of Merlin production, due in part to it's intended airframes being developed with alternative engines, Manchester/Lancaster, Halifax to-be going with four Merlins, Tornado/Typhoon with Sabre.

The Sabre; not cancelled as no other engine of comparable power available at the time, despite short TBO, and need to keep Napier in the engine business, diversion of Bristol effort to assist Napier no factor in slow development of Centaurus.

The above then leads me to a further question, just why was Centaurus development so protracted? Were the problems technical, industrial, political, or military?

And finally, regarding the pros/cons of the Sabre, on 12th October 1944, Roland Beamont suffered an engine failure in his Tempest, which led to him becoming a POW for the remainder of the war...

cheers,
Robin.

 

[J.A.W.]

Ah, Robin, - R. Beamont was captured due to crashlanding in German held territory during a combat op.
Without the technical report to confirm the root cause we cannot per se blame the Sabre for it..

As to why - if was 'fixed' - no further Vulture production was deemed useful is more contentious,
especially given the lack of successful X-type service aero-engines anywhere.

The Centaurus problem is another thing, for an engine that was apparently type-tested & good to go
- before the war - to end up virtually missing it, is strange.. ..it was a very big lump though, so what
to put in? There were no real British Do 217/B-25/B-26 equivalents for it.

& the British did have reasonable qualms about the suitability of radial engines for fighters..

 

[JFC Fuller]

JAW,

You have started to identify the continuity of supply and production timing issues that kept so many types in production during a period of massive industrial and force structure enlargement.

The Tempest was an outstanding fighter, but it arrived as the Luftwaffe was a shadow of the force it once was. It was August 27th 1944 that Bomber Command started sending its heavies on daylight raids for the first time since 1941- with Spitfire escorts.

Regarding TT types, just off the top of my head, Beaufighter and Firefly with the former lasting until 1960.

robunos,

As far as I can make out the main thing that held up Centaurus development was the Hercules programme which saw the type continually improved for evolved versions of existing production types (notably Beaufighters and Halifaxes) in much the same way as the Merlin seems to have held up a lot of the Griffon development. It must be remembered that Napier, in 1939/40, was not in volume production of a type for an existing platform, it was the only company completely free of any other type and thus able to focus solely on the development of a big engine. Note that Sabre production was just 1/11th of Hercules production and 1/30th of Merlin production.

The Centaurus was also unlucky with its platforms, the Firebrand not getting anywhere near "right" until 1945, the Buckingham was an abject failure and the Short S.36 (Super Stirling) was abandoned. It did power a number of Warwicks though....perhaps not something to boast about.

 

[tartle]

JAW,
You are right that we cannot blame the Sabre for Bee's crash and capture but we can blame engine failure.... maybe he took a shell in the engine.... we are not likely to find out as he crashed into German territory.
His 609 sqdn write up is interesting though.

 

[J.A.W.]

Well JFCF, the order of battle figures for the Luftwaffe do contradict your mere 'shadow' assertion.

Certainly the mass of sorties made by Allied forces made this appear to be the case, but a look at the unfortunate outcomes of some of those adventurous Lancaster daylight ops shows the LW still had teeth..

It is a notable credit to British design engineering that the Sabre saw service at all,
- yet also an indictment on British political/industrial organisation that so relatively few did..

& seriously, I cant see Vampires getting a realistic run around training-wise from a Beaufighter or Firefly..

 

[J.A.W.]

JAW,
You are right that we cannot blame the Sabre for Bee's crash and capture but we can blame engine failure.... maybe he took a shell in the engine.... we are not likely to find out as he crashed into German territory.
His 609 sqdn write up is interesting though.

Thanks T, that link does state 'shot down by flak' as the cause of RB's capture, & while the Sabre may have been
quite an engine, being literally bullet-proof was not one of Frank H's design briefs -I'm sure..