There’s a feature in the latest issue of Aeroplane about Photo-Recce Mosquitoes that mentions how the PR.34’s built by Percival were significantly better performers than those built by Dh themselves, and how it led to investigations by the parent company into why this was so.
Does anyone know what the outcome of these investigations was?
Out of interest, can anyone think of any other situations where a sub-contractor built a better aeroplane than the parent company?
By: XN923 - 16th January 2009 at 13:31
Didn’t Corsairs have serious issues? Was it the Brewster built aircraft? And didn’t they end up in a training role or were they shipped to the FAA?
I’m at work so doing this from memory!
I believe all Brewster built F3As were used in non-operational roles, probably due to the same manufacturing issues that kept the Buccaneer/Bermuda dive bomber from doing anything other than towing targets.
By: Bazza333 - 16th January 2009 at 12:37
Didn’t Corsairs have serious issues? Was it the Brewster built aircraft? And didn’t they end up in a training role or were they shipped to the FAA?
I’m at work so doing this from memory!
By: mike currill - 15th January 2009 at 22:22
I have heard it said by an RAF ex-Merlin fitter that you could tell where the engine was made by the finish of the inlet and exhaust ports, Paisley built ones were the best apparently and the Packard ones were a match for the Derby built ones or possibly slightly better.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th January 2009 at 22:11
Rootes-built machines
Those built in Liverpool flew worse – half the bits had been robbed.
By: D1566 - 15th January 2009 at 21:43
English Electric built Halifaxes were supposed to be better than the parent companies, not sure about the Rootes Group ones?
By: J Boyle - 15th January 2009 at 21:40
I recall my late father…a 15th AF B-17 pilot…saying something about pilot preferences between the Boeing-Vega-Douglas built aircraft.
And I understand that Robert Morgan of Memphis Belle fame did not like the Studebaker-built Wright Cyclones on his aircraft. I take that as a personal affront since I own a Studebaker Avanti (a high performance luxury GT). 🙂
I have to believe that was more superstition than fact…perhaps pilots and groundcrew were influenced by past experiences with or the repuation of Studebaker automobiles (most USAAF personnel had owned cars before the war and I’m sure there were “Ford guys” or GM fans who looked down on other makes).
By: bazv - 15th January 2009 at 21:24
Westland produced spitfires were reputed to be better quality than the other builders (allegedly 😀 )
cheers baz
By: Olympus - 15th January 2009 at 16:35
Armstrong Whitworth built Hunters were claimed to be built better and flew faster than Hawker produced examples IIRC
Sign In
January 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm