This isn’t so much about the technical stuff, which I’ve read elsewhere (aside from one or two points that I’ll bring up later), but about their roles and service lives.
I’ve read that de Havilland designed both aircraft were designed as high altitude interceptor fighters, but (as some cynically note) both aircraft would see the Gloster Meteor overshadow them in that role, leading to the early Vampires being used as tactical fighters (Mk 1) or bomber escort fighters (Mk 3, and to an extent Mk 5 and Mk 9), and then as ground attack fighters/assault bombers (Mk 5 and Mk 9), and the Venom was used by the RAF as a tactical fighter/ground attack aircraft in a similar vein to the Vampire, as well as two seat night fighters and trainers which stayed in service for many years in the case of the trainers.
Granted, as an interceptor, the Vampire was obsolescent within a few years of entering widespread service, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that early Vampires did offer up better performance than early Meteors, and even the Venom was a bit faster than the Meteor Mk8 though the Venom’s speed figure was taken at sea level (which might explain its use as an attack fighter).
In terms of basic development, the Vampire was one of the first really viable single engined jet fighters, and DH designed it to be relatively small to take full advantage of the single engine, which also made it maneuverable and (for an early jet) easy to fly since it can be handled acrobatically like a single engined piston engined fighter. However, the Meteor was also very maneuverable for it’s size (about the same size as a Hornet or Mosquito) and it’s ability to take more powerful engines without major structural changes probably meant that the Vampire served alongside it as opposed to being the RAF’s main jet interceptor.
It also seems that this bit the Venom, too, as far as being an interceptor, as though it was faster than the Meteor (at least at lower altitudes), it wasn’t ton faster, and it was still about 40mph slower in level flight than the F-86 or the MiG-15 used in Korea (the speeds that I’ve seen most often quoted for the Venom was 640mph at sea level, while the F-86 and MiG-15 usually have been quoted as being in the 670-680mph range). Also, there were (finally) aircraft like the Hawker Hunter and the English Electric Lighting that would enter service after the Korean War that, after some delay, put Britain back on equal par with the US and Russia from a performance stand point.
I also know that the Venom had “swept back” wings, but it seems that, like the Me-262, any performance advantages were secondary to another factor, like maybe CG shift because of the Venom’s DH Ghost engine being somewhat larger and heavier than the Vampire’s DH Goblin (or on some Vampire derivatives, such as the Australian Vampires and the French Mistral, the Rolls-Royce Nene), or to counter something that DH’s designers didn’t like, which I’ll ask about that later. But the sweep on the wing wasn’t as responsible for the Venom’s nearly 100mph speed increase over the Vampire as other refinements such as the thinner wing and the much more powerful Ghost engine.
It seems that these aircraft, and especially their deployment as attack aircraft vs their intended design as interceptors, was a product of confusion and the “being out of touch” that was going on the British Government and Defense organizations since the end or World War II that drug down the RAF from its standards established during WWII for nearly a decade. Also, DH designed the Swallow, a research aircraft that was derived from the Vampire to investigate swept wings and some of that influenced the Venom and the Sea Vixen, but it seems that it took the RAF and the British Defense Ministries to take serious notice about such advances. Why it took so long for such evolutions to kick the RAF back to life so to speak is beyond me, and probably a lot of people who look back at that time in the RAF’s history.
But my questions about the Vampire and Venom is this. I read in the DH Hornet and Sea Hornet book that DH aerodynamicist John Wimpenny mentioned something about something called the “convexity” aileron that RAE designed for high speed aircraft that he said caused some issues with the Hornet. What this has to be do with the Vampire/Venom line is that Wimpenny said that when he worked with Eric Bishop with the Venom that the Venom’s wing trailing edged was moved or arranged in such a way that the “convexity” part of the aileron arrangement was removed and rendered non-functional. So what was “convexity” exactly and how would it work/not work on certain aircraft, considering that it seemed to be satisfactory on aircraft such as late Spitfires and the Vampire.
Also, the Mk 4 Venom used power-boosted ailerons, which I assume were to help the pilot overcome the added load of the wingtip mounted fuel tanks which tended to hinder the aircraft’s roll rate. Why was the Venom designed to use such tanks and in such a way that they weren’t really intended to be jettisoned before combat maneuvers. I know that the Ghost engined burned more fuel faster than the Goblin or Nene and they wanted to make the Venom’s range about equal to the Vampire’s, but why not use them as drop tanks?
And I find it an odd bit of trivia the in Swiss service, that the Vampire outlived the Venom by several years, with the last Venom fighters starting to be phased out in 1983, and the last Vampire fighters lasting until their phase out started in 1988. The last DH “wheel barrow” being the Mk 11 advanced trainers being retied in 1990.
Could someone explain my more important points (Vampire and Venom roles, convexity, and the need for power boosted controls on the Venom)?
By: ChernKStewfan - 23rd February 2012 at 12:57
The DH Ghost engine wasn’t much larger or heavier than the Goblin. It did burn more fuel to make its power, though, and the Venom was hoped to have range similar to the Vampire, which is part of why the wing tip tanks were fitted–also, like the extra fuselage tanks on the Hawker Tempest vs the Typhoon, the Venom’s thinner wing couldn’t hold the same tankage as the Vampire.
The big disadvantage that the Ghost had was that the R-R Nene was slightly smaller and made about the same power–the RD-45/VK-1 engines in the MiG-15 were Nene derivatives. But the Ghost was a DH product, and DH wanted their own 5000lb thrust-class engine, and it meant that the Vampire airframe could be used without much modification. Of course, the wing LE sweep back might be due to shift in CG because of fuel tank rearrangement, but it might be due to compressibility at low alt. or to accommodate the changed control surfaces that the Venom used.
I’d argue for compressibility because the Nene-engined Vampires (the Sud-Est Mistral and the Australian F.30 Vampires) topped out at about 570-580mph tops, and that’s for the Mistral, which lacked the “elephant ear” intakes that the F.30 and DH’s own experimental Mk 2 Vampires had (where were Mk1 and Mk3 airframes converted to use the Nene), while the Venom had the same power, but topped out at 640mph.
By: Speedy - 23rd February 2012 at 11:01
I have read that the MiG-15 could not get even near Mach 1. ISTR reading that it went out of control at 0.92 .
I suspect the small amout of sweep the Venom has is nothing more than to compensate for the heavier engine without moving the wing root structure in the fuselage from the Vampire position.
By: ChernKStewfan - 23rd February 2012 at 09:44
The figures I found for the MiG-15 seem to be for the early models, because the MiG-15 “bis” was quoted with a top speed of 670+mph at altitude.
But even the MiG-15 family had their share of difficulties due to compressibility, namely that it couldn’t break Mach 1 in a dive (why the F-86 could out-dive it), and also caused the MiG to have issues with entering a flat spin after certain maneuvers.
Basically, it seems like the RAF stuck with “straight” wings for so long because they knew that early jets tended to perform like crap at high altitude because of lack of engine power, and that they relied on centrifugal flow engines, which were wider and hence less areo-efficent, and that for low-alt tactical fighters, the straight wing was a safer bet for handling/agility at low alt, even with a speed penalty, especially at higher alt.
It may strike some as odd that the RAF knew about the aero advantages of swept wings because of the DH 108, but that aircraft, though (like the Venom) an obvious step in the right direction, had it’s flaws, too, some of which the Venom and Comet helped cure, but for the Venom’s lack of a true “swept” wing. It’s also ironic that the DH 110 (Sea Vixen) was designed with a swept wing before the Venom was designed, but neither the RAF or Royal Navy were interested at the time, probably for the reasons I and others have suggested.
Perhaps if the Venom had the wing sweep of the DH 108 and the narrow chord of the Venom itself, the Venom could’ve been the RAF’s first fully successful transonic fighter. But the Venom did prove one thing, ironically–that many aircraft to the present day have tried to emulate/improve upon it’s low alt performance per tactical requirements.
By: JoeB - 23rd February 2012 at 02:17
The only speed figures for the Venom that 1. I ever saw was the 640mph at sea level that’s claimed. In that respect, it was faster than the MiG-15, which wasn’t the best low/medium altitude fighter of its time, being designed as an interceptor. At sea level, the MiG-15 is claimed to have a speed of “only” 590mph. Of course, the F-86F had a speed at that same altitude of over 680mph.
2. Problem is for the Venom if it was used against the MiG, I’d bet that it’s performance would drop off (like the Vampire did) above 20-30,000 ft, and the performance drop off would be almost like the single stage Allison V-12s during World War II, which were set up for low alt. work, which allowed P-40s and for sure early P-51 Mustangs to perform as well or even better than many Axis fighters in low altitude theaters
1.That speed for MiG-15 at sea level is not correct. The MiG-15bis (main model in Korea, though some earlier RD-45’s powered MiG-15’s were also used) reached its maximum speed at sea level, like most non-afterburning jet fighters, 1076km/h=668mph. The F-86F did not have anything like a 90mph speed advantage over the MiG-15bis, at any altitude.
2. The drivers of altitude performance of the early jets were different than with WWII prop fighters. All non-afterburning jet engines of that era had max thrust at s/l and it steadily decreased with altitude. There were no comparable characteristics like different speeds and stages of mechanical or exhaust driven superchargers whereby some piston engines held their power a lot better in thinner air; all non afterburning jet engines lost power with altitude in a relatively comparable manner.
The difference in altitude performance among jet a/c of that time was mainly driven by different drag characteristics with altitude, rather than different rate of loss of thrust with altitude. Straight wings suffered an earlier and greater increase in drag at high (subsonic) Mach, and of course Mach number increased with altitude for a given speed. The poorer performance of straight wings v swept wings at altitude was principally due to that, not greater decline in thrust of their engines. And even among swept wing jets, the F-86’s lower drag rise at high Mach conferred an advantage over the MiG at high altitude in a dive. OTOH the MiG’s higher thrust/weight ratio conferred an advantage for it in *getting* to high altitudes; and it was also superior to near contemporary Western straight wings in that respect. So a MiG could almost always enter combat above an F-86, but the F-86 (especially E and later) could still usually dive away, even from a MiG attacking from above. Any straight wing OTOH would be highly constrained by Mach drag rise, or even limiting Mach in a dive from high altitude. So it couldn’t climb with the MiG (generally inferior thrust/weight), couldn’t outrun it (more Mach drag rise and inferior thrust weight), couldn’t outdive it (more Mach drag rise), and even its turning ability advantage would be limited, because again the MiG had better thrust to maintain more G. Therefore the straight wing was ‘sh*t out of luck’ v the MiG-15 in the Korean War high altitude air superiority role. This would have been marginally less true of the Venom compared to some other straight wings, but only marginally. Down at sea level the straightwing was in a relatively better position, though the MiG also gained thrust at s/l, all non-AB jets did.
Joe
By: ChernKStewfan - 21st February 2012 at 13:06
The only speed figures for the Venom that I ever saw was the 640mph at sea level that’s claimed. In that respect, it was faster than the MiG-15, which wasn’t the best low/medium altitude fighter of its time, being designed as an interceptor. At sea level, the MiG-15 is claimed to have a speed of “only” 590mph. Of course, the F-86F had a speed at that same altitude of over 680mph.
So it’s not inconceivable that as long as the MiG-15 didn’t get caught in a low altitude dogfight, that it was at least somewhat superior to even most early F-86 variants, especially above 30-35,000 ft.
Problem is for the Venom if it was used against the MiG, I’d bet that it’s performance would drop off (like the Vampire did) above 20-30,000 ft, and the performance drop off would be almost like the single stage Allison V-12s during World War II, which were set up for low alt. work, which allowed P-40s and for sure early P-51 Mustangs to perform as well or even better than many Axis fighters in low altitude theaters (the MTO–North Africa and Southern Europe–and the Pacific), but made them not especially useful in air battles over mainland Europe/Northern Europe.
Basically, it would seem that the Venom could’ve given the MiG a tough time in low altitude air battles, but it seems that it wouldn’t be the interceptor that DH hoped it would originally be, because it seems that if you’re right, it wasn’t great at high altitudes. And that seemed to be a trademark of DH fighters of the time–the Hornet, Vampire and Venom. All were capable low and mid level performers, but lacked the speed and/or the handling to be anything more than adequate at higher alts.
By: JoeB - 21st February 2012 at 01:52
The issue with the Venom vs say the F-86 and the MiG-15 is that the Venom had competitive climb rates in the single seat versions, was very maneuverable, but by the time that the Venom reached production, 640mph wasn’t anything special.
The MiG and the F-86, depending on the variant, were about 40 or so mph faster than the Venom. I’d bet that the Venom could probably out maneuver the F-86 or the MiG in a turning dogfight, just as the Meteor or Vampire probably could.
The matchup between straight and swept wing jet fighters depended heavily on altitude in a predictable way not quite like the varying speed/altitude capabilities of WWII prop fighter or later jets. Near sea level a plane like the Venom would just have a 40 mph (or perhaps a bit less) speed disadvantage v F-86 or MiG-15. In a higher altitude engagement, the speed gap would not only widen but the straightwing would be much more tightly constrained by Mach limit in any dive, especially compared to mid and later F-86 models that would dive through Mach 1 routinely. This put the straight wing at a servere disadvantage, as shown by the attempt to use the Meteor in the high altitude air superiority role alongside the F-86 in Korea. As low altitude fighter bombers defending themselves, or directly escorting other low altitude fb’s, a/c like F-80, F-84, F9F and Meteor could be reasonably competitive with the MiG. But in the max altitude-seeking air superiority role of the pre-missile jet era, to clear out the MiG’s or keep them too busy to harass fighter bombers, the straight wings couldn’t compete. It wouldn’t be basically different for the Venom IMO.
Joe
By: ChernKStewfan - 18th February 2012 at 13:02
I’ve only seen him credited/named as R.E. Bishop and Eric Bishop in anything from Wikipedia to actual books featuring 1940’s and ’50’s DH aircraft as the designer of record, or at least as the leader of the design projects.
Other noted designers that collaborated with him included John Wimpenny, who worked with him on the Hornet, Vampire, and Venom as chief aerodynamicist, and John Frost, best known as the designer of the Avro Car when he worked for Avro Canada, but he got his start at DH by designing a type of high drag/high lift flap intended for aircraft such as the Hornet and the Vampire/Venom. He was perhaps mostly known in his DH years for being credited alongside Bishop (who designed the fuselage, which was a DH Vampire item) as chief designer of the DH 108 “Swallow” swept wing/high speed research aircraft.
Of course, the fact does remain that the chief designer (overall leader of the group of designers) usually gets most of the credit, but like the star in a film or play, that guy probably wouldn’t have covered so much ground without a good supporting cast so to speak.
By: pagen01 - 17th February 2012 at 17:59
Don’t forget that his name was Ronald (Ron) E. Bishop, Eric was his middle name.
Also worth remembering that there were a handful of talented designers & aerodynamicists (such as W.A.Tamblin) working under him at de Hav, he became an overseer as director of the design department.
By: ChernKStewfan - 17th February 2012 at 17:16
Personally, I think that the Vampire/Venom front fuselages do bear some resemblance to that of the Hornet, and the on the night fighter/trainer versions that they bear some resemblance to those of the Mosquito. However, such similarities are the consequence of coincidence, and not the intent Eric Bishop and his team, who designed all of those aircraft. Add to that the closer that you look, the more distant the resemblances become, to the point where it becomes just a passing resemblance–ie, the broad design was the best way to design it for what the designers wanted to achieve, but the more we get into detail, the more that the designs separate.
The Vampire, Venom, Mosquito and Hornet were all separate designs in their own right, and unless we’re talking about the Vampire and Venom as far as the front fuselage goes, I don’t think that many if any parts (especially major ones) will interchange. So it’s definitely not as simple as that.
By: Bruce - 17th February 2012 at 14:06
H1 was quite a lot more powerful than the other engine; I would imagine the aircraft flew quite a lot better!
By: pagen01 - 17th February 2012 at 13:58
So quickly did the Goblin become a viable engine, that the Gloster Meteor first flew with this de Havilland engine, instead of the Rolls Royce/Power Jets Welland that was intended for it.
I had forgotten that, indeed Meteor DG206 (fith prototype) was the first to fly and powered by the H.1, apparently it was the better engine in tests.
Indeed the ‘missing’ Meteor II was intended to be Halford/DH powered.
Funny thing history!
By: pagen01 - 17th February 2012 at 13:53
Major Frank Halford was coming up with his own centrifugal jets which were improved versions of Whittles’ jets, namely the H.1, he and his company were aquired by DH c.’44 and they went on to produce the Goblin (Vampire) and Ghost (Venom, Comet) from the H.1.
I didn’t realise that he patented the twin intake design, that must have earned him quite a bit as it became a popular layout.
By: TempestV - 17th February 2012 at 13:49
There’s too many myths about the Vampire / Venom construction and history, especially in regard to simply using the front ends of Mosquitos and Hornets.
I would have to see good tangible evidence regarding the Gloster connection to put too much faith in it being a ‘Gloster’ airframe design, the twin boom layout was naturally suited to the low powered single jet engine, as SAAB also found to their benefit when they adapted the piston engined J21 fighter to the jet powered J21R, various other companies also used twin booms on lower powered jet aircraft.
Hi Pagen01,
You are absolutely correct stating that: “There are too many myths about the Vampire / Venom construction and history, especially in regard to simply using the front ends of Mosquitos and Hornets”. How many times have I heard that a Night fighter Vampire was simply: “the nose was cut off a Mosi and grafted onto a Vampire!” etc.
Also, I wouldn’t read anything into a “Gloster connection” for the origins of the Vampire. A twin boom pusher layout concept is a perfectly natural solution for a single engined aircraft that requires short intake and exhausts. The fact that Gloster may have rejected a twin boom layout at an early concept level would have been perfectly normal in a design process, if there were too many concerns attached to it based on their experiences to date.
This is “business as normal” in design. You have a target specification. You then come up with a number of layouts to achieve this specification based on: performance, range, manouverability, cost, ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture, etc. Different layouts will meet the specification to variing levels of success.
de Havilland were very well suited to create their Goblin engine and Vampire together in the same company. So quickly did the Goblin become a viable engine, that the Gloster Meteor first flew with this de Havilland engine, instead of the Rolls Royce/Power Jets Welland that was intended for it.
By: Bruce - 17th February 2012 at 13:36
Yes, my feeling was that the need for a short tailpipe on a relatively low powered engine led to the need for the twin boom layout. It may be that Gloster did look at similar layouts, but crucially, they didnt adopt them for their own designs….
The twin intake design of the Goblin was patented by Halford – in fact I found a copy of the patent that led to the Goblin online the other day!
While we are at it, the Vampire fuselage is also quite different to the front end of a Hornet – just in case anyone wants to mention it, and as James has alluded to!
By: pagen01 - 17th February 2012 at 10:08
There’s too many myths about the Vampire / Venom construction and history, especially in regard to simply using the front ends of Mosquitos and Hornets.
I would have to see good tangible evidence regarding the Gloster connection to put too much faith in it being a ‘Gloster’ airframe design, the twin boom layout was naturally suited to the low powered single jet engine, as SAAB also found to their benefit when they adapted the piston engined J21 fighter to the jet powered J21R, various other companies also used twin booms on lower powered jet aircraft.
I thought that the ‘Spider crab’ name was purely a project title on what was a highly secret project at the time.
As Bruce says, the DH.113 NF.10 was a DH Hatfield design, the DH.115 Vampire trainer was indeed an Airspeed project, coming out of Christchurch, Airspeed was part of the de Havilland companies at the time. DH would take over the Airspeed Christchurch factory site and later develop the Sea Vixen there.
By: Bruce - 17th February 2012 at 08:47
Care!
I didnt know the Gloster connection, but it is interesting.
The Vampire was designed at the Salisbury Hall outpost; I believe mock ups were built there too, in the original Mosquito Hangar.
With regard to the DH113, that was a Hatfield project, and did NOT use the Mosquito fuselage in any way; only the layout. There are no Mosquito parts in a Vampire – except for glass break tubes in the drop tank fuel system! The DH115 was an airspeed project, and was NOT based on the DH113 fuselage; again it is a different design!
The DH113 fuselage was also used in the Venom NF2 and Sea Venom, and with revision, on the NF3 and later Sea Venom. The DH115 fuselage is wider to accomodate side by side seating as opposed to staggered seating on the other.
Bruce
By: Bager1968 - 17th February 2012 at 08:38
While the Vampire project (DH.100) was originally named “Spider Crab”, was entirely a de Havilland project… Airspeed had nothing to do with the development of the Vampire.
If anything, you could say that it was a Gloster airframe design.
http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/dhvampire.htm
The shape or design chosen was one similarly chosen and rejected by Gloster’s Chief Designer, George Carter, whilst working on the Glostor Whittle E.29/39 jet project earlier. Not favoured because of a lack of knowledge of how hot gases released as the jet efflux (exhausts) would effect the tail plane. The design chosen was similar to the American P.38, in the Vampires case the power unit was installed within the main fuselage near to the near to the rear and between the wings. The fuselage was cut short in order for a short jet pipe to be fitted to minimise power loss, with small ‘A’ shaped intakes one placed on each wing at the wing root.
The design incorporated the use of metal and the traditional wood mix used by De-Havilland consisting of a balsa wood core sandwiched by birch-ply going back to the number four bulkhead where the engine was attached making it very light with the metal being used to cover the engine, wings and boom’s plus tail plane.
Nick named the Spider Crab three prototypes were made with LZ/548G being the first to fly from Hatfield on 20th September, 1943, G.D.H. junior at the controls, the ‘G’ on the registration indicated the aircraft was guarded at all times on the ground. An initial order of 120 was made in May, 1944, for the now called Vampire F.MK.1 – later this order increased to 300.
Where Airspeed does enter the picture is with the DH.113 & .115 variants.
Perhaps the most interesting variant made was the DH.113 a private venture mixing the Mosquito night fighters nose and canopy onto an FB.MK5s airframe and fitting a Goblin three engine 3,350lb/st. This aircraft became a real cross-breed using the A1 MK.10 radar unit from the Meteor NF.11, it then became known as the Vampire-NF.MK.10 night fighter.
Flying for the first time registered G-5-2 on 28th August, 1949, and entering service with No.25 sqn., of the RAF in July, 1951. An export version was designated NF.MK54 used by Italy and India, and the training version used by the RAF was designated the NF(T)MK.10.
The T.11 started life much the same way as the DH.113 project, a private venture stemming from the Airspeed Division of De-Havilland at Christchurch. This site was bought by G.D.H in 1948 from the Airspeed Company.
An NF.10 was converted to make the prototype and under specification T.111 the radar along with two guns were removed, dual controls fitted and a Goblin 35, 3,500lb/st was installed. The aircraft was known as the DH.115 and registered, G-5-7/WW456, first flying on the 15th November, 1950.
By: Stan Smith - 17th February 2012 at 02:57
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the Airpeed Spidercrab was the initial design for the Vamp.
By: pagen01 - 15th February 2012 at 21:05
Sorry Ken, my posts contain worse spelling mistakes in them than that even, I know it is Gripen (being a confirmed SAAB fan) put I was posting from a mobile phone from the middle of an airfield, not much of an excuse I’m afraid:o
The straight wing / swept wing issue is quite interesting, something to consider is that the 100+ mph Tiger Moth has swept wings, while 600+ Venoms and supersonic capable F-104s don’t.
In fact in planform the Venom wing is more akin to the Douglas DC-3, ie a straight wing with swept leading edges and straight trailing edges.
The Venom was just simply old fashioned by the time it arrived in service, it was initially developed because the services were afraid to order advanced types such as the DH.110 during the late 1940s, causing the situation where more basic designs would be proffered up by the manufacturers. The Venom entered service at a similar envisaged time to the planned DH.110 date (though development issues probably would have effected that), it was wholly conventional in structure, aerodynamics, and powerplant wise, and so was thought to be a safe bet, especially in ground attack.
The type really reflects that era when British procurement was very backwards looking, the Korean war caught the system unawares and thankfully more forward thinking designs were given ‘super priority’, after early wing problems the Venom did go on to give dependable service for the RAF around the world, and in some conflicts.
By: kenjohan - 15th February 2012 at 19:45
Gripen NOT Grippen!
Neither does the F-16 (or F-104 & F-18 come to that) and Typhoon (or Grippen & Rafale) have swept wings, the former has straight wings, the latter is a canard delta. Y
English speaking people pronounce Gripen as ‘Grippen.’ There is not very much to do about that other than empasizing that the correct pronounciation is ‘Greepen.’
Unfortunately even Swedish pilots say ‘Grippen’ nowadays. They don’t have to. Horrible! 😡
Sign In
February 15, 2012 at 1:35 pm