Here’s one to make us all think. During WW lI, owing to the possible shortage of certain metals, armament, ammunition, engines etc, nations were forced to improvise, sometimes with remarkable success. In some cases, the improvisation arose because certain components were already in production and it was quicker to adapt them to the original design.
What do you think was amongst the most successful of these improvisations? Here’s a couple of (admittedly one is very parochial) suggestions, by no means intended to imply the best or most successful, but they might give some idea of what I had in mind:
1. Australian production of the Beaufort with Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engines, which were already in production, rather than Bristol Hercules. These aircraft were just as effective as the British built aircraft and gave sterling service until VJ day.
2. Manufacture of Lancasters/Beafighters/Halifaxes with alternate engines. In each case, the alternate engine was less successful than the original, but you get my drift.
So, which were the cleverest and perhaps, just as interesting, which were the least successful?
Regards
Wombat
By: neilly - 4th November 2003 at 10:05
How about FIDO. This ingenoious system saved hundreds of bomber crews lives, in foggy conditions.
Cheers,
Neilly
By: Mark V - 3rd November 2003 at 13:20
Mark G,
I think you are right. That was an unequalled masterstroke that produced the finest British heavy bomber of the war. What a genius Chadwick was but how he must have kicked himself for not getting it right in the first place.
(that last line was, of course, a humorous remark 😉 )
By: DazDaMan - 3rd November 2003 at 11:51
Bunging the Griffon engine into the Spitfire – prolonged its life and made it a great low-level aircraft in the Mk12, as well as one of the fastest fighters around (MkXIV).
Also brought down the first jet aircraft of WW2! 😀
By: MarkG - 3rd November 2003 at 11:45
How about re-jigging the Avro Manchester into the Lancaster? Who says you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear 😀
By: Mark V - 3rd November 2003 at 11:01
Marauder,
The change was essentially due to the poor altitude performance of the Alison V-12. With installation of the two stage supercharged RR Merlin the Mustang became the best high altitude escort fighter of the war.
By: agent86 - 3rd November 2003 at 10:17
Mounting VERY heavy firepower in the nose of a B-25
The ingenious development that comes to my mind are the in the field improvisations performed by “Pappy”Gunn in the South Pacific theater.He mounted any number of 50 caliber Browning machine guns in the noses of various B-25 bombers.8,10 ,12 guns,take your pick. any place he could hang or strap on a gun,he did!you can never have too many M2 Brownings!(not true,they’re heavy guns).These were then all wired to a switch to be fired by the pilot .This was one hell of an improvisation!He also mounted cannons of various sizes in B-25’s .Japanese recipients of these modifications were VERY unhappy about them,this made Pappy VERY happy!.50 caliber rounds make very big holes in things and lots of 50 caliber guns make lots of big holes in things.Imagine being on the receiving end of this!NO THANK YOU!Even Warships were blown apart by this withering firepower. The success of these mods eventually led to the North American Aviation factory installing machine guns in hard noses and also 75 mm cannons as well.However the cannon installations were not as well liked as were the Brownings, the recoil from firing these was rather brutal and even damaged some airframes.These were just a few of the infield mods tried out by Mr.Gunn.Everybody loved Pappy but the Japanese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tim.
By: Marauder - 3rd November 2003 at 09:49
Changing the Allison engine in the early Mustang for the Merlin? Not sure if the impetus for this was a supply issue or just somebodys good idea to use an alternative, existing, powerplant.
By: Wombat - 3rd November 2003 at 07:58
Seems like this subject is dead in the water
Only two replies and this post has already lost direction.
My original post referred to improvisation – not technological development. The Mosquito was innovative and represented improvisation, but radio direction finding was not – yes it was innovative, but it represented technical advancement.
I was referring to instances where countries were forced to make do with what they had, rather than “advancing the breed” or developing new technology, but as a consequence, their efforts paid off.
I mentioned the Pratt and Whitney powered Beauforts, because those engines were already in production in Australia when the license for Australian manufacture of the Beaufort was signed off. As it turned out, they were successful and at least matched their British produced counterparts. This was improvisation.
There must have been many other instances where countries were forced to adapt something to fit an existing design, or were forced to adopt a deficient aircraft and try to turn it into something useful.
Any suggestions?
Regards
Wombat
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st November 2003 at 22:01
Radar navigation. The idea that you can triangulate your position using radar beams from two or more fixed and known points is simple but in those days was tricky to achieve at first. When it had been cracked, it led firstly to more accurate targetting, and bearing in mind its application to postwar navigation, I believe it was the most important and enduring development in aviation during the war.
Sign In
November 1, 2003 at 8:23 pm