Malcolm McKayDoes anyone have, or can they point me too, any information on a projected Bristol radial aero engine called the Orion which was supposed to follow the Centaurus? Like many other piston projects it was abandoned in favour of jet engines.
Host of refs on Google – try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Orion
😉
Malcolm McKayDoes anyone have, or know of, a picture of a Coronado in British service?
Thanks,
Steve
There is a picture in Thetford’s Aircraft of the Royal Air Force Since 1918, published by Putnam. Probably others elsewhere but that was the only one I could locate at the moment.
Malcolm McKayI think that’s what we have here – an early MkI Spitfire with early 54 Squadron markings. There is a small colour profile inside the front cover of Spitfire – The History. It looks as though the one in the book has its serial painted at the top of the fin, above the pennant, if that makes any difference.
Couldn’t find any photos of any similarly-marked Spitfires, however.
Spitfires in the 38 – 39 period often either had no serials on the fuselage, or the serial was painted at the top of the fin. Those schemes were all quite shortlived.
HTH
Malcolm McKay“The tail fin flash is missing and instead a light coloured (white?) symbol is on the tail. An odd shape, like pointy forward then going circular then squared off against the rudder. That in turn has a slightly darker circle on it, maybe in yellow.”
Dave that sounds like the pre-war squadron badge style of Fighter Command aircraft. It was replaced when war broke out. The dark roundel you describe is also pre-war. I suspect this is a photo of prewar crash that has been recycled for wartime propaganda. The DL codes are then most likely on 54 Squadron Spitfire that crashed in early 1939.
Malcolm McKayAh, thanks Malcolm. We posted together. Scrub that theory then.
S’OK – love to see that piccie though. Sounds like it might be a bit of a staged thing for the propaganda boys 😀
Malcolm McKayThe marking on the fin seems to ring a bell, but I can’t think why.
Also, regarding the codes. DL **might not** be 91 Squadron. Certain squadrons had different codes at different periods. I think 66 Sqdn carried the codes ‘RV’ at one point before reverting to ‘LZ’, although I could be wrong about which codes were worn by which squadron. Also, 234 Squadron wore the code ‘AZ’ throughout the Battle of Britain (e.g. AZ-H – N3277) but later carried ‘FX’ (e.g. FX-M – TA805). Perhaps this squadron carried those codes before they were replaced by something else?
I have a book at home with a list of squadron codes, so it should say something like: DL – 91 Squadron, X&Y OTU…. etc
DL codes – 54 Squadron 1938 -39; 91 Squadron 1941 -47; 92 Squadron 1947 – 50.
HTH
Malcolm McKayI have posted this already on Plane Talk but will try here too.
In a 1941 issue of Contact (RNZAF magazine) there’s a photo of a Mk 1 or Mk II Spifire, crashed in a field. It’s wings are broken off and it’s nose is broken off at the firewall. But all the broken off bits are on the ground in the right places next to the fuselage so I assume they were picked up and reassembled for the picture as it looks a little staged.
The caption says it was flown by a New Zealand pilot in the Battle of Britain, and he’d attacked a squadron of Me110’s, destroying four before running out of ammunition. He then aimed his plane at a fifth and rammed it, and the 110 plummetted into the sea.
So, apparently it destroyed five aircraft in this action, before it crash landed, and the pliot was ok.
The aircraft itself looks odd, it wears a dark roundel, perhaps the early red and blue type. It looks more like just one colour in this printing, like a blue circle. No white and yellow at all.
The tail fin flash is missing and instead a light coloured (white?) symbol is on the tail. An odd shape, like pointy forward then going circular then squared off against the rudder. That in turn has a slightly darker circle on it, maybe in yellow.
It carries the codes DL-A, or it may be DL-H as the airframe’s a little crumpled. I’m told on Plane Talk that DL is No. 91 Squadron, Hawkinge.
Does any of ths register with anyone?
The more I think about it, the more the story seems a crock of rubbish. The pilot must be an ace if he destroyed those five planes in one action, but I can’t find any reference to this action on any WWII ace page on the New Zealand Fighter Pilot Museum pages. The very weird markings is beyond me too, though the photo does not look like it has been doctored. But I dont think it’s an RAF machine.
91 Squadron did not fight in the BoB.
It was formed as 421 Flight from elements of 66 Squadron in October 1940, to intercept intruders coming in over the coast. It did not become 91 Squadron until 11th January 1941.
It flew Rhubarbs and also carried out Air-Sea Rescue escorts. On the 25th of May it was credited with the destruction of 5 FW190s in a fight over the Channel. This may be a reference to the incident you have quoted.
The peculiar roundel you mention may be a result of ortho film.
It was a Spitfire unit throughout the war flying MkIIs, Vbs, XIIs, XIVs, IXs and F21s successively.
HTH
Malcolm McKayNot actually an Airtourer. Though similar to look at the Airtrainers are a completely different design. The design of the Airtrainer was done here in NZ by New Zealand Aerospace Industries (now Pacific Aerospace) in the 1970’s, some time after NZAI’s predecessor New Zealand Aero Engines Ltd had bought the rights to build Airtourers for the worldwide market.
Victa had no real input into the development of the Airtourer once the design was sold to NZ, that was also done in NZ with a succession of bigger engines being installed on the airframe, and Victa had nothing whatsoever to do with the design of the Airtrainer as sen above, despite what the Aussie books tell you.
Between these two designs was the Aircruiser, which was designed by Victa as a four seat Airtourer, but this was actually developed and built only in small numbers by NZAI. This formed a starting point to go with in developing an all new military trainer. Though the outline was used as a starting point, the internal structure was redesigned by the NZAI team, lead by British-Kiwi designer Patrick Monk.
So, if you put a CT-4A or CT-4B beside an Airtourer, at first glance you think they’re the same, but closer inspection tells many many differences. Nowadays Pacific Aerspace makes the CT-4E which is turboprop powered.
That’s OK Dave, whatever you Kiwis call it, it will always be the Victa Airtourer to me. 🙂
One day I might mention the one that someone was sick in and then parked in the sun with the canopy closed. Lovely thing for a student pilot to be faced with. :rolleyes:
Malcolm McKayThe best “scramble” i think, is the “dont just stand there GET ONE UP” one after which Archie say’s “i’m with you old boy but i’ve left my stomach behind”
there is, i think, another one involving “skippers” squadron started buy Arnold picking up the telephone and shouting “scramble”. as i am away from my DVD’s i will have to check.
Dezz
It goes IIRC –
Arnold “It’s a squadron scramble Sir!!”
Skipper “Don’t be wet, get me Group !!”
After which as the bombs start, they run out and Skipper yells at Simon “Don’t just stand there get one up !!!” Whereupon Simon drops his mug of tea and does so. Shortly after he is jumped by the proverbial Hun in the sun, and is killed.
Boy do I need to get a life :rolleyes:
Malcolm McKayI remember those when they were the humble Victa Airtourer – did my flying lessons in one. 😀
It was later discovered that as a pilot I would really be a greater menace to those on the ground than seagulls are to bald heads. 😮
Malcolm McKayThe US used the German research data to design the F86.
It appears the Russians used the data from “their” German scientists.
They also purchased a Nene engine from the British, and copied it.PLANEGUY51
Oddly, both aircraft had similar sized and configured engines. Comes of being descended from the original Whittle designed centrifugal flow engines that were sent to the US during the war, and traded to the Russians after the war. Performances were enhanced by swept wings and other aerodynamic refinements.
The main reason for the difference in fuselage geometry is IIRC – on the Sabre the intake duct goes under the cockpit while on the Mig it is bifurcated and rundown the side.
Essentially the Mig17 was the Mig15 developed to what the initial design concept wanted and including the lessons learnt from Korea. These aircraft all date from before area rule was recognised, but at their performance levels it was not a problem.
The Mig17 was a real workhorse, and overall was a match for most western fighters of the period and in its class. It certainly put a dent in the American’s opinion of their technological superiority over North Vietnam.
Malcolm McKay…We know how Dowding had little support and was dumped…after, not before Autumn,1940;
Its a bit of a myth that Dowding was dumped. Fact was he had his mandatory retirement extended several times by October 1940. I am not in anyway detracting from his role in the design of the system and his fighting of the Battle of Britain. However by the end of the Battle both he and Park were worn out. Dowding was by time in rank the most senior person in the RAF, but he was never going to be CAS. He’d already been passed over for that role some years earlier.
The war was growing more intense, and the role of Fighter Command was moving to the offensive. Dowding was tired, past retirement age and, more importantly, younger and fresher talent needed to be bought up to face the strategic challenges of the new offensive direction. A good military force is one that knows when to retire people and inject fresh blood (the behaviour of Macarthur during the Korean war shows just how essential this is). I realise there is debate about whether Dowding should have been made MRAF as a reward, but the tradition then was that only service chiefs received that rank. He had not been CAS so he didn’t get the promotion. He was however ennobled, which was quite an honour and, at the time, almost unique.
It is essential that promising officers are allowed to blossom – Portal is proof of that – and, unfortunately, the places have to be created for them. Sholto Douglas is another, as was Leigh Mallory. War for the commanders is a very demanding and stressful job. Rotation and retirement for them not only prevents them from serving past their best, when the best is needed but allows the next generation to thrive.
Malcolm McKayJust how desperate the USAAF was, in 1942, to have long range escorts is demonstrated by the “Escort Fighter” version of the B17 – the XB40. All the extra guns and ammo did was slow it down so far that it couldn’t keep up with the standard B17s. Poor things needed fighter escort themselves. The USAAF also tried it with a B24 – the XB41 – and it was even worse.
But the whole idea of heavy long range escorts had been pretty much shown to be a dud with the Me110 in the Battle of Britain.
Malcolm McKay… In any case I suspect more effort was not made to extract more power from P40 Allisons because there would have been little point; the airframe was already at the limits of its aerodynamic potential. It doesn’t matter how hard you try to push, with drag increasing exponentially with speed when you hit that brick wall you will stop.
Yep, that, as the bean counters say, is the bottom line.
Malcolm McKayI wonder what the P-40’s performance might have
been, had it been possible to replace the P-36’s
Pratt and Whitney R-1830 with a Bristol Hercules II
(1,375 hp) and later the Hercules VI (1,650 hp), XVII (1,770 hp)
or 100 (1,800 hp).
That’s a good one 😀 You might have wound up with the aircraft revolving instead of the propellor. I know anything’s possible, but seriously the same old problem of the P36/P40 series wing would have been there. Plus fitting the engine to that narrow gutted fuselage on the P36 would have been a nightmare. Besides the Americans were not much in favour of using other country’s engines – the Merlin excepted.
Curtiss went to a whole lot of effort to produce a P40 successor. One was the XP-60. This was trialled in a number of configurations. One of these was the XP-60E which has a P&W R-2800 radial in it which developed around 2,000 HP. Its maximum speed was only 410 MPH and it was abandoned – this was in 1944, so P51s and P47s were already in combat and showing much better performance.
Other experimental versions of the XP-60 had Allisons and one the XP-60D has a Merlin 61. All test aircraft had dificulty getting above 380MPH. The designs simply did not have any real room for improvement and the USAAF wisely didn’t try and push them further.
The final attempt by Curtiss was the XP-62 which was basically resembled the P47 in power and appearance. It had a pressure cabin, and a 2300 HP Wright R-3350 Cyclone. However development was too protracted and by the time it commenced flight test in late 1944 there was no need for it. It had an estimated top sped of 448 MPH at 27,000 feet.
These later Curtiss designs were a step away from the P36/P40 wing planform but were no real improvement over the P51s and P47s. They were Curtiss’ last real effort to provide a piston engined fighter for the USAAF.
All these aircraft were rendered redundant by the arrival of the jet engine and the the fact that the existing fighters in production were sufficient in number and performance to end the war.
Sign In
