It’s rare that I find a video about a fighter plane from the Second World War I’ve never heard of and don’t recall seeing in my books. Hats off to you, sir.
Even the planes that succeeded had a ton of issues. The bf109 and most soviet fighters had tons of endemic issues with their engines. Theoretically the Bf109 g6 was way better than the air cobra but the air cobra was often at an advantage at low altitudes because the bf109 couldn't leverage the supercharger and the American plane had an engine that was built in far less dire circumstances.
@@xevious4142 The B-29 was another plane that was a 'success' but was plagued with engine problems. More B-29s were lost to engine fires than to enemy fire, which is still an abnormally high amount even when accounting for how meager Japanese anti-bomber defenses were. The main culprit was the magnesium used in the crankcases which was used to save weight, which was extremely flammable and often caught fire during takeoff rolls, and they often burned so hot that they would burn through the plane's wings in mere seconds. People like to pick on the He-177 for being a flying flammable coffin but the B-29 was just as bad at times, and both planes suffered horrible attrition rates. Both planes had excellent airframes that were just paired with engines that could not do what they were asked to do
@@xevious4142 The Mk I Mustang with the better Allison was a superb low altitude support fighter and could outrun most of the Luftwaffe's planes below 6000'. I dare say faster than the Airacobra.The Soviets did quite well with the Airacobra.
BTW, the names "Tornado", "Typhoon" and "Tempest" have a more modern day relationship. The Panavia Tornado, was a joint project between the UK, Germany, and Italy in the 1970s. It was a fighter bomber aircraft with a production run of around 1,000 aircraft. Germany still has a few flying in active service today. The follow on to the Tornado was the Eurofighter project that became the modern Typhoon. This is a joint project of the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. It is still being produced today.(It is rumored that Germany has officially continued with the name Eurofighter, refusing the name "Typhoon" because of the legacy Hawker Typhoon actions against the German armed forces during WW2.) The follow on to the Eurofighter Typhoon for the UK, and Italy is the FCAS called Project Tempest. It is supposed to be the 6th Gen fighter, and includes Japan as a full partner. If it does end up flying, the aircraft will be called the Tempest. And so it goes... I don't think the names "Hurricane" and "Spitfire" will ever be reused by the armed forces of the UK.
Btw the Germans call them Eurofighter as they are a joint European project. They refuse to name them typhoon due to the fact that it would give Britain bragging rights for a project Britain contributed very very little towards. But even if they refused to to the typhoons actions in ww2 that would be understandable as the Typhoon was solely used to kill women and children
@@BenJamInn-q3o That is an *interesting* claim there, do you have any sources for that? Because everything I've read so far (books, online articles) agree that it was mostly used as tactical support, i.e. soldiers and materiel on or near the front line. Such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon#Low-level_interceptor I'd more understand if you were talking about strategic night bombers. I mean, you'd be still wrong, but not completely.
Germany showed the wind and then reaped the whirlwind. The luftwaffe perfected the "art" of killing innocent women and children, their first "success" was Guernica. The Typhoon was a world class tank buster, so probably not many women and children in the panzer regiments. @@BenJamInn-q3o
@@BenJamInn-q3o absolute rubbish on both accounts the Typhoon was used very much to attack military infrastructure and transports and hard defensive points, heavy bombers would have done by far the most damage to civilians if you want to make a point, not as a product of East London you will get much sympathy from me. It was German 190s in the low level raids specifically designed to kill civilians S anyone visiting Hastings can see unless a pub in the old town is seen as a military target. As for the modern Typhoon it originates from the EAP a predominantly Bae project and technology demonstrator. It would have had like Typhoon itself a twin tail designed by Germany but as that Country couldn’t decide if it wanted to be in out or shake it all about on more than one occasion a Tornado tail was used which changed little. So it’s predominantly a UK design. Of course the Germans operated a Typhoon in WW2 and that was put to the Germans as a little optimistic reason for using Typhoon. After Tempest one presumes would be Fury if ever further manned fighters are to happen.
The notion that Spitfires fought the 109 while the Hurricane took on the bombers is a myth. The Hurricane pilots would not ignore the 109 just to take on the bombers. In fact more than half of the German aircraft shot down went to the guns of the Hurricane. And while not as fast as the 109 it could out turn it. So in a dogfight the Hurricane had the edge over the 109. Actually it was the Royal Air Force which put the Merlin into the Mustang in a development project known as the Rolls-Royce Mustang X. The Rolls-Royce Merlin 65 engine dramatically improved the aircraft's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft without effecting its range. It was after receiving these results and after further flights by a number of USAAF pilots that North American began work on converting several aircraft developing into the P-51B/C models. North American Aviation had originally built the Mustang for the Royal Air Force so without the British there would have been no Mustang.
The American Mustangs also utilised RR Merlins licence built by Packard though did get improved supercharging as production continued into the war. German pilots admitted to aiding the reputation of the Spitfire because of snobbery. Whenever they were shot down over British or German territory, they often claimed to have been downed by Spitfires rather than Hurricanes because it was considered to be a more acceptable aircraft to lose out to
Bear in mind, the Tornado would also be tested with the Bristol Centaurus IV radial in October 1941. I have some photographs with Prototype Tornado HG641 in this configuration. Overall the Tornado was a solid aircraft, even with the Vulture (the Vulture II), and Hawker were particularly alacritous in ironing out the various problems that were discovered during testing.
WW2 was before my time, but as a teenager/early 20s, I was working alongside people who had been directly involved, some of them as RAF ground crew. The Hurricane was generally regarded as a much easier aircraft to maintain than the Spitfire, largely due to its open frame structure, which is touched on in this extremely interesting video. Returning from battle, holes in Hurricanes could be often quickly patched by just slapping doped linen over them. Provided there was no serious damage to the underlying structure - which was mostly empty space - that would have battle damage repaired in minutes! On the other hand, the Spitfire was not only a stressed skin structure, but the panels were fitted with flush screws and rivets. Holes in the panels seriously weakened the structure, which was more difficult to repair, meaning it took longer to get a damaged Spitfire back in the air again. Also, the Spitfire had a very narrow track undercarriage, which made ground-handling difficult. The Hurricane had a much more robust and wider track undercarriage, which made it easier to take-off and land. The Spitfire had the performance edge, but even its most experienced pilots were heard to observe that it was "A lady in the air, but a b***h on the ground!"
The channel "Let's Go Aviate" just 2 days ago did an in depth look at 2 X-configuration engines "Were the Rolls-Royce Vulture & Packard X-2775 Horrible Failures?". It's nice and short-ish (20 minutes) and gave me a more nuanced view on X-config engines and the Vulture in particular than I've had from reading about the failures of the Vulture. I'll now go enjoy your video, but I thought this info would be a bit more useful than the usual "first comment!" crap you get here on YT.
The main issue with the Vulture was that 4 conrods shared the one crankshaft journal which led to oil starvation to the the conrod bearings and subsequent failure. It was an issue Rolls Royce were unable to solve
@@EVISEH Thank you for that detail. ❤ The channel I mentioned thinks that RR would have been able to solve those problems with time, but (and I paraphrase badly here) that time was smack in the middle of the Battle of Britain with it's desperate need for Merlin's. After the BoB the Merlin started to reach Vulture-levels of performance and more promising new (Griffon, Sabre, Centaurus) designs started to get ready. So further bug-fixing and development on the Vulture was shelved. That was the impression I now have, did I understand that correctly and would you agree with that?
The Vulture wasn't really a bad engine, it was simply pushed into service too soon. It flew its first missions on the slightly overweight AVRO Manchester in Feb 1941. About 6 months latter the Sabre entered service on the Hawker Typhoon and proved a disaster, having to be withdrawn. It wasn't till October 1942 that the Sabre problems were mostly resolved. During the Battle of Britain development of the Vulture stopped so that work could concentrate on the Merlin. This meant the Vulture was underdeveloped. Finally the Vulture could be fixed it was decided to concentrate on the Merlin and Griffon because they could fit into the Spitfire.
That picture of the Spitfire that may have broken the sound barrier (or gone transonic) in the dive. Never saw the picture. And it landed sand prop and with wing damage. WOW!
Tornado & Typhoon names both returned in the modern era of course with two very successful planes. Tempest is the future fighter project currently under development by Prospero Engineering. _We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep._
The Napier engine originally suffered from a lot of engine fires, at start up. Notably from inadequate procedures used by the pilots. They were known to burst into flame, due to over pressure on the fuelling. Once a well established startup routine was taught, this issue disappeared.(largely, when adhered to)
A lot of the serious problems turned out to be bad quality control. But it was a very new engine and a very complicated one. Still, it worked, which is more than be said for Axis 'next generation' engines.
@@keithstudly6071 Compared to, say, the allowable 33 US Quart/hr (over 8 US Gal/hr) - at max cont power for a P-47 R-2800. Only 21 US Quart/hr at max cruise though.
The P51 with the Allison engine originally wasn't called the mustang. Originally it was called the A36 apache. So swapping the engine used in that plane did result in a name change
As I understand, the Americans initially called it the Apache, while the British called it the Mustang, even with the Allison engine. The Americans later conceded at called it the Mustang as well.
The A-36 came after the P-51; the name change was because it was a new type with specific changes made to turn it into a dive bomber, it had nothing to do with the engine (the Mustang I in RAF service and P-51A Mustang in USAAF service had the Allison too). The Mustang had already entered service with the British by the time the Apache was rolling off the assembly line. And while it could have been listed as a P-51 Mustang variant instead of a whole new aircraft, it was named A-36 Apache in light of its primary role being ground attack, but also for accounting purposes. The budgets for pursuit planes and attackers was not the same pot of money; for budgetary reasons the USAAF actually got the planes ordered and out the door faster by changing the name to A-36 Apache since the pursuit plane budget in early 1942 was all used up.
IIRC the USAAF designated the Mustang as the A-36 Apache because in the bomber oriented AF they’d spent the new fighter plane budget. A budgetary sleight of hand.
And the late model Spitfires did change their name with the Griffin Engined laminar flow wing (and inward retractable gear) Mk14 Spitfire becoming the Mk14 Spiteful (and Seafang) before it served as the basis for the Supermarine Attacker.
The British referred to the Allison-powered Mustangs as Apaches. As for the Griffon-powered Spitfires, the modifications were so extensive that Supermarine officials very much wanted to change the name, but the Spitfire was by that time almost mythological. It might have damaged public morale if people thought it was being replaced. So yes, changing the engine often meant changing the name. Great video.
I don't think that's true. I understood that the Apache was an Allison powered dive bomber with air brakes . The RAF actually employed the Allison powered aircraft for low level reconnisance work , at which it was very impressive . Cheers
I read that there was never an order for the spits to tackle fighters and the hurries to hit the bombers. Great vid. I can’t believe I never knew about the Hawker Tornado.
I actually think the reason the Spitfire is so famous is because they kept the name even when there were very few similarities. Had the Typhoon been the Hurricane Mk III and the Tempest the Hurricane Mk IV, Hawker would get the recognition they deserve.
I like your content! Nice, clear, and I appreciate the fact that you're reading it slowly to make it easier to understand for non-native viewers, but it's too slow for me, and I end up watching your videos at 1.25x speed!! XD Great stuff regardless!
The Hurricane had a three metal bladed propeller by the time of the Battle of Britain that made it faster and not the two bladed wooden propeller as sown which the Hurricane was first fitted with at the beginning.
Those improved propellers were not common until after the Battle of France. Combat there showed how necessary constant speed propellers were. And the British recovered both hydraulic and electric German constant speed propellers vs. British variable pitch (pilot adjusted).
The two bladed wooden propellers were still installed, on some Hurricanes, in service both in France & Britain during 1940. This was due to a shortage of DeHaviland 5-20 "two" speed adjustable propellers, though these were frequently field modified (bodged) to give more than the OEM two pitch settings. However, this propeller is notorious for not having a free spinning ability, during dives and would force the engine to redline as the dive speed increased. During the run up to the Battle of Britain, following the Dunkirk evacuation, the RAF took measures to convert as many Spitfires & Hurricanes as possible, from DeHaviland 5-20 "two" speed propellers to Rotol variable pitch propellers.
The British learned the hard way about the disadvantages of two bladed fixed pitch propellers, on their Hurricanes, while fighting in France. Their propellers were optimised for performance above 200mph and consequently produced more drag than power during take-off and climbing. As many of the French airfields the squadrons were based at were just grass fields, quite often in wet conditions the Hurricanes could not lift off. A problem that resulted in hedges and telegraph poles being cut down to enable the planes to take off from nearby roads. The Germans quickly learned how vulnerable the Hurricane was when taking off and climbing and exploited this weakness. Only about 66 Hurricanes returned to England out of the 800 sent to France.
@@CZ350tunerI've never seen any pictures of british hurricanes still mounting two bladed wooden props dating to 1940. Belgian hurricanes yes.... but not brish.... As far as i know by 1940 all british hurricanes were retrofited with three bladed, two stage, variable pitch propellers. These had problems with overeving and converting the enginepower into thrust in general.... Only turing the battle of britain constant speed propellers became more widely available. But that is exactly the same story as with early spitfires, which started out with two blade wooden propellers, switching to 3 bladed veriable pitch in 1939 and to constant speed propellers in 1940.....
@@tobiasfreitag2182The three bladed propellers were the same - variable speed governors were retrofitted to all the RAF aircraft just before the Battle of Britain (along with “Miss Shillings Orifice” flow restrictor to prevent the Merlin flooding in inverted flight).
According to British archives and memoirs the Tornado was so badly rushed into production it nearly killed all its pilots from carbon monoxide poisoning from the poorly designed exhaust. At war's end the RAF immediately destroyed every example in retaliation. It took many decades for a determined historian to gather enough bits of the aircraft type to assemble one static airframe.
Thank you so much for making this video/podcast. It was very well narrated and made that anyone with half a brain could understand. The name “Spitefull” in my view didn’t really capture the imagination. With the Luftwaffe in decline and possibly rumoured jet engines on the horizon. It is clear that there was simply no real need for a major change to the Spitfire. Thanks again.
At 24:00 minute mark when describing the Tempest, one very important point missed, is the new wing design. The wing was thinner, elliptical wing & and stated to be of “laminar”design with flush rivets. The so called “laminar” wing, a la P51, implied it contributes to laminar air flow over the wing surface. In reality this does not happen in reality. But the laminar wing means the deepest part of the wing is further back about 50% from the leading edge from more conventional wing designs used early in the war. Maximum depth at 50% aft reduced drag, but had other adverse side effects. This contributed significantly in achieving the speed performance gains that had been sought for so long.
Pusher prop installations tend to be more efficient than tractors prop engines. Cooling is however a fairly consistent problem because the radiators or piston cooling fins are out of the propeller slipstream…
Until you factor in the losses of the propeller working in turbulent air. That is one of the major reasons why tractor designs are predominant. (Much like canards)
@ Even with the “turbulence” pusher designs are more efficient than tractors. They are just harder to build and with “conventional” gear had much poorer ground clearance. Tractor engines increase the total airframe drag significantly because of the higher air stream velocity behind the propeller. This same effect enhances cooling - and fans often get fitted to help with pusher engine cooling (but then some tractor engines need them too (like the FW190’s installation). Win some, lose some.
@allangibson8494 why do you put turbulence in quotes? You don't believe in vortices behind an airfoil or dirty airstream behind the fuselage? The losses and other disadvantages (apart from cooling) by far outweigh any potential gains. That's why the vast majority of propeller aircraft are tractor designs. Else the designers would be stupid or lazy. 😉 Cooling was not the sole consideration when the VK-30 was abandoned and instead the design was switched over to the SR20.
@ Compared to the dirty air generated by a propeller, the slipstream off a well designed fuselage and wing is clean. Ultralights are a completely different question…
Great video. Fact is Rolls Royce simply wasn’t a big enough concern at the time to handle a commitment beyond the Merlin, which itself it struggled to perfect early on. Ironically it was concerns about the Merlin that the ‘safe option’ Peregrine was developed in unison for the Whirlwind fighter and others , it being effectively an updated ‘merlinised’ Kestral which had been the long term reliable engine of the RAF for many years and was even used somewhat ironically on prototype 109s. The Vulture was itself the combination of two Peregrines to form the X and not surprisingly the problems with the Perigrine afflicted the Vulture in double the quantity. By then the Merlin was reliable and the Perigrine development was improving by then the need for Merlin production and the demise of aircraft hoping to use either Peregrine or Vulture due to the development problems simply meant RR was not really placed to be able to manage both projects. Equally by then it was seen that the Griffon would be the more reliable route to more power alongside developing the troublesome Sabre and Centaurus as the former was effectively an updated R engine from the seaplane racers that was somewhat too big and heavy to have been used in the original lithe pre war fighter designs but good as they developed,while the other two engines were outside of RR so weren’t affecting its strained workload. Easy to forget that pre war RR wasn’t actually that big a company and expansion took time and effort.
Good vid. The Tornado was made at Yeadon I think, or at least tested there, which had a huge Lancaster shadow factory. I think 'Tornado' was a brand of contraceptive at the time, so there may have been than reason too the RAF weren't too keen on it, (though as you say, they could've skipped it entirely...). Griffon engine Spitfires nearly were re-named, but thankfully not. There was a partial mock up of a 'Twin Spit', but it was destroyed in a German bombing raid.
11:35 - Ah, now I realize what's been bothering me. The H-12 animation at 11:35. If you have the two crankshafts turning in opposite directions, then you can't just stick a reduction gear in between the two - you'd need an extra gear on ONE of the crankshafts to drive the reduction gear, OR you could gear the two shafts together and drive the reduction gear off one of the shafts.
Thank you for another very informative video. I agree with you 100% about the naming of this aircraft. But that it is not how history was written back in the day.
I am learning that aviation is all about engines not so much airframes. On the topic of names locally small Tornados are called Cockeyed Bob's, Hawker missed out on that one too 😂
9:20 I assumed that placing the props in the pusher configuration would allow for a more aft CG, as well as the ability to better armour the engines against frontal attacks. With that, the effect of propeller slipstream would be lost, perhaps reducing drag for higher top speed at the cost of less lift at lower speeds.
Do not forget that the Mustang was a built-for-Britain escort fighter built to a british specification. And adopted by the USAAF as the P.51 later. It's counterpart the Spitfire was the interceptor.
The P-51B was originally going to be designated P-78. When the Spitfire 20-series variant was being developed, a name change to "Victor" was considered. It differed from earlier Spitfires in having a new, stronger wing.
In 1937, the Air Ministry selected the 20mm cannon, although at that point in time, it was not a reliable weapon. Hence, the decisi9n to stick with the 0,303 Browning machine guns at the time when F.18/37 was issued
I wonder if the twin engine pusher was to allow the wings to have the guns in an optimum configuration without having to slow the RoF with interruptor gear?
Once the issues were sorted, it typically had between 2200 and 2400 hp while the 3500 hp version never reached production standard. The Sabre was a very capable engine and decisively helped the RAF in keeping ahead of the Germans with their BMW 801 radial engine (also a very powerful engine design, used in FW 190A)
As an Australian we don't do thanks giving so I had no idea what it was all about. But thanks for the explanation so now I know. Oh yes and thanks for the video too most enjoyable.
Thankyou. Good coverage of the subject. But omits the important high level decision to prevent development in 1942-2 of the Centaurus Tempest due to prejudice against the Radial engine. By that time the Centaurus Tornado iteration had exceeded 400 mph comfortably. The development of a following variant of a Centaurus powered Typhoon 11 (renamed Tempest by then) was ordered grounded although proving itself fastest of the lot. Then along came a lost Luftwaffe pilot conveniently mistakenly inadvertently gifting his FW 190 Radial powered aircraft which was proving such a headache for the RAF in particular the mkv spit. So much for Radials not being good enough . Sadly Not enough time then to halt the production of the Tempest v which left no scope ( or facility) for the MK11 (we now have flying version of the Mk 2 Tempest; pr533 , which developed further into the Fury post war . So much design genius and effort wasted under the pressure of war and expedients adopted to work within the constraints of production limitation. The Merlin 61 developed in response to the FW just to get on terms with it ended up with the mk9 spit’. Ron Harker and RR were developing the Merlin 61 Mustang concurrently so evolved the 2 stage supercharger which enabled the fabulous P51D to come into service just in time. But even the most slow thinkers were then realising the piston engine was soon to be obsolete, the Germans were ahead on that too by 1944.
Honestly when I think 'British WW2 planes' the ones that come to mind are: Spitfire Hurricane Mosquito Lancaster Typhoon Definitely showing my own bias there.
Google Vid, mate. It's always nice to see one of our American Cousins taking an interest in our WW2 aircraft. Happy Thanksgiving, and you are probably better off avoiding political conversation at the moment. All the best from Glasgow Scotland.
Very good documentary. I would point out that neither Sabre or Vulture are inline engines, each having 4 banks of 6 cylinders. Also many aircraft, I would hazard a guess actually most, had fabric covered control surfaces in WW2. This was to reduced the size of counterbalances and was progressively phased out to be replaced by sold skinning due to compressibility problems at high speed. It is ironic that Typhoons and tornados had thicker, metal, rear fuselages where the hurricane depended on wood - the tails of the hurricane appears to have been robust where the tails of Typhoons had structural issues and some failures which resulted in external strapping being applied as an in field modification. To change the subject why did so many manufacturers consider pusher designs which would have been very effective at mincing a pilot in a bale out situation?
Pushers have inherent aerodynamic advantages, with slower and more stable air moving over the engine nacelles creating less drag. Late war propeller planes took advantage of this for range, such as the B36. There are other reasons exiting a plane can be difficult, most solve by orienting the plane correctly for the bailout, such as inverted for twin pusher props. IIRC, some single pushers had a jettisonable propellor, for this reason.
Here's a future episode suggestion for you: how wing mounted MGs and cannons were sighted in during WWII. Did mechanics sit on the wings and keep twisting adjusting bolts or what, I don't know and that's why a well researched video would be interesting. Thanks.
Aero enginess were critical limited assets followed by aluminium and restricted the build of alternative fighters and materials used, then followed by production line availability
Neithe the Vulture nor the Sabre are, "... 24 cylinder in-line engines ..." 00:40 . The Vulture was 'X-24' configuration, whilst the Sabre was a 'H-24' engine. Can you imagine how long a 24 cylinder in-line engine would be?
You darn right, the Griffon Spitfire wasn't called the Huakmagma. *shudder*. But the last versions of the Spitfire were called the Spiteful. Alternately when the Dornier Do 335 was called the Pfiel, the one with Jumo 222 engine would have been called the Uberpfiel and would have been fearsome.
Great video as usual, with a lot of nerdy stuff to whet the appetite of the aviation geek. There was a good deal of skullduggery happening within the various departments that determined funding and procurement for the British aircraft industry. Rolls-Royce either 1) Produced a bad engine for it's intended plane, 2) Deliberately interfered with other manufacturers' engine programs causing delays in funding and watered-down official interest. 3) Helped bring about the failure of several promising aircraft by eleventh-hour cancellations of the intended RR engine for that plane. This last one carried on well into the Cold War era, with TSR-2, Arrow, and a few others.
What a lot of horseshit!!! Go read some decent books about aircraft instead of books written by the aviation correspondent of the Daily Express!!! (i.e. Project Cancelled!!!).
One highly significant aspect, covered in the name designations, was a serious problem of the tail section falling off mid-flight with the earlier version. The name change was due to a desire to reflect the improvement in type, which presented a separate designation for phycological purposes. Where previously the pilots feared buckling up on startup, fearing an engine fire, with fuel spilling onto the cabin's floor. Whoops.
Hurricane was partially more prominent in the Battle of Britain because it used structural technology similar to its Fury predecessor. Later Hawker designs went with more modern structure. The Tornado had potential *if* the Vulture had received the same level of development effort the Merlin and Griffon did. For that matter, that same effort could have also improved the Peregrine engines into in Whirlwind fighters.
The Tornado ended up being an excellent test platform for the Bristol Centaurus radial engine, one that saw service in a variety of post World War II aircraft.
Someone has inaccurately portrayed the Tornado claimed many lives due to exhaust fumes . As there was only one prototype this cannot be so . However ,the Typhoon did indeed lose pilots because of exhaust fumes . As soon as this fault was detected pilots were instructed to use oxygen at all times .
The prototype Spitfire was actually slower than the Hurricane to begin with. Barely reaching 300mph in level flight. During its first week of testing a more powerful engine was fitted and several propellers tested to try and improve the performance of the plane. Eventually the problem was identified as one caused by induced drag due to the method used to construct the wing. Sorting out this out took nearly 18 months thanks to the wing requiring a significant internal re-design then new drawings and re-tooling.
Indeed....this was the era of many new design and construction concepts and the move from fabric coverings to all metal, stressed skin designs. There was a great deal of issue getting the Mustangs wings made to the proper spec and in use/battle damage issues could severely alter the individual aircraft speed and handling characteristics as field repairs to these new kinds of design and manufacturing materials and concepts took some time to develop. One of the little known reasons that some of the USA aircraft were so fast was that they employed manufacturing techniques....welded, seamless, panels in particular...that required very specific maintenance and even forbid someone walking on the wings as that could cause significant damage and reduction in performance.
The Mk 9 Spitfire and the P51 Mustang both used the same Rolls Royce RM 66 engine. The P51 was 50mph faster due to the reason you mention of minimal gaps, panel joins and other interruptions to the air flow both across the wings and along the fuselage.
The Spitfire only achieved near Mach 1 and Mach 1 speeds just before the crash indicator went off. The crash indicator on most aircraft is when the dirt is coming through the windscreen. The plane was completely uncontrollable at transonic and supersonic speeds 690 mph is well into transonic speeds and is over supersonic if it's at any appreciable altitude
Hurricane was to meet air ministry 1930s specification for a high speed monoplane fighter. It was not a stop gap and was a significant design development. Proved its worth throughout the war. Especially later in the taxi rank approach as ground attack
When they decided to drop the .303 machine guns in favor of 20mm cannons...why only four? The Spitfire and Hurricane were both able to go from eight .303 to four 20mm in later models. So it seems like the bigger Tempest and Tornado should've had room for six 20mm.
In terms of aircraft designation names, it was British convention to give names to aircraft, where the USAAF used number designators. Hence, Mustang vs P-51, latter shifting to the 'F'; prefix in US parlance.
American fighters were designated by a letter by the US Army Air Force, the letter designating the aircrafts role. Hence the P Stood for Pursuit. The P designation was changed to F for Fighter after World War Two on the formation of the US Air Force as a separate independent service.
It’s rare that I find a video about a fighter plane from the Second World War I’ve never heard of and don’t recall seeing in my books. Hats off to you, sir.
Wait until you see the Hawker Breeze…
It's well known through Mr. Greene's books.
Ditto.
The Spitfire is a just drop dead gorgeous supermodel.
The Hurricane is a faithful and honest wife.
Not a bad analogy.
The Spitfire was a gymnast to the hurricane's female rugby player.
The same for the RMS Queen Mary vs the Normandie.
MD ............one more ...........Diana and Camilla ...........for the U.K. crew .
@@augustosolari7721Leave boats out of this 😂
like 90% of the cool planes that failed in ww1 and 2 seem to end with "but the engine wouldnt not suck"
You mean 90% of cool aircraft, period.
Even the planes that succeeded had a ton of issues. The bf109 and most soviet fighters had tons of endemic issues with their engines. Theoretically the Bf109 g6 was way better than the air cobra but the air cobra was often at an advantage at low altitudes because the bf109 couldn't leverage the supercharger and the American plane had an engine that was built in far less dire circumstances.
@@xevious4142 The B-29 was another plane that was a 'success' but was plagued with engine problems. More B-29s were lost to engine fires than to enemy fire, which is still an abnormally high amount even when accounting for how meager Japanese anti-bomber defenses were. The main culprit was the magnesium used in the crankcases which was used to save weight, which was extremely flammable and often caught fire during takeoff rolls, and they often burned so hot that they would burn through the plane's wings in mere seconds.
People like to pick on the He-177 for being a flying flammable coffin but the B-29 was just as bad at times, and both planes suffered horrible attrition rates. Both planes had excellent airframes that were just paired with engines that could not do what they were asked to do
@@xevious4142 The Mk I Mustang with the better Allison was a superb low altitude support fighter and could outrun most of the Luftwaffe's planes below 6000'. I dare say faster than the Airacobra.The Soviets did quite well with the Airacobra.
@@tauncfester3022the better Allison engine? Better than what? A previous Allison iteration or the ever evolving Merlin/Griffon?
Top work finding pictures of a Rolls Royce Vulture engined aircraft where it isn't on fire.
BTW, the names "Tornado", "Typhoon" and "Tempest" have a more modern day relationship. The Panavia Tornado, was a joint project between the UK, Germany, and Italy in the 1970s. It was a fighter bomber aircraft with a production run of around 1,000 aircraft. Germany still has a few flying in active service today.
The follow on to the Tornado was the Eurofighter project that became the modern Typhoon. This is a joint project of the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. It is still being produced today.(It is rumored that Germany has officially continued with the name Eurofighter, refusing the name "Typhoon" because of the legacy Hawker Typhoon actions against the German armed forces during WW2.)
The follow on to the Eurofighter Typhoon for the UK, and Italy is the FCAS called Project Tempest. It is supposed to be the 6th Gen fighter, and includes Japan as a full partner. If it does end up flying, the aircraft will be called the Tempest.
And so it goes... I don't think the names "Hurricane" and "Spitfire" will ever be reused by the armed forces of the UK.
Lol Krauts still butt hurt with those names😂
Btw the Germans call them Eurofighter as they are a joint European project. They refuse to name them typhoon due to the fact that it would give Britain bragging rights for a project Britain contributed very very little towards.
But even if they refused to to the typhoons actions in ww2 that would be understandable as the Typhoon was solely used to kill women and children
@@BenJamInn-q3o That is an *interesting* claim there, do you have any sources for that? Because everything I've read so far (books, online articles) agree that it was mostly used as tactical support, i.e. soldiers and materiel on or near the front line. Such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon#Low-level_interceptor
I'd more understand if you were talking about strategic night bombers. I mean, you'd be still wrong, but not completely.
Germany showed the wind and then reaped the whirlwind. The luftwaffe perfected the "art" of killing innocent women and children, their first "success" was Guernica. The Typhoon was a world class tank buster, so probably not many women and children in the panzer regiments. @@BenJamInn-q3o
@@BenJamInn-q3o absolute rubbish on both accounts the Typhoon was used very much to attack military infrastructure and transports and hard defensive points, heavy bombers would have done by far the most damage to civilians if you want to make a point, not as a product of East London you will get much sympathy from me. It was German 190s in the low level raids specifically designed to kill civilians S anyone visiting Hastings can see unless a pub in the old town is seen as a military target.
As for the modern Typhoon it originates from the EAP a predominantly Bae project and technology demonstrator. It would have had like Typhoon itself a twin tail designed by Germany but as that Country couldn’t decide if it wanted to be in out or shake it all about on more than one occasion a Tornado tail was used which changed little. So it’s predominantly a UK design. Of course the Germans operated a Typhoon in WW2 and that was put to the Germans as a little optimistic reason for using Typhoon.
After Tempest one presumes would be Fury if ever further manned fighters are to happen.
The notion that Spitfires fought the 109 while the Hurricane took on the bombers is a myth. The Hurricane pilots would not ignore the 109 just to take on the bombers. In fact more than half of the German aircraft shot down went to the guns of the Hurricane. And while not as fast as the 109 it could out turn it. So in a dogfight the Hurricane had the edge over the 109.
Actually it was the Royal Air Force which put the Merlin into the Mustang in a development project known as the Rolls-Royce Mustang X. The Rolls-Royce Merlin 65 engine dramatically improved the aircraft's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft without effecting its range. It was after receiving these results and after further flights by a number of USAAF pilots that North American began work on converting several aircraft developing into the P-51B/C models. North American Aviation had originally built the Mustang for the Royal Air Force so without the British there would have been no Mustang.
This.
The American Mustangs also utilised RR Merlins licence built by Packard though did get improved supercharging as production continued into the war.
German pilots admitted to aiding the reputation of the Spitfire because of snobbery. Whenever they were shot down over British or German territory, they often claimed to have been downed by Spitfires rather than Hurricanes because it was considered to be a more acceptable aircraft to lose out to
Really enjoy your show, always informed and never short of a jibe where needed.
You can see where Gloster's influence went with the De Havilland went with their design in the Vampire jet.
Not sure if they collaborated that much?
Vampire was a beaut to see.
Bear in mind, the Tornado would also be tested with the Bristol Centaurus IV radial in October 1941. I have some photographs with Prototype Tornado HG641 in this configuration.
Overall the Tornado was a solid aircraft, even with the Vulture (the Vulture II), and Hawker were particularly alacritous in ironing out the various problems that were discovered during testing.
WW2 was before my time, but as a teenager/early 20s, I was working alongside people who had been directly involved, some of them as RAF ground crew. The Hurricane was generally regarded as a much easier aircraft to maintain than the Spitfire, largely due to its open frame structure, which is touched on in this extremely interesting video.
Returning from battle, holes in Hurricanes could be often quickly patched by just slapping doped linen over them. Provided there was no serious damage to the underlying structure - which was mostly empty space - that would have battle damage repaired in minutes! On the other hand, the Spitfire was not only a stressed skin structure, but the panels were fitted with flush screws and rivets. Holes in the panels seriously weakened the structure, which was more difficult to repair, meaning it took longer to get a damaged Spitfire back in the air again.
Also, the Spitfire had a very narrow track undercarriage, which made ground-handling difficult. The Hurricane had a much more robust and wider track undercarriage, which made it easier to take-off and land.
The Spitfire had the performance edge, but even its most experienced pilots were heard to observe that it was "A lady in the air, but a b***h on the ground!"
The channel "Let's Go Aviate" just 2 days ago did an in depth look at 2 X-configuration engines "Were the Rolls-Royce Vulture & Packard X-2775 Horrible Failures?". It's nice and short-ish (20 minutes) and gave me a more nuanced view on X-config engines and the Vulture in particular than I've had from reading about the failures of the Vulture.
I'll now go enjoy your video, but I thought this info would be a bit more useful than the usual "first comment!" crap you get here on YT.
Yes, I watched it yesterday and appreciated his balanced take on the Vulture
Second reply
The main issue with the Vulture was that 4 conrods shared the one crankshaft journal which led to oil starvation to the the conrod bearings and subsequent failure. It was an issue Rolls Royce were unable to solve
.303 British!
@@EVISEH Thank you for that detail. ❤
The channel I mentioned thinks that RR would have been able to solve those problems with time, but (and I paraphrase badly here) that time was smack in the middle of the Battle of Britain with it's desperate need for Merlin's.
After the BoB the Merlin started to reach Vulture-levels of performance and more promising new (Griffon, Sabre, Centaurus) designs started to get ready. So further bug-fixing and development on the Vulture was shelved.
That was the impression I now have, did I understand that correctly and would you agree with that?
Didn't know about this airplane, so, I learned something today! Thanks IHYLS!
The Vulture wasn't really a bad engine, it was simply pushed into service too soon. It flew its first missions on the slightly overweight AVRO Manchester in Feb 1941. About 6 months latter the Sabre entered service on the Hawker Typhoon and proved a disaster, having to be withdrawn. It wasn't till October 1942 that the Sabre problems were mostly resolved.
During the Battle of Britain development of the Vulture stopped so that work could concentrate on the Merlin. This meant the Vulture was underdeveloped.
Finally the Vulture could be fixed it was decided to concentrate on the Merlin and Griffon because they could fit into the Spitfire.
Another outstanding video! Merry Christmas to you and all viewers!
That picture of the Spitfire that may have broken the sound barrier (or gone transonic) in the dive. Never saw the picture. And it landed sand prop and with wing damage. WOW!
it did Not go supersonic
@@SoloRenegade Yup. Compressibility happened well before supersonic speeds. The prop blades might have made it though - however briefly.
Tornado & Typhoon names both returned in the modern era of course with two very successful planes. Tempest is the future fighter project currently under development by Prospero Engineering. _We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep._
The Napier engine originally suffered from a lot of engine fires, at start up. Notably from inadequate procedures used by the pilots. They were known to burst into flame, due to over pressure on the fuelling. Once a well established startup routine was taught, this issue disappeared.(largely, when adhered to)
don't forget the Typhoon engines failing in flight, CO poisoning, wings exploding in flight, tails falling off in flight, etc.
That engine burned almost as much oil as fuel and it had to be fun changing all 48 spark plugs after almost every flight.
Though didn't the Sabre have a wartime service life of 24 hours?
A lot of the serious problems turned out to be bad quality control. But it was a very new engine and a very complicated one. Still, it worked, which is more than be said for Axis 'next generation' engines.
@@keithstudly6071 Compared to, say, the allowable 33 US Quart/hr (over 8 US Gal/hr) - at max cont power for a P-47 R-2800. Only 21 US Quart/hr at max cruise though.
Very good summary of the production of these planes.
"Huck Magma"😂
Well played, Sir, well played.👏
Got to say a very interesting video tonight, thoroughly fascinating as always. Brilliant. Well done.
The P51 with the Allison engine originally wasn't called the mustang. Originally it was called the A36 apache. So swapping the engine used in that plane did result in a name change
As I understand, the Americans initially called it the Apache, while the British called it the Mustang, even with the Allison engine. The Americans later conceded at called it the Mustang as well.
The A-36 came after the P-51; the name change was because it was a new type with specific changes made to turn it into a dive bomber, it had nothing to do with the engine (the Mustang I in RAF service and P-51A Mustang in USAAF service had the Allison too).
The Mustang had already entered service with the British by the time the Apache was rolling off the assembly line. And while it could have been listed as a P-51 Mustang variant instead of a whole new aircraft, it was named A-36 Apache in light of its primary role being ground attack, but also for accounting purposes. The budgets for pursuit planes and attackers was not the same pot of money; for budgetary reasons the USAAF actually got the planes ordered and out the door faster by changing the name to A-36 Apache since the pursuit plane budget in early 1942 was all used up.
a36 was dive bomber
IIRC the USAAF designated the Mustang as the A-36 Apache because in the bomber oriented AF they’d spent the new fighter plane budget. A budgetary sleight of hand.
And the late model Spitfires did change their name with the Griffin Engined laminar flow wing (and inward retractable gear) Mk14 Spitfire becoming the Mk14 Spiteful (and Seafang) before it served as the basis for the Supermarine Attacker.
Excellent video . Thanks for posting keep up the good work .
Very well done, well put-together video. One of your best so far!
The British referred to the Allison-powered Mustangs as Apaches. As for the Griffon-powered Spitfires, the modifications were so extensive that Supermarine officials very much wanted to change the name, but the Spitfire was by that time almost mythological. It might have damaged public morale if people thought it was being replaced. So yes, changing the engine often meant changing the name.
Great video.
I don't think that's true. I understood that the Apache was an Allison powered dive bomber with air brakes . The RAF actually employed the Allison powered aircraft for low level reconnisance work , at which it was very impressive . Cheers
I love your sense of humor…makes all your productions fun to watch
I read that there was never an order for the spits to tackle fighters and the hurries to hit the bombers.
Great vid. I can’t believe I never knew about the Hawker Tornado.
I actually think the reason the Spitfire is so famous is because they kept the name even when there were very few similarities. Had the Typhoon been the Hurricane Mk III and the Tempest the Hurricane Mk IV, Hawker would get the recognition they deserve.
I like your content! Nice, clear, and I appreciate the fact that you're reading it slowly to make it easier to understand for non-native viewers, but it's too slow for me, and I end up watching your videos at 1.25x speed!! XD
Great stuff regardless!
The Hurricane had a three metal bladed propeller by the time of the Battle of Britain that made it faster and not the two bladed wooden propeller as sown which the Hurricane was first fitted with at the beginning.
Those improved propellers were not common until after the Battle of France. Combat there showed how necessary constant speed propellers were.
And the British recovered both hydraulic and electric German constant speed propellers vs. British variable pitch (pilot adjusted).
The two bladed wooden propellers were still installed, on some Hurricanes, in service both in France & Britain during 1940. This was due to a shortage of DeHaviland 5-20 "two" speed adjustable propellers, though these were frequently field modified (bodged) to give more than the OEM two pitch settings. However, this propeller is notorious for not having a free spinning ability, during dives and would force the engine to redline as the dive speed increased.
During the run up to the Battle of Britain, following the Dunkirk evacuation, the RAF took measures to convert as many Spitfires & Hurricanes as possible, from DeHaviland 5-20 "two" speed propellers to Rotol variable pitch propellers.
The British learned the hard way about the disadvantages of two bladed fixed pitch propellers, on their Hurricanes, while fighting in France. Their propellers were optimised for performance above 200mph and consequently produced more drag than power during take-off and climbing. As many of the French airfields the squadrons were based at were just grass fields, quite often in wet conditions the Hurricanes could not lift off. A problem that resulted in hedges and telegraph poles being cut down to enable the planes to take off from nearby roads. The Germans quickly learned how vulnerable the Hurricane was when taking off and climbing and exploited this weakness. Only about 66 Hurricanes returned to England out of the 800 sent to France.
@@CZ350tunerI've never seen any pictures of british hurricanes still mounting two bladed wooden props dating to 1940.
Belgian hurricanes yes.... but not brish....
As far as i know by 1940 all british hurricanes were retrofited with three bladed, two stage, variable pitch propellers.
These had problems with overeving and converting the enginepower into thrust in general....
Only turing the battle of britain constant speed propellers became more widely available.
But that is exactly the same story as with early spitfires, which started out with two blade wooden propellers, switching to 3 bladed veriable pitch in 1939 and to constant speed propellers in 1940.....
@@tobiasfreitag2182The three bladed propellers were the same - variable speed governors were retrofitted to all the RAF aircraft just before the Battle of Britain (along with “Miss Shillings Orifice” flow restrictor to prevent the Merlin flooding in inverted flight).
According to British archives and memoirs the Tornado was so badly rushed into production it nearly killed all its pilots from carbon monoxide poisoning from the poorly designed exhaust. At war's end the RAF immediately destroyed every example in retaliation. It took many decades for a determined historian to gather enough bits of the aircraft type to assemble one static airframe.
The Typhoon inherited that exhaust leakage problem.
The Tornado never entered production. Only 4 prototypes were made so you must be referring to the Typhoon.
Thank you so much for making this video/podcast. It was very well narrated and made that anyone with half a brain could understand. The name “Spitefull” in my view didn’t really capture the imagination. With the Luftwaffe in decline and possibly rumoured jet engines on the horizon. It is clear that there was simply no real need for a major change to the Spitfire. Thanks again.
Great info love the development of machines in war time
At 24:00 minute mark when describing the Tempest, one very important point missed, is the new wing design. The wing was thinner, elliptical wing & and stated to be of “laminar”design with flush rivets. The so called “laminar” wing, a la P51, implied it contributes to laminar air flow over the wing surface. In reality this does not happen in reality. But the laminar wing means the deepest part of the wing is further back about 50% from the leading edge from more conventional wing designs used early in the war. Maximum depth at 50% aft reduced drag, but had other adverse side effects. This contributed significantly in achieving the speed performance gains that had been sought for so long.
This as I understand was on the Tempest.
New to the channel, great stuff mate!
Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving !
Love your videos….
And …. YES!
I always learn something!😎🇺🇸
Pusher prop installations tend to be more efficient than tractors prop engines. Cooling is however a fairly consistent problem because the radiators or piston cooling fins are out of the propeller slipstream…
Until you factor in the losses of the propeller working in turbulent air.
That is one of the major reasons why tractor designs are predominant.
(Much like canards)
@ Even with the “turbulence” pusher designs are more efficient than tractors.
They are just harder to build and with “conventional” gear had much poorer ground clearance.
Tractor engines increase the total airframe drag significantly because of the higher air stream velocity behind the propeller. This same effect enhances cooling - and fans often get fitted to help with pusher engine cooling (but then some tractor engines need them too (like the FW190’s installation).
Win some, lose some.
@allangibson8494 why do you put turbulence in quotes? You don't believe in vortices behind an airfoil or dirty airstream behind the fuselage?
The losses and other disadvantages (apart from cooling) by far outweigh any potential gains. That's why the vast majority of propeller aircraft are tractor designs. Else the designers would be stupid or lazy. 😉
Cooling was not the sole consideration when the VK-30 was abandoned and instead the design was switched over to the SR20.
@@daszieher I'm pretty sure tractor configs also produced greater lift than pushers
@ Compared to the dirty air generated by a propeller, the slipstream off a well designed fuselage and wing is clean. Ultralights are a completely different question…
What about the change to the laminar flow wing on the tempest / typhoon.
Great video. Fact is Rolls Royce simply wasn’t a big enough concern at the time to handle a commitment beyond the Merlin, which itself it struggled to perfect early on. Ironically it was concerns about the Merlin that the ‘safe option’ Peregrine was developed in unison for the Whirlwind fighter and others , it being effectively an updated ‘merlinised’ Kestral which had been the long term reliable engine of the RAF for many years and was even used somewhat ironically on prototype 109s. The Vulture was itself the combination of two Peregrines to form the X and not surprisingly the problems with the Perigrine afflicted the Vulture in double the quantity. By then the Merlin was reliable and the Perigrine development was improving by then the need for Merlin production and the demise of aircraft hoping to use either Peregrine or Vulture due to the development problems simply meant RR was not really placed to be able to manage both projects. Equally by then it was seen that the Griffon would be the more reliable route to more power alongside developing the troublesome Sabre and Centaurus as the former was effectively an updated R engine from the seaplane racers that was somewhat too big and heavy to have been used in the original lithe pre war fighter designs but good as they developed,while the other two engines were outside of RR so weren’t affecting its strained workload. Easy to forget that pre war RR wasn’t actually that big a company and expansion took time and effort.
I think you're on to something there. I can see it on the F35 - "hawkmagma".
Thanks, enjoying your videos.
Good vid.
The Tornado was made at Yeadon I think, or at least tested there, which had a huge Lancaster shadow factory. I think 'Tornado' was a brand of contraceptive at the time, so there may have been than reason too the RAF weren't too keen on it, (though as you say, they could've skipped it entirely...).
Griffon engine Spitfires nearly were re-named, but thankfully not.
There was a partial mock up of a 'Twin Spit', but it was destroyed in a German bombing raid.
11:35 - Ah, now I realize what's been bothering me. The H-12 animation at 11:35. If you have the two crankshafts turning in opposite directions, then you can't just stick a reduction gear in between the two - you'd need an extra gear on ONE of the crankshafts to drive the reduction gear, OR you could gear the two shafts together and drive the reduction gear off one of the shafts.
Thank you for another very informative video. I agree with you 100% about the naming of this aircraft. But that it is not how history was written back in the day.
I am learning that aviation is all about engines not so much airframes.
On the topic of names locally small Tornados are called Cockeyed Bob's, Hawker missed out on that one too 😂
9:20 I assumed that placing the props in the pusher configuration would allow for a more aft CG, as well as the ability to better armour the engines against frontal attacks.
With that, the effect of propeller slipstream would be lost, perhaps reducing drag for higher top speed at the cost of less lift at lower speeds.
This just reminds me, what was the distinction between the Typhoon and the Tempest?
Performance, roles, or doctrine?
Do not forget that the Mustang was a built-for-Britain escort fighter built to a british specification. And adopted by the USAAF as the P.51 later. It's counterpart the Spitfire was the interceptor.
The P-51B was originally going to be designated P-78.
When the Spitfire 20-series variant was being developed, a name change to "Victor" was considered. It differed from earlier Spitfires in having a new, stronger wing.
4:35 how many wildcats and zeros at the battle of brittan
How many battles of Britain in the war?
ruclips.net/video/XlphnnV6WCY/видео.htmlsi=SQmRqv15JmZY0C8h
None 😂😂😂
Good video 🎬🏅
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
PS it was the first plane to bomb Germany in WW2
The Sabre had issues with fumes leaking into the cockpit and early Typhoons also had the inconvenient issue of the tailplanes falling off.
In 1937, the Air Ministry selected the 20mm cannon, although at that point in time, it was not a reliable weapon. Hence, the decisi9n to stick with the 0,303 Browning machine guns at the time when F.18/37 was issued
17:00 Thats the cooler, not the air intake. Thats the small opening on top of the engine.
I wonder if the twin engine pusher was to allow the wings to have the guns in an optimum configuration without having to slow the RoF with interruptor gear?
Typhoon, Tornado, Tempest, they looked really cool, my favorite british fighters, no matter how elegant the Spitfire looks.
I don't have any need for the History Channel when I have you don't I :-)
As far as I understand, the Napier engine, once sorted, had up to 3500 HP typically.
Once the issues were sorted, it typically had between 2200 and 2400 hp while the 3500 hp version never reached production standard. The Sabre was a very capable engine and decisively helped the RAF in keeping ahead of the Germans with their BMW 801 radial engine (also a very powerful engine design, used in FW 190A)
Informayive and interestinh. Thakks!
As an Australian we don't do thanks giving so I had no idea what it was all about. But thanks for the explanation so now I know. Oh yes and thanks for the video too most enjoyable.
Thankyou. Good coverage of the subject. But omits the important high level decision to prevent development in 1942-2 of the Centaurus Tempest due to prejudice against the Radial engine. By that time the Centaurus Tornado iteration had exceeded 400 mph comfortably. The development of a following variant of a Centaurus powered Typhoon 11 (renamed Tempest by then) was ordered grounded although proving itself fastest of the lot. Then along came a lost Luftwaffe pilot conveniently mistakenly inadvertently gifting his FW 190 Radial powered aircraft which was proving such a headache for the RAF in particular the mkv spit. So much for Radials not being good enough . Sadly Not enough time then to halt the production of the Tempest v which left no scope ( or facility) for the MK11 (we now have flying version of the Mk 2 Tempest; pr533 , which developed further into the Fury post war . So much design genius and effort wasted under the pressure of war and expedients adopted to work within the constraints of production limitation. The Merlin 61 developed in response to the FW just to get on terms with it ended up with the mk9 spit’. Ron Harker and RR were developing the Merlin 61 Mustang concurrently so evolved the 2 stage supercharger which enabled the fabulous P51D to come into service just in time. But even the most slow thinkers were then realising the piston engine was soon to be obsolete, the Germans were ahead on that too by 1944.
The Gloster looks a lot like the Dehaviland Vampire.
And as a result Gloster went directly from building biplane Gloster Gladiators to Gloster Meteors…
The Rolls Royce Vulture - same engine as used on the Avro Manchester! Need we say any more?
24:00 The last thing many German Me262 pilots saw was a Hawker Tempest's guns flashing away in his rear view mirrors.
A huge difference e between the Tempest and it’s Typhoon predecessor was a much slimmer wiring.
11:29 - are you under the impression that crankshaft DRIVE the pistons in reciprocating engines?
As, of course, the crankshaft does for 3 of the 4 cycles on most such engines.
Plus the prop rotated in different directions for both aircraft.
Honestly when I think 'British WW2 planes' the ones that come to mind are:
Spitfire
Hurricane
Mosquito
Lancaster
Typhoon
Definitely showing my own bias there.
you forgot the Beaufighter (beau) and Swordfish (Stringbag).
Google Vid, mate. It's always nice to see one of our American Cousins taking an interest in our WW2 aircraft. Happy Thanksgiving, and you are probably better off avoiding political conversation at the moment. All the best from Glasgow Scotland.
Very good documentary. I would point out that neither Sabre or Vulture are inline engines, each having 4 banks of 6 cylinders. Also many aircraft, I would hazard a guess actually most, had fabric covered control surfaces in WW2. This was to reduced the size of counterbalances and was progressively phased out to be replaced by sold skinning due to compressibility problems at high speed. It is ironic that Typhoons and tornados had thicker, metal, rear fuselages where the hurricane depended on wood - the tails of the hurricane appears to have been robust where the tails of Typhoons had structural issues and some failures which resulted in external strapping being applied as an in field modification. To change the subject why did so many manufacturers consider pusher designs which would have been very effective at mincing a pilot in a bale out situation?
Pushers have inherent aerodynamic advantages, with slower and more stable air moving over the engine nacelles creating less drag. Late war propeller planes took advantage of this for range, such as the B36. There are other reasons exiting a plane can be difficult, most solve by orienting the plane correctly for the bailout, such as inverted for twin pusher props. IIRC, some single pushers had a jettisonable propellor, for this reason.
Here's a future episode suggestion for you: how wing mounted MGs and cannons were sighted in during WWII. Did mechanics sit on the wings and keep twisting adjusting bolts or what, I don't know and that's why a well researched video would be interesting. Thanks.
Aero enginess were critical limited assets followed by aluminium and restricted the build of alternative fighters and materials used, then followed by production line availability
Neithe the Vulture nor the Sabre are, "... 24 cylinder in-line engines ..." 00:40 . The Vulture was 'X-24' configuration, whilst the Sabre was a 'H-24' engine. Can you imagine how long a 24 cylinder in-line engine would be?
You darn right, the Griffon Spitfire wasn't called the Huakmagma. *shudder*. But the last versions of the Spitfire were called the Spiteful. Alternately when the Dornier Do 335 was called the Pfiel, the one with Jumo 222 engine would have been called the Uberpfiel and would have been fearsome.
Great video as usual, with a lot of nerdy stuff to whet the appetite of the aviation geek. There was a good deal of skullduggery happening within the various departments that determined funding and procurement for the British aircraft industry. Rolls-Royce either 1) Produced a bad engine for it's intended plane, 2) Deliberately interfered with other manufacturers' engine programs causing delays in funding and watered-down official interest. 3) Helped bring about the failure of several promising aircraft by eleventh-hour cancellations of the intended RR engine for that plane. This last one carried on well into the Cold War era, with TSR-2, Arrow, and a few others.
What a lot of horseshit!!! Go read some decent books about aircraft instead of books written by the aviation correspondent of the Daily Express!!! (i.e. Project Cancelled!!!).
One highly significant aspect, covered in the name designations, was a serious problem of the tail section falling off mid-flight with the earlier version. The name change was due to a desire to reflect the improvement in type, which presented a separate designation for phycological purposes. Where previously the pilots feared buckling up on startup, fearing an engine fire, with fuel spilling onto the cabin's floor. Whoops.
11:29 It would seem that the Napier engine was of the much lauded / much despised "Boxer" configuration.
The Centaurs version was killer! It was GR8 as the Tempest Mk II! 👍👍
Busted out laughing when you said hok magma ,,,,, that was funny 🤣🤣🤣. .
The Typhoon was a beautiful fighter which had a weak tail structure, the Tempest was utterly gorgeous and as big improvement. 🏴
Anyone remembers the Commando Comics?
"shined" - in English, shone (past participle). Aircraft is both a singular and plural word - "aircrafts" doesn't hack it . . .
Always learn something from you Mr. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving. Luv from the UK 👍💛👊
Hurricane was partially more prominent in the Battle of Britain because it used structural technology similar to its Fury predecessor. Later Hawker designs went with more modern structure.
The Tornado had potential *if* the Vulture had received the same level of development effort the Merlin and Griffon did. For that matter, that same effort could have also improved the Peregrine engines into in Whirlwind fighters.
The Tornado ended up being an excellent test platform for the Bristol Centaurus radial engine, one that saw service in a variety of post World War II aircraft.
Including the Hawker Sea Fury
24.34 picture looks like the Sea Fury?
The original Allison version of the Mustang was called the Apache and designated the A-36!
Those guys @19.47 must have been strafed by a Hurricane at some stage! , until i put my glasses i thought it said "no wankers" LOL
Someone has inaccurately portrayed the Tornado claimed many lives due to exhaust fumes . As there was only one prototype this cannot be so . However ,the Typhoon did indeed lose pilots because of exhaust fumes . As soon as this fault was detected pilots were instructed to use oxygen at all times .
The prototype Spitfire was actually slower than the Hurricane to begin with. Barely reaching 300mph in level flight. During its first week of testing a more powerful engine was fitted and several propellers tested to try and improve the performance of the plane. Eventually the problem was identified as one caused by induced drag due to the method used to construct the wing. Sorting out this out took nearly 18 months thanks to the wing requiring a significant internal re-design then new drawings and re-tooling.
Indeed....this was the era of many new design and construction concepts and the move from fabric coverings to all metal, stressed skin designs. There was a great deal of issue getting the Mustangs wings made to the proper spec and in use/battle damage issues could severely alter the individual aircraft speed and handling characteristics as field repairs to these new kinds of design and manufacturing materials and concepts took some time to develop.
One of the little known reasons that some of the USA aircraft were so fast was that they employed manufacturing techniques....welded, seamless, panels in particular...that required very specific maintenance and even forbid someone walking on the wings as that could cause significant damage and reduction in performance.
The Mk 9 Spitfire and the P51 Mustang both used the same Rolls Royce RM 66 engine. The P51 was 50mph faster due to the reason you mention of minimal gaps, panel joins and other interruptions to the air flow both across the wings and along the fuselage.
That Gloster design at 8:25 looks pretty, too bad they didn't even built a prototype version!
Tornado was a BRUTE!
The Spitfire only achieved near Mach 1 and Mach 1 speeds just before the crash indicator went off. The crash indicator on most aircraft is when the dirt is coming through the windscreen. The plane was completely uncontrollable at transonic and supersonic speeds 690 mph is well into transonic speeds and is over supersonic if it's at any appreciable altitude
The Hurricane was a stop-gap, using existing Hawker designs as its basis in order to get it into production quickly.
The Hurricane was not a stop gap. It was in fact a progression of the Hawker Hart/ Demon/ Audax designs of Sydney Camm only in monoplane form.
Hurricane was to meet air ministry 1930s specification for a high speed monoplane fighter. It was not a stop gap and was a significant design development. Proved its worth throughout the war. Especially later in the taxi rank approach as ground attack
Not sure where the Hawker Tempest fits in to the story, another sibling? its final iteration is a beast
both the hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine spitfire both served in the RIAF ( the Royal Indian Air Force)
When they decided to drop the .303 machine guns in favor of 20mm cannons...why only four? The Spitfire and Hurricane were both able to go from eight .303 to four 20mm in later models. So it seems like the bigger Tempest and Tornado should've had room for six 20mm.
In terms of aircraft designation names, it was British convention to give names to aircraft, where the USAAF used number designators. Hence, Mustang vs P-51, latter shifting to the 'F'; prefix in US parlance.
American fighters were designated by a letter by the US Army Air Force, the letter designating the aircrafts role. Hence the P Stood for Pursuit. The P designation was changed to F for Fighter after World War Two on the formation of the US Air Force as a separate independent service.
the Brits did well in the Battle of Britain because of those electronic wizards that invented the magnetron evolving into the Chain Home radar system.
Aloha, dude! Doing great!
25:34 Huchnamer?