Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:50 pm
OFF TOPIC BUT...
Hey Gary did you ever work on the CAF He111? I helped with it for a few days when they blew and engine coming into Arlington.
It was a Spanish built German design...Metric stuff.
British engines..British standard stuff.
Maintained in the US for 30+ years...SAE stuff.
They had 3 tool boxes and All I did was hand tools up and down form the work stand.
Hey Gary did you ever work on the CAF He111? I helped with it for a few days when they blew and engine coming into Arlington.
It was a Spanish built German design...Metric stuff.
British engines..British standard stuff.
Maintained in the US for 30+ years...SAE stuff.
They had 3 tool boxes and All I did was hand tools up and down form the work stand.
Last edited by Ztex on Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:05 am
Ztex wrote:OFF TOPIC BUT...
Hey Gary did you ever work on the CAF He111?
No sir. Never messed with it.
Walrus 7, sorry about hijacking your thread with the Merlin vs. Allison talk.
Gary
Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:13 am
She's right, Gary.
Interesting that people are contesting my comments about the performance of the P-38 in Europe. I based my comments on those of John Brunning in the video Warbirds of WWII, Volume 2, "Fighter Tactics 101." I supplemented this from The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII [Paul Eden editor], where the chapter on the P-38 contains the following somewhat contradictory statements.
... Lockheed's Lightning was a formidable long-range fighter, proving hard-hitting, manoeuvrable and highly-effective in all of the many theatres in which it served.
Then,
Despite this name [fork-tailed devil] the P-38 did not prove entirely suitable for combat with the single-engined fighters of the Luftwaffe. This was learned at some cost during the first bomber escort flights to Berlin from bases in England ... Shortcomings of the fighter-verses-fighter combat role proved largely academic at this time due to the build-up of the P-47 and P-51 squadrons in Europe. Henceforth, the P-38 tended to be committed to ground-attack tasks in this theatre where it achieved great distinction ...
The performance of the P-38 in the Pacific is rarely questioned, but after all these years, the jury seems to be still out on its capabilities in Europe. I acknowledge the first RAF examples didn't have superchargers and this certainly wouldn't have helped. Ditto for the P-39.
Interesting the comments about right-turning Merlins. I presumed that they would have been available as they powered the Lanc, Mozzie and Halifax. Did these planes not have counter-rotating engines?
Thanks to those who posted and especially those who provided the links. Please, keep discussing; I'm learning heaps!
Walrus
Interesting that people are contesting my comments about the performance of the P-38 in Europe. I based my comments on those of John Brunning in the video Warbirds of WWII, Volume 2, "Fighter Tactics 101." I supplemented this from The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII [Paul Eden editor], where the chapter on the P-38 contains the following somewhat contradictory statements.
... Lockheed's Lightning was a formidable long-range fighter, proving hard-hitting, manoeuvrable and highly-effective in all of the many theatres in which it served.
Then,
Despite this name [fork-tailed devil] the P-38 did not prove entirely suitable for combat with the single-engined fighters of the Luftwaffe. This was learned at some cost during the first bomber escort flights to Berlin from bases in England ... Shortcomings of the fighter-verses-fighter combat role proved largely academic at this time due to the build-up of the P-47 and P-51 squadrons in Europe. Henceforth, the P-38 tended to be committed to ground-attack tasks in this theatre where it achieved great distinction ...
The performance of the P-38 in the Pacific is rarely questioned, but after all these years, the jury seems to be still out on its capabilities in Europe. I acknowledge the first RAF examples didn't have superchargers and this certainly wouldn't have helped. Ditto for the P-39.
Interesting the comments about right-turning Merlins. I presumed that they would have been available as they powered the Lanc, Mozzie and Halifax. Did these planes not have counter-rotating engines?
Thanks to those who posted and especially those who provided the links. Please, keep discussing; I'm learning heaps!
Walrus
Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:16 am
Walrus 7 wrote:
Interesting the comments about right-turning Merlins. I presumed that they would have been available as they powered the Lanc, Mozzie and Halifax. Did these planes not have counter-rotating engines?
Walrus
The only thing I can think of regarding that is that the P-82 was a late War design, Post War production. Perhaps Rolls Royce just didn't feel the need for the "backwards turner" on the other airplanes you mention since they had a war to win and the standard rotation engines were working just fine. I dunno.
Gary
Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:58 am
You know me. I always like early model aircraft. Too bad no P-322's were ever kept. 
I am glad Glacier Girl is a "F" model. But I would still like to see an "E" model fly someday. Is there any left?
I am glad Glacier Girl is a "F" model. But I would still like to see an "E" model fly someday. Is there any left?
Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:27 pm
Walrus 7 wrote:Interesting the comments about right-turning Merlins. I presumed that they would have been available as they powered the Lanc, Mozzie and Halifax. Did these planes not have counter-rotating engines?
Walrus
Nope, all standard rotation. The Twin 'stang and the DH Hornet had counter rotaters but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. There must have been some other post-war British designs with counter rotating engines though, no?
P-38's
Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:29 pm
The P-322 suffered not just from a lack of turbocharging, but both engines were right-rotation. I can imagine a critical engine failure on takeoff would be quite the experience.
In the ETO the P-38 had a number of issues. Pilot comfort (inadequate heating), maintenance and turbo control problems that were unique to the colder operating climates. Early models had their intercooling done thru ducts in the leading wing edge. Failures of the turbo controls caused "sneezing" thru the ducting, warping the entire wing. Engine failure rates were extremely high.
Seems to me a logical step to standardize more to the mustang and send the Lightning to the pacific where these problems seemed to sorrt themselves out and the two engines and range were a benefit.
In the ETO the P-38 had a number of issues. Pilot comfort (inadequate heating), maintenance and turbo control problems that were unique to the colder operating climates. Early models had their intercooling done thru ducts in the leading wing edge. Failures of the turbo controls caused "sneezing" thru the ducting, warping the entire wing. Engine failure rates were extremely high.
Seems to me a logical step to standardize more to the mustang and send the Lightning to the pacific where these problems seemed to sorrt themselves out and the two engines and range were a benefit.
Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:52 pm
I remember reading somewhere that a great deal of the Lightning's engine problems in Europe were due to the rather poor quality of the British supplied gasoline, whereas in the Pacific the fuel was all US made and most of the famous "Allison timebomb" issues never really materialized there.
Dan
Dan
Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:36 am
Interesting discussion.
Gary, IMHO, generally the ground crew rarely get interviewed in aviation history; a poor show, however you'll find those British Erks who are interviewed will rhapsodise about the Merlin like it was solid gold. Those with more open minds and experience of other engineering (such as Canadian and Australian groundcrew) might not be so partisan!
As a general rule of thumb in history, I'm wary of taking at face value opinions on 'foreign' equipment. Generally, people persevere longer and harder with their own indigenous equipment, and conversely are quick to condemn any foreign made items. A facet of the 'not invented here' syndrome.
The section on Packard's legacy in RR Merlin production in Wikipedia is very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin
The later P-38s were certainly fitted with a dive brake - midwing outboard of the engines, at half chord. I'd not heard the C-47 lost story, and for carrying an entire theatres' worth of aircraft brakes seems a bit small - but that's possible.
My memory is of one particular US bigwig who decided to nix the P-38 and P-47 in Europe in favour of the P-51; for good and bad reasons. I'll have a look to see if I can find my notes.
As to operational tactics and 'lawn dart' issues, that's for the commanders to sort out. Very effective use has been made of inadequate aircraft used wisely, while the best type used inappropriately will be a dead loss. (The Finns' Buffalos, and on the other hand, the first use of the Grumman Avenger & Bristol Fighter.)
You don't get 'gasoline' from the British; you might get petrol, as many North Americans have found.
I was interested to learn recently that one of the less widely know advantages the British had in 1940, which allowed greater power to be wrung out of the Merlin, was 'beter' American supplied fuel (the name, of course changed mid Atlantic...) - this in the Wikipedia entry, which is only part of the story of course. During the war, AFAIK, Britain imported all it's petrol and oil; where from I don't know, but US supply would've been a big part of that.
As to handed Merlins, it's hardly a high tech issue, surely (given the other developments in the type) but it just never seemed to be a British priority; early it was unnecessary, when the Beaufighter and Mosquito came along the 'crash' nature of the programme would've ruled out the handing on one engine. (AFAIK, there's never been a production four engined bomber with 'handed' or 'counter rotating' engines - just not a priority.) Some technical 'blind spots' are not unusual - German failure to use Radar and drop-tanks (both in hand in 1940) remains to some degree inexplicable.
Just some thoughts.
Gary, IMHO, generally the ground crew rarely get interviewed in aviation history; a poor show, however you'll find those British Erks who are interviewed will rhapsodise about the Merlin like it was solid gold. Those with more open minds and experience of other engineering (such as Canadian and Australian groundcrew) might not be so partisan!
As a general rule of thumb in history, I'm wary of taking at face value opinions on 'foreign' equipment. Generally, people persevere longer and harder with their own indigenous equipment, and conversely are quick to condemn any foreign made items. A facet of the 'not invented here' syndrome.
The section on Packard's legacy in RR Merlin production in Wikipedia is very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin
The later P-38s were certainly fitted with a dive brake - midwing outboard of the engines, at half chord. I'd not heard the C-47 lost story, and for carrying an entire theatres' worth of aircraft brakes seems a bit small - but that's possible.
My memory is of one particular US bigwig who decided to nix the P-38 and P-47 in Europe in favour of the P-51; for good and bad reasons. I'll have a look to see if I can find my notes.
As to operational tactics and 'lawn dart' issues, that's for the commanders to sort out. Very effective use has been made of inadequate aircraft used wisely, while the best type used inappropriately will be a dead loss. (The Finns' Buffalos, and on the other hand, the first use of the Grumman Avenger & Bristol Fighter.)
Dan Jones wrote:I remember reading somewhere that a great deal of the Lightning's engine problems in Europe were due to the rather poor quality of the British supplied gasoline, whereas in the Pacific the fuel was all US made and most of the famous "Allison timebomb" issues never really materialized there.
You don't get 'gasoline' from the British; you might get petrol, as many North Americans have found.
I was interested to learn recently that one of the less widely know advantages the British had in 1940, which allowed greater power to be wrung out of the Merlin, was 'beter' American supplied fuel (the name, of course changed mid Atlantic...) - this in the Wikipedia entry, which is only part of the story of course. During the war, AFAIK, Britain imported all it's petrol and oil; where from I don't know, but US supply would've been a big part of that.
As to handed Merlins, it's hardly a high tech issue, surely (given the other developments in the type) but it just never seemed to be a British priority; early it was unnecessary, when the Beaufighter and Mosquito came along the 'crash' nature of the programme would've ruled out the handing on one engine. (AFAIK, there's never been a production four engined bomber with 'handed' or 'counter rotating' engines - just not a priority.) Some technical 'blind spots' are not unusual - German failure to use Radar and drop-tanks (both in hand in 1940) remains to some degree inexplicable.
Just some thoughts.
Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:12 am
JDK wrote:
Gary, IMHO, generally the ground crew rarely get interviewed in aviation history; a poor show, however you'll find those British Erks who are interviewed will rhapsodise about the Merlin like it was solid gold. Those with more open minds and experience of other engineering (such as Canadian and Australian groundcrew) might not be so partisan!
Well, my comment about the pilots being interviewed, but not the mechanics is always tongue in cheek.
JDK wrote:As a general rule of thumb in history, I'm wary of taking at face value opinions on 'foreign' equipment. Generally, people persevere longer and harder with their own indigenous equipment, and conversely are quick to condemn any foreign made items. A facet of the 'not invented here' syndrome.
Hmmm, I don't know if I completely agree with that. I hear what you're saying, and it may hold true in many or most cases. However, I can tell you that my personal thoughts about the Merlin aren't because it's British, but because it's often times cantakerous to maintain (particularly when in comparison to the Allison). Heck, my favorite airplane is British...the Sea Fury...but don't tell my fellow American friends.
Gary
Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
retroaviation wrote:JDK wrote:
Gary, IMHO, generally the ground crew rarely get interviewed in aviation history; a poor show, however you'll find those British Erks who are interviewed will rhapsodise about the Merlin like it was solid gold. Those with more open minds and experience of other engineering (such as Canadian and Australian groundcrew) might not be so partisan!
Well, my comment about the pilots being interviewed, but not the mechanics is always tongue in cheek.
I know. When doing my museum tours, I point out that not all pilot statements are to be trusted - starting with 'The temperature at our destination will be...' Because I know a bit of aviation history everyone assumes I must be a pilot (because everyone assumes they're the ones that matter) - rather than being a student of history, which makes a bit more sense!
retroaviation wrote:JDK wrote:As a general rule of thumb in history, I'm wary of taking at face value opinions on 'foreign' equipment. Generally, people persevere longer and harder with their own indigenous equipment, and conversely are quick to condemn any foreign made items. A facet of the 'not invented here' syndrome.
Hmmm, I don't know if I completely agree with that. I hear what you're saying, and it may hold true in many or most cases. However, I can tell you that my personal thoughts about the Merlin aren't because it's British, but because it's often times cantakerous to maintain (particularly when in comparison to the Allison). Heck, my favorite airplane is British...the Sea Fury...but don't tell my fellow American friends.
Gary
Perhaps it's better to say that in almost all cases there is an initial bias in favour of the home grown and against the foreign. That does not preclude better evaluation after an initial reaction. It's not to be overlooked that in W.W.II people were simply more familiar with their own stuff than anyone else's - the idea of purchasing foreign kit was very unusual in 1939-41 - an American mechanic faced with a Merlin, or a British mechanic faced with an Allison is going to hit a lot of conventions and construction that wasn't familiar from his training. What the Russian groundcrew made of the west's delicate and temperamental kit (their view, compared to what we regarded as 'agricultural' Russian kit) beats me! I'm not arguing with your opinion; it's based on experience, and clearly you agree with me about history's greatest piston fighter.
Sorry for the digression, folks.