FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1940
1940 - 0224.PDF
86 JANUARY 25, 1940. of the latter system being tried out on the Continent. As soon as the shell-gun achieves the necessary range and accuracy of tire, " zone defence " by machine guns will become obsolete, and new means will have to be devised to protect bombers. Anti-aircraft bombing will probably give the coup de grace to present-day defence formation tactics. " TACTICIAN." Twin Engines and Contra-props I AM very interested in your article on escort fighters. May Isuggest the following specification ? Twin engines mounted one behind the other in the fuselage, driving contra-props (two engines for a reasonable factor of safety and a separate drive to each prop, not one large engine. The aerodynamic advantages are obvious). Give the pilot two guns mounted in the wings, just in case his gunners get "shot up." and also in case an enemy aircraft IB foolhardy enough to fly across his "bows" (why throw away opportunities ?). Mount a power-driven retractable turret halfway down the fuselage in the usual manner. And also a power-driven tail turret (aerodynamic losses are more than paid for by the greater protection and fire power). Fuel for 1,500-2,000 miles. Summary: Smallest possible aircraft with the greatest pos- sible range, speed and fire power. 1 think you will agree that to attack a "small" fighter of this type would be a very unhealthy proposition. ft would be larger than a Defiant and smaller than a Blenheim, and a better fighter than either of them. Speed ? Well, use your imagination. It should not take long to adapt Merlins to contra-prop use or to produce the airscrews if the A.M. would give the word; the problems involved are not formidable and consist to a large extent of rearrangement of parts. Here are two concrete cases for you to work out for your- selves. How much speed would, say, a Blenheim gain if its nacelles were removed and the wing span reduced accordingly ? And how much speed would, say, a Spitfire gain with twin Merlins and contra-props and its wing area increased to take the extra load? COLIN R. BAKTY. Southampton. The Author Replies " '"THEORIST " opens his long argument with an unwar- J- ranted assumption which disqualifies for discussion the first part of his letter. I deliberately refrained from mention- ing the optimum fighter-bomber ratio, confining myself to an examination of possible aircraft types. Frankly, I visual- ised no hard and fast numerical ratio; this, of course, would depend on the importance of the mission and the opposition expected. Certainly I had not in mind a fifty-fifty ratio for normal operations. Rather I foresaw a sprinkling of what Mr. Armstrong conveniently calls "escort heavies" (someone else has aptly termed them "the back row of the scrum") to strengthen the fire-power of the formation. It is obvious that the larger the formation the more vulner- able it is to anti-aircraft guns and A.A. bombs. Likewise it is reasonable to argue that the enemy fighters will be using shell-guns. It is also true, however, that while A.A. guns are firing, the main enemy fighter force will be handicapped and the bombers may adopt a special formation. The smaller type of fast two-three-seater escort fighter with a single turret would be useful for shooting down enemy fighters which attempted to drop A.A. bombs on the bombers. Regarding the calibre of guns, the writer is quite aware of the difficulties attaching to the design of turrets for" shell-guns but in the absence of publishable information is inclined to believe that these have proved by no means insurmountable. In any case the largest guns have so far been installed on big multi-engined machines. I agree that the escort machines can do little or nothing to help low-flying bombers when attacked by anti-aircraft guns, but I do not agree with Mr. Armstrong that this means they "lose much of their value." One might as well argue that a Sunderland convoying merchantmen loses much of its value because it cannot guarantee immunity against magnetic mines. "Tactician" does not make himself clear when he states that the twin-engined turret aircraft does not appeal to him on account of its rather limited sector of fire in the most important direction, i.e., along the tail. A turrf-t in the extreme tail has as wide a sector of fire as could possibly be required in view of the fact that there are other turrets further forward, firing above and below the fuselage. Although the " super-Hampden " proposal illustrated in the article has no tail turret, the top and bottom turrets firing above and below a very slim tail boom, offer complete tail protection. With regard to "Tactician's" proposals for "dynamic defence," I simply will not believe that a heavily loaded long-range twin-engined fighter can take on, with a reasonable chance of success, one or (more- likely) several, lightly-loaded but heavily armed defending machines. These will triumph because of their superior manoeuvrability, which will render quite ineffective the fixed or semi-fixed armament of the escort machines. To take the best possible example we only have to imagine an escorting Messcrschmitt Me 110 against one, two or three Hurricanes or Spitfires. The majority of the Me's armament is fixed, and with its high wing loading the machine would, I venture to suggest, be little more effective than, say, a Do 17. In its present form it is a good long- range fighter for intercepting bombers, but a poor escort machine for attacking fighters. With a Defiant-type turret, of course, it would be a different proposition. In fact, it might become a very good escort fighter indeed. To summarise, I maintain that long-range escort fighters should be designed for strengthening the defensive fire-power of the bomber force (to which end they must have turrets) and not for attempting to dog-fight, at a great numerical and technical disadvantage, with local-defence intercepters. Short-range work is, of course, another matter. If the bombers are to penetrate only a short distance into enemy territory and will not be long over dangerous country, a pro- tective force of single-seaters will be a very great advantage, as demonstrated in Japan and Spain. H. F. K. AN EARLY AVRO Some Reminiscences THE interesting controversy in Flight relating to statementsin Sir A. V. Roe's book, "The World of Wings and Things," Is becomiug acrimonious, as opinions on such-like debatable subjects mostly do. It may interest some readers (who may not have read the book in question) to know that the little craft Sir Alliot built in 1907 (his second effort) was equipped with an 8 h.p. air-cooled J.A.P. motor cycle engine. Concerning this machine an article was published in The Maiar Cycle of May lG, 1908. in which the writer said: "The machine was constructed of various odds and ends, portions of a superannuated pedal cycle playing a prominent part in the make-up. This was not the sort of power unit that one would have selected for so momentous an experiment, but, like most of the pioneers, young Roe was woefully handicapped by lack of cash, and in the face of much scepticism it was practically impossible to secure capital for work of this kind. In the autumn of 1907 this little bus was run out on l^ea. Marshes, that desolate tract of land in the north of London, an abode cf stray cats, tomato tins and ash heaps. The machine indubitably flew, though its progress was erratic, to say the least of it. The authorities, enraged at this literal flying in the face of Providence, forbade further experiments here on the ground that the grass was being spoilt for grazing! " Sir Alliot's further experiments are probably better known than the story of his very earliest struggles, which, like the trials and tribulations of all pioneering, is more interesting than the disputes which often follow in later days. A. F. J. Harrow.. I YOUTHFUL CONFIDENCE From Glider to Tiger Moth N view of the discussion about the value of gliding taking place at the present time. I feel that the opinion of one of the younger gliding pilots may be of interest. I am 16 ytars of age and obtained my "C" certificate when I was 15 years old. After 40 hours' solo flying 1 am confident that after a few circuits with an instructor in, say, a Tiger Moth, I should feel no qualms about going solo. I am also of opinion that I know more about the air than most power pilots of several hundred hours' experience. In my 40 hours I have had two landings in strange fields (both successful), and my fiiend, who is six months younger than myself, and I, are both considered safe pilots in spite of the supposed impetuosity of youth. Many living people think that voutlis who l«arn to fly when they ait about. 15 years old make I he bc,';t pilots, and according to the existing regulations the only way to get this tuition is to learn to flv motorltss airira.lt. DUNCAN SWATS Gt. Jluckiow.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
