FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1944
1944 - 0394.PDF
202 FLIGHT FEBRUARY 24TH, 1944 The World's Best JTircraf t Impossibility of Assessing Relative_M£rits by U^of Separate Watertight Quality Factors : Vidnpwi&tfwFNot a Matte/oT^Axmour Plate Alone By R. L. LICKLEY and F. H. LLOYD c OMPARISON of -aircraft is i difficult and unenviable task, a task which, if one Nowise, one should not willingly undertake unless faMuil Lo 1 «k»m>aii fi1 strategic or business reasons. The only infallible yard stick by which the quality of an aircraft may be judged is the result it achieves on operations. The consideration of the many individual qualities ot performance and other characteristics introduces so many variables into a single equation that the problem becomes mathematically in soluble, and an answer can only be obtained by the sub stitution of a " personal opinion '' factor for the relate importance of each of the considered qualities. Obviously, the more variables that are introduced the more unreliable the answer becomes. Mr. Masefield, we submit, has fallen into this trap in his article which appeared in the issue of Flight of February 10th as a reprint from an American magazine. Credit : is due to him for a most interesting contribu tion ; nevertheless, we be lieve that the results which he obtains are misleading and do not bear the correct relation to actual results in daily operations. The classes into which cient if #e scattej^ia^o bad that only a low percentage of 1111 1 flliliwiiH'fl 1 In n using all the available ammunition, est armament for a fighter, then, is not necessarily thejtost guns, nor does it consist, of the largest-calibre gu^that can be installed in the fighter. Qualities to be asidered under the single heading.of armament are: — Armament (a) Muzzle horse-power. (b) Smallest number of guns of the smallest possible calibre that will effectively destroy all types of enemy aircraft with the greatest economy of ammunition. (c) Steadiness ot gun platform. (d) Duration of fire. (e) Reliability of guns at all altitudes and conditions of flight (e.g., complete freedom from stoppages whei.JE* flying in very cold IN this article two members of the Hawker Design Staff, headed by Mr. Sydney Camm, challenge some of the methods and conclusions of Mr. Peter Masefield's attempt to evaluate the qualities of the aircraft of the fighting Powers, which was published in our issue of February 10th. They point out that the only reliable yardstick with which to measure air craft qualities :s the results it achieves on operations. Comments from several other readers appear on this week's Correspondence pages (211-212). temperatures or at high accelerations). (f) Serviceability of armament. The question of arma ment is by no means free from influencing and being influenced by other factors. The best armament in the world is useless if the pilot (he , aircraft are divided i j is unable to see properly by are reasonable in the main, his view being in any way IHJ lVyd»3UliaL<JlW 1U LJU.' J1H11II, *• ilXO VJl/*t UVUlg All H.J.AJ' »» IA-J but the entire absence of British types, with tjre exception hampered. The carrying of an armament load of 1,000 lb. of the Mosquito, from the short list of outstanding aircraft leads one strongly to suspect that the author has been comparing British types which have now been in opera tion for a considerable time with American types which are only now, subsequent to the date of his article, going into service and are therefore relatively untried. This is obviously unsound, since in effect it amounts to comparing promises with facts and is bound to favour the newest American types, since their corresponding British types may not even be mentioned, owing to the rigour of British secrecy. The Mustang Puzzle Of the three aircraft in Mr. Masefield's "Honours List," the first is the North American Mustang II single-seater fighter. While in no way wishing to detract from the very fine qualities of the Mustang, it is impossible to see where Mr. Masefield gets his high position for it, relative to the Typhoon and the Spitfire. The position is further clouded by his reference to a 1943-44 ideal, which is not specified, and which therefore makes his percentage figures technically useless. Considering the desirable qualities of a fighter, these are: — (1) High speed; (2) fire power; (3) manoeuvrability and rate of climb; (4) duration of fligj*€; (5) vulner ability; (6) serviceability; (7) ease of production. In any assessment of merit the qualities should be weighed in the above order; obviously, speed to intercept must be the prime consideration and, having contacted the enemy, sufficient effective fire power to destroy him must be available. In this respect, the qualities of the aircraft or more on a single-seater fighter must affect the size and hence the speed of the aircraft, and also the rate of climb and the duration of flight. Manoeuvrability and rate of climb are very necessary for dog-fighting, but without speed and fire power they are in themselves valueless as a means of destroying the enemy. Further, fighting manoeuvrability cannot be expressed as a ratio of wing loading, as Mr. Masefield has done, since it depends on many factors; for instance, lightness of controls, ailerons, power loading, and weight/ drag density. Vulnerability, while difficult to assess, is a most im- A portant item. Mr. Masefield has considered only armour * plate, protected fuel tanks, number of engines and type of cooling, and general layout. He has entirely neglected the point that the factors which contribute most to low vulner ability in a fighter are speed, view, manoeuvrability, aiid pilot's skill and morale. It is presumed that he includes the all-important item of all-round view, and such other items as the position of the radiator of a liquid-cooled engine, in the item " General layout," for which he awards only one point out of ten under this heading. If, as in the last war, we could only afford to give our pilots a few hours' "solo" before sending them on opera tions, the casualty rate would rise to such an extent that morale would drop, and we should then have to build-in more defensive armour at the cost of offensive qualities. In the extreme we could cram on so much armour as to make the aircraft invulnerable to fire from the guns of any enemy aircraft. But we should reduce climb performance, manoeuvrability, and armament almost to nil. Mr. Mase field's marking of the vulnerability factor tends to favour this extreme, yet the introduction of a gun of sufficient as a gun platform must be noted and also the amount and calibre and muzzle velocity would make such a machine v type of ammunition available in addition to Mr. Masefield's the most vulnerable aircraft in service, assessment of muzzle horse power. We have substituted the serviceability factor for Mr. Thus, 0.303 ammunition is no use if the enemy is heavily Masefield's maintenance factor, since maintenance is only armoured against it, and two larger-calibre guns are iasuffi- in part responsible for the percentage of aircraft serviceable
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
