Post by nuuumannn on Jan 14, 2014 13:43:34 GMT 12
Hi Folks, on two forums I visit there are aviation myth threads and I have added to both, but instead of starting a new one here, I thought I'd throw in what I have added to an American forum that I visit, which has little British content, since it has a little relevance here. Most of you will have heard of these before, but they do keep reappearing to this day and even on this forum, so I thought I'd be presumptuous and attempt (
) to set the record straight. Feel free to comment, contradict and contribute.
The Short Stirling's wingspan was restricted to less than 100 feet to enable it to fit in existing RAF hangars:
The origins of this myth are from an article in Flight magazine in 1942 that hypothesises, not even delibrately stipulates that the reason behind the Stirling's wingspan is because of the size of RAF hangar doors. This was repeated verbatim by an Air Historic Branch document on the development of British bombers after the end of the war and so everyone who has written about the Stirling since has repeated it.
See here for my original source on this particular snippet of information:
forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?119664-Aviation-Myths&p=2102408#post2102408
The RAF had hangars with door spans of 120 feet at the time that B.12/36 was issued; it was also stipulated that the aircraft had to be able to be easily maintained outdoors. The 100 foot wingspan limit was to prevent the aircraft getting too large in an attempt to keep weight growth at bay which in turn could enable the aircraft to operate from smaller grass strips. Restricting the span was seen as a suitable way of doing this; weight growth was what prolonged the Stirling's entry into service, not to mention its impact on its performance. Early Halifaxes had a similar restriction, but the Mk.III had longer spans than 100 feet, as did Lancasters.
The Westland Whirlwind was hampered by unreliable engines and fitting Merlins would have prolonged its career:
Issues with the Peregrine were rapidly sorted by Rolls-Royce. One of the big problems that pilots commented on was the fact that the engines overheated. This was not because of the engines, but because Westland had designed the radiator shutters to be linked with flap operation, so unless the flaps were dropped, these stayed firmly shut. RR chose not to continue developing and supporting the Peregrine because of limited application - only the Whirlwind was powered by it in service, and it was wiser to concentrate on Merlin and Griffon development.
Fitting of anything other than the Peregrine would have involved much redesigning of the aircraft's structure and 'Teddy' Petter was aware of this; the aircraft was designed with as small a structure as possible and could not take another powerplant without considerable redesign, which would have had to have included enlarging the airframe as well as strengthening it, which would have introduced enormous delays in production. By late 1940 the Air Ministry were regarding, perhaps unfairly, the Whirlwind as bordering on obsolescence as it was; delaying its introduction into service any more would not have been acceptable.
The problems with the Roll-Royce Vulture were never sorted and this resulted in its cancellation:
They were, in fact. The Vulture V was not hampered by the mating issues of the crank case and inadequate bolt sizes, which gave way under stress and resulted in the engine literally bursting apart and flailing itself to death. Cooling issues were sorted by introducing a more efficient fuel oil heat exchangar. The prototype Hawker Tornado was powered by the Vulture V. The engine was discontinued for the same reason as the Peregrine; limited application and continued expansion of Merlin and Griffon development.
Aaand my favourite Hobby Horse (
); The Germans mistook Boulton Paul Defiants for Hurricanes during one day's combat over Dunkirk and fitting forward firing armament would have made the Defiant the "Bristol Fighter" of WW2:
The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft. On the day in question, 29 May 1940, 264 Sqn claimed 37 aircraft shot down without loss and it became known as 264's 'Day of Glory'; the actual number of aircraft shot down by the Defiants was most likely less than ten, nevertheless, apart from against six Bf 109s that attacked the formation over Dunkirk whilst looking for bombers in company with Hurricanes, it was the Defiants doing the attacking, when a formation of Ju 87s and Ju 88s escorted by Bf 110s was spotted.
Also, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's unique armament; two weeks earlier on 13th May, five were shot down by Bf 109s whilst on patrol over the Dutch coast; this was the incident from which another myth surrounding the Defiant has sprung; that Defiants were chased by Stukas. No Stukas claimed Defiants as kills on that day and it was from 264 Sqn combat reports that the pilots had Stukas on their tails that the tale arose, particularly as the incident was witnessed both in the air and on the ground. Four Ju 87s were claimed by 264 Sqn.
As for the "Bristol Fighter of WW2" story; the Defiant's biggest deficiency was its forward speed; it was too slow and adding forward firing guns without deleting the turret would have slowed it down to prohibitive levels, not to mention reducing its range since its fuel tanks were located in its wings, so it would have been even slower and with a terrible endurance and therefore even more useless as a day fighter.
Another myth about this much maligned aeroplane is that its frontline career ended once it was relegated to nightfighter duties. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Defiant, almost by default, although its unique features made it better suited to the role than existing single-seaters with fixed armament became the RAF's premier night fighter from September 1940 until mid/late 1942 when eventually supplimented and replaced by Beaufighters and Mosquitoes from that time. In this period, some 16 RAF squadrons fully or partially converted to the Defiant and crucially, Defiant night fighter squadrons shot down more enemy aircraft at night than any other type between 1940 and mid 1942. It is a shame that it is from only four months of an over three year front-line fighter career - the majority of which it proved quite successful in - is how the Defiant is remembered.
) to set the record straight. Feel free to comment, contradict and contribute.The Short Stirling's wingspan was restricted to less than 100 feet to enable it to fit in existing RAF hangars:
The origins of this myth are from an article in Flight magazine in 1942 that hypothesises, not even delibrately stipulates that the reason behind the Stirling's wingspan is because of the size of RAF hangar doors. This was repeated verbatim by an Air Historic Branch document on the development of British bombers after the end of the war and so everyone who has written about the Stirling since has repeated it.
See here for my original source on this particular snippet of information:
forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?119664-Aviation-Myths&p=2102408#post2102408
The RAF had hangars with door spans of 120 feet at the time that B.12/36 was issued; it was also stipulated that the aircraft had to be able to be easily maintained outdoors. The 100 foot wingspan limit was to prevent the aircraft getting too large in an attempt to keep weight growth at bay which in turn could enable the aircraft to operate from smaller grass strips. Restricting the span was seen as a suitable way of doing this; weight growth was what prolonged the Stirling's entry into service, not to mention its impact on its performance. Early Halifaxes had a similar restriction, but the Mk.III had longer spans than 100 feet, as did Lancasters.
The Westland Whirlwind was hampered by unreliable engines and fitting Merlins would have prolonged its career:
Issues with the Peregrine were rapidly sorted by Rolls-Royce. One of the big problems that pilots commented on was the fact that the engines overheated. This was not because of the engines, but because Westland had designed the radiator shutters to be linked with flap operation, so unless the flaps were dropped, these stayed firmly shut. RR chose not to continue developing and supporting the Peregrine because of limited application - only the Whirlwind was powered by it in service, and it was wiser to concentrate on Merlin and Griffon development.
Fitting of anything other than the Peregrine would have involved much redesigning of the aircraft's structure and 'Teddy' Petter was aware of this; the aircraft was designed with as small a structure as possible and could not take another powerplant without considerable redesign, which would have had to have included enlarging the airframe as well as strengthening it, which would have introduced enormous delays in production. By late 1940 the Air Ministry were regarding, perhaps unfairly, the Whirlwind as bordering on obsolescence as it was; delaying its introduction into service any more would not have been acceptable.
The problems with the Roll-Royce Vulture were never sorted and this resulted in its cancellation:
They were, in fact. The Vulture V was not hampered by the mating issues of the crank case and inadequate bolt sizes, which gave way under stress and resulted in the engine literally bursting apart and flailing itself to death. Cooling issues were sorted by introducing a more efficient fuel oil heat exchangar. The prototype Hawker Tornado was powered by the Vulture V. The engine was discontinued for the same reason as the Peregrine; limited application and continued expansion of Merlin and Griffon development.
Aaand my favourite Hobby Horse (
); The Germans mistook Boulton Paul Defiants for Hurricanes during one day's combat over Dunkirk and fitting forward firing armament would have made the Defiant the "Bristol Fighter" of WW2:The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft. On the day in question, 29 May 1940, 264 Sqn claimed 37 aircraft shot down without loss and it became known as 264's 'Day of Glory'; the actual number of aircraft shot down by the Defiants was most likely less than ten, nevertheless, apart from against six Bf 109s that attacked the formation over Dunkirk whilst looking for bombers in company with Hurricanes, it was the Defiants doing the attacking, when a formation of Ju 87s and Ju 88s escorted by Bf 110s was spotted.
Also, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's unique armament; two weeks earlier on 13th May, five were shot down by Bf 109s whilst on patrol over the Dutch coast; this was the incident from which another myth surrounding the Defiant has sprung; that Defiants were chased by Stukas. No Stukas claimed Defiants as kills on that day and it was from 264 Sqn combat reports that the pilots had Stukas on their tails that the tale arose, particularly as the incident was witnessed both in the air and on the ground. Four Ju 87s were claimed by 264 Sqn.
As for the "Bristol Fighter of WW2" story; the Defiant's biggest deficiency was its forward speed; it was too slow and adding forward firing guns without deleting the turret would have slowed it down to prohibitive levels, not to mention reducing its range since its fuel tanks were located in its wings, so it would have been even slower and with a terrible endurance and therefore even more useless as a day fighter.
Another myth about this much maligned aeroplane is that its frontline career ended once it was relegated to nightfighter duties. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Defiant, almost by default, although its unique features made it better suited to the role than existing single-seaters with fixed armament became the RAF's premier night fighter from September 1940 until mid/late 1942 when eventually supplimented and replaced by Beaufighters and Mosquitoes from that time. In this period, some 16 RAF squadrons fully or partially converted to the Defiant and crucially, Defiant night fighter squadrons shot down more enemy aircraft at night than any other type between 1940 and mid 1942. It is a shame that it is from only four months of an over three year front-line fighter career - the majority of which it proved quite successful in - is how the Defiant is remembered.
