PDA

View Full Version : Without her Britain would have been a lot worse off



Me (Pilot 1)
08-21-2005, 12:21 PM
I'll try to find more on the net but this quote will give you the idea

"The famous Rolls Royce Merlin engine, which saved Britain during WWII, was almost entirely the result of the outstanding generosity and patriotism of one woman. At a time when Cambridge University was turning out economic theorists, and the government saying there will be no more wars, an amazing woman, Lady Houston, was pouring her inherited money into the development of Supermarine Spitfire and the Rolls Royce engine. By 1939 Britain was able to build excellent aircraft around the Rolls Royce and Cambridge had a list of "old girls" ready to give their all in the ranks of British Intelligence."

http://www.alor.org/NewZealand/The%20Defence%20of%20New...rch-April%202002.htm (http://www.alor.org/NewZealand/The%20Defence%20of%20New%20Zealand%20March-April%202002.htm)

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 12:26 PM
I think this one is off to a bad start. I would have edited that a little before posting.

Fritz

DmdSeeker
08-21-2005, 12:27 PM
Homophobia and other hate speach is allowed here now?

Any one care to tell me how Britain would have fared without the two noted homosexuals Alan Turing and David Stirling?

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-21-2005, 12:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Moustacheo
08-21-2005, 12:35 PM
I was thinking that, but then since it's in the quote is it still wrong? I mean, the homophobic parts of the post are within the quote of someone else. So long as it's not condoned by the poster, I think it's alright.

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Moustacheo:
I was thinking that, but then since it's in the quote is it still wrong? I mean, the homophobic parts of the post are within the quote of someone else. So long as it's not condoned by the poster, I think it's alright.

No point to quote the ubi rules as we all know them but just a few wrong words removes any credibility.

Had he removed the prejudice remarks the thread would have started off much better. The chances of this thread being locked very quickly are high and even if the poster doesn't deserve it he will be remembered for it.

Fritz

Stigler_9_JG52
08-21-2005, 12:54 PM
Besides the mention of the Merlin engine being a huge factor in the war, the rest of the entire message, no matter WHO it's attibuted to, is irrelevant, hateful and should be padlocked immediately.

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 12:56 PM
But maybe we can salvage it. I'm no expert but I've read many posts where people claim the Hurri missed further development because of the Spitfire's development. If this is true then I would be inclined to think Britain would have been better off without the Spitfire. I've always felt the Hurri was a better plane but not yet evolved. Give the Hurri some power and it would have been very deadly rather than just deadly.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 12:58 PM
It's not to late to edit it Me(Pilot 1). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

rockgardenlove
08-21-2005, 01:33 PM
I dont get whats wrong with it...?

Me (Pilot 1)
08-21-2005, 01:38 PM
Yes, the reference the author made about camebridge was irrelevant to the post, to be honest I didnt even notice it the first skim through. My apologies, I hope those that read will now know without her contribution the Merlin engine would not have been and the brits would have used some other engine and would have been enslaved by the germans after losing the BOB. Think about it. She along with Sir Hugh Dowding were heroes.

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 01:55 PM
Does anyone have figures on how many Hurris served/were lost/killcounts and the same for Spitfires in BoB? It might put a better perspective on things as far as the importance of both a/c in BoB.

TBH, I have no idea about this. Just a hunch I got from reading previous posts.

Fritz

p1ngu666
08-21-2005, 02:00 PM
the hurri didnt have the potential tobe upgraded so much, thats it pretty much. a fine plane ofcourse.

napier lion would likely have been the engine to have in merlins place

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 02:07 PM
I seem to remember seeing drawings of Hurris with different engines. I think one was a radial. This was another thread and if I remember correctly there were four variants.

Add 500hp and a pressurized fuel line and it might have been the one to beat, depending of course on the new flight characteristics. Weight has a way of changing everything.

Fritz

ploughman
08-21-2005, 03:05 PM
I dont get whats wrong with it...?


It's been edited. There was hate material in the quote but the posted removed most of it, now you've only got to watch out if you're an economist.

Me (Pilot 1)
08-21-2005, 03:27 PM
Hurricanes-not spitfires were the back bone and the hightest scorers during the BOB. The germans knew that the spit was the superior dogfighter and complained about it so it won the psychological advantage. Had the germans used drop tanks on the BF-109, which had been invented, things would have been different.

Britain is lucky Goering was their adversary because he was a corrupt thick-headed bully lackey and not prepared to decicively use the (largest airforce in the woirld at the time) Luftwaffe properly during the epic battle.

arcadeace
08-21-2005, 03:29 PM
As it reads now it€s a worthy story and you€ve made a good point Me (Pilot 1). WWII has always fascinated me in this regard. There are a few very fortunate actions for the Allies, which became critical beyond measure toward the defeat of the Axis.

x6BL_Brando
08-21-2005, 03:57 PM
I guess it just outlines the danger of quoting from websites written by racially and sexually-prejudiced pundits like the author(s) of the one in question. And then linking to them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

We should remember that anyone can publish any cr@p on the 'Net - but that doesn't validate it.

Airmail109
08-21-2005, 04:15 PM
Hurricanes in proportion to their numbers shot down the same percentage of planes as the Spitfire. I think the Spitfire represented a third of the RAFs fighter force during the battle of britain and so therefore shot down 1/3 whilst the hurricane shot down 2/3rds. (Im simplifying this to make it easier to convey, other types such as the defiant scored kills as well). The Spitfire on the otherhand was far less vunerable than the hurricane, and less Spitfires were shot down in proportion to their numbers. Had the fighter force been say made up completely of Spitfires, there would have been a substantial decrese in losses.

The myth that the hurricane was the plane that won the Battle of Britain because it "was easier to fly" or a "more stable gun platform", is often thrown around by the press, as the statistics show this theory is untrue. The Hurricane only shot more enemy planes down becasue of its numbers, its survival rate was also lower.

VW-IceFire
08-21-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
But maybe we can salvage it. I'm no expert but I've read many posts where people claim the Hurri missed further development because of the Spitfire's development. If this is true then I would be inclined to think Britain would have been better off without the Spitfire. I've always felt the Hurri was a better plane but not yet evolved. Give the Hurri some power and it would have been very deadly rather than just deadly.

Fritz
I'm going to have to say that I don't think that was true.

The Hurricane was the RAF's first monoplane fighter. When introduced, it was considerably faster and more capable than anything else in the RAF and definately on par with anything else in the world. By all accounts a modern fighter. But this was 1936. The Spitfires gestation period was longer and the design was more forward looking. While the Hurricane was largely conventional for the 1930s, the Spitfire was definately thinking ahead with an all metal construction.

Sydney Cam and Hawker were definately aware of this and the Typhoon was the progression of the Hurricane design (you can see it in the wings and tail).

The Typhoon was meant to be the next generation after the Spitfire and either a contemporary or a replacement. But this didn't work out quite so well. The Typhoons speed was impressive, but at high altitudes it performed badly and lacked manueverability. Its best attribute was straight line chases and it wasn't seen as worth keeping around. The short of the story of course was that the Typhoon became the premier Allied tank buster thanks to its impressive firepower (part of the initial design) and low alt speed. And Sydney Cam went back and designed the Tempest...which is two generations removed from the Hurricane but still a very direct decendant from that original design.

The Hurricane was evolved...but it became something different than most expected it to. Although the Spitfire got the spotlight, the Hurricane and its decendants had no less important roles in the RAF after the Battle of Britain and after the Hurricane had fallen behind as a frontline fighter.

As for the Battle of Britain...the Hurricane was not the best fighter for the job but it was the one they had the most of and it was "good enough" to do what it needed to do. Of all of the adversaries the Luftwaffe had faced until that point, the dual combination of the Spitfire, Hurricane, and the RAF's system of defense (radar, observation, command and control) were an impressive and deadly combination.

Stigler_9_JG52
08-21-2005, 04:48 PM
Good on (Me)Pilot1 for having the good sense to clean that original quote up. S!

Carry on with the discussion...

Zeus-cat
08-21-2005, 07:54 PM
If the quote has been altered from what the person originally said, then shouldn't the person using the quote indicate something has been removed from it by using ... or a note at the end of the quote stating it has been altered?

Zeus-cat

Majormajor-01
08-21-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Me (Pilot 1):
Yes, the reference the author made about camebridge was irrelevant to the post, to be honest I didnt even notice it the first skim through. My apologies, I hope those that read will now know without her contribution the Merlin engine would not have been and the brits would have used some other engine and would have been enslaved by the germans after losing the BOB. Think about it. She along with Sir Hugh Dowding were heroes.

Think about this for a second. What if the Rolls Royce Merlin wasn't developed. Think of the Spitfire, or the Mustang, suffering with an Allison (or equivilent) engine. The Battle Of Britian might have come out VERY different if it wasn't for Lady Houston. Whatever the post says or doesn't say about "the other subject", I think the world in general, and us in particular, owe this fine lady a debt of gratitude.

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
08-21-2005, 09:01 PM
Thanx Icefire. BTW, this short line form your post gave me a chuckle


Its best attribute was straight line chases

It seems no one has informed the AI of this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Me (Pilot 1)
08-21-2005, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
What if the Rolls Royce Merlin wasn't developed. Think of the Spitfire, or the Mustang, suffering with an Allison (or equivilent) engine. The Battle Of Britian might have come out VERY different if it wasn't for Lady Houston. I think the world in general, and us in particular, owe this fine lady a debt of gratitude.

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Exactly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Xiolablu3
08-21-2005, 09:49 PM
Anyone who has studied WW2 history properly knows that the invasion was a bluff to try and scare Britain into accepting Hitlers gains in Europe.

Hitler never wanted war with Britian, The Brits declared war on Germany.


And on the Spits vs Hurris debate, the Spit had a much better K/D ratio in the BOB.
Yes the Hurris shot down more planes, but that was only because there were more Hurris. If you look at it percentage wise, the Spits came out far on top.


Looks like Britain owes a lot to its Women in the war, 'Miss Schillings Orifice' helped a lot too...

Jungmann
08-21-2005, 09:51 PM
You could have strapped a plasma jet on the Hurricane and it wouldn't have gone much faster, thanks to that thick Sydney Camm candy bar wing. VW-Icefire has it right--the Typhoon was the Hurricane with a thinner wing and a bigger engine, and the Tempest was the fix for the Typhoon (Typhoons caught on fire a lot)

Cheers,

Me (Pilot 1)
08-21-2005, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Anyone who has studied WW2 history properly knows that the invasion was a bluff to try and scare Britain into accepting Hitlers gains in Europe.

Hitler never wanted war with Britian, The Brits declared war on Germany.


And on the Spits vs Hurris debate, the Spit had a much better K/D ratio in the BOB.
Yes the Hurris shot down more planes, but that was only because there were more Hurris. If you look at it percentage wise, the Spits came out far on top.


Looks like Britain owes a lot to its Women in the war, 'Miss Schillings Orifice' helped a lot too...

So if the Brits said "we were only bluffing please leave us alone" the Germans would've said "no prob dude". I think you gravely underestimate the totalness of the Germany's vision towards global dominance.

Try this on for size, Germany wins the BOB airwar and then invades, Churchill futilly drops anthrax bombs on Germany and the British peoples put on a valiant professional then guerilla war but eventually succumb. The USA sit on their hands and say "oops"

Me (Pilot 1)
08-22-2005, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Looks like Britain owes a lot to its Women in the war, 'Miss Schillings Orifice' helped a lot too...

A google for Miss Schillings Orifice came up empty, care to shed a little light?

Xiolablu3
08-22-2005, 12:52 AM
Sorry I spelt her name wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif All about Spitfires and engines cutting out.

Read this account-

http://www.jolyonpatten.com/wordpress/index.php?p=321


On your other point,

I dont think Germany would have invaded at all, you know how much planning and manpower the D Day landings took, Germany had nothing like this in 1940, it would have been a massacre with the Royal Navy (at that time with the biggest Navy in the world, pulling everything back to guard the channel, then the whole population on the coast with any gun they could muster.

Read the thoughts of the forces, primarily the German Navy and Luftwaffe Leaders on Operation Sealion. Most of the ones I have read say basically, this is madness or a bluff.

Maybe they would have tried it, I cant say for sure, but from what I read Hitler admired the Brits and wanted to co-rule with them as the Sea power and Germany as the land power in Europe/the world.

Sorry for jumping on you, it just struck a chord when you stated 'England would have been enslaved by Germany'. This to me is a big exaggeration which you see a lot in some (bad) history programmes/books. But they sure did enslave some people and worse.

Me (Pilot 1)
08-22-2005, 01:01 AM
The question of Hurricane vs Spitfire is redundant. The Spitfire was superior, no question about it.

The Air Ministry chose correctly in placing its shares Hurricanes. Hawker could come through with the goods, it could produce the numbers requested. Supermarine had its production scattered accross the countryside and could not wrap its head around Eli Whitneys concept of "interchangability". Fuselages were not mating properly with wings made at another plant as well as other problems needed to be resolved quickly.

The Hawker Typhoon had serious prolems with fuselage and engine. The fuselage issue was rectified during the war. It took Canadian engineers who looked into the Napier Sabre engine after the war to figure out its problems were the result of improper tolerances and quality control on the part of Napier. The Tempest was exceptional but the ultimate I have to argue from the WWII Hawker aircraft line was the Bristol Centaurus engined Tempest II a.k.a. Hawker Sea Fury.

As a footnote to Supermarine's production difficulties early on, have you seen any media of the Eurofighter production line, with it platforms and other remarkable manufacturing innovations? If Britain needs Eurofighters en masse in the future she will get them at a high rate indeed. I cant say as much about the F-22 from the production media I've seen so far.

Xiolablu3
08-22-2005, 01:07 AM
I htink the F22 is basically too expensive to be built in any usefull numbers.

The US and UK are building the YF35 for just that reason, to have a real 'workhorse' fighter which can do a lot but not cost the earth.

I think the F22 is for those 'one off' engagements that happen outside borders and say, 'dont mess with us, we got the F22 you know!', a bit like the B2.

I agree that , yes its an amazing plane, but hell its expensive and there wont be a lot of them built.

'Its a nice club to have in the bag' so to speak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But you will always need big numbers of 'real' planes to do the work. (F-35)

I dont know much about the Eurofighter except its a real good plane, not as good as the F22 , but not anywhere near as expensive either.

Me (Pilot 1)
08-22-2005, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
Think of the Spitfire, or the Mustang, suffering with an Allison (or equivilent) engine.


The Mustang did have to suffer with the Allison engine until it was mated with the Merlin LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Did you know the NAA Mustang was built to an exacting British specification? i.e. "build it the way we are asking, or we wont buy it"

Me (Pilot 1)
08-22-2005, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I htink the F22 is basically too expensive to be built in any usefull numbers.

The US and UK are building the YF35 for just that reason, to have a real 'workhorse' fighter which can do a lot but not cost the earth.

I think the F22 is for those 'one off' engagements that happen outside borders and say, 'dont mess with us, we got the F22 you know!', a bit like the B2.

I agree that , yes its an amazing plane, but hell its expensive and there wont be a lot of them built.

'Its a nice club to have in the bag' so to speak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But you will always need big numbers of 'real' planes to do the work. (F-35)

I dont know much about the Eurofighter except its a real good plane, not as good as the F22 , but not anywhere near as expensive either.

I agree Xiolablu3, you sound well informed.

Salfordian
08-22-2005, 02:22 AM
(Think I've posted this before). From the figures on http://www.battle-of-britain.com/, there where 35 operational hurricane sqns credited with 1516 and 2/5 kills in total (an average of 43 and 1/3 per sqn), compared to 19 operational spitfire sqns credited with 1188 kills (avg of 62 and 1/2 per sqn). Sorry, it doesn't give actual numbers of hurricanes and spitfires flown, just the sqns.

Also of interest is that, although the highest scoring unit was 303 (Polish) Sqn with 126 and 1/5 kills, six of the top ten scoring units where all spitfire sqns with the next highest hurricane sqns being 5th, 9th and 10th.

compass1
08-22-2005, 03:07 AM
Actually I think Lady Houston helped financially with the Schneider trophy project after government money was withdrawn.In 1931 the British government withdrew support but a private donation of 100,000 from Lady Lucy Houston allowed Supermarine to compete and win on September 13 against only British opposition, setting both a new world speed record (379 mph, about 606 km/h) and winning the trophy outright with three straight wins.

Aaron_GT
08-22-2005, 03:29 AM
What if the Rolls Royce Merlin wasn't developed.

It wasn't the only engine being developed, not even the only one by Rolls Royce. So lacking a Merlin we'd have seen a different engine in the Spitfire and Hurricane initially, for example a Hercules, or even a Pratt and Whitney.

WOLFMondo
08-22-2005, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
What if the Rolls Royce Merlin wasn't developed. Think of the Spitfire, or the Mustang, suffering with an Allison (or equivilent) engine.

The Merlin was great but it was also the supercharger technology that came with it that made is such a good engine at altitude. I'm sure had the Merlin not been built the British engineers who built the superchargers for the Merlins would have taken on the Allison and built something suitable.

Also there where other engines being built, Had RR not built the Merlin, Napier might have got more serious financial backing and the Sabre might have been developed more. Imagine if the Sabre VA had the same financial backing as the Merlin, the Sabre VA was leagues ahead in technology and the potential power it could develop although was 10ltrs larger so the Mustang might not have had the range but imagine the RR Merlin power planes with 3000HP Sabres in them instead.

Aaron_GT
08-22-2005, 06:21 AM
Sabre might have been developed more.

That would have been a bit late for the first Hurricanes and Spitfires, though, and not really ready for market until late 1941. Even with extra money poured in I don't think the Sabre could have been ready much earlier. This is why I suggested the likes of rhe Hercules, which was ready in the right timeframe, and had a good run of improvements up to around 1700hp. I am not sure if the high altitude performance would have been enough, though.

With the right turbocharger (as in the P38) the Allison would also do the job. The P51A was also faster at sea level than the first P51Bs so an Allison Spitfire, coupled with a suitable turbocharger might have deflected the Fw190 raider threat in 1942 without needing the Typhoon.

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-22-2005, 06:29 AM
Plans were drawn up but never completed to fit the Hurri with Napier Dagger, Bristol Hercules and R/R Griffon engines - the first two looking particularly ugly. The Yugoslavians put a Daimler-Benz DB601A in a Hurri as a one-off experiment.

Without the Merlin, not only the Hurri, Spit and Mustang would need alternative powerplants - don't forget the Mossie and the Lanc.

Zyzbot
08-22-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Me (Pilot 1):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
Think of the Spitfire, or the Mustang, suffering with an Allison (or equivilent) engine.


The Mustang did have to suffer with the Allison engine until it was mated with the Merlin LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Did you know the NAA Mustang was built to an exacting British specification? i.e. "build it the way we are asking, or we wont buy it" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The P-51 began when the RAF came to the U. S. to buy an existing design, the P-40 Warhawk. They visited North American Aviation and Dutch Kindleberger convinced them he could make a better plane. N.A.A. completed the P-51 prototype in a short period of time ( 120 days?) and the British bought it.

The Allison powered Mustangs also served successfully in combat to the end of the war. It saw extensive use in the China-Burma-India theatre.

p1ngu666
08-22-2005, 09:30 AM
typhoon actully had a thicker wing than the hurricane, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
08-22-2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sabre might have been developed more.

That would have been a bit late for the first Hurricanes and Spitfires, though, and not really ready for market until late 1941. Even with extra money poured in I don't think the Sabre could have been ready much earlier. This is why I suggested the likes of rhe Hercules, which was ready in the right timeframe, and had a good run of improvements up to around 1700hp. I am not sure if the high altitude performance would have been enough, though.

With the right turbocharger (as in the P38) the Allison would also do the job. The P51A was also faster at sea level than the first P51Bs so an Allison Spitfire, coupled with a suitable turbocharger might have deflected the Fw190 raider threat in 1942 without needing the Typhoon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem at Napier was lack of funds, the first H type engines from Sabre where around in the late 1920's and early 30's. One of the Supermarine schnieder trophy winners was powered with one of these.

If Napier had the same financial backing from the mid 30's onwards the Spitfire and Hurricane may well have been developed around the Sabre instead which would have given it time to work the teething problems out in the pre-war years much like the Merlin had.

Pirschjaeger
08-22-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry I spelt her name wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif All about Spitfires and engines cutting out.

Read this account-

http://www.jolyonpatten.com/wordpress/index.php?p=321


On your other point,

I dont think Germany would have invaded at all, you know how much planning and manpower the D Day landings took, Germany had nothing like this in 1940, it would have been a massacre with the Royal Navy (at that time with the biggest Navy in the world, pulling everything back to guard the channel, then the whole population on the coast with any gun they could muster.

Read the thoughts of the forces, primarily the German Navy and Luftwaffe Leaders on Operation Sealion. Most of the ones I have read say basically, this is madness or a bluff.

Maybe they would have tried it, I cant say for sure, but from what I read Hitler admired the Brits and wanted to co-rule with them as the Sea power and Germany as the land power in Europe/the world.

Sorry for jumping on you, it just struck a chord when you stated 'England would have been enslaved by Germany'. This to me is a big exaggeration which you see a lot in some (bad) history programmes/books. But they sure did enslave some people and worse.

Just like to add from a business point of view it would have been silly to invade England. England is an import country.

Fritz

Aaron_GT
08-22-2005, 12:34 PM
not only the Hurri, Spit and Mustang would need alternative powerplants - don't forget the Mossie and the Lanc.

A version of the Lanc used Hercules. The Sabre was considered for the 'super Mosquito'.

Sounds like the Sabre could have been an alternative, though.

DmdSeeker
08-22-2005, 12:46 PM
I've always wondered why RR didn't just make the Merlin a bit bigger...

But a change of engine has other implications. Imagine if the Spit had been powered by an inverted V such as the 109?

A Spit with prop-hub mounted Hispano and two fifties in the nose; any one?