Not a single bit from the HS 12 familiy of engines fit on a VK-107.But still developed from the previous engines, so it was a member of the Hispano-Suiza 12 family of engines.
It's hard to figure out which engine would fit best.no love for the Vickers Venom (probably in place of the Gladiator)
?
Fitting parts doesn't matter, as long as the engine was developed by modifying the previous engine and not designing it from scratch, it's a member of the family, and represents one potential of the basic design of that engine family. Besides, the HS 12Y wasn't worse than the DB 601- it didn't have dry sleeves or a combination of gallery oil feed and inverted layout, so it actually worked reliably in exchange for its lower power. It may have been worse than a Merlin or Jumo 210/211, but it could match a DB 601 overall.Not a single bit from the HS 12 familiy of engines fit on a VK-107.
Same as not a single bolt from the Buzzard will be able to fit on a Griffon for the Griffon to work as it should.
We can debate the family issues all day, the HS 12Y was still a worse engine than the DB 601 or Merlin, and by a good margin. Unfortunately, the best French engine was that HS 12Y.
thanks, this is fascinating. Spitfire goes from 145% of 1940 hurricane to 126% of 1940 hurricane in ~2 years while presumably also gaining more complexity in terms of e.g. tank installation. Also shows the difference between designed for production machines in modern industry (bf109, P-51) vs Italian arts and crafts approach, with UK somewhere in between.From a long set of PMs I made on an ideal WWII fighter:
Spitfire Mk 1A January 1940: 15,000
Spitfire Mk V 1942: 13,000
Hurricane January 1940: 10,300
But on that basis one might as well say that the Mistral Major was successfully stretched to 1600hp and should have been a fully competitive war-winning engine for France. However SNECMA getting the 14R to the same level in 1949 that Merlin etc had in 1942 isn‘t much use to anyone, so it’s more informative and succinct to say - all the french engines were poor during the rearmament period.But still developed from the previous engines, so it was a member of the Hispano-Suiza 12 family of engines.
Astonishing list! My first (witless) thought was: how many man-hours did that take to compile the list?Bombers:
Battle January 1940: 24,000
I believe the me 109d was convertible to me109e. I believe it may have just needed an engine swap and some small modification.Idle question but the Germans built over 600 Bf-109D. What happened to them after being phased out of service? Is there a reason they could not be handed over to their minor allies when they were still flying P.24s and biplanes?
If you're evaluating the engine as it existed and not whether it was worth developing further, then yes, the existing HS 12Y was largely inferior to the Merlin, Jumo 210, and V-1710 families. It was certainly superior to the old WWI-era engines with individual cylinders (Liberty, BMW III, Napier Lion families), and still superior to early monoblock wet-sleeve engines (Curtiss D-12, Kestrel families). Against a DB 600 series engine, it was a better design so more reliable (DB never fixed the problems with the engine), though was more lightly built so less powerful in the HS 12Y variant, so it was probably a match for a DB 600 or 601, though inferior to a later 601, or any 605 or 603.But on that basis one might as well say that the Mistral Major was successfully stretched to 1600hp and should have been a fully competitive war-winning engine for France. However SNECMA getting the 14R to the same level in 1949 that Merlin etc had in 1942 isn‘t much use to anyone, so it’s more informative and succinct to say - all the french engines were poor during the rearmament period.
Again, in a lineup of Merlin, DB201, JM210, V-1710, 12Y and even the Kestrel then picking out the 12Y looks like the booby prize, although it’s still much better than nothing. Also better than a Liberty, BMW VI etc I think?
But with poor power, poor altitude, poor reliability, expensive, it’s not very compelling. By the time all the issues are resolved one could have engineered an early Grifon or DB603 for about the same effort (or an XI-1430, Vulture etc if one is unlucky). However in the sales pitch it looked good, the Hispano legacy was legendary, and by the time the scope of the issues were realised it was too late to start over.
Jumo 210 was perhaps 3rd league engine, even the Kestrel or Mercury were better. A V12 of 19L displacement will not be going very far.Besides, the HS 12Y wasn't worse than the DB 601- it didn't have dry sleeves or a combination of gallery oil feed and inverted layout, so it actually worked reliably in exchange for its lower power. It may have been worse than a Merlin or Jumo 210/211, but it could match a DB 601 overall.
Again, in a lineup of Merlin, DB201, JM210, V-1710, 12Y and even the Kestrel then picking out the 12Y looks like the booby prize, although it’s still much better than nothing. Also better than a Liberty, BMW VI etc I think?
But with poor power, poor altitude, poor reliability, expensive, it’s not very compelling. By the time all the issues are resolved one could have engineered an early Grifon or DB603 for about the same effort (or an XI-1430, Vulture etc if one is unlucky). However in the sales pitch it looked good, the Hispano legacy was legendary, and by the time the scope of the issues were realised it was too late to start over.
This assumes that the nation building or buying the minimum fighter will be threatened by one of the major powers. The nation may for example be in South America and not need first rate European standard aircraft, just something reasonably modern that they can maintain with their existing facilities.
The second performance goal of a minimum fighter is top cover. That is operating as an escort fighter when the enemy does not have radar. This means that intercepting fighters are almost always climbing, reducing their effectiveness significantly as opposed to a fighter at altitude. It also includes operating defensively against bombers and fighter escorts with a radar advantage (where you can reliably be at altitude before attackers).
This performance goal is one that very few fighters discussed here can fulfill.
It's an interesting distinction.
Sorry, I’m unbelievably incompetent at typing on a tablet. Yes, DB601 but even the Luftwaffe couldn’t get enough of those. Not sure about availability of the Jumo engines but I assume easier to get the 210 than 211 which in turn easier than DB601 - although all may have been unavailable for export? V-1710 is probably more a concept than a reality in rearmament period with only a few dozen examples available in 1939. So all those are more like “here’s what you could have won” I suppose. Then there are ramp head merlins, Kestrels, 12Ys of which one is decent, one is interesting and the last somewhat sub-par IMO. Then all the round engines.DB is probably the 601? Jumo - we'd want the 211?
HS 12Y was a decent engine, however being 3rd or 4th best is not much of an accomplishment.
Jumo 210 was probably easiest to get of German V12 engines. The 211 was a bit later than the DB 601A by a few months; indeed nobody gets those unless it is in bed with Nazi Germany, or nazi Germany want's them there.Yes, DB601 but even the Luftwaffe couldn’t get enough of those. Not sure about availability of the Jumo engines but I assume easier to get the 210 than 211 which in turn easier than DB601 - although all may have been unavailable for export? V-1710 is probably more a concept than a reality in rearmament period with only a few dozen examples available in 1939. So all those are more like “here’s what you could have won” I suppose. Then there are ramp head merlins, Kestrels, 12Ys of which one is decent, one is interesting and the last somewhat sub-par IMO.
HS12Y seems to have been OK so long as it was not required to make maximum possible power, but unfortunately that is exactly what everyone wants from a military engine. Especially if the neighbours are hostile and have very good engines available to them. The reliability problems could probably have been worked around in the same way the Russians worked around their engine issues if the AdA had plentiful spare aircraft, engines and parts but unfortunately they did not. Failing that it would need a very efficient airframe to avoid demanding too much power.
Which brings me back back to the 109. Cheap, small, probably effective even with limited power, it or something very like it is very attractive despite its many well known flaws and it is a pity that none of the small light weight fighters like Arsenal, Caudron, Ambrosini, XP-77 got the same formula working in a similar timeframe. The LW gets a lot of stick for never moving on from the 109 but if they really were getting them for half or a third the man-hours of a spitfire I can see why they would cling to it.
The question defies the military logic of any period. Any fighter plane that isn't near the top of the food chain will get eaten. Of course pilot quality is a huge factor in air combat, but it can only go so far. The Bf-110 was flown by some of the best German pilots, and we saw the results. The F-2F was cannon fodder in the pacific. The P-40 was marginal. Obviously an air force has to balance numbers, and cost, but has to go with the best performance it can reasonable get. The cost of being second best is just too high.
Ok, what I said about the Bf-110 had nothing to do with what Norwegian, or Polish pilots were flying, because they weren't buying planes from Germany anyway. The Bf-110 was the victim of rapidly changing technology. When it entered service it was faster then just about anything in the air, so it's lack of maneuverability wasn't so critical, but the situation changed by 1940. The French were major aircraft producers themselves, so that's irrelevant to the question. As I said small powers have to buy fighters on the basis of what they can afford, and their political alignment. Smaller powers also have minimal orders, if their not at war, but once their in a war they face the same quality vs quantity questions major air forces face.We can also point on other stuff that defies logic. Like Bf 110 having any bearing on what the Norwegian, Polish or French pilots will be flying. Or that it took US Navy decades to introduce a monoplane fighter, despite having huge carriers in service.
The case of Bf 110 shows that having the biggest and baddest fighter might not be such a good idea in the 1st place.