Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on April 08, 2009, 05:08:58 PM
-
How many, and which, significant WWII combat aircraft began their design process after the war started and were designed based on combat experience? Not upgrades of older airframes, but entirely new designs.
F4U?
Ki-84?
B-29?
Me262?
Mosquito?
-
B-29 I would say. It was the B-36 and now the B-52.
-
Spanish civil war count?
-
F4U began development before the war started, although lessons learned in the BoB were applied to her design (particularly armament).
-
F6F and P-61 I think are the only two for American fighters if you don't count the F7F and F8F. F4U and P-51 designs started before the war started.
SB2C and A-26 for American attack aircraft?
B-29 for American bombers?
-
Spanish civil war count?
No. I'd count from Sept., '39 for Britain and Germany, June, '41 for the USSR and Dec., 1941 for the US and Japan.
-
F4U began development before the war started, although lessons learned in the BoB were applied to her design (particularly armament).
Beat me to it. :aok
Believe it or not, the same can be said for the F6F. Was on the boards prior to Pearl Harbor, although I'm sure the captured Zero prompted some needed design changes.
-
Believe it or not, the same can be said for the F6F. Was on the boards prior to Pearl Harbor
I didn't know that. I didn't think they started designing it until after the war had started. Of course, with a first flight in summer of 1942, that would have been a quick turn around.
-
I didn't know that. I didn't think they started designing it until after the war had started. Of course, with a first flight in summer of 1942, that would have been a quick turn around.
Yeah, but frankly given the way aircraft designs go from conceptual to preliminary design, with significant (sometimes major) changes along the way, it could be debatable when something we'd all agree on as being say, an F6F, was actually born. It would be interesting to see how many pertubations Grumman's G-50 went thru before it settled into something we'd recognize as a Hellcat.
-
Me262 was on the drawing board before the war started, wasn't it? I read somewhere the plans were laid out in April of 1939?
-
The Mustang was designed in 1940 after its intended user (the RAF) entered the war and using their combat experience.
-
Me 163 (though it had some pre-war roots)
He 162
Ju 188/388, (depending if you see them as independend designs or merely advanced Ju 88 variants)
He 219
Ar 234
Transports, not really "combat" aircraft:
Ju 252 and 352 (minor production only, about 60 planes delivered)
Me 323 (and 321)
Ar 232
-
Not significant, but the CAC Boomerang was designed and built after the outbreak of hostilities.
Development
The Wirraway trainer provided a starting point for the Boomerang's airframe. CAC general manager (and former chief designer) Lawrence Wackett and chief designer Fred David began detailed design work at the CAC factory in Fishermans Bend, Melbourne on 21 December 1941. David was a Jewish refugee from Austria, who had worked on aircraft designs for Heinkel in pre-Nazi Germany, as well as for Mitsubishi and Aichi in Japan.[2][3] As a result, he had a comprehensive knowledge of advanced contemporary fighter designs, including the Heinkel He 112 and A6M Zero.
The RAAF ordered 105 CA-12 (Mark I) Boomerangs on 2 February 1942, before the prototype first flew on 29 May 1942.
-
The Mustang was designed in 1940 after its intended user (the RAF) entered the war and using their combat experience.
Good point
-
No. I'd count from Sept., '39 for Britain and Germany, June, '41 for the USSR and Dec., 1941 for the US and Japan.
The war didn't start for Japan in 1941, unless you're not counting their invasion and occupation of China prior to war with the US.
ack-ack
-
The war didn't start for Japan in 1941, unless you're not counting their invasion and occupation of China prior to war with the US.
ack-ack
Correct, just like I am not counting Germany's actions prior to their invasion of Poland. Basically just looking at the major participants involvement with each other. I guess I could have counted Japan vs Russia, but I never got the impression that either side learned much from that.
-
No. I'd count from Sept., '39 for Britain and Germany, June, '41 for the USSR and Dec., 1941 for the US and Japan.
I was asking because it would seem that the Spanish civil war influenced both the axis and the Soviets.
-
Beat me to it. :aok
Believe it or not, the same can be said for the F6F. Was on the boards prior to Pearl Harbor, although I'm sure the captured Zero prompted some needed design changes.
The first Cyclone-equipped prototype (02981) flew on 26 June 1942 while the first Double Wasp-equipped aircraft, the XF6F-3 (02982) had its first flight on 30 July 1942.
The A6M Zero fighter 'Akutan Zero' wasn't loaded onto a ship bound for the continental United States, until Jul 1942.
-
In October 1938, the Ministry rejected the deHavilland proposal for a twin engined unarmed bomber.
-
In April of 1940 British purchasing commission contracted North American to create an advanced fighter to supplant the spitfire. Prototype pf P-51 the NA-73X flown on October 26th of that year.
-
How many, and which, significant WWII combat aircraft began their design process after the war started and were designed based on combat experience? Not upgrades of older airframes, but entirely new designs.
...
Mosquito?
It was a pretty picture on a drawing board before the war. The design was finished and a prototype was built after the war started.
-
How about the La-7?
-
The first British jet powered aircraft, the single-engined Gloster E28/39 prototype, had its maiden flight on 15 May 1941. The Air Ministry subsequently contracted for the development of a twin-engined jet fighter under Specification F9/40. The aircraft was to have been named Thunderbolt, but to avoid confusion with the USAAF P-47 Thunderbolt the name was changed to Meteor.
A significant plane I'd say, even if it's direct affect on the war was minimal.
-
moin
these FW projeckt. called flitzer.
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/01/images/kozel_flitzer_06.jpg)
was the vampire after the war...
cu chris3
-
No. I'd count from Sept., '39 for Britain and Germany, June, '41 for the USSR and Dec., 1941 for the US and Japan.
You can do that but really WWII started at the signing of the Versailles Treaty.
-
Perhaps the Lancaster? First test-flight at January 9, 1941. Not sure when it was put on the drawing table though.
-
moin
these FW projeckt. called flitzer.
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/01/images/kozel_flitzer_06.jpg)
was the vampire after the war...
cu chris3
Ahh, those beloved LW myths :)
The first "Flitzer" studies started in 43/44
The Vampire had it's maiden flight in September 43...
-
Perhaps the Lancaster? First test-flight at January 9, 1941. Not sure when it was put on the drawing table though.
I wouldn't count that, as the Lancaster was the four engined version of the Manchester, which did fly in July 39.
-
I wouldn't count that, as the Lancaster was the four engined version of the Manchester, which did fly in July 39.
Dang I lose! :D
I would've nominated the P-38, but amazingly its specifications were already stated in 1937!
-
Perhaps the Lancaster? First test-flight at January 9, 1941. Not sure when it was put on the drawing table though.
Lancaster and Halifax both stem from a procurment request in 1936.
-
The request for a plane to replace the wildcat may have been placed on the books before the war, but the specific plans for the F6F itself weren't put in place until after the war started. Using pilot experience in combat, the plans incorporated all the USN pilots wanted against the Japanese planes.
Kind of implies the plans were drawn up AFTER the war started, no?
-
The request for a plane to replace the wildcat may have been placed on the books before the war, but the specific plans for the F6F itself weren't put in place until after the war started. Using pilot experience in combat, the plans incorporated all the USN pilots wanted against the Japanese planes.
Kind of implies the plans were drawn up AFTER the war started, no?
So Grumman designed built and prepared the a/c for its first flight in just 6 months? What was Grumman doing from June 30 1941 then when the contract was signed for the prototype?
The second Hellcat prototype had the R-2800 installed for more performance due to combat with the A6Ms.
-
Karnak,real interesting topic :aok are you only considering airframes that saw combat or would A/C that had a flying prototype qualify???
-
So Grumman designed built and prepared the a/c for its first flight in just 6 months? What was Grumman doing from June 30 1941 then when the contract was signed for the prototype?
Grumman had to build a new facility, Plant Number 3, to produce the Hellcat. Obtaining the structural steel for the buildings was a challenge, met in part by the purchase of scrap from the Second Avenue El. Even before Plant Number 3 was finished, Hellcats began rolling off the production lines. Another Grumman test pilot, Selden "Connie" Converse took up a production F6F-3 for the first time on October 3, 1942. Grumman's Hellcat output picked up quickly: 12 planes in the last quarter of 1942, 128 in the first quarter of 1943, and then 130 in the month of April, 1943. Eventually they would be churning out 500 per month.
wrongway
-
On June 30, 1941 the Navy ordered the prototypes XF6F-1 and XF6F-2. They were to have the Wright R-2600-16 engine, producing 1,700 horsepower, on the -1 and a Wright 2800-16 fitted with a turbo-supercharger on the -2.
Guess that removes the F6F.
-
Karnak,real interesting topic :aok are you only considering airframes that saw combat or would A/C that had a flying prototype qualify???
Anything is interesting, but I was mainly interested in the ones that managed to get in and be used.
The thought that sparked the question was how much of WWII was actually fought with equipment that had been designed to theoretical needs in the 1930s and then been hodgepodged to do what actually turned out to be needed. How few aircraft that were built based on the lessons learned in combat that actually managed to see combat.
-
The thing is, some aircraft that were first designed before the war began were STILL influenced by combat observations before they actually entered production.
As I mentioned before, look at the F4U Corsair. The original design in 1937/38 called for two .50cal in the nose and a pair of .30cal in each wing, much like the P-40B. Additionally, they had the idea of loading bomblets in bays under the wings that the Corsair would drop into bomber formations from above. Fuel tanks were solely in the wings so the cockpit was further forward. It wasn't until the response to observations of combat over Britain and Europe that the cowl guns and bomblet bays were eliminated, the four .30s replaced with six .50cal, and the cockpit was moved aft to accommodate the fuselage fuel tank.
So the Corsair was originally designed under those theoretical needs of the 1930s, but the final production version was actually BUILT based on the lessons learned in combat.
-
True, so it could be that designs that were still in very fluid stages of development count as much as ones that started after the war began.
-
Ta-152.
-
Ta-152.
The Ta-152 was based on the Fw.190... that's like saying the Dora was as well.
-
The Ta-152 was based on the Fw.190... that's like saying the Dora was as well.
Semantics. Several of the Ta152's features were used a long time after WWII. It was a redesign of the Dora, which came into being around 43-44 itself.
-
The 190d/ta152 was so different in design from anything before in the 190 line it could be considered a new design entirely.
It would be like saying the F6F is part of the wildcat design, IMO :D
EDIT: More likely saying the P-40 is part of the P-36 design! A simple engine change never before yielded such major results.
-
Guess that removes the F6F.
How does placing an order disqualify the F6F? Design work began in earnest in August of 1941. The initial design was submitted in December of 1941, but was almost immediately revised with the Navy's order of January 1942. Design work continued through May of 1942.
I've spent 30 years in Design Engineering. A design is finalized until prototypes are built, tested and approved. This did not occur for the F6F until July of 1942. 13 months later, F6Fs were in combat. No other major combatant in WWII went from prototype to combat in anything approaching the 13 months for the F6F-3. It isn't a design until it's ready to fly.
Look at the XF4U-1. Vought submitted their proposal in April of 1938! It took them 13 months to build and test the prototype. The prototype didn't fly until May of 1940. It wasn't until June of 1942 that the first production F4U-1 flew and none saw combat until February of 1943. That's 33 months from prototype to combat.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The 190d/ta152 was so different in design from anything before in the 190 line it could be considered a new design entirely.
The Fw 190D was a stopgap design to get a Jumo 213 engined 190 into production while the Ta-152 was being prepared. That's why production started with the D-9, with no preceding D-1, -2, -3, etc.- the Fw 190D-9 was an Fw 190A-9 with only the modifications required for the Jumo 213 to operate and for the airframe to have acceptable stability. The only modifications made in the D-9 airframe that distinguish it from the earlier A series airframe were changes in the bulk head due to the dimensions of the Jumo 213, and of course the addition of the .5m section of tail between the attachment point of the tailplane and the forward section of the fuselage (and the required extension of the control rods going to the rudder, elevators etc.) .
The Ta-152 was much more heavily modified of course, but I would say that the extent of modification between the Fw 190A and the Ta-152 does not eclipse in any amount of significance the difference between, say the Bf 109E and the Bf 109F (or G maybe).
-
The Fw 190D was a stopgap design to get a Jumo 213 engined 190 into production while the Ta-152 was being prepared. That's why production started with the D-9, with no preceding D-1, -2, -3, etc.- the Fw 190D-9 was an Fw 190A-9 with only the modifications required for the Jumo 213 to operate and for the airframe to have acceptable stability. The only modifications made in the D-9 airframe that distinguish it from the earlier A series airframe were changes in the bulk head due to the dimensions of the Jumo 213, and of course the addition of the .5m section of tail between the attachment point of the tailplane and the forward section of the fuselage (and the required extension of the control rods going to the rudder, elevators etc.) .
The Ta-152 was much more heavily modified of course, but I would say that the extent of modification between the Fw 190A and the Ta-152 does not eclipse in any amount of significance the difference between, say the Bf 109E and the Bf 109F (or G maybe).
From an aerodynamic standpoint, there was a very large difference between the 152 and 190D9. Comparitively, there was little aerodynamic difference between the 109E and F. Just another way of looking at it. From an aerodynamic perspective, the Ta-152 might as well be a different aircraft. I'd say a similar comparison for the 190/152 would be the difference between a P-47 and the P-72, whereas the 109 comparison would be more akin to the difference between a P-47D and a P-47N.
-
Which Ta-152?
-
Which Ta-152?
The H model--the one we have in game? You can't build a wing that different, stretch the fuselage and build an entirely new empenage on the fly. That's a ton of differences with respect to how it will behave aerodynamically.
-
That's why production started with the D-9, with no preceding D-1, -2, -3, etc.- the Fw 190D-9 was an Fw 190A-9 with only the modifications required for the Jumo 213 to operate and for the airframe to have acceptable stability.
I disagree. The Dora didn't start at -0 because it picked up where the 190C left off, with a redesignation.
Beaufighters were made with as many parts from a Beaufort bomber as possible to speed up production time. Similar planes were tested on the US side (can't recall the name, used P51 tail, etc). The high alt prototype the LW designed shared a lot of shapes/likenesses as the Bf109, but was a different design (again sharing parts to speed up production).
The 190D can be said to be a variant (I sort of agree), but the Ta152 was drastically different in internal layout, weaponry, pressurized cockpits, performace, and pretty much only shared a fuselage/tail with the 190A models, for production simplicity.
-
From all the information I have on Fw's the Ta-152 was intended to be a modification of the 190 series. The Dora series was an intermediate step to the Ta-152. If Hitler hadn't gotten involved by trying to reward Kurt Tank, it would have had an Fw 190 designation instead of Ta. The plug to lengthen the Ta's fuselage is similar to the plug in the Dora tail, just longer. As to the wing design, it is significantly different, but it was intended to mate to the 190 fuselage in exactly the same manner.
So based on the information I have, It's my opinion that they didn't use the components because they were available. Instead, they used the components because they were tasked with modifying an existing design to create the Dora, and ultimately the Ta-152.
[hijack-warning]
unless we want to get into the specifics of the orders that were placed to build the aircraft we're discussing, we many want to approach this differently. A different discussion/thread might be in order, something like "How much of an aircraft design can be modified before it should be considered a new design?"
[/hijack-warning]
-
I disagree. The Dora didn't start at -0 because it picked up where the 190C left off, with a redesignation.
Beaufighters were made with as many parts from a Beaufort bomber as possible to speed up production time. Similar planes were tested on the US side (can't recall the name, used P51 tail, etc). The high alt prototype the LW designed shared a lot of shapes/likenesses as the Bf109, but was a different design (again sharing parts to speed up production).
The 190D can be said to be a variant (I sort of agree), but the Ta152 was drastically different in internal layout, weaponry, pressurized cockpits, performace, and pretty much only shared a fuselage/tail with the 190A models, for production simplicity.
There's not really any room to disagree...
5.1 Focke-Wulf Technical Description No. 268: The Fw 190 D-9
A. General
The Fw 190 D single seater is the result of a requirement to install the Jumo 213 A in the Fw 190 A-8 airframe with the minimum possible modifications to the fuselage. It is intended that the Jumo 213 A standard power plant should find the widest possible use. There is no engine mounted cannon, however the engine is designed in such a way as to allow the later installation of the MK 108 (but not the MK 103). A .5 meter fuselage extension required for reasons of stability partly compensates for the aircraft's nose-heaviness resulting from the installation of the heavier engine. Depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft, 10 to 30 kg of ballast has to be affixed in the vertical stabilizer.
The Fw 190 D-9 represents an interim solution pending the introduction of the Ta 152 and will be delivered in limited numbers hence the requirement to minimize changes and associated costs. For reasons of engine availability, the large production numbers planned for the Fw 190 make it necessarky to introduce as soon as possible a version powered by the Jumo 213 A to complement those powered by the BMW 801 TH (*Fw 190 A-9) engines. As well, the Fw 190 D represents a back up solution in the event that deliveries of the BMW 801 engine are halted for reasons associated with the war.
I made a mistake in my last post, there was a D-1 and -2. However these were developments of the C series/Ta-153 (DB 603) and were completely independent of the D-9+/Ta 152.
-
Correct, just like I am not counting Germany's actions prior to their invasion of Poland. Basically just looking at the major participants involvement with each other. I guess I could have counted Japan vs Russia, but I never got the impression that either side learned much from that.
True, most of Japan's lessons learned with their war with China before Pearl Harbor was mostly tactical in nature.
ack-ack
-
Did anyone mention the Tiffie/Tempest?
-
Did anyone mention the Tiffie/Tempest?
1937/1938
-
1937/1938
First flight was October 1939; Vulture powered Tornado (Sabre powered airframes were Typhoons). Sabre wasn't ready until 1940.
My regards,
Widewing
-
First flight was October 1939; Vulture powered Tornado (Sabre powered airframes were Typhoons). Sabre wasn't ready until 1940.
My regards,
Widewing
Design process started right after Hawker finished the Hurricane in 1937.
-
Design process started right after Hawker finished the Hurricane in 1937.
It did, but a design process means little. 99% of the time, the concept and the final design are as different as night and day. Designs begin as engineering studies. Until you start cutting metal, a design is really nothing more than an illustrated idea. Thus, I would classify the start of construction of a prototype as the date of significance.
My regards,
Widewing
-
March 1938 then.
-
March 1938 then.
I believe that manufacturing drawings began being released in May of 1938. Drawings are released to manufacture components, so I would set the date at May of 1938. Still well over a year before the war began.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I believe that manufacturing drawings began being released in May of 1938. Drawings are released to manufacture components, so I would set the date at May of 1938. Still well over a year before the war began.
My regards,
Widewing
I'm not going to argue exactly when the "process" of building a prototype starts; that you now agree it was 1938 is good enough for me. ;)
1937/1938
-
Ahh, those beloved LW myths :)
The first "Flitzer" studies started in 43/44
The Vampire had it's maiden flight in September 43...
moin Lusche, dam you got me again, didnt knew that. i thought it for years because of the same locking and the knewing that the vampire is a bird of the 50s-60s but i have wikepediaded it yesterday, you are right, i learn something new every day lol.
cu chris3
-
The Tornado differs quite a bit, but thank's anyway....
-
The Tornado differs quite a bit, but thank's anyway....
The Tornado and Typhoon were developed in parallel. Both prototypes were mostly complete in late 1938 / early 1939, but had to wait for the engines.
-
The first Tornado, P5219, had a Hurricane type radiator Angus. The second Tornado prototype, P5224, had a nose radiator as did the Typhoon. The only way to tell them apart was by the exhaust stacks.
-
Am I right that they shared the "super engine" idea, like the Avro Manchester and later on even German aircraft like the He-177?
For a fighter a slightly bigger airframe coupled with a very much more powerful powerplant?
Anyway, I really thought they went up in 1940 or so. (Tiffie/Tornado), and now, the Tempest is a long way forward (Completely different wing). And then, it had to go with the Napier-Sabre instead of the Centaurus etc etc.
Anyway, ultimately ended up with the Hawker Sea Fury. Now that was one heck of an aircraft...
-
Am I right that they shared the "super engine" idea, like the Avro Manchester and later on even German aircraft like the He-177?
Yes, both the Vulture (Tornado and Manchester) and Sabre (Typhoon) were 24 cylinder 4-row engines like the DB 610.
-
The Vulture used an X configuration.
The Sabre used an H configuration.
The DB used paired blocks.
(http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db610a.jpg)
-
The RR Vulture used two modified RR Peregrine V cylinder blocks mounted one above the other, the bottom one inverted to give the "X" shape. The DB 610 used two DB 605 cylinder blocks mounted side-by-side in an inverted W configuration. The Napier Sabre was based on the Napier Dagger and even if it is the only engine of the three that was designed from the start as a 24 cylinder 4-row engine it is still essentially two vertically opposed inline engines lying side-by-side and driving two crankshafts.
-
And the Sabre was the only one that worked properly? Hence the Manchester turning Lancaster and the He-177 Greif being nicknamed as the "Burning coffin"?!?!
BTW, as a question, how far was the Centaurus engine in that line? After all, that was the one intended for the Tempest before? The sabre powered Tempest was simply there as a stop-gap right?
-
The Vulture is often described as a doubled up Kestrel or Peregrine but was actually a totally new design. The only features used were the bore (5.0") and stroke(5.5"). One design feature was the ability to have the bore bored out due to the 6.1" cylinder spacing. This was not possible with the Kestrel/Peregrine.
-
the Hawker Sea Fury. Now that was one heck of an aircraft...
Still is... :aok
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/842420September20Fury20night20run.jpg)
-
Angus, none of them really worked properly though the Sabre and DB 610 were the least troublesome (and that's saying something about the others). The Sabre's sleeve-valve system was never sorted properly out, and the complexity of production and quality control difficulties gave the Sabre reliability and maintenance problems throughout its service life. The DB 610 also suffered from reliability issues most of its service life, mostly due to the cramped installation in the He 177's nacelles resulting in inadequate cooling and build-up of combustible liquids in the nacelles, which then became a fire hazard. The Centaurus engine was initially seen as too primitive a design compared to the Vulture and Sabre, and thus its development was neglected by British authorities. Only after the Sabre had proved itself problematic in every way did Bristol get the proper funding to develop the Centaurus. I wouldn't say that the Sabre powered Tempest was a "stop-gap" measure since the Centaurus had been in production since 1942 and first saw service that same year powering the Vickers Warwick. So when the Centaurus powered Tempest II entered service in 1944 the engine had already been flying for two years.
-
I'm not going to argue exactly when the "process" of building a prototype starts; that you now agree it was 1938 is good enough for me. ;)
Never said otherwise... The Typhoon was a pre-war design.
However, being a Design Engineer for an aerospace company, I do recognize when a design becomes something concrete. Concepts are not designs. Moreover, I disagree with the entire idea of the thread of dating an aircraft to the time they began considering a design concept. It ignores the realities of the process.
A design does not truly exist until it is released for prototype production. You can bet the farm and the baby that the final prototype configuration will be dramatically different than the initial sketches.
My regards,
Widewing
-
A design does not truly exist until it is released for prototype production. You can bet the farm and the baby that the final prototype configuration will be dramatically different than the initial sketches.
Agreed. I have never seen the two match op more than superficially, sometimes even core requirements of the procurement request have gone by the wayside.
-
Angus, none of them really worked properly though the Sabre and DB 610 were the least troublesome (and that's saying something about the others). The Sabre's sleeve-valve system was never sorted properly out, and the complexity of production and quality control difficulties gave the Sabre reliability and maintenance problems throughout its service life. The DB 610 also suffered from reliability issues most of its service life, mostly due to the cramped installation in the He 177's nacelles resulting in inadequate cooling and build-up of combustible liquids in the nacelles, which then became a fire hazard. The Centaurus engine was initially seen as too primitive a design compared to the Vulture and Sabre, and thus its development was neglected by British authorities. Only after the Sabre had proved itself problematic in every way did Bristol get the proper funding to develop the Centaurus. I wouldn't say that the Sabre powered Tempest was a "stop-gap" measure since the Centaurus had been in production since 1942 and first saw service that same year powering the Vickers Warwick. So when the Centaurus powered Tempest II entered service in 1944 the engine had already been flying for two years.
Messy air ministry Bureaucrats!
Anyway, Neville Duke made some crossings in the Fury, and gives this:
"The Fury has a top speed of 445 miles per hour at 19.000 feet and a cruising speed of over 400 miles per hour at 20.000 feet; it's maximum range with overload tanks is about 2.000 miles."
H was involved with delivering some Fury's to the Royal Pakistan Air Force, and that included long legs of flying. He set the London-Karachi record (Also beating a record from a DH Vampire jet on the England-Italy leg), - time to Karachi 15 hrs, 18 minutes and 36 seconds.
Another record was made on the England-Egypt leg in the Fury, 6 hrs and 32 minutes including a refuelling stop, giving the average speed of 360 mph (including the stop!). Both records were later improved with the DeHavilland Comet Jet.
Anyway, seems like the engine ran well ;)
-
Oh it did. Was a successful post-war engine in civilian aviation as well.