"The full panopoly of the [aircraft] industry's latest designs was on view at the A&AEE Martlesham Heath on 8th July [1936] when the King [Edward VIII], in RAF uniform, accompanied by Air Chief Marshall the Duke of York, make a tour of four stations of his Air Force. In his Royal Rapide, piloted by Flt. Lt. "Mouse" Fielden, he flew first to Northolt to inspect the Fury and Gauntlet Fighter Squadrons, then visited No.11 Flying Training School at Wittering, afterwards to Mildenhall to inspect Hind and Heyford Bomber Squadrons, and so to the A&AEE ["Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment"] where he was received by Air Commodore R.H.Verney and the Station Commander, Grp. Capt. A.C. "Cissie" Maund. On the tarmac, backed by the original World War 1 hangars, were the Spitfire, Hurricane and Venom, all with gun muzzles aggressively protruding, the hitherto unrevealed Bristol Blenheim medium bomber, Westland Lysander, Fairey Battle, Vickers Wellesley, Vickers Wellington, Handley Page HP52 Hampden (nicknamed the 'flying panhandle') and Armstrong Whitworth Whitley. The King went aboard the Wellington and received a dissertation on gun turrets, spending five minutes personally operating the nose turret. Thereafter, Sqn Ldr "Ted" Hilton, Officer commanding the bomber Test Flight, demonstrated the Blenheim, and Sqn Ldr D.F. Anderson, Officer commanding the fighter Test Flight, flew the Spitfire. Reported Flight [magazine]:
'The Spitfire roared past the Royal Standard at well over 300mph, followed by the Blenheim, the speed of which was a revelation of what a modern monoplane bomber can do. We certainly have a bomber which can outfly any fighter in service in the world today....'"[note1]
 |
| The only Blenheim prototype, K-7033, which had made its first flight only in June 1936, just weeks before Edward VIII's inspection tour. |
 |
| Blenheim Mk.1 and Spitfire in company. A view Edward VIII may well have had on 8th July 1936. |
British Pathe, as ever, was on hand to film Edward VIII's inspection of the Fury and Gauntlet fighter squadrons at Northolt - see HERE - but it appears (perhaps for security reasons) that they were not invited along to Martlesham Heath to film the new generation of fighters "all with gun muzzles aggressively protruding" - Spitfire, check; Hurricane, of course; Venom.....Venom? What on earth was a Venom?
 |
| A contemporary cigarette card gives a good view of the Vickers Venom prototype "painted in cream for exhibition purposes...with RAF roundels". The marking PVO-10 was a "Private Venture" registration, and the Venom would subsequently be marked with a large "3" on the fuselage (although there was only ever "1" prototype). The "3" designation was used at the 1936 Hendon Air Display as the aircraft's "new types number", enabling the public to identify it from the list of aircraft
within their display programmes.
|
 |
| The 1937 popular "part work" magazine, "Aero Engineering" carried a data sheet on the Vickers Venom and the (now, not then) better known Vickers Wellington 1.... |
 |
| ....and here is that 'Data Sheet', with the prototype Venom photographed with its fuselage "3". For the 1937 readers of "Aero Engineering", the Venom was just one of the RAF's new eight gunned interceptor fighters... |
 |
| An earlier colour scheme for the Venom, which was unveiled in 1936 "in natural polished metal and silver dope on the fabric control surfaces" at the Society of British Aircraft Constructors display. This display took place at De Havilland's airfield at Hatfield. |
Regular readers of the blog will recall the mystery aircraft captured on film ("just after the prototype Spitfire") at the 1937 Hendon Air Display - see this earlier BLOGPOST. Whilst there has been some (VBCW) speculation that the mystery aircraft was an "Elstree Aeronautics prototype", in fact it has now been positively identified as the Vickers Venom in flight.
Which takes us back to the VBCW, and the 2020 Modelling Challenge. Once our piece of "cheep Chinese plastic" - with its prominent radial engine - is converted into a monoplane (a matter of seconds), it makes for a pretty fair (well, at least with a fair wind) wargamers' resemblance to the "Vickers Venom". The Venom was, after all, the ultimate British development of a radial engined fighter (powered by the Bristol Aquila as opposed to the Spitfire's inline Rolls Royce Merlin), and the model competition field is threadbare - there has only ever been one 1/72 kit of the plane, the now very OOP Magna Models metal and resin version:
 |
| The Magna Models 1/72 kit assembled and painted by Peter Burstow. See: https://modelingmadness.com/review/preww2/gb/burstven.htm |
In any event, why did the Venom remain only a prototype and not go into production? Why was it Spitfires and Hurricanes defending our shores in 1940 - and, given the hopes and illustrations of 1936/1937, not fleets of nimble Venoms? [note2]. Some of the factors that seem to have told against the Venom were:
(1). Supermarine, the manufacturers of the Spitfire, was a subsidiary of Vickers, the proposed manufacturer of the Venom. The same congolomerate producing two different designs for the same role, i.e. fighter interceptor, would have been somewhat problematic; particularly as Supermarine had well known issues with Spitfire production that required urgent resolution by management;
(2). apart from Spitfire manufacture via its Supermarine subsidiary, Vickers was also producing the Wellington bomber. It's production was at full capacity, which would have meant the Venom either being produced under licence, or by a sub-contractor, or an entirely new 'shadow factory' being constructed. None of these were straightforward prospects;
(3). there were significant "cut out and fade out" problems with the powerplant around which the Venom had been designed, the Aquila AE-3S radial engine, which problems were never really resolved;
(4). the Venom lacked all armour protection. While "the possibility of fitting 600 pounds of armour to the Venom was...briefly investigated" it was "swiftly dismissed as the airframe would have to be completely redesigned to take the additional weight".
These problems saw the Venom relegated swiftly from its once prominent position as part of the 'new generation' of British fighters. However, there was a flurry of "fresh interest" in the Venom programme in mid-1937, apparently based on its relative cheapness, prospective ease of manufacture and maintenance, and the possibility of sub-contracting manufacture to enable potential sales to friendly foreign countries. This "last flurry" died out soon enough, however, and the British aircraft industry instead concentrated entirely on the Spitfire and Hurricane.....
But as for the VBCW......all these same factors - cheapness, ease of manufacture and maintenance, sub-contract manufacture - combined to make the Vickers Venom highly attractive as a fighter plane for the contending factions, and 1938 soon saw a number of 'shadow factories' set up by both the RAF and the BUF, the latter particularly designed to supply "Air Wings" for use on newly acquired carriers such as the Charles A. Lindbergh....
(2). apart from Spitfire manufacture via its Supermarine subsidiary, Vickers was also producing the Wellington bomber. It's production was at full capacity, which would have meant the Venom either being produced under licence, or by a sub-contractor, or an entirely new 'shadow factory' being constructed. None of these were straightforward prospects;
(3). there were significant "cut out and fade out" problems with the powerplant around which the Venom had been designed, the Aquila AE-3S radial engine, which problems were never really resolved;
(4). the Venom lacked all armour protection. While "the possibility of fitting 600 pounds of armour to the Venom was...briefly investigated" it was "swiftly dismissed as the airframe would have to be completely redesigned to take the additional weight".
These problems saw the Venom relegated swiftly from its once prominent position as part of the 'new generation' of British fighters. However, there was a flurry of "fresh interest" in the Venom programme in mid-1937, apparently based on its relative cheapness, prospective ease of manufacture and maintenance, and the possibility of sub-contracting manufacture to enable potential sales to friendly foreign countries. This "last flurry" died out soon enough, however, and the British aircraft industry instead concentrated entirely on the Spitfire and Hurricane.....
But as for the VBCW......all these same factors - cheapness, ease of manufacture and maintenance, sub-contract manufacture - combined to make the Vickers Venom highly attractive as a fighter plane for the contending factions, and 1938 soon saw a number of 'shadow factories' set up by both the RAF and the BUF, the latter particularly designed to supply "Air Wings" for use on newly acquired carriers such as the Charles A. Lindbergh....
Notes:
[1]. The maximum speed of the Blenheim was, in fact, 266mph (at 11,800ft). See HERE. Flight magazine's opinion was therefore mere puff - the Blenheim could not outfly the Spitfire, nor even the Hurricane Mk.1 (316mph at 16,200ft). In fairness, however, the Messerschmitt 109 was only introduced to the Luftwaffe some eight months later, in February 1937, and even then could not reach the Hurricane's speed until the introduction of the "E" series in late 1938/early 1939.
[2]. The Venom had a top speed of 312mph at 16,500ft, a service ceiling of 32,000ft and a rate of climb of 3,000ft a minute. It was therefore in the same class as the Hurricane Mk.1 in all respects, and quite as capable of dealing with a Blenheim. By way of contrast, it clearly outmatched the Gloster Gladiator (still in service during the Battle of France 1940 and, at least as to one squadron, the Battle of Britain, thereafter in Greece, the Middle East and Malta), which had a top speed of 253mph at 14,500ft and a rate of climb of 2,300ft a minute.
[2]. The Venom had a top speed of 312mph at 16,500ft, a service ceiling of 32,000ft and a rate of climb of 3,000ft a minute. It was therefore in the same class as the Hurricane Mk.1 in all respects, and quite as capable of dealing with a Blenheim. By way of contrast, it clearly outmatched the Gloster Gladiator (still in service during the Battle of France 1940 and, at least as to one squadron, the Battle of Britain, thereafter in Greece, the Middle East and Malta), which had a top speed of 253mph at 14,500ft and a rate of climb of 2,300ft a minute.
Additional Notes:
[1]. Edward "Mouse" Fielden's biography can be found HERE. For the Dragon Rapide of the King's Flight, see note 5 to this EARLIER BLOGPOST.
[2]. Air Commodore R.H.Verney's biography can be found HERE, and Group Captain "Cissie" Maund's HERE.
[3]. This page is particularly useful on the Vickers Venom, specifically on its potential use as a navalised fighter. This YouTube video demonstrates the Venom's undoubted ease of maintenance.
[2]. Air Commodore R.H.Verney's biography can be found HERE, and Group Captain "Cissie" Maund's HERE.
[3]. This page is particularly useful on the Vickers Venom, specifically on its potential use as a navalised fighter. This YouTube video demonstrates the Venom's undoubted ease of maintenance.
 |
| BAE Systems brief history of interwar Vickers experimental designs can be found HERE |
No comments:
Post a Comment