A skeptical look at the Schneider Trophy?

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:19 am

Following on from Bill's thread on the NASA funding issue, dragging it back to warbirds, perhaps a comparison would be to ask if the US Government should have funded another US team to capture the Schneider Trophy?

Britain, France and Italy all made great efforts, as well as the US, and much is made of the British effort, government and later private funding for the team, leading to Supermarine knowledge for the development of the Spitfire - a very arguable and indirect 'return on investment'. What did Italy gain and America lose by respectively funding and not funding enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Trophy

http://www.hydroretro.net/indexen.html

As they say, discuss!

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:41 pm

It seems to me that the primary area for development in the Schneider was engines and propellers. Sure they were making the aircraft as slick as they could but then they went and hung canoes under them.

So if my surmise is correct I don't see that the Italians learned very much since they don't seem to have developed any production aero engine of much more than 1000 horsepower. I think that Italy's entire industrial policy pre war and during has to be the most mismanaged one of the war anyway.

As for the US bailing on the Schneider really didn't affect much since the privately funded Bendix and Thompson as well as other private races probably had more influence on engine, propeller and airframe design anyway. A really good example of private enterprise doing something better than the government could.

You could even argue that Great Britain's government focus on the Schneider may have been hindered other development. If the British had encouraged makers to privately send aircraft to the US to race they may have had more competition and incentive to develop from other makers rather than just RR. Imagine of Napier and Rolls had sent aircraft to Cleveland for several years in the early 1930s.

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:56 pm

The Brits did the work and the US got the Merlin :idea:

RickH · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:08 pm

Jack, don't you think we made up for the Merlin gift with the Washington ?

Mgawa · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:39 am

Excellent technical overwiev is given in one old issue of Aerofile, US magazine, but some info you can get also here:

http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/2008 ... up-racers/

Hope that i did not boring you with my web site

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:43 pm

Interesting points, Gents. Thanks for the link Mgawa.

No the Washington was a poor effort :lol:

Better than the Merlin-powered Lincoln though. Maybe the RB-45s were the useful trade.

Back to the topic, I think John's raised some good points. It's the orthodoxy than the Schneider Trophy helped the British, Supermarine and Rolls Royce develop better technology, but some of that might be argued as John has. Actually, reliability was found in US airline use of those radials putting in the big hours - nearly as important as the sprint stuff?

While racing 'improves the breed' I'm not sure how good it is at initiating useful developments.

And regarding the Italians, John's point's again, a good one, but let's not forget who crossed the Atlantic with a flotilla of flying boats in the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo_Balbo

The Italian aviation development process was fundamentally flawed by 1939, but prior to that they were lighting a candle under much bigger economies and aeronauts.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:00 am

I think that the Italian example goes to show how a flawed ideological system and the presuppositions behind it can detrimentally effect an otherwise brilliant technical field and stunt it's productivity.
JDK's point on the US airlines and radial engines is very interesting. I wonder if a book on aircraft engine reliability and the forces that drove the quest would be a good read?
As far as the Brits are concerned with the Merlin, I'd say supplying them with food, ammunition, and enabling them to sustain the fight was also a good reason for the trade of technical expertise. I think we Americans sometimes forget that for the Brits it really was a matter of national survival.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

A skeptical look at the Schneider Trophy?

Who is online