fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
You asked a question and the answer increased your knowledge. That's the whole point of this forum and why it's so fascinating.
Lancia Delta S4 hillclimbing in Sicily
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
but i now the twin chargeing systhem is not viable for the question at hand
the only thing about the s4 is it ended up being too dangerous as they found out the hard wayYou asked a question and the answer increased your knowledge. That's the whole point of this forum and why it's so fascinating.
Lancia Delta S4 hillclimbing in Sicily
We don't need one twin seat fighter to last throughout the war. The Fulmar only served in front line squadrons for under two years before beginning to be withdrawn.the reason i picked the hurricane in the frist place is because there was a bunch of them and they countined in various to be made till wars ends i know its too small but can i ask why take out the bomb b ay
ok i get hurricane too small too hard to work with if the hurricane isnt it then what isWe don't need one twin seat fighter to last throughout the war. The Fulmar only served in front line squadrons for under two years before beginning to be withdrawn.
Rather than the monocoque Spitfire, Typhoon, etc, the Hurricane looks like an Mecano set. If there was any British fighter that we could bolt some expansion onto it's the Hurricane.
View attachment 619453
The Henley. A good start there as I describe above.ok i get hurricane too small too hard to work with if the hurricane isnt it then what is
is there article where i can learn about that planeThe Henley. A good start there as I describe above.
We can start with the manufacturer's site.is there article where i can learn about that plane
ok thanks
thank you again
No worries. I'm glad to help.thank you again
IIRC Japanese aircraft were communicating via smoke signals; the longer-ranged the bomber, the bigger the chimney.
sole joy here is to tell you the trio of why something wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't have occurred.
Of course we must not ignore reality and the technological limitations of the time
bolt some expansion onto it's the Hurricane.
It is also way easier to get high power at sea level than at 20,000ft where the air is about 1/2 the density at sea level. Bring the Lancia engine up to 20,000ft and it would make 1/2 the power it did at sea level. The B-17, B-24, P-47, P-38 and others used exactly the system you propose.
The reason for combining supercharging and turbocharging in the Lancia was to overcome turbo lag.
In aircraft, the turbocharger was not typically used provide boost, but rather compensate for altitude, maintaining, in theory, sea level air pressure to the engine's supercharger.
Is the Fulmar really the highest performing single-engined twin-seat combat aircraft of the early war years? If it is, any criticism of the Fulmar is truly unfounded. Does that make the Firefly the best of them all?
All good points, and I agree entirely. With the world's carrier and land based air forces developing and/or fielding high performance single-seat fighters it was ridiculous for the FAA to spend 1938-40 developing a slow and heavy twin-seater to counter them. The RN expected their carriers to operate within range of land based air attack, and thus mandated armoured flight decks. If so, it would seem prudent to have a FAA fighter that could deal with land based fighters.I think the criticism is founded on the second seat being unnecessary.
All good points, and I agree entirely. With the world's carrier and land based air forces developing and/or fielding high performance single-seat fighters it was ridiculous for the FAA to spend 1938-40 developing a slow and heavy twin-seater to counter them.
Perhaps a 1938-39 open competition for a twin-seat fighter rather than a fasttracked shoehorning of a Fairey Battle derivative would bring the Air Ministry and FAA to their senses and lead us to a single seat fighter in 1940.