Swap out the Goshawk and evaporative cooling for a Kestrel and traditional radiators and liquid cooling, add a three blade prop, and can we get the Supermarine Type 224 into a leading contender for 1935?
Swap out the Goshawk and evaporative cooling for a Kestrel and traditional radiators and liquid cooling, add a three blade prop, and can we get the Supermarine Type 224 into a leading contender for 1935?
Hence 'risk' and not 'hazard'. The proposed aeroplane would be a substitute for the Gladiator rather than Spitfire and Hurricane. It might impact upon the already small Supermarine design staff who were judged overloaded with their heavy bomber programme as well as Spitfire by the Air Ministry in 1940.
Swap out the Goshawk and evaporative cooling for a Kestrel and traditional radiators and liquid cooling, add a three blade prop, and can we get the Supermarine Type 224 into a leading contender for 1935?
I am not sure what it brings to the table.
It was a dead end in many ways.
There were a lot of Kestrels developed over a number of years.
A standard Kestrel of the same year as the Goshawk probably would not have made more power.
Conventional cooling would have meant more drag.
3 bladed prop doesn't mean more speed or climb until you exceed the capability of the two blade propeller.
Gladiators with 3 blade propellers had 840hp engines, not 600-700 engines.
The 224 used a huge wing for a single seat 1934 fighter (about twice as big as a P-26 wing) and has about as thick as a Hurricane wing. AND it still landed 10mph faster than the Air Ministry wanted. They may have been wrong but the Goshawk engine was not the only reason the plane was turned down.
Hi
At the time various modifications to the design were suggested, all which would have taken time to implement, this is mentioned in 'Supermarine Aircraft since 1914' by Andrews and Morgan, below:
As the Spitfire was worked on instead and first flew in March 1936, and the Hawker Hurricane first flew in November 1935, it appears that a modified Type 224 would have been a waste of resources and time. What would be the justification for it?
Swap out the Goshawk and evaporative cooling for a Kestrel and traditional radiators and liquid cooling, add a three blade prop, and can we get the Supermarine Type 224 into a leading contender for 1935?
Yes, it it required the failed evaporative cooling system. It's that technological dead end that I'm trying to avoid by giving the Supermarine the best conventional RR engine then available, the Kestrel.
Basically the Goshawk was a evaporative cooled Kestrel of comparative power to a Kestrel of it's time.
Only performance advantage was the reduction in drag due the lack of radiator frontal area.
The main problem with the 224 was the field requirement, the desired 50mph landing speed which the 224 failed by 10 mph.
Given the state of the art of airfoils and flaps of the time this required a lot of wing area, please note that the 'winner' of the competition, the Gladiator used about 10% more wing area.
Changing the engine on the 224 doesn't solve the landing speed problem and it doesn't solve the huge wing=high drag problem.