Admiral Beez
Captain
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?
A better Supermarine Type 224
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Which runs the risk of finding the RAF in the position of Poland where it's fighters were the top of the class in the mid 1930s but obsolete by 1939.
- Thread starter
- #3
Admiral Beez
Captain
Why? Improving this mid-1930s design does not preclude the Spitfire or Hurricane programs.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
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.
Shortround6
Major General
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?
Mike
Wasnt the Goshawk meant to be more powerful & have greater growth potential than the Kestrel ?
- Thread starter
- #8
Admiral Beez
Captain
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.
Interesting Engines: The Rolls-Royce Goshawk – Spannerhead
Spannerhead is a quirky, unique automotive blog dedicated to thoughts on car design, news, engineering and the automotive community.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
