Aircraft Modifications

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So, 38.29l/2336.5ci capacity.

Still lowish power for its capacity.

The Rolls-Royce Exe managed 2/3 more power per litre.

I miscalculated earlier - 24 cylinders @ 132mm x 160mm = 3206ci/52.55l.
 
Last edited:
While the RR Exe was air cooled it ran at 4200rpm and weighed 1530lbs dry.

The Sleeve valves may have been a problem, While both Bristol and Napier could produce prototypes that ran well ( or small scale production), mass production gave both companies quite a bit of trouble, at least to start. . Perhaps RR would be different, perhaps not.
 
Also, in the scheme of things, it doesn't much matter what the specific power (power to capacity) is, but rather more what the weight of the engine is compared to teh power and the specific fuel consumption.

As Shortround says, the Exe was 1150hp but weighed 1500lbs+, with a maximum projected performance (not tested) of around 1500hp.

The de Havilland Gipsy Twelve (King I) made less than 500hp but weighed over 1000lb.
 
Civettone said:
I have read the Ca.313, CA.331...
Click to expand...
The Ca.331 was another aircraft worth modifiyng. With a 1000kg bomb bay, 12.7mm dorsal and ventral turrets, 2 external hardpoints, and six forward firing 12.7mm MGs (or 4 20mm cannons) it reached 505 km/h at 5300m with two Isotta Fraschini Delta IV, 850hp at 5000m.
Those prestatios and armament already compares very well with those of a Ju88 C-6 heavy fighter/nighfighter, having about 40% less power.
It would be interesting to see what could do a two seat version, without defensive turrets, and with more powerful engines.

 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Not sure. It was either 87 or 100, but probably the former because it ran pre-war.

Edit: Lumsden says it was 100 octane fuel.
Click to expand...
Otherwise, it would have been more powerful than a 87 octane gasoline fuelled Merlin, with a lower displacement. Quite an achievement.


wuzak said:
but rather more what the weight of the engine is compared to teh power and the specific fuel consumption
Click to expand...
True. In this regard, it's interesting to note, for example, that a SAI.207, with 210kg of gasoline, had more range than a C.202 with 250kg (1000km vs. 765), and even the F6Z had more range of the F6M with the same amount of fuel (400kg). Other than the specific fuel consumption, we have to see the effect on consumption of the lack of radiator (less hp, and so less consumption to, achieve the same speed).
 
Last edited:
A little off topic, but can anyone tell me why two .303 machine guns were used as "aiming" devices/strafing weapons on the Hurricane Mk. IID and the Mk. IV's universal wing? I can understand the argument that Britain had an excess of .303 machine guns for craft, but wouldn't a larger round be more conducive to helping the aim of rockets, bombs, and 40mm guns? To me at least, it would seem like the lighter .303 round might not be very predictive of the path of the heavier weapons. I understand that there were sights and markings on the Hurricane's to help with aiming, but I know I've read about pilots somehow (can't remember the exact method) using the 2 machine guns to line up their target before firing the heavy weaponry.

Note: If I sound redundant in any of my questions, its because its a test day and I'm working on exactly 0 hours of sleep (mind was too active the night before with math equations).
 
A. they had them, unlike .50 cal guns.
B. the 40mm wasn't that high a velocity round.
C. the range was relatively short. Much further under 1000 yds than over 1000yds.

MGs don't do much at all for aiming bombs and not much more for rockets.
 
Shortround6 said:
A. they had them, unlike .50 cal guns.
B. the 40mm wasn't that high a velocity round.
C. the range was relatively short. Much further under 1000 yds than over 1000yds.

MGs don't do much at all for aiming bombs and not much more for rockets.
Click to expand...

But would the MGs at least be loaded with Incendiary-tracer rounds so that they could track the fall of the shot better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Barrett
B
S
Researching German Aircraft Armor; Actual Use & Accounts
Replies
2
Views
497
sopwith21
S
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Aircraft comparison for operational-level wargames and alt history forums
Replies
8
Views
679
SaparotRob
Small Aircraft Carriers
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register