Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
E EwenS : Do you have any additional information on the F director? (I checked most of the Tech pages on the site here, and didn't find anything but might have missed when distracted by other interesting things of note...)And there was also the F director or Type F sight that was included in the equipment of aircraft like the Barracuda. This was developed by the RAF from 1937. The pilot pointed the aircraft at the target ship, fed in range and speed data etc, and the sight / director set the deflection needed on the torpedo. This superseded the crude arrangement of a sighting bar in front of the cockpit of aircraft like the Swordfish and Albacore, with the pilot doing all the maths involved.
I find the use of the Bristol Hercules in a single engined fighter to be interesting. It was 38.7litres displacement, rather small for a successful radial engined WWII fighter. On the same fuel used by the Merlin_61s, it ought to be able to do 2000HP. Maybe Spitfire armament of two 20mm Hispanos plus some sorts of machine guns would have been a good compromise!Pretty conventional Type 153 was to be powered by a Bristol Hercules, armed with 4 cannons (per spec), and was among the 1st designes supposed to have the bubble canopy. Let's say Bristol's design wins instead of Westland's.
Will the RAF be better off, or not? Possible repercussions on future British, German and/or US fighter designs? The FAA version?
picture (not the best; the 153 is at the top right)
I find the use of the Bristol Hercules in a single engined fighter to be interesting. It was 38.7litres displacement, rather small for a successful radial engined WWII fighter. On the same fuel used by the Merlin_61s, it ought to be able to do 2000HP. Maybe Spitfire armament of two 20mm Hispanos plus some sorts of machine guns would have been a good compromise!
The Nakajima Sakae was 28litres. By mid-war, the Zero was increasingly out of it, mostly due to its small engine. I find the Zero's armour and protection discussion to be moot. Do you want to be only 30mph slower than the enemy, or do you want armour? On 2500HP, we can discuss how thick the armour should be.Zero have had 30L radial engine, and no access to high octane fuel, but it was still fairly successful. Hercules was making 1700+ HP before the 100 series and on 130 grade fuel, and 1900 HP from 100 series on - ballpark with BMW 801, R-2600 or ASh-82.
(more than 2100 HP for the post-war Mk. 762 and 763)
Spitfires with the C-wings were capable of carrying four 20mm Hispano MkII cannons. They rarely did because they restricted the Spitfire's performance.Spec asked for 4 cannon set-up, but wartime expediences often take precedence.
The Nakajima Sakae was 28litres. By mid-war, the Zero was increasingly out of it, mostly due to its small engine. I find the Zero's armour and protection discussion to be moot. Do you want to be only 30mph slower than the enemy, or do you want armour? On 2500HP, we can discuss how thick the armour should be.
Late in the war, the Germans were phasing out the BMW 801 out as a fighter engine. The R-2600 never reached service as a fighter engine. The ASh-82 was installed in La-7s late in the war, where they got good performance below 20,000ft. The Hercules was the smallest of these four engines.
Spitfires with the C-wings were capable of carrying four 20mm Hispano MkII cannons. They rarely did because they restricted the Spitfire's performance.
The Bristol 153 is all about Hercules engines and four 20mm cannons. I am trying to put all of this into some sort of perspective. How early in the war would this be available with 20mm cannons, and how late in the war would it be an effective fighter? Are there any alternative single engined fighters the RAF could have used instead???
Thread is about Type 153, not about Spitfire.
(my bold)The Bristol 153 is all about Hercules engines and four 20mm cannons. I am trying to put all of this into some sort of perspective. (1) How early in the war would this be available with 20mm cannons, (2) and how late in the war would it be an effective fighter? (3) Are there any alternative single engined fighters the RAF could have used instead?
You can't swap the engine limits between the Merlin and Hercules like that.I find the use of the Bristol Hercules in a single engined fighter to be interesting. It was 38.7litres displacement, rather small for a successful radial engined WWII fighter. On the same fuel used by the Merlin_61s, it ought to be able to do 2000HP. Maybe Spitfire armament of two 20mm Hispanos plus some sorts of machine guns would have been a good compromise!
Did it really have a wingspan of of 46ft? That provides nice, low landing speeds on a carrier, and terrible performance in a dogfight.
The AHh-82 got good performance because they put it in a small airplane. 189 sq ft of wing and gross weight of 7300lbs and they restricted the armament to two 20mm ShVAK caoon or three 20mm Berezin cannon to get that performance.Late in the war, the Germans were phasing out the BMW 801 out as a fighter engine. The R-2600 never reached service as a fighter engine. The ASh-82 was installed in La-7s late in the war, where they got good performance below 20,000ft. The Hercules was the smallest of these four engines.
That would be "The La-7 got good performance because it was a small airplane"?The AHh-82 got good performance because they put it in a small airplane.
The Bristol 153 is all about Hercules engines and four 20mm cannons. I am trying to put all of this into some sort of perspective. How early in the war would this be available with 20mm cannons, and how late in the war would it be an effective fighter? Are there any alternative single engined fighters the RAF could have used instead?
same differenceThat would be "The La-7 got good performance because it was a small airplane"?
The Merlin III was good for around 1300hp when running at 12lbs of boost in 1940. The Merlin XII was a bit better and The Merlin 45 (in the spring of 1941) blows it out of the cricket pitch.
The Hercules VI engine was uprated from 7lbs of boost to 8lbs of boost in May (?) of 1942.
Chances of the Bristol 153 ever making it's promised speed is about zero.
same difference
or
"The ASh-82 got good performance in the La-7 because it was a small airplane"
The Bristol 156 fighter (Beaufighter) was originally estimated at 370mph.
Hercules VI was making 1670 HP in 1941.
The La-7 was small. Smaller than a Curtiss P-36 from nine years earlier but with 80% more hp.That would be "The La-7 got good performance because it was a small airplane"?
when and what altitude?Hercules VI was making 1670 HP in 1941.
Go back to post #6How do you figure?
when and what altitude?
Making a useful fighter in late 1941 or early 1942 after making a poor fighter in 1939-40 doesn't seem like a good trade off.
Compare to the Japanese Ki-44 II.
A smaller wing, a lot less gun weight, an engine that weighed about 100gk less and yet the Ki-44 II is only a few kg off from the claimed weight of the Type 153?
Bristol's cowl design department left something to be desired in 1938-42.
A great many British designs (but not all) in the late 30s suffered because the British didn't have the high speed design experience or the wind tunnel data to properly estimate drag in the mid to high 300mph range. Drag can make a sudden rise that speed range after following a fairly predictable path/curve from low speed to that point.
Not to pick on the British, a number of American companies came up with some truly amazing performance estimates. Like the Douglas XP-48 and the Tucker XP-57.
Or the Curtiss XP-46 which was supposed to go 403mph using the same engine as the P-40D/E. Actual tests with operational equipment (like guns) recorded 355mph.