Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Had RR not put the Griffon project on hold, and instead never started the Vulture, Exe, Pennine, Eagle, and Crecy projects, and instead put those man-hours into the Griffon, maybe the 2000+ hp Griffon would have been available already mid-war?
However, arguably putting Griffon on hold was a mistake, as that was clearly the lowest risk project for delivering more power than the Merlin.
They ended up using the knowledge gained with the 'R' to aid in the development of the later-Kestrel and Peregrin/Merlin/Griffon series.
First run 1943. But AIUI in 1941 RR took over the Derwent project. So, in 1941, RR had four aero engines in production or development: Merlin, Griffon, Crecy and Derwent.
Eventually, in early 1943, Spencer Wilks of Rover met Hives and Hooker for a dinner at the Swan & Royal Hotel, Clitheroe. By mutual agreement between the Minister of Aircraft Production and the Boards of Rover and Rolls-Royce, the Rover jet factory at Barnoldswick was exchanged for the Rolls-Royce Meteor tank engine factory in Nottingham. A handshake sealed the deal.
I really don't give a rats ass if you like what I post.
I really don't give a rats ass if you like what I post.
When is this "hold"?
While RR has been puttering around with modified R engine(s). The "official" Griffon I development didn't start until '38, 1st run at end of Nov, '39 and tossed in recycle bin 4/Dec/'39 for the clean sheet Griffon II.
Z z42
If you're wanting mass produced Griffon I, you're getting engine that doesn't fit in Spitfire, and is 'only' good for 1,750hp max. as like Merlin I, it is designed around the limits of 87 octane fuel.
Griffon II, in addition to much better packaging, and is running a much more efficient supercharger.
Also, isn't the Vulture supercharger the starting point for the 1st stage of the two stage Merlin?
Butterfly effect of pulling some things in/cancelling others has unintended consequences.
There was probably no law in the British legal system that deals with piston speeds
British indeed have had better materials. I'm okay with 2700 rpm on the British 603.
Brother, just use the ignore function to remove unproductive posters from your feed. I call it the contrarian filter. It can make your forum experience and discussions a lot more enjoyable and counterintuitively, more informative.I just call it like I see it. I really don't give a rats ass if you like what I post.
Totally different designs by two different designers but with a passing family resemblance coming as they did from the same stable. H E Chaplin who had joined the design staff at Fairey in 1930 was appointed Chief Designer in 1940 in succcession to Marcel Lobelle, said this about the Firefly design:-At the end of the day, isn't the Firefly a smaller, albeit still with two seats, Fulmar?
Firefly
Fulmar
- Length: 37 ft 11 in (11.56 m)
- Wingspan: 41 ft 2 in (12.55 m)
- Wing area: 330 sq ft (31 m2)
- Length: 40 ft 2 in (12.24 m)
- Wingspan: 46 ft 4.25 in (14.1288 m)
- Wing area: 342 sq ft (31.8 m2)
2700 sounds optimistic.
51L engine that turns 2450 rpm looks fine; granted, we'd be going into Vulture weight & size class with this engine. Not that it is a deal breaker, just it limits the airframe types it can be installed on.For comparison, Merlin was running at 3000 rpm for a MPS of 15.2 m/s, and Griffon was running at 2750 for a MPS of 15.4 m/s. And Griffon had 1.37 times larger volume than the Merlin. So if we design a V-12 Griffon follow-up with 1.37 times larger volume than the Griffon we end up at 51L. Both Merlin and Griffon had a bore/stroke ratio of about 0.9. So a 51L V-12 with a bore/stroke ratio of 0.9 means we have a stroke of 188mm and a bore of 170mm. If we want to keep the same MPS as the Griffon and Merlin we're limited to 2450 rpm.
Makes for 215 imp gals.
A Spitfire with a 90 gal drop tank carries 174 imp gals total. Tuck in another 20 gals and there is no advantage for Fulmar since it was heavier and draggier, so it will use more fuel both in combat and away.
Hurricane with 2x45 gals in DTs = ~185 imp gals? The Mk.II was rated for both 2x45 and 2x90 gals.
At the end of the day, isn't the Firefly a smaller, albeit still with two seats, Fulmar?
Firefly
Fulmar
- Length: 37 ft 11 in (11.56 m)
- Wingspan: 41 ft 2 in (12.55 m)
- Wing area: 330 sq ft (31 m2)
- Length: 40 ft 2 in (12.24 m)
- Wingspan: 46 ft 4.25 in (14.1288 m)
- Wing area: 342 sq ft (31.8 m2)
From wikipedia: "Design work on the Griffon started in 1938 at the request of the Fleet Air Arm, for use in new aircraft designs such as the Fairey Firefly. In 1939 it was also decided that the engine could be adapted for use in the Spitfire. Development was stopped temporarily to concentrate efforts on the smaller Merlin and the 24-cylinder Vulture; the engine did not go into production until the early 1940s. "
90 Imp Gal drop tanks worked just fine for the FAA Saefire III off Jpan July/Aug 1945Carrier ops are probably going to be a challenge too.
Totally different designs by two different designers but with a passing family resemblance coming as they did from the same stable. H E Chaplin who had joined the design staff at Fairey in 1930 was appointed Chief Designer in 1940 in succcession to Marcel Lobelle, said this about the Firefly design:-
"I reviewed the the specifications and the design work done previous to my appointment [on N.8/39 & N.9/39 designs previously submitted by Fairey], put them all on one side and set out afresh to design the best aircraft I could within the limitations of the specification."
Two things allowed the Firefly to have a smaller wing than the Fulmar:-
1. Take off and landing criteria set down in the Specs which had been relaxed a bit.
O.8/38 for the Fulmar specified a stalling speed not to exceed 56 knots and take off distance of 225 ft against a 20 knot headwind
This was relaxed in the original N.8/39 & N.9/39 Specs to 58 knots and 300ft respectively.
Then in Spec 5/40/F, which was the one that led directly to the Firefly, there was a further amendment to 68 knots and 300ft
2. The Firefly was fitted with Fairey-Youngman flaps which had the effect of increasing the wing area when deployed for take off and landing.
Chaplin's previous project at Fairey had been the FC.1 airliner cancelled in the run up to WW2
View attachment 745313
Well, that says it all, doesn't it. A rather self-centred attitude you have. Again, let the adults talk.
90 Imp Gal drop tanks worked just fine for the FAA Saefire III off Jpan July/Aug 1945