Given that the Typhoon was designed around the physically larger Sabre, and the Tempest was designed to use the Sabre and Centaurus, the airframe was probably too large for the Griffon.
The Griffon didn't have the power of the other engines, but its advantages wee lost when fitted in the big airframe.
A smaller fuselage mated to the Tempest wings may have been a decent performer.
My understanding is that the RAF used Spitfires for operations over 20,000ft, and some Hawker product for operations below 20,000ft. Particularly in the case of Spitfires, this distinction became very fuzzy.
In his book Calum Douglas regrets that Napier and Bristol failed to develop sophisticated superchargers for their iconic engines, wasting engineering resources on sleeve valves. I am not sure the RAF cared. If they wanted something bad to happen to you at 35,000ft, they sent Spitfires. Would a Griffon engined Tempest have been better than a Griffon engined Spitfire?
When???One, what would it have looked like/been like, and second, would it have been more successful than the Sabre powered variants?
What Griffon engine was available in in that time line (prototypes under construction in 1939/early 40) and at what power level, actual or promised.
Designing a plane that uses a 1700hp engine for take off is quite a bit different than using an engine that promises 2200hp.
True but the two American planes were built with 2 stage superchargers of 1940-41 vintage (designed for less than 100/130) fuel and air to air inter-coolers.Typhoon will take off with 1700 HP, it will have no worse power-to-weight ratio and wing loading than a F4U, and much better in that regard than a P-47.
Problem is that it will be much slower than the Spitfire with same engine, and much more important, it will be much slower than the German opposition.
No quarrels about all of that.True but the two American planes were built with 2 stage superchargers of 1940-41 vintage (designed for less than 100/130) fuel and air to air inter-coolers.
The American planes were 'designed" for much more fuel capacity.
The X4FU-1 grossed under 9400lbs (with less than stellar armament) but the early engine was only good for 1460hp at 21,500ft. Of course that is just about the same power as a Griffon II, III, IV only 7,000ft higher.
No armor or protected tanks either. But then the Corsair design work started in 1938.
Now if you could have gotten Hawker to not use that 18% wing on the Typhoon in 1940 the speed would have been better from the start.
Now if you know in 1940 that you are going to get Griffon 60 series engines in 1943/44 and fuel that will allow 21lb of boost (leave aside the 100/150 fuel ) you can make all kinds of wonderful design choices (and production choices) on your prototype aircraft
A new wing for the Typhoon (or retaining the old) is not a topic here, engine isHawker (Camm) knew that the 18% airfoil was a mistake in 1940 but he needed the Air Ministry to change it (existing orders). And he needed design staff.
Do you work on a new wing for the Typhoon delaying both the Typhoon and/or the 12 gun wing for the Hurricane and the cannon wing for the Hurricane?
The Tempest was originally intended for the Griffon IIB (used in the Spitfire XII) but aside from just getting experience it is hard to see what the goal was. Putting the Griffon IIB engine in an airframe designed for the Sabre or Centaurus engines is not going to give great performance.
If somebody wants a smaller airframe more suited to the Griffon engine (about 400-500lb lighter than Sabre plus radiator set up and propellers)
It might have been a very good aircraft. But it would have needed to be a higher priority in 1940-42 and needed fore knowledge of fuels of 1944.
Camm was more interested in the new wing. In 1940 He had the Sabre (problems weren't that bad at the time), He still had contracts for the Tornado (Vulture engine) and was stuffing the Centaurus into the Tornado, but all were crippled by the wing. Sticking a low powered engine into the airframe wasn't going to solve anything.A new wing for the Typhoon (or retaining the old) is not a topic here, engine is
There were contracts for 1960 (?) Tornados. When the Vulture was canceled in July 1941 (?) that may be be the best bet for Stuffing a Griffon into the Hawker airframe. At least the Griffon power will be closer to the Vulture.We already agree on the conclusion that Griffon II will not give the great performance. Especially the Typhoon will be found lacking.
This is hindsight. It took over two years to get from 100/??? fuel in the summer of 1940 to figuring out what you could really do with 100/130 in a Merlin or Griffon.The 100/130 grade fuel will do.
That is true. But it requires the the two stage Griffon. The Knowledge that you can use 18lbs of boost and the thin wing.The 2-stage Griffon is an excellent match, with the caveat that production of 2-stage Griffon (and Griffon in general) is a major bottleneck; the 2-stage Griffon also means waiting until the winter of 1943/44 in order to have a meaningful number of such engined Tempests.
Camm was not the OP here. The OP asked quaetions about the engine changes, not the wing changeCamm was more interested in the new wing.
This is hindsight. It took over two years to get from 100/??? fuel in the summer of 1940 to figuring out what you could really do with 100/130 in a Merlin or Griffon.
Spitfire XII was being tested in in Sept/Oct of 1942 with a Griffon IIB with 12lbs of boost.
In Sept of 1943 they were testing a Griffon 65 powered Spit XIV at 18lbs of boost.
In the Spring of 1943 they were changing the the two stage Merlins to the 18lb limit.
That is true. But it requires the the two stage Griffon. The Knowledge that you can use 18lbs of boost and the thin wing.
Take any one of those factors out and sticking the rare Griffon engines in the big Hawker airframe is a waste of resources. (Griffon powered Spitfire not built)
It does and it doesn't.Okay. Start with +12 psi and work from there.
130 grade fuel predates the 2-stage Griffon.
The question for the Griffon powered Hawker fighters is when do you know you can go to 18lbs of boost in the Griffon engine. Just because you can run a Merlin at that boost level does not mean you can run the Griffon there without a lot of testing.
The Hercules and Centaurus engines never came close.
The Sabre didn't get to 11lbs of boost until 1944. (and that took 150 octane ?) Some very late Sabres Vs and VIIs are rated higher but use 150 octane. They also needed strengthened internal parts.