Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That US 7.5 hour WEP test, was it run WFO, for the whole time, or was it repeated runs of 5min duration
done consecutively - with a cool-down period in between?
If it was a test bed run, with masses of real cold, dense air being blasted over it, & similarly with
the fuel/ADI - through it, then its a possibility, esp' for an air-cooled radial, but otherwise I doubt
that power could be sustained very long, without inevitable heat-soak/power-fade issues..
But that is exactly what they did, for any type of sustained use the Griffon could produce the same as the type R racers.Yeah, that technique of 'pre-warming' the lube/mill was SOP for the 'Russian Front',
but was blithely ignored in balmy Blighty..
& it has of course, been de rigueur for 'pukka' 4T race-mills, for 'yonks' too..
( So that'd be another Sabre/G.P. tech interface).
One of R-R's proud claims was that they'd developed their Griffon engine so well, it could match the mighty R-type
for max-power, but in regular service use, not just for a racing TBO of ~ an hour, or so..
But that is exactly what they did, for any type of sustained use the Griffon could produce the same as the type R racers.
The R engine was only cleared for short sprints, and not in aircraft at 2,783HP. The sabre had twice as many cylinders as the Griffon and had no high altitude performance, since it couldn't fight over 20,000ft the Griffon doesn't need much "climbing power" or time to get above that. Your definition of robust must be different to mine, robust means it doesn't eat itself on a regular basis. In the Typhoons first nine months of service it killed more of its own pilots than that of the enemy due to structural and engine failures. It is completely immaterial what Napier were producing on a test bed, the engines in service only produced that in the best case, in the worst case they failed. This is a quality control or more importantly quality assurance issue.Not quite, check the time allowance for the Griffon at its 'climbing power' rating, & see how far it falls short
of the more robust ( but same 36 litre swept volume) Sabre's "1 hour" capability at that same rating..
The R engine was only cleared for short sprints, and not in aircraft at 2,783HP. The sabre had twice as many cylinders as the Griffon and had no high altitude performance, since it couldn't fight over 20,000ft the Griffon doesn't need much "climbing power" or time to get above that. Your definition of robust must be different to mine, robust means it doesn't eat itself on a regular basis. In the Typhoons first nine months of service it killed more of its own pilots than that of the enemy due to structural and engine failures. It is completely immaterial what Napier were producing on a test bed, the engines in service only produced that in the best case, in the worst case they failed. This is a quality control or more importantly quality assurance issue.
[/QUOTE]Well if you really believe that ben, you'd best be getting stuck in to some further research..
1stly , check the Schneider Trophy race reg's - it most def' - wasn't a "short sprint"!
& 2ndly, look up top scoring Typhoon ace Johnny Baldwin's 'quarry sheet' - for amongst his early victims,
- shot down at over 20,000ft - were Bf 109s, flying 'top cover' - for the under the radar'
FW 190 JaBos..
So much for that last wee 'foray' of yours, then.. eh, ben..
I will just post that, and leave it with you.My name isn't Ben.
Now ben, you are.. being.. what Cpt Mainwaring frequently called Pvt Pike.. & its not.. "Don't be absurd, boy."
I will just post that, and leave it with you.
Was that before or after a Spitfire MkIX intercepted a German recon plane at 43,000ft? How does it compare to the highest successful combat sortie of a Hurricane?Seriously no, don't ( yes by all means - give the attempt at baiting an ill-considered response - a rest)
but try fact-checking 'highest altitude for successful Typhoon combat sortie' & duly see.. '27,000ft'...
.You still here.. could that Hurricane, or Spitfire IX run WFO in hot-pursuit ..
- of an FW 190 JaBo fleeing back across the Channel, hard-out - at zero feet,
& blow it away? Nah, course ( 'scuse the pun) not..
The Typhoons were not in a "terminal dive", tail failures were common, Dieppe was one year after the Typhoon was accepted to squadron service.& during the Battle of Britain, Spitfire P 7864 disintegrated during a terminal dive in 'hot pursuit' of
a Bf 109, but amazingly the pilot, R.J. Spurdle survived the 'incident' - & went on to be an RAF ace,
- inc' shooting down a couple of Zero's - in a lousy low-altitude rated P-40, & eventually returned to
lead 80 Squadron as C.O., when it replaced its Spits with Tempests, to better take the war to the LW..
So what?