swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
The idea of a "power egg," where the engine and its auxiliaries could be removed as a unit was somewhat popular with the RAF, and that's easier with s nose radiator.
MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
J.A.W.
Banned
Oh dear, wrong again..
FYI, Hawker Fury prototype LA 610 flew with an R-R Griffon & R-R's own annular rad,
then Hawker scraped that ugly mess off & fitted a Sabre with Hawker's own wing leading edge rad set-up..
Meanwhile Napier development were flying Typhoon/Tempests - with their own annular rad..
There was a strategic element to the thinking, in case one engine supplier was affected by heavy bombing, another route could be used.
wuzak
Captain
Right. Because the Tornado had flown, found the belly radiator did not work and abandoned it before the Typhoon prototype had been completed, certainly months before it flew.
Did I mention anywhere that the XP-40 did 400mph?
400mph had nought to do with it anyway, and nor, IMO, did compressibility. Instead it was good old boundary layer and/or flow turbulence that did the radiator in.
Well, the situation I described was essentially the situation Napiers was in the late 1930s. One engine to seriously develop, two others were going nowhere. Service types used Rolls-Royce and Bristol engines almost exclusively.
No, I haven't read that.
Your insertion of such phrases and jargon makes it difficult to follow your arguments. Such as they are.
But here are the facts:
The Tornado/Typhoon program was designed to replace the Hurricane/Spitfire as the front line fighter in the RAF. It could not replace the Spitfire.
If the Typhoon and Tempest had been cancelled, the war would not have been very much different.
J.A.W.
Banned
Yep, see R-R's later annular rad Merlin 'power egg' set-up on a DC-4, here, below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 1455.html
How am I wrong? I said this
This makes no sense at all, the Tornado and Typhoon were Hawker designs what they were meant to have or not have is up to Hawker. A design doesn't "jump" on anything, the Griffon installation was another radiator variation while the Centaurus was air cooled and different again, while even the last tempests were tried with an annular radiator.
From the Tempest web site re Griffon
The Tempest Mk III and IV, both earmarked for installation of Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, diverged significantly from the Sabre engined Tempest program. Only the Mk III prototype (LA610) was actually converted (Mk IV prototype LA614 was cancelled in Feb 1943). The aircraft was test flown during September 1944 as a "lightweight" Tempest powered by a Griffon 85 engine. Later it was re-engined with the final version of the Sabre, the Mk VIII, which developed over 3000hp, and in this form it achieved 483mph making it the fastest of the Hawker piston-engined fighters."
And as far as the annular radiator
Annular Radiator
As part of the power plant testing, Napier had developed a unique annular radiator for use on the Tempest, in an effort to streamline the aircraft by doing away the big scoop radiator.
The radiator development program used two modified Tempest Mk. V, serials EJ518 (fitted with a Sabre VI) and NV 768. NV 768 was later fitted with a ducted spinner with the same diameter as the fuselage and, although test flown, the spinner was not actually planned for use on production Tempests. Neither feaure was incorporated onto Tempest production line and the aircrafts were scrapped after the war
Last edited:
J.A.W.
Banned
Hardly.. it was only when top speed runs were done, at ~400mph, & Tornado's belly rad showed itself as a problem..
Rather callous too, to dismiss the carnage that an extra 800+ V1's crashing on London would cause..
not to mention the horrific losses the Merlin Spit chaps would've suffered, in trying to shoulder the Typhoon's
2nd TAF burden, post D-day..
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
These snap rolls were not voluntary; they were due to instability. The dorsal fin precluded the instability; the structural changes were distinct and applied to the horizontal tail.
J.A.W.
Banned
You wrote: "It makes no sense..."
Ironically, you got that bit right, it applies to much of your confused posting output..
FYI, that ''Griffon-Fury" pic you posted, is actually a Sabre-Fury, too..
Last edited:
J.A.W.
Banned
No, a 'snap roll' is a deliberate aerobatic technique, & that's why 'Pilot's Notes' often list them as
'verboten!' along with 'extended intentional spins'..
wuzak
Captain
J.A.W.
Banned
Hey W, nevermind that - where's my quid? Tail empennages departing P-51's remember..
(& FYI, 'snap roll' is the US term for 'flick roll' & they ARE an aerobatic routine)..
(& FYI, 'snap roll' is the US term for 'flick roll' & they ARE an aerobatic routine)..
Reopened. Hope it can stay civilised this time.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Uh, I vote for the P-39.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The Merlin 61 that was about to go into the P-51B/C actually failed a standard AAF 150 hour test. Cracked pistons among other things. The British required only a 100 hour test. AAF decided to just be extra careful with maintenance. Allison, P&W and Wright grumbled that their engines were normally delayed until they could pass the test, but to no avail.
Not exactly! A snap roll occurs whenever one wing stalls and the other does not at a high enough speed such that forward inertia overrides gravity; a "horizontal spin", if you will. This is generally, but not necessarily, deliberate on the pilot's part. Any sudden yaw at higher AOAs and speeds can induce an inadvertent snap roll, and agravated if opposite aileron is applied, as might occur with a sudden application of power at high AOA. (Think nugget pilot getting used to his high powered fighter gets behind the power curve on approach and notices high sink rate too late; jams on a big wad of power: yaw leads to induced roll, hard over aileron to correct, SNAP! Another funeral.)
I've had students put us through an inadvertant snap roll while setting up to enter a spin. Nervous and impatient, failing to wait for the plane to slow down enough before stepping on the rudder. That's all it takes. Never had one do it to me twice!
Cheers,
Wes
Wes, is there any reason why pilots manuals forbid snap or flick rolls when they seem to be perfectly capable of doing them? Is it just "playing safe"
The Sea Hornet, TBF/M, FG1, the L4 right off the top of m'head.
The V-1650-1 technically failed it's type/model test but was put into production with the understanding that once it passed its penalty run that existing engines would be upgraded. The two-stage models had to pass their model test before they were put into production.
