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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
There was a strategic element to the thinking, in case one engine supplier was affected by heavy bombing, another route could be used.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.
No, & no - you cannot be serious!
1, The Typhoon was always intended to have the chin rad, the Tornado jumped on the band wagon..
& no early XP-40 with a belly rad got anywhere near 400mph, AFAIK..
2, If only Jesus H, Christ appeared to me in person & gave me the kosher numbers for the next big lotto draw..
then hell, I'd be a winner, too!
& WTF?, Hey W, aint you read/seen 'The Right Stuff' - with that rascally ol' demon - a lurkin' in the ughknown?
Its a classic..
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.
How am I wrong? I said thisOh dear, wrong again..
.
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.
400mph had nought to do with it anyway..
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.
Hmmm... now who was it, mentioned 'snap rolls' as a no no - a few posts back? Oh yeah, I remember now..
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...
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.
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'..
"Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll. The horizontal stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a snap roll. To prevent recurrence, the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O. 01-60J-18 dated 8 April 1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"
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.I believe it was somewhat more than that.
Over 2000hp, but I'd have to check.
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.)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'..
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"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
The Sea Hornet, TBF/M, FG1, the L4 right off the top of m'head.In contrast to the other topic what do you think the most underrated aircraft of WW2 was?
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.