Most Useful Plane Not Produced

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Kevin J said:
No, because the Griffon Spitfire is superior and doesn't arrive until 1943, so your idea won't work.
Click to expand...

If you could build that many Spitfires then why would you build any Hurricanes at all after 1940? The notion that a Griffon in a Hurricane is a waste because you could just put it in a Spitfire is only relevant if you actually have Spitfire airframes to put them in.


So you think that going from 1280 hp to 1,700 hp isn't going to help? Apparently Sydney Camm did as he proposed it!


Yes eventually the saber turned into a great high performance engine, it was pretty darn good by 44. The ability to design , test and build these high performance engines with WW2 era technology still amazes me. The saber gets picked on a lot but there were many engines that were just as bad or a lot worse.

In my mind having a 370 mph Hurricane with a Griffon II would be very useful in the Far East in 42-45.
 
From Germany, the Arado Ar 440. Similar engines as the Me 410 but far better performance. Abandoned in favour of the established Me.
From France, the Bloch MB 157. Great performance but smothered by the German occupiers.
From Italy, two contenders:
- the Piaggio P.119, great potential but abandoned upon the Armistice in 1943.
- the Regiane Re. 2005, especially as tested by the Luftwaffe with a German-made engine. Spectacular performance but circumstances limited its potential.
 
I doubt if you would get the Griffon Hurricane till 1943 and then only in small numbers. Perhaps a better bet would have been to build some Tornadoes, initially with Vultures then with the Double Wasp from 1942. Send them overseas to the Med and Far East. Now that would have been useful. Keep the Typhoon and Tempest at home.
 
I'm going to just put this out there, for what it's worth.

You cannot just yank an engine out of an airframe and stuff another in it's place like you're swapping a 283 for a 350 in a '68 Camaro.

If you want to swap an engine in an aircraft, there's a long list of things to take into consideration and the short of it, is that it's not going to happen over the weekend with a bucket of beers and the help of a couple friends - so hoping to up-engine the Hurricane and have it into service quickly isn't going to happen. Plus there were other, newer types coming into service that negated a modified Hurri.
 
gjs238 said:
The Sabre must have been recognized as high risk at the time?
Click to expand...
Not the engine, the company. Napier hasn't made anything useful outside of perhaps the Lion. Giving them the business was obviously an attempt at procurement diversification, but the engine was never going to be reliable. Is any museum or racer flying a Sabre today?
GrauGeist said:
You cannot just yank an engine out of an airframe and stuff another in it's place like you're swapping a 283 for a 350 in a '68 Camaro.
Click to expand...
Not a giant Sabre into a Merlin hole, but Merlins have been swapped into replace Fiat/DB and Allison inlines with little apparent difficulty.
 

I support the idea of Ar 232.
 
Admiral Beez said:
The War Office should have told Napier to move the Sabre program to tank and MTB engines. RR and Bristol are then told to get moving on the Griffon and Centaurus.
Click to expand...

Largely agree. Napier had a license for Jumo diesels, the 204 as the Culverin and the 205 as the Cutlass. Put them to work on those for MTBSs, ships' generators, and perhaps smaller versions for AFV and landing craft.
 

We are looking at things with aid of hindsight. Napier had made one of the two best and most widely used British aircraft engines of the 1920s. Some accounts claim 160 different aircraft used it (granted a very large number of those may have been one-offs or prototypes). This helped establish a rather incredible reputation as did the use of the Lion to set a number of speed records. In the early 30s the market for the Lion pretty much collapsed but with the world wide depression the market for many aircraft engines was much diminished.
As for the sleeve valve, several luxury cars had used it, it was being touted as the next thing in internal combustion engines by two of England's foremost engine designers, Sir Harry Ricardo and Roy Fedden. Frank Halford was the consulting engineer for Napier and had designed the Cirrus air cooled light engines and the De Havilland Gipsy series of engines.
It would take a mighty strong Air Ministry official to stand up and say these men were wrong in the late 30s.
Halford was using complicated engines with many cylinders to get high rpm to get around the fuel problem of the time. If you can only use so much boost because of the fuel the only other ways to make large power is with either high rpm or use lots of cylinders (or both). Small cylinders allow for higher RPM.

Trying to judge WW II engine reliability on how many of these engines is still flying is a very poor argument. A lot of what is still flying is dependent on the availability of spare parts.
compared to other WW II engines they didn't build that many Sabres and with the post war market about zero for the engines there was little interest in keeping the engines and parts around. The Sabre may have been good at the end of the war, it may have been terrible, but with no post war use to really speak of (one Tempest used as a target tug until 1953?) the spare parts situation is a tough hurdle for anyone trying to fly one today. parts for a flying engine being a bit different than parts for one running on a display stand.

As for swapping engines, some swaps are easier than others but please look at the P-36?hawk 75 which may hold the record for number of different engines or set ups installed in one airframe. Even the Allison to Merlin swap isn't quite as easy as it appears. And again , air show performance is not the same as combat performance.
In the P-40 the engines require different radiators and oil coolers because they get rid of different amounts of heat to the two different cooling circuits. The Allison used a down draft carb with the air intake on the top of the cowl, The Merlin used an up draft carb with the intake made part of the chin scoop. This sounds easy, a little sheet metal here or there but both engines could pick up several thousand feet of FTH at high speed by converting the speed of the incoming air to positive pressure at the carb intake. A poor intake could cost power and or performance at altitude. For an air show airplane this doesn't matter, The AIr show plane flies, it looks good, it can make a pretty fast pass over the crowd (rarely more than few thousand feet above sea level) but it is operating at much less than military power just about all of it's life.
getting back to the P-36/hawk 75/P-40. the oil tank and other parts moved around for version to version, oil tank actually went from in front of the cockpit to behind the cockpit to back in front over the years. The P-40F with Merlin used the fuel in the tanks in a different order than the P-40E did in order to help maintain the proper center of gravity.

Spitfires were using different amounts of ballast to compensate for different weight propellers leat alone changing the different models of engine.
 
swampyankee said:
Largely agree. Napier had a license for Jumo diesels, the 204 as the Culverin and the 205 as the Cutlass. Put them to work on those for MTBSs, ships' generators, and perhaps smaller versions for AFV and landing craft.
Click to expand...

needless complication and the engines were actually too small for some of those applications.
Boats, in general, are a lot more weight tolerate of their engines than aircraft. They also are a lot less volume restricted.
The Culverin was rated a 720hp for aircraft use and would have needed to be derated for boat use. This is not high enough for MTBs or MGBs unless used in multiples (6 engines instead of 3 of the gasoline V-12s?) and being the Junkers opposed piston two crankshaft design it was not a cheap way to get power.
In any case, from Old Machine Press.

"The Jumo 204 was built as the Napier Culverin (E102), and the Jumo 205 was planned as the Napier Cutlass (E103). The Culverin was first run on 24 September 1934, but the engine garnered little interest and no orders. By 1936, after only seven Culverins were made and no Cutlasses, Napier halted further work on opposed-piston diesel aircraft engines. "
 

I think the Culverin could have been developed, e.g., more cylinders, larger bore, turbocharging, into a 1200+ hp engine without too much trouble.
 
I think they should have fit the P-38J's with the P-38K's prop -- it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do. As for the P-61, I think a turbocharger should have been present from the outset -- there were plans to do so, but the twin-stage supercharger was chosen to increase endurance.

I think it would have been cool if we had a jet earlier, but the L-133 wasn't a real good design. The engines were pathologically over-complicated, and I'm amazed the canard wouldn't have caused trouble.
From what I recall, they test involved the looped-hose & grapnel-line. Basically if I recall the refueling-plane would extend the hose (230 feet of it), which would be caught by some kind of attachment on the wingtip (don't quote me on that -- I might be mixing up some arrangement the USSR used for refueling Tu-16's), at which point it the crew would pop it with a grappling hook; then reeled it into a position on the tail. The tanker would position itself above the plane and start pumping.

This wasn't something you could do with a fighter plane: That wasn't until 1949, though I suppose it could have been sped a long quite a bit. It would be suitable for bombers, and could increase range by 50%. They didn't really like the idea because they figured the B-29 could go as far, and could fly faster, so why bother. While some of them did have imagination, some of them really lacked it: If you did that to a B-29, you might be able to stretch its legs out quite a bit too, but the idea for this kind of refueling, as intended, was to takeoff light and refuel once you reach cruise. Not takeoff heavy and refuel somewhere along the way.

You'd probably need a lot of transports for this: In the Cold War, we'd see a 1:1 ratio of tankers to bombers. I can't imagine they'd like this whole idea.

Plus it would have had serious trouble in the post-war time period. With the ability to bomb at such distances, it would have made the argument easier that the USAF should absorb all aviation. They hated carriers because they couldn't control them, and would have basically scuttled the bulk of the US Navy, and reduced it to a glorified coast-guard.

Propellorhead said:
IN 1943 after Munich was bombed Hitler ordered production of the Heinkel He277 with an intention to bomb England day by day or night. To accomplish this, the bomber had to fly higher than British fighters could intercept it.
Click to expand...
You're mixing up two designs...

The He 177B/He 277 and He 274: The first was a four-engined He 177. As early as Mid/Late November 1938, they had proposed a pair of prototypes with 4 engines, but the program didn't take off. It wasn't until 1943 that they were given the go-ahead to fit a He 177 with 4-engines.

The idea of high altitude flight seemed to emerge as early as 1939, but it took a long time before they got underway at all, and the design wasn't even looked at much until almost 1941. Out of this design came the -177H, which was in late 1941, and was called the -274.

It had a pressurized compartment for the crew, and a high altitude capability.
 
I think that, although not a runaway success. We should remember how many 2000+ HP class engines never really worked properly at all.

The Sabre was less than ideal in the extreme but at least it wasn't a DB604, BMW 803 or any of the other cul de sacs from various nations.
 

Griffon II in a Spitfire gives 390-400 mph, meaning it can clash with Fw 190 and Bf 109 on equal footing. The 370 mph Hurricane can't.
Griffon in 1942 in the Far east is a no go, the 1st Griffon Spitfires were around in winter of 1942/43 in Europe.

Spitfire was already robbed with regards of not having the best engine installed in it in 1940 so the 2nd best fighter can receive a performance increase it sorely needed. Let's not the same mistake twice. There was a lot of Spitfire airframes with non-competitive Merlins installed in 1941-44.


Bloch 157 - yes, indeed, the G&R 14R offered the power no worse than BMW 801 or Hercules of the day.
Re.2005 was good for 390 mph as introduced in April of 1943. That turn of speed was spectacular for Summer of 1941, bu not for Spring of 1943. Luftwaffe have had the 390 mph fighters in service in Summer/Autumn of 1941.
 
Since we have wandered into engines that might have been produced, what about the Jumo-004A? A Me 262 with two of that engine would have worse performance than with the 004B but who cares in 1943. Also very hesitantly because I don't trust Heinkel but if the HeS 030 was as reported, what about it to power the He 280?
 

In an earlier discussion on this forum , Griffon powered Hurricane.... , it is stated that a Hurricane airframe was modified for a griffon installation in in early 41 but was canned by the air ministry. So maybe coming off the line by 42? I think the Vulture is one of those engines that was a failure, thats why the Toronado was canceled and the Typhoon with the better saber was produced. This is a good example of the great difficulty in designing these engines with both the Vulture and the Saber with developmental problems.

I know that the Hurricane was a derivative design, created to get large numbers built rapidly, but the RAF was still operating considerable numbers of Hurricanes in 43, 44 and 45 with performance unchanged since 1940. A Griffen engined Hurricane has the potential of close to Hellcat performance.
 
So long as the Griffon powered Hurricane could do 525 mph in a dive like the Hellcat then I'm sure it would be okay in the Pacific, although I'm sure that a two stage Merlin would suffice.
 
slaterat said:
but the RAF was still operating considerable numbers of Hurricanes in 43, 44 and 45 with performance unchanged since 1940.
Click to expand...

This is not quite true.

Yes the Hurricane II started production in 1940 with the Merlin XX and the Hurricane ended production in 1944 using a Merlin 20 series engine and yes they soldiered in until 1945 in a few squadrons.
However the Merlin 20 series of engines went through a few changes in allowable boost.
The Merlin XX of 1940 was allowed 9lbs of boost.

The late Merlin 20 series engines used in MK IV Hurricanes (which in no way, shape, form or circumstance were fighters) were good for 1610hp for take-0ff, 1635hp at 2250ft in low gear and 1510hp at 9250ft. Obviously 300hp or more at low altitudes over the Early Merlin XX engines should have changed performance somewhat. The 30 minute climb rating was 2850rpm at 9lbs of boost.

The early Griffon made 1720hp for take-off, 1735hp at 1000ft and 1495hp at 14,500 ft. It also weighed almost 350lbs more. plus the bigger cooling system. The orgninal sized propeller may have worked at low altitudes, a 4 blade was trialed. But trying to turn the Hurricane into a fighter that operated at near 20,000ft with a griffon engine is going to call for a new prop.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
One would think that had P & W been able to the build the engines in 1940-41 then Grumman would have built all F4F-3s and not the 65 castrated F4F-3As that they did build.
Click to expand...

Additional engines would not be required as the P-66 was already allocated. The two speed two stage supercharger was indeed limiting but was technologically feasible and could have been expedited.


Again, it was something the AAF didn't want but needed. This same AAF let the XP-51 sit in a hangar at Wright Field for six months before someone decided to take it out and see what it would do. And still it played second fiddle until it got "a new engine!"

So basically the Vanguard had been rejected by the British twice
Click to expand...

I read that differently. The Chinese were desperate for aircraft. The P-66, like the P-36, was not suitable for combat by the RAF, but they felt the P-66 could be suitable for combat in China and could be made available to satisfy this desperate need.


But, before that, the British received a slew of repurposed aircraft including P-36s, and P-66s, both with similar characteristics also like the P-35. They had no use for any of them and shuttled them off to other places as the US did with the P-35s. The Brits were more familiar with the P-36s as the French had already been using them. I would not be surprised if the Brits took a few P-66s up flew them around and said too slow and too low of an effective altitude to be combat suitable for RAF, maybe as a trainer.

Comparison of P-66 performance to other P&W R-1830 aircraft. Some engines have less performance than others but even normalized power setting would not make up for the P-66s advantage.

P-66

Engine -33 power TO 1200hp/13kft 1050hp

Max speed 340 mph at 15kft

Climb 2520 ft/min

Ceiling 30kft

Gross weight 7100 lbs includes four .30s and two .50s and pilot armor

P-35

Engine -45 TO 1050hp/ 11.5kft 1000hp

Max speed 290 mph at 12kft 50 mph less than the P-66

Climb 1920 ft/min

Ceiling 32kft

Gross weight 6118 lbs includes two .30s and two .50s

P-36

Engine -17 power TO 1200 hp/10kft 1050 hp

Max speed 311mph at 10kft 29 mph less than the P-66

Climb 3400 f/min

Ceiling 33 kft

Gross weight 5800 lbs Probably lacked armor and had one 30. Cal and one .50 Cal

XP-41 precursor to P-47

Engine -19 power TO 1200 hp/17.5 kft 1050hp Note: engine had a two speed supercharger or a two stage supercharger*

Max speed 323 mph at 15kft 17 mph less than the P-66, even with an advanced supercharger

Climb NA

Ceiling 31.5 kft

Gross weight 6600 lbs an XP plane may have not had armor or armament

F4F-3

Engine -76 power TO 1200/19kft 1000 hp Note: engine has two stage, two speed supercharger

Max speed 330 mph at 21 kft 10 mph less than the P-66 with advanced supercharger

Climb 2265 ft/min

Ceiling 37.5 kft

Gross weight 7002 lbs armament was four .50s some were without armor some were with armor

*There is some confusion on whether the XP-41 had a two speed supercharger or a two stage supercharger, most sources say it was a two stage supercharger. It doesn't quite match up with the F4F-3 superchargers. It seems like P&W was doing quite a bit of work on superchargers. It must be noted here that Seversky was apparently able to obtain an engine for the XP-41 with a two stage (?) compressor in early '39. Had Vultee tried or had been able to obtain this engine for its P-66 evaluations, and it's 350 mph at 20kft and ceiling of 30+kft could have been showcased in the Fall of '39, it would have raised a lot more interest from USAAC, although I think they were basically still concentrating on the Republic turbocharger work, and certainly more interest from foreign customers. More interest may have inspired more effort to fix issues and to improve availability of components.

P-66 was a clean aircraft as shown by the fact it was faster than all the other aircraft using conventional superchargers (although some with advanced superchargers could be faster than the P-66 at altitudes over 15k). It was also apparently a well liked plane to fly and aerobatic. But it was both too early and too late. Too late to be included in the comparison of the P-36 and P-35, which it clearly dominated in speed, and too early for the supercharged engine that would have transformed its ability to address the Japanese threats in China and South Pacific. And, most importantly, it had no heroes who saw its possibilities. Also its valuable period was limited to the first years of the war up through mid '43. And its growth was limited. Even if Vultee could have upgraded it to the R-2800 ala Republic did to the P-43, I cannot see it providing much more capability than the P-47 at high altitudes or the F4U at lower altitudes. It probably would have been faster than the F4U due to lighter weight and reduced wing area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
5
Views
326
Dr.Mabuse
D
P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
659
Greyman
G
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
605
Snautzer01
Amelia Earhart's plane
Replies
13
Views
2K
GrauGeist
W
Mass produced HS-123s
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
8K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register