Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Oh, one of my favorite could-have-beens, the Whirlwind with the R-1830s
The range would be easily increased by installing the additional fuel tanks in space previously used by radiators (twice as much fuel possible?), while at 20000 ft it would be something like 2 x 950 HP vs. 2 x 700 HP for historical Whirly. 3 cannons, or 5 HMGs? The weight would be increased, though, and so will be the drag.
Thanks for the data. I'll just comment about the bolded part: the airframe used did have shortcoming, to forestall an even greater speed increase - draggy wings. It would be interesting to see what the 2 stager would be making with thinner wings, or laminar flow ones? Or, sticking it onto a smaller lighter airframe, like that of the VG-33, or CW-21, or Yak-1/3?
The R-1830s are about 400lbs heavier each (heavier than a Merlin XX) than the Peregrine engines. Some of the radiator space might be used by the inter-coolers (only way your getting 900hp at 20,000ft is with the two stage engine.
The airframe was a Hawk 81A and might not have had self sealing tanks or armor. From the picture available it doesn't seem to have wing guns. Check out the Swedish fighter, that is about as small as you are going to get.
The two stage R-1830 was about 400lbs heavier than a Hispano V-12. It was about 300lbs heavier than the CYclone and was maybe 200lbs heavier than the M-105 in the Yaks. And for all three you need to find space for the intercooler/s and ducting.
Agreed.The single stage engine was about 100lbs lighter (unless you try for the 1350hp version) but didn't need the space for the intercooler/s.
Again, you guys know a lot more about this stuff than I do so I won't claim to know anything about this but here is a T-6 Texan with a R-1830 with a supercharger on it. It gave the P-51s a run for the money at the Winston Salem, NC airshow this year. I don't know the gentleman that owns it but I do know it is based at Morganton, NC. It, in my opinion performed very well and was joy to watch.
Indeed, cowling design in an airplane with a radial engine is possibly THE single most important aspect of its design.(...)
Part of the problem with an R-1830 powered fighter is the 6 years of WW II and advancements made. The state of the "ART" in cowling design for radial engines made tremendous advances from 1938 to 1942 let alone to 1945 meaning a considerable difference in performance potential for a 1944-45 R-1830 powered aircraft compared to a 1939-1940 aircraft even if BOTH had the same 1200hp engine.
Spending design time on an R-1830 powered fighter in 1942-43 is a waste of resources unless for some reason ( like Sweden or Australia) it was the ONLY engine available.
Designing one in 42-43 may well be a waste of resources, but fielding one in the "early war" years prior to the arrival of the R-2800 powered fighters may have been wonderful. With the benefit of hindsight, was an early war R-1830 powered non-navalized fighter superior to the F4F, P-35, P-36 and at least the equivalent of the P-40 possible?Spending design time on an R-1830 powered fighter in 1942-43 is a waste of resources unless for some reason ( like Sweden or Australia) it was the ONLY engine available.