Radial engines more favored in Germany, 1935-45?

marathag said:

Similar to this Centaurus powered Tornado, but Hurricane with say, Hercules power

or pretend this is P.24 Monarch in place of Vulture power

Click to expand...

What have you got against the British???
Assuming you could even more than a handful of Hercules engines in 1937-38 (a big assumptions right there) and that they were even half way reliable (another big assumption) the 1938 Hercules was good for 1375hp at 4,000ft. At 16,000ft you are within a few dozen horsepower of the Merlin.
Except you have a engine that is heavier by several hundred pounds (even factoring in the radiator and coolant weight.)
You have a crap load more drag.
You have crap for exhaust thrust.
Yep you got a crapload of power for take-off, at 20,000ft you got crap.

And the Monarch engine?
It is a bit lighter, may depend on radiator/coolant?
it about 6in wider,
it is about 12in taller.
It it is a flying barn door. about 50% more square ft of frontal area than the Vulture.

marathag said:

1936 was still a biplane fighter world if you weren't Germany, France, Japan, USSR or USA, who had monoplane fighters flying.
Gladiator was a terrible mistake.
1937!

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't order/build Gladiators you are flying Gauntlets and Furies if the war starts in 1938 because none of the new wonder planes will be in squadron service.
No more than 8 RAF squadrons were ever flying Gladiators at the the same time.
The Gladiators acted as transitional trainers between the Gauntlets and Furies and the Hurricanes. Once a Gladiator squadron got it's Hurricanes the Gladiators were passed to Gauntlet or other squadron and the the process was repeated.
The Gladiator was ordered after the Hurricane to fill in while they tooled up for the Hurricane.

tomo pauk said:

Is 1900 HP enough, as done by Ha-42, used on Ki-67 bombers?

Click to expand...

On 87 octane? What evidence is there to evidence to support that?

marathag said:

View attachment 755140

Similar to this Centaurus powered Tornado, but Hurricane with say, Hercules power

or pretend this is P.24 Monarch in place of Vulture power
View attachment 755142

1936 was still a biplane fighter world if you weren't Germany, France, Japan, USSR or USA, who had monoplane fighters flying.
Gladiator was a terrible mistake.
1937!

Click to expand...

The USNs standard front line fighter during the Battle of Britain was a biplane. Only the Saratoga was flighting Brewster Buffaloes. And that's June 1940

The Tornado's first flight was October 6, 1939. One month after the war started. Good luck fighting the Battle of Britain. The Merlin was designed for the aircraft actually being designed at the same time, not some concept 3 years in the future.

Reluctant Poster said:

On 87 octane? What evidence is there to evidence to support that?

Click to expand...

See here, and make your conclusions: link

Reluctant Poster said:

The USNs standard front line fighter during the Battle of Britain was a biplane. Only the Saratoga was flighting Brewster Buffaloes. And that's June 1940

The Tornado's first flight was October 6, 1939. One month after the war started. Good luck fighting the Battle of Britain. The Merlin was designed for the aircraft actually being designed at the same time, not some concept 3 years in the future.

Click to expand...

Carrier aircraft were a bit behind land based aircraft, so apples to oranges-- plus Grumman did have the F4F order for France and the UK same time as the USN. Production started in February 1940.

But wasn't talking about using F4Fs for the BoB, but that wouldn't have been the worst idea for the RAF to have a long range fighter in 1940, either

Hurricane with Hercules engine from the Merlin wouldn't take as long as the brand new Tornado, just would look similar to the Tornado.

tomo pauk said:

See here, and make your conclusions: link

Click to expand...

That was not a test it was an extrapolation from the performance of a different engine.

Reluctant Poster said:

That was not a test it was an extrapolation from the performance of a different engine.

View attachment 785517

Click to expand...

"...and it is interesting to note that direct extrapolation of the 10 series for the increase of number of cylinders gives the rated power accredited to the Ha 104."
IOW - if we multiply the power of each cylinder of the Kasei 10 series of engines, we arrive to the power values accredited beforehand to the Ha 104.