Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For Rolls Royce it would have to be something instead of the Vulture. They had to drop the Exe and the Peregrine to allow resources for the Vulture and Merlin. The Griffon was an FAA back burner until the Vulture's resources were released so an early Griffon is really the only Rolls Royce option in time.
Griffon shared many things with Buzzard.
On the contrary, Fulmar should be the 1st recipient of a big engine. There was a difference between fleet defenders that were able to catch Ju-88s, vs. the ones unable doing that. 2nd recipient might be one of the Hawker's heavy fighters. Then the Barracuda, then Firefly. Maybe install it on the Beaufighter, it was tested with Griffons historically.
Thanks for mentioning the 24Y - would you please provide some link about that, quick googling reveals only the post-war 24Z? The 24Y looks like a gem, comparing how hard it was for many of the countries to come up with 2000-2500 HP engines until late in war?
Going in reverse order, the 24Y is one of those engines who's appearance makes you want to gouge out your eyes with a spork ( plastic fast food utensil)
You have been warned1938 | 3378 | Flight Archive
Two separate superchargers, 12 carburetors, 4 magnetos, a dry weight of 2160lbs (liquid cooled engine, how much for radiators and coolant?) 2200hp at 250rpm for take-off from a 4394 cu in (72 liter) engine. rated out put was 2000hp at 2400rpm at 10,800ft (3,300 m).
trying to stick this thing ( or a British clone) into a Fulmar is a disaster waiting to happen, even if you shorten that anteater inspired nose case. It is 370lbs heavier than an early Griffin and 700lbs heaver than a Merlin. It is lighter than a Vulture though so even a British 24 cylinder H engine is going to wind up heavier than a Vulture even if you you use Kestrel/Peregrine blocks. Fulmar went just over 7,000lb empty, sticking another 10% of it's weight in the nose (not including prop) isn't going to work too well. (or another 1/2 ton if your British 24 cylinder H weighs as much as a Vulture.)
A Vulture went about 2450lbs. Ah "H" type engine uses two crankshafts instead of one used by the "X" engine. The one crank is bigger and heavier but not twice as heavy. The "H" engine uses a bigger crankcase, more weight. The "H" engine uses a gear train to gear the cranks together ( usually) that the "X" engine doesn't. The "H" engine will be bigger ( or at least taller if placed on end or wider if laid over).
We are back to what size/weight plane you can fit on existing carriers. And not just "fit" but actually operate (like land using existing or only somewhat modified arrestor system)
You may get away with sticking an early Griffon in a Fulmar (but then that is why they designed the Firefly?) trying to stick in engines weighinghundreds of pounds more than the Griffon means going back to the drawing board and/or a loooong reserach and development period which cancels out your hoped for advantage.
From wiki: take for what you think it is worth
"Before the war, in 1938 the Air Ministry issued two specifications for two naval fighters, a conventional and a "turret fighter". Performance for both was to be 275 knots at 15,000 ft while carrying an armament, for the conventional fighter, of eight 0.303 Browning machine guns or four 20mm Hispano cannon. This would replace the Fulmar which had been an interim design. These specifications were updated the following year and several British manufacturers tendered their ideas. Further changes to the official specification followed, the turret fighter specification was dropped and a modified specification issued to cover single and dual seat fighters capable of 330 and 300 knots respectively. Fairey offering designs that could be single or two seater and powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon or alternatively a larger airframe with a Napier Sabre. After consideration of manufacturers responses, Specification N.5/40 replaced the earlier specifications. Due to the necessity of navigating over open sea, it was for a two-seater alone.[1] For defence of naval bases a separate single seater design would lead to the Blackburn Firebrand.[2]
The Firefly was designed by H.E. Chaplin at Fairey Aviation; in June 1940, the Admiralty ordered 200 aircraft "off the drawing board" with the first three to be the prototypes. The prototype of the Firefly flew on 22 December 1941.[3] Although it was 4,000 lb (1,810 kg) heavier than the Fulmar (largely due to its armament of two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing)>
Please note they were planning on replacing the Fulmar in 1938 and the Fulmar was considered an interim design even in 1938, Also please note that Fairey was proposing a bigger airframe than the Firefly to hold the 2500lb Napair saber engine.
I would also note that wiki might be just a wee bit wrong in blaming the 4,000lb weight increase on the 20mm cannon. Like the the extra 300-400lbs of the Griffon, the larger radiators/oil coolers and coolant and the larger propeller had nothing to do with (not to mention the larger fuel tanks), in fact the empty weight of a Firefly I is 2735lbs more than a Fulmar II. empty weight is without guns.
We might remember the Fairey Monarch, flight tested aboard the Battle - there were no problems (engine weight- and size-wise)? Replaced the very Merlin. The cooling system can be relocated behind the CoG, as with Monarch Battle, that would account for ~300 lbs that front of the fuselage does not have to carry now. Seems like the Monarch was offering more power than the Vulture, wile being more than 10% lighter.
.Much of this is related at what engines would be available for the perspective costumers, within next 5-6 years.
FAA did have only one shiny new engine to base their planes in late 1930s - the Merlin (Taurus being an alternative; Hercules was overlooked??)
Anyway, it was a pity that RR didn't further refined the Goshawk, in parallel with the PV.12/Merlin.
Whew! for a minute there I thought you had gone round the bend.........
A few papers on an American evaluation of the Fairey Monarch engine.
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P152543.pdf
Whew! for a minute there I thought you had gone round the bend.........
A few papers on an American evaluation of the Fairey Monarch engine.
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P152543.pdf
If R-R had continued with development of the Buzzard/R engine it might have come out bulkier than the Griffon that did result and been harder to fit in a Spitfire airframe without rework, however a 1400-1500hp engine on 87 octane fuel (low level) might have allowed for a Fulmar III/early Firefly and a Barracuda somewhat earlier that historically.