Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That depends on your objective. You could turn a state of the art lightweight fighter aircraft into a flying brick like USA did with the P-43 to P-47 evolution.
P-43A. R1830 engine. Empty weight = 5,982 lbs.
P-47D. R2800 engine. Empty weight = 10,000 lbs.
The Spitfire XIV experienced some difficulties with directional stability, requiring larger rudders to compensate. Even then, the trim of the aircraft needed constant correction.
In The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price mentions that the 6th Mk VIII, JF321, to be converted to serve as a Mk XIV prototype was fitted with the Griffon 85 and contra-rotating propellors. Later JF317 was also converted to run the 85.
Does anybody know how these compared to the standard XIV, and whether stability was affected, either positively or negatively?
Tony Buttler, British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II, describes the conversion of one of the Tornado prototypes to trial contra-rotating de Havilland propellers and that the result was worsened stability.
Was the Griffon 85 ever a viable optoion to be installed into Spitfire XIV and XVIII production aircraft?
How much extra did the engine and contra-prop weigh?
According to Morgan and Shacklady there were two Mk XIVs fitted with contra-propsThere were more than that. RB144 was also a contra prop Spit XIV; nice piccie of it on page 414 of Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire book, for example. JF321 was one of the converted Mk.VIIIs used to trial different engine installations for future Spitfire designs, such as the XVIII and XXI (later F.21) and by the fitting of a two-speed two stage Griffon, became one of the interim XIV prototypes. According to said Spitfire book, test pilot Shea-Simmonds reported that "This Mk VIIIG (note suffix) fitted to a Rotol contra propeller was flown to Staverton for a check on what I consider to be undoubtedly propeller roughness and grinding noises. Bryan Greensted flew the aeroplane and his verdict was the engine as source of trouble. In spite of this I am still suspicious of the propeller." Looks like the DH contra prop was more satisfactory than the Rotol.
According the the book, JF321 was fitted with Griffon 61 and was the last of the test bed Mk.VIIIs; "...was weighed at Worthy Downon 19 August in the following condition: Griffon 61 driving a Rotol six blade counter rotating propeller unit, 85 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tanks and 27 in wings."
Can't find serials for the F.XIVs fitted with the Griffon 85, but the engine was also fitted to the F.21 LA219, which also had contra-rotating props - as well as LA220. F.22s PK664 and PK312 had the same; Griffon 85 and contra prop. PK312 was retained by the manufacturers for Spiteful trials and was fitted with a Spiteful tailplane.
Don't have time to do too much more digging, will take a look later for you, Wuzak.
That depends on your objective. You could turn a state of the art lightweight fighter aircraft into a flying brick like USA did with the P-43 to P-47 evolution.
P-43A. R1830 engine. Empty weight = 5,982 lbs.
P-47D. R2800 engine. Empty weight = 10,000 lbs.
That depends on your objective. You could turn a state of the art lightweight fighter aircraft into a flying brick like USA did with the P-43 to P-47 evolution.
P-43A. R1830 engine. Empty weight = 5,982 lbs.
P-47D. R2800 engine. Empty weight = 10,000 lbs.
More hatred of the P-47 with little or nothing to back it up?
and very, very little to do with this thread.
by 1941, the Lancer was already outdated by the rapid advances in air combat technology that had taken place in Europe. It suffered from poor maneuverability and climbing performance, and lacked such modern innovations as armor protection for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Consequently, the Army did not anticipate ordering any more P-43s beyond the initial service-test contract.
I have recently purchased Morgan and Shacklady, but haven't got too far into it as yet.