Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I doubt I can untie your knickers, but if P&W Canada can assemble engines for the US, they could presumably assemble them for Canada.
Of course a subsidiary engine maintenance and assembly operation is not an engine plant. My point is that if Canada wanted to produce a radial engine a good place to start is with a call to P&W Canada to inquire if they can: expand their existing assembly/maintenance operation; build a manufacturing plant; or, consult to an existing Canadian engine producer to license build the P&W engine, such as GM Canada.
Let's be Frank here about the ROC. Take out the turret, give the gunner a couple of LMG and stick a cannon in each wing and you'll have a worthy adversary of the Ar 196. As for the Botha, get Blackburn to make some Bombays instead as they will come in handy in the Far East when the Japanese attack. Use them for night bombing, medivac and aerial resupply for troops cut off by the Japanese advance into Malaya, Burma, Timor and New Guinea.
Is there anything we can wrap around a Perseus that can make a good fighter?I'm very much of the opinion that nothing good can come of altering the basic design of the Skua/Roc to produce a better performing aircraft.
Yes, Westland Lysander.Is there anything we can wrap around a Perseus that can make a good fighter?
Perhaps a Perseus powered Whirlwind for use in the Far East?Is there anything we can wrap around a Perseus that can make a good fighter?
The Perseus was the intended engine for the Bristol Type 148 two seater. Did Bristol do any better than Blackburn on the aerodynamics?Perhaps a Perseus powered Whirlwind for use in the Far East?
Perhaps a single-seat 138 was the Perseus' best chance to find a useful fighter application.
You were too quick for me, I meant the 148, pictured above.The Bristol 138 was a single-seater.
In a word............NO!Is there anything we can wrap around a Perseus that can make a good fighter?
To illustrate the futility of attempting to up-engine the Skua/Roc airframe, let's make a basic comparison between the Defiant and the Skua/Roc. ( For sources, read to the bottom of this post) The Daffy Mk.I fully loaded, surprisingly weighed 8,350lb, the Skua weighed 8,124lb, the Roc, 7,950lb.
Dimensionally, the Daffy reads as follows: span 39ft 4in, length 35ft 4in, height: 12ft 2in, wing area 250sq ft. The Skua and Roc: span 46ft 2in, Roc 46ft 0in, length 35ft 7in, height 12ft 1 in, Skua slightly higher owing to taller radio aerial.
The Defiant I was powered by a single 1,030hp Merlin III, the Mk.II a 1,260hp Merlin XX. Both the Roc and Skua II were powered by a single 890hp Perseus XII.
Performance wise the Defiant Mk.I recorded a maximum speed of 303mph at 16,500ft and 250mph at sea level, the Defiant II, 315mph at 16,500ft. Cruise speed was 175mph at 15,000ft, climb was 1,900ft/min and ceiling was 30,350ft, range 465mph.
The Skua's maximum speed was 225mph at 15,000ft, sea level speed was 204mph. Economic cruise speed was 114mph, max cruise 187mph. Climb was 1,580ft/min, ceiling 20,200ft and range 435 miles.
The Roc's maximum speed was 223mph at 10,000ft, sea level speed 194mph, cruise speed 135mph, climb 1,500ft/min, ceiling 18,000ft, maximum range 810 miles.
So, this illustrates basic data and gives an indication of what our up-engined Skua and Roc might be able to achieve, although I doubt it could even match the Defiant. Summing it up, at a heavier weight than both types, the Defiant was faster by a wide margin, not unexpectedly, it's engine had more horsepower and cylinders than the Skua and Roc and it was physically smaller.
By 1941 however, the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I, with a maximum speed of 316mph at 17,500ft is considered too slow and the aircraft is obsolescent, so the Daffy's performance as a fighter is also the same. Fitting a more powerful engine to the Skua/Roc airframe is going to give it better performance, granted, but it isn't going to be any better than the Defiant owing to the fact that both aircraft are physically larger than the Daffy for starters.
The Skua and Roc did not accelerate well and neither handled like a fighter. Both had severe spinning characteristics and aircraft were lost having entered a spin. Neither were particularly aerobatic and they required lots of height to carry them out, if coaxed into manoeuvring. By contrast, the Defiant was described as almost viceless to fly and was easy to aerobat.
Sources: Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918, Owen Thetford, Putnam, 1988, Blackburn Aircraft since 1909, A.J. Jackson, Putnam, 1988.
I'll put up some pilot's reports on flying the Skua soon.
I seem to remember Napier receiving some materials technology from Bristol to improve the Sabre's sleeve valves. I can't remember where I read about it
Whenever I see a sleeve valve system demonstrated it looks rather over complicated, with too many bits of metal sliding up and down relative to each other!
In a word............NO!
Perseus
24.9 liter 9 cylinder radial 55.3 in diameter.
Wright R-1820G200
29.88 liter 9 cylinder radial 55.1 in diameter.
You have to have been hitting the Sleeve valve kool-aid pretty hard (and often) to believe that the Perseus at 905hp at 6500ft was going to give you anything but a target for the enemy when planes powered by the Cyclone (most with 2 speed supercharger) and 1200hp at 4200ft or 1000hp at 14,200ft were not considered first line aircraft (Martlets, Buffaloes and Mohawks). The Cyclone had about a 20% greater displacement, The Perseus is going to need to turn either 20% more rpm or use more boost or both.
Now compare the cowl of a Cyclone powered Martlet, Buffalo or Mohawk to the gawd awful contraption stuck on the nose of the poor innocent plane in the pictures above.
Surely if you can get 905 HP out of a Perseus an 1400 HP from a Hercules in 1939 then since you get 1670 HP out of a Hercules in 1942 you should get 1080 HP out of a Perseus. IIRC the F.9/37 did about 330 mph when powered by either the de-rated 900 HP Taurus or the Peregrine I. So surely the Perseus powered Whirlwind would do about 390 mph in 1942? I think I've dreamt up the perfect Zero killer for the Far East and Pacific, would you not agree?Perhaps a Perseus powered Whirlwind for use in the Far East?
Surely if you can get 905 HP out of a Perseus an 1400 HP from a Hercules in 1939 then since you get 1670 HP out of a Hercules in 1942 you should get 1080 HP out of a Perseus. IIRC the F.9/37 did about 330 mph when powered by either the de-rated 900 HP Taurus or the Peregrine I. So surely the Perseus powered Whirlwind would do about 390 mph in 1942? I think I've dreamt up the perfect Zero killer for the Far East and Pacific, would you not agree?Perhaps a Perseus powered Whirlwind for use in the Far East?
Is there anything we can wrap around a Perseus that can make a good fighter?
If 300 mph is wanted/needed - Polikarpov I-16.
By the time of the Roc, the I-16 was past its use-by date.
Surely if you can get 905 HP out of a Perseus an 1400 HP from a Hercules in 1939 then since you get 1670 HP out of a Hercules in 1942 you should get 1080 HP out of a Perseus.
Most I-16s (and all the ones from the mid 30s on) used Russian built R-1820s or descended from them. And please note that the 3 fighters I quoted as using the R-1820 all were 290-310mph fighters.If 300 mph is wanted/needed - Polikarpov I-16.
By the time of the Roc, the I-16 was past its use-by date.
I'm not sure that was the case.