GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So, in essence, you're trying to figure out an alternative to the Dh F.20 Sea Hornet?
Twin engine fighter for Ark Royal and Illustrious class?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Need to see the working out on this one.
Time frames don't fit and no aircraft on the books. So not a goer.
The FAA didn't get back under RN control until May 39 and the RAF had a clear policy of giving the FAA sweet FA.
So not feeling it.
Time frames don't fit and no aircraft on the books. So not a goer.
The FAA didn't get back under RN control until May 39 and the RAF had a clear policy of giving the FAA sweet FA.
So not feeling it.
Kevin J
Banned
The only way I seem getting a Twin is the Fulmar with a Fairey Monarch engine in it, but since the Fulmar didn't arrive until 1940 then I don't see it happening.
- Thread starter
- #24
Admiral Beez
Major
That's why this is a theoretical exercise of the aeronautical firms on the request of the AM. They're asking what's possible, not what's better than the current or upcoming single engined fighters.
Wouldn't Bristol just politely tell the Air Ministry that they had tendered a twin-engined fighter identical in layout to the Grumman Skyrocket back in 1936 ? - Their Type 153A for Spec F37/35.
- Twin Aquilas when originally tendered, which would be an issue. Whatever engine was decided on would have to be modified so that there were two versions rotating in different directions. The Sea Hornet, Sea Mosquito, Short Sturgeon and Tigershark all had left and right "handed" engines to cancel out torque, absolutely essential for carrier operations (read Winkle Brown on subject). If it was ordered too early the FAA would insist in a second seat so that someone could operate the R1110 receiver that picked up signals from a Type 72 rotating homing beacon on the aircraft carrier. Unless you want to wait for the later version that could be operated by the pilot- but that only came into quantity use in 1942.
- Twin Aquilas when originally tendered, which would be an issue. Whatever engine was decided on would have to be modified so that there were two versions rotating in different directions. The Sea Hornet, Sea Mosquito, Short Sturgeon and Tigershark all had left and right "handed" engines to cancel out torque, absolutely essential for carrier operations (read Winkle Brown on subject). If it was ordered too early the FAA would insist in a second seat so that someone could operate the R1110 receiver that picked up signals from a Type 72 rotating homing beacon on the aircraft carrier. Unless you want to wait for the later version that could be operated by the pilot- but that only came into quantity use in 1942.
- Thread starter
- #26
Admiral Beez
Major
How would this not generate a cease and desist letter from Grumman's UK representative? Anyway, you have the winner.
wuzak
Captain
The Sea Hornet had handed engines, the Sturgeon used contra-rotating props on both engines. The Sea Mosquito did not have handed engines.
By Tigershark do you mean Tigercat? The Tigercat appears to not have handed engines.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of these mid to late 30s proposals were wildly optimistic.
The Bristol was supposed to have 37 ft wing span, and be 25.6ft long with a wing a bit larger that 204 sq ft. the estimate for speed was 370mph at 15,000ft with those Aquila engines
The published figures for the Aquila engine come now where near supporting that kind of speed. Granted the Bristol is smaller than the Whirlwind but the Whirlwind as built had nearly twice the power at 15,000ft and was slower than the estimated speed for the Bristol.
In keeping with the tiny Aquila engines the planned fuel capacity was 42.5 imp gallons per engine.
You are absolutely right on all counts sir. Should have checked my reference books before opening my big mouth! Sorrreeee. Full marks to you. The point I was trying to make is that a successful twin-engined propeller carrier aircraft needs something to counteract torque, otherwise if you open up for an emergency overshoot you're likely to find yourself saying hello to the side of the carrier island. The Sea Hornet did that by having handed engines, the Sturgeon by having contra-props and the Tigercat by its unique powered rudder feature. The Sea Mosquito had nothing, but then again, as I understand it, the Sea Mosquito hardly ever saw a carrier deck once the initial trials were over, the sole squadron being land-based. The same with the Tigercat, it being rejected for carrier-based service and saw action in the Korean war from land-bases.
Absolutely right on all counts - But If we're answering the initial question "what aircraft would British Industry have put forward if asked for a twin-engined carrier fighter", then it's hard to imagine Bristol not digging out their 153A proposal in reply. Agreed it would probably never have worked, Aquila engines never put into production anyway. Poor range, probably 2 hours endurance at most. If they had battled through all the development problems, new engines, bigger airframe they would have probably found themselves in 1944/45 with the war over (very much like the story of the Grumman Skyrocket). And of course, being British they would not have even got a cool comic out of it...
- Thread starter
- #31
Admiral Beez
Major
Was it possible then to land a twin-engine aircraft onto a carrier with only one engine operating? The ability to land a damaged aircraft would seem to be a good pilot and aircraft saver, but not if it's impossible to land. Still, weather permitting one could fly to the carrier and ditch alongside. Does this impact today's turboprop carrier aircraft, could a C-2A Greyhound or E-2C Hawkeye land on a carrier with a single engine running?
This circles us back to the idea of twin, centre-line props and engines, giving the benefit of dual engines without the risky single engine handling.
Shortround6
Major General
The Aquila would have fallen into the same rat hole/s that the Taurus and early Hercules did. Inability to make sleeve valves in large quantities and poor cooling until they figured out new head and fin configurations.
The Idea of trying to lug around four 20mm Hispano guns with a pair of 600hp engines just so you can have a "twin" is pretty funny. Maybe the opposition will be laughing so hard they can't fly or shoot straight
The Idea of trying to lug around four 20mm Hispano guns with a pair of 600hp engines just so you can have a "twin" is pretty funny. Maybe the opposition will be laughing so hard they can't fly or shoot straight
This was brought up when discussing the F5F Skyrocket. The Skyrockets engines were about as close together as they can possibly be, they rotated in opposite directions to counteract torque and it had 2 rudders so at least 1 always had the air from an engine blowing over it. All of those things were done for low speed handling when landing on a carrier. It was said to have good single engine performance and handling but nothing is said about actually trying to land it on a carrier with only 1 engine. With both engines running it took off and landed and had a lower stall speed than an F4F-3 Wildcat so I imagine if an F5F couldn't land on one engine then no other twin design of that period had even a remote chance if doing it.
Single engined landing of a twin-piston engined aircraft would indeed be tricky - So much so that it may never have been done - Eric Brown says in his autobiography "... to my knowledge no twin piston-engined propeller type has ever made a single-engined deck-landing to this day" (I think his autobiography "Wings on my Sleeve" first came out in 1988). Is that really the case? - What about all those Grumman Trackers, did they never have to try? Indeed, Why is the Grumman Tracker seemingly immune to the torque problem? As to the Turboprop powered Greyhound and Hawkeye, I see in online searches their engines feature an "anti-torque unit" (but no explanation of what it is). Maybe someone out there with US Navy experience can enlighten me.
Always favoured the Fairey Monarch "two engines in one" with contra-props for carrier designs. But the Monarch engine theme has been done to death on threads so many times. Is there anything new to say?
- Thread starter
- #35
Admiral Beez
Major
With that huge wing area the pilot could probably switch off the power to the running engine and glide in. Come to think of it, that's what any twin engined prop aircraft would probably do if coming in on one engine, kill the remaining engine just as you approach.
Not a true twin propeller aircraft for the purposes of this discussion, IMO.
Forget about Fokker, I have a better idea.
SIS kidnaps Alexander Moskalyev from Voronezh.
Moskalyev SAM-13 - Wikipedia
You can hardly find smaller twin-engine fighter on the market.
(I'd tag my post as "creative")
SIS kidnaps Alexander Moskalyev from Voronezh.
Moskalyev SAM-13 - Wikipedia
You can hardly find smaller twin-engine fighter on the market.
(I'd tag my post as "creative")
Kevin J
Banned
But can you fit it on a RN carrier's lift?Forget about Fokker, I have a better idea.
SIS kidnaps Alexander Moskalyev from Voronezh.
Moskalyev SAM-13 - Wikipedia
You can hardly find smaller twin-engine fighter on the market.
(I'd tag my post as "creative")
Shortround6
Major General
It will fit, the question is do really want it.
"the SAM-13 proved difficult to handle, requiring long runs to take off and land, with poor climb performance and low ceiling"
A twin on a carrier has to do something a lot better than a single engine aircraft. Just being a twin and looking "cool" doesn't adding anything to the air group/carriers capability.
The Aquila weighed about 830lbs so by the time you get two of them plus accessories, plus propellers and figure the extra drag you are going to be way behind a single engine plane or comparable power. Apparently somebody was putting out some strange power figures for the Aquila and Taurus engines at this time because neither engine really performed at altitude (12-15,000ft) in reality. Please note that within a year or two Bristol was predicting 370mph for the Beaufighter.
French were enamored of low HP engines. French specifications for a twin engine torpedo bomber to operate of the 2 new carriers they were building (not the Bearn) resulted in things like this.
Twin 500hp air cooled V-12s and a two-3 man crew. The radio operator in the back was responsible for both the upper and lower rear guns.
Performance from WikI
- Maximum speed: 357 km/h (222 mph, 193 kn) at 1,500 m (4,920 ft)
- Cruise speed: 240 km/h (149 mph, 129 kn) econ cruise at 1,000 m (3,300 ft)
- Range: 1,400 km (900 mi, 780 nmi)
- Endurance: 6 hr
Not sure where the advantage comes in over a single engine torpedo bomber.
- Thread starter
- #39
Admiral Beez
Major
Swap out the two 450 lb. 220 hp license-made Renault 6P engines for a pair of similarly sized and powerful de Havilland Gipsy Six or the OHC Napier Javelin. Though a pair of RR Kestrels or Peregrines would be something, though made impossible as being twice the weight.Forget about Fokker, I have a better idea.
SIS kidnaps Alexander Moskalyev from Voronezh.
Moskalyev SAM-13 - Wikipedia
You can hardly find smaller twin-engine fighter on the market.
(I'd tag my post as "creative")
With an unfolded wingspan of only 24 feet I'd bet you could fit two of them togehter folded on a 22x45 ft lift.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
"By jove, Captain, another one of the little blighters just went into the sea 200yds off the bow, There seems to be something wrong with our bloody fighters today!"
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
