Was a competitive pre-Hercules Bristol-powered single-seat monoplane fighter feasible?

[Admiral Beez]

Bristol has three >900hp engines before the Hercules:

• Taurus 1,050 hp (783 kW). 0.81 hp/lb (1.33 kW/kg)
• Pegasus 965 hp (720 kW). 0.86 hp/lb (1.42 kW/kg)
• Perseus 905 hp (675 kW). 0.88 hp/lb (1.45 kW/kg)

None of these engines were used on single-seat, monoplane fighters. The closest we seem to get is a proposed but never produced Taurus-powered variant of the Koolhoven F.K.58 and a never-built Perseus-powered Bristol Type 146. Meanwhile the smaller Mercury powered several relatively advanced monoplane fighters, including the fixed wheel Fokker D.XXI and the prototypes Bristol Types 133 and 146 (was intended for the late to arrive Perseus), Gloster F.5/34 and PZL.50 Jastrząb. Then there's the Aquila-powered Vickers Venom.

If there was the will within Britain or (given the success of the Spitfire and Hurricane) overseas, could a fighter be sufficiently armed, armoured and streamlined to be competitive with one of these three engines? Or were these three engines more of the steady as she goes, tractor variety?

 

[Kevin J]

Bristol has three >900hp engines before the Hercules:

• Taurus 1,050 hp (783 kW). 0.81 hp/lb (1.33 kW/kg)
• Pegasus 965 hp (720 kW). 0.86 hp/lb (1.42 kW/kg)
• Perseus 905 hp (675 kW). 0.88 hp/lb (1.45 kW/kg)

None of these engines were used on single-seat, monoplane fighters. The closest we seem to get is a proposed but never produced Taurus-powered variant of the Koolhoven F.K.58 and a never-built Perseus-powered Bristol Type 146. Meanwhile the smaller Mercury powered several relatively advanced monoplane fighters, including the fixed wheel Fokker D.XXI and the prototypes Bristol Types 133 and 146 (was intended for the late to arrive Perseus), Gloster F.5/34 and PZL.50 Jastrząb. Then there's the Aquila-powered Vickers Venom.

If there was the will within Britain or (given the success of the Spitfire and Hurricane) overseas, could a fighter be sufficiently armed, armoured and streamlined to be competitive with one of these three engines? Or were these three engines more of the steady as she goes, tractor variety?

The Taurus was designed to be a low altitude engine, so unless the FAA orders it for a naval derivative of the Bristol type 146, Gloster F. 5/34 or Venom then its not going to happen. In any case a Sea Hurricane is going to beat all these contenders.

There were alternate Hercules engined proposals for the Sea Defiant and Miles M 20/2. At least with the Blackburn Roc, it could be used as a target tug, LOL, saving lots of money being wasted on developing and producing a Hercules powered Sea Defiant; thus killing that dumb turret armed fighter concept at birth, so stillbirth. As for the Miles offering, IMO the Sea Hurricane was better.

My only other idea would be for a Sea Venom with a Taurus, a new wing centre section, and the original wings still attached, but upwards folding for carrier service. That would be feasible and fast IMO, a worthy contender to counter the Zero. No development potential though. The interim Sea Hurricane and preferred production Seafire are definitely better.

 

[Kevin J]

The only future for a Pegasus powered fighter would be to replace the Pegasus with the Hercules. As for the Mercury or Perseus, replace them with a Taurus, although Twin Wasp would be better.

 

[Kevin J]

Has anyone ever considered this? You want a fast target tug, but no funding is available. So you dream up the turret armed fighter concept. Naturally, the idea fails, but production is in full swing and its wartime. So you suggest using them as target tugs, and you get what you really wanted in the first place. It's a win win situation.

 

[tomo pauk]

Bristol has three >900hp engines before the Hercules:

• Taurus 1,050 hp (783 kW). 0.81 hp/lb (1.33 kW/kg)
• Pegasus 965 hp (720 kW). 0.86 hp/lb (1.42 kW/kg)
• Perseus 905 hp (675 kW). 0.88 hp/lb (1.45 kW/kg)

None of these engines were used on single-seat, monoplane fighters. The closest we seem to get is a proposed but never produced Taurus-powered variant of the Koolhoven F.K.58 and a never-built Perseus-powered Bristol Type 146. Meanwhile the smaller Mercury powered several relatively advanced monoplane fighters, including the fixed wheel Fokker D.XXI and the prototypes Bristol Types 133 and 146 (was intended for the late to arrive Perseus), Gloster F.5/34 and PZL.50 Jastrząb. Then there's the Aquila-powered Vickers Venom.

If there was the will within Britain or (given the success of the Spitfire and Hurricane) overseas, could a fighter be sufficiently armed, armoured and streamlined to be competitive with one of these three engines? Or were these three engines more of the steady as she goes, tractor variety?

There was a fully-superchaged (FS, high altitude) Perseus around, the Mk.X, good for 880 HP at 15000 ft (those used on Skua, Roc & Botha) were, in British parlance, medium-supercharged (MS, low-altitude), trading the hi-alt power for increase of low-alt power. The fully-supercharged and 2-speed (MS + FS) supercharged Pegasus versions were also offering similar power at altitude, the 2-speed supercharged were also making good power at low altitude. Shortcoming of either of those engines was that they were bulky - 55 in diameter.
Problems with Taurus were in several. It was way too late to matter, it was unrelaible until too long and, probably coupled with that, it was never able to take full advantage of 100 oct fuel benefits (gain in boost & thus in power was modest when going from 87 oct to 100 oct). There was a FS version of it, the Mk.III, that was supposed to make 1060 HP at 14600 ft, when doing 3300 (!!) rpm; Taurus have had reliability problems already at 3100 rpm. Prototype of the FS version probably powered the Gloster F.9/37.

So with all that said, I've always fancied the Bf 109 airframe with Mercury engine. Small fighter, relatively thin wing, retractable U/C, can carry good firepower, engine does 840 HP at 14500 ft on 87 oct fuel (~1/3rd more than the best Jumo 210), more novice-friendly than later versions of the Bf 109 with twice the take-off power and an extra 2000 lbs. Mercury was 51.5 in diameter. Both airframe and engine are known quantity well before the war, MTT even made a prototype of Bf 109 with Twin Wasp.
Or, British can go with something like the CW-21 fighter, Pegasus was as bulky as Cyclone 9. Pliot and fuel tanks will need protection, IIRC the CW-21 was 'Japanese style' protected all around.

 

[Kevin J]

There was a fully-superchaged (FS, high altitude) Perseus around, the Mk.X, good for 880 HP at 15000 ft (those used on Skua, Roc & Botha) were, in British parlance, medium-supercharged (MS, low-altitude), trading the hi-alt power for increase of low-alt power. The fully-supercharged and 2-speed (MS + FS) supercharged Pegasus versions were also offering similar power at altitude, the 2-speed supercharged were also making good power at low altitude. Shortcoming of either of those engines was that they were bulky - 55 in diameter.
Problems with Taurus were in several. It was way too late to matter, it was unrelaible until too long and, probably coupled with that, it was never able to take full advantage of 100 oct fuel benefits (gain in boost & thus in power was modest when going from 87 oct to 100 oct). There was a FS version of it, the Mk.III, that was supposed to make 1060 HP at 14600 ft, when doing 3300 (!!) rpm; Taurus have had reliability problems already at 3100 rpm. Prototype of the FS version probably powered the Gloster F.9/37.

So with all that said, I've always fancied the Bf 109 airframe with Mercury engine. Small fighter, relatively thin wing, retractable U/C, can carry good firepower, engine does 840 HP at 14500 ft on 87 oct fuel (~1/3rd more than the best Jumo 210), more novice-friendly than later versions of the Bf 109 with twice the take-off power and an extra 2000 lbs. Mercury was 51.5 in diameter. Both airframe and engine are known quantity well before the war, MTT even made a prototype of Bf 109 with Twin Wasp.
Or, British can go with something like the CW-21 fighter, Pegasus was as bulky as Cyclone 9. Pliot and fuel tanks will need protection, IIRC the CW-21 was 'Japanese style' protected all around.

The CW 21 had no armour or SS fuel tanks. Maybe a Vickers Venom with a Mercury. Maybe a single seat Miles Kestrel with a Mercury, clipped wings and 4 LMG. If the Miles Master can take a Mercury and 4 LMG then so could a Kestrel.

 

[tomo pauk]

The CW 21 had no armour or SS fuel tanks. Maybe a Vickers Venom with a Mercury. Maybe a single seat Miles Kestrel with a Mercury, clipped wings and 4 LMG. If the Miles Master can take a Mercury and 4 LMG then so could a Kestrel.

Neither of the listed sported any armor or s-s tanks.
Another option might be the fuselage of Gladiator with a single 'modern' wing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The only future for a Pegasus powered fighter would be to replace the Pegasus with the Hercules.

Perhaps, but we first need to get to the Pegasus-powered fighter. If it's still competitive in a year or two we can swap in the Hercules.

you dream up the turret armed fighter concept.... you suggest using them as target tugs, and you get what you really wanted in the first place. It's a win win situation.

You're making a single seat fighter (the topic we're discussing), powered by a 900 hp engine out of a now turretless tug? Sounds like a slug. We can do better than that.

Maybe a Vickers Venom with a Mercury. Maybe a single seat Miles Kestrel with a Mercury,

Mercury is a small engine, worthy of its own thread. We're considering the Taurus, Perseus and Pegasus. You do enjoy a tangential divergence I can tell, but I'd like to keep on topic if we can.

 

[Kevin J]

Perhaps, but we first need to get to the Pegasus-powered fighter. If it's still competitive in a year or two we can swap in the Hercules.

You're making a single seat fighter (the topic we're discussing), powered by a 900 hp engine out of a now turretless tug? Sounds like a slug. We can do better than that.
Mercury is a small engine, worthy of its own thread. We're considering the Taurus, Perseus and Pegasus. You do enjoy a tangential divergence I can tell, but I'd like to keep on topic if we can.

I think I'd prefer a Mercury to a Perseus as it produces more power. Isn't a F. 5/34 a monoplane Gladiator? Well put the Pegasus in that then you have a fighter for use in SE Asia instead of the Buffalo and Mohawk.

 

[Kevin J]

Perhaps, but we first need to get to the Pegasus-powered fighter. If it's still competitive in a year or two we can swap in the Hercules.

You're making a single seat fighter (the topic we're discussing), powered by a 900 hp engine out of a now turretless tug? Sounds like a slug. We can do better than that.
Mercury is a small engine, worthy of its own thread. We're considering the Taurus, Perseus and Pegasus. You do enjoy a tangential divergence I can tell, but I'd like to keep on topic if we can.

Including the Defiant, Kestrel, Master and Martinet because they could just as easily be single seater. Included the ROC for a bit of dark humour.

 

[tomo pauk]

Ironically enough, the Spitfire airframe + any of these engines woud've probably produce a 300+ mph fighter.
OTOH, it was far easier to make Merlins than Spitfires.

 

[Kevin J]

Ironically enough, the Spitfire airframe + any of these engines woud've probably produce a 300+ mph fighter.
OTOH, it was far easier to make Merlins than Spitfires.

I find that difficult to believe. Do you have any costs for these engines available?

 

[tomo pauk]

I find that difficult to believe.

What is difficult to believe?

Do you have any costs for these engines available?

Not at the moment.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Including the Defiant, Kestrel, Master and Martinet because they could just as easily be single seater.

Defiant, converted to single seat with a 900 hp Bristol Perseus/Pegasus/Taurus radial will not make a competitive fighter. But the Master might be good as a single seat fighter, replacing the 51.5 in diameter Mercury with a 46 in diameter Taurus may give us opportunities for streamlining the nose.

 

[Kevin J]

Defiant, converted to single seat with a 900 hp Bristol Perseus/Pegasus/Taurus radial will not make a competitive fighter. But the Master might be good as a single seat fighter, replacing the 51.5 in diameter Mercury with a 46 in diameter Taurus may give us opportunities for streamlining the nose.

I'd start with the Kestrel, it's predecessor.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd like to see what Petter could do with these three engines. A master of streamlining and aerodymanics IMO, his Whirlwind and Canberra are sublime and his improvements to the Spitfire top grade.

 

[Kevin J]

I'd like to see what Petter could do with these three engines. A master of streamlining and aerodymanics IMO, his Whirlwind and Canberra are sublime and his improvements to the Spitfire top grade.

What did he do to the Spitfire?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What did he do to the Spitfire?

"Petter made a significant contribution to improving the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire..."

 

[tomo pauk]

I'd like to see what Petter could do with these three engines. A master of streamlining and aerodymanics IMO, his Whirlwind and Canberra are sublime and his improvements to the Spitfire top grade.

It took a while for him (1943 or '44?) to accept that thin wing offers an actual aerodynamic advantage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It took a while for him (1943 or '44?) to accept that thin wing offers an actual aerodynamic advantage.

Compared to Hawker's Typhoon wing, Petter's Whirlwind had razor wings.