Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.Bristol has three >900hp engines before the Hercules:
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.
- 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)
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?
Bristol has three >900hp engines before the Hercules:
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.
- 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)
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 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.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.
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.The only future for a Pegasus powered fighter would be to replace the Pegasus with 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.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.
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.Maybe a Vickers Venom with a Mercury. Maybe a single seat Miles Kestrel with a Mercury,
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.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.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 find that difficult to believe. Do you have any costs for these engines available?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?
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.Including the Defiant, Kestrel, Master and Martinet because they could just as easily be single seater.
I'd start with the Kestrel, it's predecessor.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.
What did he do to the Spitfire?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.
"Petter made a significant contribution to improving the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire..."What did he do to the Spitfire?
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.
Compared to Hawker's Typhoon wing, Petter's Whirlwind had razor wings.It took a while for him (1943 or '44?) to accept that thin wing offers an actual aerodynamic advantage.