Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So you dream up the turret armed fighter concept.
More than a match for the Ki-27 in the Far East, Yes or No? Because if yes, then why did we buy Buffaloes an Mohawk. Maybe it could have given those Italian radial engined fighters a good bashing too.To be fair to the idea, the Brits were putting turrets on almost every new aircraft spec in the mid to late 30s... Nonetheless, what did they know?
As for the Venom, Jeffrey Quill has much to say about it in his excellent book Spitfire A Test Pilot's Story (John Murray, 1983):
"The Venom was a sporting little aeroplane. it could not match up to the Spitfire's performance but it was doing around 325 mph at about 15,000ft. it was extremely manoeuvrable and delightful as an aerobatic aeroplane. Its big trailing edge flaps which came down to 90 deg produced a great deal of drag which killed any float during the flare-out for landing. One could put it down very accurately therefore on the exact spot required for landing (which was not so easy with the Spitfire). All this time I felt that it could use much more power with great advantage if only it was available."
" The Venom had some interesting technical features: for instance, engine cowling gills,gun heating and gun firing were all electrically operated as wellas the normal electrical services such as reflectorgunsight, navigation lights, cockpit illumination and so on."
"Another point of interest was that the whole engine hinged through 90 deg on ther ground allowing very ready access to the back of it for maintenance purposes, all connections being flexible. From the early performance trials which I carried out it was clear the Venom was breathing down the Hurricane's neck as far as maximum speed was concerned; I was very much fretting for more power from the engine but there seemed no chance of that in the immediate future."
More than a match for the Ki-27 in the Far East, Yes or No? Because if yes, then why did we buy Buffaloes an Mohawk. Maybe it could have given those Italian radial engined fighters a good bashing too.
British were screwed because the Bristol engines were set up to have the exhaust ports on the front of the cylinder heads (Bristol poppet valves) or the front of the cylinders (sleeve valves) and you have to turn the exhaust 180 degrees and route it through the cylinder gaps to try to get exhaust thrust.
Was this fixed in the Centaurus? Or is it not that big a deal? Sea Fury doesn't compare too badly to the Corsair especially given the bigger engine diameter.
Reminds of the Hurricane I performance figures. Fresh from factory, 324 mph, repaired after battle damage, 306 mph. As tested in 1941 with 16 lbs boost, 335 mph. So yes, quite a variation. A 3% variation in performance was also allowed.Maybe this should be its own thread, but how was the Zero Model 21 so fast (331mph) on 950hp, and why was the 1130hp Model 32 little faster?
(Yes, I admit to relying on Wiki numbers here, but they seem to be backed up e.g. Zero Model 21 Performance: Unraveling Conflicting Data.)
- The Sakae has a small diameter (45in) but not that much smaller than the Twin Wasp (48in). It's still a radial.
- Wing is large - 241 ft2 against 172 ft2 on the J22 or 161 ft2 on the Ki-44, even bigger than 236 ft2 on P-36/40.
- It was well streamlined but no real aerodynamic breakthrough comparable to "laminar flow" wings, a Mustang radiator or FW 190 radial installation?
IIRC, the Model 21 had no armour, radio or self sealing fuel tanks. The Model 32 had all these, which must have added weight.Maybe this should be its own thread, but how was the Zero Model 21 so fast (331mph) on 950hp, and why was the 1130hp Model 32 little faster?
IIRC, the Model 21 had no armour, radio or self sealing fuel tanks. The Model 32 had all these, which must have added weight.
Looking back at this old thread leads me to wonder what the best British aerodynamics experts could have done if given the money and resources to develop a fast Perseus or Mercury powered fighter. I'd give the job to Petter, his Whirlwind was a study in streamlining.The US, Japan, and Italy were able to build competitive fighters with 1,000 hp radials; that the UK didn't just means they didn't.
Problem is that even a Hurricane I with the big bulky Vokes tropical filter was faster than all the British radial engine SE SS fighters. Only the Buffalo I, Martlet and Mohawk IV had comparable speeds. Speeds competitive with the Hayabusa and Reisen, superior to the Ki-27 and A5M4.The Aquila AE.3S engine fitted to the Venom was an advanced model with a higher altitude rated supercharger (+25% impeller tip speed) than the previous models of Aquila, but only built in prototype form (a total of 3 engines). Its max rating was 3550 rpm at +5 lbs boost. I do not know what the HP was at this rating, what the full throttle altitude was, or if the above settings were for TO or at FT altitude. Given the AM Specification requirements for the ability to intercept a 200 mph+ aircraft at 15,000 ft I would assume that the full throttle altitude would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 ft.
Hmm.... I see what you mean, we need a Bristol engine that's more like the Nakajima Sakae's 45 in. diameter. What was the point of eliminating the OHVs and valve train if your engine is still fat?You can streamline the crap out ot the rest of the airplane, you don't have enough power and the engine is too fat.
No development potential. Better to buy the Buffalo and Mohawk as an interim measure.Hmm.... I see what you mean, we need a Bristol engine that's more like the Nakajima Sakae's 45 in. diameter. What was the point of eliminating the OHVs and valve train if your engine is still fat?
The 45.25in diameter Bristol Taurus 1.25in wider than the Sakae, maybe that's where we start? It got the Gloster F.9/37 to 360 mph in twin form.
Weight. There was nothing under 4,000 lbs. that could match the Zero.Maybe this should be its own thread, but how was the Zero Model 21 so fast (331mph) on 950hp, and why was the 1130hp Model 32 little faster?
Maybe this should be its own thread, but how was the Zero Model 21 so fast (331mph) on 950hp, and why was the 1130hp Model 32 little faster?
(Yes, I admit to relying on Wiki numbers here, but they seem to be backed up e.g. Zero Model 21 Performance: Unraveling Conflicting Data.)
- The Sakae has a small diameter (45in) but not that much smaller than the Twin Wasp (48in). It's still a radial.
- Wing is large - 241 ft2 against 172 ft2 on the J22 or 161 ft2 on the Ki-44, even bigger than 236 ft2 on P-36/40.
- It was well streamlined but no real aerodynamic breakthrough comparable to "laminar flow" wings, a Mustang radiator or FW 190 radial installation?
I don't see why not, it's an >1,200 hp engine, pretty much like any other. It made the Beaufighter Britain's second best twin engined strike bomber, just under the superlative Mosquito. The Gloster f.5/34, shown below seems the likely candidate for a Hercules retrofit, and I'm sure it's been discussed here before.Was a competitive Hercules-powered single-seat monoplane fighter ever feasible? Or possible, even on a non-British air frame?