Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
Interestingly there was a tolerance of ±2.5% on the dry weight. Seems rather a lot.
The British were also fooling with the Warwick bomber, first flight 13 August 1939 and by the time the engine situation was figured out it had helped them decide that twin heavies were not the way to go.
Even if the Vulture was providing reliable 2000 HP, the layout with 4 Merlins has several benefits. Major one being the far less problematic engine-out situation. The take off power would be 5120-5600 HP, even on not too much over-boosted Merlins, vs. 4000 for two Vultures.
Always intruiged me that the marks I to IV had so much trouble but the mark V in the Hawker Tornado didnt seem to have any trouble or none that I have come across.
Only enough effort was available in Rolls-Royce to cater for the Merlin and prepare for its offspring, the Griffon. By brilliant design, power output of the Merlin was increasing monthly, whilst the Vulture was ultimately pegged back by the Achilles' Heel of its star rod design.
Had Rolls-Royce had equivalent skill and manpower to lavish on the Vulture, for which a superior con-rod design and split crank-case was already at an advanced stage, then it too could well have followed the pathway of steadily increasing power output, keyed to the reliability which attended its stablemates.
One exists in Scotland I don't know where, probably too embarrassed to show it!
It was lousy, you could follow the sparks all the way to the Ruhr and back.
The Blackburn B20 flew over the Clyde on its first flight, caught fire and that was the end of the Vulture.
The prototype (V8914) flew on 26th March 1940 but the aircraft was lost in an accident at the Sound of Bute on the Firth of the Clyde on 7th April 1940, caused by aileron flutter. The crew bailed out but sadly 3 were lost in the tragedy. The wreck still remains and was declared a War Grave in 1998.
Still, it seems the Vultures as flown DID have some issues. I see that the development of a simpler engine (the Merlin) might have been seen as more important, but the later Napier Sabre was another 24-cylinder application that DID get debugged and put to good use. They might have had two if they had pursued the Vulture. I fully realize it didn't happen, but the potential for success seems solidly there, yet unpursued.
Blackburn B20 | BAE Systems | International"]Blackburn B20 | BAE Systems | International[/URL]
They tried one in the Hawker Henley. Not the prettiest bird, that's for certain.All 508 production Vultures were designated for use in the Manchester.
No doubt that if it was sorted to the extent the Merlin and Griffon were then you are talking about bombers with B-29 type performance and fighters as they eventually had with the Tempest and Fury. But they were never even thinking about such planes let alone designing and building them.To be clear, I was not saying they should have pursued the Vulture to the exclusion of the Merlin, and perhaps there was simply not enough manpower to pursue all the projects.
All I was saying is that there was a solid area of application for an 1,800 hp engine. In the end, I'd rather fly behind a V-12 than a 24-cylinder engine in battle just due to complexity, but the engine as conceived had applications.
Sort out the intake like a P-51A, clean up the lines from engine to tail like a Typhoon/Thunderbolt and make the cooling system like a P-51... It would be a great looking hot rod.And I don't think the Vulture Henley is all that ugly ...
To me, it looks better than a stock Hurricane ... just thinking about a single-seater with the pic on the screen. I'm thinking of a bubble canopy ... but, that's a "what if" that never happened. But, it's the first time I ever thought of a Vulture-powered Hurricane. Might have to relocate that little scoop in front of the windscreen if you're going to play fighter pilot.
Seems to me the Vulture was the ultimate development of the Kestrel ... being composed of two Peregrines mated to each other, and the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel. The Kestrel seems like it was a reasonably reliable engine, and it is difficult to see how the Vulture could be considered a failure. Since the Kestrel was considered "reliable," it is tough for me to conceive why they could not have expended some effort to find out why the Vulture caught fire and correct the situation. The Peregrine might not have had much military application at 700 - 900 HP, but the Vulture at about twice that DID.
I cannot say there wasn't a market for 1,500 - 1,800 hp engines ... there were plenty of applications, from the B-25 Mitchell to the TBF Avenger to the Handley Page Halifax ... all used engines around 1,800 HP or so and there are PLENTY more on all sides of the war. So, there was no shortage of applications for the engine class.
Still, it seems the Vultures as flown DID have some issues. I see that the development of a simpler engine (the Merlin) might have been seen as more important, but the later Napier Sabre was another 24-cylinder application that DID get debugged and put to good use. They might have had two if they had pursued the Vulture. I fully realize it didn't happen, but the potential for success seems solidly there, yet unpursued.