Kevin J
Banned
Follow on from Fokker DXXI Post. This should have given the RAF a decent fighter to oppose the Regia Aeronautical, IJN and JAAF in 1938-1941 maybe slightly longer.
What if Vickers had built the Venom powered by the Bristol Mercury armed with 6 LMG.
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With Aquila engine?
- Thread starter
- #3
Kevin J
Banned
No, Bristol Mercury with anything up to 50% more power by 1942.
- Thread starter
- #6
Kevin J
Banned
Just been thinking
, if the Italians can have a 12.7 mm HMG in service in 1939, so should the Brits. So 2 HMG and 4 LMG in the Venom, attachment points for drop tanks or bombs where the removed LMGs were. Perfect for service in Middle and Far East, performance better than Hurricane with bulky tropical filter? Simple construction? Perfect for assembly by HAL, maybe even manufacture? Perhaps Vickers could have done a Vickers Vireo revamp a La Venom so that the FAA had a decent single seat fighter, perhaps powered by the Pegasus.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #7
Kevin J
Banned
Because its not very constructive. As for the Aquila in the Venom, it was 625hp according to Wikipedia, so I'm looking at the Venom as having a development potential to give it at least the same sort of speed as the Hurricane I/II Trop.
If you fell someone's post is not very constructive, say so. Or, ask for a person to substantiate it's claim with some firm data.
Rating someone's post as dumb is immature.
At what altitude the 625 HP power was attained?
- Thread starter
- #9
Kevin J
Banned
No idea mate, you'll just have to trust Wikipedia on this
.No idea mate, you'll just have to trust Wikipedia on this
On the air-minded forum, we might have a slight chance to beat Wikipedia. The latest Aquila, the Mk.IV, produced 600 HP for take-off, and 400 HP at 15000 ft. See for example, the table from Flight magazine (nowadays their database is busted due to IMO new owners) notes 600 HP take-off power, and 540 HP at it's rated altitude (some altitude...) of 6000 ft. :
Attachments
Admiral Beez
Major
I'm bemused by how people get their knickers in a knot over an emoji. Would you ask why someone gave you a Like or Agree emoji? Don't be so triggered, ignore it and carry on.
As for the Venom, Vickers already has perhaps the best fighter in the world in production. What advantages does the Venom have over the Spitfire? Is the Venom easier, cheaper or faster to produce? How many Venoms do you get in place of one Spitifre?
I'm not convinced Britain, being one of the foremost leaders in aeronautical advancement, design and production would want a cheap, economy fighter. Half-hearted attempts like the Miles M.20 aside, this sounds like more of a French or Dutch thing. Save perhaps for the Fiat CR.42, Britain's enemies certainly didn't field second rate, economy fighters; in Malaya for example the IJAAF included their latest and best Ki-43 and A6M.
Last edited:
Lumsden main entry has the Aquila as 600 hp, no quoted height - Confusingly the tables at the back give these entries - 420 hp at 2.250 ft - but then 500 hp at 2,600 ft for "Max power Emergency combat 5mins" and then no less than 830 hp in a column headed "Fully supercharged" - ????No idea mate, you'll just have to trust Wikipedia on this
Misprint. The 830 figure is dry weight in lbs.
Makes sense
Shortround6
Major General
I have my own doubts about the Venom, mostly because if it seems to good to be true it probably isn't true.
To get to some specifics, the Aquila engine had less displacement than 450hp R-985 Wasp Junior used in a number of US trainers. The T-6 used the bigger R-1340.
According to some sources there were only five Aquila engines ever built, HP is all over the place depending on fuel used and altitude and ???. The Taurus is NOT quite a two row Aquila, it uses a bit longer stroke. The 600hp for take-off Aquila was running at 3000rpm. Boost unknown?
The Venom was nearly the size of P-26. Granted it didn't have fixed landing gear or more wires than a piano but it was a small airplane. And yet it was supposed to carry the smae guns and ammo as a Hurricane or Spitfire? Same size pilot? same radio? It never got armor or selfsealing tank/s.
The French built two different small fighters in 1939/40 powered by the G-R 14M engine with 700hp for take-off and 660 hp at 13,100ft.
the Roussel 30 with a 110sq ft wing????
and the Bloch MB 700 133.5sqft ?
Performance figures for these two may also be take with small dose of salt as the MB 700 only completed 10 hrs of test flights and was never fitted with armament, let alone armor or self sealing tanks. The Roussel 30 has some pretty amazing numbers listed including the empty weight. 1,030 kg (2,271 lb) of which 924lbs is the dry weight engine and over 200lbs should be the two 20mm guns that were supposedly fitted (but do not show up in photographs, somebody want to tell me how you hide 20 mm Hispano guns in a 110 sq ft wing?)
Please note the engine used in these fighters was 5-6in smaller in diameter than the Aquila for a frontal area of 7.6sq ft compared to 11.5sq ft.
Venom
None of them have really good cowls.
To get to some specifics, the Aquila engine had less displacement than 450hp R-985 Wasp Junior used in a number of US trainers. The T-6 used the bigger R-1340.
According to some sources there were only five Aquila engines ever built, HP is all over the place depending on fuel used and altitude and ???. The Taurus is NOT quite a two row Aquila, it uses a bit longer stroke. The 600hp for take-off Aquila was running at 3000rpm. Boost unknown?
The Venom was nearly the size of P-26. Granted it didn't have fixed landing gear or more wires than a piano but it was a small airplane. And yet it was supposed to carry the smae guns and ammo as a Hurricane or Spitfire? Same size pilot? same radio? It never got armor or selfsealing tank/s.
The French built two different small fighters in 1939/40 powered by the G-R 14M engine with 700hp for take-off and 660 hp at 13,100ft.
the Roussel 30 with a 110sq ft wing????
and the Bloch MB 700 133.5sqft ?
Performance figures for these two may also be take with small dose of salt as the MB 700 only completed 10 hrs of test flights and was never fitted with armament, let alone armor or self sealing tanks. The Roussel 30 has some pretty amazing numbers listed including the empty weight. 1,030 kg (2,271 lb) of which 924lbs is the dry weight engine and over 200lbs should be the two 20mm guns that were supposedly fitted (but do not show up in photographs, somebody want to tell me how you hide 20 mm Hispano guns in a 110 sq ft wing?)
Please note the engine used in these fighters was 5-6in smaller in diameter than the Aquila for a frontal area of 7.6sq ft compared to 11.5sq ft.
Venom
None of them have really good cowls.
Last edited:
A two row Aquilla would've been 18 cylinder engine
I could not agree more with the 1st sentence. Or how about the claim at Wikipedia about the Venom prototype being fully armed from the start, despite no frontal picture of the aircraft showing guns or gun openings? But then again, English-language Wikipedia is a story of it's own when it is about aircraft and associated hardware.
Note the power chart & table attached below:
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #17
Kevin J
Banned
The 1936 Ki-27 with 650 hp, the Venom's Aquila, had 625 hp according to wiki. So 290 mph for Ki-27 with fixed undercarriage vs 312 mph for Venom with retractable. Both small, light aircraft. IMHO 312 mph is plausible. Gloster F.5/34 did 316 mph., 50% bigger aircraft with Bristol Mercury. I'm looking for a cheap simple plane to counter the Cr 42, G50, Ki-27 and A5M, nothing spectacular, not even 8 LMG, 6 should be sufficient, but a bigger engine like the Mercury. Something that could compete with the A6M2, 925 hp or the Ki-43-1. Small, cheap, adequate, ideal for tropical service, also available.
Bye.
Likewise - I'm thinking they were never fitted.
Vickers Venom fighter
"Machine-gun mystery
Many of the descriptions and accounts of the Venom published stress that the prototype was fitted with its full set of 8 machine guns and their associated electrical heating very early in its flight-testing. However, as pointed out to me in an exchange of emails with Richard Crapp, none of the available photos ever show evidence for openings for the machine guns in the leading edge of the wing, or panels to allow the loading of ammunition in either the top or bottom of the wings. So either Vickers made an extraordinarily good job of ensuring the panels and covers were flush, or all the photos available were taken before any armament was fitted, or someone has got it very wrong and no armament was ever fitted."
Shortround6
Major General
and the trouble when you start with "Small, cheap," is it seldom works out to be "adequate, ideal"
312mph may have been plausible for an unarmed prototype. there is argument about that. You still, for plane to be used after the summer of 1940, need to add armor and self sealing tanks for a western nation.
We do have this quote from "The British Fighter Since 1912" by Francis Mason.
"Constant trouble with the Aquila engine and its ancillary systems prevented it from undergoing full service trial, although Fg Off Jefferey Kindersley Quill, who had recently joined Vickers, continued to perform manufacturers trials for some months."
The plane is supposed to have weighed 4165lb all up.
AS Tomo has pointed out and supplied an engine chart for for, the rated altitude for the engine is nowhere near the altitude at which the 312mph is claimed. Now perhaps the Venom had a different engine than the chart is for? But getting anywhere near 600hp at 14-16000ft is going to be impossible for such an engine. The Aquila was a 15.6liter engine, the French 14 cylinder engine used in the two planes pictured above was 19 liter engine and it ran at 3030rpm, So engine that is almost 22% bigger in displacement running at the same rpm has trouble doing what is claimed or implied for the Aquila?
You could try sticking the Mercury in it, it is only 200lbs heavier, 5.5in bigger in diameter (3 more square feet of frontal area) and will need a bigger prop.
I would also note that the Ki 27 prototypes used two different engines while the production aircraft got a 3rd. This is where we have to be really careful in comparing engine powers.
This is an old book and could be wrong so here it goes,
Nakajima PE had a Nakajima Ha-1-Ko engine rated at 710hp for take-off and 650hp at 6,560ft (2000 meters) it also had a 176.5 sq ft wing.
The 1st Nakajima Ki 27 prototype had a slightly bigger wing of 189.4 sq ft and the 2nd prototype got a 199.8sq ft wing. The bigger wing knocked 4mph of the top speed.
After some 10 or so pre-production examples were built they went for the production Ki 27-Ko which was fitted with the Ha-1-Otsu engine which was rated at 710hp for take-off but 780hp at 9,515 ft (2900 meters). so the 290mph is being done with 780hp. 25% more than the Aquila if the Aquila, by some miracle actually made 625hp at
Same take off power and perhaps the cruise wasn't far off but the difference between this engine and Mercury at 3-5000 meters is not going to be that great. At least not anywhere near what the original engine was.
