Kevin J
Banned
So first flight 1941, 2 years development and testing, service entry 1943? Its almost a completely new plane now, just looks the same.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So first flight 1941, 2 years development and testing, service entry 1943? Its almost a completely new plane now, just looks the same.Well, earlier as a Griffon engined Sea Spitfire was offered to the same specification to which the Firebrand was built and it would not have taken Supermarine two years to have one flying from 1940, when the spec was issued.
So first flight 1941, 2 years development and testing, service entry 1943?
Except you're also reworking the design for carrier landings and folding wings. It's two years between the Ib and definitive LIII, 6 months less for the FIII. The airframe also has to be reworked for the propellor rotating in the opposite direction. It's a new design.Possibly less than two years given that the airframe was already tried and tested. In the traditional timeline, the Griffon engined Spit didn't take two years for trials. The first Griffon engined Spit was the prototype Mk.IV DP845, which first flew on 27 November 1941 and production Spitfire XIIs were rolling off the line in October 1942.
For a similar timeline, the Firefly spec was offered around the same time in 1940 and it first entered service in early 1943 and it was an entirely new airframe. The Spitfire wasn't.
The airframe also has to be reworked for the propellor rotating in the opposite direction. It's a new design
Different propellor torque different tail and wings. You have to reverse your design. It's not going to happen overnight. Griffon Spitfire took 12 months to first production, 18 to service entry then add a year for carrier compatibility, subtract a year for starting all this in 1940. When national survival is at stake most things get put on hold unless vital. That's probably why we went with the Merlin powered Seafire.Not really. The wing needs altering, but Supermarine was already in the process of producing drawings, and yes, the propeller rotates in the opposite direction, but that has little bearing on airframe design. The Seafire was not a new airframe compared to the Spitfire. The Firefly took that long as it was an entirely new airframe, the Seafire shouldn't have.
As for the time between the Seafire Ib and Seafire III, had the Seafire Ib not existed and the III been the first example, the difference would not have existed. Developing the Seafire would have started with the III. I still believe Supermarine could have had Seafires on a carrier deck by mid 1942 had the order for the Griffon Sea Spitfire gone through instead of the Firebrand. It wasn't a new aeroplane and the Firefly, which took, as you say, three years from issue of requirement to in-service, so a proven design should have been able to achieve same in less time.
Regardless, the Seafire still took less time to get into service than the Firebrand, so it's a moot point, really. The end result would have been a Griffon engined Spitfire sooner than what was traditional.
Different propellor torque different tail and wings. You have to reverse your design. It's not going to happen overnight. Griffon Spitfire took 12 months to first production, 18 to service entry then add a year for carrier compatibility, subtract a year for starting all this in 1940. When national survival is at stake most things get put on hold unless vital.
That would be like a Buick Roadmaster.Actually that is why you pay test pilots. To have an opinion. Many test pilots had degrees in engineering or lots of practical experience so they could give feedback to the engineers in technical terms and not truly helpful (not) comments like "it stinks and flys like a barge".
Firebrand and Botha were excellent planes.
Goddam pilots can't fly em properly.
Test pilots causing grief. Glorified bus drivers. Just sign it off and quit ya yap.
Not paying em to have an opinion
"it stinks and flys like a barge".
That's very true. Blackburn actually produced the mock up relatively quickly and in its initial guise as a fighter powered by the Sabre, the Admiralty didn't reject it for any reason, although, apart from its size, they didn't have any reason to. By the time it had flown for the first time in February '42, by this time a little late to the party, the first Seafires had been ordered and were about to enter service.
That it should have been canned has been pondered, even by the British; in his review of the type, Eric Brown states that in hindsight, work should have ended on it, and as a fighter it effectively did and it was its load carrying capabilities that impressed enough that it was further developed as a torpedo aircraft. Again however the admiralty did not anticipate that it would take another five years before they got it aboard a carrier, but someone should have stepped in and said enough was enough at some stage.
Hindsight is wonderful though - if they had it, the navy would have had Griffon engined Spitfires on its carrier decks by late 1941/early 1942.
the prejudice against radials (According to Fedden) creating the availability of the Centaurus.
The Firebrand had to chew gum and walk at the same time.
So you can have a torpedo bomber or a fighter but you can't have both.
So the must do everything and make the tea is not going to work.
So you can have a torpedo bomber or a fighter but you can't have both.
Well, as you know, I've been castigated for heretical views on a couple of subjects on this august forum.
Once they hung the big radial on the nose any hope of forward view was greatly reduced.
Fedden may have felt that way, I don't know, but in fairness some of the prejudice was founded in truth.
Bristols (Fedden's) poppet valve engines had stagnated for too long and the sleeve valve engines, in general, weren't turning out that well. Armstrong Siddeley radial engines did nothing to help the radial cause. The Merlin (or other RR engines) may have had their problems but none were banned from over water flights like the Tiger powered Whitleys.
The valve gear on the Mercury and Pegasus was lubricated by grease gun, not engine oil. Yes it worked and the Mercury seems to have been a light, relatively powerful engine for it's size and weight but it was too small and obviously a bit of a maintenance hog (between greasing the valve gear and the 4 valves per cylinder). The Perseus was only bit more powerful and was too small for the "market" in the late 30s. Nobody was interested in a 900-1000hp engine for planes to be built in 1940-42. The Taurus had several problems. One was that it also was too small for the market, this coupled the cooling problem that never really got sorted out (1130hp at 3500ft was just not going to cut it against a Merlin VIII running on 87 octane fuel).
This leaves the Hercules as the only real "contender" in the British radial camp until the Centaurus shows up (and Fedden is gone from Bristol at that time?).
Fedden may have been one of the great British engine experts but he may have been a bit defensive about the radial vs V-12 situation. His defence or position on the Sleeve valve doesn't hold up very well to critical examination as most of his arguments seem to compare the Bristol sleeve valve to the Bristol poppet valve engines as if the P & W and Wright engines did not exist.