Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?
Yep, the 1640hp at 2000ft Merlin 32 would have provided oh so much more speed and climb than the 1635hp at 2250ft that the Merlin 24s and 27s used the Hurricane MK IVs did.
A few Hurricanes did get Merlin 32s
Apparently the increase in performance was NOT what is being claimed here. There were three such aircraft built.
well you can stop Production the Barracuda and use the engines for Hurricanes, just as soon as you figure out how to get a Hurricane to carry a torpedo or a 1600lb AP bomb and Deliver it in a steep dive.My theory was 1) clip the wings and then 2) put the more powerful engines on. I pointed out the Barracuda as an example of putting a nice powerful engine on an oversized draggy airframe - 216 mph or something like that.
They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.Yes when they first clipped the wings on the A6M3 they lost the folding tips and also for reasons I forget, some of the fuel capacity.
Yes to all of this, but so what?
I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes. Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.
According to what I read (and this is mentioned on the Wiki) the engine power increase only improved speed by 6.8 miles per hour, hence the wing clip.
The question is would you have a Griffon Hurricane or a Griffon Spitfire?
The Merlin 45 was not a wonder engine. The reason that the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 was because there was not enough Merlin XXs to supply both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the Hurricane needed it more.
With the Merlin 45 the Spitfire had a maximum speed of ~370mph (Spitfire V), while the Merlin XX boosted the speed up to ~400mph (Spitfire III, 399mph with earlier Merlin X).
They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.
True but it rather ignores what else was going on. The Sakae 12 engine in the A6M2 was rated at 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft (critical height for it's single speed engine) while the Sakae 21 was rated at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft,
Max speed of 331.5mph for the A6M2 was at 14,930ft (using ram) while the A6M3 did 338mph ( I am not going to argue over 1-2mph considering the translations and conversions) but the A6M3 did it at 19.685ft. (?) This is much like the P-40E vs P-40F debate were the top speed doesn't seem to change much but the altitude at which certain speeds could be reached changed by thousands of feet.
In any case the A6M3 despite being about 300lbs heavier is credited with a bit better climb and over 3000ft higher ceiling even with the smaller wing.
Yes, I'm sure the two speed supercharger and better engine helped - obviously, but what made the difference in speed was clipping the wings. 6.8 mph improvement in speed from the engine, more than 20 mph improvement with the clipped wings. Nothing "magic" about it it's an historical fact.
Merlin XX as we know quite well had the two speed supercharger - whether you want a medium altitude plane or a low altitude determines whether you use the medium or low altitude Merlin, but the point is reducing the drag is what mattered most for the speed.
As for the Barracuda, what I remember about it's service record was pretty dismal. Barely over 200 mph is ok for a torpedo bomber in 1941 but it isn't in 1943.
What historical fact?????
I gave you speeds form one source for the A6M2 and the A6M3, perhaps you have a different source. However do NOT use the speeds from the A6M5 because even though they used the same basic engine.
The A6M5 used a different exhaust setup that added a fair amount of thrust
may have helped with altitude performance.Late model Zeros also had water injection but it didn't seem to help a lot.
rather ignores the "historical fact" that the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than E over 20,000ft (the higher you went the greater the difference) of course the thinner air helped reduce the drag, assuming your engine still made power.
So what, if may have been dismal but claiming that the engines should have gone to Hurricanes simply because they were faster rather ignores that the Hurricane could not do the Barracudas job. Barracudas were used to attack the Tirpitz.
Under wing loads for the Barracuda. 4× 450 lb (205 kg) depth charges or 6× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs.
The Barracuda might have done better in service if it had the Merlin 27 engines from the Hurricane IVs. Might have been able to fly over the Indonesian mountains in better fashion.
An example of be careful what you wish for. Who would have thought a torpedo bomber needed to fly over mountain ranges, just stick low altitude engines in them.
The Model 32 also sucked at turning(Wiki unfortunately)
It turned worse than the Model 21 it replaced
To me the question is when you can have them. A Griffon powered hurricane in 1941-42 would be very useful.
Only partly true. The Air Ministry was very concerned about any interruption in supply of Hurricanes or Spitfires. (one only has to look at the debacle, caused by the Air Ministry , of changing the Hurricane from fabric covered to metal covered wings). The fact is that the Hurricane needed very little modification to accept the Merlin XX, which is why Hurricane II's were operational in September of 1940. On the other hand , the Spitfire production would be interrupted in converting production to the MK III because of the changes required to fit the merlin XX. When the Merlin 45 arrived very shortly later it could fit the MK I and II Spitfires without affecting production numbers making this a no brainer for the Air Ministry, Hurricane II's and Spit V's with hardly any lull in production.
Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.
Bigger wing = slower turn...
A6M2 Model 21 - wingspan 39 ft 4 in
A6M3 Model 32 - wingspan 36 ft 9 in
correction. It was called the Spiteful and very few were built.If its a better fighter than the Typhoon it is on par with a Tempest. Are you seriously suggesting that a few mods to the Hurricane, unnoticed until today, would have the Hurricane on par with a Tempest? I think some anti Typhoon propaganda may have led you astray, the Typhoon was the only plane that could chase down FW190 tip and run raiders, Spitfires couldn't that is why the Typhoon was rushed to service, so I don't think any type of souped up or cut down Hurricane would either. You cant add up reductions in drag to produce super performance. The Spitfire was about 30MPH slower than the Mustang with the same engine, this was due to better wing design, better cooling design and better fit/finish. To uprate a Spitfire to be the same as a Mustang needs a completely new plane called a Mustang and probably different production methods and equipment, it is the same only more so with a Hurricane. In any case the RAF had Mustangs first with Allison and then with Rolls Royce engines.
More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.