Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My big (off opic) question is, is the F.5/34 connected in any way to the A6M?
Also if you put a Hercules in it, would have been a good substitute for a Hurricane?
1- Nope, it flew before A6M.
2- Even better than Hurricane, provided you can realistically do it.
...
That is what I was thinking. It looks quite promising for a ~860 hp engine. Very clean design.
Two different generations. The F5/34 is, well, a 1934 design. The Hercules is a late 1930s engine, designed as a long haul commercial/transport aircraft engine. By the time the Hercules is readily available for single engine fighter use in the early 1940s, something it was never designed for, we would put it in something else. And not the Hurricane, as the Hercules offers nothing over the Merlin, and again the former was not ideal for single engine fighters.My big (off opic) question is, is the F.5/34 connected in any way to the A6M?
View attachment 557714
Also if you put a Hercules in it
Because besides the quick to produce Hurricane, you have this....It looks damn good for a 1934 design. Why not put a Merlin in it then?
Us Canadians made Helldivers too....For the Americans Vought built Corsairs.
View attachment 526834
View attachment 526835
Curtiss built Hawks
View attachment 526836
View attachment 526837
View attachment 526838
View attachment 526839
View attachment 526840
and more. not to mention Helldivers
And Vultee Vanguards, Brewster Buffalos, Curtiss Hawks, etc....They needed planes in the air.
Same reason they bought P-40s and looked at buying P-39s and P-38s.
My big (off opic) question is, is the F.5/34 connected in any way to the A6M?
View attachment 557714
Also if you put a Hercules in it, would have been a good substitute for a Hurricane?
1- Nope, it flew before A6M.
2- Even better than Hurricane, provided you can realistically do it.
I assume they figured out those technical challenges on the Fairey Battle engine test bed but still deemed it unsuitable or with poor ROI for single engine applications.The Carb opening is very close to the top of the engine, You either need to fit an updraft carb or do a lot of work to the intake system, neither is a quick and easy fix.
I would also note that NO single engine Hercules powered plane was put in production, no fighter, no ground attack plane, no multi seat single engine bomber. No recon plane.
Because besides the quick to produce Hurricane, you have this....
What role would the F5/34 cover that these two can't?
And don't say FAA, as the monolithic wing spar precludes any chances of wing folding. And if you can't offer wing folding, you might as well use this....
The F5/34's wing was built up as a single long piece over the entire 38ft wing span, with the fusalage bolted on top. If you cut the wing to install a hinge you weaken the entire spar. You might as well start with an entirely new aircraft design rather than undertake the necessary modifications of the F5/34.Ease of manufacturing comparable, hopefully, with Hurricane + performance closer to Spitfire (all of that asumes Merlin is in the nose)?
Care to elaborate about the techincalities here?
The F5/34's wing was built up as a single long piece over the entire 38ft wing span, with the fusalage bolted on top. If you cut the wing to install a hinge you weaken the entire spar. You might as well start with an entirely new aircraft design rather than undertake the necessary modifications of the F5/34.
The Lockheed Constellation is a good example of a monolithic wing.
This is unlike bolt on wings, such as on the Hurricane where the wing isn't part of the core supporting structure. See below and you can easily see where a wing fold could have gone, right where they snap the wings on.
Designers chose to built monolithic wings for a reason, one of the biggest of which is that a monolithic wing is normally both lighter and stiffer than a unit wing. Both the Japanese Zero and the F5/34 had monolithic wings because weight was a critical factor in their performance.
That's not to be said that a monolithic wing or mono spar can't be designed from the onset to fold, such as on the F4U Corsair, but that's with a much more powerful engine. Change the F5/34 to a much heavier folding wing and the 840hp Bristol Mercury won't be able to deliver the needed performance.
I answered your question to the best of my ability. I have nothing further to add.Okay, so cut the spar where needed, install the hinge and lock (as it was done on Seafire, 4 times per aircraft; on Wildcat 2 times per A/C) and there it is. Any aircraft going from non-folding wing to a folding wing got heavier anyway.
If it's anything like our Tac-R Hurricane then survival prospects were nil so getting cold wouldn't be your biggest problem.The Russians made two-seater Hurricanes. That rear seat must have been cold in the Russian winter.
View attachment 557836