I have had an interest in the life of Sir Roy Fedden and the possibilities of achievements not accomplished. Had he taken the job offered by Rolls Royce early in his career or had the Board of "cousins" at Bristol had a better outlook, he might have produced a British version of the Pratt and Whitney R-2800, only bigger, more powerful and earlier. It would be the equivalent of the Perseus engine, produced and run in 1935, twinned. Nobody would be interested in the story, but I like to make pictures. A slight modification to history is that James Martin is contracted to the Blackburn design staff to make real aircraft. Submitted for your approval or scorn.
Sir Roy Fedden and the Orion Engine
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
The aircraft are: The Beaufort, which now has Mitchell-like performance.
The Gloster nameless fighter, which could have been armored and carry the Molins gun in the anti-tank role.
The Hampden, with Mosquito-like thin wings. The planforms were very similar, but the thickness was quite different. Renamed the Hampton.
The Whitley, with wings angled for proper flight aspect, modified tail and nose, belly turret, retractable.
Lancaster, with ball turret.
Hawker Henley, slightly lengthened, with Dauntless cockpit canopy which doesn't look quite as much of a lash-up.
Spitfire, slightly wider, with greater fuel volume in fuselage and wings where the coolers were OTL.
Blackburn MBB1 was an attempt to provide a naval attack aircraft and a Typhoon substitute for RAF.
Saro Lerwick, with modified hull step and more wing, as should have been.
Gloster shipboard fighter-bomber loosely based on the nameless Gloster fighter not made because of Gladiator priority.
Hawker Hurricane and Tornado not shown because I've done them with Hercules and Centaurus.
The Gloster nameless fighter, which could have been armored and carry the Molins gun in the anti-tank role.
The Hampden, with Mosquito-like thin wings. The planforms were very similar, but the thickness was quite different. Renamed the Hampton.
The Whitley, with wings angled for proper flight aspect, modified tail and nose, belly turret, retractable.
Lancaster, with ball turret.
Hawker Henley, slightly lengthened, with Dauntless cockpit canopy which doesn't look quite as much of a lash-up.
Spitfire, slightly wider, with greater fuel volume in fuselage and wings where the coolers were OTL.
Blackburn MBB1 was an attempt to provide a naval attack aircraft and a Typhoon substitute for RAF.
Saro Lerwick, with modified hull step and more wing, as should have been.
Gloster shipboard fighter-bomber loosely based on the nameless Gloster fighter not made because of Gladiator priority.
Hawker Hurricane and Tornado not shown because I've done them with Hercules and Centaurus.
"Nobody would be interested in the story"
On the contrary, I for one am intrigued by this (somewhat butterflyish) premise and would be interested to see how the timeline goes.
On the contrary, I for one am intrigued by this (somewhat butterflyish) premise and would be interested to see how the timeline goes.
Really cool planes although I'm a bit sceptical about an Orion monoculture (at least pre war) but that is likely to change during WWII itself. The radial "spitfire" with the bubble cockpit could be a successor type (maybe the Supermarine Serpent).
Sir Roy Fedden was responsible for designing more than half the engines in the RAF as it was. He was also responsible for the establishment of the Rotol propellor company, the Bristol Britain First project, and high octane fuel supplies for Britain. He was successful in these promotions but in a number of others, he was not.
Left on his own, he just wanted to build cars.
Left on his own, he just wanted to build cars.
Re: Supermarine Serpent. I never liked the look of bubble canopy Spitfires. Practical, but aethetically nauseating. The Hurricane was a dead-end design that could have been made better. Sir Sydney was sometimes slow to pick up on innovations which were not his, such as thin wings, and later, swept wings. When handed the same data that North American used on the F-86 Sabre, he said " We won the war." and disregarded it. Here is a Hurricane with the tail lengthened in the style of late-model P-40's so that the after-fuselage bump doesnt shadow the lower rudder,requiring the use of a ventral fillet and fixed tailwheel, a Miles M-20 canopy, and the Tempest II wing, and Orion engine. After the Spitfire had displayed superior performance, mostly due to the wing, he next designed the Tornado and Typhoon with the same flawed aerodynamics.
A couple months ago, my computer crashed and I lost all my original artwork. All that I possess now is what I got back from AH.com. I still continue to pedantically rebuild past aircraft, and build new ones. A recent thread reminded me that Boulton Paul wasn't represented, and the post-war Balliol was a deck-capable aircraft. Presupposing that such engineers existed in an earlier time, and that the Bristol Orion engine was developed, the Boulton Paul Sea Bass would have killed multiple birds, utilizing the ubiquitous Orion engine, allowing Boulton Paul to produce a superior machine from it's design studio, and supplying the FAA with a naval fighter-bomber of adequate performance from a British factory.
Again I can't see this happening pre war. However, with the Orion being a reliable engine there could be a culture of Radials for Bombers, Inlines for Fighters, which changes over the course of the war. This is not an absolute thing though, the Navy apart from ordering crap designs, was pretty the runt when it came to technology anyway, if the Navy ordered a fighter, the RAF would likely lean on the air ministry, shortage of inlines, here make do with a radial design e.g. the Vickers Venom, which could swiftly change the above mentioned thinking.
Also, how early is the switch to the Serpent? does this mean a greater availability of deratable aviation engines for tanks?
Also, how early is the switch to the Serpent? does this mean a greater availability of deratable aviation engines for tanks?
Last edited:
Sior
Banned
To be fair to the Navy aircraft precurement up untill quite late on was run by the RAF so they were left with scond line designs.
There was never a shortage of derated merlins (meteors) as all the parts that did not meet the exacting aircraft quality control were used to make them.
Tank engines aren't my field, but I think that overlooking the Napier Lion as a tank engine was a mistake. The Napier-Railton engine could also move a tank swiftly, but with excessive fuel consumption.
The problems with British aviation products was systemic. What I mean is that the people who govern and manage the company would have to change. The Bristol Company was started by Sir George White. Upon his death, the company was run by relatives. Lord Brabazon called the Bristol board "the cousins". The company board was all relatives. Nobody was an engineer, and their business acumen was unestablished. By comparison, American aero-engine company Wright rewarded Charles Lawrance with a seat on the board. Fred Rentschler established Pratt and Whitney from a tool company. Engineers ran the company. Bristol was run by cousins. When the British government suggested that Fedden should be given a seat on the board, the company refused. When the government asked to have Fedden's services, the company refused. This is recorded in Lord Brabazon's speech in Hansard, upon Fedden being fired in 1942. The company's engine side was Fedden. The aircraft manufacturing was led by Frank Barnwell, who died in 1938, I think. He was responsible for Bristol aircraft from Bristol monoplane and Brisfit up to the Beaufort. He died in a test flight of his personally built airplane, because he was forbidden from flying company aircraft. His three sons died flying in the war, two in Blenheims.
Fedden learned of the sleeve valve concept devised by another engine wizard, Harry, or Sir Harry Ricardo, in 1927, and the company authorized development of the Aquila and Perseus. Bigger engines were not authorized because the cousins didn't know of any aircraft that could use a bigger engine. Famed American aircraft designer and engineer Ed Heineman said of his work, "Simply take the most powerful engine available and design an aircraft around it". The cousins never heard of Ed Heineman. Another quote by Heineman, "A great many people think they are thinking, when they are really rearranging their prejudices. Beware of these."
When the Pratt R-2800 was built, no aircraft could use it. It didn't take long for American aircraft companies to build some of the finest aircraft around this engine. An 18 cylinder two-row engine developed by twinning the Perseus could have run in 1935. More advanced development could have been achieved much earlier by a company willing to borrow American carburetor technology, or dive into fuel injection. Not Bristol. The 14 cylinder Hercules didn't develop 2100 hp until the '50s. War emergency ratings of 2500 hp. were achieved well into the jet age. The Nord Noratlas got a much better engine than the Beaufighter ever had. French-built.
Anyway, I think companies should be run by people who know what they're doing, not people related to a dead guy.
It is amusing, somewhat, that the government, always accused of incompetence, was always on Sir Roy's side, but you can't fight the cousins. Anyway, Bristol's gone now.
The problems with British aviation products was systemic. What I mean is that the people who govern and manage the company would have to change. The Bristol Company was started by Sir George White. Upon his death, the company was run by relatives. Lord Brabazon called the Bristol board "the cousins". The company board was all relatives. Nobody was an engineer, and their business acumen was unestablished. By comparison, American aero-engine company Wright rewarded Charles Lawrance with a seat on the board. Fred Rentschler established Pratt and Whitney from a tool company. Engineers ran the company. Bristol was run by cousins. When the British government suggested that Fedden should be given a seat on the board, the company refused. When the government asked to have Fedden's services, the company refused. This is recorded in Lord Brabazon's speech in Hansard, upon Fedden being fired in 1942. The company's engine side was Fedden. The aircraft manufacturing was led by Frank Barnwell, who died in 1938, I think. He was responsible for Bristol aircraft from Bristol monoplane and Brisfit up to the Beaufort. He died in a test flight of his personally built airplane, because he was forbidden from flying company aircraft. His three sons died flying in the war, two in Blenheims.
Fedden learned of the sleeve valve concept devised by another engine wizard, Harry, or Sir Harry Ricardo, in 1927, and the company authorized development of the Aquila and Perseus. Bigger engines were not authorized because the cousins didn't know of any aircraft that could use a bigger engine. Famed American aircraft designer and engineer Ed Heineman said of his work, "Simply take the most powerful engine available and design an aircraft around it". The cousins never heard of Ed Heineman. Another quote by Heineman, "A great many people think they are thinking, when they are really rearranging their prejudices. Beware of these."
When the Pratt R-2800 was built, no aircraft could use it. It didn't take long for American aircraft companies to build some of the finest aircraft around this engine. An 18 cylinder two-row engine developed by twinning the Perseus could have run in 1935. More advanced development could have been achieved much earlier by a company willing to borrow American carburetor technology, or dive into fuel injection. Not Bristol. The 14 cylinder Hercules didn't develop 2100 hp until the '50s. War emergency ratings of 2500 hp. were achieved well into the jet age. The Nord Noratlas got a much better engine than the Beaufighter ever had. French-built.
Anyway, I think companies should be run by people who know what they're doing, not people related to a dead guy.
It is amusing, somewhat, that the government, always accused of incompetence, was always on Sir Roy's side, but you can't fight the cousins. Anyway, Bristol's gone now.
Looking at the Wikipedia article on the Orion it aoppears it was a late war improvement on teh Centaurus engine which was more a contemporary of the R-2800 in time and size. The Centaurus was used in several designs and was a fairly compentent engine that worked well in the era's high performance aircraft. The Orion would be more comperable to the R3350 or R4360.
As I remember from some reading years ago the Bristol Sleeve valve engines suffered from two problems that kept them from wider use once the Wright and Pratt& Whitney engines were available in sufficent volume
1) They used more oil for each operating hour and they had higher specific fuel consumption. This meant that in a given application and aircraft would get better range from the the Wright and P&W designs. Oil consumption led to flight crews believeing the engines were less reliable (although they were not as long as oil was supplied in suffucent volume) since they often had visable trails of oilleading aft from the engines
2) They were not as easy to produce in high volume requiring more hand work and a more complex assembly process. This also made them more expensive to build and to overhaul
I really wish I could remember where I read all this because it was a good comparison of aircraft engines and it also discussed why some good aircraft designs were held back 9or discontiued) because of the choice of engines for the project
As I remember from some reading years ago the Bristol Sleeve valve engines suffered from two problems that kept them from wider use once the Wright and Pratt& Whitney engines were available in sufficent volume
1) They used more oil for each operating hour and they had higher specific fuel consumption. This meant that in a given application and aircraft would get better range from the the Wright and P&W designs. Oil consumption led to flight crews believeing the engines were less reliable (although they were not as long as oil was supplied in suffucent volume) since they often had visable trails of oilleading aft from the engines
2) They were not as easy to produce in high volume requiring more hand work and a more complex assembly process. This also made them more expensive to build and to overhaul
I really wish I could remember where I read all this because it was a good comparison of aircraft engines and it also discussed why some good aircraft designs were held back 9or discontiued) because of the choice of engines for the project
My Orion engine and the original never actually existed Orion engine are not the same. However, it is just slightly smaller in displacement than the R-3350, being 32 something, I'd have to look it up. The Centaurus is a slightly larger cylinder than the Perseus/Hercules/myOrion cylinder, which again is larger than the Aquila/Taurus cylinder. The Perseus was eventually revised later to use Centaurus cylinders and finally achieved 1,000 hp as the Perseus 100.
The sleeve-valve engines were labour-intensive to build, and burned a lot of oil. Other radial engines also were noted oil-burners, which is why they must be handed through a few revs before starting to avoid hydraulicing a cylinder full of oil. However, maintenance on the Hercules is much reduced, and the type in commercial service achieved a good MTBO. Around 2,000 hours between rebuild.
The list of failed aircraft due to poor engines is a long one. The American wartime Proposal 40c aircraft of unusual design using mostly engines of unusual design led to absolutely nothing, but kept some people busy.