The Whale has Wings

[bsmart111]

I would like to suggest that the FAA be an early adopter of 100 octane fuel for it's aircraft. The extra power per gallon would help make up the difference in performance that we see between British and American Radial engines

I would also like to suggest that a single seat aircraft based on the Skua design and witha a Twin Mercury engine would be a very respectable fighter for the late 30s. The Mercury was (I believe) the first British radial engine modified to run on 100 Octane. It is about the same size as the Perseus and was a very popular and reliable engine. Create a twin bank version of it and you are in the 1500 HP range, with 100 Octane you may reach 1700 HP. Also use it in the standard 2 seat Skua and you may see a pretty fair Dive Bomber for the period

[trekchu]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Exactly!!

You see, thats the REAL reason the RAF wanted 2 man fighter crews, one was making the tea....

Bloody crabs....

That's also the reason why the British Army hasn't adopted Auto-loaders. The extra crewman is the one who runs the boiling vessel that is in every British Tank.

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Pah! sorry, quite correct, its a typo (I hate Word. A lot...)
The main aircraft producers for the RN are likely to be Fairy, Gloster, to a certain extent Bristol and Hawker (who were big enough to handle multiple planes). Martin-baker will certainly be asked to quote, but I'm not sure if their early designs would be up to it. Blackburn produced a lot of rubbish (the only good plane they ever built was the Buccaneer....). De Havilland arent likely to be used as their wooden designs are thought unsuitable for use in a marine environment.

The RN are going to be rather more demanding than the RAF. They know what they need, and they have limited numbers to play with - also they wont be buying anything that flies and can carry a bomb just because its called a bomber.

But will Hawker and Bristol want to take the time and effort to please the FAA at the risk of upsetting the RAF? Politics as much as techincal capability may enter in to it.

Fairey may be a good choice for Bomber aircraft but I don't see them having the experience in fighters in this period to do a good job for the FAA

Looking at Blackburn and Bristol I got the thought that maybe a merger of the two. Blackburn seemed to have innovative and aircraft oriented upper management so maybe if they take over running that aircraft and engine business from the 'Bristol cousins' who didn't seem to care about anythinhg except dividends we could get the best of both worlds (and get away from the Napier Sabre engine that hurt so many designs)

Gloster is part of Hawker so if anything I could see them being the part of Hawker that deals with the FAA

I could see MB becoming the 'Grumman' for the FAA. A company that focuses on one major client (Like Grumman was to the USN)

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by bsmart111

But will Hawker and Bristol want to take the time and effort to please the FAA at the risk of upsetting the RAF? Politics as much as techincal capability may enter in to it.

Fairey may be a good choice for Bomber aircraft but I don't see them having the experience in fighters in this period to do a good job for the FAA

Looking at Blackburn and Bristol I got the thought that maybe a merger of the two. Blackburn seemed to have innovative and aircraft oriented upper management so maybe if they take over running that aircraft and engine business from the 'Bristol cousins' who didn't seem to care about anythinhg except dividends we could get the best of both worlds (and get away from the Napier Sabre engine that hurt so many designs)

Gloster is part of Hawker so if anything I could see them being the part of Hawker that deals with the FAA

I could see MB becoming the 'Grumman' for the FAA. A company that focuses on one major client (Like Grumman was to the USN)

Both Hawker and Bristol were lareg aircraft companies that had the resources to supply to both the RAF and RN - and remember, it was a condition of regaining the FAA that the 2 serviecs would look to commonise equipment as far as was practical.

Gloster will be the main supplier for fighter aircraft, Hawker though will look at navalising some of ther RAF designs (like the Henley).

Bristol are being leant on by the Admiralty to design what the navy is paying them to design. After dealing successfully with the Air Marshalls, they arent prepared to take any rubbish from a bunch of businessmen...

Actually Bristol cant really lose, they get paid for the extra work, and they can still spend their own moneyt developing what they want to.

Martin baker are rather a wild card; they introduced many innovative features, but their early aircraft didnt fly that well...

[Just Leo]

The term "American style" cockpit refers to reports by Eric "Winkle" Brown and is in reference to cockpits which are roomy enough that you do not have to open the canopy to turn a phrase. He's just a little guy and he found British cockpits close and confining.


Martin Baker, as a stand alone company, was wasting it's time producing aircraft because the Ministry had a list of approved manufacturers and MB wasn't on it. As a contractor with a company on the approved list, Baker's designs would become eligible for production. The FAA aircraft could only be built by approved builders of FAA aircraft. It was a bit of the "old boy" network. Baker did receive a contract to put a box magazine on the 20mm cannon so they would not be limited to the 60 round drums.

The Mercury engine was old technology. There was a small engine, the Mercury, for fighters and light bombers, and a Pegasus, the grown-up engine for bombers and such. The advantage was that the Pegasus was the medium engine, with the same diameter. The small 9 cylinder Aquila was an orphan, but the Taurus 14 cylinder 2 row was 5 inches smaller, with more hp. The Centaurus was the big engine, built , in this case, as an 18 cylinder 2-row, and then reverse engineered into a Perseus 100, built too late in the war. Clear as mud?

At this point in time, Fairey had as much experience as most in monoplane fighters, and although the Fulmar wasn't a gem, it was built to specification. Richard Fairey was quite anxious to develop his own engines, but the Ministry held a grudge from when Fairey bought Curtiss engines for the Fairey Fox. The Ministry had supplied a Curtiss Conqueror to Rolls Royce so they could copy the technology and employ British engines in their premier aircraft. The Ministry held a grudge unstintingly and forever.

I have a grudge against the Skua because the undercarriage leg protrudes, when retracted, into the airsteam below the wing, perpendicular to flow, acting as a dive brake. The only good thing I can say about it was that it suffered not a bit from "compressibility" problems.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The term "American style" cockpit refers to reports by Eric "Winkle" Brown and is in reference to cockpits which are roomy enough that you do not have to open the canopy to turn a phrase. He's just a little guy and he found British cockpits close and confining.


Martin Baker, as a stand alone company, was wasting it's time producing aircraft because the Ministry had a list of approved manufacturers and MB wasn't on it. As a contractor with a company on the approved list, Baker's designs would become eligible for production. The FAA aircraft could only be built by approved builders of FAA aircraft. It was a bit of the "old boy" network. Baker did receive a contract to put a box magazine on the 20mm cannon so they would not be limited to the 60 round drums.

The Mercury engine was old technology. There was a small engine, the Mercury, for fighters and light bombers, and a Pegasus, the grown-up engine for bombers and such. The advantage was that the Pegasus was the medium engine, with the same diameter. The small 9 cylinder Aquila was an orphan, but the Taurus 14 cylinder 2 row was 5 inches smaller, with more hp. The Centaurus was the big engine, built , in this case, as an 18 cylinder 2-row, and then reverse engineered into a Perseus 100, built too late in the war. Clear as mud?

At this point in time, Fairey had as much experience as most in monoplane fighters, and although the Fulmar wasn't a gem, it was built to specification. Richard Fairey was quite anxious to develop his own engines, but the Ministry held a grudge from when Fairey bought Curtiss engines for the Fairey Fox. The Ministry had supplied a Curtiss Conqueror to Rolls Royce so they could copy the technology and employ British engines in their premier aircraft. The Ministry held a grudge unstintingly and forever.

I have a grudge against the Skua because the undercarriage leg protrudes, when retracted, into the airsteam below the wing, perpendicular to flow, acting as a dive brake. The only good thing I can say about it was that it suffered not a bit from "compressibility" problems.

I know what you mean, but now the FAA is specifying its own aircraft, and they could care less about the RAF's old boy club
They are currently far more interested in how obliging the suppliers are at meeting their demands, and how effectively they do so. They also dont give a damn about bombers...

And yes, the Fairy engine may make an appearance...

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The term "American style" cockpit refers to reports by Eric "Winkle" Brown and is in reference to cockpits which are roomy enough that you do not have to open the canopy to turn a phrase. He's just a little guy and he found British cockpits close and confining.

Wasnt there an american plane (the Avenger???) which the FAA claimed had a cockpit so large the pilot could evade AA fire by running around inside it..?

[Some Bloke]

What's it going to be called?

I vote for the Selkie or the Merrow .

[Some Bloke]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

On the subject of AA; its really too late to do much to improve the HA fire, that should have been started a few years ago, and in any case there probably isnt the money. The FAA will be pushing the risk assessment, certainly as soon as they look at whet their planes will do to a RN AA defence, but in OTL the RN didn about as much as they could regarding HA defence. Any changes will have to come in close in guns, pushed by the much greater risk assesment of the dive bomber, and that is much quicker to implement. The most likely changes are more pressure to get the 20mm and bofors 40mm under license and in production, and the other thing that wasnt done which is to do an improvement assesment and program on the 2pdr pop-pom. Which wasnt a terrible system, but was getting old by 1939, and an inprovement and modernisation would have reaped big rewards. The RN did have the heaviest AA fits in the world in 1939, and it will be improved.

Well if you have ships refitted with the modernised pompom as it becomes available, you're going to have a lot of old equipment lying around after a while. This may prove useful in areas where equipment is needed and fast.
Maybe send some of these to Crete and/or Malta to boost AA defences.

Perhaps an adapted mount for ground targets in due course ...

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Wasnt there an american plane (the Avenger???) which the FAA claimed had a cockpit so large the pilot could evade AA fire by running around inside it..?

That was the P-47, the Jug.

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

I know what you mean, but now the FAA is specifying its own aircraft, and they could care less about the RAF's old boy club
They are currently far more interested in how obliging the suppliers are at meeting their demands, and how effectively they do so. They also dont give a damn about bombers...

And yes, the Fairy engine may make an appearance...

If any housecleaning is to be done, I've read much period correspondence and opinion pieces of the time, and there were numerous beliefs deemed truisms which history proved false.
1:The bomber will always get through.
2:Turret guns are superior to fixed guns because they can be pointed and fired in any direction
3:Close formations of turret-equipped bombers can defend themselves.
4: Jet engines are useless fiddly things and have no place powering our modern bi-plane fighters.
and more significantly relative,
5: A naval ship-board fighter cannot have performance comparable to land-based fighters.
6: Long-range fighters cannot have performance comparable to short-range fighters.

All these were proven true by graphs, and they did the math. Introducing "The New Math" in a timely fashion should be an imperative.

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Wasnt there an american plane (the Avenger???) which the FAA claimed had a cockpit so large the pilot could evade AA fire by running around inside it..?

I think the comment was also directed to the P-47 by ex eagle squadron pilots that were used to the Spitfire

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

Martin Baker, as a stand alone company, was wasting it's time producing aircraft because the Ministry had a list of approved manufacturers and MB wasn't on it. As a contractor with a company on the approved list, Baker's designs would become eligible for production. The FAA aircraft could only be built by approved builders of FAA aircraft. It was a bit of the "old boy" network. Baker did receive a contract to put a box magazine on the 20mm cannon so they would not be limited to the 60 round drums.

But I believe a company on the 'approved list' would not be willing to do innovative designs for the FAA at the risk of upsetting their main client the RAF/Air Ministry. That is one reason I think MB would be a good choice

The Mercury engine was old technology. There was a small engine, the Mercury, for fighters and light bombers, and a Pegasus, the grown-up engine for bombers and such. The advantage was that the Pegasus was the medium engine, with the same diameter. The small 9 cylinder Aquila was an orphan, but the Taurus 14 cylinder 2 row was 5 inches smaller, with more hp. The Centaurus was the big engine, built , in this case, as an 18 cylinder 2-row, and then reverse engineered into a Perseus 100, built too late in the war. Clear as mud?

When you say 'old engine' are you basing that on the fact it used traditional poppet valves and not sleeve valves? The Mercury is a little smaller than the Perseus but the fact it was initially used on the Skua prototype shows it was usable in that application. I think the the Mercury was a better understood engine and would be easier to introduce with less problems in the short term. The Mercury XV running 100 Octane was an 800 HP engine, Twinning it should be a moderate task (Twinning the Taurus produced the Hercules)

At this point in time, Fairey had as much experience as most in monoplane fighters, and although the Fulmar wasn't a gem, it was built to specification. Richard Fairey was quite anxious to develop his own engines, but the Ministry held a grudge from when Fairey bought Curtiss engines for the Fairey Fox. The Ministry had supplied a Curtiss Conqueror to Rolls Royce so they could copy the technology and employ British engines in their premier aircraft. The Ministry held a grudge unstintingly and forever.

I have a grudge against the Skua because the undercarriage leg protrudes, when retracted, into the airsteam below the wing, perpendicular to flow, acting as a dive brake. The only good thing I can say about it was that it suffered not a bit from "compressibility" problems.

I have nothing against Fairey, a single seat fighter from them may be interesting. Although it may be impossible for them to design their own engine from scratch maybe a license or co development deal with P&W or Wright?

As far as the Skua wing as long as they are building a single seat version and upping the engine to a Twin Mercury maybe they can work on a new airfoil for the fighter. I don't know much about Seabirds what would be a good preditor seabird name for the fighter?

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by bsmart111

But I believe a company on the 'approved list' would not be willing to do innovative designs for the FAA at the risk of upsetting their main client the RAF/Air Ministry. That is one reason I think MB would be a good choice

When you say 'old engine' are you basing that on the fact it used traditional poppet valves and not sleeve valves? The Mercury is a little smaller than the Perseus but the fact it was initially used on the Skua prototype shows it was usable in that application. I think the the Mercury was a better understood engine and would be easier to introduce with less problems in the short term. The Mercury XV running 100 Octane was an 800 HP engine, Twinning it should be a moderate task (Twinning the Taurus produced the Hercules)



I have nothing against Fairey, a single seat fighter from them may be interesting. Although it may be impossible for them to design their own engine from scratch maybe a license or co development deal with P&W or Wright?

As far as the Skua wing as long as they are building a single seat version and upping the engine to a Twin Mercury maybe they can work on a new airfoil for the fighter. I don't know much about Seabirds what would be a good preditor seabird name for the fighter?

First of all, the Air Ministry and the RAF were not co-joined. Naval aircraft were still constructed to Air Ministry specification.

By "old engine", I mean it found it's origins in the Brazil Straker Jupiter and Cosmos Jupiter engines of 1918. Cosmos went bankrupt in 1920 because of the cut in military spending, and Bristols were coerced into buying an engine division for their aircraft company. Roy Fedden seemed to be bought as a package deal. The Jupiter was very advanced for it's day, and many foreign engines were patterned after it. In 1925, the Pegasus was developed and an engine with a shorter stroke, the Mercury, where the smaller diameter were important. By 1939, both engine series had all the development there was to do, except adapting boost to higher octane fuel. In 1932, Fedden began development of Aquila and Perseus. At the time, it was believed that the poppet valve engine was nearing it's developmental limit, and the sleeve valve offered new avenues of engine tuning opportunities. It wasn't true, but it was believed to be true. The Perseus shared bore and stroke dimensions with the Mercury, as did the Hercules, which was not a twinned Taurus, but a 14 cylinder two-row with the same cylinders as the 9 cylinder Perseus( and the Mercury). A twinned Mercury would give you an engine comparable to the Wright R-2600, a good engine. But the F6F Hellcat was originally fitted with the Wright and performance was deemed inadequate to the task at hand. The P&W R-2800 was installed in the Hellcat and history has judged it's performance. A twinned Perseus could have been better.

The Skua had no redeeming qualities. I was not critiquing the wing itself, but the fact that Blackburn engineers couldn't create a retractable undercarriage without creating an air dam. The Curtiss P-40 was criticized for putting part of the undercarriage leg into a parallel airflow. The Skua left it perpendicular.

Richard Fairey wasn't interested in engine production. He wanted to build a new one. That's what engineers do.

[fastmongrel]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The Skua had no redeeming qualities. I was not critiquing the wing itself, but the fact that Blackburn engineers couldn't create a retractable undercarriage without creating an air dam. The Curtiss P-40 was criticized for putting part of the undercarriage leg into a parallel airflow. The Skua left it perpendicular.

Are you sure you are talking about the Skua having protruding undercarrige had a look at 2 pages of google images and none of them show anything protruding.

[Some Bloke]

That's the third quote of mine I've found in someone's signature, I wonder how many more there are out there

[fastmongrel]

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

That's the third quote of mine I've found in someone's signature, I wonder how many more there are out there

It made me laugh

I just imagined Adolf invading most of Europe simply because he couldnt grow a proper mustache.

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by fastmongrel

Are you sure you are talking about the Skua having protruding undercarrige had a look at 2 pages of google images and none of them show anything protruding.

I draw airplanes and you have to know where the bumps are.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

I draw airplanes and you have to know where the bumps are.

What's your view on the Bristol Type 133 and it's odd little sort of retractable but sort of non-retractable undercarriage?

[fastmongrel]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

I draw airplanes and you have to know where the bumps are.

Got you see it know. Mind the Skua is about as aerodynamic as a brick anyway