An operational Vickers Venom

The Vickers Venom was a very small fighter built by Vickers which matched very early Hurricane performance. How might it have been made worthy of service?

Worth noting is that, compared to early Hurricanes, it benefitted from a variable pitch propellor so a better comparison is with the Hurricane MkI with a VP propellor rather than the original 2 blade fixed pitch propellor.

For information the Bristol Aquila engine weighs 352kg with a diameter of 46" and is normally aspirated and was using 73 octane fuel. For comparison the Bristol Perseus weighs 143kg more, is 9.5" wider, was supercharged and used 87 octane in normal use.

A supercharged Aquila on 100 octane would improve both overall power and power at height but at the cost of some weight gain.

There is also armour and self sealing tanks to be added. I understand the Venom was performance tested with guns and ammunition fitted but I am prepared to be corrected on this.

In naval use there would be the weight of any flotation kit, dinghy, arrestor hook and attachments. The Sea Gladiator may be some guide on this vis a vis the Gladiator.
 
Last edited:
IMHO - it was just too small, to get more out of. Small engine, with big performance, shows they got the most they could have, any attempts to put in a bigger engine wouldn't work - the design wouldn't be able to cope.
 
The Spitfire took on board a 2 stage compressor and then the Griffon and the 109 from DB601 to DB605 so 140kg Aquila to Perseus or the slightly smaller and lighter Mercury does not seem unsurmountable. Suitably placed armour and a naval hook would help maintain the CoG. For the FAA the OTL choice was limited to interim Sea Gladiators until the Fulmar came on line in 1941. Even being pessimistic a supercharged Aquila on 100 octane should get you another 100bhp and naval fighters fought at lower altitudes so it can be geared for that. The flaps look made for an aircraft carrier deck acting as airbrakes at the end.
 
I could see the appeal if it could be navalized with that small size. A RN carrier could probably carry several extra Venoms vs Fulmars or Sea Hurricanes.
 
Does it have to be British/Commonwealth Service? If not some of the smaller countries might be interested, or it could be offered to Poland as an alternative to the Caudron C.714
If I remember correctly the Venom was designed to be very easy to look after. Australia, Canada and New Zealand might be interested in it as a fighter trainer, which would see it inevitably used operationally in New Guinae and New Britain. It certainly would never be a major type.
 
It was easy to 'land anywhere' so would suit the Polish dispersal fields and they were making their own Mercury engines. As did the Swedes and Finns.For Commonwealth production the Mercury was within Australian production means and Canada could look also to some USA engine too? Maybe the R-1340 or the R-975 or Wasp Junior for training?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
just wonder ... could a Taurus engine (14 cylinder, two-row version of the Aquila engine) have been fitted ?

(just in case at Bristols they would have thought of doubling their sleeve-valve-engines a bit earlier ;-) )
 
Worth noting is that, compared to early Hurricanes, it benefitted from a variable pitch propellor so a better comparison is with the Hurricane MkI with a VP propellor rather than the original 2 blade fixed pitch propellor.
There is also armour and self sealing tanks to be added. I understand the Venom was performance tested with guns and ammunition fitted but I am prepared to be corrected on this.
It has been written that a DH 3-bladed propeller was fitted, but it was also mentioned that a test flight gave poor performance, so the propeller pitch was ground-adjusted. One of many anomolies.

It is always stated that the only prototype was fitted with 8 machine guns. All available photographs show no holes for bullets, and no access doors for servicing. The Gloster F5/34 first prototype had no holes, but the second did, and it is still open to conjecture whether actual guns were fitted. The Martin Baker MB-2 had guns, holes and access doors, and a back story about the trouble Martin had to go through to get those eight guns.

The aircraft sat on the ground waiting for a suitable engine because the Aquila was not yet developed to a suitable degree. It was written that Vickers approached Alvis to build the Gnome-Rhone 14M, but the government had other ideas about Alvis' production future. Any other suitable engine of higher power would have required a complete redesign.

The short field characteristics come as no surprise because the wing shares the design of a bush plane, like the Beaver. However, wing design is a compromise.
 
It was easy to 'land anywhere' so would suit the Polish dispersal fields and they were making their own Mercury engines. As did the Swedes and Finns.For Commonwealth production the Mercury was within Australian production means and Canada could look also to some USA engine too? Maybe the R-1340 or the R-975 or Wasp Junior for training?

Given the total number built is 1, which crashed using an engine which when developed powered some of the major RAF aircraft types its really hard to justify wasting production capacity on an aircraft inferior to the Spit or Hurricane - which is already in service, or taking it away from other types with different roles.

Production outside the UK using US engines is actually easier ( no U boats in the Pacific or the St Lawrence) and as the EATS puts training in those areas as a matter of policy but if pushed the wackett could have used either of gypsy engines.

Poland showed no great interest in foreign aircraft and were hoping the taurus powered PZL.50 would come along, but if they had wanted a modern fighter.

This is really the dead end of the failed Jockey.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Taurus is 240kg over the Aquila as in the Venom.
True, but had the same diameter to 'fit' into the fusalage.
... which in this case could (perhaps) a wee bit lenghtened and/or some counterweight behind the cockpit (like some armor ?).
 
Top