The Spitfire got 7 inches longer for it, despite the Griffon being that much shorter than the Merlin.AIUI the Griffon was designed to replace the Merlin with a minimum of airframe redesign and they managed the change with the Spitfire.
The Spitfire got 7 inches longer for it, despite the Griffon being that much shorter than the Merlin.AIUI the Griffon was designed to replace the Merlin with a minimum of airframe redesign and they managed the change with the Spitfire.
The Griffon was 7 inches shorter lengthwise, 6 inches taller, and weighed 340 lb more. You'd have to redesign the whole airframe to take it.
or make a V6 or I5 from Merlin bits. Similar displacement and run at lower RPMs to match power requirementsCheetah for light work from basic training to light transport
Engine testbeds can use counterbalance weights. That's not really an option for front-line aircraft.
You may be right.I'm a believer that the two Griffons are separate engines although perhaps somewhat related due to being the same size 37 litre.
I don't see why that's an issue because AFAIK the change of engine didn't produce an inferior aircraft, far from it, AIUI.The Spitfire got 7 inches longer for it, despite the Griffon being that much shorter than the Merlin.
It's the secret of comedy. Timing!The Whitley never gets the the good side of the story. It was one of the main stays of Bomber Command until mid/late 1941 it could carry 2,000 lb's if needed. Then it went on the be a transport, trainer, tug and air drop.
It was very good on it's first flight, good when it entered service and more than alright until early 41.
I compiled this from the section about the AW Whitley in The Design and Development of Weapons, which is one of the British official histories.The Whitley never gets the the good side of the story. It was one of the main stays of Bomber Command until mid/late 1941 it could carry 2,000 lb's if needed. Then it went on the be a transport, trainer, tug and air drop.
It was very good on it's first flight, good when it entered service and more than alright until early 41.
I'm not saying it was a problem, I'm saying, having to rebalance the airframe because of a new engine probably doesn't count as 'minimum redesign'.I don't see why that's an issue because AFAIK the change of engine didn't produce an inferior aircraft, far from it, AIUI.
If they can do it, certainly go ahead, having some light bombers that actually have a reasonable change of dropping their loads is a good thing to have.In any case the Battle was a bigger and heavier aircraft so the bigger and heavier engine would have fewer disadvantages to offset the considerable advantage that an 80% increase in engine power would provide. The Spitfire VB was 29ft 11in long, had a wingspan of 36ft 10ft and an empty weight of 5,065lb according to Wikipaedia. Whereas the Battle Mk II was 42ft 4in long, had a wingspan of 54ft 0in and had an empty weight of 6,647lb according to Wikipaedia.
Plus the Battle was intended to have a more powerful engine in the first place, that is the Rolls Royce Griffon in its early 1930s form and I'm advocating that they stick to that rather than redesigning it for a different engine three times instead of the two engine changes that it happened IOTL.
I do have a project (not published) where theres an anglo italian war in the mid 30s.It is funny that in the US most “failed” airplane designs are really because of the engines not living up to expectations. Where as in England the engines usually were fine and often were the best part of the aircraft. So maybe if the two countries aircraft industries were a bit more closely linked in the 30s both sides could benefit... or Shudder do you just get poor aircraft design AND poor engines?
Production FW-109D just moved the tail back with a plug to correct some CoG changesEngine testbeds can use counterbalance weights. That's not really an option for front-line aircraft.
One does wonder how wel Fairey Fulmar does ITTL? Even IOTL it was the highest scoring Fighter FAA used during the war, quite a suprise considering its inferior performance when compared to the contemporary land based fighters (and even some bombers). With earlier start to rearmament, we could see it enter service earlier, and perhaps with heavier armament and higher rated Merlin as well. It would still be inferior, but the gap in performance would not be as big as it was IOTL, with a couple more km/h of speed, 4x20mm FFGs and radar guided interceptions more then making up for the difference.
One does wonder how wel Fairey Fulmar does ITTL? Even IOTL it was the highest scoring Fighter FAA used during the war, quite a suprise considering its inferior performance when compared to the contemporary land based fighters (and even some bombers). With earlier start to rearmament, we could see it enter service earlier, and perhaps with heavier armament and higher rated Merlin as well. It would still be inferior, but the gap in performance would not be as big as it was IOTL, with a couple more km/h of speed, 4x20mm FFGs and radar guided interceptions more then making up for the difference.
Snip
Some more snip
That is it. Not an aircraft that would instantly make every other naval aircraft obsolete overnight, but simply something that will be a bit better at doing its job. I was not even thinking of it being fitted with Griffon, at least not in the Mk.I/II variants, but having to do with Merlins, though earlier introduction could mean more powerful variants are availlable. Same for the armament, Oerlikons would be a valid option for an interwar design such as the Fulmar, especially due to them being a mature, understood design, with most of the problems ironed out. With Fulmars rather thick wing, there should not be problems with fitting it in, and we could perhaps see FAA going for 90rnd drums, and 360rnds of 20mm are nothing to scoff at, and I am rather sure that those who were shot at by 20mm autocannons were not too concerned with exact make of the gun which was shooting at them.
I mean, this early on, without the benefit of Hindsight, MGFF could be seen as a rather desireable thing to have, especially for a Fleet Fighter which has to protect the Fleet from Scouts and Bombers, and where muzzle velocity and limited ammunition load would not be seen as such a disadvantage. Its use of the drum magazines instead of belts could also be seen as an advantage, as it could be considered quicker to exchange ammo drums instead of having to deal with so-and-so long ammo belts, while also being easier (perhaps safer as well?) to transport and store then belted ammunition.