Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:45 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:21 pm
so ....
no production Tempest ever had 3500 hp - or more than 3055 hp
(and no-one believes otherwise - because no-one has found any evidence)
... The Tempest F.6 was the final Tempest mark produced by Hawkers, & incorporated various airframe
improvements airframe developed via the F.2, & by use of the latest Sabre V, with an available
+15lb boost on usual 100/130 avgas - for normal postwar/peacetime use - sans the addition of ADI.
glad to see that you now agree .....
(that 3500 hp is nothing to do with any Tempest ever sold)


btw
the dry weight of the Sabre VI was 2660 lb - it was 'fan-cooled' for annular radiators
though still a single-stage supercharger
the total weight (of what we can call the 'propulsion system') was 4465 lb (180 lb more than the Sabre VA's)
the intended output at low speed was 3350 hp and so presumably consistent with c. 3500 hp at high speed
Roy Gasson of Napier Heritage Trust said the VI wasn't tested (before the Ministry's 1947 Sabre transfer to RR)

btw 2
I met in my work 'Bob' Boyle (afaik now) the 'Bob' Boyle who had worked for and later wrote a book on Napier and ...
maybe I missed a chum's standing invite to meet 'Mr Gliding' & ex-Tempest pilot Derek Piggott at (ex-Tempest) Lasham
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:13 am

glad to see that you now agree .....
(that 3500 hp is nothing to do with any Tempest ever sold)


btw
the dry weight of the Sabre VI was 2660 lb - it was 'fan-cooled' for annular radiators
though still a single-stage supercharger
the total weight (of what we can call the 'propulsion system') was 4465 lb (180 lb more than the Sabre VA's)
the intended output at low speed was 3350 hp and so presumably consistent with c. 3500 hp at high speed
Not at all, (did you read my post T-C?) Once cleared for flight status by passing the type-test,
it was de rigueur to fly them, (if Rotol had provided a prop that could hack that 3,500 hp T.O!)

Of course it was "sold" - to HM Govt, you don't imagine EE/Napier & Hawker paid for them - do you!

The makers still had to fulfill the work for which they'd been paid. Such as completing the batch
of unwanted Spitfire 21 production, which was promptly reduced back to parts after being tested...

The only twin to fly with Sabre-power was the Warwick, which was regarded as underpowered even
when fitted with P & W R-2800s, but was in danger of being 'flayed alive' by a brace of Sabres which
were capable of exceeding the fabric-skinned Vickers machine's VNE @ Vmax...
"I believe in the Workers Revolution & I believe in the Final Solution,
I believe in the Shape of Things to Come, & I believe I'm not the only one..."
: Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

so now all piston engine fighter aircraft (however non-standard or imaginary) are eligible for this thread's 'award' ?

how convenient for you ! (again 'changing the rules')
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:13 pm
so now all piston engine fighter aircraft (however non-standard) are eligible for this thread's 'award' ?
Well of course T-C, that's the premise of the bloody thread going way back to page 1!
(If by "non-standard", you mean as in mass production/service & not prototype to service standard).
Or have you forgotten that you were - back then - championing the sole Martin-Baker M-B 5?
(& assumed its wing profile as L-F, which it never had, unlike Tempest/Fury/Hornet/Spiteful/CA-15).
"I believe in the Workers Revolution & I believe in the Final Solution,
I believe in the Shape of Things to Come, & I believe I'm not the only one..."
: Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

then hundreds of planes that actually exist today beat any Tempest ...

but no !
eg Cook Cleland's double Bendix Trophy winning 4500 hp Corsair was apparently ruled out by you

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:27 pm
then hundreds of planes that actually exist today beat any Tempest ...

but no !
eg Cook Cleland's double Bendix Trophy winning 4500 hp Corsair was apparently ruled out by you
Doubt it would've beaten a Tempest 6 fitted with the Sabre which passed the 100 hours @ 3,750 hp test..

As both Len Setright & Bill Sweetman duly noted in print (The Power to Fly/High Speed Flight).

Edit: Correction of author's name/reference.
Last edited by J.A.W. on Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I believe in the Workers Revolution & I believe in the Final Solution,
I believe in the Shape of Things to Come, & I believe I'm not the only one..."
: Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:56 am

...the Sabres smaller bore and much shorter stroke would seem ideal for poppet valves
(given the fuel quality revolution)
Sabre funding was maintained both to keep a sleeve-valve foot in the liquid-cooled door,
and a reserve engine for the Vulture.
As regards this view T-C, which you have reiterated in this thread, you might find this
period graph to be of some interest since it shows the Sabre's architecture did in fact
suit the volumetric efficacy of sleeve valves, versus big 2V hemi/4V pent-roof poppets...

(pdf courtesy of member here, 'snowygrouch').

Image
"I believe in the Workers Revolution & I believe in the Final Solution,
I believe in the Shape of Things to Come, & I believe I'm not the only one..."
: Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:32 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:56 am
...the Sabres smaller bore and much shorter stroke would seem ideal for poppet valves
(given the fuel quality revolution)
Sabre funding was maintained both to keep a sleeve-valve foot in the liquid-cooled door,
and a reserve engine for the Vulture.
As regards this view T-C, which you have reiterated in this thread, you might find this
period graph to be of some interest since it shows the Sabre's architecture did in fact
suit the volumetric efficacy of sleeve valves, versus big 2V hemi/4V pent-roof poppets...
(though I don't see what that has to do with the Sabre architecture) ....

the main 'American 2 valve poppet' engine then was the 1820 Wright Cyclone (made for 25+ years)
conveniently for this discussion it had the same bore:stroke ratio as the Bristol engines shewn
but more impressively the later Cyclones at takeoff ran at 2800 rpm - ie 16.3 m/sec or 3850 ft/sec mean piston speed
and the Cyclone supercharger efficiency was improved from 60% to 75% during WW2 - and more post-war
this improvement (as I said before) relieved the suggested problem of poppet valve breathing
over a few years the 1820 Cyclone doubled in power


logic says (though authors don't think of this) that historical improvements in strength ....
(allowing more piston acceleration/rpm but demanding relatively bigger ports/valves at some point)
imply that the ideal bore:stroke ratio would have increased over the years
ie that the old low bore:stroke ratio engines were right for their times

because (strength considerations say) rpm can increase in proportion to the square root of a stroke reduction ....
reduced cylinder volume (eg given bore:stroke ratio) increases breathing (relatively) of both sleeve-valve and poppets
reduced cylinder volume (eg given bore:stroke ratio) increases rpm so increased breathing is handy
these were the basis of Ricardo's and Heron's US Hyper program suggestions ie improving the volumetric 'efficiency'
ie displacement per unit time was raised by raising rpm - but unlike motor sport WW2 didn't have any engine rules

and increased bore:stroke ratios (as Napier) ie tend afaik to reduce the sleeve-valve's breathing (relatively)
(the port height reducing with stroke so port area doesn't rise with rpm rise)
though increased bore:stroke ratios (as Hyper) does increase the poppet-valve's breathing (relatively)
(so only 2 poppets were deemed necessary)

presumably cylinder size/bore:stroke reduction would allow poppet valve breathing to equal sleeve valve breathing
the Sabre was apparently intended for 4000 rpm but only got there via a convoluted and protracted route

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Sabre III produced for FAA usage was a dedicated low-level 4,000 rpm variant.

(Presumably also intended for the projected 'Sea Typhoon', prior to the FAA
being liberally supplied with USN F4U/F6F fighters via 'Lend-Lease').


The engines shown in the graph were indeed low-boost, pre-100/130 avgas units.

Being a few % oversquare in B X S, the Sabre was close to ideal in port time/area,
esp' given the boost level increases, which showed advantages in significantly higher
BMEP, & interestingly enough - smoother running too - according to pilot's reports..

The nearest equivalent US 'Hyper program' engine would likely be the inverted V16
OHC 2V Chrysler Hemi of 36 litres, another oversquare design, which with the usual
USAAF altitude-compensation turbocharger set-up was good for 2,500 hp (& a 'normal'
rating of 2,150 hp) so, about midway between the Griffon & Sabre, (albeit very long).

Of course, Chrysler Corp had to shelve any production plans, due to having the urgent
& highest priority role in sorting out the big Wright radial needed for the B-29 program.
"I believe in the Workers Revolution & I believe in the Final Solution,
I believe in the Shape of Things to Come, & I believe I'm not the only one..."
: Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

https://www.t6harvard.com/
try these (pilot info section) ...
6 avoiding ground loops
2 Harvard landings
5 flying the AT6
1 spinning the T6
etc etc

eg there's photos and even priceless video of a 'ground loop' aka 'swing'
this being due to the inherent mechanical instability of tailwheel aircraft on the ground
maybe now some people won't so quickly dismiss what I write

the ground looping Red Bull D-FGHK seems to be the 800 hp 'German Harvard' but .. nothing on getting that 800 hp
(P&W once catalogued a 720 hp version but it wasn't taken up - though their usual 600 hp was from 73 Octane fuel)
of course all (SC models) were manually throttled eg to 36" or 38" at sea level so could be flown over this boost
unlike the C models - these had charge impellers but behaved as if NA (as did some Kinners eg Harrison Ford's)
no helicopter 1340s had more than the 600 hp
I used to see Denny Sherman's 1200 hp 1820 'Super-Harvard' - we were told not to ask about flying in it

somewhere in the above source it's clearly stated that the T6 is in some ways more difficult than eg a Mustang fighter
eg because it can easily swing either way and correcting a swing can produce a swing in the opposite direction

display Harvards (eg Numan's) probably have a big or/and 3-blade prop ....
Harvard (not SNJ ?) prop sizes seemed smaller than 11' 2" iirc Gunston says pre RAF's reduction (for noise or what ?)
but a small prop better reproduced the thrust/speed characteristic of the trainee's destination aircraft ?


re the supposed prop torque on rapidly increasing power strongly rolling such planes ......
nowhere in flying manuals does it ever tell anyone to apply aileron (roll control) in this situation .... presumably ....
because power increase produces yaw then in the same sense some resulting roll tendency .... whereas ....
applyied anticipatory roll input would be in opposite sense to the yaw - this (a step towards a spin) is to be avoided

re the supposed deficiency of the narrow undercarriage aka landing gear ....
doesn't it allow 'wing-down' crosswind methods that a wide u/c wouldn't ?
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rodak
Rodak
38
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

I haven't read the whole thread, so please excuse me if this plane has been mentioned... What about the Martin-Baker MB-5?

https://hushkit.net/2019/01/02/almost-t ... baker-mb5/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMdv7UBdWw4

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
584
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Rodak wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:09 pm
.... What about the Martin-Baker MB-5?
https://hushkit.net/2019/01/02/almost-t ... baker-mb5/
that hushkit seems to be a brilliant site - well found !

(at the start of this thread I suggested the MB-5 was the Lotus 49 of planes - and the T*****t was the BRM H-16)
the article (by Dr R V Smith C Eng FRAeS) suggests that if the MB-5 had used it ....
the Hawker aerofoil (as Tempest etc) would have reduced high-speed drag and increased critical Mach number ....
but evidence for these benefits seems non-existent
this aerofoil seems to have been hurriedly chosen c. May 1940 (when the Mustang was the hot topic)
to this day no-one seems to know anything about this process and its results (unless maybe Dr Smith does ?)

low wing drag coefficient at lift coefficients close to zero is rather self-defeating as in that case .....
the big drag source isn't the wing
drag was rather useful in ground attack (so enabling many Typhoons to do vertical-dive rocket attacks on tanks)

in critical Mach number all aerofoils classed (or assumed) as 'laminar flow' gave real-world inferior outcomes ie .....
P-51, P-63, Spiteful, Attacker(jet), Tempest, Fury/S.Fury all had wing critical Mach numbers inferior to the Spitfire's according to Morien Morgan the RAE director - who had done much of RAE's Mach test programme
(yes the Spitfire's wing was somewhat 'thinner' - that was the point of its designer's design choice)
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4855/ ... ective.pdf
on page 17 seems to support this - eg at the same thickness as the Spit wing the e1240 foil had earlier drag rise

NASA technical histories once seemed to claim that the NACA LF foils gave better critical Mach numbers but now ....
seem to have removed those claims (and the bigger claim of much lower drag at low lift coefficients) .....
(this all shown via the link I gave here some months ago)