Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 8:48 pm
J.A.W. wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 11:23 pm
Tempest I .... siting of the radiators precluded the available space/usage of the leading-edge for fuel tankage
as fitted to the Tempest V ....
nonsense
all Tempests had fuselage fuel tanks - because unlike the Typhoon there wasn't room in the wing
so engine/prop were shoved half a yard forward to make room for fuselage tanks ....
this forward movement of the cg dictating .....
of course the Tempest's huge fin & rudder .... and .....
the loss of pitch control authority (not stability) at highest Cl (ie lowest airspeeds)
https://aeroscale.net/news/tempest-mk-v ... -oil-tanks
and ....
regarding the Sabre's supposed lower porting/valving losses than conventional engine's
(though not so supposed in Robert J Raymond's article) .....
isn't the conventional's (if higher bmep) relatively higher cost in supercharge power .....
largely repaid in the 'pneumatic motor' part of said engine's power ? ..... and .....
entirely repaid in the 'exhaust jet power at high speed' part ? .....
(for good jet power exhaust speed must anyway be raised by outlet restriction ie between cylinder and atmosphere)
"Nonsense" T-C?
Perhaps you should've checked the real thing, rather than a plastic kitset model?
Since along with Tempest inter-spar wing tanks, another fitment was also made.
Such as the ~30 gal port leading edge tank in the Kermit Weeks collection? See:
I recall reading Luftwaffe test pilot H-W Lerche's account of doing an emergency landing while flying
a captured Tempest, & having to cope with a WWI rotary engine style 'all on, or all off' powered landing
after a throttle linkage failure, & how he'd praised the Tempest's "good natured" controllability.
Furthermore, the Tempest I flew well with the Typhoon fin/rudder, & never required the larger area
which the 'chin' radiator/bulbous radial of the other 'long-nose' Tempest variants needed, albeit flight
trials of a larger area horizontal stabilizer def' offered an advantage - which was indeed worthwhile
being retro-fitted (plus the 4-blade prop) - to Typhoons..
As for exhaust efflux jet-thrust/'nozzle' usage per the Sabre, this was discussed just a few pages back, wherein both the individual ejector stubs - which superseded the paired type - for ADI/boost increases,
& the propensity for the Sabre VI prototype Warwick to lose its skin when subject to the inline row of
hot gasses concentrating the blast in a stream, during high power settings - were duly noted...