RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:04:55 GMT

Thats a 1946 view point.

A 1938 viewpoint might be fighters - damn silly things really, beloved of the treaury and dangerous heritics in fighter command. Dont worry, we will get them soon. Only worthwhile things are bombers, medium a heavy bombers. They win wars through moral advantage, dont you know?

Besides - you could probably cram a taurus or a hercules into the Hurricane if you had to. even a Tiger. Spitfire? an interim type, and Supermarines production record is...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (PMN1) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:24:04 GMT

Admiral Beez wrote:

It is strange that the RAF had no radial piston engined fighters between the Gladiator and the Tempest II.

I find it a bit strange that given alternate engines were a possibility on most other aircraft, the fighter defences of the country were trusted to one engine type - the Merlin.

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:40:02 GMT

1934 Skua

1935 Roc

1937 Sea Gladiator

1938...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:07:02 GMT

fighters"

It is possible the Air Ministry and hence the two fighting services was hoist on its own petard re radials and fighters.

At some point in the late '30s (in time for the Gladiator, Blenheim et al) the radial engine of choice by AM decress had to be designed into a so-called "power egg" with various design criteria. Among these were the collector ring exhaust, the strutery inside the cowling to hold this all together, the external exhaust coming...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:29:00 GMT

The issue I think was that the Skua was a '34 spec. By the time we get to the next fighter spec, the Firefly, in '39, the Griffon is the only engine seen as near ready that could produce the required horsepower (1600+).

Bristol Taurus II engine: 46" diameter (compact for a radial), 1010 hp, 1300 lb dry. That might've been the ticket for a single-seat naval fighter if one had been asked for in say 1936.

The later Taurus VI generated 1130 hp at the same dry...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (Admiral Beez) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:02:48 GMT

Wasn't there something with the Hercules not being designed as a fighter engine? Perhaps the rapid throttle adjustments or super high output needed for fighter applications were not taken into account for the Hercules?

It is strange that the RAF had no radial piston engined fighters between the Gladiator and the Tempest II.

One would have expected the FAA to have more radial aircraft, even with RAF interference in supply, since all their aircraft with the exception of...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:27:05 GMT

The Centaurus is available and flew in the Tornado Prototype in 1941 giving a maximum speed of 402mph at 18000ft. Hercules would also fit but speed would drop off quite a way. I think Hercules and accepting a lower speed would be the way to go to get a reasonable FAA fighter in the period.

The problems with the Sabre mostly came from poor workmanship and poor following of proper maintenance proceedures. These problems were mostly cured by 1944, but thats a bit too late.

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:56:26 GMT

"Allied Piston Engines of World War II (Graham White) has a lengthy discussion of the Sabre, in more detail in some cases than this history major can process. The description of the vicissitudes of just starting the thing are worth the price of admission.

Other big problems:

Sleeve valve technology
Corporate infighting between English Electric and Napier
Poor workmanship
maintenance errors

The latter two issues were of course not unique to...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:40:43 GMT

The Sabre sleeves proved themselves in the early, hand built engines. Mass producing sleeves to the required tolerance proved problematic. They were not lone rangers, and the problem was shared by Bristol with the early Taurus (something the FAA did know about). Bristol solved the problem with improved machine tools pinched from the US. Fortunately, and purely by chance the Sabre shared the same sleeve diameter.

Bristols were leaned on to help napier and these issues were largely...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:45:46 GMT

Admiral Beez wrote:
What was wrong with the Sabre? Are any Sabre engines flown today?

Apparently Napier never got to grips with the problems/techniques of mass production. Sabres had incredibly high failure rates and maintenance needs.

IIRC, Bristol and English Electric got involved in Sabre production, at MAP's request, and managed to get most/all of the bugs ironed out, but that wasn't until...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:43:21 GMT

Admiral Beez wrote:

emc wrote:
Didn't the Tempest also have a problem with structural failure? Something about the fuselage breaking behind the cockpit. Somehow, this seems to be a bit troubling.

No, that was the problem with the Typhoon. This had been fixed in the Tempest.

What was wrong with the Sabre? Are any Sabre...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (Admiral Beez) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:05 GMT

emc wrote:
Didn't the Tempest also have a problem with structural failure? Something about the fuselage breaking behind the cockpit. Somehow, this seems to be a bit troubling.

No, that was the problem with the Typhoon. This had been fixed in the Tempest.

What was wrong with the Sabre? Are any Sabre engines flown today?

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:09:47 GMT

Didn't the Tempest also have a problem with structural failure? Something about the fuselage breaking behind the cockpit. Somehow, this seems to be a bit troubling.

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:03:04 GMT

Camm did design a "Sea Typhoon" in '40 or '41. It only had 25% parts in common with the land version, had much more fuel (I think triple) and a much larger span--if memory serves, it came out as something like the later Firebrand (not a good omen there).

FAA did get a regular Typhoon with A-hook a bit later for trials, but it crashed early on.

jlyons97 is right about the Sabre. I think Eric Brown called the prospect of flying over water with that engine...

Re: RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:45:14 GMT

How would YOU like to be in charge of maintaining a Sabre engine on a carrier?

RAF rejects Typhoon, Camm offers it to Royal Navy?

feeds@yuku.com (Admiral Beez) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:09:22 GMT

The RAF decides to cancel specification F.18/37 in mid 1940, deciding to concentrate on Merlin powered aircraft, with plans to move to the Giffon later on.

Meanwhile the first Typhoon prototype has just flown in February 1940. Hawker's Sydney Camm, not wanting his aircraft work to go to waste offers the Typhoon to the navy, on the premise that such unlike the recently introduced Fulmar, the Typhoon does not directly affect the RAF's supply of RR Merlin engines.

The...