Hawker Typhoon/Tempest
Brett Jaffee
What's the difference?
__________________________________________________________________________
Brett Jaffee
http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
jaf...@earthlink.net
or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
__________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan David Stilwell
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>What's the difference?
>
>
Thinner wing, bubble canopy, more powerful/reliable engine; resulting in
a faster aircraft. Main distinguishing feature between Tempest V (Napier
Sabre in-line engine) and Typhoon is fin leading edge fillet on the
Tempest. The later Tempest II had a radial engine. The Typhoon and
Tempest were in effect very different, the latter being an optimised
developement of the former.
Jon.
Adam Steineck
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>
> What's the difference?
>
1. Different wings. Typhoon's had a much deeeper cord, while Tempest's
were thinner with a somewhat elliptical planform. Rumour: to become
accepted by a supposedly Spitfire-crazed RAF.
2. Different engines with dissimilar installations. Typ had a large
inlet under the spinner, so did the Tempest but it also had inlets in
the wing roots. ONe version of the Tempest MkII? had a radial engine ,
and was the best performer. Not completed ni time to see action, though.
("Much quieter and nicer to fly").
3. Temp had a fin leading edge that curved up from the fuselage.
4. Tempest was faster.
This is pulled out of memory. Corrections are welcome ad not treated
with feelings pf enmity.
Regards, Adam Steineck
Robert N Young
On Fri, 16 May 1997 07:35:50 GMT, jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee)
wrote:
>What's the difference?
>
The Tempest was a sort of refined Typhoon.
It was slightly bigger, had a higher top speed and the climb rate to
15000 ft was about 20% better.
--
Bob.
Why jump out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane
and rely on a piece of cloth for salvation?-)
Emmanuel.Gustin
Brett Jaffee (jaf...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: What's the difference?
The Tempest was basically an improved Typhoon. The main change was in the
wing: The thick wing of the Typhoon created too much drag and created
compressibility problems, so the Tempest received a new wing that was
thinner and had a wider chord. The result was a faster fighter with
excellent high-speed controllability.
The fuselage was made longer, and the tail modified. Except the prototypes
all Tempests received "bubble" hoods instead of the "car door" cockpit of
the Typhoon. (The late-production Typhoons also had bubble cockpits.)
The wartime Tempest Mk.V had the same Napier Sabre II engine as the
Typhoon, but after the war the Tempest Mk.VI and Mk.II appeared, with
Sabre 6 engines or Centaurus 5 radials, respectively.
The guns on most Tempests were Hispano Mk.V cannon with shorter barrels,
that did not protrude from the wing. The Typhoon had Mk.II cannon with
long barrels.
Emmanuel Gustin
\ Emmanuel Gustin gus...@uia.ua.ac.be /
\ Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium /
| FROM StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer; |
/ http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/ \
/ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/ \
/ http://www.topedge.com/~gustin/ \
Tigershark
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>What's the difference?
Tempest I
1) Thinner wing (approx 5 inches thinner)
2) Elliptical plan for the wing
3) Uprated Sabre engine
4) 4-bladed propeller
5) Air intakes in the wing-roots
Tempest II (same as I, but..)
1) Bristol Centaurus radial engine
Tempest V (same as I but..)
1) Sabre engine uprated
2) Longer nose
3) Extended radiator back under the nose
Why the name?
So different in design it was not considered the same plane.
Source: Mosquito, Typhoon, Tempest at war.
by: Chaz Bowyer, Arthur Reed and Roland Beamont.
Published: Promotional Reprint Company (originally in two
seperate volumes, one for Mosquito, one for Typhoon and Tempest)
Tigershark
Mike Tighe
On Fri, 16 May 1997 07:35:50 GMT, jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee)
wrote:
>What's the difference?
>
The Tempest was originally called the Typhoon II, but the differences
just mounted up. The following list is not complete, but gives some
idea.
1. New elliptical wing of thinner section, with leading edge
radiators.
2. Extended fuselage to hold the fuel displaced by the thinner
wing (and possibly to get the c.g. of the plane sorted out, given the
heavier engine and different wing aerofoil shape?).
3. Uprated engine (Sabre IV) installed (in the production
Tempest V). Tempest I - IV used a variety of engines in trials.
4. Increased vertical tail area (a leading edge root extension)
Some of the early Tempest prototype and trials aircraft look a lot
like Typhoons, but the production aircraft was much prettier.
Now ask about the differences between the Centaurus (radial) engined
Tempest II and the Fury/Sea Fury <g>.
Mike Tighe -
Striving steadily towards a 4,000 hour
mean time between sense of humour failures!
Brett Jaffee
Can someone point me to a Tempest picture on the net?
In article <5lil8q$i...@fu-berlin.de>, gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel.Gustin)
wrote:
>Brett Jaffee (jaf...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>: What's the difference?
>
__________________________________________________________________________
Emmanuel.Gustin
ben ferguson (Ferg...@weka.lincoln.co.nz) wrote:
: The other interesting fact is that the typhoon was started by the use of
: blank shot gun cartridges.
: Kinda gothic, but would have saved the weight of a starter motor.
: Could have been a prob if you stalled the motor in mid flight!!
: You also had to have somone standing by with a fire extinguisher at
: starting, in case of the motor backfireing.
: The Tempest imprived on this.
AFAIK the Sabre engines installed in Tempests were also started with
Coffman cartridges. These were not shotgun cartridges; they were a special
design. Basically, a small explosive charge threw slow-burning pellets
into a combustion chamber, and the high-pressure gas was ducted from this
chamber to a cylinder with a piston. The movement of the piston was then
used to turn the engine round.
Emmanuel Gustin
Mike Tighe
>The other interesting fact is that the typhoon was started by the use of
>blank shot gun cartridges.
>
Cartridge starters were not unique to the Typhoon.
As recently as '92, the RAF's British Isles & North Atlantic 'En Route
Supplement' listed seven cartridge types available at airfields in the
UK alone. (Although not all were stocked by every base, if you see
what I mean.)
Tony Knight
In article <337E19...@weka.lincoln.co.nz>,
<Ferg...@weka.lincoln.co.nz> writes:
> The other interesting fact is that the typhoon was started by the
use of
> blank shot gun cartridges.
>
The Coffman starter cartridges, in Typhoons and Tempests
and in any number of other aircraft, including later
Spitfires, were in a rotating breech mechanism. Six
cartridges were carried, but in the Typhoon a safety
disk in the gas line to the starter would blow after
three attempts to start, and would then have to be replaced.
Priming the engine for start, involving raw fuel
pumped into the cylinders and inlet manifold, usually
resulted in fuel pooling in the chin air intake, hence
the risk of backfire-induced fire, and the presence
of an "erk" with a fire extinguisher.
I know the man who wrote the manual on starting Sabres:
he did it by making notes as he looked over the shoulder
of an experienced test pilot at the Acton works of
Napier. When they had finished, the test pilot said
"I'm going for my lunch - you start her up".
My Typhoon pilot relative told me how the spare
Coffman cartridges, necessary when the aircraft were
operating across the Channel by day at temporary
airfields, were stored in Terry clips inside the
port wheel well. Only one other person that I have
spoken to has any recollection of this practice -
can anyone out there confirm it?
TonyK
Frank R. Borger
>You also had to have somone standing by with a fire extinguisher at
>starting, in case of the motor backfireing.
>
I was re-reading part of "Typhoon Pilot" last night, and the
author stated that SOP was to have TWO ground crew with
fire extinguishers at the ready when starting. Definitely
not a fun plane to start.
Frank R. Borger - Physicist - Center for Radiation Therapy
net: Fr...@rover.uchicago.edu ph: 312-791-8075 fa: 791-3697
"Don't give me a P39
With an engine mounted behind
It will spin, it will roll
It will dig a big hole
Don't give me a P39" - Chuck Yeager (who loved the P39)
Emmanuel.Gustin
Brett Jaffee (jaf...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Can someone point me to a Tempest picture on the net?
Try:
http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon.html
(text included)
http://www.totavia.com/~ACybriw/aviapix/Fighters/Tempest/
(but second picture is indeed a Fury)
Emmanuel Gustin
DonSS3
Wasn't it a Canadian Typhoon squadron (Fuselgae codes "FT" IIRC) that had
one aircraft with the word "If this engine catches fire, don't just wave
your arms at the pilot, put the bloody thing out!" on the nose, and on the
tail "If fate decrees that I should fail, then fate shall not have watched
my tail." These being in reference to the already stated problems with
starting the Sabre and an unfortunate propensity for shedding its
tailfeathers in early aircraft (prior to external strengthening plates
being added to the aft fuselage)?
Don
According to Hemingway:
"There are only three true sports; Auto Racing, Bullfighting and Mountain climbing. All the rest are children's games at which men play."
Chris Durrant
Frank R. Borger wrote:
>
> >
> I was re-reading part of "Typhoon Pilot" last night, and the
> author stated that SOP was to have TWO ground crew with
> fire extinguishers at the ready when starting. Definitely
> not a fun plane to start.
>
Also necessary to load the pilot! In his reminiscences Ray Hanna (ex-Red
Arrow now warbird operator) noted that the aircraft was started by an
experienced fitter rather than let the pilot flood it or start a fire.
With the fitter out the pilot had to be pushed up the oily and slippery
wing root against the gale of the slipstream. This required 2
ground-crew!
Chris
Maury Markowitz
> 1. Different wings. Typhoon's had a much deeeper cord, while Tempest's
> were thinner with a somewhat elliptical planform. Rumour: to become
> accepted by a supposedly Spitfire-crazed RAF.
I always heard it was to increase speed, climb and lower drag.
> 2. Different engines with dissimilar installations. Typ had a large
> inlet under the spinner, so did the Tempest but it also had inlets in
> the wing roots. ONe version of the Tempest MkII? had a radial engine ,
> and was the best performer. Not completed ni time to see action, though.
> ("Much quieter and nicer to fly").
It was named the Fury, and it was much lighter. Looked pretty ugly
though, they had to stick the engine waaaay out in front. The plane was
later produced in moderate numbers as the Sea Fury.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <337cd21e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, mik...@dircon.co.uk
(Mike Tighe) wrote:
> Now ask about the differences between the Centaurus (radial) engined
> Tempest II and the Fury/Sea Fury <g>.
Well I made this mistake it appears... what are they?
Maury
Tony Knight
In article <19970520050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
<don...@aol.com> writes:
and an unfortunate propensity for shedding its
> tailfeathers in early aircraft (prior to external strengthening
plates
> being added to the aft fuselage)?
>
Another folk myth! When Will Kilpatrick got
back from 3 months in hospital to 193 Sqadron,
his Typhoon tail having come off at 27,000 ft
over Dartmoor in Feb.1943, he found shiny new
Typhoons with the transport joint fishplate
modifications. These were known in the squadron
as "Killy's mods", he being, so far, the only
survivor of such an accident, and therefore able to
tell Hawkers what had happened. The mod had in fact
been initiated much earlier, and it did not work.
Typhoons kept on shedding tails right through
their operational service, until the Tempest
tail was fitted to the later models.
To read the result of Killy's report to Hawker,
read Roly Beamont's account of test-flying a
Typhoon, diving from altitude, cutting the
engine and yawing the aircraft. The tail did
not come off. The real reason for the failures
was never found, but was suspected to be flutter
in the elevator mechanism.
Killy discovered the truth about the tails in
1995! His reaction was "if we'd known that
we would never have flown the things again!"
Re a later entry, pilots started their own
Sabres, and got very good at it. There were
no helpful ground crews at B3 and other Normandy
landing grounds immediately after the invasion.
Aircraft were refuelled and rearmed by the pilots
and army personnel. Petrol was in tin (sic) cans
which had to be punctured with the knives that
the pilots carried in their boots. The trick
with the Sabre was not to over-prime, but to
catch the engine with a burst of throttle, to
activate the accelerator pump, as the cartridge
turned the engine over. There are two Sabre
engines just up the road from here. I am
waiting for the day when one will be started in
a restored Tempest and that glorious chain-mower
2300 hp sound will be heard again.
TonyK
Emmanuel.Gustin
Maury Markowitz (ma...@softarc.com) wrote:
: > Now ask about the differences between the Centaurus (radial) engined
: > Tempest II and the Fury/Sea Fury <g>.
The Fury was created as a smaller version of the Tempest. Basically, the
Tempest wing was used, but instead of fitting them to wing roots attached
to the fuselage, the wings were joined on the centreline, and the fuselage
was put on top. Of course the fuselage was redesigned too.
Emmanuel Gustin
Scott Hemsley
> > 2. Different engines with dissimilar installations. Typ had a large
> > inlet under the spinner, so did the Tempest but it also had inlets in
> > the wing roots. ONe version of the Tempest MkII? had a radial engine ,
> > and was the best performer. Not completed ni time to see action, though.
> > ("Much quieter and nicer to fly").
>
> It was named the Fury, and it was much lighter. Looked pretty ugly
> though, they had to stick the engine waaaay out in front. The plane was
> later produced in moderate numbers as the Sea Fury.
The Tempest Mk.II & the Sea Fury were two entirely different airframes. The best way
to describe a Tempest Mk.II is to mate the Sea Fury engine/cowling to the Tempest
fuselage. I guess one can say the Sea Fury was a further development of the
Typhoon/Tempest/Tempest Mk.II, but it was not named the Fury, nor was that similar in
appearence to the Tempest, although the Hawker family resemblence was very evident!
On the IPMS "Buzz" Beurling homepage, if one looks in the model galleries, one of our
members completed a 1/48 conversion of a Tempest Mk.II, as well as a 1/48 Sea Fury. The
same individual recently completed a 1/48 Tempest, as well, but I don't think those
photos have been scaned in, just yet.
Scott
IPMS "Buzz" Beurling at: http://www.pci.on.ca/~macnamar/ipms/index.html
Scott
Roger Wallsgrove
In article <maury-20059...@199.166.204.230>, ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) says:
>
>
> It was named the Fury, and it was much lighter. Looked pretty ugly
>though, they had to stick the engine waaaay out in front. The plane was
>later produced in moderate numbers as the Sea Fury.
>
Sorry, Maury, the Fury was a completely different beast. The Tempest
Mk II had a Centaurus radial engine, and saw extensive service post-WW2.
"Ugly"? Compared to what? The lithe and compact F4U? I always thought
sticking the engine at the front was a neat idea, and big engines stick
out a long way - but hey, I'm not an aircraft engineer so what do I know?
Roger
Maury Markowitz
In article <5m0vk8$n...@is.bbsrc.ac.uk>, roger.wa...@bbsrc.ac.uk
(Roger Wallsgrove) wrote:
> Sorry, Maury, the Fury was a completely different beast. The Tempest
> Mk II had a Centaurus radial engine, and saw extensive service post-WW2.
It did? I thought they only used the Sea Fury.
> "Ugly"? Compared to what? The lithe and compact F4U? I always thought
> sticking the engine at the front was a neat idea, and big engines stick
> out a long way - but hey, I'm not an aircraft engineer so what do I know?
No, it's the way the nose droops off from the canopy (note that the
Tempest Mk.II doesn't do this) which gives it a kinda off looking shnoz.
And if the Fury is supposed to be smaller than the Tempest, why isn't it?
Maury
Agtabby
I am
waiting for the day when one will be started in
a restored Tempest and that glorious chain-mower
2300 hp sound will be heard again.
TonyK
***
What was the displacement of the Sabre? They were H-24 configs, right?
Anthony Gorst
The RAF used the Centaurus engined Tempest in first line service for
some years (IIRC about four) after the Second World War - I also think
that it served with other air forces in British sphere of influence
(possibly though not sure Pakistan, India and Iraq)
Emmanuel.Gustin
Agtabby (agt...@aol.com) wrote:
: What was the displacement of the Sabre? They were H-24 configs, right?
A horizontal H-24, yes. Displacement 36.7 lites.
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin
Maury Markowitz (ma...@softarc.com) wrote:
: In article <5m0vk8$n...@is.bbsrc.ac.uk>, roger.wa...@bbsrc.ac.uk
: (Roger Wallsgrove) wrote:
: > Sorry, Maury, the Fury was a completely different beast. The Tempest
: > Mk II had a Centaurus radial engine, and saw extensive service post-WW2.
: It did? I thought they only used the Sea Fury.
The British only used the Sea Fury. There were a few customers for the
"land" Fury, the most important one was Iraq. Many Furies in collections
now are ex-Iraqi aircraft.
: No, it's the way the nose droops off from the canopy (note that the
: Tempest Mk.II doesn't do this) which gives it a kinda off looking shnoz.
: And if the Fury is supposed to be smaller than the Tempest, why isn't it?
Wing span (11.70m vs. 12.49m for Sea Fury FB.11 and Tempest II) and wing
area (26.01m2 vs. 28.21m2) are reduced by 7% and 8%. The Sea Fury was also
a bit lighter in empty weight, and had a significantly lower max TO weight
(5670kg vs. 6305kg). It was, however, marginally longer and taller.
Emmanuel Gustin
DonSS3
gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel.Gustin) wrote:
<snip>
>The British only used the Sea Fury. There were a few customers for the
>"land" Fury, the most important one was Iraq. Many Furies in collections
>now are ex-Iraqi aircraft.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement, but here goes...
In addition to the RN, the Dutch Navy KnLM (?), Royal Canadian Navy,
Royal Australian Navy, West Germany (2-seater TT.20 target tugs only),
Cuba, Burma, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and possibly Morocco (ex-Iraqi a/c?)
used Sea Furies. While some of the listed countries may have had
'denavilized' Sea Furies, they were still basically the same aircraft.
Pakistan and India also operated Tempest IIs.
My sources, although not the definitive books on these Aircraft are
"Typhoon/Tempest in Action" and "Hawker Sea Fury in Action" both by
Squadron Books.
Maury Markowitz
In article <5m40dj$f...@fu-berlin.de>, gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be
(Emmanuel.Gustin) wrote:
> A horizontal H-24, yes. Displacement 36.7 lites.
Funny when you think about it. That's 62HP/l. My car engine gets 170HP
from 1.8l, or 94HP/l (and the newest VTEC is 195HP from the same engine),
and it's normally aspirated (although I can't compare weights). There's a
lot of stories about how great these engines were, but time has indeed
passed.
Maury.
Mike Tighe
>In article <337cd21e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, mik...@dircon.co.uk
>(Mike Tighe) wrote:
>
>> Now ask about the differences between the Centaurus (radial) engined
>> Tempest II and the Fury/Sea Fury <g>.
>
> Well I made this mistake it appears... what are they?
>
Just a quick note (Its Mildenhall Show Weekend!).
The Fury started life as a lightweight development of the Tempest
(kind of analogous to the step from P-51D to P-51H?). The basic
design of the F.2/43 prototype evolved into the Sea Fury. Iraq was
the only buyer of the Fury (55 single and 5 two seaters, if my quick
sums are right). All other Air Force buyers, new or second hand,
(Germany, the Netherlands, Cuba etc) took Sea Furies.
Apart from the slightly hump backed appearance of the Fury/Sea Fury,
the wingspan was reduced. If you look at the Tempest planform, the
wheels retract into the wings. In the Fury, the centre section, lying
more or less under the cockpit floor, was removed/redesigned and the
outboard wing sections 'butted together', for want of a better way of
describing it, with new attachment points to the fuselage. Therefore,
the wheels in the Fury sit mainly in the fuselage, giving an
impression of the wing area reduction involved.
And, of course, the Sea Fury had folding wing and tailhook mods!<g>
Agtabby
> Funny when you think about it. That's 62HP/l. My car engine gets
170HP
>from 1.8l, or 94HP/l (and the newest VTEC is 195HP from the same engine),
>and it's normally aspirated (although I can't compare weights). There's
a
>lot of stories about how great these engines were, but time has indeed
>passed.
Wait a minute, this comparison is unfair. It is much harder to get more
hp/l for bigger engines, for a number of reasons. Pistons as big as paint
cans limit max rpm, and breathing gets harder. Also, aviation motors had
to put out max and near max horsepower very ofen. How often do you
redline your engine at max throttle? It only takes about 10-15 horsepower
to cruise down the freeway, most of the time that hp is not used.
Modern race car engines can achieve ~500 hp/l, but must be rebuilt after
every race. Its all a compromise.
Getting over 60 hp/l in a engine bigger than 30 liters is *still*
impressive.
Andrew
Tigershark
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> Funny when you think about it. That's 62HP/l. My car engine gets 170HP
>from 1.8l, or 94HP/l (and the newest VTEC is 195HP from the same engine),
>and it's normally aspirated (although I can't compare weights). There's a
>lot of stories about how great these engines were, but time has indeed
>passed.
Don't knock it. From consulting books I get the impresssion that the
Sabre engine was normally aspirated. Also, for the time frame
concerned the 62HP/l is pretty damn good. For example, we have a 1985
2l Mitsubishi, which can apparently produce the same HP as a previous
car we had - a 1973 4.3l Ford Falcon. Strange, same horse power - half
the petrol.
MANC
Football is an international language
boyer gregoire
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <337CAC...@efd.lth.se>, Adam Steineck <e9...@efd.lth.se> wrote:
>
> > 1. Different wings. Typhoon's had a much deeeper cord, while Tempest's
> > were thinner with a somewhat elliptical planform. Rumour: to become
> > accepted by a supposedly Spitfire-crazed RAF.
>
> I always heard it was to increase speed, climb and lower drag.
>
> > inlet under the spinner, so did the Tempest but it also had inlets in
> > the wing roots. ONe version of the Tempest MkII? had a radial engine ,
> > and was the best performer. Not completed ni time to see action, though.
> > ("Much quieter and nicer to fly").
>
> It was named the Fury
No it was the tempest II
By the way the first tempest to enter in service was the mk 5
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970524071...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
agt...@aol.com (Agtabby) wrote:
> Wait a minute, this comparison is unfair. It is much harder to get more
> hp/l for bigger engines, for a number of reasons. Pistons as big as paint
> cans limit max rpm, and breathing gets harder.
I understand that's the reason the Sabre had the rotating sleave
valves. Although it's tough to do vary-timing with it, the efficiency is
great.
> How often do you redline your engine at max throttle?
Bad question. :-)
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Don't knock it. From consulting books I get the impresssion that the
> Sabre engine was normally aspirated.
I don't think so. At least the one in Ottawa has a HUGE blower on it.
Maury
James Ray Crenshaw
> > Don't knock it. From consulting books I get the impresssion that the
> > Sabre engine was normally aspirated.
>
> I don't think so. At least the one in Ottawa has a HUGE blower on it.
>
My reading tells me that the Napier Sabre sleeve valve engine was indeed
supercharged. Whether exhaust or gear-driven, I'm not exactly sure, I've
gotten the impression that it used a gear-driven supercharger that was not
as efficient as the Mustang's (for instance), this being responsible for
less-than-stellar high altitude performance. Apparently at lower altitudes
the sleeve valve engine's performance was simply stunning. Anyone with more
info (or links to same) on the British sleeve-valve engines please post. I
am very interested! There is a book for sale called "Allied Piston Engines
of WWII". I'm sure it would clear everything up... I just can't afford it.
Ray in SC
Bela P. Havasreti
On 28 May 1997 15:06:04 GMT, "James Ray Crenshaw"
<tbi...@greenwood.net> wrote:
That book you mention makes for good reading. Yes, it's a little
pricey and I had to think hard before I forked over the cash but
once I picked the thing up, I couldn't put it down!
I'll try and remember to bring the book in, peruse the Napier
Sabre section and post anything interesting I find....
Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
SNJ-5 BuNo 91077 Basket case
NATA member #1742
Puyallup, Washington USA
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2951
zen...@concentric.net
--------------6CD29AD865AEA3BE99184A85
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
None of the Brit's production W.W.II fighters had turbo (exhaust
driven) superchargers. They were all mechanically driven. The two
stage supercharger found in the Packard/Merlin P-51s had an advantage
over most single stage mechanically driven units (like the one in the
Typhoon and Mark V and earlier Spits) in producing better performance
over a wider range of altitudes.
Only a couple of production U.S. fighters featured turbo
supercharging:; the P-38 and the P-47. The rest were mechanically
driven. The U.S. (specifically General Electric) was years ahead of
the rest of the world at the beginning of W.W.II in the development of
turbo supercharging.
IMO, the Sabre's outstanding performance at low altitude was due to it's
large displacement (compared to a Merlin) and the fact that it's single
stage blower was optimized for the Typhoon's low altitude ground attack
and interception role, not because it featured sleeve valves.
The 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine had an unusual "H" configuration
which featured (if memory serves) four banks of 6 cylinders , with two
banks each connected to one of two crank shafts that were in turn
connected by gears. This layout was essentially to twelve cylinder
engines with separate cranks in a common crank case that drove the same
prop. This is similar in concept to the old Ariel Square Four
motorcycle engine that had two pairs of cylinders each driving two
interconnected cranks.
zeno
--------------6CD29AD865AEA3BE99184A85
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>On 28 May 1997 15:06:04 GMT, "James Ray Crenshaw"
<BR><tbi...@greenwood.net> wrote:
<P>>> > Don't knock it. From consulting books I get the impresssion that
the
<BR>>> > Sabre engine was normally aspirated.
<BR>>>
<BR>>> I don't think so. At least the one in Ottawa has
a HUGE blower on it.
<BR>>>
<BR>>
<BR>>My reading tells me that the Napier Sabre sleeve valve engine was
indeed
<BR>>supercharged. Whether exhaust or gear-driven, I'm not exactly sure,
I've
<BR>>gotten the impression that it used a gear-driven supercharger that
was not
<BR>>as efficient as the Mustang's (for instance), this being responsible
for
<BR>>less-than-stellar high altitude performance. Apparently at lower altitudes
<BR>>the sleeve valve engine's performance was simply stunning. Anyone
with more
<BR>>info (or links to same) on the British sleeve-valve engines please
post. I
<BR>>am very interested! There is a book for sale called "Allied Piston
Engines
<BR>>of WWII". I'm sure it would clear everything up... I just can't afford
it.
<BR>>
<BR>>Ray in SC
<P>That book you mention makes for good reading. Yes, it's a little
<BR>pricey and I had to think hard before I forked over the cash but
<BR>once I picked the thing up, I couldn't put it down!
<P>I'll try and remember to bring the book in, peruse the Napier
<BR>Sabre section and post anything interesting I find....
<P>Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
<BR>SNJ-5 BuNo 91077 Basket case
<BR>NATA member #1742
<BR>Puyallup, Washington USA
<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2951"></A></BLOCKQUOTE>
None of the Brit's production W.W.II fighters had turbo (exhaust
driven) superchargers. They were all mechanically driven. The
two stage supercharger found in the Packard/Merlin P-51s had an advantage
over most single stage mechanically driven units (like the one in
the Typhoon and Mark V and earlier Spits) in producing better performance
over a wider range of altitudes.
<P>Only a couple of production U.S. fighters featured turbo supercharging:;
the P-38 and the P-47. The rest were mechanically driven.
The U.S. (specifically General Electric) was years ahead of the rest of
the world at the beginning of W.W.II in the development of turbo supercharging.
<P>IMO, the Sabre's outstanding performance at low altitude was due to
it's large displacement (compared to a Merlin) and the fact that it's single
stage blower was optimized for the Typhoon's low altitude ground
attack and interception role, not because it featured sleeve valves.
<P>The 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine had an unusual "H" configuration
which featured (if memory serves) four banks of 6 cylinders , with two
banks each connected to one of two crank shafts that were in turn connected
by gears. This layout was essentially to twelve cylinder engines
with separate cranks in a common crank case that drove the same prop.
This is similar in concept to the old Ariel Square Four motorcycle engine
that had two pairs of cylinders each driving two interconnected cranks.
<P>zeno
<BR>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------6CD29AD865AEA3BE99184A85--
James Ray Crenshaw
> I'll try and remember to bring the book in, peruse the Napier
> Sabre section and post anything interesting I find....
>
> Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
This would (no exaggeration) absolutely MAKE my summer as I have exhausted
my complete supply of fellow friends & gearheads from which to glean some
insight into the sleeve-valve engine, particularly these Napier's that
apparently were the last big gasp for sleeve-valve technology. Much like
the compound-supercharged radials in the Super-Constellations were to
aviation piston engines in general, the best and the last (from a
technology standpoint).
Thanks;
Ray in SC
Horsem...@ace-of-aces.com
SAE sells that book Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII. It has a
relatively detailed section on the Napier Saber (and other sleeve
vlave engines). It's a great book.
Bela P. Havasreti
On 30 May 1997 19:41:32 GMT, "James Ray Crenshaw"
<tbi...@greenwood.net> wrote:
OK, OK.... The book is in my other car (that's my story and I'm
sticking to it!). <G>
I'll bring it in, I promise.
Hopefully, I can paraphrase without too much direct quoting.
(I don't wanna infringe on any copyrights, etc.).
Some teasers:
I remember reading that by the time the Sabre V was
released, most of the teething troubles had been solved
and that it was quite a powerplant. Seem to recall some
sort of military test (with elevated manifold pressure/
rpm) where she made 4000 horsepower and that
this was some kind of record....
There were problems with the "coffman" style cartridge
starting system and that until they beefed up the internal
structure, failures occurred. Also, if she didn't fire after
5 cartridges had been expended, a rather involved
maintenance procedure had to be performed (involving
removing all the spark plugs and squirting oil in the
cylinders and obviously re-loading the starting system).
That initially, Napier had trouble getting the tolerances
down on production versions of the Sabre (especially
the sleeve valve clearances) and that even silver
plating of the sleeves was considered.
That Bristol had pretty much perfected the mass
production of sleeve valve engines but that this
knowledge transfer was initially not forthcoming
(which was considered odd since there *was*
a war going on.... <g>)
Stand by for more....
Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
SNJ-5 BuNo 91077 Basket case
NATA member #1742
Puyallup, Washington USA
Tony Knight
In article <01bc6b0a$f2d01760$b061a0cd@oemcomputer>,
<tbi...@greenwood.net> writes:
> My reading tells me that the Napier Sabre sleeve valve engine was
indeed
> supercharged. Whether exhaust or gear-driven, I'm not exactly
sure,
Yes, the Sabre was supercharged. The two-speed supercharger
was driven through two torsion-rod drives, carried inside the
sleeve-shafts from gears at the front of the engine. The first
stage operated up to 15000 ft, then the second stage (speed)
came in with what was described by a pilot as a "whoof".
Unfortunately the Sabre ran out of puff at altitude, even
with the supercharger, enormous quantities of power being
consumed simply by pumping oil round the engine. "My" pilot
took his Typhoon up to 30,000ft, but only once, and described
it as "wallowing like a drunken duck". (On the way down
the tail came off).
Later, the Typhoon was restricted to Ground-Attack duties,at
which the speed and power of the aircraft was best, and the
second stage of supercharge was locked out, so the aircraft
rarely operated above 15000 ft, from which height they dived
onto ground targets, pulling out between 8 and 5,000 ft.
Skip bombing and rocket-firing were conducted from much
lower altitudes.
Timing the engine was easy, since all the sleeves on one side
were driven from a common shaft, the two drive gears being
adjustable within the front reduction gear-box.
The Sabre is quite a beast. My pilot occasionally flew, after
the war, with light-aircraft flying friends. He was horrified
at their habit of quickly giving full throttle at take-off.
Such action would have turned a Typhoon over.
TonyK