Westland Wyvern

Radish · July 26, 2007, 03:43:27 AM

The new 1/48th Blackburn Roc kit has Finnish decals...painted up but not delivered.

TsrJoe · July 26, 2007, 05:12:07 AM

hiya 'Rad' theres a brilliant photograph taken at Aberdeen/Dyce of the Roc's awaiting delivery youv no doubt seen, an issue of the Finnish IPMS. 'Mallari' mag also covered the type with some nice profile drawings too.

i recall reading a letter in a very old 'Airfix Magazine; from a chap who was at the base at the time who noted that the actual Finnish 'Von Rosen crosses' were covered by paper discs and the 'swastika's could be seen beneath them...could make for an interesting lil display piece, an erk surrupticiously peeling back the pasted on paper disc..lol

cheers, Joe

Glenn Gilbertson · July 26, 2007, 09:27:23 AM

I know the Finns had success with the Brewster Buffalo, but the Blackburn Roc? Would the Finns ever have forgiven us?

GTX · July 22, 2008, 12:03:54 AM

Hi folks,

There doesn't appear to be a dedicated thread for this aircraft, so here goes. Here are some whiffs I did up last night:

If the original P.10 (I think) design was proceeded with (note there would need to be some interesting pilot/engine locating work - but hey, it was a rush job):

A Jet derivative with tricycle undercarriage:

A better two seater (at least from my POV):

Regards,

Greg

Jeffry Fontaine · July 22, 2008, 12:21:21 AM

There may have been at one time but after reviewing many of the topics that were saved and moved to this forum I found continuity issues with the threads and they were deleted after much deliberation. Not my favorite task but when you start reviewing a topic that has survived two hacking attacks and several forum crashes, they tend to not be in order by date and time of submission which leads to things that are quite ugly and for lack of a better description, hosed up beyond repair.

If you are going to do a WHIF Wyvern, why not try and mate the power egg from the A-1 (AD) Skyraider to the Wyvern? Since the Wyvern was lacking in the performance department thanks to the slow responding turbine package, maybe a nice big thumping R-3350 would make a difference and give it some additional performance.

Maverick · July 22, 2008, 04:54:50 AM

Greg,
I like the forward canopy version, would have to be a bit easier to move around the deck, whilst I believe there was a pure jet Wyvern as a project that wasn't proceeded with.

Jeffry
I guess you're aware that Wyvern flew with a standard piston engine in it's earliest incarnation (TF.1). The type's engine was a 3500hp Eagle although everything I've read suggests that Eagle was cancelled. I can't see that an engine with an almost identical HP would have any major impact on the type's performance.

Regards,

Mav

kitnut617 · July 22, 2008, 06:45:04 AM

Quote from: GTX on July 22, 2008, 12:03:54 AM
Hi folks,

There doesn't appear to be a dedicated thread for this aircraft, so here goes. Here are some whiffs I did up last night:

If the original P.10 (I think) design was proceeded with (note there would need to be some interesting pilot/engine loacting work - but hey, it was a rush job):

Regards,

Greg

Hi Greg,

One of the first concepts was a cockpit forward design, the engine was the RR 24 cylinder H Eagle, it was located behind the cockpit just above the wing. There's a photo of a model of it in one of Tony Buttler's BSP books. I think the design was influenced by the RR Griffon Mustang design. A better turbo prop engine If you wanted to go this route would have been the RR Clyde, it had a smaller diameter than the Python but was a bit longer. It had about 1500 more horse power too,

Robert

kitnut617 · July 22, 2008, 06:58:44 AM

Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 22, 2008, 06:51:43 AM

The RR Eagle was cancelled as Rolls knew which way the wind was blowing - the jet age had begun.

But it would have been interesting to see what it could have been developed into, wouldn't it? When CMR released the TF.I kit a couple of years ago I bought three of them, one as is, one cockpit forward, one Clyde

Jeffry Fontaine · July 22, 2008, 09:10:44 AM

Quote from: Maverick on July 22, 2008, 04:54:50 AMI guess you're aware that Wyvern flew with a standard piston engine in it's earliest incarnation (TF.1). The type's engine was a 3500hp Eagle although everything I've read suggests that Eagle was cancelled. I can't see that an engine with an almost identical HP would have any major impact on the type's performance.

Last time I checked this was a forum for discussion and it was just a suggestion. And yes I was very much aware of the fact that the Wyvern was first produced with a piston engine. A very complicated engine at that. So switching to a less complicated power plant may have been something to consider.

jcf · July 22, 2008, 11:02:21 AM

Even the most powerful of the R-3350s as used in the AD series (R-3350-26WB, AD-7) had a lower output than the Eagle (2700/2900hp sea level[take-off] vs. 3,500/3,500hp sea level[take-off]) or Python (4,110shp) and only weighed around 200lbs less than the Python (2953lbs vs. 3,150lbs), however, it was around 1,000lbs lighter than the Eagle (3,900lbs).

The R-3350s in the Eagle's power range (P2V and C-119 engines) are around 400lbs lighter than the Eagle and around 45 inches shorter overall (90.8/91.8" vs. 135.5"), diameter is 56.59" vs. Eagle 43.4"W X 50" H. Note that as bomber and transport engines their performance curves are most likely not the same as that for a fighter or attack aircraft.

Jon

Jeffry Fontaine · July 22, 2008, 12:18:21 PM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 22, 2008, 11:02:21 AMEven the most powerful of the R-3350s as used in the AD series (R-3350-26WB, AD-7) had a lower output than the Eagle (2700/2900hp sea level[take-off] vs. 3,500/3,500hp sea level[take-off]) or Python (4,110shp) and only weighed around 200lbs less than the Python (2953lbs vs. 3,150lbs), however, it was around 1,000lbs lighter than the Eagle (3,900lbs).

The R-3350s in the Eagle's power range (P2V and C-119 engines) are around 400lbs lighter than the Eagle and around 45 inches shorter overall (90.8/91.8" vs. 135.5"), diameter is 56.59" vs. Eagle 43.4"W X 50" H. Note that as bomber and transport engines their performance curves are most likely not the same as that for a fighter or attack aircraft.

Jon,

Thanks for the input, at least you are taking the time to provide useful data.

I still like the idea of an R-3350 or something similar in size and shape mounted on the Wyvern. The diameter does present a problem but with a bit of imagineering, it might be coerced into fitting that large cavity in the front and maybe ditch the complicated propeller set up and switch to something a bit less complicated with a little application of KISS. Maybe then a WHIF to demonstrate a joint Anglo-American alternative or replacement for the Skyraider?

jcf · July 22, 2008, 01:14:31 PM

No problem Jeff,
and upon further reflection, with a power-to-weight ratio of around 1:1 compared to the Eagle's .9:1 and a weight savings of 1,000lbs,
the R-3350-26WB would move the Wyvern airframe about quite handily. The installed engine is quite a bit shorter than the Eagle at 81.23 inches...
over four feet shorter!

Some of the R-4360 Wasp Major engines are also possibilities with power-to-weight ratios similar or better than the Eagle (.90 - .97), and diameters between 52.5 and 54 inches, base engine length is 96.75 inches, total length varies depending on supercharger installation. An XP-72 Ultra-bolt style installation with remote turbo would look cool.

Jon

kitnut617 · July 22, 2008, 02:52:53 PM

I was just going to suggest the R-4360 Jon, you beat me to it. I would get the turbo-compound version of the engine like a Connie, and use the already in place exhaust nozzles. I got these a short while ago made by HaHen (Harold Hensel out of Germany) they're in 1/72

Jeffry Fontaine · July 22, 2008, 03:09:02 PM

Quote from: kitnut617 on July 22, 2008, 02:52:53 PMI was just going to suggest the R-4360 Jon, you beat me to it. I would get the turbo-compound version of the engine like a Connie, and use the already in place exhaust nozzles. I got these a short while ago made by HaHen (Harold Hensel out of Germany) they're in 1/72

I would have suggested the R-4360 but I don't have anything in protective custody at the moment that has that engine. The R-3350 from a parted out Monogram Skyraider is in my parts bin and as such is readily available for volunteer work to improve the Wyvern. If there was a cheap source for a 1/48th scale R-4360 other than the usual limited run kits with high dollar price tags, I think I would have a couple of those on hand for occasions such as this. Since I have a pair of Wyvern in protective custody and no desire to build them out of the box. What is a person to do? Why WHIF! Of course!

Hmmm, how about a Wyvern with a radial engine in VA-XX markings and a Mk 7 nuclear shape mounted under the fuselage and a pair of fuel tanks capable of carrying sufficient amounts of fuel to get the range needed for the nuclear strike mission.

Maverick · July 22, 2008, 03:14:12 PM

Jeffry,

My apologies for not "taking time to provide useful data". I merely remarked that the Wyvern already had flown with a piston engine, complicated or not, and has been noted RR decided not to go ahead with the Eagle, primarily because of the impact of turbine engines upon the industry. It therefore seemed odd to suggest another piston engine as replacement.

Regards,

Mav