Wasp Major and Tornado(radial engine) Aircrafts: XF8B, XP-71, XP-69, XP-72

[kitnut617]

     Why is the XP-69 included? It is (well, was supposed to be) a large fighter, but not R-4360 powered & really didn't even have a 'big' engine, only 2160 CID, I guess about the same a R/R Griffon & also comparable power. It may have had 42 cylinders, but at 2160 cubes, they weren't big.

Got a book on that 42 cylinder job, it's all about the full restoration of the only surviving example plus the history of why it was designed.  It might not have been very big cubic inch wise, but it made up for it with the rpm (more air going through the engine).  It had a very short stroke because the idea was to bury it inside the wings instead of putting it in nacelles and it was modular, with three two row 14 cylinder sections being connected with couplings in a common crank case.  Again the idea here was you could add more modules or take off a module so you would have 14, 28, 42, 56 etc cylinder engines using the same parts. Quite a clever idea if it had worked properly.

[famvburg]

 
       My main point being that it's not a "Wasp Major Aircraft".

     Why is the XP-69 included? It is (well, was supposed to be) a large fighter, but not R-4360 powered & really didn't even have a 'big' engine, only 2160 CID, I guess about the same a R/R Griffon & also comparable power. It may have had 42 cylinders, but at 2160 cubes, they weren't big.

Got a book on that 42 cylinder job, it's all about the full restoration of the only surviving example plus the history of why it was designed.  It might not have been very big cubic inch wise, but it made up for it with the rpm (more air going through the engine).  It had a very short stroke because the idea was to bury it inside the wings instead of putting it in nacelles and it was modular, with three two row 14 cylinder sections being connected with couplings in a common crank case.  Again the idea here was you could add more modules or take off a module so you would have 14, 28, 42, 56 etc cylinder engines using the same parts. Quite a clever idea if it had worked properly.

[ysi_maniac]

OK! you are right!
I corrected title again to include Tornado engine. I included XP-69 because its engine was mentioned in the thread.

Should this thread be titled Big Beautiful Fighters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Beautiful_Woman

[Pablo1965]

I do something about time ago:
http://www.fantasyplanes.com/2010/11/grumman-hellcat-allison-v-3420.html
It is not a BBW but is a BBF.

[sideshowbob9]

That looks fantastic!

[KJ_Lesnick]

What's the point of having a radial if it isn't air-cooled?  That's the best part of having a radial engine!

[Pablo1965]

What's the point of having a radial if it isn't air-cooled?  That's the best part of having a radial engine!

That's not always so.... http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html   

[ysi_maniac]

What's the point of having a radial if it isn't air-cooled?  That's the best part of having a radial engine!

They use to be very compact.

[ysi_maniac]

The ultimate target of these designs was not to equip Tempest with Allison V-1710, which would be a step backward, but to a slicker engine, something a little narrower but longer.

I first considered Griffon, but it is too narrow IMO for this design. Now I am considering Wright Tornado; this is equally wide and 35 cm longer (5 mm in 1/72).

Would it need contra rotating props? IMO, no.

Please your comments.

[NARSES2]

Top one looks nice 

[wuzak]

The ultimate target of these designs was not to equip Tempest with Allison V-1710, which would be a step backward, but to a slicker engine, something a little narrower but longer.

How about a Chysler IV-2220?

The Griffon is about the same length as the Sabre, but the Chrysler is 40" (1016mm) longer!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Chrysler_IV-2220_%281%29.PNG

And it did actually fly - in a Republic P-47

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/images/12/2009/04/ChryslerV16-P47.jpg

[famvburg]

    Griffon was good enough for a Fury, so why not the Tempest? IIRC, that was the fastest of them as well. With the huge tail on the Tempest, I can't see it needing contra-props and I wouldn't think prop diameter would be an issue either.

[wuzak]

    Griffon was good enough for a Fury, so why not the Tempest? IIRC, that was the fastest of them as well. With the huge tail on the Tempest, I can't see it needing contra-props and I wouldn't think prop diameter would be an issue either.

There were a couple of Tempest variants planned to use the Griffon - teh Mk II and MkIV. Not sure if they flew.

The fastest Typhoon/Tempest/Fury/Sea Fury variant was the Tempest I with the Sabre IV and leading edge radiators.

[NARSES2]

The fastest Typhoon/Tempest/Fury/Sea Fury variant was the Tempest I with the Sabre IV and leading edge radiators.

A very good looking aircraft as well

[kitnut617]

There were a couple of Tempest variants planned to use the Griffon - teh Mk II and MkIV. Not sure if they flew.

The fastest Typhoon/Tempest/Fury/Sea Fury variant was the Tempest I with the Sabre IV and leading edge radiators.

It was the Mk.III & Mk.IV that were to be Griffon powered and the fastest Hawker piston engined fighter was the Fury (serial LA610) powered by the Sabre VII. The Tempest Mk.IV was also serialed LA610 and was transfered to the Fury program. LA610 in it's Fury guise first flew with a Griffon engine installed.