You know the drill...
Crude (and very quickly thrown together) Battle update:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FSabreBattle.jpg&hash=b4e5e7cfc2a351b590adfaf603dbaf599ba526a3)
Regards,
Greg
Two more:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FRANN-7Wandabaa.jpg&hash=b14f8a69aceba63defbcff6f6ee3dc3e3572911b)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FRANN-8WandabaaII.jpg&hash=cf98a055a5bfe1b651c181fa74bde78988d5df06)
Also superbly illustrated in this story (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20908.0) along with a description.
Regards,
Greg
very nice
a naval version with folding wings
or a dive bomber version!
How about the Dam Buster version........? :lol:
Quote from: DarrenP on December 30, 2009, 01:46:51 PM
a naval version with folding wings
The latter one is a naval version with folding wings.
regards,
Greg
Well, I like 'em all.
The punchy ground attack type (if that is what it is on the first drawing) looks .. well Bulldoggy.
As for the naval type.. why not.. except I hope that radial is not a Perseus.. it had enough trouble carting a Skua around, worse on the Roc.
It actually reminds me of a Japanese Torpedo bomber, perhaps Kate..perhaps another I cannot put a finger on
Great work :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Think a Fairey Battle would work for the ASR Role????????? just something i've wondered about. Stay Cool.Dan :cheers:
Sweet!
Quote from: buzzbomb on December 30, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
As for the naval type.. why not.. except I hope that radial is not a Perseus.. it had enough trouble carting a Skua around, worse on the Roc.
As per the story, it's actually supposed to be the same Bristol Taurus 14-cylinder radial engines as used on the DAP Beauforts.
Regasrds,
Greg
Some Battle engine alternatives:
http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/17041 (http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/17041)
Napier Sabre
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithNapierSabre.jpg&hash=9bed1a165297c92557f77d176dd2350b1da6dd3c)
Bristol Taurus
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithBristolTaurus.jpg&hash=0d4bb6112e3922d731811c434725b2cf677b9e3b)
Wright Cyclone
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithWrightCyclone.jpg&hash=f59cdf57b1fc9ab4d6ab19de4bd002e2effa2b4e)
Fairey P.16 Prince, 1540hp H-16 engine driving contraprops. The Prince was basically two engines mounted together, one driving each prop & could be operated independently of each other.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithFaireyPrince.jpg&hash=eb36c10e14328a1ecbf65d6f8e44934baca6c104)
Fairey P.24 Monarch, H-24 engine developed from Prince
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3462.15.html
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithP-24Engine03.jpg&hash=247dc8ed38581d0bdf50cd848aef868ffe3a2175)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithP-24Engine02.jpg&hash=8752e5026af52a1e5f627fff88ae6edbc183b7dd)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaireyBattlewithP-24Engine01-1.jpg&hash=d831fca8797eea8aa3243bf3a1f9cf054099c7c5)
The Sabre Battle looks SERIOUSLY mean, but any or all of the radial engined ones are equally seriously ugly!
That P-24 Monarch engine is a mind blower, I can't ever remember seeing it at Yeovilton though.
Quite a beast isn't it? 2000hp quite early on. These engine developments show that Fairey took the Battle's lack of power seriously, just a shame engine development wasn't up to it at the time. The USAAC markings on that Monarch powered Battle are interesting too.
I'm pretty sure these Battles were FTB's only, except the Cyclone powered one. I believe that was converted in Canada as at the time there was a worry about getting Merlins across the Atlantic (pre Packard days)
FTB? :unsure:
Secret Projects Battle thread:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3462.0.html
Robert is correct, the re-engined Battles were primarily engine test-beds, and the Battle concept
was pretty much dead-in-the-water by the time the Fairey engine was under full test. The Battle
would not have been the mount of a production version, the Monarch was suggested for the
Tornado/Typhoon, and a US version was considered for the P-47.
Wright Field reports on the P.24 as installed in the Battle:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P150137.pdf
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P152543.pdf
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P161688.pdf
Quote from: Mossie on February 28, 2011, 11:02:23 AM
FTB? :unsure:
Sorry Simon ---
Flying
Test
Beds. The Battle proved to be quite a good one from what I've read.
I suspect that was because it was large enough, and had a crew of three, to carry a reasonable load of test instrumentation. I doubt telemetry had developed far enough in those days. It hadn't even got to a decent level by the 1960s!
Quote from: kitnut617 on February 28, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
Quote from: Mossie on February 28, 2011, 11:02:23 AM
FTB? :unsure:
Sorry Simon --- Flying Test Beds. The Battle proved to be quite a good one from what I've read.
Thanks Robert! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Flying Test Bed.
I like the idea of giving it a Hercules though. The adaptor bit in the Wellesley would be a good start.
The Hercules was fitted to Battles N2042 and N2184, the landing gear were repositioned and fixed in place.
The R-R Exe and a Merlin XII with chin radiator were also tested on the Battle, serials K9222 and N2234 respectively.
K9240 was flown with the Napier Dagger.
So, from the sound of it, no matter what you do to a Battle it wont be a WhIf because it's already been done as a test-bed..... Unless you do it as an operational aircraft! :cheers:
RAAF coastal patrol? The bombs would be useful against subs but the aircraft would be a sitting duck against the Japanese.
Somewhere, I have a part built Battle and I think I now know what to do with it.
Two engines - as argued for by Lobelle - like this?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21075.msg340144.html#msg340144
;D ;D
Quote from: kitbasher on March 02, 2011, 11:16:20 AM
Two engines - as argued for by Lobelle - like this?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21075.msg340144.html#msg340144
;D ;D
... or the Fairey Twin-Engine Day Bomber of 1933, drawing originally posted by Justo Miranda in the above mentioned Secretprojects thread.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-P8cCGn6/0/735ec8c0/O/TWIN_BATTLE_01.png)
Very handy...
come on Greg where's the Battle floatplane ? Want to compare it to the Hampden float version ;D
Quote from: raafif on March 03, 2011, 03:29:34 PM
come on Greg where's the Battle floatplane ? Want to compare it to the Hampden float version ;D
You mean this one:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FBattle-FP.gif&hash=2abefacf52b5486a71494d2f196bcee81d69d2c2)
Sorry I thought I had already posted it ;).
regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 04, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FBattle-FP.gif&hash=2abefacf52b5486a71494d2f196bcee81d69d2c2)
nice! :wub:...that just looks kinda 'right' to me
I found an article about the Battle FTBs in a Flypast magazine, Jan 2009 issue with a P-51 on the front. There's a whole series of Battle items in there as well.
Somewhat surprisingly some of the FTB Battles had fixed landing gear, the Sabre and Hercules versions in particular. Apparently the idea was to increase the drag so the engines could be tested at high power settings, as the normal airframe was so sleek!
And my guess about the Battle's use as an FTB because it had multiple seats and lots of space for test gear turned out correct, as well as the fact that the Battle was of modern construction, being a stressed skin monocoque airframe, so was current with fighter and bomber build methods then being used. A contemporary FTB aircraft, the Folland Fo 108 (surely a candidate for the 'World's Ugliest Aeroplane'?) was built for the test-bed job, and similarly was provided with three seats and lots of internal space for test gear.
There's a few Fairey & Blackburn aircraft that could beat the F.108 to the title!
With the 'Frightful', I think it depends on the engine installation. The airframe itself isn't particularly ugly, just a bit agricultural. The Hercules installation seemed to suit it, the Sabre with chin radiator made it ugly, but in a way that suited it's lines. The Sabre without chin radiator just looked odd & the Centaurus installation.... it's mother would have shunned that one! I guess some of the Hawker Tempest & Fury test installions show that a change in engine can ruin the face on a perfect body.
Quote from: Mossie on March 11, 2011, 03:29:22 AM
There's a few Fairey & Blackburn aircraft that could beat the F.108 to the title!
Yes, true. The Blackburn Blackburn being THE winner to my mind, YEUK!
A long time ago I had thought of a "Fairey Marlin" FAA torpedo bomber that would incorporate a Barracuda nose and torpedo on a Battle body (fairly mild whif). That's been on a "back burner" for decades. When I just learned of an MPM twin-cockpit trainer version model coming out, THAT was the "Battle" body I wanted. The crude profile I stitched together for my gallery:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FFBattleTmkISide-view02.jpg&hash=23759cccf90698a981826782dad42b7d686f337d)
would have the G.I.B. be a radar operator for night torpedo operations (thus no rear-seat gunner).
Seems that the Battle was "tested" in just about every conceivable configuration, thus great grist for the mill of whifs.
Except the Barracuda had a Merlin, as did the Battle. A few extra horsepower perhaps (IIRC the Barracuda had a MerlinXX) but the Marlin would be a lash up whereas the Barracuda was designed specifically for the role and by all accounts better than history gives it credit.
If you want it to have a Griffon, I'd use the nose off a Fairey Firefly Mk.I, but then the Griffon nose from a Firefly Mk.IV would look neat too, because then you could use wing leading edge radiators.
>Except the Barracuda had a Merlin, as did the Battle. A few extra horsepower perhaps... <
Yes. That is really all I want. It will be a night bomber, so doesn't need "escape velocity", just some oomph. The early Spitfires (and the late Battles) had a 1,000-hp Merlin, but the Spitfire IX had a 1700-hp Merlin. More than just "a few extra horsepower", 1700 hp will do nicely, as this is an "early-mid war" plane in my "Furashita's Fleet" slightly-advanced timeline, so it doesn't have be be the "ultimate" torpedo-bomber. That "ultimate" torpedo-bomber is the "Fairey Cuttlefish" biplane jet torpedo-bomber that squirts the torpedo out backwards (pointing forwards) from the rear of the plane. (see:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=1747 )
Barracuda Mk V was Griffon powered.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 13, 2011, 03:03:02 PM
Barracuda Mk V was Griffon powered.
Beat me to it.
Regards,
Greg
Thread revival time.
Whilst working on my current Airfix Fairey Battle I had plenty of time to muse whilst holding the canopy in place in an attempt to wait until the Clearfix had attached it securely. Anyway for some reason an RAF Sturmovik came to mind, there is a vague similarity between the types especially when you've been holding one between finger and thumb for a while. Checking to see if there was a Battle thread (which there is ;D) I noticed the first couple of items in the thread actually reflect my thoughts somewhat.
So a up-engine Battle with the gunner moved closer to the pilot, some armour protection and anti personnel bombs in the wing bomb bays plus heavier gun armament in the wings ? Service in the Middle East ?
Interesting. Check out info regarding Boulton-Paul's P.96 at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17868.msg252340.html#msg252340, and also Tony Buttler's Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950.
I've recently pulled apart a second-hand 50p built Airfix Il-2 that will at some point within the next decade or so receive a Napier Sabre, four-blade propellor, a turret and probably leftover Battle wings from my 'Fairey Falcon' (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21075.msg299160.html#msg299160). D-Day stripes of course! Name? Boulton-Paul Barbarian - you heard it here first!
You'd want something smaller than a Battle - Fulmar perhaps? That started as a light bomber anyway.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on June 25, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
You'd want something smaller than a Battle - Fulmar perhaps? That started as a light bomber anyway.
I second that motion.
Graft a Sabre or a Centaurus off an old Matchbox Tempest on the front.
I did a Sabre Firefly once (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,31452.msg483260.html#msg483260).
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 25, 2014, 06:59:12 AM
Thread revival time.
Whilst working on my current Airfix Fairey Battle I had plenty of time to muse whilst holding the canopy in place in an attempt to wait until the Clearfix had attached it securely. Anyway for some reason an RAF Sturmovik came to mind, there is a vague similarity between the types especially when you've been holding one between finger and thumb for a while. Checking to see if there was a Battle thread (which there is ;D) I noticed the first couple of items in the thread actually reflect my thoughts somewhat.
So a up-engine Battle with the gunner moved closer to the pilot, some armour protection and anti personnel bombs in the wing bomb bays plus heavier gun armament in the wings ? Service in the Middle East ?
Chris, you got me to pondering this idea & reading the entries following this, & I thought why not up-engine the Battle (late Merlin or Griffon?), bring the gunner closer to the pilot by cutting out that length of fuselage entirely (thus shortening the aircraft) & reducing the wing length slightly, possibly adding a bit of sweep-back, as per the Il-2, in the process, with 2 x 20mm in the wings plus bomb load of your choice & the gunner could have a choice of 1 x .303 Browning, 2 x .303 Brownings or 1 x .50 Browning. Easy enough to explain the changes to shape as being inspired by the success of the Il-2.
Earlier posts lead me to think that a torpedo version needs to keep the length - otherwise it'd look silly. ;)
:cheers:
A Fulmar would be nice. Beauty kit as well.
:cheers:
Like your thinking Old Wombat.
As per the Fulmar idea, it's a good one. Thorvic PM'd me with it as well as seeing it here. I've got an Airfix boxing of somebodies Fulmar as well.
However any attempt to build one is a while off, still it's gone into the "ideas book"
The Fulmar is Smer's, possibly Merit before that.
Fulmar was by Vista. Revell and Smer boxed it before Airfix.
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 26, 2014, 07:37:45 AM
Like your thinking Old Wombat.
As per the Fulmar idea, it's a good one. Thorvic PM'd me with it as well as seeing it here. I've got an Airfix boxing of somebodies Fulmar as well.
However any attempt to build one is a while off, still it's gone into the "ideas book"
Iactually suggested the Firefly F1 as a possible Fairet based Sturmovik, relocate the aft cockpit directlt aft of the fwd cockpit, cut down the spine and add suitable rear guns be it pintiple mounted or possibly turret, remove hook and wingfold seams - :thumbsup:
Quote from: Thorvic on June 26, 2014, 12:21:38 PM
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 26, 2014, 07:37:45 AM
Like your thinking Old Wombat.
As per the Fulmar idea, it's a good one. Thorvic PM'd me with it as well as seeing it here. I've got an Airfix boxing of somebodies Fulmar as well.
However any attempt to build one is a while off, still it's gone into the "ideas book"
Iactually suggested the Firefly F1 as a possible Fairet based Sturmovik, relocate the aft cockpit directlt aft of the fwd cockpit, cut down the spine and add suitable rear guns be it pintiple mounted or possibly turret, remove hook and wingfold seams - :thumbsup:
Doh ! Yup Firefly not Fulmar :banghead:
A question on the Battle: Bombers at the time where usually named after towns, the Battle received the more fighter like naming convention. Why was the Battle so named?
I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.
Perhaps it was outside the naming convention because it was intended to replace two-seat day bomber aircraft like the Hawker Hart and Hind,
rather than a 'true-bomber' e.g. twin-engine?
The Putnam doesn't make reference to the why of the naming, and I've not yet found a refernce in the Flight Archive.
Quote from: JayBee on August 17, 2015, 09:05:11 AM
I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.
To be followed by the Fairey Bognor and possibly more appropriately the Fairy (sic) Brighton...
Thanks guys. I'd thought similar to John, there's a handful of similar breaks with the convention. Jim, I didn't know there was a place called Battle so I guess it fits with convention after all.
:cheers:
Quote from: zenrat on August 18, 2015, 02:33:28 AM
Quote from: JayBee on August 17, 2015, 09:05:11 AM
I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.
To be followed by the Fairey Bognor and possibly more appropriately the Fairy (sic) Brighton...
In Butlin's colours I'll bet --- :lol:
Quote from: zenrat on August 18, 2015, 02:33:28 AM
Quote from: JayBee on August 17, 2015, 09:05:11 AM
I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.
To be followed by the Fairey Bognor and possibly more appropriately the Fairy (sic) Brighton...
Naughty boy ;D ;D In a Kenneth Williams voice
Yup Battle is the true site of the battle. Battle Abbey was built to commemorate the event. Was taken there on a few school trips.
As for British naming conventions ? You just start to think you understand it and then something comes up which makes you think ?????? I gave up years ago. As an aside when ever I try to think of a name for one of my wifs it sounds silly or childish, or both. When others do the same it sounds perfect. What's that ? Lack of confidence in my own naming attempts or something deeper ?
What's wrong with silly? ;D
Naming conventions? What naming conventions? I think the fact that Fairey produced 4 related aircraft named after a town (we think), a bird, a fish and an insect shows that that there really wasn't one.
Quote from: zenrat on August 18, 2015, 06:21:15 PM
Naming conventions? What naming conventions? I think the fact that Fairey produced 4 related aircraft named after a town (we think), a bird, a fish and an insect shows that that there really wasn't one.
Must admit I don't think there was an official one but some companies had a convention which they tended to use, most of the time
Quote from: NARSES2 on August 19, 2015, 07:17:48 AM
Quote from: zenrat on August 18, 2015, 06:21:15 PM
Naming conventions? What naming conventions? I think the fact that Fairey produced 4 related aircraft named after a town (we think), a bird, a fish and an insect shows that that there really wasn't one.
Must admit I don't think there was an official one but some companies had a convention which they tended to use, most of the time
Wasn't the RAF's convention that bombers were named after towns/villages etc? At least once they'd started with the Heyford they seemed to head that way. Heyford itself is TINY (I went to school there....) so it doesn't count as a town at all!
could you put a couple of 20mm hispano's in the wings and Rocket projectiles under the wing with a more powerful merlin better propellor and with faired nose.
A Merlin related question.
If I was to build a Battle powered by a two speed two stage Merlin (a Merlin 61 say) would the only modification needed be an intake under the prop?
Could it need more cooling?
Probably, a Spitfire MkIX had two radiators, one under each wing, whereas the earlier MkVs had one rad and one oil coller.
The 2 stage Merlin was also longer than the single stage engines.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 01, 2024, 06:20:32 AMProbably, a Spitfire MkIX had two radiators, one under each wing, whereas the earlier MkVs had one rad and one oil coller.
The 2 stage Merlin was also longer than the single stage engines.
Thanks Kit.
Length can be added. I was thinking of fitting the lower part of the cowling from an Airfix old mould Mosquito (with an added intake) and a prop with a spinner so I can do it then. I'm sure it's not too much in scale anyway.
Radiators will not be an issue. The Special Hobby Spit Mk24 and Seafire 47 kits have spare radiators and I have one of each. Plus whatever else is in the parts boxes.
Another option is for a ventral scoop. The Hawker Henley Vulture test bed was quite spectacular:
Henley with Vulture.jpg
The 24 and 47 radiators are SERIOUS! All the Griffon engined Spitfire variants had much deeper radiators than even the Mk IX, X, & XIs.
Lumsden gives the following lengths for the various Merlin series:
Single speed/single stage: 69"
Two speed/single stage: 71"
Two speed/two stage: 88.7"
The two/two engine is only slightly wider
but it also 3" less in height.
The length differences are at the rear of
the engine. The firewall of the Battle is
also the forward wall of the cockpit. This
means that, unlike the Spitfire and Mustang,
in the real world the nose would have to
be lengthened, but the delta would probably
be only in the region of 12", a neglible 1/6"
in 1/72nd.
Quote from: Mossie on September 01, 2024, 09:01:25 AMAnother option is for a ventral scoop. The Hawker Henley Vulture test bed was quite spectacular:
Henley with Vulture.jpg
I do have the remains of a Mustang fuselage in the stash...
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 01, 2024, 01:26:05 PMThe 24 and 47 radiators are SERIOUS! All the Griffon engined Spitfire variants had much deeper radiators than even the Mk IX, X, & XIs.
That's where the radiators on the Tophe Vampire come from. But I did find some shallower ones as well.
Quote from: jcf on September 01, 2024, 02:26:32 PMLumsden gives the following lengths for the various Merlin series:
Single speed/single stage: 69"
Two speed/single stage: 71"
Two speed/two stage: 88.7"
The two/two engine is only slightly wider
but it also 3" less in height.
The length differences are at the rear of
the engine. The firewall of the Battle is
also the forward wall of the cockpit. This
means that, unlike the Spitfire and Mustang,
in the real world the nose would have to
be lengthened, but the delta would probably
be only in the region of 12", a neglible 1/6"
in 1/72nd.
So, just over 4mm to add. Thanks Jon.
I'm currently musing on a Fairey Battle Wif, mine would simply be a paint job though. Awaiting the promised new tool from Fromm-Azure though.
Another question re the two-two Merlin.
The installation of a 2/2 engine in a Mosquito can be identified by an additional intake under the spinner.
If my research (looking at cutaway drawings of Mosquitos) is correct then this is for an intercooler radiator.
Is there any reason why this intercooler could not be mounted on top of the engine, in front of the cockpit instead?
Quote from: zenrat on September 09, 2024, 05:08:40 AMAnother question re the two-two Merlin.
The installation of a 2/2 engine in a Mosquito can be identified by an additional intake under the spinner.
If my research (looking at cutaway drawings of Mosquitos) is correct then this is for an intercooler radiator.
Is there any reason why this intercooler could not be mounted on top of the engine, in front of the cockpit instead?
The intercooler on all 2/2 engines is in the same place, on the top of the engine, the placement of the
radiator would depend on cooling requirements, airflow requirements and if you have enough space to
install a radiator of the required size.
TWO_TWO_INT_COOL_01.png
You can see on this photo of a 2/2 Spitfire that the distance between the aft end of the intercooler and the
firewall is minimal, you'd probably have the same issue with the Battle. Exacerbated by the firewall being
the forward wall of the cockpit, meaning no space in which to mount a radiator. The Spitfire intercooler
radiator is in the starboard wing.
MERLIN_60_SPIT_01.jpeg
SPITFIRE_TW0-TWO_COOL_01.jpeg
The P-51 installation placed the intercooler/aftercooler radiator back with the main engine coolant radiator in the belly.
P-51_V-1650_COOL_01.jpeg
This drawing shows very well what you'd be dealing with in the Battle.
BATTLE_CUTAWAY_01.jpeg
Excellent. Thanks Jon.
Once again you have provided what I need.
On the 2/2 Battle the intercooler radiator could go on top of the intercooler - where the coolant header tank is on the standard Battle. In fact the intercooler and its radiator could be one unit.
The coolant header tank on the 2/2 Battle now being where it is on a Mosquito (and a Spit and Mustang - behind the spinner.
The location of the coolant header tank explains the sloped top of the Battle (and Hurricane and Defiant) cowlings compared to the level top of the Mossie (and 'stang and Spit). Something I had been wondering about.
Good idea on combining the intercooler and its radiator. A proper job of creating hot spots, lowered efficiency and making it 'ell on the erks. A very Fairey solution.
;D
The R-R engineers would likely be banging their heads on their desks.
:banghead:
It'd probably be best, in real world terms, to place the radiator so that the tubes run perpendicular to the long axis. The air enters on one side of the fuselage and exhausts out the other. A scoop for intake, and gills for exhaust.