Can anyone throw any more light on the P.1009 project (other than that which appears in 'British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950' page 175? Scaling up the drawing reveals:
- The nose proportions are more aking to the Temprest than the Typhoon
- The fuselage is stretched
- The span is greater
Rather than start with a Typhoon, a Tempest seems the best basis for a P.1009, with the back end of a Typhoon grafted on (plus a modified canopy and fairing, of course). The wing centre section seems problematic to me if the drawing is to be believed - it looks as though the u/c retracts outwards into the wing just the other side of the wing fold. So when the wings are folded does this mean the u'c bay doors in the fold would have been closed?
I find this really hardto believe given the Hawker tradition for inward folding main u/c on the Hurricane, Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury/Sea Fury - even the Henley. I'm more inclined to think the P.1009 would have done the same (like the Blackburn Firebrand, which was designed to the same spec as the P.1009) and that the drawing is wrong. If so, the wing centre section from a Tempest works with mods to the leading and training edges, with full-span Typhoon wings added.
Anyone know anything more?
;D ;D
Here's the drawing referred to in the earlier post:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi240.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff90%2Fkitbasher_2007%2FHawker%2520P1009%2520Sea%2520Typhoon%2Fp1009small.jpg&hash=7e3d25fac031f621b07dca712d50b09df73367e6)
Didn't mean to shave the wheels!
;D ;D
From what I was told by Chris Thomas, who's the Typhoon,Tempest Specialist at Air-Britain, the u/c was to fold outwards. The point of the wing fold is actually where the original Typhoon wing was attached to the fuselage and the new center section was used for fuel tanks.
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 24, 2010, 12:46:07 PM
From what I was told by Chris Thomas, who's the Typhoon,Tempest Specialist at Air-Britain, the u/c was to fold outwards. The point of the wing fold is actually where the original Typhoon wing was attached to the fuselage and the new center section was used for fuel tanks.
Well that is certainly what the drawing indicates - it's just so hard for me to fathom why so much re-engineering was considered necessary (that said, BSP:F&B 35-50 does say that something like a mere 25% of the P1009 would remain purely Typhoon.
I can see how the centre section could be used for fuel cells but equally I would have thought 'wet' wings between the fold and the inner cannon could have been an option. As for the outer wing panels, the Typhoon wing plan is very evident indeed.
A long time ago I vaguely knew Chris Thomas (we worked at the same place and were passing acquaintances). He was a Typhoon/Tempest expert back then, so I'm sure what he doesn't know about them now isn't worth knowing!
Thanks for the info,
;D ;D
Quote from: kitbasher on May 24, 2010, 01:45:46 PM
A long time ago I vaguely knew Chris Thomas (we worked at the same place and were passing acquaintances). He was a Typhoon/Tempest expert back then, so I'm sure what he doesn't know about them now isn't worth knowing!
Thanks for the info,
;D ;D
You might be interested to know then, that he frequents Britmodeller from time to time. He just uses 'Chris Thomas' as his user name.
Are you looking for something like this?
This has been scanned from Francis K. Mason's book on the Typhoon/Tempest.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi92.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl23%2Fchris7421%2FTyph.jpg&hash=8d27432342eff4b6018c740efeb81bd21bed41d4)
Dave
The Miranda "Unknown" series has a nice 5 view of the P.1099 and confirms that the undercarriage retracts outwards.
Fabtastic response chaps, very much appreciated. :bow: The 3-view is excellent (already printed off and adjusted to 1/72 scale) and a P1009 beckons!
I think on the basis of the Mason drawing a Tempest/Typhoon mix is still probably the best way forward - I already have an Eastern Express (ex FROG) Typhoon and as it doesn't have wheel wells (the door have to be cut out), adaptation of the outer wing sections to take the outward-folding main u/c is made easier. The wing plan itself matches plans I have, so I must assume the kit's OK in this respect.
;D ;D
I think it'd need a Tempest tail, and probably the larger tailplanes too. As it is, it looks like the early Sea Furies and they had their tails enlarged for better handling during landing.
My own view is that it would have been another dead end like the Firebrand. It's too cumbersome a design for a start and the Sabre was a VERY complex engine with close tolerances. They taxed ground crews on land, so a pitching carrier is going to make life more difficult. The close tolerances also mean that the crew wouldn't be able to scavenge bits from damaged aircraft to keep the engines running. It would have been switched to a Hercules or Centaurus pretty quickly. All of this takes time, by which time the Seafire is in service and better purpose built US aircraft are readily available.
And don't forget that the early Typhoons had the nasty tendency to shed their tails in the air, so the airframe will have to be strengthened, which adds weight. The Typhoon, whilst fast, was also pretty cumbersome in the air due to the thick wing - and they wanted to add even more wing area? That'll make it's flight characteristics even worse.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 26, 2010, 03:00:43 AM
I think it'd need....the larger tailplanes too.
I think that was the original plan, certainly looks like a Tempest tailplane on the drawings.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 26, 2010, 03:00:43 AM
My own view is that it would have been another dead end like the Firebrand. It's too cumbersome a design for a start...
Pretty much why the project was binned fairly early on by the Admiralty and (I think) Hawkers who didn't seem to have much enthusiasm for it anyway. Hence going forward with the Firebrand.
;D ;D
Quote from: kitbasher on May 26, 2010, 06:17:09 AM
Hence going forward with the Firebrand.
FORWARD with a Firebrand? Surely that's a contradiction in terms..... ;D -_-
From what I've read, the project came to a dead end because of the slow speed handling of the Typhoon for the most part, plus the emergence of the Tempest development. The Admiralty showed a lot of interest in the Tempest which was the precursor of the 'light weight' Tempest development, which became the Sea Fury through the Fury prototypes.
Even though the Sabre was a complex motor, so was the Centaurus, both being sleeve valve engines. I've also read that the Sabre was actually ear-marked for Navy use and one of the main reasons why various projects being banded at the time using the Sabre were dropped, the Sabre Mosquito being one of them.
The Firebrand Mk.I used a Sabre ----
I hate you kitbasger.I was doing a Sea Typhoon myself and never thought using parts from the Tempest :banghead:I was trying too hard saving a couple of Airfix Typhoon from the dustbin.
I tried including a few photos but without success.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2010, 06:43:03 AM
FORWARD with a Firebrand? Surely that's a contradiction in terms..... ;D -_-
Well yeah OK I was trying to be succinct and to the point Kit. 'Proceed with the Firebrand. Better?!! ;D ;D
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 26, 2010, 06:44:46 AM
From what I've read, the project came to a dead end because of the slow speed handling of the Typhoon for the most part, plus the emergence of the Tempest development. The Admiralty showed a lot of interest in the Tempest which was the precursor of the 'light weight' Tempest development, which became the Sea Fury through the Fury prototypes.
Even though the Sabre was a complex motor, so was the Centaurus, both being sleeve valve engines. I've also read that the Sabre was actually ear-marked for Navy use and one of the main reasons why various projects being banded at the time using the Sabre were dropped, the Sabre Mosquito being one of them.
That seems to nicely sum up what BSP:F&B indicates. And I didn't realise the Sabre was earmarked for Navy use. There were certainly a lot of 'promising' projects fr the RAF designed around that engine as it promised a lot.
I don't think it was the sleeve valves that were the real problem with the Sabre, it was more the complexity of the layout that was the problem for those working on it. The Centaurus was a radial, so those experienced with radials wouldn't need much training other than on sleeve valves. Wasn't the Sabre an H configuration?
As for the Sabre Mosquito being dropped,wasn't that more due to the fact that it was pointless developing a bigger Mosquito when the two stage Merlin on the original do it better but without the development time? That and DH being overburdened with design work on the Mossie, Vampire and Hornet?
The sleeve valve was something championed by a guy called Richardo (think that's how you spell his name). He was a consutant to the Air Ministry and he persuaded RR, Bristol and Napier to develop it, actually the Sabre got it's start from De Havilland as the original 'H' engine was designed by Frank Halford and the production of it was done by Napier, the Dagger being one of them. The main problem was the hardening of the sleeve itself and Bristol solved the problem but it hampered the Sabre for most of it's being. RR took what Bristol had found and built their Crecy engine, a two-stroke V-12 sleeve valve.
De Havilland wanted to build the Sabre Mosquito (according to the Sharp/Bowyer book) but was overruled by the Air Ministry. Incidently, both Avro and Handley Page also had designs for a Sabre Mosquito type bomber. The Sabre Mosquito was envisioned to carry 8000 lbs, traveling at 400 mph+ and at high altitude but in the end they put bulged bomb bay doors on the regular Mossie and as you say Lee, the two-stage Merlin, so it could carry 4000 lb cookies. De Havilland was directed to concentrate on the Vampire and forget about the Sabre Mosquito.
That was Harry Ricardo and theoretically a sleeve-valve engine is more efficient
than a poppet-valve engine, and actually simpler when you get into the realm of
high-speed, high-capacity engines.
Of course the development of the gas-turbine engine made it all moot. ;D
Jon
Wasn't the Crecy supposedly capable of something like 5000 hp? That would be pretty damn good on a Mossie, wouldn't it?!! :tank:
There were about a dozen V-Twins made, and six of the V-12's. The V-12 was about in-between the Merlin and Griffon in size only as it was a 90 degree Vee, it was wider. The 'developed' engine was predicted to put out around 5000 hp only the whole project was scrapped at the end of the war because of the jet engine. But RR did use the technology in a line of power generators of various sizes.
I bought a book from the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust all about the Crecy, a very enlightening and highly recommended book it is too. Various aircraft were banded to get the Crecy, from the Spitfire to Tempests to Martin Baker MB5's but the feeling was the Spitfire was a bit small for the power. It was started before the war and was envisioned as a 'sprint' engine and was closely involved with radar development of the time, it being part of the defence package proposed.
Though only SLIGHTLY related, I have a future whif build along the lines of the "Sea Typhoon", but as an attack aircraft rather than a fighter: the Hawker Henley/Hotspurious.
The Real World Hawker Henley was a competent dive bomber, but the Air Ministry deigned to appreciate dive bombers, even when all other major combatants had success with them (that the Air Ministry approved of the Battle instead says SOMETHING).
The Real World derivative Hawker Hotspur was a downsized Henley turret-fighter along the lines of the Boulton-Paul Defiant that was rejected in favor of the latter.
My whif will be a combo of Henley, Hurricane, Tornado, Typhoon, Tempests, Sea Fury, etc., incorporating Hawker products to make a competent dive bomber for the Fleet Air Arm. The engine will be the AIR-cooled inline "X" 24-cylinder engine that Rolls Royce called the "Exe" (thus the air exit flaps reminiscent of radial engines--the massive radiator becomes the air intake for cooling). The turret is actually only two Lewis guns over-and-under (to save side-to-side space). Here is an illustration derived from a Hotspur. My whif will be a bit longer both in front of and behind the wing, but you get the idea.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FHawkHotspur06mm.jpg&hash=205c132f71fa7c45f5a5c795a3f73812f39827c2)
Surely if the Lords of the Admiralty were involved in this, they'd insist on three crew? One to drive, one to fight and the third to navigate! ;)