What to do with a frog Gannet

[Rheged]

Ah yes, I remember that now, a bit of knife and file work, and a basic cockpit should do, as it will be painted black anyway. Thinking inside the box a tad, would the griffon be powerful enough for it to carry a sizeable load?

It might be a tad short on power, the Griffon had around 2500 bhp and the Double Mamba 3500-4000 bhp. But the Gannet could cruise with only half of the Double Mamba running. Maybe JATO bottles to help its take -off?

I have some spare from  wyvern in my bits boxes, so they could well be used on this.

I would imagine that a Wyvern engine  rescued from your  bits box   (1 × Armstrong Siddeley Python , 3,560 hp +1,100 lbf  residual thrust  according to Wiki)  would be sufficient to persuade  a Gannet  to get up and go, assuming that the overall length of the Python didn't cause CofG  or visibility problems.  I'd be most interested to see such a beast should you choose to build it

[PR19_Kit]

That's the B-54, packing a Griffon, which answers Chris's question. Blackburn flew it with a piston engine before the Double Mamba (B-88) was ready.

Darn it, I clicked on the wrong pic in my Blackburn library, sorry.

[Gondor]

My immediate thought when I read the thread title was, throw it in the bin. 

Gondor

[Rheged]

My immediate thought when I read the thread title was, throw it in the bin. 

Gondor

It wasn't quite that  bad!

[chrisonord]

I bought several for a few quid each, just for the engines and wings, the rest didn't even get a thought about any use. I don't have any other wyvern bits, hence the spare griffon being used. I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

[Gondor]

I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor

[chrisonord]

I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor

I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.

[Gondor]

I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor

I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them 

[Glenn Gilbertson]

!

You cannot view this attachment.

Ten years old now - but my "Fairey Courier" (amphibian development of a RW project) caused some amusement at the Worthing Show.!
Build thread at https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=40714.0

[jcf]

I bought several for a few quid each, just for the engines and wings, the rest didn't even get a thought about any use. I don't have any other wyvern bits, hence the spare griffon being used. I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

The Grumman Avenger fits, especially if you're using a bomb-bay as the defining feature.
The Avenger saw more use as a level bomber, dropping bombs, depth charges and mines
than it did as a torpedo bomber. It could carry one 2,000lb or four 500lb bombs. RPs were
also commonly used. It's probably closest to what you have in mind.

[PFJN]

Hi,
I think when talking about single engine bombers during WWII alot of people tend to overlook that single engine bombers were still very much an important tool at sea.  Specifically throughout the war I believe that the USN, RN amd IJN all had single engine torpedo bombers that could also be used as level bombers, while both the USN and IJN flew single engine dive bombers from their carriers throughout the war, while the RN flew single engine Skuas early in the war, but ended up not replacing them in later years for a variety of reasons.

[jcf]

Ah yes, I remember that now, a bit of knife and file work, and a basic cockpit should do, as it will be painted black anyway. Thinking inside the box a tad, would the griffon be powerful enough for it to carry a sizeable load?

It might be a tad short on power, the Griffon had around 2500 bhp and the Double Mamba 3500-4000 bhp. But the Gannet could cruise with only half of the Double Mamba running. Maybe JATO bottles to help its take -off?

The Griffon 57/57A of the Shack only had the 2,500hp* at takeoff, 2,750rpm, +25, S/L.
Max boost on full supercharger with 100/150 fuel or 100/130 with water-injection if 100/150
wasn't available. It had a two-speed (medium and full) single stage supercharger.
Normal rating: 1,590hp, 2,600rpm, +18, S/L (med); 1,540hp, 2,600rpm, +18, 12,500ft (full).
Maximum rating (Emergency, Combat, 5 min.): 2,030hp, 2,750rpm, +18, 1,750ft (med);
1,830hp, 2,750rpm, +18, 10,000ft (full).

The ASMD.1 of the Gannet AS.1 was rated at 2,950shp T/O.

The 100 series Griffons, 3-speed (low, medium and full) 2-stage supercharger, were all rated
at a maximum of 2,440hp. T/O rating was 1,900hp, 2,750rpm, +25, S/L, 100/130 fuel.
Normal climb: 1,515hp, 2,600rpm, 17,750ft (low); 1,430hp, 2,600rpm, 26,500ft (med);
1,305hp, 2,600rpm, 33,075ft (full).
Maximum climb: 2,440hp, 2,750rpm, 6,000ft (low); 2,300hp, 2,750rpm, 15,750ft (med);
2,085hp, 2,750rpm, 23,000ft (full).

A 1,725hp or 1,900hp T/O rating was the most common across all marks, the 57/57A was
the exception.

A performance graph for the first mark pre-production Double Mamba (T/O 2,540shp-770lbs
residual thrust at S/L), 300mph at 30,000ft, per ICAN standards, shows the following approximations:
Normal climb: ~900shp-105lbs residual thrust, 13,100rpm. 
Maximum climb: ~1,300shp-190lb residual thrust, 14,500rpm.

Of course it's very difficult to do a one-to-one compare between a piston engine and a turboprop.


One could get around the big difference in T/O power by making it purely a landbased aircraft.
Lots of lovely cement or tarmac to enable the beauty to lumber into the air.


*Some sources state 2,345hp

[PR19_Kit]

I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.

But they did have superbly long wings. 

[chrisonord]

I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.

But they did have superbly long wings. 

I was waiting for you to say that  
Thanks for the info JCF, I was thinking of land based to begin with, as it will need a good long runway. Glen I am liking the Gannet float plane, it brought a smile to my face as soon as I saw it.

[NARSES2]

Don't forget that the origional Wyvern TF.1 was powered by the 3,500 hp RR Eagle, and yes I do have the Czech Master kit in the stash, and yes it is earmarked for BPF use in Operation Downfall 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Wyvern