|
|
|
|
#1
12-17-2008, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 Did the extra boost directly cause rod, bearing or other engine component failures? NO!Your quote of F/O Ronald Dennis of 56 Sqn says 13lb boost was used operationally. 
|
|
#2
12-17-2008, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's like to say "I installed 2 new video cards into my PC but the 300W APU was too weak and system failed: so I replaced it with a 450W APU". How can you know if the system was stable after the change?
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 12-17-2008 at 06:37 PM.
|
|
#3
12-19-2008, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Tempests had a lot of engine problems in 1944, especially about valves and backfires. It's a thing everyone interested in that plane knows very well. At the same time, everyone interested in that plane knows that engine troubles decreased months after months (according to "Typhoon and Tempest Aces of WWII" by C.Thomas, the Sabre was already "accettably reliable" during the V-1 battle in summer 1944). But there is NO news about troubles caused by Rotol propellers! Just like, BTW, there is no news of troubles caused by +11lbs boost during the final months of the war nor any news of Tempests reverting to +9lbs. The only question to ask is "how many Tempest used +13lbs boost and Rotol prop?", not "was it successful?". BTW, on the same wwiiaircraftperformance page that reports Dennis quote you can find this too: "On the 30th March, six days later, I came back to Volkel in time to go to Warmwell in the duty Anson to choose a beautiful brand-new Tempest with the new Rotol airscrew. Two days later I was posted O.C. "A" Flight, No. 3 Squadron in 122 Wing (at B.122 Rheine)." (Pierre Clostermann) Its probable that "beautiful brand-new Tempest" belonged to the fourth production batch, delivered from 1/45 to 6/45, that consisted of 201 planes built ("Hawker Tempest", +4 Publications, pag. 3). It seems likely to me that there were much more than a handful of +13lbs in 1945, although it's not easy to guess how many. A seemingly well informed guy wrote this some days ago, on another forum, talking about Sabre IIc engine (which I believe, being the most powerful of the II series, was usually coupled with the Rotol prop): "[...] The IIC was fitted to Typhoon Is, IBs and Tempest Vs. [...] As to how many IICs were fitted to the above, I don't think we'll ever know, as Sabres were the subject of continual modification programmes and aircraft were frequently re-engined at unit level with the latest approved version. However, Typhoon and Tempest V Srs 2 production did not extend beyond WW2 so some were definitely fitted with Sabre IICs (if the book ['British Piston Aero Engines' by Alec Lumsden] says IICs were fitted to Typhoons and Tempest Vs you may be sure that it's correct - its information is taken from company records)". So, it's likely the same uncertainty about numbers of IIc regards Rotol props too. But I think their number could be higher than, for example, the numbers of Ta152H that reached service (whereas, AFAIK, Ta152C never was operative!). Last edited by CloCloZ; 12-19-2008 at 12:33 AM.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
