Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on December 28, 2011, 04:02:31 AM
-
Hi folks,
A thread dedicated to your de Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet Ideas and Inspiration.
First a question - is this sacrilegious or inspired?
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/SeaHornetCent.jpg)
Regards,
Greg
-
I'd say inspired, but I know someone (not here thankfully) who'd foam at the mouth because of the heresy.
Regards,
John
-
Breathing life back into an old thread:
What about a jet or turboprop Sea Hornet?
-
Or perhaps a simple nice picture:
(http://aviationfineart.co.uk/art/images/stories/Header_Images/Sea_Hornet_Patrol_header.jpg)
-
What about a jet or turboprop Sea Hornet?
How about a pair of late-model TPE331's driving five-bladed props and installed as on the Searingen Merlin/Metro, though possibly with a shorter exhaust duct.
-
I was thinking of something earlier given the era.
-
One of my absolute favorite aircraft.
Turbo-propping it though is something I've given some thought to, simple way would be to use the Cavalier Mustang Dart conversion (x2) or the Lycoming T-55. I think I would also build the aircraft out of metal ---
For appearances though, the Lycoming route is really easy on the eyes. For an upgraded version, I'd use the engine from a Tucano --
-
In my personal wiff world the Sea Hornet entered service secretly in November 1941 and was instrumental in destroying the Japanese fleet in the actions north of Australia in February 1942. :)
-
If we're going with a turboprop from an earlier era than the TPE331, especially a version thereof that could match the output of the Merlin, I'd be inclined to go with either T53's (I like T55's, too, but they are rather a step increase in power and I'm not sure how that'd affect handling) which could have a clean installation like that of the T55 (see the OV-1, for example) or, if you want to go earlier still, the Armstorng-Siddeley Mamba in installations similar to that used for flight-testing on a DC-3 (the recent Aviation Classics issue on the DC-3 has a lot of info, including all the various turbine-engine conversions, including one Turbo-Super DC-3).
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
-
If you wanted to go for subtlety, how about switching the Merlins for Griffons? It would deffinitely lead to a few double takes.
Appropraitely powered turboprops seem pretty thin on the ground for the Hornet's era. The existing ones are all too weak or so strong they'd rip it to shreds before it could taxi out to the runway.
-
My thoughts about Griffons on a Hornet are the same as for the Mosquito. De Havilland has a design philosophy for the Mosquito which had the aircraft fitted around the engines used. When they decided to use Napier Sabres the whole design was enlarge so the engines were in the same style of streamlined nacelles. Called the DH.101 is was 1.2 times bigger than the DH.98 Mosquite. Likewise, when they were told they wouldn't get the Sabres but to use Griffons instead, DH just stopped all development of the DH.101 but the work wasn't wasted. They down-scaled the DH.101 to create the DH.102. It was still bigger than the DH.98 though.
My feelings are that DH would've done the same to the Hornet if they up-engined it to have Griffons, it would have been a bigger aircraft.
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
Not exactly, the max emergency 5 min only combat power of the Merlin 130/131 on 100 octane 100/150 grade at full boost was 2,090hp at 3,000 rpm with 25 lbs boost at 2,000 feet; with 100 octane 100/130 it was 1,625 hp, 3,000 rpm, +20, 11,000 ft. Medium supercharged 100/130 fuel 1,850 hp, 3,000 rpm, +20, 6,250 ft.
Take-off rating with both 100/130 and 100/150 was 1,670 hp, 3,000 rpm, +18 at sea level.
Maximum continuous climb (rated) power:
medium supercharged 1,430 hp, 2,850 rpm, +12, 11,000 ft.
fully supercharged 1,280 hp, 2,850 rpm, +12, 14,000 ft.
Ratings for the later 134/135 engines were the same and both series were
rated as 1,670 HP engines. Weight was 1,665 lbs.
Figures from Lumsden, British Piston Aero-Engines and Their Aircraft
One has to be very careful quoting aircraft engine horsepower figures, as published max
power figures are often the emergency power output at a specific altitude, which does not
give an accurate view of real engine power ratings. Take-off rating is the most meaningful
figure.
The T53s are about 60% lighter, so the power to weight ratio is superior, even on the lower
power early models.
The weight increase of using Griffons would eat up most of the power increase and in some
parts of the envelope you'd have no power gain so it would be a net loss due to increased
weight.
-
Interesting facts Jon, but even so, the only turbo engine that comes close to those figures is the late version of the T53 at 1800 shp.
Reading the Sharp/Bowyer book on the Mosquito, it says that had the DH.102 been produced it would have been slower than the DH.98, so a lot of truth in what you say.
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
early TPE331s were rated that low, but the TPE331-15 is up to at least 1500 shp and there may be higher-rated versions (I've not followed it of late). I remember that the TPE331-10 produced slightly over 1000 shp but had to be flat-rated to 750 shp in the long MU-2 and 650 shp in the short one due to engine-out controllability problems at higher powers.
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
early TPE331s were rated that low, but the TPE331-15 is up to at least 1500 shp and there may be higher-rated versions (I've not followed it of late). I remember that the TPE331-10 produced slightly over 1000 shp but had to be flat-rated to 750 shp in the long MU-2 and 650 shp in the short one due to engine-out controllability problems at higher powers.
I see what you mean, I looked into it and the TPE331 line seems to have progressed much the same as the T53 with later variants being much more powerful. The question I have though, what time-line are we looking at for these later variants ? From what I can ascertain these more powerful engine variants are quite recent --
-
You know me.... ;D Fabric wings and some dinky 5-piston radial engines exposed out front.
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
early TPE331s were rated that low, but the TPE331-15 is up to at least 1500 shp and there may be higher-rated versions (I've not followed it of late). I remember that the TPE331-10 produced slightly over 1000 shp but had to be flat-rated to 750 shp in the long MU-2 and 650 shp in the short one due to engine-out controllability problems at higher powers.
I see what you mean, I looked into it and the TPE331 line seems to have progressed much the same as the T53 with later variants being much more powerful. The question I have though, what time-line are we looking at for these later variants ? From what I can ascertain these more powerful engine variants are quite recent --
Well, it depends on your definition of recent. I believe the high-powered TPE331 variants date from the 1980's (the Shorts Tucano has one, if memory serves me correctly). For a suitable T53, what power did those on the OV-1 have? That would certainly fit a late-1950's timeframe. As I said, if you really want to go early, the Mamba installation trialed on a Dakota looks quite sharp.
-
The only thing I would say Evan, is that all those you've mentioned are way under-powered for the Hornet. The Merlins used on the Hornet were 2030 hp each (the P-51H used a Packard built version of it), the TPE331 hardly pushed out 600 hp. Although one variant of the T53 does come close, 1800 hp
early TPE331s were rated that low, but the TPE331-15 is up to at least 1500 shp and there may be higher-rated versions (I've not followed it of late). I remember that the TPE331-10 produced slightly over 1000 shp but had to be flat-rated to 750 shp in the long MU-2 and 650 shp in the short one due to engine-out controllability problems at higher powers.
I see what you mean, I looked into it and the TPE331 line seems to have progressed much the same as the T53 with later variants being much more powerful. The question I have though, what time-line are we looking at for these later variants ? From what I can ascertain these more powerful engine variants are quite recent --
Well, it depends on your definition of recent. I believe the high-powered TPE331 variants date from the 1980's (the Shorts Tucano has one, if memory serves me correctly). For a suitable T53, what power did those on the OV-1 have? That would certainly fit a late-1950's timeframe. As I said, if you really want to go early, the Mamba installation trialed on a Dakota looks quite sharp.
I've just been chatting with Lars Opland about the OV-1 floatplane floats and engine power was something that came up in the conversation. They had 750 hp Evan, so to me it's a step backwards. Reading about the Dart though, this engine falls right into the time line, and in 1948-49, it was putting out around 1200-1400 hp. This would seem to me the engine to go with as a later engines were pumped up to put out 3000 hp.
-
Umm, methinks we've got a confusion going on here, the Grumman OV-1A Mohawk used 950hp
T53-L-3 engines, changed to 1,150hp T53-L-7 on the OV-1B and 1,400hp T53-L-701 on the OV-1D
The North American Aviation OV-10A Bronco had 715hp T76-G-410/412 engines, these were
changed to 1,040hp T76-G-420/421 on the OV-10D.
Anyhow, even the lowest powered engine used on the OV-1 was a late-50s engine.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/OV-1_Mohawk.jpg/640px-OV-1_Mohawk.jpg)
OV-1
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/OV-10_Bronco_firing_White_phosphorus.jpg/640px-OV-10_Bronco_firing_White_phosphorus.jpg)
OV-10
-
Umm, methinks we've got a confusion going on here
D'oh! ------ :-X
But whatever way, they're still underpowered for the time line I think (I can't see the Hornet being used in the 60's).
-
Umm, methinks we've got a confusion going on here
D'oh! ------ :-X
But whatever way, they're still underpowered for the time line I think (I can't see the Hornet being used in the 60's).
Well the Mustang was, I think it comes down how many there were and who operated them. i.e. had the Hornet / Sea Hornet been available in numbers before the end of the war in the Pacific you would likely have seen it retained as a replacement for Mosquito, Beaufighter etc post war and gone on to be used in the strike role in Korea as well as or instead of the Mustang with Commonwealth forces.
Imagine if the USAAF had employed a license produced version as a B-29 escort over Japan in large numbers, or even as a long range fighter bomber from carriers, there would have been large numbers cascaded to smaller air arms around the world into the 60s, French Sea Hornets over Indo China and Algeria anyone?
-
Using the Hornet anywhere in the near tropics may have been a problem though, as they discovered with the Mosquito in India as the glues used in its construction tended to break down. But it's a great idea nonetheless. :)
-
Using the Hornet anywhere in the near tropics may have been a problem though, as they discovered with the Mosquito in India as the glues used in its construction tended to break down. But it's a great idea nonetheless. :)
Essentially the same problem surfaced with the RAAF's Mosquitos. Delayed their entry into service and prevented them doing very much once they had entered service. In our case, the metal Beaufighter was the better aircraft.
-
Didn't the RAF operate Hornets in Malaya during the "Emergency"? I was aware of the Mosquitoes issues but believe that the Hornet used different adhesives as well as bonded alloy lower wing skins. Wasn't the Vampire also of mixed metal, plywood construction and operated in the region without major issues?
-
The Hornet was one of the first applications of bonded composite structure, bonded in the glue sense not the electrical. Many of the wood and metal components were glued one to the other with Redux phenolic adhesive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redux_(adhesive) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redux_(adhesive))
Redux was not susceptible to the humidity problems that plagued the Mosquito, which is was found
were not due to the type glue but to how it was applied, or not. Production control and qc problems
were considerd the cause.
-
What I am curious about is how early could the Mosquito and then the Hornet have been developed and put into service, had the official reluctance to go with something so revolutionary been avoided? An ideal would have been for the UK to push for production, of both the airframes and perhaps more importantly the RR Merlins, to be established in Canada and Australia as early as possible to supply the RAF. These long range aircraft could conceivably have been ferried from Canada to the UK and from Australia to the Middle East.
-
The very first chapter in the Sharp/Bowyer book on the Mosquito (also called Book 1) reveals that De Havilland first started to think about a 'twin-Merlin' medium bomber was to Specification P.13/36. They were thinking of adapting the DH.91 Albatross into a twin Merlin aircraft. The figures weren't very promising though so De Havilland developed the idea further, but it wasn't until 1938-39 that the Ministry started to take notice of what De Havilland was offering. You could argue that 36', 37' could have been an earlier starting point for the Mosquito.
-
The absolute worst thing I could ever do to the DH Hornet would be to put it on floats. It's just too beautiful to change. And this is coming from me. Really.
I'm afraid. :)
Alvis 3.1
-
The absolute worst thing I could ever do to the DH Hornet would be to put it on floats.
You wuz sayin'…
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ofbjz2GBhrg/TWqiXX4GL_I/AAAAAAAAArk/_5Dp05zU9r4/s1600/Sea%2BHornet.jpg)
-
What about a Sea Hornet NF.21
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/6486/imagedehavillandseahornod9.jpg)
crossed with APS-20 radar from Avenger TBM-3W.
(http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/grumman%20avenger%20aew/grumman%20avenger%20aew_2.jpg)
-
If someone wanted to try, this pic probably provides the basis for a little photoshopped proof that the USN flew Sea Hornets... ;)
(http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o679/Mark_Allen_M3/Locations/RNSeaHornetsalongsideUSNaircraftFloydBennettFieldlate1940s_zps7e0aca46.jpg)
-
There was one tested by the RCAF for the RAF at Namao, Edmonton. Winter trials, so how about a USAAF/USAF one in Alaska ---
-
What about a Sea Hornet NF.21
([url]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/6486/imagedehavillandseahornod9.jpg[/url])
crossed with APS-20 radar from Avenger TBM-3W.
([url]http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/grumman%20avenger%20aew/grumman%20avenger%20aew_2.jpg[/url])
AAIIEEE!!!
My sense of aesthetics just exploded!
;D
Alvis 3.1
-
AAIIEEE!!!
My sense of aesthetics just exploded!
;D
Alvis 3.1
Think of it as the reverse of the classic story…in this case the Prince/Princess is kissed and then turns into the frog... ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVskjaRRHiRH5dbagt1rxplcmN5HIkSRve6phiv9BykUPrQLhL)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/explosion-153710_640_zps3bb8158c.png)
(http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.9389503.1863/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)
-
What about a Sea Hornet NF.21
([url]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/6486/imagedehavillandseahornod9.jpg[/url])
crossed with APS-20 radar from Avenger TBM-3W.
([url]http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/grumman%20avenger%20aew/grumman%20avenger%20aew_2.jpg[/url])
Hmm!, we'd have to think of an alternative arrangement for the guns, in the wings maybe ----- ??? I wonder if it would need a bigger fin/rudder too ---
-
USAAF Sea Hornets you say? How about USN as well?
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/F-81B-USAAF1947.jpg) (http://s647.photobucket.com/user/CliffyB/media/Artwork/F-81B-USAAF1947.jpg.html)
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/F3G-2NFirefly-USN1948.jpg) (http://s647.photobucket.com/user/CliffyB/media/Artwork/F3G-2NFirefly-USN1948.jpg.html)
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/F3G-2NFirefly-USN19482.jpg) (http://s647.photobucket.com/user/CliffyB/media/Artwork/F3G-2NFirefly-USN19482.jpg.html)
Did these A LONG time ago when I was on a night fighter kick. The USAAF one is from a unit that flew P-51s in the Pacific. The USN ones are from a Hellcat and Corsair night fighter squadron.
Enjoy :)
-
USN Hornets. Love each one :-* :-* :-*
-
USN Hornets. Love each one :-* :-* :-*
Surely that should be "USN Sea Hornets"? ;D ;D
-
Hmm!, we'd have to think of an alternative arrangement for the guns, in the wings maybe ----- ??? I wonder if it would need a bigger fin/rudder too ---
No need for guns. This would be AEW only.
May well need to do something for tail though.
-
USN Hornets. Love each one :-* :-* :-*
Surely that should be "USN Sea Hornets"? ;D ;D
Yes --- USN Sea Hornets.
Optionally: USN has its own designation and name. Whatever that might be ?
-
Under USN manufacturer designations, DeHavilland was assigned the letters DH, DeHavilland Canada was given C. So a fighter, first one purchased, would either be a FDH, or an FC, although that just looks wrong to me. A later plane would be either an F1C or F1DH. If you jack in a backstory of the USN buying a few Mosquitos, then the Hornet would be the F1DH or F1C.
Name wise, they'd likely stick with the Sea Hornet, or maybe just plain Hornet, IMHO.
USN F1DH-3B Hornet sounds appropriately cumbersome in terminology for one serving during the Korea conflict. It also means the F-18 would have to be called the Hornet 2. :)
Alvis 3.1
-
Under USN manufacturer designations, DeHavilland was assigned the letters DH, DeHavilland Canada was given C. So a fighter, first one purchased, would either be a FDH, or an FC, although that just looks wrong to me. A later plane would be either an F1C or F1DH. If you jack in a backstory of the USN buying a few Mosquitos, then the Hornet would be the F1DH or F1C.
Name wise, they'd likely stick with the Sea Hornet, or maybe just plain Hornet, IMHO.
USN F1DH-3B Hornet sounds appropriately cumbersome in terminology for one serving during the Korea conflict. It also means the F-18 would have to be called the Hornet 2. :)
Alvis 3.1
Thanks. Never would have figured that out.
Yes - "sounds appropriately cumbersome in terminology for one serving during the Korea conflict"
-
Not exactly, the two-letter DH designator was one of a small series of short-lived two letter designators of
the 1920s-early '30s. The DH designator, per the 1922 standardization, was originally used 1927-1931.
DH aircraft can be confusing because of the use of the DH model number on pre-standardization types,
e.g. DH-4, or adding an X prefix to the model number e.g. XDH-80 for the single D.H. 80 Puss Moth
purchased in 1934 for the USN Attache in London.
The later C for De Havilland Canada was assigned to Otters purchased in 1955-56.
In the WWII period, up to 1946, C was used for Curtiss (21-46), Culver (43-46) and Cessna(43).
Note also that assigment was to manufacturer not designer so only De Havilland built aircraft
would receive the DH or C, as the profiles show with the G designator Goodyear built Sea Hornet.
Fer my money I'd have them built by Canadian Car & Foundry, 1942-45 designator W, and as the first of a type
from a given manufacturer does not have a numeral in the designator, it would be the FW-1,2,3 and on; second
type the F2W-1,2,3 etc.
Greg's suggested AEW variant might be an FW-1W, or an F2W-1W.
An F2W designator would require that the Hornet/Sea Hornet be the second fighter type built by CC&F for the USN,
and there is a way around that. CC&F assembled the Grumman FF-1 under license as the GG-1/G-23 so ...
what if a couple had been bailed back to the USN and designated FW-1? If so, by default the CC&F built Sea
Hornet becomes the F2W.
:icon_fsm:
-
Yeah, what he said.
Gee, I feel dumb now!
:)
Nah, I had a funny feeling the DH designations didn't seem right for a reason. CC@F makes more sense.
Alvis 3.1
-
Hmm!, we'd have to think of an alternative arrangement for the guns, in the wings maybe ----- ??? I wonder if it would need a bigger fin/rudder too ---
No need for guns. This would be AEW only.
Ah! right, another thought then -- second operator, where abouts would he go --- tandem seating, back-to-back maybe
-
Hmm!, we'd have to think of an alternative arrangement for the guns, in the wings maybe ----- ??? I wonder if it would need a bigger fin/rudder too ---
No need for guns. This would be AEW only.
Ah! right, another thought then -- second operator, where abouts would he go --- tandem seating, back-to-back maybe
I think it's getting a wee cramped in that fuselage when you consider the electronics that you need to fit in as well (and a trifle warm with all those valves)...
-
Hmm!, we'd have to think of an alternative arrangement for the guns, in the wings maybe ----- ??? I wonder if it would need a bigger fin/rudder too ---
No need for guns. This would be AEW only.
Ah! right, another thought then -- second operator, where abouts would he go --- tandem seating, back-to-back maybe
I think it's getting a wee cramped in that fuselage when you consider the electronics that you need to fit in as well (and a trifle warm with all those valves)...
Perfect for North Atlantic winters then ;)
-
How about a pair of Armstrong Siddeley Pythons in place of the Merlins?
-
Ah! right, another thought then -- second operator, where abouts would he go --- tandem seating, back-to-back maybe
I think it's getting a wee cramped in that fuselage when you consider the electronics that you need to fit in as well (and a trifle warm with all those valves)...
Jaybee, over on the What-If Forum, is building a Jetstream AEW, he's made a neat radome from details given to him by Joe Cherrie. It's like one of these APS-20 radomes but smaller. It could be a better radome to install on the Hornet.
-
How about a pair of Armstrong Siddeley Pythons in place of the Merlins?
The Python is huge in comparison to the Merlin, and way too large for
the Hornet airframe.
The Mambas tried on on the Short Sturgeon didn't work out, they destabilized
the aircraft so would likely also be out for a Hornet.
The fact is, in period, the Merlins are more than adequate, if you want
an exotic look then go for a conta-prop variation, perhaps use the propeller
system of the Merlin 140s used on the Sturgeon.
Why so many assume that a turboprop has to be better is beyond me. :-\
-
How about a pair of Armstrong Siddeley Pythons in place of the Merlins?
The Python is huge in comparison to the Merlin, and way too large for
the Hornet airframe.
Yes ---
-
Why so many assume that a turboprop has to be better is beyond me. :-\
Probably because the aviation industry and media of the time kept on telling us exactly that.
Gas turbines were the way of the future and piston engines were past it according to their 'words of wisdom'. The fact that they weren't comparing apples to apples didn't actually get mentioned.....
-
Merlins are fine with me, I was just looking at the timelines and a photo of the python on a test rig and thought it didn't look anywhere near as big as I thought it was.
ideally the Hornet / Seahorntet would have entered service earlier than it did and been replaced by jets in the early 50s
-
Well actually, what I've used for the front half of my Python FTB nacelle is a Sea Fury cowling, with the rear end coming from a Swift (or was that an Attacker --- ). I measured and scaled a drawing of it, plus checked some dimension from the Wyvern kit so I could arrive at what I've built so far. So Greg's profile in the first post of a Hornet with Centaurus engines might work. However in the RW, the Python is as Jon says, enormous, it would take in the whole of the nacelle that I've made for my model, whereas the Merlin in the next nacelle over, the end of the engine is before the wing leading edge.
-
Why so many assume that a turboprop has to be better is beyond me. :-\
Might not be better but they often look cooler... ;)
-
Why so many assume that a turboprop has to be better is beyond me. :-\
Might not be better but they often look cooler... ;)
"Might not be better but they often look cooler..." Kitbashing wisdom stated eloquently :)
-
Why so many assume that a turboprop has to be better is beyond me. :-\
Dependent of course on the engine in question and the application, they often are. For example, the power/weight ratio can often be better. Of course, this is not a golden rule. That said, one can just as easily go another way and use rotary engines... ;) So long as at the end of the day, you have fun. ;)
-
Just imagine if Felix Wankel & Hanns Dieter Paschke had gone to work for Bristol engines before WWII...
-
Something different: Sea Hornets converted to Target drones at the end of their lives.
-
Just imagine if Felix Wankel & Hanns Dieter Paschke had gone to work for Bristol engines before WWII...
You'd have oil tanks as large as the fuel tanks. ;D
Of course Wankels are not the only type of rotary-piston engine:
http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualICeng/rotaryIC/rotaryIC.htm#webb (http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualICeng/rotaryIC/rotaryIC.htm#webb)
Lots more weird IC here:
http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualICeng/unusualICeng.htm (http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualICeng/unusualICeng.htm)
;D
-
I was actually thinking the earlier style with a rotating cylinder block ;)
-
Something different: Sea Hornets converted to Target drones at the end of their lives.
That'd be good, they'd have been so fast nothing would have been able to catch them. :)
-
I was actually thinking the earlier style with a rotating cylinder block ;)
I know but that's boring... ;D
-
So does Hawker De Havilland Aus produce that Hornet Greg ?
Err...yeah...um... :-[
-
Random idea: South African Hornet in the same scheme as their P-51s:
(http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/obr1/aircraft_p-51_saaf.jpg)
-
Random idea: South African Hornet in the same scheme as their P-51s:
([url]http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/obr1/aircraft_p-51_saaf.jpg[/url])
Possibly with anti-glare panels on the inboard sides of the engine cowlings?
-
Sea Hornet: Tintin desert markings. ;D
-
How about RN FAA used over Korea with Korean War recognition stripes etc?
-
How about RN FAA used over Korea with Korean War recognition stripes etc?
As per this:
(http://www.military-art.com/mall/images/800s/ka0006.jpg)
Good idea
-
Exactly, would change which carriers and squadrons were committed to the conflict but this is a what if site after all. Maybe Australia was unwilling or unable to commit Sydney for some of her tours, or perhaps the RN saw the need to fast track jets to the conflict, hence a larger carrier and hence a different mix of aircraft besides the Attackers/Sea Vampires/super rushed Seahawks etc.
-
I thought I posted this here before, but it's my idea of an improved Hornet (for the record though, the Hornet is on a short list of my most favorite aircraft [and there's not many either])
So apart from the contra-props, I've re-done the nose for a bigger radar dish, moved the two crew under an elongated canopy, added 200 Gal drop-tanks, and given it a bigger fin/rudder. The cannon will be moved into a ventral pannier which will be mounted just behind the back-seater
-
^ Nice! :) A couple of first generation/development AAMs wouldn't look out of place on this at all. ;)
-
I like that a lot kitnut, that canopy vastly improves the look of the real two-seat design.
-
The RAAF took on charge a single F.21 Sea Hornet in 1949 for evaluation and trials purposes. Nothing came of it though, in real life. I'd expect the Canberra and the last of the Mosquitoes were sufficient. However, it might have been possible we might have seen Hornets in RAAF service for Korea...
-
I like that a lot kitnut, that canopy vastly improves the look of the real two-seat design.
Believe it or not but the canopy is another De Havilland product, although I used two to make the one. It comes from a Chipmunk (the Canadian version that is in the Airfix kit). Amazingly, it just fits --- but I did extend the cockpit opening by 10mm. The windshield though comes from somewhere else and for the life of me I can't figure out where it came from (but it fits to the front of the Chipmunk canopy just right)
-
The RAAF took on charge a single F.21 Sea Hornet in 1949 for evaluation and trials purposes. Nothing came of it though, in real life. I'd expect the Canberra and the last of the Mosquitoes were sufficient. However, it might have been possible we might have seen Hornets in RAAF service for Korea...
The post war structure was meant to be four interceptor squadrons (reserve), three long range fighter squadrons and one tactical reconnaissance squadron with fighter type aircraft. Initially all had Mustangs but you could almost see the intent of the reserve units having short range jets while the long range fighter was the Hornet.
-
Via Facebook
DH Hornet Project
The photo of Hornet F.3 PX351 was taken at RAF Hullavington in September 1946. It had just been delivered directly from the de Havilland factory at Hatfield to 10 MU (Maintenance Unit). From here it went onto be delivered to 64 Squadron at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in 1948.
This photo came from a batch of glass plate negatives discovered around 10 years ago covering a range of RAF types then in store at Hullavington. Its quality is such that it could have been taken yesterday.
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/92526459_3035417829858091_7473912049081253888_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=eUTTBOciU1kAX_SCGea&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=00_AT_vI78pK4rB6pGh8x9sgbdP0g4Ok1PISxSm729goWb1uQ&oe=62020598)
-
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/13323470_1056548647745029_6154147717212286674_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=lOn9RHcaKo0AX85UHkf&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=00_AT-7ay4bdcXqM4FuemmsMX93LZnczHBO10uHkUodnO3Vjw&oe=620105C4)
-
I've just saved both of those as wallpapers/screensavers, thank you TBG! That second one (with Pat Fillingham at the controls?) is a real classic.
-
Yes, they are very nice photos of a very nice looking aircraft. Maybe one day in the future we will see one flying again (TT193).
(https://warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/de-Havilland-Sea-Hornet-TT193-while-with-Spartan-Air-Services-Richard-de-Boere-photo-01.jpg)
https://warbirdsnews.com/aircraft-restoration/de-havilland-sea-hornet-airworthy-restoration-project.html
-
It might just happen, a couple of years ago they found the wing center section of TT193 (from just outside the nacelle to outside nacelle on the other side) on a farm about 30 km south of where I live (actually probably from the wing fold hinges).
From what I understand, it's now in New Zealand at the place that restores Mosquitos. I had a brief email exchange with the owner down there, he said it is probably a ""very"" long term project.
-
Photos here: https://warbirdsnews.com/aircraft-restoration/de-havilland-sea-hornet-airworthy-restoration-project.html
-
I made a suggestion to the owner that they might have better luck finding engines from a Short Sturgeon. It was powered by two Merlin 140's, these were the same as 130/131's except with contra-prop gear in the PSRU and quite a few were used operationally.
-
It might just happen, a couple of years ago they found the wing center section of TT193 (from just outside the nacelle to outside nacelle on the other side) on a farm about 30 km south of where I live (actually probably from the wing fold hinges).
From what I understand, it's now in New Zealand at the place that restores Mosquitos. I had a brief email exchange with the owner down there, he said it is probably a ""very"" long term project.
Pioneer Aero (http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz/project/sea-hornet-tt193/) is the firm planning to tackle the Sea Hornet, Avspecs (http://warbirdrestoration.co.nz/) is the company that restored the three Mosquitos. Same airfield but different companies with a shared history :smiley: I expect the teams behind the woodwork for the Mossies will be involved with the Sea Hornet too but, as kitnut said, it's a long term thing and not much detail is known right now.