Hawker Eagle Tempest projects

[Graham Boak]

Looking at the P.1027 (hello Freightdog conversion) and the P.1030, it struck me that the longer nose would require a longer rear fuselage - as with the Fw,190 series.  I did see a suggestion that Hawkers did consider this, but without reference to any new project number or the intended increase in length.   Possibly the P.1027, with its Mustang-like belly radiator adding some side area aft of the cg, might do without; but the leading edge radiators of the P.1030 surely would need something?  Or would the lack of a chin radiator suffice?

 

Does anyone know of these further studies, and just what was done?

[JWM]

I found it here 

Model of P 1030 http://www.unicraft.biz/on/hawker1030/h1030.htm

[rossm]

British Secret Projects - Fighters & Bombers 1935 to 1950 by Tony Buttler has a drawing and notes with dimensions - PM me an email address for a scan

[Graham Boak]

Thanks for the tip: I have it, but had missed the dimensions.  I don't quite understand why I did: sorry to have bothered you all.  Yes, the P.1030 had both changes, with 2ft 6in longer, and a smaller fin.  (Looks a lot like a Fury.)  Presumably this was a continuation of the Tempest fuselage lines with the entire tail moved back.  Looks like it would need two Tempests (or one Tempest and a Fury) plus the P.1027 conversion.  Interesting, but I think I'll stick with the less appealing P.1027,  One thought about the conversion is that the opening to the belly radiator seems too small, even compared to the drawing.  May reassess that later if I bring the two together - but it still looks small.  Yes the flaps would constrict what could be done, but I think we can see why Hawker reverted to the leading edge intakes of the Mk.I.

 

I can't help feeling that FW had a better idea with the parallel sided extension.  Much cheaper and hence quicker/cheaper to achieve.  That far back the boundary layer is fairly thick so minor fluctuations in the flow lines would cause negligible drag.  Perhaps had it gone further on they might have seen the FW solution and adopted it.  P.1030B anyone?  Or what about the Eagle Fury P.1032?  No drawings?  I think we have enough to be going on with.

 

I can see a Korean War scenario with Eagle Sea Furies and Eagle Wyverns.  Not sure about the AS or NF roles, an Eagle Firefly would perhaps be too much.

[FinnAndersen]

Have you considered Hawker Fury LA610?

 

Might be an easier modification of a Sea Fury.

 

Mentioned here: https://navalairhistory.com/2018/02/21/hawkers-fastest-fury-la610/

 

/Finn

[Work In Progress]

12 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 Possibly the P.1027, with its Mustang-like belly radiator adding some side area aft of the cg, might do without; but the leading edge radiators of the P.1030 surely would need something?  Or would the lack of a chin radiator suffice?

You're absolutely right, and it's not just the cooling differences and the sheer length of the nose, it's also the extra prop density. Even though that almost eliminates aerodynamic asymmetry it has the effect of relaxing overall stability in both pitch and yaw. It's a racing certainty that any Eagle Tempest development intended for actual squadron service would have needed some permutation of a bigger tail (horizontal as well as vertical) and/or a longer tail moment. The 190-style parallel-sided rear fuselage extension would have been the quickest and easiest way to go about it, and would be a very plausible and visually interesting in-service what-if, thinking especially of a wartime "minimum acceptable change" modification in the "Spitfire V to IX" fashion, as one might conceive in a hypothetical jetless "RAF 1946" scenario

Edited March 31, 2023 by Work In Progress

[Graham Boak]

Finn: I have often considered LA610, both in its first incarnation (with a modified Shackleton cowling and prop) or the rather nicer RAF Fury Mk.I with its neatly-cooled Sabre. (Not sure how to best model that chin intake, neatly.)  But this is an Eagle Tempest thread. initially inspired by the P.1030.  Logically, once the Fury had appeared, then Hawker would have used that rather than the Tempest as a next-generation fighter with an Eagle.  The P.1030 would have been the end of the line for the Tempest, without the jets.   However, an Eagle Fury would require the same changes, in principle, as the Eagle Tempest, so any discussion points would read across.  Whether a dedicated ground-attack fighter would need an Eagle is an open question, but the FAA might.  However, I don't have a spare Sea Fury kit.

 

Work In Progress:  True, I wasn't considering the additional effect of the props.  However some of the original tail would have been to help counter the asymmetries, so as the P.1030 did have (would have had) a lengthened fuselage then there's a balance to be found.  From a modelling point of view, it would be easy enough to remove the entire fin and rudder whilst extending the fuselage, and replace them afterwards, reduced in size as to taste.  The rear fuselage could be left as a parallel section or sanded smooth, again as desired.  One point about the quick (FW style) extension is that it might have provided an airframe in advance of getting any engines.

 

From a modelling point of view, there's an extra foot of wingspan to be found.  As the tips, ailerons etc seem to be the same, it has to come in the centre-section, presumably for larger radiators than the Sabre.  Here the Matchbox kit benefits from just requiring a spacer on the centre-line, but it would be easy enough to simply halve the single-piece lower wing of other kits.  More work is required on the uppersurface wingroots, but fairly straightforward stuff.  Tempting to ignore it.  Oops, sorry, I mean assume span was not extended for the production version.

[Work In Progress]

I think we are finding some reasons which suggest that, even without the rise of the jets, the 1030 may not have been that great an idea in practice. Same for an Eagle Fury, which I have seen WHIFfed and looks just like a baby Wyvern - here is the enterprising fellow who made one. By the time we are looking for 4000+ hp singles, the 2 x 2000hp formula has a lot to recommend it, a la Hornet or Tigercat. 

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=42285.60

[Graham Boak]

The major problem with high-powered twins, especially on carriers, is the single-engine failure case.  Which is why the Gannet went to the Twin Mamba.  The Tigercat did not exactly have a stellar on-board career.  I doubt whether an Eagle twin could have ever been deck-qualified.   I don't think what were discussing was trending to "small-engined" twins but to facing the problem that 4000hp fighters are going to be bigger than 2000hp ones.  Witness a couple of the US designs, the Boeing F8B and - I think there was another.  Also the Skyraider and Mauler, in the strike role.

 

I like the Eagle Sea Fury in your picture, although it does go against your requirement for a longer fuselage/bigger tail.  As the Python Wyvern went to a larger tail - was this influenced by problems with the Eagle-engined TF.1?  (I have just been interrupted mid-sentence by the arrival of my Eagle Wyvern conversion - excuse me for needing a moment to to step back to Hawker designs.)  Looking at that Eagle Fury, are the radiators big enough, bearing in mind that the P.1030 had larger ones and a larger span?  There must be a lot more cooling required from 4000hp than for 2000hp, so we are looking for larger radiators than the Tempest Mk.I.  Not that the earliest Eagles were 4000hp, but were still a lot more than the Sabre.  Give the Sea Fury a longer fuselage and wider wing, we're getting back to the Tempest anyway.   But I still see that as the next step from the P.1030 in this "no jets yet" scenario.

 

I do think that WiF modelling is at its best when the subject is but one step away from history, and obeying the rules of physics.  (That I once did a Triebflugel shows that Wiffing is fun anyway.  An Aeronavale Pogo is just one step, plus it did use up a Seafire transfer.)  

[Work In Progress]

Yes, anything in the 4000 hp piston class, assuming it's required to be actually militarily useful in anything other than a zoom-up, zoom-down point-defence role, is going to have to be bigger, partly to carry the sheer weight of the power units and the fuel required.

The Sea Hornet as a ship operated type didn't seem unduly hindered by the single-engine failure case: at least you could get back to the ship and ditch within reach of rescue, or possibly divert to land. Better than having your single Eagle pack up, anyway. And you also get the advantage, in a twin, of being able to see the ship or runway you are trying to land on in normal operations, something that would be very difficult in the 1027 - the 1030 drawings I have seen seem to offer a better angle over the nose, and the raised Fury cockpit is a bit better again, but none of them would be idea for forward view and deflection shooting compared to a Tigercat or Hornet. 

But we digress.

Cooling: yes, that is a definite concern and at the power levels concerned in a liquid-cooled installation, a scaled-up P-51-style arrangement would probably be very viable, or the wing-root cooling arrangements of a Hornet's 2 x 2000 hp would probably equally well serve 1 x 3500 or 1 x 4000 hp. 

[Graham Boak]

The Sea Hornet didn't have two 4000hp engines. The problem is not in-flight but at critical moments of the take-off or landing.  If you have to ditch, doing so above your critical Vmc is going to be pretty fast.  Given the history of the Mosquito. the Hornet must have been marginal at best.

 

I wasn't thinking of shiplanding a Super Tempest, but I'm assuming the same nose for the 1027 and 1033.  (Given the starting point of the resin P.1027 nose...)  However, there were a lot of aircraft with worse views over the nose for dogfighting or landing.  No twin has ever been as agile as the equivalent technology single: there are more important things than field of view.

[Tailspin Turtle]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Sea Hornet didn't have two 4000hp engines. The problem is not in-flight but at critical moments of the take-off or landing.  If you have to ditch, doing so above your critical Vmc is going to be pretty fast.  Given the history of the Mosquito. the Hornet must have been marginal at best.

 

Graham: Strictly speaking, the Vmc is only a consideration on takeoff or a waveoff if full power is required on the critical engine. It doesn't come into play when ditching because you've committed to "landing". However, generally the only reason to ditch a twin with one engine inoperative and feathered is if you're out of gas or on fire.

[gingerbob]

... or you're in a light twin where, as the saying goes, "The other engine is just there to get you to the crash site."

 

I don't think (not that I've really looked into it) that the Tigercat's on-deck history has much to do with the fact that it's a twin, and it certainly wouldn't have been any more of a problem than all those early jets the Navy kept trying to make a go of!

[Graham Boak]

You will want to ditch at as low a speed and sink rate as possible, which is not as low as you would like if you can't keep it straight and level.  But yes, the critical points are take-off and wave-off.

 

There I was thinking it was only the two of us chasing each other around in this thread.  My original question has been answered.  Moving past twins and carefully avoiding Eagle Spearfish or Firebrand etc., does leave the question: what about the Eagle Spiteful?  Could Supermarine not have done something better than the Type 391?  Another thread, but lacking (I think) enough meat on options.

[Graham Boak]

Thanks to Work In Progress, I've gone back to the Buttler book and looked again at the noses of the P.1027 and P1030.  My problem was the engine couldn't be lowered to improve the view and maintain prop clearance - there's no suggestion of a 5-blade prop.  However the answer can be seen in the Fury: raise the cockpit.  So anyone modelling the P.1030 could start with a Tempest wing but a Sea Fury fuselage.  Lengthened, of course.  Then lots of Milliput to get the forward top line right.  Which would also (I strongly suspect) come in useful to widen the nose in the region of the front cylinders.

 

Which gives us a strong guide to just what the P.1032 Eagle Fury would have looked like, presumably with slightly widened radiators.

[Graham Boak]

Sorting out kits now viewed as surplus, I found that I actually have two Furies, both Pioneer two-seaters (more's the pity).  I have also come to to the conclusion that Hawker abandoned the Eagle Tempest studies not because of the perceived obsolescence of the piston engine but because the Tempest was no longer seen as their best starting point.  Hence the P.1032, or Eagle Fury.  Sadly no plans, but logically they'd have placed the P.1030 changes onto a Fury fuselage and wing, at least as a starting point.  Then the lack of interest in any new piston-engined fighter would have become clearer.  There may have been (or were?) further iterations on the Eagle Fury theme to come, but I think that by then RR's heel-dragging on a date for the production Eagle will have been apparent, and fatal.

 

In modelling terms this requires an extended Fury fuselage (as P.1030 was to P.1027) and leading edge radiators - if these were to be the same size as those on the P.1030 (as seems only reasonable) then would the undercarriage needs to be moved further apart- which basically ends up back with a Tempest wing!    It would be very interesting to see how Hawkers addressed this.  In Fury/Sea Fury terms, this is away from the comparatively lightweight ground attack aircraft that the RAF was looking for, and rather large for the Navy's carriers.  But a modelling challenge - especially starting with the two-seater.