Westland Wyvern

Illustrious, Formidable, & Victorious: both hangars 16′ height
Indomitable: lower hangar 16′, upper hangar 14′
Implacable, Indefatigable: both hangars 14′ height

Thanks for the figures, odd how they started getting lower for a while … ?

I can only think that when it was first designed it had to have two folds to be accommodated below decks on the then current carriers, but by the time it entered service (almost 10 years later!) the newer carriers could house the Wyvern with a single fold?

Illustrious, Formidable, & Victorious: both hangars 16′ height
Indomitable: lower hangar 16′, upper hangar 14′
Implacable, Indefatigable: both hangars 14′ height

Victorious as rebuilt: 17’6″
Colossus class: 17’6″
Majestic class: 17’6″
Centaur class: 17’6″
Eagle & Ark Royal: both hangars 17’6″

Just as an aside… USN Essex & Midway class carriers: 17’6″; supercarriers 22’+

Thanks chaps for the updates on the reason for the double fold wings. I was showing an American chum the Gannet at Duxford and he fell about laughing at the wingfold set-up and the Mamba engine installation. An excess of complication was his viewpoint.

But compared to the Python, it is accepted that the airframe needed far less modification to accomodate the Clyde.. thus giving more time to run and develop the engine in situ and flight. Also it was the test pilots, primarily Harold Penrose who prefered the Clyde option due to its superior responsiveness and power.. even in its somewhat embryonic lifespan.

But i agree on the catapult side of its development and reliability, as it was never given the chance to fully prove itself as a viable option.
Its interesting to note as well that the Clyde utilised six blade Dehavilland contra-props.. whereas the Python was fitted with eight blade Rotol units.

Hmm that sound like Rolls talk, the back end was based on the Welland, hardly slim or efficient. Major airframe mods would occur with most engine type changes anyway.
I’m sure I have it somewhere that the Clyde didn’t perform like it was promised, and don’t forget it never faced the harshest test of all, going to sea and being catapault launched.

The Clyde was a bulky mess, it was part axial and part centrifugal flow and looked like both engines mated together. The all axial python was the more modern and smoother design, I actually think that Westlands did the right thing, you can’t really say they should of persisted with the troublesome Eagle piston engine and and not go with the turbo-prop as nothing would have advanced.

Beg to differ there James. As i understand it the Clyde, even in its original form was more powerful (4,050 shp as opposed to the early Pythons 3400shp), more efficient, more reliable, and had been the subject of more bench testing than the Python before it went into TF.2 VP120. It was also a far more compact engine than the Python, resulting in far less modification to the original TF.1 airframe to accomodate it and a narrower less bulky front fuselage profile.
The Clyde was also considered to have a far greater chance of further development than the Python, and more importantly, a superior throttle response. Something the Python never really enjoyed even in its final form.

But as has been said before, Westlands hands were tied, and after Rolls Royce dropped the Clyde completely it had no alternative but to use the bomber and transport designed Python.

Were there actually any newer carriers as such?

Ark Royal and Eagle were a lot bigger than their predecessors, although as you say, they were laid down during the war years. They had double height hangars as originally designed but experience with the Corsair and other types caused the Navy to realise that even that hangar height would not be sufficient for the new aircraft that were expected to enter service and as built Ark and Eagle were even larger.

Most of the other post war British carriers were the various Centaur-class ships. These were also of war time design and smaller than Ark & Eagle and were thus limited on what types could be operated as sizes went up and so the survivors were converted to commando (helo) carriers. It was only with advent of the small Sea Harrier that Hermes could go back to fixed wing ops.

The other post war carrier, Victorious, was – of course – a war veteran but she was extensively rebuilt post war and her hangars were enlarged as part of that.

Were there actually any newer carriers as such? If I remember correctly all the Fleet Carriers were either built or at least laid down in WWII and their design would have predated the Wyvern?

Possibly, time scales were certainly close design wise, but Albion, Eagle, and Ark Royal were all firmly post-war completions.
Could it be that the Wyvern was originally only envisaged for the lighter (smaller) carrier class but ended up being used more on the Audacious class?

At the risk of another thread drift, what’s the jet at the back of the Cranfield picture behind the Tempest II?

Supermarine 545 XA181, the prototype of a supersonic development of the Swift. The 545 project was cancelled in 1955 and the type never flew. The one 545 built was taken on by Cranfield but didn’t survive into preservation, being scrapped in the mid-60s.

Scouse, it’s the Supermarine 545 prototype, one of the promising designs that were axed in the late 1950s, could be regarded as a Supersonic Swift development.

At the risk of another thread drift, what’s the jet at the back of the Cranfield picture behind the Tempest II? Looks a bit like a Swift round the tail, but it appears to have a single nose intake (unless there’s a nose cone been removed) and the canopy looks too bulged as well.

I can only think that when it was first designed it had to have two folds to be accommodated below decks on the then current carriers, but by the time it entered service (almost 10 years later!) the newer carriers could house the Wyvern with a single fold?

Were there actually any newer carriers as such? If I remember correctly all the Fleet Carriers were either built or at least laid down in WWII and their design would have predated the Wyvern?

In the Gannets case it was because the wing span was too great to allow for a single fold and still be able to clear the hanger deck height, or be narrow enough for the deck lifts for the carriers then in use when the type was first envisaged. CofG issues with this tricycle gear type ruled out the Fairey aft folding wing Spearfish/Firelfy style used on their tail sitters.

The Wyvern is a bit more complicated as not all had the folding wing-tips, it dosen’t seem Mk dependant either, most airframes had it, some didn’t.
I can only think that when it was first designed it had to have two folds to be accommodated below decks on the then current carriers, but by the time it entered service (almost 10 years later!) the newer carriers could house the Wyvern with a single fold?
I do have a picture of a line-up of Wyverns with both style of wing-folds.

PS excellent Cranfield pic WP, just look at all those prototypes!

Slight thread drift but I’ve always wondered why several British naval aircraft, including the Wyvern, had a second fold on each wing.

Yes, for hangar height. British carriers were smaller than US in all dimensions. To get the F4U Vought Corsair in, the type had a few inches lopped off the wingtip which coincidentally made the aircraft easier to land on as it reduced the tendency to float.

Slight thread drift but I’ve always wondered why several British naval aircraft, including the Wyvern, had a second fold on each wing. Was this for clearance on the hangar deck? Otherwise it seems to add extra complication and therefore weight, which is not a “good thing”.

are there no surviving wyverns left? the H24 engine was a fenominal piece of engineering. i would love to have heard one of these run.

I remember watching therm when they were based at Ford in the mid-50s, I would guess. Always one of my favourites and I recall a display at Farnborough early in the 50s. There is certainly someone on here whose avatar needs no further explanation!

Stripped back to the bare metal scheme that reflects its history as the aircraft never flew and only received the FAA scheme when it was transferred to the FAAM in the 70s.

Shot here of the aircraft as it was when at Cranfield in the 60s.

Out of interest why is the aircraft stripped to bare metal now?

The Clyde was a bulky mess, it was part axial and part centrifugal flow and looked like both engines mated together. The all axial python was the more modern and smoother design, I actually think that Westlands did the right thing, you can’t really say they should of persisted with the troublesome Eagle piston engine and and not go with the turbo-prop as nothing would have advanced. This was all in an era when most turbo-props were having serious development issues, let alone a catapault launched contra-rotating prop type.

Have often wondered if the FAAM have ever considered trying to get this example running, as the RAFM did several years ago with some of their Axis aircraft. Just a thought.