would it be possible to fit a napier sabre to a spitfire?

that looks like a B4rstardised spitfire/corsair/mustang

is it really a firebrand?

What diameter prop would you have to have. how would you extend the u/c legs for clearance and that narrow track would be fatal and re-engineer the bays to take the longer legs.
John

What, like this?

Maybe not such a good idea after all. 😮

Best wishes
Steve P

I´m having a good old laugh here at all the folks getting their knickers in a twist about an entirely hypothetical project.:D

Sounds like a good idea to me. You have to wonder if they would have tried it at the time if circumstances had been different.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder…. :p

ah well another ludicrous idea consigned to the scrapheap 😀

now then, what about that thunderscreech project….. :diablo:

Now that was a first class DOG 😀

cheers baz

ah well another ludicrous idea consigned to the scrapheap 😀

now then, what about that thunderscreech project….. :diablo:

Sounds like a recipe for a right old dog nashio,my reasons…

the spiteful/attackers were dogs
the sabre was an overcomplicated dog
even (imo) the centaurus [which sounds lovely] is an overcomplicated engineers nightmare 😀
Like others I was impressed with the radial 109 though

cheers baz

thats why i say late model, low back, with attacker wings (inwardly retracting landing gear? ) not sure really

i just think it was one of those things that interested me 🙂

What diameter prop would you have to have. how would you extend the u/c legs for clearance and that narrow track would be fatal and re-engineer the bays to take the longer legs. Sorry pointless exercise in my opinion. The developed “big ” Spits weren’t entirely happy bunnies. even the contra’s had to have larger rudders.

John

I beg to differ. If you check the available specs I think you’ll find the final service versions of the sabre were only putting out about 2080hp

‘Flight’ July 25th 1946 – Napier Sabre VII ‘Maximum power with water/methanol injection – 3,080 bhp at 3,850rpm + 17 1/4 lb boost’

The Sabre VII was production ready (after considerable delays) but ran into the same problems the RR Eagle 24 etc did, i.e. the jet age.

Other sources put the Sabre VII’s output at 3,500hp. A development version reputedly reached over 5,000hp. I just don’t see how anyone can claim the Merlin was as powerful as the Sabre in any comparable way – the Sabre was producing 2,000hp in 1939 on the bench when the Merlin was good for 1,000 – 1,200hp. In 1945 the by-then reliable Sabre V was churning out 2,400hp whilst from what I can work out the most powerful Merlin in a wartime aircraft produced around 1,800hp (versions used in Hornet and P-51H not until postwar so it’s not fair to compare them to the Sabre V).

mike, are you referring to the MGB or the Spitfire? :p if you’re talking about the Mgb i beg to differ 😉

and concerning the power output of sabres in service – werent they derated for service use? due to the tempermental nature of the engine itself?

My point remains – Merlin was capable of 2,250 in the P-51H and after a further half-century of development, in a dedicated racing version, can manage 3,600. The Sabre’s first production version produced what the Merlin’s last production version did, and by the end of the war was up to 3,000hp – and was less far along the path of development. I don’t see why equally developed Sabres couldn’t be capable of 4,000 or even 5,000hp today.

I beg to differ. If you check the available specs I think you’ll find the final service versions of the sabre were only putting out about 2080hp

thats not really a fair comparison.

a fairer comparison would be putting a big modern engine in a classic car, such as a nissan RB26DETT turbo straight 6 from a skyline into an MGB roadster

I dont believe for a second that buying and restoring an aircraft is the same as buying lets say a listed building, where you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds buying one, but are dictated as to what you can do with it.

ive heard of mustangs with learjet wings, and griffon engines… what is the difference in this instance?

simply put i dont like either the tempest or the typhoon (no offence 🙂 )

Phillistine. Some people have no taste.

In terms of usable power, the late merlins in service were delivering as much clout as the sabre. The sabre no doubt could have been developed further, but the same could be said of the merlin.

The topic is covered in one of the R-R Heritage Trust publications.

Best wishes
Steve P

…and a developed Merlin kicks out 3600hp http://www.strega.com/technical/

My point remains – Merlin was capable of 2,250 in the P-51H and after a further half-century of development, in a dedicated racing version, can manage 3,600. The Sabre’s first production version produced what the Merlin’s last production version did, and by the end of the war was up to 3,000hp – and was less far along the path of development. I don’t see why equally developed Sabres couldn’t be capable of 4,000 or even 5,000hp today.

surely the wings on the spiteful would have given better torsional wing rigidity?

Yes – but also borderline dangerous stall characteristics

Really? Late model production Sabres were putting out about 3,000hp

…and a developed Merlin kicks out 3600hp http://www.strega.com/technical/

your opinion, but if one had the money then i fail to see why he/she should have to conform to the ideals of others. its his aircraft!

Surely putting an old and known powerplant into an old and existing airframe is conforming to the ideals of others to a degree?

werent they essentially the wings from/ went on to be the wings for the attacker?

possibly, but would need to look at mounting points, structure etc

werent they essentially the wings from/ went on to be the wings for the attacker?