Napier Rocket Engines
- Thread starter Barrington Bond
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,036
Excellent post,
I raise you one ;D and give you the Napier Triple Scorpion!
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202124.html
http://www.napierheritage.org.uk/IMG/jpg/RRLoanedTrilpeScorpion.jpg
I raise you one ;D and give you the Napier Triple Scorpion!
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202124.html
http://www.napierheritage.org.uk/IMG/jpg/RRLoanedTrilpeScorpion.jpg
- Joined
- 12 October 2009
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 194
Ah but....
The initial requirement did not actually specify mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was. - See more at: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php#sthash.l0wK58Ro.dpuf"The initial requirement did not actually specify Mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards Mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at Mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was." The initial requirement did not actually specify mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was. - See more at: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php#sthash.l0wK58Ro.dpuf
The initial requirement did not actually specify mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was. - See more at: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php#sthash.l0wK58Ro.dpuf"The initial requirement did not actually specify Mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards Mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at Mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was." The initial requirement did not actually specify mach 2 performance, but EE had seen that it was possible and the American's F-104 programme was also progressing towards mach 2 performance. Roland Beamont later stated that the Lightning's performance at mach 2 was much superior to the F-104, with less noise and vibration and better controllability. A planned Double Scorpion rocket mounted in the rear of belly tank of the P.1B was cancelled as the aircraft's new Avon engines were found to give enough extra performance to render the rockets pointless. Besides, the space lost to the rocket and its fuel would have meant even less room for jet fuel, and the Lightning was short enough of that as it was. - See more at: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php#sthash.l0wK58Ro.dpuf
Yeah T, those 'missile with a man in it/widowmaker' F-104s certainly 'pushed the envelope' real hard..
A similarly schemed rocket-boosted Starfighter nearly claimed ol' Chuck Yeager's scalp too.
& what were they thinking with the downward(!) firing ejection seat in the early F-104s..
A similarly schemed rocket-boosted Starfighter nearly claimed ol' Chuck Yeager's scalp too.
& what were they thinking with the downward(!) firing ejection seat in the early F-104s..
- Joined
- 12 October 2009
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 194
Perhaps the stability profile meant it flipped on its back more often than stayed upright!
The German version of F-104 just made things worse as the weight increased to exaggerate all the bad ch'ics.
The German version of F-104 just made things worse as the weight increased to exaggerate all the bad ch'ics.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,608
- Reaction score
- 4,057
Straying even more offtopic: in 'Lockheed's Skunk Works', Jay Miller writes downward ejection was chosen because
- it promised lower escape g's
- better instrument panel position
- easier clearing the various sharp edges of the F-104's T-tail on ejection
- better tie-in of the lower escape hatch with the seat than was possible with ejectable canopies
As it turned out, these considerations were outweighed by the inconvenient aspects of downward ejection at low altitude, not to mention the undesirable consequences of downward ejection with the F-104 still on the runway.
- it promised lower escape g's
- better instrument panel position
- easier clearing the various sharp edges of the F-104's T-tail on ejection
- better tie-in of the lower escape hatch with the seat than was possible with ejectable canopies
As it turned out, these considerations were outweighed by the inconvenient aspects of downward ejection at low altitude, not to mention the undesirable consequences of downward ejection with the F-104 still on the runway.
