Looking for specs/refs

[flitzer]

Hi..
If anyone could help out I'd be most grateful.

I'm looking for specs...i.e. Wing span / length / speed / power plant etc for
the following...

Gloster Reaper
Bristol Centaurus
Folland Fo117
Boulton Paul P99
Boulton Paul P100

Many thanks
Peter:)[?]

[Tony Williams]

The Bristol Centaurus is an engine...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[flitzer]

Thanks Tony...
that old dislexia...

I meant the Bristol design to spec F18/37 that used the Centaurus as one of three power plant options.

Thanks again
Peter

[ChrisMcD]

Hi flitzer,

You need a copy of Michael Bowyer's 'Interceptor fighters', it has the figures (irritatingly incomplete) - but tends to shows them moving as the companies bid for various projects.

Gloster keep on trying to get orders for an updated F9/37, Folland have RAF support but no encouragement from the MAP and Bolton Paul are consistently "too futuristic"

Some details

Gloster Reaper - final version
Loaded weight - 14,500lbs
span - 50ft
length - 37ft 10 inches
wing loading 40lbs/sq ft
Engines - Merlin XX


Folland Fo177

Engine - Sabre/Centaurus XII with six bladed contraprop
Speed - 476mph at 20,000ft
Weight - 9,170lbs

BP P100
Loaded weight - 13,450lbs
wing loading 40lbs/sq ft
Engine - Griffon II
Max speed 335mph @ 17,000 ft
Sabre version - 446mph @20,000ft

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

Engine - Griffon II
Max speed 335mph @ 17,000 ft
Sabre version - 446mph @20,000ft


Surely the difference between Sabre and Griffon versions wasn't that much?

[GregP]

The specs I have for the Reaper are as follows:

Span: 15.24m; Length: 11.27m; Height: 3.53m; Wing Area: 35.9m2; Engines: Bristol Taurus radials of 1050HP each (the pic I have is powered by radials); Empty: 4004 kg; Loaded: 5269 kg; Max Speed: 579 kph; Armament disagrees somewhat depending on references: 4 or 6 x 7.7 mm MG or 4 x 7.7 mm MG + 2 x 20 mm cannons; 2 built.

The text I have in my database is as follows:

This twin-engined fighter was designed under the direction of W G Carter to Specification F.9/37 as a single-seater carrying an armament of four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Brownings and two 20 mm cannon in the nose. A prototype (L7999) with 1,060 hp Taurus II radials flew on April 3, 1939, being re-engined with 935 hp Taurus Ills in 1940, and a second prototype (L8002) with 880 hp Peregrine I liquid-cooled inline engines flew on February 22, 1940. The requirement for an aircraft in this category was dropped by the RAF and no production ensued.

[flitzer]

Many thanks to all...

...very helpful.
The info is for a batch of profiles I'm working on.
Will post if anyone is interested when complete.

And Chris...thanks for the tip re the book. I'll try and hunt one down.

Cheers
Peter

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Greg,

The BP specs were a moving target to put it lightly!

The first speed is below a layout drawing.

In the text alongside (page 98) is the text.

"Boulton Paul claimed that existing engines would not provide the necessary performance, reckoning the most promising layout would include a Sabre engine in a tail-first design. Although this structure would be light, MAP's view was that it seemed to be carrying 800lbs too much weight, so a few days later the company changed it's mind submitting, on September 1942, plans for an orthodox single propellor aircraft barely meeting the needs, along with Sabre or Centarus versions featuring contraprops.

The MAP considered all likely to be too slow, but a contra-prop tail-first version would have the speed needed. BP were trying for a wing loading of 40lbs/sq ft to compete with the Fw 190 and to better it's tight turning circle. The Sabre tail-first version (all up wight 9,892 lbs) was reckoned able to reach 446mph at 20,000. a conventional tractor Griffon machine 431 mph at 20,000 ft, it's Centarus variant 414 mph at 20,000 ft and the Sabre form 437 mph at 20,000. Like the Miles and Airspeed ideas, all were thought too slow and rejected."

I get the impression that the lower speed was at the start of this bidding competition.

[GregP]

Tough to know what they were thinking when it comes to proposals on paper. You know they never even got to the detail design stage.

With the Reaper, they actually made a couple and flew them, so the pics I have are of a FLYING Reaper.

Methinks they might have made a go of it, but the mission would probably have intruded into the realm of the Mosquito, and IT didn't take up a lot a strategic resources ... and was faster.

Tough to say. If a plane "didn't make it," my assumption is the plane was "flawed," used resources that were needed elsewhere, or the maker had run afoul of the "procurement police." Many planes were flawed. Ernst Heinkel was simply disliked by the powers that be in the RLM. teh Beech A-38 Grizzly was an example of a plane that used the R-3350 ... that were all needed for the B-29 program.

Not sure when it comes to the Reaper.

[Wuzak]

The Reaper predated the Mosquito in its initial proposal, but after being dragged out for some time it was well and truly overtaken by the Mosquito.

The one that I think could have been a complete winner was the Supermarine 327. It would be interesting to know if its actual performance matched the estimated performance. Would have made a great NF platform as well as a day fighter. And it was much smaller than the Gloster or Mosquito.