WIX Archives
HATE to say it but why not use an R-3350?
Posted by Richard Allnutt on Thu Dec 05, 2002 11:57:39 PM
In reply top Sanders' 924G = Centaurus posted by bdk on Thu Dec 05, 2002 09:26:09 PM
The Centaurus is an excellent engine, there just aren't enough in use for many people to be current on them. The 3350 on the other hand is relatively plentiful, and lots of people know how to work on them. While I would dearly love to see more of the Sea Furies use Centauri, not just because they were designed that way, they also look way more menacing with a five bladed prop too.
That being said, the Tempest II only has a four bladed prop, and would surely look very similar wearing a -3350 as opposed to a Centaurus. I see less reason for the objection to a -3350 with a Tempest II than with a Sea Fury. I also don't buy the story that a Tempest II is that much harder or different to work on than a Sea Fury either... the construction techniques are so similar, and while systems would be a little later in evolution, there still must be a fair degree of commonality... afterall, the Fury was flying in late 1944 (with the Sea Fury flying in Feb. '45). Tempest II production didn't begin until Oct. 44, and none ever saw combat in WWII, with most being built after the war was over. Sea Fury production began in Sept. '46 so there really wasn't much time separating their technology... I would have thought that they shared a lot of the same systems. The Tempest II really should be sharing the skies with the Sea Fury in my opinion... I just don't understand why things have progressed so slowly!!! Oh well, here's to air under their wings in the near future!
Cheers,
Richard