Sea Fury Questions
Tue May 24, 2005 1:31 pm
Hello Folks:
Got a few questions about the Sea Fury:
Is the wing the same as the Tempest?
Does it have a steel frame under the skin like the Tempest?
What's the max speed at sea level, books say 460 mph at 20,000 ft?
What are some issues operators have with the Centaurus Engine?
Other than the Baghdad Fury, was there a Fury not used by the Navy?
Thanks,
CHris
Got a few questions about the Sea Fury:
Is the wing the same as the Tempest?
Does it have a steel frame under the skin like the Tempest?
What's the max speed at sea level, books say 460 mph at 20,000 ft?
What are some issues operators have with the Centaurus Engine?
Other than the Baghdad Fury, was there a Fury not used by the Navy?
Thanks,
CHris
Re: Sea Fury Questions
Tue May 24, 2005 3:12 pm
The Fury/Sea Fury is of semi-monocoque aluminum construction.HarvardIV wrote:Hello Folks:
Got a few questions about the Sea Fury:
Is the wing the same as the Tempest?
Does it have a steel frame under the skin like the Tempest?
What's the max speed at sea level, books say 460 mph at 20,000 ft?
What are some issues operators have with the Centaurus Engine?
Other than the Baghdad Fury, was there a Fury not used by the Navy?
Thanks,
CHris
Centaurus parts are very hard to come by and I'm not aware of anyone overhauling them any longer. There aren't many Furies/Sea Furies around, so the manufacture of new parts wouldn't have the market that Packard Merlin parts would.
There is a transport version of the Centaurus around (used in the Beverly?). Jim Mott put one in his Sea Fury at Chino years ago, but I think it has since been converted to a 3350.
Sea Fury wings fold, the Tempest's don't. Want to buy those Sea Fury wing panels on Barnstormers and put them on your T-6 frame to make a Tempest?
Tue May 24, 2005 5:32 pm
Other than the Baghdad Fury, was there a Fury not used by the Navy?
Off the top of my head, the Dutch, Canadians and Australians flew some export version of the Sea Fury (FB.50). Pakistan flew denavalised versions, the FB.60 and the T.61 (two-seater with separate canopies).
Christer
Tue May 24, 2005 7:03 pm
Sea Fury wings fold, the Tempest's don't. Want to buy those Sea Fury wing panels on Barnstormers and put them on your T-6 frame to make a Tempest?
Hmmn, maybe the Fury wing is the same as the Tempest.
Centaurus parts are very hard to come by and I'm not aware of anyone overhauling them any longer. There aren't many Furies/Sea Furies around, so the manufacture of new parts wouldn't have the market that Packard Merlin parts would.
Maybe some mom and pop shop does Centaurus engines. I seen them apart, and they are a totally different breed, but didn't seem like rocket science to me.
Tue May 24, 2005 7:49 pm
The Fury is the lightweight Tempest, hence the whole structure is rather different.
Wed May 25, 2005 4:16 am
Hmmn, maybe the Fury wing is the same as the Tempest.
The wings are basically the same but on the Tempest, there is a center section and the wings are fitted to it whereas the Sea Fury has no center section, with the wings bolted together on the centerline with the fuselage on top of it. The oil coolers are in different wings, Tempest > starboard, Sea Fury > port.
The RNHF Sea Fury, VR930, had its engine rebuilt by Ricardo's. Not a total success but they did it.
The Fighter Collection has a Centaurus being rebuilt by someone, presumably in the UK.
In an edition of Warbirds Worldwide, there was an article on Mike Nixon who at that time was rebuilding almost anything, including the Centaurus.
Christer
Wed May 25, 2005 10:39 am
You may have that reversed. The Sea Fury definately has a center section since the wings fold.Christer wrote:The wings are basically the same but on the Tempest, there is a center section and the wings are fitted to it whereas the Sea Fury has no center section, with the wings bolted together on the centerline with the fuselage on top of it.
Wed May 25, 2005 11:35 am
You may have that reversed. The Sea Fury definately has a center section since the wings fold.
Yes, You're right that the Sea Fury has a center section. Then it must have been the Fury prototype that didn't have a center section. I remember that this was the reason for the shorter span compared to the Tempest and apart from that, the wings were basically the same.
Christer
Wed May 25, 2005 10:48 pm
There was a discussion on the FP board some time ago about this. I said the same as Christer, wings bolted together without a centre section, but it looks like that was only the basic principle they started from.
Although the span of a Sea Fury is less than a Tempest, it's by less than three feet.
Although the span of a Sea Fury is less than a Tempest, it's by less than three feet.
Thu May 26, 2005 12:24 am
Hi Folks,
First post. Bit of a Fury fan, so I've stopped lurking...
This muddle is what prompted the post. Yes and no! The Tempest wing was what the Sea Fury's wing was based upon, so the plan, airfoil and broad strcture is the same. Hawker invented a 'lightweight' version of the Tempest, called the Fury. The Tempest's wing had the centre section removed, and the outer wings brought in to make the Fury's. It's easy to see as the Tempest has a gap between the inner undercarriage doors, and the Sea Fury doesn't. The RAF didn't want the Fury, but the Royal Navy thought it would be a good idea, so Hawker's incorporated a wing fold halfway - just outboard of the cannons. So the 'centre section' referred to in the books is the narrow three foot or so strip that was under the fuselage of the Tempest, not as BDK (logically) suggests, the bit between the folds.
If you had Tempest or Sea Fury wings, and changed the panel lines, you could fake up the other type, in apearance easily. But I woulnd't want to fly in one with those wings! At a glance the Tempest undercarriage and the Sea Fury's are the same. They aren't; the Sea Fury's being designed for deck landing vertical accellerations. The Sea Fury T-20 has a different undercarriage again, and bigger horizontal tailplanes (but I digress).
Again, the history gives you the clues. The Hurricane was a fabric over frame construction; the Typhoon and Tempest still had frame cockpit to engine areas, though metal covered, but semi-monocoque rear fuselages. In the Sea Fury, the fuselage was 'humped' to raise the pilot's position so he can see over the nose. Hawker's took this opportunity to make the whole fuselage stressed skin semi-monococque
Dunno. I'll see if I can find out.
It's a sleeve valve engine (if you don't know, google - I can't explain it as well as some sites already do!) Also, it was the top end of high performance piston power, driving a five blade prop, at the end of a major war - It's right out on the edge of the technology envelope. So:
1. It's the difference between a very simple machine and a very complex one. When something goes wrong, it's often catastrophic, rather than a partial failure.
2. It's 'different' by being a sleeve valve. Causes ignorance, mistakes and avoidance. Other bits to go wrong instead of the more familiar pushrods etc.
3. When something major goes wrong, stopping the prop, you have a five blade airbrake. Several people have found that it has the glide angle of the proverbial brick in this mode. Prop still going isn't so bad.
4. Currently,I think there's one Sea Fury in the USA with a Centarus - Elsworth Getchell, who rebuilds his own engine. There's two in Australia. The Royal Navy Historic Flight have lost one a/c due to an engine failure, and currently have thier machine working OK, but as someone's already said, the rebuild had issues with IIRC bore chroming etc. They also have special fuel for it to help prevent some of the detonation issues. It's not a simple setup!
And, as folks have said, there's not a lot of people to turn wrenches on them.
Lots of Navy and ex-Navy machines, the Pakistani examples, as mentioned, but no, that's it, I think!
Hope this helps.
First post. Bit of a Fury fan, so I've stopped lurking...
Is the wing the same as the Tempest?
This muddle is what prompted the post. Yes and no! The Tempest wing was what the Sea Fury's wing was based upon, so the plan, airfoil and broad strcture is the same. Hawker invented a 'lightweight' version of the Tempest, called the Fury. The Tempest's wing had the centre section removed, and the outer wings brought in to make the Fury's. It's easy to see as the Tempest has a gap between the inner undercarriage doors, and the Sea Fury doesn't. The RAF didn't want the Fury, but the Royal Navy thought it would be a good idea, so Hawker's incorporated a wing fold halfway - just outboard of the cannons. So the 'centre section' referred to in the books is the narrow three foot or so strip that was under the fuselage of the Tempest, not as BDK (logically) suggests, the bit between the folds.
If you had Tempest or Sea Fury wings, and changed the panel lines, you could fake up the other type, in apearance easily. But I woulnd't want to fly in one with those wings! At a glance the Tempest undercarriage and the Sea Fury's are the same. They aren't; the Sea Fury's being designed for deck landing vertical accellerations. The Sea Fury T-20 has a different undercarriage again, and bigger horizontal tailplanes (but I digress).
Does it have a steel frame under the skin like the Tempest?
Again, the history gives you the clues. The Hurricane was a fabric over frame construction; the Typhoon and Tempest still had frame cockpit to engine areas, though metal covered, but semi-monocoque rear fuselages. In the Sea Fury, the fuselage was 'humped' to raise the pilot's position so he can see over the nose. Hawker's took this opportunity to make the whole fuselage stressed skin semi-monococque
What's the max speed at sea level, books say 460 mph at 20,000 ft?
Dunno. I'll see if I can find out.
What are some issues operators have with the Centaurus Engine?
It's a sleeve valve engine (if you don't know, google - I can't explain it as well as some sites already do!) Also, it was the top end of high performance piston power, driving a five blade prop, at the end of a major war - It's right out on the edge of the technology envelope. So:
1. It's the difference between a very simple machine and a very complex one. When something goes wrong, it's often catastrophic, rather than a partial failure.
2. It's 'different' by being a sleeve valve. Causes ignorance, mistakes and avoidance. Other bits to go wrong instead of the more familiar pushrods etc.
3. When something major goes wrong, stopping the prop, you have a five blade airbrake. Several people have found that it has the glide angle of the proverbial brick in this mode. Prop still going isn't so bad.
4. Currently,I think there's one Sea Fury in the USA with a Centarus - Elsworth Getchell, who rebuilds his own engine. There's two in Australia. The Royal Navy Historic Flight have lost one a/c due to an engine failure, and currently have thier machine working OK, but as someone's already said, the rebuild had issues with IIRC bore chroming etc. They also have special fuel for it to help prevent some of the detonation issues. It's not a simple setup!
And, as folks have said, there's not a lot of people to turn wrenches on them.
Other than the Baghdad Fury, was there a Fury not used by the Navy?
Lots of Navy and ex-Navy machines, the Pakistani examples, as mentioned, but no, that's it, I think!
Hope this helps.
Thu May 26, 2005 12:37 am
Hi Raven:
Very good explaination. The 1945 Jane's book shows the Sea Fury in prototype markings. Curious if any managed to serve right at the end of the war?
As a kid hanging out at Hollister airport in Ca, they had 2 or so Sea Furies there with the Centaurus engines. They really sound good! It would be nice if more of them flew with that engine. I guess if I was ever lucky to get me grimy hands on one, I'd try to get a Centaurus engine for it. Well here's to wishing!
Very good explaination. The 1945 Jane's book shows the Sea Fury in prototype markings. Curious if any managed to serve right at the end of the war?
As a kid hanging out at Hollister airport in Ca, they had 2 or so Sea Furies there with the Centaurus engines. They really sound good! It would be nice if more of them flew with that engine. I guess if I was ever lucky to get me grimy hands on one, I'd try to get a Centaurus engine for it. Well here's to wishing!
Thu May 26, 2005 2:39 am
The John Bradshaw machine in the UK also flies with a Centaurus.
Thu May 26, 2005 3:22 am
As does the ex-OFMC one now in South Africa
Thu May 26, 2005 5:16 am
Hello Raven,
thanks for posting!
I have a question for You (or anyone else) regarding:
I have learnt that a propeller on a dead engine generates more drag when it's windmilling than when it is stopped. The energy to turn the engine is extracted from the total energy of the aircraft which is in "gliding mode". Stop the propeller/engine and L/D will get better. I haven't had the pleasure of cranking over a Centaurus by the propeller but I bet that I would work up a sweat!
Comments anyone?
Christer
thanks for posting!
I have a question for You (or anyone else) regarding:
3. When something major goes wrong, stopping the prop, you have a five blade airbrake. Several people have found that it has the glide angle of the proverbial brick in this mode. Prop still going isn't so bad.
I have learnt that a propeller on a dead engine generates more drag when it's windmilling than when it is stopped. The energy to turn the engine is extracted from the total energy of the aircraft which is in "gliding mode". Stop the propeller/engine and L/D will get better. I haven't had the pleasure of cranking over a Centaurus by the propeller but I bet that I would work up a sweat!
Comments anyone?
Christer
Thu May 26, 2005 5:58 am
Wecome to WIX Raven! Feel free to make more posts like that. You post was quite informative.
Mike
Mike