Some aircraft are literally beautiful. Others are beautiful through having almost perfectly pleasing proportions. The Sea Fury is at least among the latter group. Excellent. Thank you.
I saw a fair few Sea Furies at our local home town Air Shows in Australia in the late 1950's (Including a sailor mechanic swearing when the Coffman Cartridge wouldn't start it). In our School Army Cadets annual camp I saw them firing the Cannons & a Salvo of 60lb Rockets - Impressive. As an Airline Pilot I flew with an ex Royal Aistralian Navy pilot that flew them who said if the engine failed get out as they sank like a Brick! BTW I have sat in the Cockpit- squeeze! 😊
In the late eighties I remember watching Guido Zuccolli doing a barrel roll in a Sea Fury over Darwin, In the early eighties I watched him practicing aerobatics in a Pitts special, at Batchellor airport, the same airstrip that General Mac Arthur landed at when he left the Philipines
Guido could fly that Sea Fury ... Wow can still hear it thundering past in the minds eye 👍 ... Great days ... Good thing for the enemies in WW2 that it ended when it did, not much would have stopped a loaded Sea Fury 😎
A full semi monocoque fuselage, new knowledge aero dynamics with a semi elliptical wing. All technologies that the original Spitfire prototype had in 1936. The reason for the Typhoons failure as an replacement interceptor to the Spitfire was the fat thickness to chord ratio limiting the Typhoons top speed and rate of climb. The Spitfire wing had a very advanced aerodynamic properties, irrespective of its semi elliptical wing.
A semi-elliptical wing is just one part of it, as is thickness/chord ratio. Late war aircraft had their point of maximum thickness further aft than the Spitfire (37.5% vs 30%), which moved the drag rise to later in the speed range. That's why they were able to both fly faster and remain more controllable in a dive. The Sea Fury also used a rather different radiator set up (excluding the fact that the Sea Fury was an air-cooled engine) more reminiscent of the Mosquito or Westland Whirlwind. This was probably the optimal radiator design for WWII fighters, that is, if the Meredith Effect design of the Mustang wasn't. In fact, if you look at the Mk I Tempest HM599, you can see that radiator layout occupying the entire leading edge of the wings between the landing gear struts. This was a faster aircraft than the later production Mk V. According to Robert Jackson's book, _'Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury',_ it was the fastest piston engine aircraft in the world when it first flew in 1943, eventually recording a speed of 466 mph at 24,000 feet. The reason it didn't go into production related to concerns about the suitability of such a radiator layout for a single engine fighter. So, in fact, the Sea Fury's aerodynamics were rather more advanced than they first appear. It was probably the ultimate evolution of piston-powered, WWII-era aerodynamics. Compared to the late model Griffon-engine Spitfires, the aerodynamics were quite a bit more sophisticated, particularly the radiator layout. By the way, as an aside, it is very common with late war aircraft such as these that people start claiming higher and higher speeds for them. Officially, the Tempest Mk I got to 466 mph at 24,00 feet, Unofficially, there are all kinds of rumours about it which are basically valueless and at least one which makes no sense at all. People seem to think it's okay to make up whatever figure they like. Exercise caution when you hear these claims, including the one in this video. It's also worth remembering that HM599 did not carry any armament, which would definitely have reduced its maximum speed. Either way, no marque of Spitfire was ever going to be that fast.
The monocoque construction of the Spitfire set it apart from all Hawker fighters. In the case of the Tempest and later Sea Fury, the monocoque started behind the pilot. Everything forward of the rear cockpit bulkhead was a spaceframe.
I have to believe that Hawker was inspired and influenced by the American Corsair, a large radial engine in a tight fitting slim bodied fuselage using an innovative cooling method. Hawker instead chose the cooling system in the German Foch Wolf, another aircraft with a radial engine in a tight fitting engine compartment. The Foch Wolf cooling system was simpler and easier to manufacture and maintain, a practical decision insread a political one. Sea Fury, Corsair and Foch Wolf, three high performance fighters using a radial engine in a tight fitting engine compartment employing cooling systems to prevent overheating. It's worth looking futher into this
I am pleased that you mentioned the fact that the type was resposnsible for at least one recorded downing of a MiG 15 in Korea. Had you not mentioned it Iwas going to add it as a comment.
@@robertpatrick3350 There were quite a few aircraft that used the Centaurus so there would be a few around. The problem is that the expertise to maintain them is pretty specialised and I'm pretty sure they need special lubricants. But those aircraft are in short supply anyway. If you are in the United States, a P&W or Wright might make more sense but in other places, especially those where the Centaurus might have been used, the poppet valve engines make less sense. Besides, the airframes in the US more often than not, find their way onto the air racing scene. I think most people who are interested in these aircraft would probably prefer to see them with a Centaurus. Apart from that, a change to an American poppet valve engine seems also to require a changer of propeller, from the original five blade job to four blades.
I like these "too late for the war" piston driven fighters!
Some aircraft are literally beautiful. Others are beautiful through having almost perfectly pleasing proportions. The Sea Fury is at least among the latter group. Excellent. Thank you.
I saw a fair few Sea Furies at our local home town Air Shows in Australia in the late 1950's (Including a sailor mechanic swearing when the Coffman Cartridge wouldn't start it).
In our School Army Cadets annual camp I saw them firing the Cannons & a Salvo of 60lb Rockets - Impressive.
As an Airline Pilot I flew with an ex Royal Aistralian Navy pilot that flew them who said if the engine failed get out as they sank like a Brick!
BTW I have sat in the Cockpit- squeeze! 😊
That is one BEAUTIFUL aircraft....like the other BIG TAILED BEASTS TYPHOON AND TEMPEST... JUST BEAUTIFUL!!!!
In the late eighties I remember watching Guido Zuccolli doing a barrel roll in a Sea Fury over Darwin, In the early eighties I watched him practicing aerobatics in a Pitts special, at Batchellor airport, the same airstrip that General Mac Arthur landed at when he left the Philipines
Guido could fly that Sea Fury ... Wow can still hear it thundering past in the minds eye 👍 ... Great days ... Good thing for the enemies in WW2 that it ended when it did, not much would have stopped a loaded Sea Fury 😎
I liked this... thank you.
I also like that it was short.
Damn my social-media infested, attention span.
☮
I rarely even click on any video longer than eight minutes
A nice plane. I ve seen one of them often in Germany. Bright red coloured and used as airtarget builder in the german Luftwaffe at the 60th.
A full semi monocoque fuselage, new knowledge aero dynamics with a semi elliptical wing. All technologies that the original Spitfire prototype had in 1936. The reason for the Typhoons failure as an replacement interceptor to the Spitfire was the fat thickness to chord ratio limiting the Typhoons top speed and rate of climb. The Spitfire wing had a very advanced aerodynamic properties, irrespective of its semi elliptical wing.
A semi-elliptical wing is just one part of it, as is thickness/chord ratio. Late war aircraft had their point of maximum thickness further aft than the Spitfire (37.5% vs 30%), which moved the drag rise to later in the speed range. That's why they were able to both fly faster and remain more controllable in a dive. The Sea Fury also used a rather different radiator set up (excluding the fact that the Sea Fury was an air-cooled engine) more reminiscent of the Mosquito or Westland Whirlwind. This was probably the optimal radiator design for WWII fighters, that is, if the Meredith Effect design of the Mustang wasn't. In fact, if you look at the Mk I Tempest HM599, you can see that radiator layout occupying the entire leading edge of the wings between the landing gear struts. This was a faster aircraft than the later production Mk V. According to Robert Jackson's book, _'Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury',_ it was the fastest piston engine aircraft in the world when it first flew in 1943, eventually recording a speed of 466 mph at 24,000 feet. The reason it didn't go into production related to concerns about the suitability of such a radiator layout for a single engine fighter.
So, in fact, the Sea Fury's aerodynamics were rather more advanced than they first appear. It was probably the ultimate evolution of piston-powered, WWII-era aerodynamics. Compared to the late model Griffon-engine Spitfires, the aerodynamics were quite a bit more sophisticated, particularly the radiator layout.
By the way, as an aside, it is very common with late war aircraft such as these that people start claiming higher and higher speeds for them. Officially, the Tempest Mk I got to 466 mph at 24,00 feet, Unofficially, there are all kinds of rumours about it which are basically valueless and at least one which makes no sense at all. People seem to think it's okay to make up whatever figure they like. Exercise caution when you hear these claims, including the one in this video. It's also worth remembering that HM599 did not carry any armament, which would definitely have reduced its maximum speed. Either way, no marque of Spitfire was ever going to be that fast.
The monocoque construction of the Spitfire set it apart from all Hawker fighters. In the case of the Tempest and later Sea Fury, the monocoque started behind the pilot. Everything forward of the rear cockpit bulkhead was a spaceframe.
I have to believe that Hawker was inspired and influenced by the American Corsair, a large radial engine in a tight fitting slim bodied fuselage using an innovative cooling method. Hawker instead chose the cooling system in the German Foch Wolf, another aircraft with a radial engine in a tight fitting engine compartment. The Foch Wolf cooling system was simpler and easier to manufacture and maintain, a practical decision insread a political one. Sea Fury, Corsair and Foch Wolf, three high performance fighters using a radial engine in a tight fitting engine compartment employing cooling systems to prevent overheating. It's worth looking futher into this
Nice plane. You gotta love those Limeys. 😁❤
After the war jets were seen by the RAF as the future ,no chance the Fury would be adopted .
I am pleased that you mentioned the fact that the type was resposnsible for at least one recorded downing of a MiG 15 in Korea. Had you not mentioned it Iwas going to add it as a comment.
Unfortunately, most of the Sea Furies flying in the US seem to have had their Centaurus engines replaced with Pratt & Whitney or Wright power plants.
Given the large volume of P&W engines produced and the limited supply chain for Centaurus engines its a sensible option to run P & W’s.
@@robertpatrick3350
There were quite a few aircraft that used the Centaurus so there would be a few around. The problem is that the expertise to maintain them is pretty specialised and I'm pretty sure they need special lubricants. But those aircraft are in short supply anyway. If you are in the United States, a P&W or Wright might make more sense but in other places, especially those where the Centaurus might have been used, the poppet valve engines make less sense. Besides, the airframes in the US more often than not, find their way onto the air racing scene. I think most people who are interested in these aircraft would probably prefer to see them with a Centaurus.
Apart from that, a change to an American poppet valve engine seems also to require a changer of propeller, from the original five blade job to four blades.
@@thethirdman225 There are but unfortunately too few are suitable for restoration to airworthy statuss.
Excellent. Thank you.
Geeks rule.