Talk:Westland F.7/30

Performance

On looking at this article I noticed that it lacked the basic dimensions & dug out my copy of 'British Fighters since 1912'. Entered the data, amending the speed upwards as per my source. & then actually read the article properly, felt dubious about my figure & undid the edit. (I'll put the dimensions back)

However....the given figure looks ludicrously low to me. I know all the Goshawk-engined fighters were a disappointment, but c'mon, the Supermarine Type 224 is credited with 228 mph. There are other aspects of the article i find eccentric or misleading. For instance spec F.7/30 may not have stipulated the Goshawk, but the Ministry had certainly expressed a strong preference for this engine. This bit readss to me like somebody with an axe to grind. And I'm really not sure about calling it elegant. Of course, tastes vary but firstly the article should'n reflect personal views and err... i think it looks homely to say the least. And the concluding statement ' It is likely that the underdeveloped state of the Goshawk engine contributed to these disappointing results. They ruled out production of the type as a fighter, and it was quickly abandoned.' certainly doesn't need the 'likely', and who are 'they'...TheLongTone (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Lewis's The British Fighter since 1912 (not the same book as the Francis Mason book of the same title states that during A&AEE testing, performance was found to be "considerably below that of other aircraft built to the specification" and quotes an "uncorrected" maximum speed of 147.5 mph at 13000 ft (A&AEE test report M 676). Whether "corrected" speeds were higher, or it reached higher speeds (possibly as high as the 185 mph recorded elsewhere) in later testing is unclear.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll buy that figure. I've just looked up the Lewis book on abebooks (yours for 5.99 plus 3.35 shipping...worth buying?) & see it is the previous Putnam effort on the subject.No wonder all is confusion. I'd bung the dimensions back but if I did I'd guff up the citations, since I havn't quite got the hang of the coding syntax yet.TheLongTone (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lewis's book is a different type of book - it is much more of a single narrative telling the devlopment of British fighters, without distinct entries for individual aircraft. It generally has rather less detail than is in Mason but sometimes provides better (or at least different) context for the aircraft and their specifications.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sound like it's worth a tenner, then. Thanks. But naughty of Putnam's to re-use the aame title, they could have called Mason's book Britissh Fighter Aircraft since 1912 for example.TheLongTone (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Zone fighter

I've never heard this term before, and think it should be removed from the article. a) It does not seem to be used with this meaning anywhere else in WP: the WP entry 'Zone fighter' is about some Japanese superhero TV programme. b) More important-I don't think it's accurate. Spec 7/30 simply calls for a 'fighter', and the requirement for a good climb rate would surely not be of paramount importance in a 'zone fighter' c) The RAF fighter control apparatus then being developed did not feature standing air patrols: it was based on the idea of 'scrambling' interceptors. d) a 'zone fighter' strategy would necessitate an enormous number of aircraft & aircrew to implement. It seems like a rotten idea to me. e) Even if you are in the zone, you still have to intercept any intruders.... Rant overTheLongTone (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the spec called for an interceptor fighter cant see any mention of the term zone fighter anywhere. Perhaps it should be deleted unless anybody has a source for it? MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The spec, of the version I have which is the Air Ministry first formal issue dated 1st October 1931 reproduced in Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' simply calls for a day and night fighter. I'm not sure how to reference this: its a document in the Public Records Office (catalogue noAir 2/2850) & freely available, & the principle of citing primary sources rather than secondary or tertiary or worse until you are referencing 'The Boys Own Big Book of Aircraft Factoids' was drummed into me at a fairly early age. On the other hand people in general are a deal more likely to have the Price book, which at least reprints the thing, (accurately I'm fairly confidant since he's a reputable aviation writer & what I have is not the first edition of the book, so any typos should have been amended). There is a huge amount of rubbish talked about F.7/30, even in 'proper' books: for instance Francis K Mason states that the wording of the spec 'strongly implied' a preference for the Goshawk. In fact it explicitly states that any approved engine type could be used. There is a section-2 (C) cooling systems para( b) which mentions evaporative cooling, but all it demands is that it should work properly in hot weather (or to be exact English summer conditions, which is another thing entirely & be readily adaptable for tropical conditions. The version I have demands a landing speed of 60 mph & everything I've read to date says 50, I assume that this was a revision. I also don't like assumptions.The performance figures ae a total mystery to me, in fact. They demand (initially) a max speed of 195 mph & a climb to height of 15,000 ft in 8.5 minutes, which surely would be produce a machine that (armament aside) would be outclassed by a Fury: & therefore cannot be described as 'high'. Mitchell & his team expected 250mph.I really think a visit to Kew is called for. We all have our obsessions., F. 7/30 is one of mine. As for Zone fighters, I have found online a Cabinet Office paper which mentions air defence zones in the title. It's s free download & I have downloaded it (allegedly), but if I actually havI've no idea where the computer has put it. And I've just noticed that the original article has got th designer's name wrong, at least if you believe Francis Mason.Or indeed WP, which has Petter joining the family business as an apprentice in 1929.

And I havn't got to work on the also dubious second para, let alone the third. All I'll say about that at this stage is that I don't think the description of the thing as 'elegant' is very objective. In my view it's easily in the same class as the Barracuda., but I'm much too polite to say that.TheLongTone (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Air-Britain British Aircraft Specification File summarises the requirements and clearly says A low wing loading and a maximum speed of 50 mph, A high maximum speed (in excess of 250mph), Superiority over the existing fighters of the day in range, manoeuverability, rate of climb and service ceiling and also agree is says preference to the Kestrel IV engine (which became the Goshawk). Not sure elegant is the right term! We normally like to use secondary sources except for factual information and then that has to be used with care but it looks like we have enough secondary material to support your comments (although the 50/60 mph may be a later change). MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my local libraries don't have the British Aircraft Specifications File. I don't think that that is a problem, I'm not trying to argue that submitted aircraft were allowed a 60 mph landing speed. Although 'Superiority over the existing fighters of the day in range, manoeuverability, rate of climb and service ceiling' sound odd: as a formal demand it seem to be stating something that approaches the axiomatic'. (One can't imagine a spec openly saying 'we require something obsolescent' . But I've read of an 'extraordinary high wing pusher' proposal designed by Frank Barnwell F.7/30...if this is illustrated I must buy a copyTheLongTone (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)