Which significant WWII combat aircraft where designed after the war started?

[Angus]

The Tornado differs quite a bit, but thank's anyway....

[Die Hard]

The Tornado differs quite a bit, but thank's anyway....

The Tornado and Typhoon were developed in parallel. Both prototypes were mostly complete in late 1938 / early 1939, but had to wait for the engines.

[MiloMorai]

The first Tornado, P5219, had a Hurricane type radiator Angus. The second Tornado prototype, P5224, had a nose radiator as did the Typhoon. The only way to tell them apart was by the exhaust stacks.

[Angus]

Am I right that they shared the "super engine" idea, like the Avro Manchester and later on even German aircraft like the He-177?
For a fighter a slightly bigger airframe coupled with a very much more powerful powerplant?
Anyway, I really thought they went up in 1940 or so. (Tiffie/Tornado), and now, the Tempest is a long way forward (Completely different wing). And then, it had to go with the Napier-Sabre instead of the Centaurus etc etc.
Anyway, ultimately ended up with the Hawker Sea Fury. Now that was one heck of an aircraft...

[Die Hard]

Am I right that they shared the "super engine" idea, like the Avro Manchester and later on even German aircraft like the He-177?

Yes, both the Vulture (Tornado and Manchester) and Sabre (Typhoon) were 24 cylinder 4-row engines like the DB 610.

[MiloMorai]

The Vulture used an X configuration.
The Sabre used an H configuration.

The DB used paired blocks.

[Die Hard]

The RR Vulture used two modified RR Peregrine V cylinder blocks mounted one above the other, the bottom one inverted to give the "X" shape. The DB 610 used two DB 605 cylinder blocks mounted side-by-side in an inverted W configuration. The Napier Sabre was based on the Napier Dagger and even if it is the only engine of the three that was designed from the start as a 24 cylinder 4-row engine it is still essentially two vertically opposed inline engines lying side-by-side and driving two crankshafts.

[Angus]

And the Sabre was the only one that worked properly? Hence the Manchester turning Lancaster and the He-177 Greif being nicknamed as the "Burning coffin"?!?!
BTW, as a question, how far was the Centaurus engine in that line? After all, that was the one intended for the Tempest before? The sabre powered Tempest was simply there as a stop-gap right?

[MiloMorai]

The Vulture is often described as a doubled up Kestrel or Peregrine but was actually a totally new design. The only features used were the bore (5.0") and stroke(5.5"). One design feature was the ability to have the bore bored out due to the 6.1" cylinder spacing. This was not possible with the Kestrel/Peregrine.

[Stoney]

the Hawker Sea Fury. Now that was one heck of an aircraft...

Still is...   

[Die Hard]

Angus, none of them really worked properly though the Sabre and DB 610 were the least troublesome (and that's saying something about the others). The Sabre's sleeve-valve system was never sorted properly out, and the complexity of production and quality control difficulties gave the Sabre reliability and maintenance problems throughout its service life. The DB 610 also suffered from reliability issues most of its service life, mostly due to the cramped installation in the He 177's nacelles resulting in inadequate cooling and build-up of combustible liquids in the nacelles, which then became a fire hazard. The Centaurus engine was initially seen as too primitive a design compared to the Vulture and Sabre, and thus its development was neglected by British authorities. Only after the Sabre had proved itself problematic in every way did Bristol get the proper funding to develop the Centaurus. I wouldn't say that the Sabre powered Tempest was a "stop-gap" measure since the Centaurus had been in production since 1942 and first saw service that same year powering the Vickers Warwick. So when the Centaurus powered Tempest II entered service in 1944 the engine had already been flying for two years.

[Widewing]

I'm not going to argue exactly when the "process" of building a prototype starts; that you now agree it was 1938 is good enough for me.

Never said otherwise... The Typhoon was a pre-war design.

However, being a Design Engineer for an aerospace company, I do recognize when a design becomes something concrete. Concepts are not designs. Moreover, I disagree with the entire idea of the thread of dating an aircraft to the time they began considering a design concept. It ignores the realities of the process.

A design does not truly exist until it is released for prototype production. You can bet the farm and the baby that the final prototype configuration will be dramatically different than the initial sketches.

My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

A design does not truly exist until it is released for prototype production. You can bet the farm and the baby that the final prototype configuration will be dramatically different than the initial sketches.

Agreed.  I have never seen the two match op more than superficially, sometimes even core requirements of the procurement request have gone by the wayside.

[Angus]

Angus, none of them really worked properly though the Sabre and DB 610 were the least troublesome (and that's saying something about the others). The Sabre's sleeve-valve system was never sorted properly out, and the complexity of production and quality control difficulties gave the Sabre reliability and maintenance problems throughout its service life. The DB 610 also suffered from reliability issues most of its service life, mostly due to the cramped installation in the He 177's nacelles resulting in inadequate cooling and build-up of combustible liquids in the nacelles, which then became a fire hazard. The Centaurus engine was initially seen as too primitive a design compared to the Vulture and Sabre, and thus its development was neglected by British authorities. Only after the Sabre had proved itself problematic in every way did Bristol get the proper funding to develop the Centaurus. I wouldn't say that the Sabre powered Tempest was a "stop-gap" measure since the Centaurus had been in production since 1942 and first saw service that same year powering the Vickers Warwick. So when the Centaurus powered Tempest II entered service in 1944 the engine had already been flying for two years.

Messy air ministry Bureaucrats!
Anyway, Neville Duke made some crossings in the Fury, and gives this:
"The Fury has a top speed of 445 miles per hour at 19.000 feet and a cruising speed of over 400 miles per hour at 20.000 feet; it's maximum range with overload tanks is about 2.000 miles."
H was involved with delivering some Fury's to the Royal Pakistan Air Force, and that included long legs of flying. He set the London-Karachi record (Also beating a record from a DH Vampire jet on the England-Italy leg), - time to Karachi 15 hrs, 18 minutes and 36 seconds.
Another record was made on the England-Egypt leg in the Fury, 6 hrs and 32 minutes including a refuelling stop, giving the average speed of 360 mph (including the stop!). Both records were later improved with the DeHavilland Comet Jet.
Anyway, seems like the engine ran well

[Die Hard]

Oh it did. Was a successful post-war engine in civilian aviation as well.