Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...to continue:
The wings will only be about 25% than the normal FW 190 wings - this will give a wingspan of about 37-38 feet, 4-5 feet wider than the 190. The longer nose and wider wings will reduce the roll rate of this fighter compared to the 190, but not by very much. It should still do quite a creditable roll.
Total weight should be about 10,000 lbs for the fast fighter version, which I will continue to describe...
Excellent points drgondog - I shall try to respond to each of them!
"...Adding the structure to transmit and distribute torque from the second engine as well as the additional weight of the structure to sustain structural integrity to support a large mass near the tail in high G pull out, plus the engine weight itself plus the proposed armament and ammo, and still keep the weight in the P-51D range?..."
The mass (of the rear Argus) would actually be much nearer the center of the "Burmese 190" than to the tail. I realise this is difficult to envisage without a diagram - I intend to put up a sketch within a week. For the moment let's say that the rear engine looks lie a P-39 installation, but one in which the engine and the pilots cockpit are moved further forward. I of course freely and humbly admit I am no engineer - but neither am I a total ignoramus either. I think all that I proposed above could be done within the 10,500 lbs limit.
No need for diagram-it would be feasible. Staring with this preliminary design concept, a desire for heavy amament in forward fuse, variable pitch prop with feathering mechanism, all fuel in the wings and your second engine right behind pilot.. here are some questions.
If 10500 Gross takeoff is your target max for this two engine bird and a proposed wingspan of ~ 37 feet, then a nice aircraft for rule of thumb would be a P-51D for comparison purposes.
You could start with initial premise that for a similar Aspect ratio that a relatively thick laminar flow wing could obtain 180-200 gallons of fuel particularly with no guns/ammo in wing and keep control of fuel contribution to static and dynamic margins. If you change the wing say to a Spit wing you will have less volume available for fuel cells... ditto Fw 190.
You will however introduce potential cg issues as you expend your 20mm ammo unless all the ammo is essentially near the cg.
This airframe Must be longer by definition to incorporate a 'main' engine' front and a pusher engine aft of cockpit, as well as a drive shaft, heat barrier, shaft bearing hangers and structure, prop/gears for variable speed and four props aft of the cockpit. The fuselage must, by incorporation of these features, have more width as you noted and probably be cylindrical in shape to minimze the volume, weight of the surrounding airframe... and raises question of cooling strategy for aft engine.
There is a question of aerodynamics relative to elevator and rudder deflection effectiveness with a feathered pros acting as an 'additional and separate' airfoil aft of those control surfaces... almost like a short coupled canard?
Conceptually they would operate as separate airfoils when local angle of
attack on the tail surfaces changed - and probably opposite in direction - an interesting problem both in aero and contribution to stability - particularly in pitch axis.
"...The long fat nose proposed, combined with a tail dragger design, will certainly make it tougher to taxi than the 335 design. The increased longitudinal moment of Intertia with significant masses fore and aft will introduce possible stability and control issues in pitch and might force larger horizontal stabilzer area (and weight and drag). ..."
The problem with taxi-ing vision with the 190 and the P-47 was more wing than nose. Sitting on the ground at a high angle of attack caused the wing to block all vision forward, which was why the 190 usually had a crewman on the wing to call out directions to the pilot when taxi-ing. Moving the cockpit forward would not solve the nose problem, but it would solve the wing problem...the pilot could stick his head out of the cockpit and see, not over the nose, but around it.
We would tend to disagree here. I have never flown the 190 or the 47 but I have flown (and taxiied) the Mustang. The nose on the Mustang which would be closer analogue to your proposed long nose IS a problem. The wing is not even noticeable. Conceptually and in reality the leading edge of a Mustang is well below the vision plane to the horizon and for some significant angle below the horizon. Needed same crewchiew/armorer sitting on wing along taxi way for similar reasons - but at the end of the day it is doable as was well proven. Tricycle better for ground handling, however
Now about two engines consuming more fuel - there's a way around that. I shall come to that in a later post.
The most important point... the CG shifting as fuel is consumed...I intend to keep the wings free of all armament (which is why my proposed six cannons have a centerline configuration) and keep all the fuel IN THE WINGS.