Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
It wouldn't be armored but I know those Finns were daredevils. Give them a light, fast agile plane and they'd probably take to it like a polar bear to ice.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It wouldn't be armored but I know those Finns were daredevils. Give them a light, fast agile plane and they'd probably take to it like a polar bear to ice.Sounds cool, Clay. Should go like a bat out of Hell. Always thought the Arsenal VG-33 was a great-looking plane.
Venganza
The very first problems you will encounter are:
glue...and woodworkers.
www.aviastar.org said:Conceived to make maximum use of indigenous materials with emphasis on suitability for operation from small Finnish front-line airfields under the most severe climatic conditions, the Pybrremyrsky (Whirlwind) was designed by Dipl-Ing Torsti R Verkkola. Powered by a 12-cylinder inverted-Vee Daimler-Benz DB 605AC engine rated at 1475hp, the Pyorremyrsky had a single-spar wooden wing with plywood skinning and a fuselage of steel-tube construction with detachable metal panels forward and a wooden ply-covered mono-coque aft. Armament comprised one engine-mounted 20mm MG 151 cannon and two 12.7mm LKK/42 machine guns, provision being made for two 200kg bombs underwing. Prototype construction was slowed by the preoccupation of the VL with higher priority programmes, and work on the Pyorremyrsky, which had languished for several months, came to a halt with the Finnish-Soviet Armistice of 4 September 1944. Somewhat surprisingly, construction of the fighter was resumed later, in January 1945. A DB 605AC engine was removed from a Bf 109G and installed in the prototype, which flew for the first time on 21 November 1945. The Pyorremyrsky could outclimb the Bf 109G-6 and was more manoeuvrable, but, as no funds were available for the purchase of new aircraft for Ilmavoimat and sufficient Bf 109Gs remained to equip the Ilmavoimien fighter force that was permitted under the Armistice terms.
...the air ministry wanted 20 mm turrets in its heavy bombers even before the war, but cost, (non)availability of 20 mm cannon, and weight at the end of the tail considerations kept 20 mm being put into tail turrets till the end of the war. Even the Germans couldn't achieve that. Only the americans did that with a single 20 mm in the tail in the B-29 and it took a 124,000 lb design to take it.
Well, my idea was not to have a clone of the 109, read up and you'll see it was the VG-33 I was looking at. Wooden, maximum streamlining, maximum ease of production, could be trimmed dorn to 2000 Kg.Oh, yes, and Clay...think about whether having automatic wing leading edge slats are more trouble than they are worth, especially for a country with a low (for that time) industrial base. I think we should try for maximum simplicity...
Only in the bigger Lincoln were 20 mm turrets feasible. As a general rule of thumb, any plane smaller than 60,000 lbs cannot have twin gun 20 mm turrets unless some major compromises in either bombload, fuel, speed, or ammunition for guns carried are made. Only when we start getting to the 75000 lb and above stage does 20 mm become feasible...
Wanna try?
Ok, this is awesome because I've been thinking about this all day. Armament and pilot protection would have to be heavily reduced. Extra features would have to be dropped, like wing slats etc.Well...I think your best scenario would then be to build a plane that was so superior that even the Germans would want to buy and license it, and then all the problems would be solved at a single stroke.
Here are my thoughts.
Building a highly streamlined, light, fast, and easy to produce plane, you will have to have some sacrifices. The first will be armament.
I suggest no cannon, only four MG 131 firing through the hub. How? Take two 131, bolt them together barrel to barrel. Now stagger two more 131 behind them and bolt them together dittp The Vee of the 601 can take a maximum 70 mm diameter. The four 131 should just about fit.
Result: you have a centerline installation and no propeller interruption penalty. 3600 rpm. All for a total gun weight of only 68 kg. The bullets are not too powerful, but should be good enough for the light Yaks. Stormoviks would be a bit of a problem though.
Have an annular cowl, like the FW 190 D. Easier to engineer. Same total drag as wing radiators but much easier to fit and service.
Have your vertical tail in front of the horizontal tail, like the Corsair. This will make your plane more maneuverable at high angles of attack, such as climbing turns.
BTW I read about your template plane and it weighed over 3300 kg take off weight. That's about the same as a 109 Frederich.
as in i would take parts of each plane like the mustang engine and the p-47s chances of liveing ( very high) and armorment package of the 109 and 190 and then make it all look great like the spitfire
as in i would take parts of each plane like the mustang engine and the p-47s chances of liveing ( very high) and armorment package of the 109 and 190 and then make it all look great like the spitfire
that's why all of my "designs" are existing proven airframes with power plant changes, armament additions and subtractions, and (sometimes) different construction materials and armor compromises.Now when you design an airplane, the very first thing you start with is the powerplant. Every other decision you make on the design starts from that.
This thread has the premise that everything be credible in time, space and money, which means that the powerplant should credibly be in operation during the time which you plan the plane to be built.
For the mission you need to take into account where you will put your equipment. Where will you put the engine? In front in the nose, or in front of the wings, or embedded in the wings? Why? And what of the engine acessories? Radiators, if necessary, oil coolers, always necessary, superchargers or turbochargers, fuel and oil tanks? Bombs, bomb racks, guns? Ammunition tanks? Will you have armour around them, and if so, how much?
Once you have decided on that the age old problem of aircraft design, weight, comes into play. All of the above (and a lot more we haven't included!) is dead weight - this means that it's not contributing anything to the airplane's strength. You need structures like the airplane fuselage and Wing spars to give strength to the plane, and don't forget these have weight, too. They have to carry themselves and the weight of the rest of the plane as well.
And how will we balance this weight so that the aircraft is neither too nose nor tail heavy? We have to think of that.
And, of course, wing design - what type of airfoil design we will use - is an art in itself.
All this shows that aircraft design, even a paper aircraft, is a very, very complex design indeed, which is why most paper aircraft designers take a proven aircraft as a template and make a few changes here and there. Wildly mixing and matching aircraft any old how - like, say, saying you're going to mate the wings of the spitfire with the body of a mustang and then add the leading edge slats of the 109 - is just a pipe dream.
I took a very deeeeep breath when designing the BB 129 because it was unlike any template that had been seen before. But I have put a lot of deep thought into it, and I think that design will fly....when I finish X-planing it someday i will post the file here.