Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

XBe02Drvr · Jan 28, 2021

SaparotRob said:
How long ago was that sailplane introduced? Sure looks and seems like the one on my second flight. I went up with my then girlfriend and let me tell you, it's a great date!

The 2-32 was first available in 1964, and all 87 were produced in less than a decade. If you both went on the same flight, almost certainly it was a 2-32. Most glider operations used it as a cash cow, two rides for one flight, but it required a robust tug: Bird dog or Pawnee; Super Cubs and Citabrias were pretty marginal for the job. Our club made theirs off limits for member's recreational flying. Only Commercial CFIs could get checked out in "the bomber" and then only to fly commercial rides. When did you fly? I might have been your pilot.
Babs Nutt, the examiner who gave me my Glider Commercial and CFI, still (posthumously now) holds the feminine absolute altitude record (35,000+ feet) for 2-seat gliders, which she set in a 2-32 in the 1970s. She was a great pilot, a great teacher, and even owned her own airport. Read Burton Bernstein's book, Plane Crazy For an account of Babs and her airport.

SaparotRob · Jan 28, 2021

This had to be in the '80's. It was with Soaring Adventures at Gabreski Airport, Long Island, New York. I still have the refrigerator magnet.

SaparotRob · Jan 28, 2021

I'm changing the date to probably early '90's.

XBe02Drvr · Jan 28, 2021

SaparotRob said:
This had to be in the '80's. It was with Soaring Adventures at Gabreski Airport, Long Island, New York. I still have the refrigerator magnet. View attachment 610556

That's a 2-32, alright. Crowded airspace to be soaring in back in the the day, with Grumman flight test right nearby and east JFK arrivals and departures and with NY ANG based there. We had a lot less traffic issues up in VT.

SaparotRob · Jan 28, 2021

By way of context, Grumman had lost the F-14D contract a couple of years earlier. Would Grumman flight testing have been reduced?

XBe02Drvr · Jan 29, 2021

SaparotRob said:
By way of context, Grumman had lost the F-14D contract a couple of years earlier. Would Grumman flight testing have been reduced?

Grumman was still at it; they did electronic warfare conversions on the F111 and F18, and were upgrading the E2C and EP3C.

XBe02Drvr · Jan 29, 2021

SaparotRob said:
This had to be in the '80's. It was with Soaring Adventures at Gabreski Airport, Long Island, New York.

I used to pass through that area on BOS-JFK and PVD-JFK flights. If you went IFR, ATC would send you "the great circle route", up to 10,000 feet, out the Victor Airway towards ALB, then trickle you down in a series of steps south across western CT, over Bridgeport, across the sound, and into JFK, about doubling the mileage. Weather permitting, we would go VFR down Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound at 2,500 feet. Passengers loved this and always asked for it. Our fuel purchasing agent loved it too.
The fly in the ointment was the fog bank that could form rapidly over Long Island and the Sound after a wind change, leaving us orbiting east of Montauk begging ATC for a pop up IFR clearance into Kennedy. Said wind change would, of course dictate a runway change at JFK, and the redirecting of the streams of inbound traffic and the departures taxiing to their initially assigned runways. A regular chinese fire drill if it caught the weather guessers by surprise.
When we got our IFR it would be up to 3,000, direct Calverton, (Grumman Plant), Calverton 195° radial to some obscure waypoint 25 miles out to sea, then hold. Souls on board? Fuel remaining? They would give us an Expect Further Clearence time 25 minutes shy of our fuel exhaustion time, and seemingly forget about us. We quickly learned to lie about our fuel remaining and pad it by 30 minutes.
All in a day's work.

Koopernic · Jan 29, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
I like the look of the Curtiss A-18 Shrike. Surely we can improve this design to make it a competitor in WW2. Swap in a pair of Allison inline engines?

View attachment 610512

Instead of 9 cylinder CW R-1820-47 of 850hp use a 12 cylinder PW R-1830-21 of 1200 hp.

40% extra power should give about 13% extra speed should get speed from 247mph to 280mph. There would be some speed gain from the lower frontal area radial.

Shortround6 · Jan 29, 2021

Koopernic said:
Instead of 9 cylinder CW R-1820-47 of 850hp use a 12 cylinder PW R-1830-21 of 1200 hp.

40% extra power should give about 13% extra speed should get speed from 247mph to 280mph. There would be some speed gain from the lower frontal area radial.

AND that pretty much explains WHY it wasn't done.

Martin 167 (AKA Maryland)

304mph at 13,000ft using 1050hp R-1830s.

Douglas DB-7

304mph at 5,000ft using 1100hp R-1830 engines.

North American NA-40

A mere 268mph at 5000ft using 1100hp R-1830 engines.

Stearman XA-21

257mph using P&W R-2180s.

All four planes were flying in 1938 for a design competition to replace the A-17 single engine attack plane and the A-18 Shrike.
Curtiss did not bother to enter an updated version in the competition.
The Douglas and the Sterman both crashed before the actual flying evaluation but the army later ordered the DB-7 which evolved into the A-20, France ordered the Martin 167 design and North American reworked the NA-40 into the B-25.

BTW the R-1820 engines in the A-18 weighed 1178lbs each.
1200hp P&W R-1830s don't show up until 1940/41 and the lightest versions with single speed superchargers weigh around 1420-1460lbs depending on propeller reduction gear and other details.

Despite the smaller diameter radials there may have been too much detail drag on the A-18, or too much that needed changing besides the engines.

XBe02Drvr · Jan 29, 2021

Koopernic said:
Instead of 9 cylinder CW R-1820-47 of 850hp use a 12 cylinder PW R-1830-21 of 1200 hp.

Actually, the 1830 is a 14 cylinder engine. Each row in a radial has to have an odd number of cylinders. Try to work out a firing order for an even number and you'll see why. With radials cooling drag is generally proportional to heat dissipation requirements, irrespective of frontal diameter. The extra internal baffling to keep the second row cool largely cancels the gain from smaller diameter. Compare performance of C47/DC3s with equivalent horsepower 1820s and 1830s. No significant difference.

Shortround6 said:
Despite the smaller diameter radials there may have been too much detail drag on the A-18, or too much that needed changing besides the engines.

In a nutshell.

Shortround6 · Jan 29, 2021

I would also note that this type aircraft could make 248mph at 8000ft on just about the same engines as the A-18 used.

If an airliner with a crew of 3 and 10-11 passengers can go as fast as your light bomber/attack aircraft using the same engines then either the published figures are off or there is something wrong with the design of the attack aircraft or both.

Admiral Beez · Jan 29, 2021

Have Rolls-Royce skip the Exe and Vulture, and Eagle programs and focused entirely on the Merlin and Griffon.

tomo pauk · Jan 29, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Have Rolls-Royce skipped the Exe and Vulture, and Eagle programs and focused entirely on the Merlin and Griffon.

This, very much. Skip the Peregrine, too.

SaparotRob · Jan 29, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
I used to pass through that area on BOS-JFK and PVD-JFK flights. If you went IFR, ATC would send you "the great circle route", up to 10,000 feet, out the Victor Airway towards ALB, then trickle you down in a series of steps south across western CT, over Bridgeport, across the sound, and into JFK, about doubling the mileage. Weather permitting, we would go VFR down Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound at 2,500 feet. Passengers loved this and always asked for it. Our fuel purchasing agent loved it too.
The fly in the ointment was the fog bank that could form rapidly over Long Island and the Sound after a wind change, leaving us orbiting east of Montauk begging ATC for a pop up IFR clearance into Kennedy. Said wind change would, of course dictate a runway change at JFK, and the redirecting of the streams of inbound traffic and the departures taxiing to their initially assigned runways. A regular chinese fire drill if it caught the weather guessers by surprise.
When we got our IFR it would be up to 3,000, direct Calverton, (Grumman Plant), Calverton 195° radial to some obscure waypoint 25 miles out to sea, then hold. Souls on board? Fuel remaining? They would give us an Expect Further Clearence time 25 minutes shy of our fuel exhaustion time, and seemingly forget about us. We quickly learned to lie about our fuel remaining and pad it by 30 minutes.
All in a day's work.

Don't forget the Grand Tour of all the runways and hangars at JFK as we taxi to some elusive gate.

SaparotRob · Jan 29, 2021

I was the only baggage on board that LOVED it.

XBe02Drvr · Jan 29, 2021

SaparotRob said:
Don't forget the Grand Tour of all the runways and hangars at JFK as we taxi to some elusive gate.

"Ground, Metro Air three four one seven's clear of two two left at Echo Echo for gate six five."
"Metro thirty four seventeen..huh...standby...uh, you can't get to that gate from where you are due to construction on Charlie Echo. Make a one eighty and stand by. If we ever get a break in traffic we'll backtaxi you on the runway to Golf. Sorry bout that."

XBe02Drvr · Jan 29, 2021

Shortround6 said:
I would also note that this type aircraft could make 248mph at 8000ft on just about the same engines as the A-18 used.

Then there's the nugget pilot in an old OTU P39 off the California coast who saw a sleek four engine plane with a triple tail cruising through his practice area at a high rate of speed. He dove down, formed up on its left wing, and discovered he needed full throttle just to stay with it. The Lockheed test pilot noticed him, waved, then pulled smartly ahead and vanished in the haze.

SaparotRob · Jan 29, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
Then there's the nugget pilot in an old OTU P39 off the California coast who saw a sleek four engine plane with a triple tail cruising through his practice area at a high rate of speed. He dove down, formed up on its left wing, and discovered he needed full throttle just to stay with it. The Lockheed test pilot noticed him, waved, then pulled smartly ahead and vanished in the haze.

True or not, I love those stories.

wuzak · Jan 29, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Have Rolls-Royce skip the Exe and Vulture, and Eagle programs and focused entirely on the Merlin and Griffon.

That pretty much happened after the BoB.

It also depends on when you are talking about. If you are saying that in mid to late 1937 then there is no Griffon on which to concentrate - paper or otherwise.

Admiral Beez · Jan 29, 2021

wuzak said:
That pretty much happened after the BoB.

It also depends on when you are talking about. If you are saying that in mid to late 1937 then there is no Griffon on which to concentrate - paper or otherwise.

Developmentally can't RR get to the Griffon through the Merlin?

Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

2nd Lieutenant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

2nd Lieutenant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Banned

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Captain

Creator of Interesting Threads

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Captain

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads