P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Only one I could think of.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only one I could think of.The Shinden had one or two successful flights.
Is that your definition of a successful aircraft ?
Well, 3 flights in early August 45, for a grand total of 45 minutes of flight time.
Does the Do335 with it's front engine shut off count?
Plenty of pusher designs:
Curtiss XP-55
Ambrosini SS.4
Miles M.35
Vulture XP-54
Kayaba Ku-4 (which looked a great deal like the Handley-Page HP.75)
Northrop XP-56
And an interesting sidenote:
Bell had two pusher designs in the works, the XP-52 and XP-59 (not the XP-59A) but the projects were shelved.
And yes, the J7W as already mentioned.
Which is why I joked about the Do335 - plenty of fighter designs but nothing really came of any of them.There's several pusher designs out there during the WW2 era, but how many made it past the prototype/ research phase into production ?
Only the Saab 21, and it barely qualifies as being WW2 era.
Sure the Do335 should be listed as a pusher, was faster on the rear engine than the front.Which is why I joked about the Do335 - plenty of fighter designs but nothing really came of any of them.
The J7W had several issues that had to be worked out, like overheating, torque roll and shaft vibration.
*if* the Japanese had enough time, than perhaps it might have had a chance, but to be honest, I doubt it. Like many other nations, they had jets in the works and the efforts to address the Shiden's problems might not have been worth it.
I am starting to see some laminar flow there.
I was thinking about that. The Mosquito was made with an airfoil that was pre laminar-flow but still a good airfoil that was not a symmetrical airfoil. Did we have anything equivalent in the United States?The short, symmetrical wing was chosen because that met the Army's requirements for high speed, but at the cost of higher stall speeds, longer take offs. The B-25 used a more conventional airfoil and though it cost speed, it improved low speed handling, improved take off performance.
Yeah, it seems that 4 engines makes the most sense for something that large. I'm not really sure why they came to the belief that 2 engines were inadequate.Not sure if the Jumo 211 had been developed into a double engine, as the DB 601 was with the DB 606.
Unless you are talking of having the He 177 with 4 separate engines.
The He 177 had 4 engines, they just drove 2 props. There were theoretical advantages to joining two engines together but outweighed by the problems caused by the way they did it.On the He 177
Yeah, it seems that 4 engines makes the most sense for something that large. I'm not really sure why they came to the belief that 2 engines were inadequate.
Good point, but I think having four props is better -- even if one engine gets struck, you still have three that will run right. Also, the Jumo engines apparently (according to D Deleted member 68059 ) had a higher coolant pressure which would reduce cooling drag.The He 177 had 4 engines, they just drove 2 props.
3% reduction in drag from what I was toldThere were theoretical advantages to joining two engines together
Also stuff about suitability as a dive bomber which is above my pay grade.Good point, but I think having four props is better -- even if one engine gets struck, you still have three that will run right. Also, the Jumo engines apparently (according to D Deleted member 68059 ) had a higher coolant pressure which would reduce cooling drag.
Admittedly, I know that Heinkel had an interest in an evaporatively cooled DB600/601 engine. While that would provide a theoretical edge, it wouldn't survive combat.
3% reduction in drag from what I was told
"All bombers must be dive bombers! Der sturtzkampflugzug ist die grosseste waffe."Also stuff about suitability as a dive bomber which is above my pay grade.
The NACA M6 airfoil was rather close.On the B-26
I was thinking about that. The Mosquito was made with an airfoil that was pre laminar-flow but still a good airfoil that was not a symmetrical airfoil. Did we have anything equivalent in the United States?
It was the "above my pay grade" comment I found amusing. The rest of that post was above my IQ grade.SaparotRob I wasn't actually joking. There are arguments about concentration of weight and wing structure, plus things about the controllability of a twin with large props versus a four with smaller spread out props. The He 177 wasn't intended to do vertical dives but inclined at about 30 degrees to increase speed and accuracy. I have read the stuff, I have no idea if it is valid or how valid it may be. In fact the He 177 did use this to some extent, they started outside RADAR space at high altitude and the whole raid was a shallow dive, increasing speed across UK and exiting at a much lower level and higher speed than just level flight would allow.
Is there any members here who are knowledgeable about such things?Also stuff about suitability as a dive bomber which is above my pay grade.
Maybe but I doubt it apart from theoretical stuff, no one alive has practical experience of the difference between two and four engined aircraft used as dive bombers. What I read on wiki seemed logical, but could be very clever horth thit.Is there any members here who are knowledgeable about such things?
I figure if you don't have practical, then theoretical is fine.Maybe but I doubt it apart from theoretical stuff, no one alive has practical experience of the difference between two and four engined aircraft used as dive bombers.
I think it was all theoretical, did anyone ever do serious dive bombing in four engined ww2 bombers and evaluate the difference to something like a He177?I figure if you don't have practical, then theoretical is fine.