Cheers....we learn as we progress.
Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Let me ask you without horns and a tail.....does this not look to you more Mustang than an I -16 ?
This moved 550 kph with 860 hp engine...Me-109 E needed 1100 hp to go 560 kph.
H-1 racer went 566 kph at 1000 hp.
Hughes H-1 Racer - Wikipedia
Last edited:
cammerjeff
Tech Sergeant
Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.
As for your idea thant is landing gear may have influnced the FW 190's landing gear design, that is inaccurate, the prototype FW 190 first flew in June of 1939, And the design was completed at least a year before then, and the Germans would have evaluated the 2nd prototype at least a year after the FW 190 prototype flew.
Using your logic does that mean that the Loire-Nieport LN.401 design was the forrunner of the CAO 200 because it uses a liquid cooled V-12 engine, and also employes auxilery vertical tail surfaces?
Loire-Nieuport LN.401 - Wikipedia
No but they claim it was a Loire 161 decendant. I don't see any similarities...but a P-51A is almost a spitting image...from certain angles.Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.
As for your idea thant is landing gear may have influnced the FW 190's landing gear design, that is inaccurate, the prototype FW 190 first flew in June of 1939, And the design was completed at least a year before then, and the Germans would have evaluated the 2nd prototype at least a year after the FW 190 prototype flew.
Using your logic does that mean that the Loire-Nieport LN.401 design was the forrunner of the CAO 200 because it uses a liquid cooled V-12 engine, and also employes auxilery vertical tail surfaces?
Loire-Nieuport LN.401 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Without the two fins.
Does it look like a Messerschmitt 109 ?
The CAO 200 is from 1938.Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.
As for your idea thant is landing gear may have influnced the FW 190's landing gear design, that is inaccurate, the prototype FW 190 first flew in June of 1939, And the design was completed at least a year before then, and the Germans would have evaluated the 2nd prototype at least a year after the FW 190 prototype flew.
Using your logic does that mean that the Loire-Nieport LN.401 design was the forrunner of the CAO 200 because it uses a liquid cooled V-12 engine, and also employes auxilery vertical tail surfaces?
Loire-Nieuport LN.401 - Wikipedia
cammerjeff
Tech Sergeant
You do realize that the Prototype of the P 51 ( the NA-73X) 1st flew on October 26th 1940, and the design was started in 1938? Before the CAO 200 1st flew or was revieled to the world. They just look somewhat alike, just like most 4-door sedans of the same era look very much alike.
If you don't see that then I am done, beleive what you will.
If you don't see that then I am done, beleive what you will.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The Ki-61 is much closer in appearance to the P-51. The Hien was a lithe, sleek fighter. The CAO 200 looks to me more like a Brewster interpretation of the Mustang.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Compare the KI-60/KI-61 to the He100.
Holy crap...it is the miracle that It was designed in 102 days. Well recorded historical fact:
The P-51 Mustang was designed in 1940 by North American Aviation in response to a request from the British Purchasing Commission. The prototype, designated NA-73X, was built in just 102 days and made its first flight on 26 October 1940.
Last edited:
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
FWIW
If looks are an indicator, then the nose/engine section back to the wing leading edge looks like the Hurricane (ff 1935), the cockpit canopy looks like a cross between the Bf109C/D (ff early-1938) and the Hurricane, the aft upper fuselage section in front of the tail looks like the Hurricane. The main wing planform and horizontal tail surfaces do not look like any of the above or the P-51.
The main wing planform does look like that of the LN.162 & LN.163.
CAO.200
If looks are an indicator, then the nose/engine section back to the wing leading edge looks like the Hurricane (ff 1935), the cockpit canopy looks like a cross between the Bf109C/D (ff early-1938) and the Hurricane, the aft upper fuselage section in front of the tail looks like the Hurricane. The main wing planform and horizontal tail surfaces do not look like any of the above or the P-51.
The main wing planform does look like that of the LN.162 & LN.163.
CAO.200
But rudder is similar...nothing like Hurricane...in fact canopy is very similar too but rounded. Also the radiator is semiburied..much more like in Mustang than in Hurricane.
Unfortunately we cannot interview mr Schmued who lived very close to France his childhood in Hornbach. I bet he wanted to put all aerodynamic forces into play to make this little moster better than the Paris show masterpieve CAO 200 was...which he certaily has sreen in FLIGHT mag in 1938.
CAO 200 was to replace the Morane 406...in which Fiaf pilots scored several Airacobras in 1943-1944.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usqV_zUpGCs
Also the Yak-1 ( 3, 7 and 9 ) lineage is pretty clearly derived from CAO 200.
Yakovlev Yak-1 - Wikipedia
LG door pretty similar...and wooden tail like in Hurricane and in CAO 200.
Lagg-3 is sorta alike as well...bet all these designers visited the Paris show in 1938.
Lavotškin LaGG-3 – Wikipedia
Last edited:
Also the Yak-1 ( 3, 7 and 9 ) lineage is pretty clearly derived from CAO 200.
Yakovlev Yak-1 - Wikipedia
LG door pretty similar...and wooden tail like in Hurricane and in CAO 200.
Lagg-3 is sorta alike as well...bet all these designers visited the Paris show in 1938.
Lavotškin LaGG-3 – Wikipedia
fi.wikipedia.org
Well I try to think these designs must be somehow interrelated as one of our top aces said he shot down 2 Mustangs in june 1944....and they are proven to be Yak-9s. So it would be very easy to understand that they both derived from a same aeroplane from 1938.
Not exactly same...but similarly laid out concepts.
Last edited:
Neither of them is derived from the French aircraft.
So what is the concept behind these aircraft? In what ways does the Polikarpov's I-17 (TsKB-19), which was demonstrated in Paris in 1936, differ from it?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There was a huge difference in Mustang radiator duct compared to everything that went before it and some extent, after it.
It wasn't so much the semi-buried, it was the longer entry that allowed for less turbulence, there was the splitter (much smaller on the Allison powered planes) to avoid taking in turbelant air flow, and there was longer exit duct to reduce turbulence in the exit flow before the cooling air actually exited.
Shorten the intake scoop, shorten the exit duct and get rid of the splitter and you lose much of the reduced drag of the Mustang's cooling system.
XP-40 tried to use a ventral radiator.
Under engine radiator was around 30mph faster.
Getting the Meridith effect to actually work was a lot harder than it looked at first glance. Getting it to work well was even harder.
Ventral radiators were not new, how far back they need to go was subject to debate, Putting 1/2 the radiator inside the fuselage was good for steaming, making sure it still cooled well during a 3-10 minute climb was also a trick.
Modified S.E. 5, is that a ventral radiator or a chin radiator?
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
It all comes down to convergent evolution. The world was choc-a-bloc with pointy nosed water cooled tractor fighters in the decade mid 30s to 40s.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Yep....................similarly laid out concepts.
Propeller in the front.
Engine right behind.
Rudder and elevator at the rear.
Cockpit somewhere in-between.
Low wing.
Retracting landing gear.
Yep. Similar
1920. Fully retracting landing gear interlocked with drooping leading edge and drooping trailing edge/aileron for variable camber.
Fully enclosed cockpit (with zero forward vision, or rearward).
Monocoque fuselage (not the first).
Cantilever wing (not the first)
If I close one eye and squint a lot how many planes can I claim trace back to this one?
