P-47 size comparison.

[Shortround6]

Was aircraft volume a known statistic for an aircraft? I understand the imperative of making the aircraft as small as possible and as light as possible and the conflict of those imperatives with the bulk, center of gravity constraints and ducting of the turbosupercharger that caused the bulbous look of the P-47.

For most piston powered aircraft the problem was that they were weight limited, not volume limited.
You had more than enough volume to fit stuff into (limited by center of gravity) for most jobs (fresh flower deliveries excepted).
A smooth airflow was more beneficial than limiting the surface area with abrupt changes in cross section that created eddies and drag.

Passenger planes are the general exception. People do not fold well, water weighs about 62lbs per cubic ft, a box 2 ft X 2ft X 4.5 ft (18 cu ft) will hold most humans when seated but even the airlines aren't dumb enough to squeeze people into a space that small.

Jets have a lot more power, they have more automatic systems to move fuel in flight to maintain center of gravity. Jets also suck up a lot more fuel so designers get more creative in moving stuff into out of the way spaces to make space for revenue producing spaces.

Fighters and bombers (really weight limited) are at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[yulzari]

Now we need a chart showing the F6F, The F4U, the Typhoon and Tempest/Fury.

You know, 2000hp engines and heavy armament

View attachment 700157
You don't bring a midget to Indy.

Roger Ward took one to the US Grand Prix in 1959 though.

 

[pbehn]

Thank you.

Now I think about it, volume of wings is discussed when discussing the P-51 and Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed with a thin wing, for maximum speed. The P-51 was designed later when it had been discovered that you could get less drag with a thicker "laminar flow" type wing. This allowed the P-51 to have almost twice the fuel in its wing roots as the Spitfire did in its fuselage tank and also enough room for 6 x 0.5" mgs and ammunition.

 

[elbmc1969]

Crewed, presumably, by Luke, Annakin, and Leia.

Stupid auto-correct!

 

[SaparotRob]

Stupid auto-correct!

I know, right?

 

[elbmc1969]

Actually 4

It was specifically labeled as a 3-seater. It has the single-seat teardrop canopy and the side door, not the "big canopy."

 

[GregP]

View attachment 700060

Aahh ... I have it. We adults must avoid adult content since it might be objectionable. Gottcha.

 

[SaparotRob]

Who you calling "adult "?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was specifically labeled as a 3-seater. It has the single-seat teardrop canopy and the side door, not the "big canopy."

The A1E (AD-5) Had two pilots seated side-by-side and depending on mission and configuration can have another 2 seats installed behind the pilots. The A-1G (AD-5N) carried a crew of 4.

 

[yulzari]

The Jug certainly is large, no doubt, but you might want to edit that photo before the Mods see it.

Boobs must be covered - forum rule.

Rules is rules: but how very American.

 

[Snautzer01]

Who you calling "adult "?

Yeah... them is fighting word....last time someone called me adult i put a "kick me" post it on his back.

 

[Snautzer01]

The Jug certainly is large, no doubt, but you might want to edit that photo before the Mods see it.

Boobs must be covered - forum rule.

Good !! i am in the clear.

 

[GrauGeist]

Good !! i am in the clear.

View attachment 700282

Keep those jugs covered!

 

[fubar57]

The P-47's fuselage was much larger than other fighters because it had to accommodate the remote turbo system that was located behind the cockpit.

Innards

 

[yosimitesam]

The story may be apocryphal, but I read in one of my (many) books where a British pilot, on seeing his first P-47 land and its pilot exit the cockpit, supposedly asked "Where's the rest of the crew?"

 

[GrauGeist]

There was also the joke about if the P-47 was under attack, the pilot could run around the cockpit and take cover.

 

[Shortround6]

Note that a lot of that stuff was ducts and not really heavy, however you couldn't just let it hang out in the breeze without a much bigger problem with drag than the P-47s fuselage gave.

A lot of aircraft design is compromise.

for a given size wing (and forward fuselage/engine) you need a certain amount of stabilizing force from the tail surfaces (horizontal and vertical) now you can get that force from large surfaces not too far back from the wing or smaller surfaces located further away. But you are trading several things, more fuselage area (surface drag) vs smaller tail surfaces (less drag) and more weight of fuselage vs less weight of stabilizing surfaces. You also have to figure in the strength of the fuselage holding everything together while transmitting the forces (and control forces) while doing a 6 G or higher turn/pull out.
This is a gross oversimplification.

Also consider that in the 1930s and early 40s most designers were self taught.
Ed Heinemann was born in 1908, He joined Douglas in 1926 (age 18) as a draftsman. Bounced between several different companies until rejoining Douglas when Douglas bought Northrop. He became chief designer in 1936 (age 28?). Granted he was a genius but until the 1920s there weren't any collages/universities you could go to get a degree in aeronautical engineering. Some designers had staff to fall back on, structural engineers and "stressmen"(and they were a new field) and so on who were applying existing fields to aeronautics.
Most of the guys older than Heinemann had drawn full sized plans on shop floors during WW I. Through a lot of trial and error (crashes) they learned what worked and what didn't but sometimes they didn't know why. They kept tweaking what worked around the edges. Things got a lot better the further into the 1930s you got.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Note that a lot of that stuff was ducts and not really heavy, however you couldn't just let it hang out in the breeze without a much bigger problem with drag than the P-47s fuselage gave.

A lot of aircraft design is compromise.

for a given size wing (and forward fuselage/engine) you need a certain amount of stabilizing force from the tail surfaces (horizontal and vertical) now you can get that force from large surfaces not too far back from the wing or smaller surfaces located further away. But you are trading several things, more fuselage area (surface drag) vs smaller tail surfaces (less drag) and more weight of fuselage vs less weight of stabilizing surfaces. You also have to figure in the strength of the fuselage holding everything together while transmitting the forces (and control forces) while doing a 6 G or higher turn/pull out.
This is a gross oversimplification.

Also consider that in the 1930s and early 40s most designers were self taught.
Ed Heinemann was born in 1908, He joined Douglas in 1926 (age 18) as a draftsman. Bounced between several different companies until rejoining Douglas when Douglas bought Northrop. He became chief designer in 1936 (age 28?). Granted he was a genius but until the 1920s there weren't any collages/universities you could go to get a degree in aeronautical engineering. Some designers had staff to fall back on, structural engineers and "stressmen"(and they were a new field) and so on who were applying existing fields to aeronautics.
Most of the guys older than Heinemann had drawn full sized plans on shop floors during WW I. Through a lot of trial and error (crashes) they learned what worked and what didn't but sometimes they didn't know why. They kept tweaking what worked around the edges. Things got a lot better the further into the 1930s you got.

I believe the first University in the US to offer a BS in aeronautics was MIT. Donald Douglas Sr was the first recipient in 1914. Some of the WW2 greats had general engineering degrees, like Ed Wells, Rex Beisel; many were self taught going from designer draftsman to chief engineers like Schmued, Jack Northop, and Sydney Camm.

Rutgers didn't offer a degree purely in Aero Eng until early 2000's .

 

[yosimitesam]

I believe the first University in the US to offer a BS in aeronautics was MIT. Donald Douglas Sr was the first recipient in 1914. Some of the WW2 greats had general engineering degrees, like Ed Wells, Rex Beisel; many were self taught going from designer draftsman to chief engineers like Schmued, Jack Northop, and Sydney Camm.

Rutgers didn't offer a degree purely in Aero Eng until early 2000's .

Jimmy Doolittle received a doctorate in aeronautics from MIT in 1925, the first issued in the United States. (source: Wiki) Aeronautics was, at the time, an "emerging technology."

 

[fubar57]

One more comparison, La-5 I believe