Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
A recip will see no benefit from a swept wing and even if it was somehow fast enough, the sweep-back of the Me262 wing wouldn't have added much.
Re-engined planes
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
- Thread starter
- #64
Too bad FAA didn't put more faith in it (or directed in a 'better' way) - with later Pegasus (1000+ HP), and/or new Taurus engines it would've doubled the bomb load to 1000 lb. Better than Aichi 'Val' and as good as most of Dauntleses ('till dash-5 perhaps).
Last edited:
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Tomo, let me thank you on making this thread. This is one really good looking thread!!!
Now let's see...can you make a B-29 with 4 Napier Sabres in (a) tractor and (b) pusher configuration, a la the B-36?
And if you could moung a slave Napier in the certral ring, losing the fuel there, of course, what kind of height/speed performance could we see?
Without the slave, what kind of low-level Tokyo incendiary type bombing profile could we see?
Now let's see...can you make a B-29 with 4 Napier Sabres in (a) tractor and (b) pusher configuration, a la the B-36?
And if you could moung a slave Napier in the certral ring, losing the fuel there, of course, what kind of height/speed performance could we see?
Without the slave, what kind of low-level Tokyo incendiary type bombing profile could we see?
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
You could
and you'd end up with a B-29 that couldn't fly as high as a B-17
See above.
Low-level bombing would be around the same as the R-3350-engined B-29 whilst being less resilient to ground fire in and around the engine nacelles.
- Thread starter
- #67
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
As far as the Me262's conversion goes, the wings were swept back to solve CoG issues, placing those engine nacelles that far forward would skew it's Center of Gravity substantially resulting in a serious nose-heavy condition.
If any piston engines would be considered, perhaps the BMW 801D-2 raised up in a cowling that bisects the wing?
I know the 801 was much heavier than the DB or Jumo, but it had advantages, too.
If any piston engines would be considered, perhaps the BMW 801D-2 raised up in a cowling that bisects the wing?
I know the 801 was much heavier than the DB or Jumo, but it had advantages, too.
- Thread starter
- #69
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Granted, but the Mk108 was only 130 pounds each (not counting the ammo). Considering the Jumo weighs about 1,585 pounds and the DB weighs about 1,320, you do have a lighter conversion. But once those engines move ahead of the CoG, you'll have serious issues, even if you removed all the cannon and the foreward fuel cell to compensate.
Remember how sensitive the Me262 A-2a was when it released it's two nose-mounted bombs? Just that small of a change in the Center of Mass on the Me262's airframe had huge consequences.
Remember how sensitive the Me262 A-2a was when it released it's two nose-mounted bombs? Just that small of a change in the Center of Mass on the Me262's airframe had huge consequences.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
To be fair GG
2 x SC250s, roughly 1,000lbs, dropped from one extreme end or the other (the nose in this case) doesn't require a particularly sensitive aircraft in order for it to get upset about the sudden change in trim.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #72
The CoG is affected by torque - certain weight multiplied by it's distance from CoG. Eg. torque of a 600 kg added piece, 1 meter away from CoG can be canceled out with an opposite 200 kg piece, 3m away from CoG. Or, by removing of the 150 kg piece 4m away from CoG, on the same side of CoG where we just added those 600kg.
Any other combination works. (Sorry if I sound boring).
That was my idea - to cancel effects of adding something heavy, but closer to CoG, by deleting something light, but placed away from CoG, and adding the same deleted stuff on the opposite side of CoG.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
It is not just the weight of the engines but the weight of the powerplant.
Where are the propellers (at well over 300lbs each) in relation to the CG?
The radiators and oil coolers in the "Chin" position in regards to the CG?
weight of the cowlings,etc?
Where are the propellers (at well over 300lbs each) in relation to the CG?
The radiators and oil coolers in the "Chin" position in regards to the CG?
weight of the cowlings,etc?
- Thread starter
- #74
- Thread starter
- #75
Anyway, here is how might have looked one venerable bird that received a little help - perhaps via Twin Wasp, or Taurus: re-engined Swordfish.
The engine mount received some streamlining. Now, how about the carrier wing (2nd half of 1940) with 30% of such Swordfishes, 40% of Merlin-engined Skuas (2-seat multi-role) 30% of dedicated fighter Skuas (as already depicted in this thread)
The engine mount received some streamlining. Now, how about the carrier wing (2nd half of 1940) with 30% of such Swordfishes, 40% of Merlin-engined Skuas (2-seat multi-role) 30% of dedicated fighter Skuas (as already depicted in this thread)
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #76
- Thread starter
- #77
If Fairey can do it, so can Junkers: Stuka with 2 engines. BMW or Bramo, retractable U/C, much easier instalation of tank-busting cannon(s), while it could still hurl a big bomb if no heavy cannon is present.
2nd pic lacks wing engine to show 37mm cannon mounting. An all-around ground attack plane, with perhaps 1-2 30mm cannons, more up forward, or in wing roots, would of course enable the big bomb all the time. Stern barbete (not shown here) would be nice to have.
2nd pic lacks wing engine to show 37mm cannon mounting. An all-around ground attack plane, with perhaps 1-2 30mm cannons, more up forward, or in wing roots, would of course enable the big bomb all the time. Stern barbete (not shown here) would be nice to have.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #78
Another 'Schnellbomber', this time in Do-17 guise.
Instead of glass-house cockpit, the plane would've had the more streamlined, like one at 1st series of original. No gun armament, nor dedicated gunner. Instead of that, we have trusty Argus 410 to supercharge the main engines, located at where gunner was once.
The second pic is a Mosquito-wannabe. The DB-601/605 are installed (as they really were in some Do-17 variants), Argus 411 is now behind bomb bay, slightly down for better air flow for cooling, 2-3 x 20-30mm, plus 1 x 20-30mm as 'schraege musik'.
For expected performance, H. Nowarra claims that night fighter Do-17 with 2 x 1175 HP was good for 500 km/h in late 1941 (comparing favorably with Ju-88 Bf-110 in same role, prior 1944) so this combo ought to be really fast with 2 x 1350, or 2 x 1450 HP, with slave engine freeing up the power prior robbed by superchargers of main engines.
Instead of glass-house cockpit, the plane would've had the more streamlined, like one at 1st series of original. No gun armament, nor dedicated gunner. Instead of that, we have trusty Argus 410 to supercharge the main engines, located at where gunner was once.
The second pic is a Mosquito-wannabe. The DB-601/605 are installed (as they really were in some Do-17 variants), Argus 411 is now behind bomb bay, slightly down for better air flow for cooling, 2-3 x 20-30mm, plus 1 x 20-30mm as 'schraege musik'.
For expected performance, H. Nowarra claims that night fighter Do-17 with 2 x 1175 HP was good for 500 km/h in late 1941 (comparing favorably with Ju-88 Bf-110 in same role, prior 1944) so this combo ought to be really fast with 2 x 1350, or 2 x 1450 HP, with slave engine freeing up the power prior robbed by superchargers of main engines.
Attachments
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I'd like a Griffon-engined Mosquito
with the glasshouse of a Dinah
with the glasshouse of a Dinah
