Re-engined planes

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Can I offer you one... the French decide to do a post war development on the Ta152c.... reengineer with Bristol Centaurs power egg from the Sea Fury ...
Remove the extension plug at the tail added with the Fw190D to balance out the long nose of the inline.... and a Bristol Centaurs Ta152c looks like a super Fw190A... the fuselage and wing root guns must go so those bays get extra fuel tanks ..... and the out board mg151 gun bay get double up to 2 guns so you back to 4 20mm total


And now for something completely different a He162 seaplane

Because of the high mount engine the He162 is a natural to get made in to a seaplane ...a fighter that can operate off lakes ...and a lake is a runway that can never be bombed out of operation ...
Remove the landing gear and scab on a seaplane hull on the lower fuselage.... think P6M Seamaster like hull .... the guns go up to the wing roots
 
Last edited:
HBBates, because of the size of the He162's wings, you'd probably be better off leaving the cannon in the fuselage...the gunbay can be made isolated from the watertight hull and the ports are far enough foreward, I doubt they'd be an issue regarding water entry...
 
Do 135:
As much of Do-17 airframe as possible, two Jumo 211 (aft engine is behind bomb bay). 2-4 x 20mm, 2 x 30 or 37mm.
 

Attachments

  • dornierssss 800 px.JPG
    35.2 KB · Views: 193
Thanks for the appreciation

Fairey Battle with Bristol Hercules; perhaps developed instead of Albacore Barracuda as a carrier torpedo/dive bomber. Dive brakes, later Fairey-Youngman flaps. Exhaust flame suppressors. Extra fuel tanks or MGs in wing bomb cells, if needed. Carb inlet moved to side.
 

Attachments

  • radiBatt.JPG
    15.6 KB · Views: 256
What time frame are you thinking of?

For carrier use you need to develop a folding wing. Or leave the planes decked parked. Not something the RN did at the beginning of the war. More fuel isn't really needed, the Battle had pretty good legs as it was, 212 Imp gallons of fuel carried in the wing center section. Beefed up landing gear.

Early Hercules engines were good for about 1375hp for take-off. Trying to match up with the appropriate Merlin is a little difficult. It depends a bit on when the navy planes got 100 octane fuel. You also have to consider that the Hercules has more drag and may use a portion of it's higher power just fighting the drag and not improving the performance of the Airplane. At least one Battle was equipped with a Hercules engine as a test bed aircraft so they probably did have a good idea what the performance was.
 
Ideally it would've been deployed in 1st half of 1940; I reckon it's 1375 HP with 87 oct fuel, and later 1500 with 100 oct (late 1940?). Some 1700 HP for 1944.
We indeed need wing folding, along with stronger landing gear.

Care to share some info about Battle with Hercules? Was it just a test bed for the engine, or some project to upgrade the Battle?
I've found the pics of the Battle with Taurus (1938 ) and Cyclone (1939?)
The increase of drag would've been noticeable for a clean airframe flying at top speed (provided no power increase), but we need a strong engine to lift a heavy plane from a carrier. Hercules was the best that Brits have had available in the 'dark years'.
 
The Battle was flown with a number of engines, it was big, it was sturdy, it had room in the rear cockpit for test instruments. It was flown with both the Hercules II and XI engines, the Taurus, Fairey's own prince and Monarch engines, Napier Dagger VIII, Napier Sabre I and II, the R-R Exe and 5 different Merlins, all early ones.
Depending on exactly when in the 'dark years' the Merlin may offer more power than the standard MK III. The MK VIII Merlin used the early Fulmars was good for almost 200hp more than the MK III for take off on 87 octane because it used a different gear ratio to the supercharger. It limited peak altitude performance to 7,500ft instead of 16,250ft like the MK III but it took less power to drive, heated the intake mixture less and allowed the engine to run with the throttle plates more open.
Switching to a navalised MK X engine would also have boosted take off power from 880 to over 1000hp on 87 octane. Once 100 octane becomes available to the Navy take off power of the Merlins jumps to 1200-1300hp with little more than turning the boost limit adjuster.
The Battle was a 1934-35 design, time spent modifying it to any great degree would be time spent not working on Barracudas (response to a 1937 requirement) or the Firefly (200 ordered off the drawing board in June of 1940)
 
Hercules was developing 1375 HP (87 oct) in late 1939, Merlin VIII was one year late to achieve 1275 HP (needing 100 oct?). Hercules with 100 oct fuel develops what, 1500 HP?

I've already stated that such a Sea Battle would've replaced both Albacore Barracuda, so Fairey designers wouldn't be overworked.
 
tomo pauk said:
The P-51 with a well-streamlined radial; the scale fits to R-2800 Ash-82 (depicted).
Click to expand...

i like this rendition, but it makes me think of placing a turbo behind the pilot making leaving the intake originally intended for cooling as an intake for a turbo.
Performance and weight might dictate the end result.

Bill
 
I feel slightly wicked to distort this thread but were there some planes that should have used their original engines?

For example, the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyōfū floatplane was developed into the N1K1-J Shiden fighter and this later redesigned to give the N1K2-J. One major change was the substitution of the Mitsubishi Kasei of the N1K1 by a Nakajima NK9A Homare 11. However, the Kasei was being developed and the J2M3 Raiden, which was roughly a contemporary of the N1K1-J Shiden, had a Kasei 23a engine which may have given 1580 hp at 5500m at 2500 rpm compared to 1460hp at 5700m at 2900 rpm for the Homare 11 (data from here ). The Kasei was easier to maintain and possibly more reliable. Not changing the engine might have freed up enough designers to prepare a low wing aircraft which might not have had problems with its undercarriage.

If the Kasei, was judged not to have development potential, could Kawanishi have shoehorned in a 54l Mitsubishi Ha 104 (? Ha. 42 or MK6 or MK10 ?) giving perhaps 1610 hp at 6100m in its 1944 version. The diameter had gone from the Kasei's 1.34 m to 1.372 m but they might have looked at a Fw190 since they designed the Kyōfū. The extra weight of that engine might have been a problem but the development potential was greater. Unfortunately, I don't think that the smaller MK9 series was available.
 

As I cannot compete with the Photoshop work, I will risk Shortround's comments by asking how its performance would compare with an IAR-80 re-engined with a Gnome-Rhone 14R taken from a MB-157
 
1st, the IAR-80 with a salvaged P-38J engine would have been quite a trick. The P-38J powerplant installation went to about 3168lbs (1440kg) not including the fuel system (tanks and piping) even from 2200kg that doesn't leave much weight for the rest of the airplane.

2nd, the Gnome-Rhone 14R seems to be a bit of a phantom engine. The post war engines never seemed to match the pre/early-war claims for power at altitude. The pre/early war claims of 1700hp at 26,000ft must be viewed with skepticism .
It also weighed about 200kg more than the 14N and would need a larger oil cooler and propeller.
Better performing yes, but how much better?
 
Ditching the Kingcobra Airacomet, a jet-powered plane is built instead. 4 x .50cals (jet is still weak), enlarged cooling intakes now feed the jet engine.
 

Attachments

  • jetCobra800.JPG
    31.7 KB · Views: 195


While using captured engines would be clever in one sense, it obviously has problems in terms of supply, spares and servicing.

For me the long nose of the IAR-80 beckoned for the installation of a Daimler Benz DB605 or 603 with annular radiator. Apparently a prototype was fitted with a Jumo 211 with annular raditor - maybe the Jumo 213 would have been an option.
 
I wonder what the heat waves coming off that turbo right in front of the windscreen would do to the pilots forward visibility. Any night flying would be out of the question.
Come to think of it, that's where the turbos exhaust is also, they'd never have to worry about the windscreen icing over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Japanese wooden planes
Replies
1
Views
877
GrauGeist
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
16K
PAT303
P
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register