"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

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

The Flugwerk FW-190 in NZ has an Ash82-T engine fitted. I can't find my photos of the data plate, but all my other records state the Ash-82T, and the manuals supplied with it were Russian.
 
I think that combat weight was based on the idea that the aircraft would perform at that weight at the target. Take off weight included the full 962 gallons of fuel, or a bit less. Max takeoff weight was restricted to 36,500 lbs. in the short wing versions. The long wing versions had no such restriction, so I assume that meant that you could cram them full and still have a margin of safety. They did of course reduce the maximum # of bombs the plane could carry by eliminating the rear bomb bay.
 
Oh, just discovered your response, Aaron. Yes, I know and there are one or two others built with the ASh-82 as well, apparently. Was the Russian engine originally fitted though?
From memory, the aircraft only had test flying hours on it when it came into the country, and it was all done on the Ash-82, so it was fitted from new.
 
Ah, interesting. I had read that the intent was to fit the Chinese engines, perhaps after the Chariots aircraft, since it was the next production one? Cost perhaps?
 
Ah, interesting. I had read that the intent was to fit the Chinese engines, perhaps after the Chariots aircraft, since it was the next production one? Cost perhaps?
Not sure. For some reason I didn't take copies of all documents like I normally do.
If the situation was anything like the Housai 6 engines, then the Russian engines were probably significantly cheaper. A new M-14 is a lot cheaper than the Housai, althoug hI think that is about to change with the Chinese starting production of the CJ-6 for the civilian market.
 
The B-24 was stretched into the PB4Y. Seven feet added to the fuselage, an additional Bendix top turret, and the redesigned tail that would probably have been used on all B-24s if production had continued.
 
I think the question is whether the airframe can be modified/upgraded to suit the later war high H/P engines successfully, the Spitfire P51 FW190 P47 are examples that did.
I've read somewhere that the main fuselage of the Spitfire (from the firewall to the tail attachment) remained unchanged from the first to the last unit.



I'm trying to find that reference, I assume the bubble canopy ones were different for a start. Perhaps this only applied to the Merlin-powered Spits.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those cases where you have to read very carefully, and some writers may have interpreted the original and not very well.



Similar method of construction is not the same as remained unchanged from the first to the last unit

Now in the picture above note the top and bottom longerons and the datum longerons on each side.

There are a number of references to these longerons being strengthened as more powerful engines were fitted.

I have no idea if the skin thickness was ever changed in any areas. That would be a change but not a change in the method of construction or even a change in the number of parts or operations needed to assemble the fuselage.
 

Users who are viewing this thread