- Thread starter
-
- #41
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, I did some looking in a book I recently got: "Convair Advanced Designs II: Secret Fighters, Attack Aircraft and Unique Concepts, 1929-1973", and the entry on the XA-41 basically lists an early armament consisting of the following
What's the maximum spread between minimum and maximum?Shortround6 said:Somewhere between 10.0 and 11.0 to 1
I believe the DB engines on the 109 had a low speed of just over 7 to 1.And the minimum gear-ratio is around 4-8 less right with a variable speed in theory right?
And the maximum was like 10.3?I believe the DB engines on the 109 had a low speed of just over 7 to 1.
When?I'm curious if it would have been possible to have developed any piston-powered, single-engined tactical bomber with the ability to do any of the following things
- Radius of action: 800 miles with 1,000 pounds of bombs
- Radius of action: 575-775 with 2,000 pounds of bombs
- Radius of action: 500-550 with 3,000 pounds of bombs
- Maximum level speed of at least 395-405 mph at altitude: This altitude could be anywhere from 10,000 - 25,000 feet
I'm curious if it would have been possible to have developed any piston-powered, single-engined tactical bomber with the ability to do any of the following things
- Radius of action: 800 miles with 1,000 pounds of bombs
- Radius of action: 575-775 with 2,000 pounds of bombs
- Radius of action: 500-550 with 3,000 pounds of bombs
- Maximum level speed of at least 395-405 mph at altitude: This altitude could be anywhere from 10,000 - 25,000 feet
First flight around 1944 based on the XA-41's first flight.When? 1943 or 1945 or 1949?
I'm not sure if the top-speed figures for attack/bomber aircraft are based on them flying clean or with a bomb-load of some sort.But I would say it would be pretty hard.
As for cruising speed I'd say somewhere from 240-250 mph, as for cruise altitudesYou left out desired cruise speed and cruise altitudes for your desired wish list.
I wouldn't be shocked.swampyankee said:I suspect it's not possible with pistons.
That kind of goes without saying. Using the XA-41 as a starting point, it's internal bay could carry 4 x 250 pound bombs. I'm curious if the dimensions would also allow 1 x 1600 AP as well. I figure the rest would be carried on external pylons with at least one hard-point on each wing plumbed for a drop-tank if need be.Probably, an internal bomb bay would also be needed.
I figured it would because the air gets thinner and it makes it easier to chop through the thinner air allowing higher speeds for the same amount of power, or less power for the same speed.Generally, best range is not strongly affected by altitude for piston-engined aircraft.
Actually range does go up with altitude for Piston powered planes. Otherwise there were be no market for Turbocharged/pressurized Cessna's and Beechcrafts
However it almost always involves more complicated engine set ups with higher maintenance regardless if you have a flat six or a radial 28 cylinder. Dag at 20,000ft is only a little of 1/2 the drag at sea level so if you can keep sea level power or close to it at 20,000ft you get much more range.
F7F-1, R-2800-22WShortround6 said:Please be more specific.
According to this source, which I have found to be highly reliable...However the F7F-1 & -2 used R-2800-22W engines , these were single stage "C" series engines and were good for 1600hp at 16,000ft in high gear, no ram. . . . Nobody picked up 8,000ft of altitude with RAM.
To avoid any ambiguity, was the XB-42 classified at any point as a medium-bomber, or was it always considered a light-bomber?MIflyer said:The XB-42 . . . was designed for the long range heavy bombardment mission, as a cheaper and faster alternative to the B-29
Why the discrepancy in Wagner's figures and others?No, Baugher hasn't got it wrong - look at his bibliography - he's using Wagner....