- Thread starter
- #41
The only drawback is there is limited info on the airframe .
Reality is the FW190 is the best option . Airframes available and planes are flying . ME209 would also be an option , but how different are they from an ME109?
Which airframe
- Thread starter Bug_racer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The only drawback is there is limited info on the airframe .
Reality is the FW190 is the best option . Airframes available and planes are flying . ME209 would also be an option , but how different are they from an ME109?
Shortround6
Major General
THE only things the Me 209 record setter had in common with the the Bf 109 was the basic engine, the "09" and a few basic instraments, nuts, bolts and rivits.
THe Me209 record setter (as opposed to the Me 209 II) was a real beast to fly, The pilot who set the speed record in it didn't have much good to say about it's flying qualities.
While nobody expects these planes to do turning dogfights and powerful planes are always a bit of a handful the 209 was built to set a record flying in a straight line. Pylon turns were not expected of it.
- Thread starter
- #43
Why a T-28?
They're built like the proverbial brick s**thouse, solid and heavy, without a flush rivet in sight on the wings. definitely not an aircraft that is designed for speed. Vne for a standard aircraft is something like 343mph from memory, and by the looks of it, its not a structural strength limitation.
They're built like the proverbial brick s**thouse, solid and heavy, without a flush rivet in sight on the wings. definitely not an aircraft that is designed for speed. Vne for a standard aircraft is something like 343mph from memory, and by the looks of it, its not a structural strength limitation.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
They cancelled the massive torque of the final-generation piston engines which was creating ground-handling problems for single-engined tail-draggers; a typical characteristic being the aircraft attempting to swerve off the strip in the direction of the prop rotation. The Spitfire Mk 21 got a bit nasty in this respect and I recall someone on here mentioned the F4U. Contra-props are also more efficient than a single bank of props but points against would include what Joe said about weight and complexity.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
been looking at something a little different
T-28 trojans . I dont think any have even qualified at Reno ! Does anyone have any specs on Bruce Wallace's The Bear ? Poor guy missed out on qualifying by 1.2 mph
T-28s have raced and qualified. The situation is qualifying in the gold. I really doubt you'll see a T-28 airframe go close to 500 mph at Reno
there is none with regards to air racing
Messy1
Master Sergeant
I have flown one in a video game so I know how they handle! 
- Thread starter
- #50
I have flown one in a video game so I know how they handle!
So how do they fly ? They look very unstable !
Messy1
Master Sergeant
Just a reference to a infamous quote off the website. I actually do have a game where you can acquire this plane, but haven't got to that plane yet.
- Thread starter
- #52
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
How about a thin-wing P-51H with a blister canopy?
It's about as clean an airframe as you're going to get
It's about as clean an airframe as you're going to get
- Thread starter
- #54
Its pretty much decided to keep it an aircraft used by Luftwaffe . T-28 would be the cheapest to get one in the air and race ready , could even do it in 2 years , but AFAIK there has been no Axis Reno air racer
Bug_racer,
The fuselage (or should I say hulk) of the Me 209 V1 is in a museum in Poland... the would likely be the best source of data for constructing a replica. I've been searching for any kind of info on the 209 with hopes of building an R/C model, but obviously what is "good enough" for a small model won't cut it for a real plane.
Although I'd say 209 is the best bet for all out top speed... it does have a few things going against it. The previously mentioned nasty handling is one (but if you are going to race I'm guessing you are one heck of a pilot), another is the cooling system.
The Me 209 used evaporative cooling, but unlike He 100, it was very crude. One source I have states it simply belched overheated coolant and steam overboard and had a reserve coolant tank that would last a few minutes.
This same source states that by adjusting the propeller pitch, the engineers found they could over-speed the engine and boost HP for short periods... but it was not the hot ticket for engine life.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is allowed to race at Reno? Most of Warbird racers I see are are stretching the term "Warbird" quite a bit, regardless of what the airframe started out as....
The fuselage (or should I say hulk) of the Me 209 V1 is in a museum in Poland... the would likely be the best source of data for constructing a replica. I've been searching for any kind of info on the 209 with hopes of building an R/C model, but obviously what is "good enough" for a small model won't cut it for a real plane.
Although I'd say 209 is the best bet for all out top speed... it does have a few things going against it. The previously mentioned nasty handling is one (but if you are going to race I'm guessing you are one heck of a pilot), another is the cooling system.
The Me 209 used evaporative cooling, but unlike He 100, it was very crude. One source I have states it simply belched overheated coolant and steam overboard and had a reserve coolant tank that would last a few minutes.
This same source states that by adjusting the propeller pitch, the engineers found they could over-speed the engine and boost HP for short periods... but it was not the hot ticket for engine life.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is allowed to race at Reno? Most of Warbird racers I see are are stretching the term "Warbird" quite a bit, regardless of what the airframe started out as....
Some other designs you might consider,
The Me 109Z with two 109 fuselages joined by a new center wing section... one prototype was built.
The Me 309 was a very sleek looking aircraft, and at least one prototype was built and flown.
If a paper project is allowed, check out the Henschel Hs P.75
The Me 109Z with two 109 fuselages joined by a new center wing section... one prototype was built.
The Me 309 was a very sleek looking aircraft, and at least one prototype was built and flown.
If a paper project is allowed, check out the Henschel Hs P.75
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
- Is it though? Is there any data to support your notion that an airframe that is much more difficult to obtain anyway, is cleaner (and faster) than the P-51B-onwards airframe?
- I've not read of any nasty handling traits of any version of the P-51 at speed, although I understand the G model didn't win any friends among flight test crew.
- The P-51 had arguably the most efficient mechanical solution to cooling drag for any piston-engined fighter, it could be seen emulated (directly or indirectly) in later fighters like the Do335 and the MB.5 and became de facto cooling duct design ever after; it sounds to me like you want to spend precious budget resolving issues on one airframe that have already been resolved on another.
I think it's called re-inventing the wheel.
Last edited:
But... the P51 is not an Axis aircraft,
I'll agree the P51 cooling system is the best all-round solution offering low drag with efficient cooling. But for a racer... evap cooling could be an option, its not getting shot at, and it doesn't have to work for very long...
The Me 209's evap cooling system dumped coolant overboard at a rate of 1.5 gallons a minute (2 gals/min when the engine was over-speed to 2,300hp), the plane had a 50 gallon reserve tank... which was sufficient reserve for 35 minutes flying time.
As far as availability, I think all Luftwaffe planes fall in the same category... replica required due to extreme rarity. I doubt anybody will part with an original airframe (or DB engine) for the purpose of racing... they are simply irreplaceable.
If Bug_racer wants to build an Axis design to race to be different, and not take the easier way out and run a P51....
I say best of luck and thumbs up 8)
I'll agree the P51 cooling system is the best all-round solution offering low drag with efficient cooling. But for a racer... evap cooling could be an option, its not getting shot at, and it doesn't have to work for very long...
The Me 209's evap cooling system dumped coolant overboard at a rate of 1.5 gallons a minute (2 gals/min when the engine was over-speed to 2,300hp), the plane had a 50 gallon reserve tank... which was sufficient reserve for 35 minutes flying time.
As far as availability, I think all Luftwaffe planes fall in the same category... replica required due to extreme rarity. I doubt anybody will part with an original airframe (or DB engine) for the purpose of racing... they are simply irreplaceable.
If Bug_racer wants to build an Axis design to race to be different, and not take the easier way out and run a P51....
I say best of luck and thumbs up 8)
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I didn't realise that an Axis aircraft was stipulated, or maybe I did but just forgot
It isn't getting shot at and it doesn't have to work for very long, but it is going flat-out from the get-go
What is 50 (presumably US) gallons going to do to the start weight of the design? Does the coolant dump and reserve tank possibly tell us that evaporative cooling as a technique ran out of steam (pun intended) some considerable time before the piston engine did?
Actually steam is what it kept, believe it or not....
Messerschmitt's design dumped the hot coolant overboard and pumped the steam into the wings where it condensed back into liquid which was pumped back into coolant system and mixed with coolant from the reserve tank. I assume this tank was always part of the design. I don't see how a reserve coolant tank would adversely affect the design... as long a draining the tank didn't affect the C of G, and the tank didn't take space needed for fuel.
Heinkel's evap cooling system was much more advanced, it didn't loose liquid during flight. The system was pressurized high enough that the coolant didn't boil even at 110 degrees C, if was then piped out of the engine where the pressure was lowered and some turned to steam (which was pumped into the wings to re-condense and be re-pumped into the system), while the hot (but not as hot: 80-90 degrees C) was fed directly back into the system. Heinkel claimed the system couldn't freeze up in flight and was less vulnerable to damage due the limited amount of high pressure tubing the in the system (the steam in the wings being at very low pressure).
Messerschmitt's design dumped the hot coolant overboard and pumped the steam into the wings where it condensed back into liquid which was pumped back into coolant system and mixed with coolant from the reserve tank. I assume this tank was always part of the design. I don't see how a reserve coolant tank would adversely affect the design... as long a draining the tank didn't affect the C of G, and the tank didn't take space needed for fuel.
Heinkel's evap cooling system was much more advanced, it didn't loose liquid during flight. The system was pressurized high enough that the coolant didn't boil even at 110 degrees C, if was then piped out of the engine where the pressure was lowered and some turned to steam (which was pumped into the wings to re-condense and be re-pumped into the system), while the hot (but not as hot: 80-90 degrees C) was fed directly back into the system. Heinkel claimed the system couldn't freeze up in flight and was less vulnerable to damage due the limited amount of high pressure tubing the in the system (the steam in the wings being at very low pressure).
