Worst aircraft of WW2? (2 Viewers)

[Elvis]

Airboiy,

Tubes for the back cylinders?
I don't understand. Can you draw me a picture?

Also, don't forget, by incorporating drivesahfts and a gear arrangement, you're also increasing weight, and that will have to be balanced out with some other aspect of the plane.
That's another "plus" or the multibank arrangement. It's lighter in weight.



Elvis

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Airboiy;

The best way to cool an air cooled recip engine is by getting airflow around the cylinders, and the best way to do that is with baffling. Engineers calculate how the baffling should go around the engine and determine airflow that will sufficiently cool the engine.

While your concept has merit, you have to determine a few things. Can this configuration work? Can it be assembled cost effectively? Will it be easy to produce? Will it be reliable? Will it be easy to maintain? Will it be cost effective to maintain? And finally, will it have a cost effective service life?

 

[airboiy]

Airboiy;

The best way to cool an air cooled recip engine is by getting airflow around the cylinders, and the best way to do that is with baffling. Engineers calculate how the baffling should go around the engine and determine airflow that will sufficiently cool the engine.

While your concept has merit, you have to determine a few things. Can this configuration work? Can it be assembled cost effectively? Will it be easy to produce? Will it be reliable? Will it be easy to maintain? Will it be cost effective to maintain? And finally, will it have a cost effective service life?

Ah, the logistics of the problem...my worst weakness!8)

Hey Elvis, here's the pic of the "tubes" I designed.

 

[Elvis]

Ah, ok.
Yeah, I have to side with FlyboyJ on this one.
Baffling would do a better job, because airflow could be directed over the whole engine(s), as opposed to just a few cylinders.
They'd also be lighter in weight and cheaper to produce than actual "tubes".
On top of all that, how would you exhaust the air? That exhaust HAS to be just as effective as the intake, otherwise you run across a "pressurazation" condition that would limit the amount of incoming air.
This was a problem that drag racers and auto designers dealt with for years, concerning "hood scoops", which is essentially the same idea that you're proposing with your "cooling tubes".

That's the great thing about a radial's typical positioning. You get even airflow around all the cylinders and the "cooling baffles" (aka, the engine cowling) is simple, cheap-to-produce and serves a double purpose very effectively, in that it helps direct airflow around the engine effectively and also works to streamline the airplane.

Sorry, but while your idea is quite interesting, I really think a typical multi-bank arrangement is just a more effective design.

If the designers worry is streamlining, he could opt for liquid cooled type of engine, or a multi-bank radial with a smaller diameter (such as the P&W Wasp Jr. vs. their original Wasp).



Elvis

 

[airboiy]

The exaust tubes would be an extention of the cooling tubes. BTW, what's "baffling"? I've heard it but never understood it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The exaust tubes would be an extention of the cooling tubes. BTW, what's "baffling"? I've heard it but never understood it.

Its a series of sheet aluminum strategically placed around the cylinders so airflow cools the engine.

This is what baffling looks like on a GA aircraft engine

 

[airboiy]

Thanks, Flyboyj, for the pic!

 

[Elvis]

An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.


Elvis

 

[FLYBOYJ]

An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.


Elvis

Yep - just about the same thing.

 

[airboiy]

Ok, I now know what you mean, Elvis! Thanks guys for the info!

 

[Elvis]

Yep - just about the same thing.

In the infamous words of "The Fonz", Correctamundo!.



Elvis

 

[Cromwell]

I heard recently that Ford experimented with a flat alloy 3 cyl radial 2-stroke, with plastic pistons - air cooled !

Apparently, it was a) very light weight b) powerful c) economical - much more so than the usual 4-cyl upright 4-stroke.

I am not a thermodynamacist but there was something about the interplay between the heat stored by the plastic pistons and the heat conduction of the alloy cylinders and crankcase that made it burn much more completely than usual 2-stroke engines.

I think the plastic used was also 'self -lubing' if you can have such a thing.

An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.


Elvis

 

[Elvis]

I know big 3 automakers were experimenting with small 2-stroke engines for automotive use about 15-20 years ago (back when they all had money. Remember the good ol' days?).
Your "plastic" comment suggests this time period.

...because when "The Flivver" was flying...

...there was no such thing as plastic. Bakelite, yes, but not plastic (and notice the powerplant).





Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Now there was also some experiemental versions of the Flathead V8 that Ford tried to make for aircraft use, by creating the block and heads from aluminum (thus lightening the weight) and pressurizing the cylinders via mechanical forced induction.
It can be seen here, gracing the cover of the October 1952 issue of Hot Rod magazine.

Other "special duty" parts included on the engine, that can seen in the pic are; magneto ignition, an oil filtering system featuring cooling fins and tubluar exhaust manifolds (and if you're sharp, you'll notice the tensioner is on the wrong side of the belt).
Only a few were made and I don't think any ever made it into an actual airplane.



Elvis

 

[Cromwell]

The Swordfish was built by Fairey - the same people that made the Firefly (great plane) and the Albacore (not so good) and the Barracuda (mixed reports)

See

Aeroplane VE-Day Souvenir Issue May 2005

Also


Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fairey Barracuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).

P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?

 

[Cromwell]

Did that thing Actually Fly !?!

The tailplane looks totally inadequate

...because when "The Flivver" was flying...





Elvis

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That little Ford plane flew quite well until it spun and killed its pilot/ designer

http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/Ford-EAA Chapt _159 Flivver.asp

 

[airboiy]

Ouch! I guess that's not back to the drawing board!

 

[Elvis]

That little Ford plane flew quite well until it spun and killed its pilot/ designer

Ford-EAA Chapt #159 Flivver

Yep.

The original Ford Flivver was short lived in that Henry Ford's personal pilot, Harry Brooks, attempted a non-stop flight from Dearborn, Michigan to Florida with the improved second model of the Flivver in February of 1928. For some unknown reason, the Flivver spun into the ocean near Melbourne, Florida and Harry Brooks was lost. Henry Ford felt so discouraged he cancelled the Ford Flivver project and the prototype Flivver 268 was placed in the Ford Museum in 1928.

Elvis

 

[airboiy]

Poor chap...but still, he knew the risks, just like all pilots. There is always a chance that something will go wrong, leading to disaster. However, it's the courage in pilots that makes them face the unknown every time they lift off the ground.