WesWorld

A possible future attack aircraft for the Luftwaffe. The Argus As-413 is a-historical, being a 16 cylinder version of the nearly historical As-412. It can be thought of as a cross between the As-411 and the Napier Rapier, essentially.


Aircraft Type or Name:

Henschel Hs-129 A-1

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1940

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

The WW version of the Henschel Hs-129 A, using Argus As-413 16 cylinder air-cooled H-engines. Equipped with 4 7.92mm MG-81 and 2 15mm MG-151 machineguns in the nose, along with self-sealing fuel tanks (+300 pounds) and 15mm bathtub armor around the pilot (+900 pounds). Bomb load is 1,000 kg, which can be carried either in the bomb bay (up to 4 250 kg bombs) or on underwing racks.



Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 12,650 lbs
Weight (empty) 8,595 lbs

Length 32 ft
Wingspan 47 ft
Wing Area 312 sq ft
Sweep 1 degrees

Engines 2
Argus As-413A
Piston

806 hp
at 9,000 ft


Crew 1


Typical cost $0.042 million in 1940
Total number procured 2000


Performance:

Top Speed 280 kts = 322 mph
at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 20,000 ft

Range 800 nm = 921 miles
with 2,309 lbs payload
2,459 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 1,636 fpm

Cruise 185 kts = 213 mph
at 9,000 ft

Corner Speed 252 KIAS =
287 kts at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 22.5 deg/sec
Radius 2,473 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 8.25 ft

Bypass Ratio 95

Engine Weight 833 lbs
Overall Efficiency 22.5 percent

Structural Factor 0.98

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 350 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 9.00 g
Wing Taper 0.3
Wing Thickness at Root 1.5 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 2
Length 7 ft
Diameter 3 ft
Fullness 0.65

Fuselage Diameter 3.5 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.35

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 75 percent
Unstreamlined section 2.5 sq ft

User equipment 2,350 lbs

Just the kind of 'strafer' WW needs (see my comments re the Italian bomber choice) a purpose-built ground-attack type. The range seems a bit long for what is essentially a support type but it gives good loiter time for 'cab rank' type operations (if such theories have arrived yet in WW).

A bomb bay might rob internal space and complicates rapid loading. Better to use wing racks I feel. This might get good export orders, Argentina would order some.

For export customers who don't want it, the bomb bay mechanisms can be removed and the fuselage completed with that space left empty. The Luftwaffe wants that space left empty, though, for possible installation of a 30mm (or larger) cannon and it's ammunition, in this initial design though the gun isn't in place and a bomb bay results in a faster aircraft in the air on it's way to the target.

The range is, perhaps, a little longer than needed, but it allows the Hs-129 squadrons to be stationed a bit behind the forward fighter squadrons, lessening the load on the most forward airfields.

Aircraft Type or Name:

Henschel Hs-129 Arg

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1940

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

A version of the Henschel Hs-129 for Argentina, using Argus As-411 12 cylinder air-cooled engines. Equipped with 4 7.92mm MG-81 and 2 15mm MG-151 machineguns in the nose, along with self-sealing fuel tanks (+215 pounds) and 15mm bathtub armor around the pilot (+900 pounds). Bomb load is 1,000 kg, carried on underwing racks.






Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 11,550 lbs
Weight (empty) 7,968 lbs

Length 32 ft
Wingspan 47 ft
Wing Area 312 sq ft
Sweep 1 degrees

Engines 2
Argus As-411
Piston

617 hp
at 9,000 ft


Crew 1


Typical cost $0.036 million in 1940
Total number procured 2000


Performance:

Top Speed 250 kts = 288 mph
at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 20,000 ft

Range 600 nm = 691 miles
with 2,281 lbs payload
2,393 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 1,189 fpm

Cruise 185 kts = 213 mph
at 9,000 ft

Corner Speed 240 KIAS =
274 kts at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 23.2 deg/sec
Radius 2,287 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 7.5 ft

Bypass Ratio 100

Engine Weight 727 lbs
Overall Efficiency 22.5 percent

Structural Factor 0.98

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 325 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 9.00 g
Wing Taper 0.3
Wing Thickness at Root 1.5 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 2
Length 7 ft
Diameter 3 ft
Fullness 0.65

Fuselage Diameter 3.5 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.35

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 75 percent
Unstreamlined section 2.5 sq ft

User equipment 2,265 lbs

The sim seems fine, and it does form a pretty good aircraft, probably relatively cheaply.

As a storyline matter, and ultimately trivial because you could just say it's liquid cooled for the same sim weight.... I'm unsure if the air cooling makes sense for a 16 cylinder engine. I thought Napiers efforts at upscaling such things had been relatively unsuccessful, so why do you think the rear cylinders will adequately cool?

I also wonder about the unstreamlined crosssection, obviously not applying the in-line reduction, but it looks to be what a radial would be, and I'd think it would be less, i.e. the plane faster.

The reasoning behind the 16-cylinder aircooled layout is the following. The As-411 was an air-cooled inverted V of 12 cylinders, and worked extremely well, being produced after the war as the Renault 12S. Historically, Argus developed the As-412 from, essentially, a pair of As-410 (the predecessor of the As-411) formed into an H-engine, but it never entered production. The Napier Dagger certainly had cooling problems with the rear cylinders, so there's good reason to believe the As-412 might have had them as well unless it has pretty good air flow. In WW, Argus is developing the As-412 in early 1937, and will likely begin testing it later in the year and will find those cooling issues. In an attempt to get around them, they'll shorten the engine by lopping off the rear 8 cylinders and they'll increase the airflow over that of an in-line to get more cooling air with somewhat less drag than a radial.

Because the engines ARE aircooled, rather than watercooled, I've given them a bit more airflow (drag) than a liquid-cooled engine would have. The Argentine design could probably be reduced a bit more, but it's been given the same airflow as the Luftwaffe design since it may well be operating in warmer climates.

Looks good pencil some in for 1940-41. About the right time to replace the Tucan armoured ground-attack plane. I might want as many as 144.

Aircooled makes sense, saves weight and you don't have to armour the radiators or worry about battle damage to those components.

Might want to change the nose armament but we will discuss that later nearer the time.

By 1940 the nose armament would certainly be up for change. Of course, by then the version with the 30mm MK-103 (or the 50mm MK-214) might be available as well.

The As-413 was created because WW Germany doesn't really have any modern lightweight engines in the 7-900 hp range. I don't need them for fighters or most bombers, but there are uses for smaller engines like this..... Not to mention that if Argus can sell some of them, they can use it as a stepping stone to the bigger 24-cylinder liquid-cooled H-engines.

And here's a later model for Argentina's perusal.

Henschel Hs-129 Arg-2

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1940

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

A version of the Henschel Hs-129 for Argentina, using Argus As-411 12 cylinder air-cooled engines. Equipped with 4 7.92mm MG-81 and 2 20mm MG-151/20 cannon in the nose and a 30mm MK-103 cannon faired into the fuselage belly, along with self-sealing fuel tanks (+215 pounds) and 15mm bathtub armor around the pilot (+900 pounds). Bomb load is 700 kg, carried on underwing racks.






Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 11,550 lbs
Weight (empty) 8,678 lbs

Length 32 ft
Wingspan 47 ft
Wing Area 312 sq ft
Sweep 1 degrees

Engines 2
Argus As-411
Piston

617 hp
at 9,000 ft


Crew 1


Typical cost $0.036 million in 1940
Total number procured 2000


Performance:

Top Speed 250 kts = 288 mph
at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 20,000 ft

Range 600 nm = 691 miles
with 1,571 lbs payload
1,648 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 1,189 fpm

Cruise 185 kts = 213 mph
at 9,000 ft

Corner Speed 240 KIAS =
274 kts at 9,000 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 23.2 deg/sec
Radius 2,287 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 7.5 ft

Bypass Ratio 100

Engine Weight 727 lbs
Overall Efficiency 22.5 percent

Structural Factor 0.98

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 325 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 9.00 g
Wing Taper 0.3
Wing Thickness at Root 1.5 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 2
Length 7 ft
Diameter 3 ft
Fullness 0.65

Fuselage Diameter 3.5 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.35

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 75 percent
Unstreamlined section 2.5 sq ft

User equipment 2,975 lbs

I like this variant better, good strafer with guns that can tackle light armour with reduced (but still useful) bombload. Fits the Argentine doctrine like a glove. If only I'd had some a few years back...

How thick are the armoured windscreen panels?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I like this variant better, good strafer with guns that can tackle light armour with reduced (but still useful) bombload. Fits the Argentine doctrine like a glove. If only I'd had some a few years back...

How thick are the armoured windscreen panels?

The armored windscreen panels are 75mm thick.

well shoot, I was going to provide the brilliant information that 40mm was about the limit before visibility suffered....
but thats based on something I ran across a while ago. Shuffling through my notes...I was apparently misremembering. For one thing I thought it was something I found looking at tank view port info, but instead it was likely here :

Quoted

Armoured glass windscreens were more difficult to make in sufficient strength while maintaining good transparancy, and armoured glass is also very heavy. The laminated glass panels developed for the B-17 were about 40 mm thick, and they would stop a rifle-calibre bullet at 100 yards. But these large panels and weighed 88 kg per square meter (18 lb per sq. ft.). Fighter windscreens were smaller, and could be thicker and better supported; armourglass of up to 90 mm was used. Even so the front remained less well protected than the rear. In single-engined fighters the pilot was protected against fire from the front by the engine. Protection of the engine itself and the vulnerable cooling systems of liquid-cooled engines was almost impossible.

Oh, and are those engines on the export market?.

The armored windscreen's used on the Hs-129 are the ones mounted on the historical Hs-129s (after the idea of the little slots in armor plate was rejected).

Are which engines available for export, the As-411s or the As-413s? The As-411s, absolutely: they're, until this usage, not used in combat aircraft at all, they see usage in civillian and military light transports and training aircraft. The As-413s might have limited availability at first, just because of the gear system to couple the two halves of the H together, but the rest of the parts are mostly the same as the As-411s (the cylinder blocks and crankshafts are different, but the pistons, cylinders, and most other parts are common between the two engines).

I think I was referring to the As-411s. They may work well for Fokker design 137, which I'm considering for a battlefield observer role.

War interfered IRL, but it looks like it became the Fokker F25. Alternately I may use the Difoga 421 for the pic. The G2 will still run many rccn missions, but is large and heavy.