WesWorld

Nanchan N2R2-V1
Nanchan Aircraft Inc. Ltd.
Type: Long Range Reconaissance Aircraft

The Nanchan N2R2 is an aircraft, laid out along the lines of the smaller N1-F1, designed as a long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft.

The propulsion of the prototypes are two Huang Po-radial engines each with 2900 horse power. Typical of the appearance of N2R2 prototype are the
tail discs and an elongated shape with broad wings.

For the prototypes a small internal bomb bay was fitted, where either a torpedo or a number of bombs (maximum load of approx 750kg) could be armed.
Other additional defensive armament was omitted, since the application profile (reconnaissance flights in relatively high altitude and at relatively high speed)
does not provide for.

The aim of the development of this long-haul aircraft is the range of over 10,000 kilometers or a correspondingly high endurance AND a speed
of ~ 600 km/h.


General characteristics
Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, observer, radio-operator)
Length: 16.68 m (54 ft 8¾ in)
Wingspan: 26.86 m (88 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 4.71 m (15 ft 5¾ in)
Wing area: 76 m² (817.76 ft²)
Powerplant: 2 × 18-cylinder radial engine with 1827 kW (2,482 PS) each [E.W.I.L. R-2800-18W]

Performance
Maximum speed: 520 km/h at3,000 m (9,840 ft)
Range: 6,024 km
Endurance: 10h
Service ceiling: 8,260 m (27,100 ft)

Armament:
None

Bombload (internal):
1x Torpedo or up to 750kg bombs in different options



[size=1]thanks to Daidalos for the excellent drawing[/size]

The detail contained in the general characteristics and the cited performance make an analysis difficult, but I am very doubtful that the aircraft could possess all the characteristics and performance quoted for it.

For a high speed, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft a crew of seven seems quite excessive. There is no defensive armament requiring gunners; is a relief crew carried? If not, why so many crew for an aircraft that will need every square centimeter of space to carry fuel for such a range?

Since no weights are given, I cannot calculate power to weight ratios, but I suspect that they are at the low end of the spectrum; that much range demands a massive fuel load. Neither can the wing loading be calculated. Likewise, without a weight, assessing whether the speed is achievable is difficult; I am doubtful that an aircraft of that size can do it.

Role wise, I find the idea of a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft carrying a torpedo (which must be dropped from mast-head height) difficult to defend. The two roles require vastly different aircraft.

That said, the drawing is cool; I fear that is the only positive point I can make at this point.

Both the drawing and specifications are based on the Me-261, thus reflects a realistic design of this aircraft.

The bomb load is merely a concession to the navy, and of course DO NOT NEED TO BE ! Ie the probability, that in a
reconnaissance mission a torpedo is on board, is almost minimal. It's more to show that the bomb bay, isn't wide
more slim and long.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Both the drawing and specifications are based on the Me-261, thus reflects a realistic design of this aircraft.

I see; I would note that the characteristics quoted in Green's "Warplanes of the Second World War" represent what was desired, not what was achieved. As the Me261 V-3 prototype was the only aircraft of the type to enter any sort of service, I am very leery of presuming that the aircraft could achieve the specified performance on a regular basis.

Indeed, the one quoted circumstance of a long distance test, that of 16 April 1943, achieved an unofficial record of 2,796 miles in an elapsed time of 10 hours - far less than what was specified.

Quoted

The bomb load is merely a concession to the navy, and of course DO NOT NEED TO BE ! Ie the probability, that in a
reconnaissance mission a torpedo is on board, is almost minimal. It's more to show that the bomb bay, isn't wide
more slim and long.

Given the fact that the OTL Luftwaffe rejected the Me261 design because inclusion of any weapons load would have been at the expense of fuel tankage, the inclusion of such in the N2R2 strongly suggests that the aircraft would not have the range characteristics of the OTL Me261.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I see; I would note that the characteristics quoted in Green's "Warplanes of the Second World War" represent what was desired, not what was achieved.

As the Me261 V-3 prototype was the only aircraft of the type to enter any sort of service, I am very leery of presuming that the aircraft could achieve the specified performance on a regular basis.

Indeed, the one quoted circumstance of a long distance test, that of 16 April 1943, achieved an unofficial record of 2,796 miles in an elapsed time of 10 hours - far less than what was specified.

Okay, may be my fault, i thought it was achieved and not only desired, but the stats could be modified if the mods said it's necessary .

Quoted

Given the fact that the OTL Luftwaffe rejected the Me261 design because inclusion of any weapons load would have been at the expense of fuel tankage, the inclusion of such in the N2R2 strongly suggests that the aircraft would not have the range characteristics of the OTL Me261.

Found this

Quoted

.....Während der weiteren Flugerprobung wurden zahlreiche Änderungen vorgenommen, so dass die Maschine erst am 2.Ohtober 1941 zur weiteren Erprobung nach Rechlin überführt werden konnte. Die Me 261 V2 (BJ+CQ) flog im Frühjahr 1941 als Fernaufklärer für die Seeüberwachung und war für eine spätere Bewaffnung vorgesehen.

on
http://www.fliegerweb.com/geschichte/flu…how=lexikon-343

so some armament was planed and possible.

A most interesting source; thank you for sharing. I have never seen weight figures quoted for the Me261 in the English-language press, and unfortunately, the information contained in the article on Fliegerweb are unsourced.

I do find the estimates interesting though. A fuel load of 5,000 litres would mass something on the order of 8,000 kg. If one assumes the empty weight of the design was 8,800 kg cited, that would put the maximum weight of the aircraft up at 16,000 kg, not the 14,500 kg cited. This suggests that the estimates cited should be treated with caution.

No problem with sharing informations. So the aircraft will become more realistic.

I'm probably more concerned about the stated horsepower of the engines - 2,900 horsepower seems very ambitious for a Chinese manufacturing firm, although I suppose it's possible given that it's a 24-cylinder engine.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose behind this aircraft. While the Chinese can benefit from a plane with long range, this just seems to be needlessly extravagant in terms of operational radius, but perhaps I'm not understanding the role you've envisioned for the plane. I mean, I suppose it'd be useful if you needed to scout convoys inbound to Australia from bases in southern China, but I don't see that being a viable mission during a theoretical war. Could you expand on why the extreme range was seen as a necessity?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm probably more concerned about the stated horsepower of the engines - 2,900 horsepower seems very ambitious for a Chinese manufacturing firm, although I suppose it's possible given that it's a 24-cylinder engine.

It's planed to build it as a twin-motor (hope it's the correct word), as the OTL ME-261 had. Sure a single 2900hp motor is very very ambitious for chinese manufacturing.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm not sure I understand the purpose behind this aircraft. While the Chinese can benefit from a plane with long range, this just seems to be needlessly extravagant in terms of operational radius, but perhaps I'm not understanding the role you've envisioned for the plane. I mean, I suppose it'd be useful if you needed to scout convoys inbound to Australia from bases in southern China, but I don't see that being a viable mission during a theoretical war. Could you expand on why the extreme range was seen as a necessity?

Not only to scout convoys inbound to Australia also on the indian ocean China keeps an eye. Also not the distance play a role, sometimes the endurance is more important.
If it become clear, that this aircraft will be not very usefull for the chinese military, may be it will be rebuild as emperors aircraft. There are many options.

Wouldn't it technically be possible that additional fuel tanks are carried inside the bomb bay when (I presume most of the time) no bombs are carried? I mean like drop tanks but internal?
Never heard of such a feature to be honest but it doesnt sound to far-fetched...

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Wouldn't it technically be possible that additional fuel tanks are carried inside the bomb bay when (I presume most of the time) no bombs are carried? I mean like drop tanks but internal?
Never heard of such a feature to be honest but it doesnt sound to far-fetched...

The carriage of a long-range tank in the bomb bay is easy enough - they were usually termed ferry tanks. Still, the range and endurance is far in excess of what might seem reasonable for China.

Okay, thanks, never heard of it before.
I agree with you Bruce concerning the range and some other parameters. I am discussing these issues with parador at the moment. I suggested some changes concerning crew, range, speed and engines...

The aim of the development of this long-haul aircraft is the range of round about 6,000 kilometers or a correspondingly high endurance AND a speed
of 500 - 550 km/h.


General characteristics
Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, observer, radio-operator)
Length: 16.68 m (54 ft 8¾ in)
Wingspan: 26.86 m (88 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 4.71 m (15 ft 5¾ in)
Wing area: 76 m² (817.76 ft²)
Powerplant: 2 × 18-cylinder radial engine with 1827 kW (2,482 PS) each [E.W.I.L. R-2800-18W]

Performance
Maximum speed: 520 km/h at3,000 m (9,840 ft)
Range: 6,024 km
Endurance: 10h
Service ceiling: 8,260 m (27,100 ft)

Very believable characteristics in my opinion. Well done.

10 hours at 602.4 kph /325.27kts

I tried a quiick sim, but I'm at home where Openoffice corrupts easily on Planesharp.

I do see the reference to the Me261. Which reads as an unarmed/unarmored set of prototypes with no bombload provisions, none of which appear to have actually managed the range (?) The most being the V3 prototype which managed a 10hr 4500km flight.

The problem I was running into was that to achieve the range requires a massive amount of fuel, pushing the weight up. The design couldn't carry enough fuel at 40,000lbs, and at 60,000 it could- but would stall at 600kpH- if it could go that fast. It <the sim> corrupted as I tried to check 50,000lbs. All this is with only a 1500lb set aside for cameras- no armor/guns/bombs/self-sealing tanks.
I never got to the optimization phase which would whittle this weight down.

The range stat (3253nm) is actually similar to the Lockheed P-2V-3 Neptune's 3,458nm which was a twin engine with 2x 3200hp engines, a 1000sq ft wing, and with a max weight of 64,100 lbs.

The basic P-2 entered service in 1947, making it a Wesworld 1944 bird, but I don't know when the P-2V-3 variant came out, but appears the late 1940s.

In 1946, as a publicity thing, the 3rd PV-1 was fitted with extra tanks everywhere, RATO assisted into the air, and made it 18,083.6 km

Hum. A 60,000lb high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft that can be used for torpedo attacks? Big BOOM methinks...

Also I doubt that even if China develops such an engine with that kind of power that fuel efficency will be that good. For oceanic long-range search the flying boat is still superior at this time.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Hum. A 60,000lb high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft that can be used for torpedo attacks? Big BOOM methinks...

The torpedo is a nice to have, you can also put a bunch of cameras in the bomb bay

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Also I doubt that even if China develops such an engine with that kind of power that fuel efficency will be that good. For oceanic long-range search the flying boat is still superior at this time.

That's why i modified the stats so it's more realistic for China. Sure for oceanic long-range search flyinb boats are a better solution but not for over land

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Sure for oceanic long-range search flyinb boats are a better solution but not for over land

If it's intended for overland operation, the choice of accomodating a Torpedo is most curious.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Sure for oceanic long-range search flyinb boats are a better solution but not for over land

If it's intended for overland operation, the choice of accomodating a Torpedo is most curious.

Perhaps it is intended for long-range strikes against enemy hydro-electric power stations?

Clearly its a slip revealing a Chinese secret weapon! Earth burrowing torpedo