WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta.

So... you're saying "no" to the Manta, but that Canadian 'thing' is okay? In my opinion, the manta design is far more realistic than that air contraption, which I think should be considered to be a 1997 design (when the game came out) and comes out of a game with the word "Fantasy" in the title. I think it should either be "yes" to both or "no" to both and not "yes" to the one and "no" to the other.
... of course that is my opinion.

--; how'd I get dragged into this...

Okay, how about a compromise. Red Admiral doesn't lke the supercharger?

How about 38,000 ft? More realistic.

Quoted

How about 38,000 ft? More realistic

15000ft is more than pushing the available technology. For 38,000ft you need a centrifugal compressor a couple of foot across and 600-800hp to drive it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

How about 38,000 ft? More realistic

15000ft is more than pushing the available technology. For 38,000ft you need a centrifugal compressor a couple of foot across and 600-800hp to drive it.

The spitfires were flying at 35000 ft with a wingspan of 36 ft.

and...

the 1937 record setter:
49,967 ft

POWERPLANT:
One Bristol Pegasus PE.VIS
radial engine of 500 hp / 373 kW.

MAX. TAKEOFF WEIGHT:
5,310 lb (2,409 kg)

WING SPAN:
66 ft 0 in (20.12 m)

LENGTH:
44 ft 0 in (13.41 m)

HEIGHT:
10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) WING AREA:
568 sq. ft. (52.77 m²)

MAXIMUM SPEED:
177 mph (285 km/h)
at 45,000 ft (13,715 m)

RATE OF CLIMB:
1,430 ft (436 m) per minute
at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)

DESIGN CEILING:
54,000 ft (18,459 m)

ENDURANCE:
2.25 hours

Please tell me what you don't understand about this statement:

The cutting edge superchargers (centrifugal single stage single speed) fitted to the Merlin I series had a critical altitude of 16250ft. At that altitude they gave their maximum 1000hp.

Looks like two different debates.
One on how high a +5 year aircraft can fly,
one on how good a +5 year supercharger might be.

Planebuilder is fine with my D.XVIIbis bi-plane with it's 760hp engine supercharged for 12,000 flying to 39,000... I'm none to sure how happy the pilot would be... but the height isn't so much the issue as the power generated at that height- which is the supercharger part of the discussion

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Please tell me what you don't understand about this statement:

The cutting edge superchargers (centrifugal single stage single speed) fitted to the Merlin I series had a critical altitude of 16250ft. At that altitude they gave their maximum 1000hp.

I understand it all.

But I got the plane working with a 17,000 ft supercharger.

So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft.

Quoted

Now...this isn't sci-fi. This was an actual real world concept design. I would point out hoo, that it's no where near sci-fi. And if you start censoring players then you have the problem of censorship when its all within the rules. If I went and created an amazing springsharp design nobody would complain.

However Springsharp has its own internal rules about what would/would not work. The aircraft stuff is conjecture.

Both the XB-35 and YB-49 were unstable in yaw, even with the 'propeller fins' on the former and the vertical stabilisers on the latter. They 'snaked' significantly which was a major factor in their rejection by the USAF. The Go 229 is largely speculative for obvious reasons.

There's a reason flying wings didn't see service until fly-by-wire was available.

Me 163, Me 329 etc. have a orthodox fuselage and aren't really comparable. The XP-56 also but its fate may be instructive.

While Canada's gasbags are more an issue of weight vs lift this design is way too far beyond the bleeding edge for 1930s tech.

There is also the point that there is no way Japan would allow one of their 'clients' to have aircraft that the home islands couldn't intercept...

Quoted

So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft.

Were they overcome in real life? No. Nuff said.

BTW, we have had 'sharped designs thrown out...

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen

Quoted

So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft.

Were they overcome in real life? No. Nuff said.

BTW, we have had 'sharped designs thrown out...

excuse me, I thought you didn't know how to use planebuider?

besides, they DID overcome them in real life. nuff said.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
Both the XB-35 and YB-49 were unstable in yaw, even with the 'propeller fins' on the former and the vertical stabilisers on the latter. They 'snaked' significantly which was a major factor in their rejection by the USAF. The Go 229 is largely speculative for obvious reasons.

There's a reason flying wings didn't see service until fly-by-wire was available.

Me 163, Me 329 etc. have a orthodox fuselage and aren't really comparable. The XP-56 also but its fate may be instructive.

While Canada's gasbags are more an issue of weight vs lift this design is way too far beyond the bleeding edge for 1930s tech.

There is also the point that there is no way Japan would allow one of their 'clients' to have aircraft that the home islands couldn't intercept...

Japan has them as well.

And the yaw on the YB-35 wasn't a problem. It was the stall problems.

Yes they did. With a few very specialised aircraft a number of years later, not in the mid 1930s.


I have no idea why we're still arguing anyway, since The Moderator Has Spoken.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
Yes they did. With a few very specialised aircraft a number of years later, not in the mid 1930s.


I have no idea why we're still arguing anyway, since The Moderator Has Spoken.

Because you prompted it.



Quote:

Quoted

Subsequently, Major Cardenas stated for the record that the airplane was marginally stable, rather than "extremely unstable." On November 16, 1948, an official Air Materiel Command report on the bombing evaluation, which was conducted under manual conditions, i.e., without autopilot, reiterated the inadequacies of the YB-49 under the test conditions, but referred to the "marginal directional stability of the aircraft in fight." Installation of a satisfactory autopilot was considered a top priority.

Yawing mainly due to the lack of a satisfactory autopilot.

Quoted

Why did the Flying Wing fail to go into production? A popular explanation, with a ring of truth to it, is that the aircraft was 30 years ahead of its time. Even its most ardent supporters would not deny that it had problems. The B-35 series was doomed by overwhelming difficulties with propellers, gearboxes, and maintenance problems with the complicated exhaust system. Perhaps even more pertinent, it was overtaken by the jet age.

The B-49 was hampered by marginal directional stability that compromised its ability to perform bombing or reconnaissance missions. Pilots and engineers close to the program recognized that stability deficiencies would have been corrected with a proper autopilot and stability augmentation devices, given adequate time and support for the project.

http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com…p%20bombers.htm

Like I said, yawing was not the real problem. It could have been fixed with a satisfactory autopilot.

End of discussion ladies and gentlemen.

No flying wings and no 3-5 year rule.

From now on we, as in everyone, post each design before it becomes a reality and we get to politely discuss/debate its merits.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta.

So... you're saying "no" to the Manta, but that Canadian 'thing' is okay? In my opinion, the manta design is far more realistic than that air contraption, which I think should be considered to be a 1997 design (when the game came out) and comes out of a game with the word "Fantasy" in the title. I think it should either be "yes" to both or "no" to both and not "yes" to the one and "no" to the other.
... of course that is my opinion.

You may have a point here. Please send me a PM on this issue if you think moderator action is needed. I´ll check.

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86
Lets remember that the flying wings WERE in flight by 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M

Not to mention the Horton 229 was a jet powered wing in flight late war.

The Horton 229 flew in 1944.

And was basically the first German attempt at a flying wing that was ever taken seriously.

[...]

And thirdly, the YB-35 first flew in 1946

And was extremely advanced for it's time.

If you want to further discuss this issue I´d propose to send me a PM. None of the designs above fit a "+3" nor proofed successful (Ho229 probably the exception to the rule but that we´ll never know).

Btw, I saw an Northrop N-1 in flight during the Planes of Fame Airshow 2005 - nice little creature. But flawed too - as your own link states.

[Btw, I was about to lock this thread but as it was about the Great Air Race originally I kept it open. So please focus on the race here.]

im limiting my desighns to basic aircraft and since im building them in xplane with no stability controls enabled i know they fly =P

Entry list:

Siam
Focke-Wulf Fw 42B-1
F/O Suan Sukhserm will be the pilot, while Flt Lt. Chan Nuat-Kheo will be aircraft commander

B.A.M. 114F
piloted by aviatrix Sirisoon Chandrapa


Brazil
EMBRAER EMB-35 (Bellanca 29-90)
Pilot, Capitão Ru Murleen; Navigator, Segundo-Tenente Bren Derlin

Sienar V-13 (Sikorsky S-43)
Pilot, Lorth Needa; Navigator, Amise Griff


Netherlands
Fokker XXXVI

Fokker T.V


USA
Douglas DC-3

Boeing 247

Lockheed L-10 Electra
Ms. Amelia Earhart

Northrop Gamma-2G
Jacqueline Cochran


Russia
Tupolev ANT-31


Italy
Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79quater



Mexico
B-1 Condor (DC-3 Bomber)


Australia
Lockheed Atair
Charles Kingford Smith

Lockheed Sirus


India
AA-9
Pilot-Captain Mulayam Shukla, commanding

Toofani C


Atlantis
Spartan B-1 Vanquish

Accrisius


South Africa
Brenner Comet
Gustaf Brenner, two mechanics, Alfred Humpel and Paul Costey, and a navigator, Raymont Brugger.

DeBroek FD-2
test pilot Cpt. Henry Johan, navigator Thomas Kogg and mechanic Benjamin Kleber


Argentina
FMA I.Ae 4R Racer
Major General Carron-Gomez and his navigator will be Lieutenant de Aero S. Navarro

FMA I.Ae 1 Guarani
Senor Torredo with his brother as navigator and a third passenger, his wife as a backup pilot


Canada
Avro Canada CB-100 Buzzard


Japan
Mitsubishi G3M1
Col. Oonishi Manzo


Denmark
D.A.F.(s) 1a "SommerSvale"
D.A.F.(s) 1a "SommerSvale"
Crew of 4


United Kingdom
de Havilland DH-88 Comet
de Havilland DH-88 Comet
de Havilland DH-88 Comet

Don't forget the XB-15/Model 294. Studies have shown that it can use the available runways and Boeing wants to show it off to the Army and is also planning a smaller version, probably to be called the B-17 or something like that. Doubt it will amount to much.