WesWorld

Anybody object to my using RA's drawing as object 1 in the Siam story sim and my own drawing as object 2?

I've worked the data for object 2, I don't have the data for object 1.

Object 1 is obviously a bomber.

RA, do you have the numbers for it?

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I don't think the blended wing body of object 2 is particularly great even now that its squared off somewhat. I think it would present too many construction problems for little gain. A more conventional fuselage would be better.

I'll have a play with my drawing, at the moment its a cut off version of another plane....

There are a couple of possible engine choices, I'll see what stats I can come up with.

Thank you. I appreciate it much. I'm seeing Object 1 as a good follow on to the Ente.

Not to be used but this is one tweaked to the numbers within 2%.

H

Now its only for discussion. I figure its just barely possible at 1942 RTL European tech levels.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
RA, that drawing looks just like what I'd expect a follow-on from the Ente.

Beat me to it, but I agree.

H.

Final version and final numbers;

Object 1:


I'm putting object 2 into the library of future, what ifs.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral


I went for something a lot smaller for attack/medium bomber. I'm still not that keen on the drawing so I'll keep playing. I don't really see the reason for Siam to have a high altitude bomber. Something optimised for low altitude is probably better.

Empty Weight: 11600lb Max Weight: 19800lb
Length: 40ft Span: 54ft Wing Area: 441sq ft
Engines: 2 x Alfa-Romeo Vortice RC.40 (1070hp@4000m)
Crew: 2
Armament: 6 x 13.2mm machine guns in nose, 2000kg of bombs
Speed: 317mph@13000ft Range: 1600miles Ceiling: 29000ft

Query: why did you put the Consolidated type vertical stabilizers on the main wingtip ends? I'm not aware of any plane of the period that had a wingtip plan like that with mainwing endtip stabilizers that was airworthy at all.

I'm curious because vortice stall is a deadly consequence for such a planform.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/20…ko_tailless.htm

Some examples of aerodynamic nonos that tried something like this.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral


Pretty much all the tandem wing and canard designs I can think of have tip plates rather than a single fin. The arrangement does strange things to the balance of the aircraft. As for why, I wanted to see what it looked like but have reverted to the single fin instead with greater sweep.

I see. Does the main landing gear fold up into the engine nacelles behind the engines?. And is the barrel about 2 meters wide for side by side seating?

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Howard,

I am curious as to the timeline for development you foresee for the Focke wulf siam FW42F S3 Fledermaus.

Realistically for WW Siam? (LoL) it would have to be NEVER, unless:

a. Siam builds at least one intermediate frame and skin aircraft. [CR-25 in progress; Check]
b. CMMC or Bristol Motors supplies stampers, folders, cutters and cam operated horizontal lathes and pantograph cutters. [?]
c. A conference of world class aviation experts shows up and a junior Kurt Tank type is hired to head up Focke Wulfe LTD./Siam [Hired. Check news for genius soon.]
d. You get a steel foundry. [Check]
e. You get an automobile factory that rolls and forms sheet metal. [Check]
f. You get a reliable source of aviation engines.[?]
Then one year to prototype and another year to work out bugs provided you contract design help and throw money and testing at it.

Quoted

Earlier in this thread, I outlined what I thought a reasonable time frame was. A partial quotation is below.

The timeline I outlined is not binding, merely an idea. However, I noted a couple weeks ago that you have a flying prototype of the Focke wulf siam FW42F S3 Fledermaus in 1936.

That is 3 years before the design even was thought of, 4 years before preliminary work and 6 years before the formal proposal was even made.

Obviously since the original never went to prototype, or saw service, we can not use that as a guide, but I would think any WW prototype would be no more than 3 years before the OTL design work had advanced to formal proposal stage.

So, what timeline do you envision and why?

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
The first linked site indicates the original was a 1939 design, and preliminary work had started on it in 1940.
The second linked site says by the end of 1940 and that a formal proposal was made to the Army Air Corp in February 1942. The airframe never even prototyped by then.

...[cut misc]...

A similar development schedule might see the 1942 proposal become a flying craft in mid 1944, and service versions in 1946. Deduct 3 years and you get 1943.

As such I am thinking 1937 service introduction is very optimistic

I had to stretch a point, but the original Ente planform was 1930. Now after a lot of discussion we have story-lined Focke Wulfe flying WW type advanced Ducks [FW-42 never went beyond prototype form] from at least 1933 on. So courtesy of Red Admiral,[always credit the idea where the credit is due!] I have a skin and frame FW aircraft scheduled for 1Q1937 production at FW/Siam as a bomber, plus I also have the two Siam turkeys, the CR-25 and the rejected FW prototype. Five existing WW birds I clutch in the hand, with the Fledermaus planfiorm; that gets me 4/5ths of the way home to design the Fledermaus.

As you follow the Lop Nuri storyline, I'm laying the groundwork to get the milling machines and the aero-engines. It was never the aero-shell that was/is the heartburn, here; it was the engines, flight instrumentation, the production line, and the landing gear. I'm working on that. I was a little eager, but 1939 is not unreasonable-1938 if somebody else builds the initial production run and Siam imports.

From glued bamboo composite ribbing and fabric to aluminum frame and skin took Japan what? Three years?

H.