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.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 21st 2008, 2:43am)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Aug 21st 2008, 6:08pm)
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
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 21st 2008, 7:23pm)
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.
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
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.
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
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Sep 1st 2008, 9:00pm)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH