WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I don´t want to shot down all your ideas in flames so I´ll go with the flow and accept it if people like Red Admiral do.

However, what really causes me headaches is this:
"What you think is an intake is the nose-mounted cannon and machine gun module pack. It slides in and out on a tray and has a slightly squared off appearance. "

That´s ********. This is no BattleTech universe, you know. ;o)

Why not add some standard fixed armament? That nose should be capable to hold a pair of HMG or probably even 20mm guns and a pair of 7,62mm MGs or similar weapon....

In general I think this piece better belongs into the latest Batman movie. Why not paint a huge J on it or something? *g*

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histori…d-L133/L133.htm

http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/l133tc_1.htm

In general I think inspiration and a little engineering common sense explains much.

I incidentally hated the Batman movie. Such a clattering
canache of cliches it was painful to watch.

If I want Pilgrims Progress, I'll read it in the original.

As for tray slide out cannon, this was a common German design feature for many Luftwaffe aircraft-especially the later twin engined night fighters.

Nothing mecha about it; though you will see Russia copy it later in the MiG 15.

I hope I've answered your questions.

And yes Kelly Johnson is one of my heroes.

H.

Or you force your aelerons UP until the canards bite air.

Starship.



H.

How many of you have heard of John Stack?

http://books.google.com/books?id=1OeCJFJ…num=1&ct=result

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green


1 - You have a VERY slight rotation angle.
2 - From the position of the CoG, you would have to go for fuselage mounted undercarriage, and while that is good for strenght, it is BAD with wing mounted engines.

Go with the tractor layout, it simplifies a lot!

Look at a side view of the Starship,

the wheels are further back (because the more powerful engines will allow it to overcome the more forward CoG), the engines are mounted higher for a reason, and they use props of smaller diameter with 6 blades, and the engines are more powerful than you are planning, and the Starship is NOT designed to fly from grass fields / unprepared strips

Airflow over the canard is needed to lift it,and you can only get that on a canard with ground speed, implying surfaced runways to attain that speed.

Long surfaced runways. We stick with the pullers like I originally configured. Now selling it to the community who are appalled at laminar flow canard aircraft?.

This is the problem. Siam has been flying and building Ducks for a few years. I threw together a few Duck IIs and most everybody was happy. Trot out something just as gonzo designed and built by Germans!. [You kniow in 1931 Siam shouldn't even be building Entes because then they were just as far out of their tech as the Fledermaus is now ........, yet they are....] and...............
________________________________

Now you see this bird?-



That is a Henschel HS P-87.

Another weird German bird.


Henschel HS P-75.

The Germans went canard crazy.

The Ente was just the first.

Bleat.

H

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, Swampy was interested in the Me-329 as well......

I'm considering, when the time comes, building the Henschel. Assuming, of course, the Argus engine comes to fruition, I'm trying to avoid the couple engines as much as possible.

Yeah HH, but the Me 329 [or was it the BF-329?] was a pusher prop flying wing death trap designed by the most overrated aircraft designer in history, "Pretty Boy" Willie.

The Fledermaus on the other hand is supposed to work as a piece of pure fiction-even if it is a long runway bird.

It sure is gonzo enough in the correct ways.
___________________________

Which Henschel, the fighter or the bomber? The bomber was the better design as I recall.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Nah, the Me-329 was designed by Dr. Hermann Wurster, at Messerschmit, not by Willy himself.

It was? Learned something new. What was he at the time, drunk, or doped up on happy pills?

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
the Me 329 [or was it the BF-329?] was a pusher prop flying wing death trap
H.

Irrespective of who designed it, how can you make a comment like that about a plane that never flew?
And I don't mean the anecdotal evidence of a supposed glider test flight.......

The early Northrop flying wings share a very similiar planform, and one of them is still airworthy.

Jack Northrop was a genius but his flying wings were deathtraps too. A flying wing because of its crazy x/z ratio is inherently flying massed unbalanced backwards. You must know that if Jack and this Wurster, guy, had looked at Orville and Wilbur's diaries, both of them would have discovered quickly why Orville and Wilbur spent 90% of their post crash time trying to figure out why they kept yawing into the ground.

Leonardo de Vinci almost figured it out before they did. Many birds use their heads the way we use vertical stabilizers to control yaw, while they use their tail feathers to control pitch. 500 hundred million years to develop a wing, horizontal stabilizer, and vertical stabilizer in a living flying machine that has a tube shaped body?

Reinventing the wheel with a vengeance comes under the heading of engineering mono-mania.

Besides look.....



Tell me that the CG isn't off. Its nose heavy.

_________________________________

On the engine front.......

Specifications (BMW 132N)
General characteristics

* Type: 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine
* Bore: 155.5 mm (6.1 in)
* Stroke: 162 mm (6.4 in)
* Displacement: 27.7 L (1,690 in³)
* Length: 1,256 mm (49.4 in)
* Diameter: 1,372 mm (54.0 in)
* Dry weight: 525 kg (1,157 lb)

Components

* Supercharger: Single-speed with direct fuel injection
* Cooling system: Air-cooled

Performance

* Power output:
o 645 kW (865 hp) at sea level
o 716 kW (960 hp) at 3,000 m (9,850 ft) at 2,450 rpm
* Specific power: 25.8 kW/L (0.57 hp/in³)
* Compression ratio: 6.93:1
* Specific fuel consumption: 0.33 kg/(kW·h) (0.54 lb/(hp·h))
* Power-to-weight ratio: 1.36 kW/kg (0.83 hp/lb)

or:

Specifications (Mercury XV)
Mercury built by NOHAB
Mercury built by NOHAB
Bristol Mercury engine
Bristol Mercury engine
General characteristics

* Type: 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine
* Bore: 5.75 in (146 mm)
* Stroke: 6.5 in (165 mm)
* Displacement: 1,519.09 in³ (24.89 L)
* Diameter: 51.5 in (1.307 m)
* Dry weight: 1,065 lb (485 kg)

Components

* Valvetrain: Four pushrod-actuated valves per cylinder, two inlet and two sodium-cooled exhaust valves
* Supercharger: High-speed centrifugal, single-stage single-speed
* Fuel system: Claudel-Hobson carburetor with automatic boost and mixture control
* Fuel type: 87- or 100-octane gasoline
* Oil system: Dry sump with one combination pressure/scavenge pump

Performance

* Power output:
o 840 hp (625 kW) at 2,750 rpm at 14,000 ft (4,270 m) maximum power with 87-octane fuel
o 995 hp (740 kW) at 2,750 rpm at 9,250 ft (2,820 m) maximum power with 100-octane fuel
* Specific power: 0.65 hp/in³ (29.7 kW/L) with 100-octane fuel
* Compression ratio: 7:1
* Specific fuel consumption: 1.0 lb/(hp·h) (0.61 kg/(kW·h))
* Power-to-weight ratio: 0.93 hp/lb (1.53 kW/kg)

or when its ready:

Specifications (Jumo 211F)
Jumo 211F
Jumo 211F

Data from Jane's.[1]
General characteristics

* Type: 12-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled inverted Vee piston aircraft engine
* Bore: 150 mm (5.906 in)
* Stroke: 165 mm (6.496 in)
* Displacement: 34.99 L (2135.2 cuin)
* Dry weight: 720 kg (1587.3 lbs)

Components

* Supercharger: two speed
* Cooling system: Liquid

Performance

* Power output: 1,340 hp at 2600 rpm (bmep=200.4 psi)
* Compression ratio: 6,5:1
* Specific fuel consumption: 0,54 kg/hp

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Nah, the Me-329 was designed by Dr. Hermann Wurster, at Messerschmit, not by Willy himself.

It was? Learned something new. What was he at the time, drunk, or doped up on happy pills?

H.

WIlly was probably busy at the time with the Me-210, the Me-410, and trying to get the Me-209 to behave, not to mention keeping the Me-264 sold. The design, like the similar but independently designed Me-265 (done by Dr. Alexander Lippisch) was worked up in the fall of 1942.


Eh, it's not as nose-heavy as it looks, most of the engines are aft of the CG, and neither DB-603s or Jumo-213s are really lightweights.

What do you think? the turbo-boosted 132 N for now? Cuts speed by about 3 mph I think and its in the German inventory.

Its either that, or a Pratt.

H.