You are not logged in.

Focke Wulfe to Siam's Rescue.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

howard

Unregistered

1

Monday, August 18th 2008, 6:01pm

Focke Wulfe to Siam's Rescue.

The Ente II program is in trouble.

Focke Wulfe's remedy.



Awaiting comments.

H

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 18th 2008, 6:24pm)

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

  • Send private message

2

Monday, August 18th 2008, 6:04pm

First impression, the engines seem very small on the drawing

howard

Unregistered

3

Monday, August 18th 2008, 6:17pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
First impression, the engines seem very small on the drawing


Best defense is data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

Can you figure it out?

Hint: wing chord.

H

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

  • Send private message

4

Monday, August 18th 2008, 6:25pm

Not really the drawing doesnt fit the data given the spann is supposed to be grater than the length which it clearly isnt on the drawing nor do the engines seem to be a tenth of the length

howard

Unregistered

5

Monday, August 18th 2008, 6:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Not really the drawing doesnt fit the data given the spann is supposed to be grater than the length which it clearly isnt on the drawing nor do the engines seem to be a tenth of the length


I forgot to change the length data:



1. The length of the engine is 6.375 feet exclusive of the spinner and prop hub.

2. The engines lay sideways to minimize drag.

3. x to z ratio is 1 to 1.

Any other questions?

This post has been edited 3 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 18th 2008, 7:09pm)

howard

Unregistered

6

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:08pm

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

I forgot to change the length data:



1. The length of the engine is 6.375 feet exclusive of the spinner and prop hub.

2. The engines lay sideways to minimize drag.

3. x to z ratio is 1 to 1.

Any other questions?


Technical commentary.

1. This aeroshell is designed to minimize drag. It has a high but not a perfect clean number.

2. The basic design is supposed to duplicate the performance of the Ju-88 in an FW canard design.

3. If you examine the aircraft it has a reasonably good armament.
a. It cannot dive-bomb but it can strafe extremely well.
b. It should be a very good vertical fighter and turn reasonably well-certainly better than the BF-110-even though its a tube and skin construction aircraft.
_________________________

I wanted one major design that is "Siamese" unique" an aircraft that Siam can call their own-even if FW designed and licensed built or imported German parts.

H.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 18th 2008, 7:22pm)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

7

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:21pm

Its an interesting design. I don't have a particular problem with the stats but the drawing is a bit off. I'm not sure the Jumo diesel engines are a good choice either.

howard

Unregistered

8

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:27pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Its an interesting design. I don't have a particular problem with the stats but the drawing is a bit off. I'm not sure the Jumo diesel engines are a good choice either.


What do you think is wrong with the drawing? Can't correct without specifics

The Jumo 205 series diesels were stubborn, tough and simple opposed-piston designs. Short of a radial-I can't see an engine that is simpler or stronger or that you can lay flat parallel to the wing.

So I'm curious as to what you suggest to improve.

H.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

9

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:35pm

I see it and think it's supposed to go with the USOS Seaview....

howard

Unregistered

10

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:45pm

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I see it and think it's supposed to go with the USOS Seaview....


Kelly Johnson, Kurt Tank, and NACA would not agree. They would recognize it instantly, what principles are at work and for what it was/is designed.

This is REAL not fantasy.

Perhaps you might re-examine your assumptions?

H.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

11

Monday, August 18th 2008, 7:51pm

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
Perhaps you might re-examine your assumptions?

H.

Perhaps you might re-examine if that was humour? :)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Aug 18th 2008, 7:51pm)

howard

Unregistered

12

Monday, August 18th 2008, 8:03pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
Perhaps you might re-examine your assumptions?

H.

Perhaps you might re-examine if that was humour? :)


Its hard to tell with some people. That is why you have smilies to help you.

But if I have to supply my own technical criticism, I can tell you that you better have a very strong wingbox for those engines to fit into: because they are wider apart off the aircraft centerline composite thrustline than I like. Has to be though. The spinner circle has to clear that wing root and it cannot foul the canard airflow or the canards fail as anti-stall devices when you go into a mid speed high angle of attack turn.

This joker will turn in about 1700 feet or less I should think at 200 mph. That is almost as good as a Lightning.

H.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

13

Monday, August 18th 2008, 8:24pm

I think this plane should be banned from the skies because the way it looks.

AAEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!
*Runs Away in Terror*
:D

... and the same with those Canadian monstrosities in the Canadian 1936 news.

AAEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!
*Runs Away in Terror*
:D

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Aug 18th 2008, 8:24pm)

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

14

Monday, August 18th 2008, 8:25pm

Hey, Knock that off. I actually like the new Canadian planes... ;-;

howard

Unregistered

15

Monday, August 18th 2008, 8:50pm

Any objections to it, besides aesthetic?

Will wait for further comment and technical corrections.

Barring objection, this plane will enter Siam's order of battle starting 1Q1937 at the rate of 1 per month through 1937 for test/evaluation and then 5 per month, 1938 onward.

H.

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

  • Send private message

16

Monday, August 18th 2008, 8:53pm

Please remove the nose intake and jet exhaust, yes I know its aesthetics but still...

howard

Unregistered

17

Monday, August 18th 2008, 9:00pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Please remove the nose intake and jet exhaust, yes I know its aesthetics but still...


There is no "jet exhaust". What you see are drawn in exflow engine exhaust duct vents for upper wing airflow boundary control.

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 is my drawing rational and I'm sticking to it.

H.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 18th 2008, 9:03pm)

howard

Unregistered

18

Monday, August 18th 2008, 9:43pm

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

But if I have to supply my own technical criticism, I can tell you that you better have a very strong wingbox for those engines to fit into: because they are wider apart off the aircraft centerline composite thrustline than I like. Has to be though. The spinner circle has to clear that wing root and it cannot foul the canard airflow or the canards fail as anti-stall devices when you go into a mid speed high angle of attack turn.

This joker will turn in about 1700 feet or less I should think at 200 mph. That is almost as good as a Lightning.

H.





I lose some of the turning ability but I clean up the thrust problem and I make the engines easier to access as well as open them up for radial substitutions. I haven't made up my mind, yet, if this pusher B design is better or worse than the A-model.

Burt Rutan would cringe at what I've done. She should roll, climb and dive like a BAT though. This one can dive bomb.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 18th 2008, 9:45pm)

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

19

Monday, August 18th 2008, 10:23pm

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*

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

  • Send private message

20

Monday, August 18th 2008, 10:39pm

IF, and it's a big IF.....

....this plane were built in Germany, then MAYBE it might fly (excuse the pun!!), but it would be beyond Siam, as it would be beyond Ireland or maybe even Denmark (and I say that after having a scripted history of factual and fictional designs going back to 1922-ish, and a real world history that is longer!)

The design of it, not the fact that it's a canard, but the long sweeping complex curves of this mid 40's "Lockheed -never flew- jet powered after-burnered follow / competitor to the P80" design would be very complex to manufacture, if the shape was a little simpler.......

The Mc Donnell Douglas XP-67 "Moonbat" (A Favourite of mine!) was the closest that actually flew, but that was '44 (iirc) and it was of conventional layout with slightly fewer/simpler curves.

Don't get me wrong, curves are good, just a bit early , that's all!!