WesWorld

Danish News Summary, January - March 1937

January
3rd - D.A.F. Headquarters, Kastrup.

The first 12 units of the production version of the Falcon were handed over to the Air Force in a ceremony today at D.A.F. headquarters
The Falcon MkII differs from the Falcon V2 that preformed well at Talons, by having a higher performance (1300hp) Hispano Suiza engine,
compared to the 1100hp engine of the pre-production version, and 2 x 20mm cannon in place of the 2 boom mounted machine guns,
and a slightly lenghtened fuselage with a new style of canopy.


February
15th - Hydrema Head Office

"Well, how did it go?" asked Bo Thornsen, head of armoured vehicle developement.
"We got it!!" replied Carl Magnussen, the sales director, a huge smile on his face.
"Brilliant!" Bo answered, "How many units did they agree to?"
"120 units. They want to replace all the units in the 4th Division, delivery to start as soon as possible. But that's not the best bit." smiled Carl.
"Go on" egged on Bo
Erik Nillson, the company's chief engineer replied "Well, it makes sense!"
Bo looked at Erik quizzically.
"They have agreed to convert all the existing Mk1's to 75mm variants, with the recovered 37mm's being converted to use as towed anti-tank guns." answered Erik.
"Gentlemen, the drinks are on me tonight!!" said Bo.

March
1st - Jyllands Posten.

Reports are coming in from Ireland of a naval battle involving units of the Irish Naval Service and the Navy, and a heavily armed pirate vessel.
Details are sketchy, but it is believed that the pirate vessel may have been involved with the sinking of the submarine Bellona.

12th - Ministry of Transport, Copenhagen

"The last of the contracts you asked for Sir" said his secretary, as she put the bundle of documents on the desk.
"Thank you Annelise" replied Balduin, looking up from the stack for a moment.
He sctatched his head as he looked at the heap of paperwork.
"Why did I offer to sort out this mess?" he asked himself.
"Yes Minister, I can compile a full list of all civilian vessels available to us under emergency legislation when enacted.",
he remembered his now much regretted offer with a wince.
"Never volunteer for anything", that was what his old man had always said.

The Falcon Mk2 looks very good, very nice and sleek.

Maybe WW will see more pusher-engined twin-boomers? (There are two now with the Saab F-21)

The Falcon II does look nicer, though I'm still unsure of the rear fuselage. Quite likely needs a larger prop as well - about 10ft diameter. Increases the likelihood of ground strikes but better performance. I would have thought guns in the nose rather than the booms?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The Falcon II does look nicer, though I'm still unsure of the rear fuselage. Quite likely needs a larger prop as well - about 10ft diameter. Increases the likelihood of ground strikes but better performance. I would have thought guns in the nose rather than the booms?

It was just a very quick change to the original drawing, but you are right about the prop size, i'll modify it later.
As for the size difference between spinner and cowling...it's to encourage airflow through the engine bay.
And I'll try moving the guns, I originally put them in the wings for balance purposes, but with a heavier engine.......

What´s this pusher prop enthusiasm all about? Are there any real advantages/disadvantages compared to a common layout?

Quoted

Are there any real advantages/disadvantages compared to a common layout?

A bit less drag and higher propeller efficiency but with considerable cost. Its the bailing out and not getting chopped to pieces that puts me off the most.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Are there any real advantages/disadvantages compared to a common layout?

A bit less drag and higher propeller efficiency but with considerable cost. Its the bailing out and not getting chopped to pieces that puts me off the most.

You forgot the concentrated firepower in the nose.

The British first introduced it in WW1 to combat the Eindecker's "miraculous" gun. It was a simple solution to the then tricky problem of shooting up uor own prop.



And it was the bailing out that was the greatest delay in the introduction of the idea,
everyone thought about going UP, it wasn't until the Lockheed Starfighter that DOWN was thought of for a production aircraft.

Which doesn't make sense to me, as you only need gravity and airflow to acheive exit, no explosives or complicated rams to elevate the seat.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
You forgot the concentrated firepower in the nose.

Which is why I think twin engine fighters at this point make much better platforms for heavy guns, when you add in the bail out issue.

The XP-54 had a downward "firing" ejection seat. A simple solution would have the propeller be jettisioned together with the canopy. Blow the canopy, blow the prop.

The Australian fighter has a pusher mainly for the drag saving benefits. Much like the Do-335.

The Do335 used an ejection seat, right? And I also seem to remember my sources say her aft prop could be blown away..... Might be wrong, though....

Quoted

Which doesn't make sense to me, as you only need gravity and airflow to acheive exit, no explosives or complicated rams to elevate the seat.

The problem is that it is much less safe as at low level it fires you into the ground. Though not so much of a problem with these aircraft speeds.

The aft prop on the Do 335 had explosive bolts to jettison the blades, I think the lower fin could also be jettisoned as well. I was imagining a similar method for the Italian Jona J.10 light bomber as I don't have details of what the historical plan was. There's some great film on youtube of German wartime tests with ejector seats. Best one is a flight test with a Ju-87 that ejects the seat right into the tail. The systems all add weight and complexity that probably don't outweigh the benefits.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
The XP-54 had a downward "firing" ejection seat. A simple solution would have the propeller be jettisioned together with the canopy. Blow the canopy, blow the prop.

The Australian fighter has a pusher mainly for the drag saving benefits. Much like the Do-335.

XP-54 didn't make it into production though, pity...

The reason for not having a jettisonable prop is simple.....where does it go?
The prop, once free of the airframe, can act VERY erratically, possibly colliding with the tail or a boom; causing aerodynamic problems that could prevent the pilot from getting out.

Concentration of fire is both good and bad: if your pilot is skilled enough or close enough, it will make the hits they get lethal; but if they're less skilled, they may well miss entirely because the fire is too concentrated.

Downward firing ejector seats don't really help much on pusher propeller aircraft anyway, there's still the prop behind the pilot and, sometimes, a bottom fin to avoid hitting. And that's without mentioning the problems of being dropped into the ground if it's a low altitude situation.

According to the German wiki the upper fin could be blown away together with the aft prop to allow the ejection of her pilot.
(Btw, that article is the most negative I´ve ever read about the Do335....)

On the English wiki I then read the lower fin was meant to protect the propellor in case of wheels up landings. And "[Restoration workers] were amazed to find that the explosive charges built into the aircraft to blow off the tail fin and rear propeller in the event of an emergency were still on the aircraft and active 30 years later."
(This article is far less negative compared to the German one...)

Looks like Wiki once more cannot be rated very reliable.

Quoted

And "[Restoration workers] were amazed to find that the explosive charges built into the aircraft to blow off the tail fin and rear propeller in the event of an emergency were still on the aircraft and active 30 years later."

From my work at the RAF museum in Cosford you get to hear lots of stories like that. We got a missile for display (pretty sure it was Bloodhound) that still had active boost motors despite supposedly being deactivated.

Another problem with explosive bolts means that the joining isn't as strong as you can't rivet along the whole length, there will be a couple of large bolts that take all the stress.

A jettisonable prop on a twin boom design like this doesn't work quite the same. Ejector seat or a heavy brake to quickly stop the prop spinning.

Older nose
New Hood
Longer engine bay
Bigger prop
Longer boom
No boom guns
Wing Root Cannon