You are not logged in.

Naval Fighter Plane MPWP-105 A

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 1:31am

Naval Fighter Plane MPWP-105 A

I made drawing of a fictional fighterplane in navalservice (land-based variant and carrier-based variant). Relatively small dimensions to save space on a carrier deck, average flight characteristics and average performance but reliable and easy to produce.

MPWP-105 A (mod. 1941)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


MPWP-105 AC (mod. 1941)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

snip

Professional

Posts: 1,294

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 2:01am

The spinner looks a little to long to my eye as well as the exaust vents being a bit to far back. Otherwise I think it looks great.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 2:03am

A couple of issues...

I can see a couple of issues with the design as drawn.

1. The number of exhaust stacks suggests a ten-cylinder engine - that is an unusual number but not impossible.

2. The placement of the exhaust stacks implies an inline engine of some sort, yet the blunt nost looks as it a radial were meant. Such a blunt entry would create a lot of drag on the aircraft and adversely impact its speed.

3. Esthetically speaking the prop spinner looks a bit too long. If this were an aircraft powered by an inline, a faired spinner would address the blunt entry mentioned above.

4. I presume that there is some sort of radiator or air scoop below the fuselage? If the first, it seems perhaps too large, if the latter, it seems too small.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:16am

Thanks for you critics and praise so far.
V-10 engine was intended even if its not common....
Air scoop has been increased....
You are right with the blunt entry issue....as I began to draw the silhouette of the plane it was intendet to be an radial engine fighter, later I have drawn it as an inline fighter....some kind of aesthetical inconsistency.
Couldn't decide which version is more satisfactory. As a Carrier-plane a radial engine would possibly be the better choice. Anyway, I made two versions now, one with a V-10 engine and one with a radial engine.

I would like to know which you prefer.

Btw, which colorscheme do you like more?

MPWP-105 B1 (mod. 1941)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

MPWP-105 R1 (mod.1941)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Daidalos" (May 24th 2011, 4:24am)

snip

Professional

Posts: 1,294

  • Send private message

5

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:22am

I still think the nose on the V-10 one looks a bit off...

The radial one looks nice
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

6

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:25am

The inline-engined design is much improved; the purist might call the nose a bit pointy, but that is in the eye of the beholder. The larger radiator intake is also better for this design.

For the radial engined design I would open up the cowling a bit more and make it a constant diameter, which might necessitate a change in the thrust line. The radiator bath for the radial design would not be necessary but would be a good place for a turbocharger like the P-47. In that case it might still need to be larger, depending upon the horsepower of the engine.

Keep up the excellent work.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BruceDuncan" (May 24th 2011, 4:42am)

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

7

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:26am

How do you mean "off"? Too long or too bulky or else? Maybe I will redesign the whole front area then...

snip

Professional

Posts: 1,294

  • Send private message

8

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:30am

It might be the spinner appearing to be two-tiered. Not sure if that was intentional or not. Just does not look as sleek as I think it could be. I find inline-engined fighters to look there best when they look fast standing still, but that is IMHO. This one does, but I think a more streamlined spinner could help it look a bit quicker.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

9

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 4:32am

@ Bruce Duncan: Thanks. I will try to implement the changes you proposed in the 1943 model...tomorrow.....

@ snip: tomorrow i make a redesigned inline plane too....

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Daidalos" (May 24th 2011, 4:34am)

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

10

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 6:30pm

First I offer you the new 1943/!944 radial engine variants

MPWP-105 R-10 (Mod. 1943)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

MPWP-105 R-14 (Mod. early 1944)
-escort fighter with extended range



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

GromoBoy

Trainee

Posts: 150

  • Send private message

11

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 6:55pm

I think because of the sloping back of the wings will be too anterior alignment.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

12

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 6:56pm

The radial engined designs for 1943/44 look much improved. I do have a question for the 1944 version.

What is the aperture behind the cockpit supposed to be? The drawing suggests grillwork of some sort, which seems out of place *behind* the cockpit.

Also, the substitution of a closed canopy for the bubble canopy could be a retrograde step. The bubble canopy offers so much greater visibility that I do not understand why it would be abandoned.

eltf177

Trainee

Posts: 157

  • Send private message

13

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 6:59pm

I still prefer the inline version...

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

14

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 7:34pm

@ bruce duncan: Due to the extended range more space within the fuselage is needed for additional internal tanks....( I think it was the same on some kind of Spitfire version...Mk. XVi or some late model: the version with a bubble canopy had less range....but maybe I am wrong) Maybe the redesign could be explained with added armor for the cockpit?
As for the grillwork....well i dunno...felt that there woudl have been too much empty space without it....what could it be? Air for Oil cooler or something?


MPWP-105 C (mod. 1943)
- new 12 cylinder engine



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

15

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 7:42pm

I wasn't satisfied with the nose of the twelve latest inline version.......

MPWP-105 C-2 (mod. 1943)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

snip

Professional

Posts: 1,294

  • Send private message

16

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 8:09pm

Very nice!
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

  • Send private message

17

Tuesday, May 24th 2011, 9:37pm

Great drawings !!!!

Simple Reply