You are not logged in.

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.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

41

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 8:22pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Inline version



New B-14 version



I expect Persia will recive a big rebate on the bomber :D


Both versions are great. The lower one will be the B-14A. The upper one, we´ll see.

Is there any chance you could do a version with the stern turret, ball turret and side sindow of the upper version using the lower drawing otherwise?

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

42

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 8:24pm

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Why do you think so?


D.R.A.G.

H.


That hardly explains anything, does it?

howard

Unregistered

43

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 8:36pm

It does if you look at your Ju-89 and then look at a Liberator. Look at the WING of each aircraft.

The chord and the surface area is a dead giveaway.

Try this experiment. Fill a tub with water. Now edgewise move your hand through it.

Do the same edgewise with a KNIFE.

D.R.A.G.

H.

44

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 8:48pm

The B-17


New B-14

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Oct 7th 2008, 9:25pm)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

45

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 10:29pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
New B-14



@ Vukoflad: I probably made not clear that I meant the smaller, round window with gun.... :o/ Sorry, my fault. May I ask for another small modification? :oP

The B-14 has 4x 960hp while the B-17 has 4x 1200hp. However, she also carriers at least two time the B-14s bombload, has a higher speed, more equipement and a larger crew. Doesn´t explain to me why the stats for the WW B-14 are unrealistic....

Let´s check: Her stats are pretty much those of the historical plane. Only bombload is increased a bit but when comparing the WW B-14 to historical 4-engine-bombers it doesn´t seem to be too much.

Ju 89 V1/V2
Länge: 26,50 m
Spannweite: 35,27 m
Höhe: 7,61 m
Besatzung: 9
Motor: Jumo 211A/DB 600A
Leistung: 4x 1000/1100 PS (735kW/750kW - some sources like wiki rate the DB 600A even at 810kW) at sea level
Vmax: 386 km/h
Reichweite: 2980 km
Gipfelhöhe: 7000 m
Bewaffnung: 2 x MG/FF
2 x MG 15
1600 kg Bombenlast


The Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling or B-17 all had engines in the 1200-1300hp range. They carried up to 3 times as much bombload at higher speeds and heavier self-defence armament for only 25% more power. Example:

Avro Lancaster Mk. I
Kenngröße Daten
Länge 21,18 m
Höhe 5,97 m
Flügelspannweite 31,09 m
Tragflügelfläche 120,80 m²
Leergewicht 16.705 kg
Startgewicht 30.800 kg
Startgewicht (max) 31.750 kg
Antrieb Vier Rolls-Royce Merlin XX mit je 1280 PS
Höchstgeschwindigkeit 448 km/h in 5600 m Höhe
Marschgeschwindigkeit 338 km/h
Steigleistung 6095 m in 41 min mit Bombenhöchstladung
Maximale Reichweite 2675 km mit 6350 kg Bomben
Dienstgipfelhöhe 7467 m
Besatzung sieben Mann
Bewaffnung Acht Browning 0303-in-(7,7 mm)-MGs,
bis zu 6350 kg Bomben

The stats also compare well to the FW200 or Ju90 even thought those were not designed as bombers. However, the Ju90 for example was designed for 40 passengers including cargo and achieved 350+km/h and a range of 2100km with four 830hp engines (BMW 132H).

So in fact I think the Germans were on the lower end with 1600kg bombload stated für the historical Ju89 - probably a matter of space in her bomb bays as she was a prototype plane anyway.

I also don´t see why drag should be a problem regarding the Ju89 but have less impact on other design of similar layout - like the British bombers for example.

46

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 10:46pm



Btw its Vukovlad or Anton if you prefer it

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Oct 7th 2008, 10:51pm)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

47

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 10:51pm




Yeah, that´s it. Now I´ve drawings of the current B-14A and B-14C! Thanks a lot! :o) And sorry because of misspelling your name.

The one below I may also use later...but currently it´s not necessary.

48

Tuesday, October 7th 2008, 11:29pm

Out of curiosity what is the flag and airmarking of SAE?

howard

Unregistered

49

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 7:42am

Chord and AREA of wing.

For crying out loud.

The fact that the B-17 has thinner wings, the fact that the Lancaster has thinner wings proportionate to fuselage, and the FACT that the Liberator has suypercritical laminar THIN wings and ALL have less wing surface area to add to drag as a ratio of aeroshell and the Ju-90 doesn't have such wings, hasn't sunk in?

The loft burden is directly proportinate to drag as it would be to all of the four influences, gravity, drag, thrust, lift.

The Ju-90 wing is very efficient and well designed for a low-powered engined SLOW aircraft. The plane is not going to be that fast with the loads you claim for it now, unless you get into the 1000-1050 HP range, PERIOD.

H.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

50

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 8:33am

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
The plane is not going to be that fast with the loads you claim for it now, unless you get into the 1000-1050 HP range, PERIOD.

H.


I see - even though I left out the B-24 in my listing above as I knew she had a special wing and was not in the same class as a Stirling, B-17 or other earlier bomver.

So according to your post it´s a good thing to have 4x 960hp engines on the B-14A and even more powerful on the B-14C (4x 1180hp). At least she is a swept wing design - that makes her look fast! ;o)

howard

Unregistered

51

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 9:01am

The swept wing design was intuitive for the Germans for two reasons.

They thought wingtip vortice stall would be reduced by such wing sweep as it is.

And it is a way to make setback for the engines' propellers easier. That way the disrupted circular airflow from the propeller disks don't set up mutual interference and rob thrust.

That too was intuitive.

H.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

52

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 9:10am

Does it help to overcome the problems with relatively low power compared to foreign designs?

howard

Unregistered

53

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 9:25am

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Does it help to overcome the problems with relatively low power compared to foreign designs?


Yes. Makes for a complex wing-box though. When the Germans got better engines they became more conventionally symmetric in plan-form and accepted the higher wing-loading in their later heavy bomber designs.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Oct 8th 2008, 9:27am)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

54

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 10:31am

I thought the Germans used that wing box design to free the center fuselage for a bomb bay......

howard

Unregistered

55

Wednesday, October 8th 2008, 5:08pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I thought the Germans used that wing box design to free the center fuselage for a bomb bay......


Why would you think that? The wing as structured is actually intrusive. The B-17 wing didn't do that. and it didn't foul the belly bombbay.

That dog as an engineering reason don't hunt.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Oct 8th 2008, 5:09pm)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

56

Thursday, October 9th 2008, 9:07am

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Out of curiosity what is the flag and airmarking of SAE?


I have no idea what they are in WesWorld. :o/ How about the original SOuth African markings?

What would the B-14s look like in color (bright lower fuselage, green/brown upper side probably)?

57

Thursday, October 9th 2008, 9:18am

I found this ....



... it's the present roundel for the South African Airforce.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "parador" (Oct 9th 2008, 9:18am)


HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

58

Thursday, October 9th 2008, 9:30am

Well, ít looks good but has little to do with the SAE, methinks. :o/

Given the three major parts of the Empire I would expect a three colored roundel with brown for Cameroon, Orange for South Africa and Green for Grand Uruguay.

Another idea is to work from the awards I´ve described in my encyclopedia section here . The Leopard and the Protea play an important role here so it might be an idea to use a roundel in those three colors and add a leopards head in its middle..... If that´s not too much. Or use that blue roundel above but replace the eagle (?) with a leopard...

What do you think?

59

Thursday, October 9th 2008, 9:53am

A leopard dosn't seem much like an airforce symbol.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

60

Thursday, October 9th 2008, 9:59am

True - but a kangoroo does? ;o)

It´s more a matter of using something traditional and if it´s already used for those medals it _could_ be an idea to use it again....

If there are better proposals - you´re welcome!