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.
Quoted
This drawing is based on other drawings by Vukovlad, Red Admiral, Hood, and myself.
[SIZE=4]ENAER Kodkod Close Air-Support Fighter[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Wingspan: 34.15 ft (10.4 m)
Length: 41.35 ft (12.6 m)
Height: 13.1 ft (4 m)
Wing Area: 408 ft² (37.9 m²)
Empty weight: 9,000 lbs (4,082 kg)
Loaded weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Engine: 1 × Austral Malacara-SP3 turboprop (2,450shp) or some sort of V-frame engine
Crew: 1
[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Max speed: 400 mph (347.6 knots / 643.7 kph)
Range: 1,000 mi (1,609.3 km)
Service ceiling: 37,500 ft (11,430 m)
Rate of climb: 5,000 fpm (25.4 mps)
Wing-loading: 22 lbs/ft² (empty); 34 lbs/ft² (loaded)
[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 8 × Underwing mounts for bombs, rockets, or MG pods (up to 2,250lbs).
- 1 × centerline mount for torpedo, heavy bomb, or belly fuel tank
[SIZE=3]Notes[/SIZE]
Kodkod development started in 1940 with a request for a dedicated ground attack aircraft. ENAER's senior project manager Alexander von Ahrens elected to design a "close air support fighter" equipped with a 2,450hp Malacara-SP3 turboprop engine. The first "Kodkod" flew in late 1943, and deployed operationally by early 1945.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
The thought of Chile building production ready turboprops (of quite considerable SHP) by 1945 is still troubling me. That would be a good 2-3 years in advance of the Great Powers. Would Chile recognise any potential advantages in the turboprop in 1940? Would the Air Staff officers drafting this spec even have heard of a turboprop in 1940?
I could think of several piston engines of equal performance that would be ready by 1944.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
Overall it looks damn mean and very powerful. FMA I think will be looking a something very similar but with a piston engine.
Quoted
I'm not after a super-engine; if I was, then I'd have taken the existing 2,100hp Austral Incitatus - a licensed Roth-Packard engine - and made a four-row 28-cylinder radial out of it. Oops, 4,200shp!
Quoted
If the centerline mount has a torpedo, then I believe only 2-4 wing mounts should be used.
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Give it a large enough engine and I believe that it will get off the ground.
Martin Mauler
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm not quite convinced about the performance unless there are a few typos in there. Is the wing area of 408 sq ft right? This means your aspect ratio is 2.85 which is extremely low. You'd probably want 6-7 instead. If that wing area is correct, I'd see it being considerably heavier, slower, and climbing slower. With a wing that big you're getting up into the territory of the A-1 or Blackburn Firebrand.
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Actually, I think a radial engine would make better sense than some sort of a buried inline - of course, it would change the CG and sit of the aircraft - but it would be the technically less complex.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Actually, I think a radial engine would make better sense than some sort of a buried inline - of course, it would change the CG and sit of the aircraft - but it would be the technically less complex.
I'm rather under the impression that inlines were always used in buried applications (as well as pusher configurations) because radials have more issues with cooling in these locations. Is that incorrect?
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Actually, I think a radial engine would make better sense than some sort of a buried inline - of course, it would change the CG and sit of the aircraft - but it would be the technically less complex.
I'm rather under the impression that inlines were always used in buried applications (as well as pusher configurations) because radials have more issues with cooling in these locations. Is that incorrect?
I'm suggesting scrapping the buried engine altogether and hang the radial at the nose.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
What is the nose scoop for?
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Have you considered sticking a heavy cannon in the nose (ala p-39)?. Will it have any armor (Fw-190/P-63)?
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH