WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
For aircraft rules, I'd more take anything "reasonable" rather than +3/5 yrs

Both are the same. IMO 3-5 years within historical designs is reasonable.

Chosen would still be dependent on Japan for its aero-engines at this point. Agree that the 800-1250hp bracket is the best available at the moment...

****

Entry change from Brazil. Sienar V-19 withdrawn, replaced by:

Sienar V-13

(same pilot/copilot)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-43)

That Sikorsky is not a bad choise....

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
For aircraft rules, I'd more take anything "reasonable" rather than +3/5 yrs

Both are the same. IMO 3-5 years within historical designs is reasonable.

u goof.



The race is 1934. So that gets us within 1938.

But I decided to go with a weaker engine.

^_^

General characteristics
Crew: 1, pilot
Length: 26 ft 11 in (8.20 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 11 in (9.42 m)
Height: 11 ft 10 in (3.60 m)
Wing area: 156 ft² (14.5 m²)
Empty weight: 4,563 lb (2,070 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 5,512 lb (2,500 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Daimler-Benz DB 601M , 1,175 hp (876 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 416 mph (668 km/h)
Range: 560 miles (900 km)
Service ceiling: 36,090 ft (11,000 m)
Armament
1 x 20 mm MG FF cannon
2 x 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns


not to be wierd or anything but thats a actual 1936 plane from what i read it smoked the other fighters of its time but was never put into production. the only reason i posted it at all was the horsepower figures, 1175 which makes 1200 horse in 1936 which is the minimum fairly realistic, course i could be wrong but if people had 1175 horse another 25 isnt realy that hard to tweak out ya know

btw i claim this design =P

The United Kingdom will indeed be represented by a trio of de Havilland DH.88 "Comet" aircraft.

I'm not really sure that the He-100 is suited to a long-distance race. It first flew in 1938.

X11-F
Flying Wing
Monoplane With Struts
Tail-less
High-Altitude Fighter

Length: 25 ft
Wingspan: 52.3 ft

Wing sweep: -25 deg.

max takeoff weight: 13,500 lbs

User weight & payload: 150 lbs

Airspeed Design Limitation: 331 kts

Airframe Weight: 6,480 lbs
Airframe reinforced: 7,128 lbs

Empty Weight: 11,273 lbs

Armament:

x4 .50 MG

-Flight Characteristics-

Max Speed: 285 kts=328 mph/527 kmh@ 35,000 ft
Max Altitude: 48,000 ft

Cruise Speed: 250 kts
Cruise Altitude: 30,000 ft

Cruise Range: 713 NM/ 1320 km @ 250 kts & 30,000 ft.

Stall & Takeoff Speed @ 0 ft: 49 kts=56 mph
Stall Speed at 20,000 ft: 67 kts=77 mph

Climb at 0 ft @130 kts/150 mph: 1,279 ft/min
Climb at 0 ft @ 250 kts: 262 ft/min

Climb at 5000 ft @ 200 kts: 432 ft/min
Climb at 15000 ft @ 200 kts: 715 ft/min
Climb at 25000 ft @ 200 kts: 868 ft/min
Climb at 30000 ft @ 200 kts: 892 ft/min
Climb at 35000 ft @ 200 kts: 873 ft/min
Climb at 40000 ft @ 200 kts: 801 ft/min
Climb at 43000 ft @ 200 kts: 727 ft/min
Climb at 46000 ft @ 200 kts: 619 ft/min

Turn radius-
Altitude & Speed:
500 ft: 194 mph= 700 ft
1000 ft: 195 mph= 707 ft
3000 ft: 200 mph= 746 ft
5000 ft: 207 mph= 792 ft
10000 ft: 223 mph= 926 ft
20000 ft: 264 mph= 1,298 ft
30000 ft: 316 mph= 1,843 ft


ENGINE:

x1
JX-08 "Star Nova"

Prop Diameter: Counter-rotating 10.5 ft blades

Output: 961 HP
Thrust: 3,276 lbs

Engine weight: 1,039 lbs
W/ counter rotating setup: 1,767 lbs

I have got to get me one of those things.

Hmm. I'm guessing you've used a supercharger (or turbosupercharger) to re-establish power at around 30,000ft? This critical value is more than twice as high as anything historical. The early Merlins (with the best superchargers in the world) had a critical altitude of some 15000ft with others being below this at around 12000ft.

The contra-props are a bit early. They add considerable weight and complexity.

I'd keep the vertical stablisers as well so that the pilot actually has some degree of control over the aircraft.

General question: Why do you need a high altitude fighter when most bombers can't get above 20,000ft or so?

... on second thought, that's probably not a good idea. Manzo might get his hands on that thing.

Quoted

Climb at 5000 ft @ 200 kts: 432 ft/sec

Surely the climb rate is in ft/min? Else its climbing at 50,000ft/min

Other questions: any particular reasoning behind a tailless flying wing? Why not go for something more conventional instead?

For this race the same problems still apply. Range for one. Two pilots would be extremely useful as I don't think one could stay awake for the 70-hour trip.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Hmm. I'm guessing you've used a supercharger (or turbosupercharger) to re-establish power at around 30,000ft? This critical value is more than twice as high as anything historical. The early Merlins (with the best superchargers in the world) had a critical altitude of some 15000ft with others being below this at around 12000ft.

The contra-props are a bit early. They add considerable weight and complexity.

I'd keep the vertical stablisers as well so that the pilot actually has some degree of control over the aircraft.

General question: Why do you need a high altitude fighter when most bombers can't get above 20,000ft or so?

It's not imagined that it would fight at 48,000 ft.

However, air resistance at 30,000 ft is greatly lower than 10 to 20,000 ft.

That was actually the reasoning. So I could maintain a higher cruising speed.

Yeah, it's using a supercharger.

The secret to it's high altitude flight has little to do with the engine & primative super charger. More to do with how it's structured.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Climb at 5000 ft @ 200 kts: 432 ft/sec

Surely the climb rate is in ft/min? Else its climbing at 50,000ft/min

Other questions: any particular reasoning behind a tailless flying wing? Why not go for something more conventional instead?

For this race the same problems still apply. Range for one. Two pilots would be extremely useful as I don't think one could stay awake for the 70-hour trip.

yes im sorry. it's ft/min

the original design had a tail.

I axed it. Which made the meanuvering lower...altho turn radius of 700 ft isn't terrible. but not great either.

I did it because I felt the tail wasn't as streamlined as the rest of it, and it seemed design odd. It was a twin boom kind of tail, and I mean, it doubled the length of the aircraft for some odd reason. And ontop of that it was directly behind the prop. which would create turbulance in some cases.

Quoted

However, air resistance at 30,000 ft is greatly lower than 10 to 20,000 ft.

That was actually the reasoning. So I could maintain a higher cruising speed.

Yeah, it's using a supercharger.

The secret to it's high altitude flight has little to do with the engine & primative super charger. More to do with how it's structured.

Yes but with a reasonable supercharger for the time period the engine is going to give around 300-400hp at 30,000ft. The aircraft will be considerably slower and eventually stall. I don't see anything particularly special about the aircraft structure that would overcome this.

Is there any chance you could email me the full excel file please? My address is in my profile here.

Edit:For interested parties, the full view of the Davis Manta can be found here as drawn by Justo Miranda.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

However, air resistance at 30,000 ft is greatly lower than 10 to 20,000 ft.

That was actually the reasoning. So I could maintain a higher cruising speed.

Yeah, it's using a supercharger.

The secret to it's high altitude flight has little to do with the engine & primative super charger. More to do with how it's structured.

Yes but with a reasonable supercharger for the time period the engine is going to give around 300-400hp at 30,000ft. The aircraft will be considerably slower and eventually stall. I don't see anything particularly special about the aircraft structure that would overcome this.

Is there any chance you could email me the full excel file please? My address is in my profile here.

Edit:For interested parties, the full view of the Davis Manta can be found here as drawn by Justo Miranda.

from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger

A supercharger remedies this problem by compressing the air back to sea-level pressures, or even much higher. This inevitably requires some energy to be bled from the engine to drive the supercharger. On the single-stage single-speed supercharged Rolls Royce Merlin engine for instance, the supercharger uses up about 150 horsepower (110 kW). Yet the benefits outweigh the costs, for that 150 hp (110 kW) lost, the engine is delivering 1000 hp (750 kW) when it would otherwise deliver 750 hp (560 kW), a net improvement of 250 hp. And while the supercharged engine delivers as much or more thrust as it did at sea level, the airframe only experiences half the aerodynamic drag due to the low atmospheric pressure at high altitude. For this reason supercharged planes are able to fly much faster at higher altitudes.

Marlin engine was created in 1936 and 1938-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls_Royce_Merlin
------------------
the supercharger is good up to 48,000 ft on this one.

supercharger recovery factor is always questionable.

The highest altitude obtained in a piston-driven propeller aeroplane (without a payload) was 17,083 meters (56,047 feet) on October 22, 1938 by Mario Pezzi at Montecelio, Italy in a Caproni 161 driven by a Piaggio XI R.C. engine.

The highest altitude for horizontal flight without a payload is 14,301 meters (46,919 feet) set on November 15, 2003 by Bruce Bohannan flying his Bohannon B-1 driven by a Mattituck/Lycoming IO-450 (350 bhp) engine over Angleton, Texas.

sent to u red admiral.

i dont get to compeat T.T i was just posting the plane for discusions sake to demonstrate that in 1936 there were close to 1200 hp engines in planes

Tanthalas, Sorry I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. There were a couple of other 1200hp+ engines available in the same time frame.

Quoted

the supercharger is good up to 48,000 ft on this one.

Instead of the historical cutting edge 15000ft (ish). Your engine gives a similar power to the Merlin. The 60-series with the two-stage supercharger gave 1000hp up to 29500ft which took 400hp to drive. Getting up to 48000ft would require the same again, so either 4-stage or one absolutely massive centrifugal blower (probably a good few foot across) and requiring 800hp+ to drive.

The altitude records were set by specialised designed planes. The Ca 161 in 1938 had massively low wing loading, a massive propellor, a pressure cabin for the pilot, and a special engine supercharged to 33,000ft. Is it telling that this record still stands until the present day?