If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stretching WW2 Designs
I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched" in order
to get more performance or payload? I know of the FW 190D which was stretched in the aft fuselage section in order to compensate for the installation of Jumo V 12 engine. Could other designs have benefitted from the technique of stretching in one way or another? Was it not done because the designs of the era were not suited to it? In recent years even reworked C-47s have been stretched. Was there simply no perceived need to stretch a design? John Dupre' |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Recall that the inline Allison-powered P-40, developed from a radial-powered
predecessor, benefitted from such an aft-fuselage stretch, improving its fineness ratio, allowing for drag-reduction at the tailfin-rudder interface, and even allowing for fitment of a low-pressure variant of the RR Merlin. Had the stretched P-40 been given the Merlin 20 series engine, it could have become a serious high-altitude competitor. Ballasting was not usually a good solution. In the Spitfire, for example, ballasting was not very efficient when used in conjunction with the wider and heavier Griffons, rendering tricky handling and at least one test-establishment evaluation calling for cessation of production of Griffon variants for that reason. "IBM" wrote in message ... (JDupre5762) wrote in : I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched" in order to get more performance or payload? SNIP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:25:27 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote: Recall that the inline Allison-powered P-40, developed from a radial-powered predecessor, benefitted from such an aft-fuselage stretch, improving its fineness ratio, allowing for drag-reduction at the tailfin-rudder interface, and even allowing for fitment of a low-pressure variant of the RR Merlin. Had the stretched P-40 been given the Merlin 20 series engine, it could have become a serious high-altitude competitor. The P-40F and L had the Merlin 20, and the L the stretched fuselage. I suspect you mean the Merlin 60 series, but as the first Packard Merlin 60-series scale production didn't begin until the second half of 1943, I can't see why the better Mustang airframe would have been passed over in favour of what everybody was calling an obselete airframe by 1942. The Merlin 20-engined P40's were out-performed by the Merlin 45-engined Spitfire V as interceptors to start with, so it made no sense to miss out on Spitfire IX/VIII production to use the engines concerned to produce Merlin 60-engined P-40s. Ballasting was not usually a good solution. In the Spitfire, for example, ballasting was not very efficient when used in conjunction with the wider and heavier Griffons, rendering tricky handling and at least one test-establishment evaluation calling for cessation of production of Griffon variants for that reason. That was an early variant of the F.21, where the evaluation establishment went beyond their remit, and where in any case the problem was fixed. Meanwhile, two Griffon-engined versions had previously gone into service, the first (the Mk XII) about eighteen months beforehand, and the second (the Mk XIV) with great success, being called the best single-engined fighter tested by the AFDU to that point. Gavin Bailey -- Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this. Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , (JDupre5762) writes: I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched" in order to get more performance or payload? I know of the FW 190D which was stretched in the aft fuselage section in order to compensate for the installation of Jumo V 12 engine. Could other designs have benefitted from the technique of stretching in one way or another? Was it not done because the designs of the era were not suited to it? In recent years even reworked C-47s have been stretched. Was there simply no perceived need to stretch a design? For "stretch" it's rather hard to beat the Spitfire. I began the war perfoeming at same level as its main competitors, and through continual redesign and refinement was still in peak form when the war ended. Of course, installed power had more than doubled, the tail was completely new, the feselage adn wing structure was completely redone, they reshaped teh fuselage for a bubble canopy, and made a fighter-bomber (And Carrier-borne Fighter-Bomber to boot) out of it. Spits stayed in RAF and RN service well after the war. Not too half bad. I think that transports didn't get the same treatment for a number of reasons. Most transport types didn't have options which afforded greatly increased power, and the load carrying performance of airplanes at that time was limited by available power more than anything else - you'd run out of payload weight available before you ran out of payload volume. Getting more payload required a whole new airplane. The C-46 was considerable bigger than the C-47 it supplanted. That being said, I suppose you could make a case that DOuglas did start a program of stretching transports with the DC-4-DC-6-DC-7 line. Speaking of transports, I'm surprised no one's brought up the Herk's recent 50th birthday. -- James... www.jameshart.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Presidente Alcazar writes: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:25:27 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard" wrote: Recall that the inline Allison-powered P-40, developed from a radial-powered predecessor, benefitted from such an aft-fuselage stretch, improving its fineness ratio, allowing for drag-reduction at the tailfin-rudder interface, and even allowing for fitment of a low-pressure variant of the RR Merlin. Had the stretched P-40 been given the Merlin 20 series engine, it could have become a serious high-altitude competitor. The P-40F and L had the Merlin 20, and the L the stretched fuselage. I suspect you mean the Merlin 60 series, but as the first Packard Merlin 60-series scale production didn't begin until the second half of 1943, I can't see why the better Mustang airframe would have been passed over in favour of what everybody was calling an obselete airframe by 1942. The Merlin 20-engined P40's were out-performed by the Merlin 45-engined Spitfire V as interceptors to start with, so it made no sense to miss out on Spitfire IX/VIII production to use the engines concerned to produce Merlin 60-engined P-40s. The P-40Fs and P-40Ls were also outperformed by various Allison-powered P-40 models as well. The single stage Merlins, while very, very good engines, weren't the leap in performance over its rivals that the 2-stage (60 series and up) engines were. Ballasting was not usually a good solution. In the Spitfire, for example, ballasting was not very efficient when used in conjunction with the wider and heavier Griffons, rendering tricky handling and at least one test-establishment evaluation calling for cessation of production of Griffon variants for that reason. That was an early variant of the F.21, where the evaluation establishment went beyond their remit, and where in any case the problem was fixed. Meanwhile, two Griffon-engined versions had previously gone into service, the first (the Mk XII) about eighteen months beforehand, and the second (the Mk XIV) with great success, being called the best single-engined fighter tested by the AFDU to that point. A couple of points here - the Griffon's frontal area wasn't that much more than the Spitfires, and it was notably wider only at the top of the cylinder blocks and heads. It wasn't that much longer overall, either, due to clever relocation of the engine accessories. While the Griffon Spits may have lost some of the Spitfire's perfect handling, it didn't lose much. and the Royal Navy was flying them from carrier decks into the 1950s. I couldn't have been that bad. (They chose to dump the Corsair and keep the Seafires, after all.) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , (JDupre5762) writes: I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched" in order to get more performance or payload? I know of the FW 190D which was stretched in the aft fuselage section in order to compensate for the installation of Jumo V 12 engine. Could other designs have benefitted from the technique of stretching in one way or another? Was it not done because the designs of the era were not suited to it? In recent years even reworked C-47s have been stretched. Was there simply no perceived need to stretch a design? For "stretch" it's rather hard to beat the Spitfire. I began the war perfoeming at same level as its main competitors, and through continual redesign and refinement was still in peak form when the war ended. Of course, installed power had more than doubled, the tail was completely new, the feselage adn wing structure was completely redone, they reshaped teh fuselage for a bubble canopy, and made a fighter-bomber (And Carrier-borne Fighter-Bomber to boot) out of it. Spits stayed in RAF and RN service well after the war. Not too half bad. I think that transports didn't get the same treatment for a number of reasons. Most transport types didn't have options which afforded greatly increased power, and the load carrying performance of airplanes at that time was limited by available power more than anything else - you'd run out of payload weight available before you ran out of payload volume. Getting more payload required a whole new airplane. The C-46 was considerable bigger than the C-47 it supplanted. That being said, I suppose you could make a case that DOuglas did start a program of stretching transports with the DC-4-DC-6-DC-7 line. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster I had originally thought of the Spitfire as a good example of stretching when this question first came up. However, on reflection, there was very little airframe stretch during the service life of this type which contributed to its ability to maintain parity in air combat. Essentially there were two major airframe changes (Mk.VIII and F.21), and two major engine ones (2-stage supercharging in Merlin 60's, and introduction of the Griffon). The basic Mk.I led to the Mk.II, Mk.V, and ultimately the Mk.IX. The Mk.IX was essentially an interim type allowing use of the series 60 Merlin engine before the definitive Merlin powered Mk.VIII was ready. With the introduction of the Griffon engine, the definitive Spitfire was to be the F.21 (and followed by F.22, and F.24). Again, to facilitate early introduction of the engine upgrade, an interim model was introduced, based on the Mk.VIII, and called the Mk.XIV. During the history of the Spitfire, major changes to the airframe were few, being restricted to accommodating the Griffon engine in the Mk.XII (another interim model, based on the Mk.V), provision of a cut down rear fuselage to allow a bubble canopy (Mk.IX and Mk.XVI onwards, although interspersed with normal canopy), and F.21 onwards (redesigned wing). Other lesser changes included extended wing tips for high altitude interception (Mk.VII, Mk.VIII), increased surfaces to horizontal and vertical tail, changes in armament from 8x 0.303 mgs to 2x 20mm plus 4x 0.303 mgs, 2x 20mm plus 2x 0.50 mgs, and finally 4x 20mm. Invisible changes included additional fuel cells in the rear fuselage and fuselage strengthening. But the most significant cause of the Spitfire's extended longevity was the remarkable work of Ernest Hive's team at Derby in forcing more and more power from the Merlin engine, and ultimately the successful installation of the Griffon engine. Without the engineering brilliance of Rolls Royce, the Spitfire, as a contemporary fighter, would have become obsolescent by 1941-42. Graham Salt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
One aircraft which was stretched considerably was the B-29. It eventually
morphed into the B-50, the B-54, the C-97, the KC-97, the TU-4, the Guppy, the Super Guppy, and probably a few more variants I've left off. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Graham Salt" writes: "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , (JDupre5762) writes: I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched" in order to get more performance or payload? I know of the FW 190D which was stretched in the aft fuselage section in order to compensate for the installation of Jumo V 12 engine. Could other designs have benefitted from the technique of stretching in one way or another? Was it not done because the designs of the era were not suited to it? In recent years even reworked C-47s have been stretched. Was there simply no perceived need to stretch a design? For "stretch" it's rather hard to beat the Spitfire. I began the war perfoeming at same level as its main competitors, and through continual redesign and refinement was still in peak form when the war ended. Of course, installed power had more than doubled, the tail was completely new, the feselage adn wing structure was completely redone, they reshaped teh fuselage for a bubble canopy, and made a fighter-bomber (And Carrier-borne Fighter-Bomber to boot) out of it. Spits stayed in RAF and RN service well after the war. Not too half bad. I think that transports didn't get the same treatment for a number of reasons. Most transport types didn't have options which afforded greatly increased power, and the load carrying performance of airplanes at that time was limited by available power more than anything else - you'd run out of payload weight available before you ran out of payload volume. Getting more payload required a whole new airplane. The C-46 was considerable bigger than the C-47 it supplanted. That being said, I suppose you could make a case that DOuglas did start a program of stretching transports with the DC-4-DC-6-DC-7 line. I had originally thought of the Spitfire as a good example of stretching when this question first came up. However, on reflection, there was very little airframe stretch during the service life of this type which contributed to its ability to maintain parity in air combat. Essentially there were two major airframe changes (Mk.VIII and F.21), and two major engine ones (2-stage supercharging in Merlin 60's, and introduction of the Griffon). The basic Mk.I led to the Mk.II, Mk.V, and ultimately the Mk.IX. The Mk.IX was essentially an interim type allowing use of the series 60 Merlin engine before the definitive Merlin powered Mk.VIII was ready. With the introduction of the Griffon engine, the definitive Spitfire was to be the F.21 (and followed by F.22, and F.24). Again, to facilitate early introduction of the engine upgrade, an interim model was introduced, based on the Mk.VIII, and called the Mk.XIV. I have to disagree, a bit. (While the basic Spitfire Shape was retained, the Griffon engined Spits were much different, structurally. You couldn't make a Mk IX into a Mk XII with a conversion kit. The wing structure also evolved quite a bit, as well. (Wasn't the Mk VIII actually based on the Mk III, which was to be a Merlin XX powered flavor that was abandined in favor of the Mk V when it was decided that the 2-speed Merlins were better off being put into Hurricanes? It's Rivet Counting, I know.) But the most significant cause of the Spitfire's extended longevity was the remarkable work of Ernest Hive's team at Derby in forcing more and more power from the Merlin engine, and ultimately the successful installation of the Griffon engine. Without the engineering brilliance of Rolls Royce, the Spitfire, as a contemporary fighter, would have become obsolescent by 1941-42. T'warnt so mach Hives as Stanley Hooker, and his almost mystical ability to squeeze that last bit of efficiency out of a supercharger. Not only did he develop teh improved blowers for teh XX adn 40 series engines, but he came up with the 2-stage blower for the 60 Series and up, which was what transformed the Merlin from a good engine to a classic. Two stage blowers weren't new, by any means - the U.S. was very fond of them in the turbosupercharged R1820s and R1830s used in the B-17 and B-24, and the V1710 installations on the P-38 and the prototype P-39. (It was deleted from teh P-39 because there wasn't room for both the turbosupercharger and the requisite intercoolers, and installed drag on a tiny airframe like an Airacobra went through the roof.) and the mechanically driven second stages of the Wildcat's R1830 and the Hellcat & Corsair's R2800s - but they tended to be complicated and space-intensive, with teh auxiliarry stage blower driven at its own optimum speed by a separate drive. Hooker figured that if he sized things just right, he could have both blowers on the same shaft, turning at the same speed, and have them match throught th eperformace range of the engine. And he made it work, with nothing more than slide rules and graph paper. Before the 2 stage Merlin appeared, The folks planning Brit War Production were getting ready to close down Merlin production in favor of its intended followons - the Sabre and the Vulture. (The Griffon was another Rolls private venture) It's a good thig that didn't happen. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Andreasson designs | Bob Babcock | Home Built | 5 | March 4th 04 09:15 PM |
Boeing's WW 2 Disc Designs | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 6 | February 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
Performance Designs 60 x 66 wood prop | Sam Hoskins | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 10th 03 01:22 AM |
Marine team designs and flies homemade, muscle-powered plane | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 26th 03 12:41 AM |
Why are delta wing designs reputed to lose speed during turns? | Air Force Jayhawk | Military Aviation | 2 | September 25th 03 12:50 PM |