Random Ideas

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rick Lowe

1. The Do-335 had a prop at the rear and there were methods to get around that...

Feather the prop; blow off the prop.  Regardless, despite it's advantages: A prop up front doesn't require any of this.

I'll concede it makes gun armament easier to sort out

2. The P-38 and Vampire however, while front-engined, had tailplanes that seemed as if they were designed to relieve the baling out pilot of their lower extremities...

It was possible to bail out, but it wasn't as ideal as normal.

3. Exterior contours are tweaked to suit the powerplant dimensions to a greater or lesser degree... the aircraft is usually drawn/sized around the desired engine.

Especially in those days with no radar or avionics: Admittedly, Justo Miranda did draw a concept around a V-3420.  I suppose it would be feasible to make sure the plane could be built around a fatter engine (V-3420 = 2 x V-1710: Same length and height; different width).  On some level, there is a part of me that would favor the idea of using a few characteristics from other aircraft.

[wuzak]

1. The Do-335 had a prop at the rear and there were methods to get around that...

Feather the prop; blow off the prop.  Regardless, despite it's advantages: A prop up front doesn't require any of this.

The Do 335 also had an ejector seat.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Really, I did not know that...

[wuzak]

The Do 335 was the first aircraft to use an ejection seat to bail out.

On the first attempt the pilot, Werner Altrogge, jettisoned the canopy only for it to come back and hit him on the head, breaking his skull and causing his death.

The second attempt, was by pilot Bahlmann. The canopy again hit the pilot's head, but did not render him unconscious. He pulled the ejector seat lever, but it did not fire. He tried an emergency landing, but then the seat fired and dropped him on the runway, causing sever injury.

In both these cases the rear engine had caught fire.

The third attempt neither the seat nor the tail jettisoning worked and the pilot exited the aircraft normally. He had run out of fuel over France.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

The Do 335 was the first aircraft to use an ejection seat to bail out.

That's actually really fascinating.

On the first attempt the pilot, Werner Altrogge, jettisoned the canopy only for it to come back and hit him on the head, breaking his skull and causing his death.

Ouch...

The second attempt, was by pilot Bahlmann. The canopy again hit the pilot's head, but did not render him unconscious. He pulled the ejector seat lever, but it did not fire. He tried an emergency landing, but then the seat fired and dropped him on the runway, causing sever injury.

That sounds painful just thinking about it.

In both these cases the rear engine had caught fire.

Well, one more reason to oppose a pusher for the fictitious Manta concept of mine

The third attempt neither the seat nor the tail jettisoning worked and the pilot exited the aircraft normally. He had run out of fuel over France.

My guess is he just glided the plane in and found a clearing or a flat road?

[wuzak]

In both these cases the rear engine had caught fire.

Well, one more reason to oppose a pusher for the fictitious Manta concept of mine

A British test pilot was lost, after the war, when the rear engine of the Do 335 he was testing caught fire. It was believed that the spark plug was ejected from the hole, allowing hot combustion gases out into the tight confines of the rear engine compartment, causing the fire.

The DB 603, or at least parts of it, was made, late in the war, by slave labour. They may have sabotaged the production or, more likely, the quality of product was lower.

You also have to ask, how many P-39s had their engines catch fire? I don't think there were many, but I haven't seen any statistics on that.

The third attempt neither the seat nor the tail jettisoning worked and the pilot exited the aircraft normally. He had run out of fuel over France.

My guess is he just glided the plane in and found a clearing or a flat road?

No, he bailed out. In the normal manner of climbing out and jumping.

[maxmwill]

I've noticed that there has been some focus on engines with regard to a Gannet whif converted to a fighter, and while the discussion has mutated a bit to include the concurrent Blackburn offerings, there is one engine which might have offered sufficient HP, and yet be relatively light for its power output. That would be the Napier Nomad, which, if memory serves me correctly, was a 12 cylinder pancake engine(opposed cylinders), with turbine assist, with an output in excess of 5,000 HP.

Could this power egg be used in something like the Gannet or Blackburn aircraft?

[PR19_Kit]

The Nomad, while rumoured to be intended to produce 5000 bhp, actually only managed about 3000 bhp on a good day, and that went for both the Nomad I and the later, simpler, Nomad II.

The problem with the Nomad was its weight, it was MONUMENTALLY heavy compared to other engines of the period, weighing some 3580 lbs, and that was for the simpler, lighter Nomad II as well! In comparison the 2800 bhp Sabre weighed 2360 lbs, the 2200 bhp Griffon weighed 1980 lbs and the Double Mamba itself weighed only 2170 lbs for its 2960 bhp.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

The Nomad, while rumoured to be intended to produce 5000 bhp, actually only managed about 3000 bhp on a good day, and that went for both the Nomad I and the later, simpler, Nomad II.

So it came up short?

The problem with the Nomad was its weight, it was MONUMENTALLY heavy compared to other engines of the period, weighing some 3580 lbs, and that was for the simpler, lighter Nomad II as well! In comparison the 2800 bhp Sabre weighed 2360 lbs, the 2200 bhp Griffon weighed 1980 lbs and the Double Mamba itself weighed only 2170 lbs for its 2960 bhp.

So a lighter engine would have lightened the plane?

[PR19_Kit]

PR19_Kit

The Nomad, while rumoured to be intended to produce 5000 bhp, actually only managed about 3000 bhp on a good day, and that went for both the Nomad I and the later, simpler, Nomad II.

So it came up short?

Who knows? There's very little information on the Nomad and the '5000 hp' only seems to have been a target. The Nomad I wasn't fully developed, it was possibly THE most complex aero-engine ever built, and Napier preferred to simplify the design and build the Nomad II instead.

PR19_Kit

The problem with the Nomad was its weight, it was MONUMENTALLY heavy compared to other engines of the period, weighing some 3580 lbs, and that was for the simpler, lighter Nomad II as well! In comparison the 2800 bhp Sabre weighed 2360 lbs, the 2200 bhp Griffon weighed 1980 lbs and the Double Mamba itself weighed only 2170 lbs for its 2960 bhp.

So a lighter engine would have lightened the plane?

Erm, isn't that obvious?

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

Erm, isn't that obvious?

I just like to clarify: How much weight do you think could be trimmed off?

[PR19_Kit]

That's impossible to even speculate on. I have neither the weight breakdown of the Nomad's, or any other engine's mounts etc, and it would depend on the structure of the aircraft which was concerned!

[jcf]

That's impossible to even speculate on. I have neither the weight breakdown of the Nomad's, or any other engine's mounts etc, and it would depend on the structure of the aircraft which was concerned!

Nah, it's easy. Unobtainium for the moving bits and Handwavium-alloy case and blocks. 

[Rick Lowe]

PR19_Kit

Erm, isn't that obvious?

I just like to clarify: How much weight do you think could be trimmed off?

Sufficient to the Purpose.

Or not, it depends how your stocks of Unobtanium are...