Lysander

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Well it took some time but I think I finally came up with a WHIF idea for the Lysander.  How about replacing the radial engine with an in-line liquid cooled engine such as the Merlin as fitted to the Hurricane or Spitfire?  It would certainly make for a very different looking Lysander. 

[Weaver]

LOL - I have exactly that lined up for the Unspat My Ride GB if it ever comes to pass. I bought a Matchbox P-40, purely in order to nick it's wing centre-section with it's neat retracting gear, but I then realised that the engine would go on the Lizzie very easily. Back story? Well with a Lizzie external tank on EACH stub wingtip and enough power to carry them, it would make a much longer-ranged spy-dropper, or without the tanks, it could be a sort of 1940s fast-FAC.....

[brewerjerry]

Hi All,
         My wierd idea was always with twin engines ( radial or inline ) under the wings somewhere near where the struts atttach, a heavy nose armament, and the turret tail that westlands experimented with. a great 1940 ground straffer. ( or maybe just too much beer......)
          cheers
            Jerry

[elmayerle]

Hmm, how about a retractible gear Lysander using something of the same idea Cessna played with in their 185RG design study, a stub wing the gear retracts into that also provides an anchor point for the struts.

[Daryl J.]

de Havilland manufactured work horse for Alaska and the Yukon!


Part of the desert equipment in the early 1950s the Mercenaries of Marrakech used alongside the Storch.


Could DHC build these?




Daryl J., with thoughts of tundra tires

[Mossie]

There's more scope for the Lizzy than you think, real world there were the turreted, Pregnant Perch & Westland P.12 delanne layout with rear mounted turret.  I did some profiles a while back in the thread below, there's also a little discussion about the turreted Lizzy & Pregnant Perch.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17321.0.html

Turreted Lizzy



"Pregant Perch"


Westland P.12




You can see how the designs evolved in the desperate early days of the war.  These aircraft were all designed to give the Lizzy a measure of defensive protection & to strafe troops & shipping in the event of an invasion.  The conventional turret only gave limited protection due to the high tail & no real offensive capacity.  The 'Pregnant Perch' gave an offensive strafing capabilty, but no real offensive capability.  The P.12 required a substantial re-design but culminated in design that had a measure of both, if only to the rear.  The P.12 was apparently as mobile as any fighter, but would have remained as slow as the Lizzy without an engine upgrade.

[jcf]

Hmm, how about a retractible gear Lysander using something of the same idea Cessna played with in their 185RG design study, a stub wing the gear retracts into that also provides an anchor point for the struts.

Ala the Kreider-Reisner(Fairchild 95) XC-31 and Heston Phoenix?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3290

The XC-31 was the first purpose designed military cargo aircraft.







One of my all time favourites, such a lovely machine.

Jon

[elmayerle]

Hmm, how about a retractible gear Lysander using something of the same idea Cessna played with in their 185RG design study, a stub wing the gear retracts into that also provides an anchor point for the struts.

Ala the Kreider-Reisner(Fairchild 95) XC-31 and Heston Phoenix?

Yep, very much so and using existing structure to the greatest extent possible.

[GTX]

Hmm, how about a retractible gear Lysander using something of the same idea Cessna played with in their 185RG design study, a stub wing the gear retracts into that also provides an anchor point for the struts.

There were some studies into retractable landing gear for the Lizzie - one had the landing gear retracting back and upwards into the fuselage, whilst the other used a small wing under the fuselage into which the undercarriage retracted.  I will post pictures as soon as I get my scanner talking to the computer again.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

LOL - I have exactly that lined up for the Unspat My Ride GB if it ever comes to pass. I bought a Matchbox P-40, purely in order to nick it's wing centre-section with it's neat retracting gear, but I then realised that the engine would go on the Lizzie very easily. Back story? Well with a Lizzie external tank on EACH stub wingtip and enough power to carry them, it would make a much longer-ranged spy-dropper, or without the tanks, it could be a sort of 1940s fast-FAC.....

You know, my first thought was that a Allison engined Lizzie would look cool - maybe a little like this:



Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

IMHO I think there would be some serious cg problems, neat idea though.  Maybe to offset some of the forward weight move the radiator under the observers seat (or a bit further back), Hurricane style and Mustang Mk.I cowling perhaps

[The Rat]

Instead of an in-line what about a more powerful radial? A P&W Twin Wasp would be a bit heavier than the Mercury, 1,250 lbs against 966, but it wouldn't be hanging so far forward so the CG problems wouldn't be as great. It would be a slightly smaller diameter, 48" as opposed to 51.5", and would give you a lot more 'oomph' with almost twice the horsepower, 1,200 instead of 636. It wouldn't look as radically different in actual outline but it would allow for more stuff to hang on the outside, like bombs or tank busting guns.

[Mossie]

Here's a P.12 I did with the Twin Wasp:



The Twin Wasp would have been a good choice, several British aircraft used it when Bristol engines weren't available.  The Bristol Taurus or even lower rated versions of the Hercules might have been options too.  It always suprised me that they never up-engined the Lizzy, with the problems it had with low speed.  It makes me think that there were other problems involved, like the stress on the airframe of a more powerful engine.  Also, it was one of Petters aircraft & he designed his aircraft tight to a spec, making changes was then difficult.

I'm no engineer, but I'd think that the high lift of the Lizzie that was it's main attribute would also lead to high drag.  So up engining it would put a lot of extra stress on the airframe without huge increases in speed.  You might be able to increase the strength of the structure to take it, but then you come up against the extra weight & would a few extra hundred horse power be worth that? 

If you were going to increase the structure of the Lizzy, why not go the whole hog & give it twin engines.  Kind of like the Otter & Twotter?

[Weaver]

LOL - I have exactly that lined up for the Unspat My Ride GB if it ever comes to pass. I bought a Matchbox P-40, purely in order to nick it's wing centre-section with it's neat retracting gear, but I then realised that the engine would go on the Lizzie very easily. Back story? Well with a Lizzie external tank on EACH stub wingtip and enough power to carry them, it would make a much longer-ranged spy-dropper, or without the tanks, it could be a sort of 1940s fast-FAC.....

You know, my first thought was that a Allison engined Lizzie would look cool - maybe a little like this:



Regards,

Greg

I'm sure that when I lined it up it didn't come out looking as long as that, although I may have picked a cut line for the engine that excluded the thumping great oil tank behind it: pretend that's under the floor on the Super-Lizzie.....

For some reason, in my mind's eye, I can ONLY see it painted silver (which I can't remotely justify) and ONLY doing a high-speed low pass with it's gear up........

[Jeffry Fontaine]

You know, my first thought was that a Allison engined Lizzie would look cool

Greg,

That is an excellent conceptual drawing of the idea.  The in-line engine and the spats definitely make it look like it is going fast even when it is sitting still.  As far as the CG issues go, well this is a WHIF and critical things like that can be ignored or overlooked. 

I took liberties with your Allison Lysander and converted it to a Turbo Lysander