Piston Perfection

[AeroplaneDriver]

I've been giving it some thought and so far I'm eyeing:

1/32 Hase P-51 with thoughts of a dark blue Sea Horse.

1/72 Hase Beaufighter, perhaps in Malaya or as a USMC machine

and

1/48 Hobbycraft L-4 Grasshopper (who said piston perfection has to mean thousands of horses...the Cub does quite nicely on 65     )

[ysi_maniac]

Two ideas:

1 Napier Sabre powered Dora: chin radiator moved back a la P-51.

2 Griffon powered Dewoitine D-520.

Measuring styrene at the moment ... B)

Well, after some measurings and hesitations, I think that a D-520 with Griffon engine is rather far fetched: its original Hispano Suiza engine yielded almost 1000 hp, and Griffon about 2000 hp; I do not think the airframe could bear such power. But the nose of a P-40 with its Allison (1150 hp) can be a candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40. Anyway, I will not go with this project yet.

The other is quite doable. Power, without boost, raises from 1750 hp to 2260 hp, less than a 30%. I got the idea while working in my Buchón. This alternative Dora will be conceived as a parallel (in a parallel world) project to Spanish Buchón. B)

Eager to begin ^_^

Carlos.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^^
But this was built and it had problems with low speed stability. Other point I did not mention is that fuselages with Merlin of Griffon are narrower tha D-520 fuselage. I know some PSR can fix the problem.

[B777LR]

(who said piston perfection has to mean thousands of horses...the Cub does quite nicely on 65     )

How would it do on 1000 then?

Would converting an old kit be allowed for this build?

[Daryl J.]

A 2000 hp Wankel would require a 2000 Imp. gal aux tank just to get off the ground wouldn't it?  


Daryl J.

[Mossie]

From what I've heard, Wankel engines are only really just coming of age, despite having been around for some time.  The Moller Skycar (lets not start a discussion on him!) uses rotary engines & I think they've been used on aircraft before but not terribly succesfully IIRC.

I found this statement on Wiki which probably explains why they don't tend to be used for aircraft:

This difference in intake times also causes Wankel engines to be more susceptible to pressure loss at low RPM compared to regular piston engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine#Advantages

An inconvienience in a car when your in town & your car stutters a bit when going round a junction, a bit different when you're making a tricky crosswind landing.    If your talking a modern aircraft, it may be doable.  If your talking wartime/whenever, it may have been tried in a few airframes showing promise, only to be dropped after developmental problems.  A very real kind of scenario, but takes the edge off the 'perfection' part of the build!  Saying that, it's a whiff, so who's to say some boffin didn't work out a way to sort out the problems?  Reducing weight & structure may have been a big enough carrot to give it a go?

[gooberliberation]

How about a turbo-compound like the Napier Nomad?

[Hobbes]

Turbocompounds are allowed, so are Wankel engines.

Converting an old kit? One you previously built, you mean? Should be ok, as long as it's not just a new propeller (or other simple modifications).  

[AeroplaneDriver]

Got a question guys...

I know this GB as started by Lee is focused on ultimate evolutions of piston aircraft, but would a jet be allowed?










JUST KIDDING!!!  

What I am really wondering and looking for input on, is how the group feels about paint + decal whiffs of existing prop aircraft with no development?

I mostly build jets but thinking about this build has got me in the mood for some piston action, and a few of the ideas I've been tossing about involve plain off-the-shelf aircraft.   I do have an 'ultimate piston' idea specifically for this build (single pusher counter-rotating Pfiel in US Korean markings) , but would my other whifs with no surgery, just whif markings be fair game for this build?

Just wondering what the official ruling and/or general consensus is.

[Hobbes]

Well, the spirit of the build was to push the state of the art of propeller-driven aircraft, so IMO you'd have to show some development over the real-life type. If you can come up with a convincing backstory that has all improvement taking place underneath the existing outer panels (ie invisible on the model), you might be able to get away with it.  

[AeroplaneDriver]

Well, the spirit of the build was to push the state of the art of propeller-driven aircraft, so IMO you'd have to show some development over the real-life type. If you can come up with a convincing backstory that has all improvement taking place underneath the existing outer panels (ie invisible on the model), you might be able to get away with it.

Thanks for the clarification Hobbes.

[Daryl J.]

Then, are both these acceptable ideas: ??

1. Supermarine Sandfire....exterior mods would be limited to a different air intake for the FR.46/contraprop.   Backstory in development.

2. Fw-190 with either a triple bank or quadruple bank radial/contraprops....sort of a Ta-152 with a different engine.


No committment yet as to doing either, but they are Ideas In Creation/Evolution.



Daryl J.

[kitnut617]

The Hornet certainly is and anyone considering anything other than a change of markings is committing heresy.

dammit!! where's the 'evil' smilie when you want it.  Oh well this one will have to do

 

[elmayerle]

Not really.  Many piston aircraft developed at the end of the war - Ta 152, Bearcat, Spiteful, Hornet and Fury - were already at the zenith, the ultimate piton engined aircraft and as perfect as they could be.  

The Hornet certainly is and anyone considering anything other than a change of markings is committing heresy.

Like, say, replacing the Hornet's Merlins with Griffons and contra-props?

[elmayerle]

Hmm, I've considered an XP-72 with the P-47N wing for a tad better performance, possibly mated with a five-bladed prop for a more robust and reliable gearbox.