De Havilland Mosquito

[sequoiaranger]

Sorry, I could not help myself. 

But truly, is there ROOM in the wing for an imbedded engine??

[kitnut617]

I think that's a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge

[sequoiaranger]

>I think that a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge<

Ahhh, so. Now I am thinking of the required "transmission" shafts and gears grinding away like the F5U "Flying Pancake". Then, with the heavy engine(s) that far back, of course the CG would be radically skewed, too. Maybe move the engine forward to the "bomb bay" and make each nacelle a one-bomb, mini-bomb bay?? And/Or extend the forward fuselage out ten feet? Sometimes whif-land makes the mind reel. A reeling mind is a GOOD thing! 

[GTX]

I think that's a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge

Correct

[GTX]

[sequoiaranger]

kind of an Ilyushin Il-28 look without the jets!

[rickshaw]

>I think that a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge<

Ahhh, so. Now I am thinking of the required "transmission" shafts and gears grinding away like the F5U "Flying Pancake". Then, with the heavy engine(s) that far back, of course the CG would be radically skewed, too. Maybe move the engine forward to the "bomb bay" and make each nacelle a one-bomb, mini-bomb bay?? And/Or extend the forward fuselage out ten feet? Sometimes whif-land makes the mind reel. A reeling mind is a GOOD thing! 

While your idea has some merit, I think you're mistaking the location of the radiators for the location of the engine.  Not sure how much room there is in the Mosquito fuselage but the engines could be above a shallower bomb bay, at the CofG, with the radiators just behind them.

Extending the forward fuselage and placing the bomb bay there would also mess with the CofG, necessitating the wings moving forward as well, with the sum result that the radiators would still end up behind the wing I think.  Effectively, you'd have a Mosquito that was stretched fore and aft of the wing, rather than just forward of it.

[sequoiaranger]

rickshaw-->While your idea has some merit, I think you're mistaking the location of the radiators for the location of the engine.  Not sure how much room there is in the Mosquito fuselage but the engines could be above a shallower bomb bay, at the CofG, with the radiators just behind them.<

If the engines were anywhere aft of their original forward-of-the-wing position, the CG would be grossly affected rearward, and would need SOMETHING forward to offset it, e.g. my extended cockpit. Perhaps the bomb-bay engine could be positioned over a bulged bomb-bay that would have about the same room for bombs as before.

BTW--remember the radiators are in the wing roots!!

[rickshaw]

So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?

You're right they are in the wing leading edges - I forgot.   Still, placing the engines over the bomb bay would fix CofG issues.  Bulging the bomb bay could help with capacity but I don't think you'd be able to fit a 4,000 lb "cookie" in it without it looking rather "pregnant". 

Perhaps if we increased the fuselage depth a little, along its whole length and then bulged the doors?

[pyro-manic]

Supercharger intakes? Or shrouded exhausts?

[kitnut617]

Or shrouded exhausts?

That's what they look like to me, it looks like Greg has moved these shapes from the original engine nacelle and placed them on the fuselage side.

[sequoiaranger]

>So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?<

As others have said, I presumed they were not "air scoops", but shrouded exhausts. I guess only the author of the original "embedded engine" post could tell us what he meant. Still, if they are exhausts (and indicating where the engine is), it is only ONE engine? Maybe a twinned Merlin or something?? Ya'd need about 3,000hp from somewhere to equal the previous two (1500+ hp each) Merlins.

>Still, placing the engines over the bomb bay would fix CofG issues.<

I don't see how you can figure that. The bomb-bay was the CoG WHEN THE ENGINES WERE IN FRONT OF THE WING, but if all that weight of two engines (roughly 3800 lbs?) were re-situated toward the rear, then the CoG moves toward the rear!! It's always a good idea to make the bomb bay the CoG is so that whether empty or full, the CoG doesn't change. One can't use expendable weight to make CoG changes. That is why I thought of an extended nose to put the "permanent" weight of the cockpit and crew farther forward if the engines are farther back to keep the CoG about the same.

>Bulging the bomb bay could help with capacity but I don't think you'd be able to fit a 4,000 lb "cookie" in it without it looking rather "pregnant".<

Quite true. Either we would have to "whif" a more torpedo-like slender "cookie", or dispense with that particular ordnance.  

>Perhaps if we increased the fuselage depth a little, along its whole length and then bulged the doors?<

Maybe. All this whif-talk makes me appreciate the elegance and appropriateness of the original design!!

[rickshaw]

Maybe. All this whif-talk makes me appreciate the elegance and appropriateness of the original design!!

Is that a bad thing?  Design exercises like this invariably result in that conclusion I find. 

[GTX]

>So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?<

As others have said, I presumed they were not "air scoops", but shrouded exhausts. I guess only the author of the original "embedded engine" post could tell us what he meant. Still, if they are exhausts (and indicating where the engine is), it is only ONE engine? Maybe a twinned Merlin or something?? Ya'd need about 3,000hp from somewhere to equal the previous two (1500+ hp each) Merlins.

Correct, they were meant to be the exhausts.  I didn't really give it much thought but I figured the embedded engine variant would have some sort of Double Merlin (ala the DB 610).

regards,

Greg

[jcf]

some sort of Double Merlin (ala the DB 610).

... or maybe a turbo-compound  Eagle?