What if an 1/48 spitfire was turned into a light bomber

[perttime]

Shouldn't the engines be mounted lower on the wing? More like the Merlins on a Mosquito.


Wikipedia image

[ysi_maniac]

I am liking your Spitfire!

[NARSES2]

This is intriguing 

[Old Wombat]

Shouldn't the engines be mounted lower on the wing? More like the Merlins on a Mosquito.


Wikipedia image

I can't disagree with that, it was my first thought on seeing the WiP.

[perttime]

Shouldn't the engines be mounted lower on the wing? More like the Merlins on a Mosquito.

...

I can't disagree with that, it was my first thought on seeing the WiP.

On the other hand, the spitfire wing is placed lower than the Mosquito wing. Seeing the nacelle so much above the wing might just look strange but be perfectly functional.

[63cpe]

mmmm, mmmmmm. ok. Is it correct propellor engines are placed in front/ underneath the wings because of wing bending issue's? or is it because of thrustline issue's?

I could put them below the wing allright, but would like to understand why.

thanks,
David aka 63cpe

[kerick]

I think it looks great! Just leave enough room in the nacelle under the wing for main gear and you're in like Flynn.

[jcf]

mmmm, mmmmmm. ok. Is it correct propellor engines are placed in front/ underneath the wings because of wing bending issue's? or is it because of thrustline issue's?

I could put them below the wing allright, but would like to understand why.

thanks,
David aka 63cpe

It was found to be the best location for reasons related to drag and airflow over the wings, rather than thrustline.

The Westland Whirlwind was low-wing with underslung engines.

[63cpe]

It was found to be the best location for reasons related to drag and airflow over the wings, rather than thrustline.

Ok, but for radial engined propellor this doesn't seem to apply. Radial engines are usually put on the wings at the same level as the cutting edge of the wing (stirling, Wellington, Beaufighter, B-17, B-24). Why shouldn't this apply for radials?

Only the Vickers Wellington MKII had the Merlins above the wing as a result of the nacelle designed for radials. Although there were some initial stability and balance issues these were all sorted with enlargement of the tailplanes.

Any body any thoughts about Inlines above the wings?

David aka 63cpe

[Flyer]

The twin P-40 concept had it's inline engines above the wing, and almost every modern civil twin I can think of with a low wing has the engines mounted above...

Just go with what you think looks "right"

BTW I like the look of your Spitfire with the motors over the wing. 

[tahsin]

What Rolls Royce used to think.

[Ed S]

This was my take on the subject from few years ago.  Shown here next to a 1/72 Spitfire.  I did use Griffons since I didn't have any 1/72 Merlins available.  I made molds and vacuformed new canopies and nose.

[ysi_maniac]

I do love your twin engine spitfire.

[zenrat]

Engines (or more importantly props) mounted above the plane of the wing would result in more air being blown across the upper surface of the wing generating more lift resulting in shorter take off run and greater load carrying capacity.

[Mossie]

Just to further muddy the waters, the Supermarine Type 327 had them mounted on the midline: