(JDupre5762) wrote in
:

I have been wondering why were so few WW2 aircraft designs "stretched"
in order to get more performance or payload? I know of the FW 190D
which was stretched in the aft fuselage section in order to compensate
for the installation of Jumo V 12 engine. Could other designs have
benefitted from the technique of stretching in one way or another?
Was it not done because the designs of the era were not suited to it?
In recent years even reworked C-47s have been stretched. Was there
simply no perceived need to stretch a design?

Stretching a Cargo hauler is generally undertaken these days because
a design is cube rather than weight limited. This was not a top
consideration in the WWII period for the Allies at least.
The reason for stretching a combat aircraft was usually to get a
reasonable CG. Apparently this could be accomplished by ballasting
even when the Spitfire went from a 900HP Merlin to a 2500HP Griffon.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source