Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
(JDupre5762) writes:
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?

For "stretch" it's rather hard to beat the Spitfire. I began the war
perfoeming at same level as its main competitors, and through
continual redesign and refinement was still in peak form when the war
ended.
Of course, installed power had more than doubled, the tail was
completely new, the feselage adn wing structure was completely redone,
they reshaped teh fuselage for a bubble canopy, and made a
fighter-bomber (And Carrier-borne Fighter-Bomber to boot) out of it.
Spits stayed in RAF and RN service well after the war. Not too half
bad.

I think that transports didn't get the same treatment for a number of
reasons. Most transport types didn't have options which afforded
greatly increased power, and the load carrying performance of
airplanes at that time was limited by available power more than
anything else - you'd run out of payload weight available before you
ran out of payload volume. Getting more payload required a whole new
airplane. The C-46 was considerable bigger than the C-47 it
supplanted.

That being said, I suppose you could make a case that DOuglas did
start a program of stretching transports with the DC-4-DC-6-DC-7
line.

Speaking of transports, I'm surprised no one's brought up the Herk's recent
50th birthday.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk