A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stretching WW2 Designs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old August 27th 04, 11:29 PM
frank may
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Maybe 'cause it's not a WWII design, nor stretched from a WWII design,
& for some reason, folks are trying to keep these posts on topic for
more than a couple of posts.



"James Hart" wrote in message ...
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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Andreasson designs Bob Babcock Home Built 5 March 4th 04 09:15 PM
Boeing's WW 2 Disc Designs robert arndt Military Aviation 6 February 23rd 04 05:59 AM
Performance Designs 60 x 66 wood prop Sam Hoskins Aviation Marketplace 0 December 10th 03 01:22 AM
Marine team designs and flies homemade, muscle-powered plane Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 26th 03 12:41 AM
Why are delta wing designs reputed to lose speed during turns? Air Force Jayhawk Military Aviation 2 September 25th 03 12:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.