Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Search results for query: *

  • Users: spitfirevi
  • Order by date
  1. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    Cannons in a near vertical dive on collision-course would align with the bomber's wings, more effectively than machine-gun bullets. Retractable short,wide skids with a pilot-operated squeeze-bottle of old oil might not dig in to grass. They could be splayed to give stability.... the end of this...
  2. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    But jets were adopted in 1945 and almost changed the air-war. They weren't powerful because they weren't accepted and developed in time. So development happened because the experts funded it. So standard planes happened because experts chose what they wanted. And that is why counter-factual...
  3. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    They would be no more 24/7 than standard planes. Both sides had experts and accountants who rejected jets. (Experts gave inadequate armor plate to US vehicles in Iraq , as in Vietnam). Reduced weight and frontal drag may have given the aerobatic edge to allow quick strikes on bombers, with...
  4. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    The idea was for specific local defence only. Would it take 50 mins. to climb and return from contact? How would shock-absorbers go on alum-alloy skids at low-speed, with alum wheels? I'm getting desperate here.. spitfirevi
  5. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    IRstuff, With the idea of raising speed, the skids would of course be retractable. I wrote of the purpose to survive, not losing pilots or planes. btrueblood, I wrote of air-cooling the middle-level of the block, as the top and bottom would need fairing. As Hitler's VWs are air-cooled, is it...
  6. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    Would an angled forward view through side-windows allow safe take-off and landing? Landing the less-heavy plane without heavy fuel-load, would be at slower speed . If the plane had more speed and acrobatics in dogfights, then its purpose in downing enemy bombers and fighters and surviving...
  7. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    Greg, I am just interested in optimising what they had available. Was it possible to re-think the concept of lumbering, slow battle-wagons? The idea of a minimal "pilot-on-engine" appeals to me. If it had a low-set cockpit canopy(with low side windows), and no oil-sump beneath the engine, the...
  8. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    Would reduced weight cause less moments about the tail-pipe? Would that pipe need less empennage than a fuselage with lateral pressure? Could that pipe be formed by 2 or 3 parallel small pipes? I was presuming that the engine might be replaced after reconditioning... I think I'm losing the...
  9. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    Thanks Mike. I found a comment on the fuselage:"The cockpit itself is between frame 8 and 11 ... On the first Spitfires, .. From frame 11 and aft frame 12 to 20 form an open structure where cables for the control surfaces and electrical wiring run." That allows for reducing the fuselage there...
  10. spitfirevi

    World War II low drag

    It's a bit late now, but what would result from stripping a prop fighter to engine, stub wings and pipe tail? Without a fuselage, the tail flaps could be minimal, and less weight may allow for skids instead of wheels,and so reducing weight. Did they have the tech. in 1940's to make engine...

Part and Inventory Search

Back
Top