Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: jcf on January 17, 2014, 07:55:35 AM
-
So, search revealed no Tiger Moth thread and with the new Airfix kit ...
Tiger Moth Fighter, yep 'twas real. ;D
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BTS/TIGERMOTH_FIGHTER_01.png)
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BTS/TIGERMOTH_FIGHTER_02.png)
Illustrations and text from Armament of British Aircraft, H.F. King (normally I don't copy/quote complete
passages, in this case I'm making an exception.)
Tiger Moth The Tiger Moth appeared in 1931. Quickly establishing itself
as a trainer, it also showed adaptability for armament practice or offensive
work. Installations were made of a camera gun on the starboard lower
wing and an Aldis sight bracketed to the starboard side of the fuselage,
and also of a carrier for 20-lb bombs beneath the fuselage, this last in conjunction
with a vertical tubular sight and release quadrant. One Tiger
Moth (E.6) was built solely for offensive work as the Tiger Moth Fighter,
and the makers announced:
'We are now able to offer the Tiger Moth as a single-seater fighter
fitted with a machine gun firing forward through the propeller, and also
capable of carrying eight bombs of 20-lb each. A fairly substantial order
has been received from an important foreign Government for Tiger
single-seater fighters fitted with Gipsy Major engines, on which we have
now completed full firing tests, both on the ground and in the air. The
machine gun is air-cooled, weighs only 9-5 kilos, and is manufactured by
the Czechoslovakian Arms Factory of Prague. A Pratt and Whitney
synchronising gear is fitted, which is very light and efficient, the drive
being taken from the top half of the rear cover of the engine, where provision
for hand-starting gear is normally allowed for. The gun is
mounted in the front cockpit, and shoots directly over the top engine
cowling. The ammunition box, holding 200 rounds, and the cartridge
shute, are fixed to the mounting itself, and the only connections between
the gun, gun mounting and fuselage are four holding-down bolts. The
cocking handle is connected only by a cotter pin to the lever which acts
on the gun. In order to protect the workings of the gun it has been
cowled in. An Aldis telescopic (sic) gun sight is provided for long-distance
firing. The ordinary ring-and-bead sight for "dog-fighting" can be fittedas
an alternative, or together with the Aldis . . .'
Tests were made with a disc fitted to the propeller and it was claimed:
'The results of the official ground and air acceptance test were as
follows: (1) Pulling over the propeller by hand, the first round penetrated
the disc 19-i deg. after top dead centre. (2) Dispersion throughout
the entire speed range occurred between the angles 45 deg. to 86 deg. ;
that is to say through an arc of 41 deg. (3) Propeller speeds varied from
800 to 2,400 r.p.ni. These results are absolutely satisfactory.'
Clearly D.H. were rather pleased with their little trainer as a fighting
machine, but they could hardly have foreseen that the Tiger would actually
go to war-and not in the service of a foreign nation but wearing the
roundels of the RAF. Like the D.H.5 before, it was pressed into service as
an anti-submarine aircraft with four 20-lb bombs under the wings. For
anti-invasion duties astonishing devices were schemed, among which a tray
of Mills bombs was one of the least spectacular. These devices are beyond
the scope of the present review, and Tiger Moth enthusiasts will already
have been apprised of them by Messrs Bramson and Birch's Tiger Moth
Story (Cassell, 1964). The present writer's contribution to the continuing
story of the Tiger is the foregoing fragment of history.
-
My favourite Tiger Moth scheme:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/TT.jpg)
-
My daughter's too, now. ;D
-
And then there were the yellow Baby Moths from Airfix all folded up and hatching in a tree. :)
-
Any tiger Moth fans out there?
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Mottys-Photo_2014_10_05_0030-DTLR-1-001_zpsb72e0333.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Mottys-Photo_2014_10_05_1302-DTLR-1-001_zps47ad2bbd.jpg)
-
I wonder if it could be tricked out like the Polikarpov Po-2. The Allies on the Western Front could form their own version of the Night Witches units to harass the Germans with.
Did anyone ever try putting a radial engine onto a Tiger moth?
-
There was the radio-controlled Queen-Bee drone - haven't been able to find any original pics tho. Mods included RC gear replacing the rear seat & adding cockpit-cover, cables to the controls in front cockpit, a windmill on port side (to power RC gear) & some bomb carrier device.
Several good Moth pics on the Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WCAM_Tiger_Moth.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WCAM_Tiger_Moth.jpg)
-
(http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/uploads/Products/product_782/de-havilland-dh-82-tiger-moth_src_2.jpg)
-
Did anyone ever try putting a radial engine onto a Tiger moth?
Not that I am aware of. It would certainly be a good one to try so as to make some heads turn. ;)
-
A turbo-prop was installed on a Chipmunk, wonder if it could go on a Tiger Moth
-
Considering that an Allison 250 has been fitted to a Great Lakes biplane, I wouldn't see any problems fitting one to a Tiger Moth. You migth need some material changes to the fuel system to be compatible with turbine fuel, though.
-
would you have to change the wings to swept or variable geometry types ..... ??? ;D
-
How about a pure jet powered Tiger Moth? ;D
-
How about a pure jet powered Tiger Moth? ;D
Maybe something similar to the Coandă-1910:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Coanda_1910.gif/300px-Coanda_1910.gif)
-
would you have to change the wings to swept or variable geometry types ..... ??? ;D
Well, the Great Lakes flew with stock wings, but it was most highly maneuverable and could climb like you wouldn't believe.
-
How about a pure jet powered Tiger Moth? ;D
Maybe something similar to the Coandă-1910:
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Coanda_1910.gif/300px-Coanda_1910.gif[/url])
Perhaps a little more refined. Perhaps like the Yak-15? With a small Marbore turbjet?
-
Considering that an Allison 250 has been fitted to a Great Lakes biplane, I wouldn't see any problems fitting one to a Tiger Moth. You migth need some material changes to the fuel system to be compatible with turbine fuel, though.
The engine in the Chipmunk was a Rover TP.90 of about 90 constant hp. (120 hp. for take-off)
-
Considering that an Allison 250 has been fitted to a Great Lakes biplane, I wouldn't see any problems fitting one to a Tiger Moth. You migth need some material changes to the fuel system to be compatible with turbine fuel, though.
The engine in the Chipmunk was a Rover TP.90 of about 90 constant hp. (120 hp. for take-off)
That would be more suitable for the Tiger Moth than an Allison 250 which hasa rather higher rating. I'll stand by my comment on fuel system materials, though; elastomerics, such as O-rings and hoses would be the main concern. I remember how much headache going from 80/87 to 100LL avgas in the 1970's caused and I would think jet fuel could likely cause similar problems.
-
How about a pure jet powered Tiger Moth? ;D
Maybe something similar to the Coandă-1910:
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Coanda_1910.gif/300px-Coanda_1910.gif[/url])
Perhaps a little more refined. Perhaps like the Yak-15? With a small Marbore turbjet?
Actually, I was thinking of using much the same concept as the Coandă-1910. That is, a piston engine driving a compressor that exhausts into a duct.
-
How about a pure jet powered Tiger Moth? ;D
Maybe something similar to the Coandă-1910:
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Coanda_1910.gif/300px-Coanda_1910.gif[/url])
Perhaps a little more refined. Perhaps like the Yak-15? With a small Marbore turbjet?
Actually, I was thinking of using much the same concept as the Coandă-1910. That is, a piston engine driving a compressor that exhausts into a duct.
But something that would actually work? Unlike Coanda's design. ;)
-
Oh there you go, putting unrealistic expectations on me... ;)
-
In theory it can work. Model jet aircraft use ducted fans powered by small engines or even electric motors. I think the fan would have to be geared up rather high though... 20k RPM (+) is where model fans operate.
-
In theory it can work. Model jet aircraft use ducted fans powered by small engines or even electric motors. I think the fan would have to be geared up rather high though... 20k RPM (+) is where model fans operate.
Scale the fan up to adequate size for a real aircraft and you start running into problems at that RPM, like sonic tip speeds and all the problems from that.
-
Well the Caproni N.1 worked OK with a piston engine driven compressor:
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Campini-N1/IMAGES/Caproni-Campini-N1-Title.jpg)
-
But poorly, in terms of performance.
-
... and the thermojets as used in the Campini-Caproni, Mig and Sukhoi aircraft
used a multistage compressor with burner cans mounted behind the driving
engine and exhausting straight through. None of which were features of Coanda's
design. Take a close look at the info out there and Coanda's patents, particularly
the ones that were modified after the fact, and you'll see his design had no hope
in hell of working, and that his claims of flight, made decades after the supposed
event and unsupported in records of the period, were just that, claims without
evidence. The physics don't work.
-
Scale the fan up to adequate size for a real aircraft and you start running into problems at that RPM, like sonic tip speeds and all the problems from that.
Yes, unfortunately as all too many have found out, some things don't scale well (e.g. XVF-12). This is part of the reason that real engineering uses measures such as Reynolds numbers and the like - these give better representations than simply linear dimensional scaling.
-
I wonder if you could use a matrix of smaller fans? Say one large fan to feed a number of lower diameter ones that avoid the inherent problems?
Engineering nightmare, and I'm not sure what advantages it might offer... but if you were insane enough?
-
Yes, unfortunately as all too many have found out, some things don't scale well (e.g. XVF-12). This is part of the reason that real engineering uses measures such as Reynolds numbers and the like - these give better representations than simply linear dimensional scaling.
The best scale for testing has always been 12"=1'. :)
I always run into this issue with my model ships. Water doesn't scale, so how do you make a destroyer look like it has that typical "bone in it's teeth" at high speed? So far, nothing I've seen tried has ever worked.