Apophenia's Offerings

[elmayerle]

Doesn't look silly. Looks pretty cool!

+1

[apophenia]

Thanks guys! But I'm pretty sure that this one is silly

I based this on a wind tunnel model: https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcuburke/id/84/

This 1944 photograph was taken by E. Burke Wilford who designed pretty much exclusively for the Pennsylvania Aircraft Syndicate. A number of those designs were based on existing airframes. That said, I fairly sure that this one was just an old wind tunnel model that was kicking around - after all, who'd want to further develop the P-39 in 1944?

Nevertheless, I chose to do my version as an operational type - courtesy of a 1/48 Monogram P-39 built by Scott Van Aken. Wing surfaces have been reduced (as befits a convertiplane, I suppose). The big change was that stoppable (and asymmetrical) rotor blade.

There's no details of how that rotor was supposed to work but it seems to have been some form of tip-jet (with an intake on the short end). So, was the aircraft's engine also meant to act as a gas generator for the rotor? Who knows? What I'd really like to know is how that rotor mast was to be braced to the top of the V-1710. That would been tricky 

I based the reduced wing shape on the wind tunnel model. But inset are original artwork which show some detail differences. The sketch on the right shows square-cut wing surfaces and (possibly) a fixed undercarriage. The 'short' arm of the rotor also looks proportionately shorter. On the sideview (left), the rotor proportions look the same as the wind tunnel model. But, whereas that latter clearly had a P-39 tailplane, the sideview's tail has a revised outline including a forward raking of the fin/rudder which also has a ventral extension. I'm not sure which, if any, of these variants represents a 'final' design.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/wilford-pennsylvania-aircraft-syndicate-projects.21368/#post-416457

________________________

Feliz Navidad folks ... or Happy St Stephen's Day, Date Line depending    

[apophenia]

I've posted a story I'm calling Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea[/b]
-- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9681.0

But, that won't be everyone's cuppa. So, for those who prefer their profiles 'straight up', here is a Japanese Air Self-Defence Force UCAV (based on surplus USAF F-16A airframes) and a manned development aircraft leading to those UCAVs.

[apophenia]

This second installment on the Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea[/b] thread features different designs.

At the bottom is a post Mid-Life Upgrade Mitsubishi F-2M Kai (which incorporates elements of the earlier A-16AJ UCAV modifications). This F-2M Kai strike fighter is carrying Mitsubishi ASM-3 Kai anti-shipping missiles under its wings.

At the top is the unrealized concept for the Subaru Aerospace AXS UCAV and its dorsally-mounted Kawasaki XASM-5 Kobanzame (Remora) payload. Insets show the operating phases of the Kobanzame anti-shipping missile - top right, the XASM-5 igniting its hybrid rocket booster motor for launch; top left, the Kobanzame in level flight using air-breathing ramjet propulsion and vectoring nozzles for attitude control.

[apophenia]

This was a notion that came to me for the Scale-o-rama GB ... but it seemed like cheating. So I present it here.
_______________________________

In July 1939, the Air Ministry purchased the experimental Martin-Baker MB.2 prototype. However, it was clear that there would be no further major modifications nor any chance of a production contract for the Napier Dagger-powered fighter. James Martin was encouraged to continue work on his next design - a larger, more powerful fighter with a retractable undercarriage and cannon armament. This fighter was to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 or Napier Sabre H-24 engine (the Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 having been quickly rejected). This new MB.3 used typical Martin-Baker construction techniques to ensure ease of production.

With the outbreak of war, the Ministry saw higher value in readily-producable fighters. James Martin was ordered to rescale his MB.3 design for the available Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. [1] No longer an experimental, technology demonstrator, the revised MB.3 was to be a full production 'emergency fighter'. The initial concept was quickly redrawn to approximately 70% of the original size. As per Ministry orders, the cockpit incorporated the canopy of the Supermarine Spitfire. The engine cowling was also loosely based upon that in-service fighter. The rest of the design was entirely original - including the triangular fin-and-rudder reluctantly accepted by James Martin.

Armament for this new MB.3B was to be the four 20 mm Oerlikon cannons planned for the revised MB.2 prototype. This concept was accepted by the AM and Ministry of Aircraft Production as the Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.I 'emergency fighter' [2] and ordered into immediate production under the 'Shadow Factory' scheme. Almost at once, production plans hit a snag - there were only small numbers of Oerlikon aircraft cannons available (with priority being given to naval AA gun production). Accordingly, the cannon-armed Buzzard Mk.I was passed over in favour of machine gun-armed Buzzard Mk.IIs.

The Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.II was armed with a dozen .303-inch Browning guns firing outside the propeller arc. Alas, there were even shortages of Browning machine guns at the height of the Battle of Britain. As such, production was quickly shifted to the eight-gunned Buzzard Mk.IIA. The first Mk.IIAs (including some Buzzard Mk.II adaptations) entered service with No.238 Squadron at RAF Middle Wallop at the beginning of November 1940. [3]

Bottom Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IIA eight-gunned fighter newly-delivered to No.238 Squadron RAF at Middle Wallop, early December 1940.

Ordered straight off the drawing board, the Buzzard had no prototype as such. Several of the early production Buzzard Mk.IIs remained with the RAF's Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. Another 'non-standard' Buzzard Mk.II, R2494, was returned to the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company for experimental and development purposes. One change introduced was a revised, Martin patented cockpit hood. Slightly larger than the Spitfire-style canopy, it slid open and closed in a similar manner. However, frame for the sliding hood and 'quarter light' panels also had a pivot point at the extreme rear. In an emergency, the entire hood could be ejected by the pilot to simplify bailing out.

With its revised canopy, R2494 was intended to act as a prototype Buzzard Mk.III. However, that machine gun-armed variant was passed over for the Oerlikon-armed Buzzard Mk.IV. The Mk.IV entered service with No.174 Squadron which had formed on Hurricanes at RAF Manston on 03 March 1942. The Buzzard Mk.IVs arrived in time to participate in the raid on Dieppe in August 1942. In September and October of 1942, most of No.174's Buzzards were fitted with bomb racks to prove the type as a fighter-bomber.

Top Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IV of No.174 Squadron at RAF Manston during the Dieppe raid. Note that, at this stage, AA436 has yet to be fitted with its belly bomb rack.

________________________________________

[1] Ironically, it had been the Rolls-Royce Merlin that James Martin had wanted for his MB.2 fighter. At the time, no Merlins could be spared for an experimental fighter. Now the engines unavailable to Martin-Baker were first the Rolls-Royce Griffon and then the delayed Napier Sabre II.

[2] This name originated with the Air Ministry not with Martin-Baker. Although it has never been officially confirmed, it is believed that the popular name was prompted by the Martinsyde F.4 Buzzard fighter of WW1.

[3] No.238 Squadron had been reformed at RAF Tangmere on 16 May 1940. It became operational on Hawker Hurricanes from RAF Middle Wallop in July 1940 before transitioning to the Buzzard Mk.IIA.

[jcf]

Intriguing. 

70% size seems very small as that'd be a roughly 24' 9" span and 24' 6"
length.

The MB 2 was almost the same size as MB 3; 34' span, 34' 9" length vs.
35' 4" span, 35' length. The Spitfire is 36' 10" span, 29' 11" length, and
the Miles M.20 was pretty much Spitfire size.

[apophenia]

Thanks Jon. You're probably right about excessive scaling. I had a span of 7.54 m (24.73 feet) and length of 7.48 m (24.54 feet) ... the nose of my Buzzard being slightly longer than a purely scaled MB.3.

Partly, I may have overemphasized the scale-o-rama. But I was also trying to maintain the brutish appeal of the RW MB.3. I probably should have made an exception for the cowling (for example, were the cowling made more tapered, I could have gone with an 80-85% scaling).

One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).

[jcf]

One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).

I may be wrong, but I don't think the reduced area would be 70% of the original number.

A rectangle measuring 5 X 3 has an area of 15; 15 X .70 = 10.5

however going back to the original dimensions of 5 X 3:
5 X .70 = 3.5; 3 X .70 = 2.1; 3.5 X 2.1 = 7.35

[apophenia]

Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight 

[jcf]

Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight 

The wing area would be 128.38 ft²(11.93 m²).

So about 49% of the original.

[jcf]

I think a span of around 27' would be in the 184 ft² neighbourhood. 

[Old Wombat]

Basic area scaling equation:

Given a rectangle of x x y dimensions at 1:1 scale,
Then modifying it to 1:a scale is;

(1/a x x) x (1/a x y)

= 1/2a x x x y

= x x y
    2a


So, for example, a rectangle of 10m x 5m = 50m² at 1:1 scale
Therefore at 1:2 scale we get;

(1/2 x 10)m x (1/2 x 5)m
= (1/(2 x 2)) x 10m x 5m
= 1/4 x 50m²
= 12.5m²

[apophenia]

   What is straightforward and comforting for one, instills befuddlement and panic in another!

My new formula is: (d/t x e) ~ (Sc/a) = a

or: (don't) x ever (Scale) area = again !

[apophenia]

Another stab at using the MB.3 ... kind of (but, this time, no scaling!).
______________________________________________

'The Hucclecote Horror' - Hawker Typhoon F.Mk.X

On 27 March 1942, deputy-chief test pilot Michael Daunt was above rural Gloucestershire, 'wringing out' R7625, a Gloster-built Typhoon IA. It was a fine day and the test flight was going well until the Napier Sabre's high-pitched scream abruptly cut out. With its engine seized, Daunt dropped his powerless 'Tiffie' down for a belly-landing in a field outside of Gloucester. Unfortunately, the crippled fighter passed between two mature trees which swept the thick wings from the Typhoon. Those shorn remains were later collected and carted back to the Gloster Aeroplane Co. at Hucclecote.

Glosters were instructed to rebuild Typhoon R7625 in preparation for a new type of wing. The damaged fuselage centre section tubing was both repaired and adjusted for revised wing attachment points. The ruined wings were then replaced with experimental panels supplied by the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company. These wings - originally intended for a new Martin-Baker fighter design - were considerably thinner in profile than the Hawker originals. It was hoped that, along with strengthening of the tail section join, the Typhoon's structural problems would be resolved.

The resulting prototype conversion was designated Hawker Typhoon Mk.X. After trucking to Brockworth Aerodrome, the revised airframe was re-assembled for flight on 14 May. Taken aloft by Gloster's chief test pilot - F/O Gerry Saye - the revised fighter suffered none of the Typhoon Mk.IA's 'flutter' problems. However, the Sabre engine still gave more than its share of trouble. Saye brought R7625 back to Brockworth with smoke issuing from the cowling. Another Sabre with foaming oil and prematurely-worn sleeve-valves! Still, the airframe conversion could be declared a success.

Gloster Aeroplane Co. assembled remaining wing components into Typhoon Mk.IAs while tooling at Hucclecote was switched over to the Martin-Baker designed wing. Back at the parent firm Hawker's Kingston design office, the modified Typhoon Mk.X was derided as 'the Hucclecote Horror'. Under Sir Sydney Camm, a new 'Thin-Wing Typhoon' concept was already being designed. But Gloster's 'Horror' was a bird-in-hand. And, in any case, Glosters was acting under direct instruction from the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Meanwile, R7625 had been brought up to Typhoon Mk.XA standards by the installation of a wing armament of four 20 mm British Hispano cannons.

The rest, as they say, is history ...