Author Topic: Apophenia's Offerings  (Read 256510 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1845 on: August 17, 2018, 11:34:38 AM »
Beautiful!!  Perhaps a contoured inlet for each engine to reduce the chances of FOD ingestion?  Something like what was done for the CFM56 on the 737?

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1846 on: August 18, 2018, 07:24:39 AM »
Thanks folks!

ericr: I would think quite 'do-able'. These a number of 1/72nd scale DHC-4s (I believe that the Hobbycraft and Kitech kits are quite similar) and Planet Models do a 1/72 resin Dornier Do 31E (PLT201). Amodel and OzMods do 1/44 Caribous while Anigrand does a combo-kit of German VTOL types (VAK.191B, VJ.101C, Do 29, and Do 31E). Some models might buy the Anigrand collection just for the fighters ... fodder for trades, maybe?

I can just see it lifting off vertically from some hot LZ somewhere.

Brian: Alas, the HdH-4P would be strictly STOL. If 0° were the straight-aft nozzle position for forward flight, for landing the nozzles would be angled down 45° or so (not the 90° needed for VTOL flight). As others have noted, this design would be vulnerable to FOD. In VTOL operations, you could add reingesting hot exhaust too.

Jeffry: Overwing engines might work using Avro Canada-style 'eyelid' diverters. But then you've got also got to do something about the cruciform taliplane. DHC went with a T-tail for their DHP-72 concept (and for modified DHC-5 models - but those may have just been for wind tunnel studies).

Evan: I like your contoured inlet concept. I wonder is screens might work? I recall seeing a photo of an EE Lightning fitted with a mesh stone guard. Perhaps such a thing could be made neatly retractable?
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1847 on: August 18, 2018, 11:32:00 AM »
I know this is kind of odd.  Back in 2012 you did a series of profiles on the so-called Supermarine Spiteful.  Is there any chance you could do a three view, or at least provide the dimensions, especially wingspan?

m'gwich

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1848 on: August 18, 2018, 10:28:01 PM »
Thank you for the explanation, apophenia.

Modern stuff is not my forte` that's for sure. The closest I get to STOL/VTOL is the odd autogyro.

Looking forward to you latest,

Brian da Basher

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1849 on: August 19, 2018, 11:32:57 AM »
Evan: I like your contoured inlet concept. I wonder is screens might work? I recall seeing a photo of an EE Lightning fitted with a mesh stone guard. Perhaps such a thing could be made neatly retractable?
Well, screens would work for ground running (I believe that was what they were used for with the EE Lightning but you need simple inlet contours, like those of the SU-27, for retractable screens to work.  I'm thinking a contoured inlet would be far simpler to design.  I can think of some other possibilities, but those require, again, more work.

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1850 on: August 22, 2018, 06:53:53 AM »
Thanks folks! Evan, it does sound like contoured inlets is the simplest way to go.

I know this is kind of odd.  Back in 2012 you did a series of profiles on the so-called Supermarine Spiteful.  Is there any chance you could do a three view, or at least provide the dimensions, especially wingspan?


Kim: Did you mean this one? http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg31443#msg31443

As I recall, I had in mind an evolution akin to that of the RW Spiteful (other than beginning with a Buzzard engine). In the production version with the Griffon, dimensions would have been identical to the RW Spiteful.

BTW: My entry into the Anachronistic GB: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8080.msg144296#msg144296
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 06:59:32 AM by apophenia »
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1851 on: August 22, 2018, 11:13:47 AM »
Again, thanks.  I was thinking of a different direction.  From what I saw and caught my interest I thought first of a smaller and somewhat simplified version of the Spitfire, for export or license building.  This would be similar in concept to the Curtiss CW-21 and 75H, North American's P-64, and Vultee's P-66. 
From what I understand, the Spitfire's was an aerodynamic work of art, but difficult to make and therefore expensive.  When the 300 was first built in 1936, it was assumed that a war was coming, but no one knew when, or was sure who was going to be fighting, and on what side.  Also, no one imagined the length or scope of the war.  The Spitfire wing was was adequate for batches of 100 or so.   However, when when the war began and grew, it was suddenly as many as airplanes as you can make, as fast as you can make them.  This is why supermarine began looking for a simpler wing.  So, that's my idea, a cheaper alternative to the Spit, developed in parallel.  I still may do it. 
However, why the Buzzard engine?  This was developed in the 20s, and didn't get much interest even then.

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1852 on: August 23, 2018, 03:12:39 AM »
I like your simplified Spitfire concept ... especially as a CW-21 analogue! Would you be retaining some commonality or is this a clean-sheet design?

On the RW Spiteful, it seems to me that Joe Smith got himself into trouble with the production-version laminar-flow wings. For your concept, would a more conventional airfoil would be acceptable?

... However, why the Buzzard engine?  This was developed in the 20s, and didn't get much interest even then.

The Buzzard engine for my ur-Spiteful was just a stand-in until the similarly-sized Griffon was flight-worthy. I suppose, the prototype's powerplant might just have well been a de-tuned 'R' engine.
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1853 on: August 24, 2018, 06:57:16 AM »
Understand, this is just riffing off your ideas and artwork.  The CW-21 is the outlier here, the others were either decontented fighters or single seat versions of what then were called combat trainers.  I was thinking of narrowing the wing chord, and chopping the fuselage aft of the canopy, removing the fixed clear section.  I'd also simplify the wing curves somewhat,  along the lines of the late Spit wings.  Maybe say the later marks having fixed gear like the Miles M20.  Just my musings.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1854 on: August 25, 2018, 03:10:43 AM »
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1855 on: August 25, 2018, 05:28:36 AM »
Kim: Interesting stuff. So, shortened fuselage and simplified wing curves à la the Spitfire F.21. I like it.

An alternative approach to the wing design would be retaining the eliptical trailing edge but replacing the semi-eliptical leading edge with a straight edge (akin to the Seversky). Alternatively, 'square off' the wings - like the Spiteful but using a conventional airfoil. The Spiteful's 210 sq ft wing area was quite abit smaller than the Spit's 242 sq ft ... but still much bigger than the Bf 109E's 174 sq ft.

Jon: Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about the twin J85 installation proposal. It would have made good use out of those DHC-3 STOL experiments.
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1856 on: August 25, 2018, 08:56:52 AM »
Good idea on the leading edge.  That would be my guess where all the hard work is.  There was a Supermarine design called the Model 333 that started out as a Fairey Firefly competitor.  It had a simplified wing, although designed for wing folding.  It looks somewhat along what I think you envision, although it had a gull wing that for the life of me seemed superflous.

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1857 on: August 26, 2018, 07:08:30 AM »
Kim: My guess on the Type 333's reversed gull was Supermarine obsessing on the mountains of data gleaned from wind tunnel tests on R-R's He 70. The question is: were the added manufacturing headaches worth the aerodynamic benefits?

And now on to another unbuilt project ...

'Swords' into Claymores - the Canadair CL-76

For some time, I've been curious about what the Canadair CL-76 project would have looked like if built.

Canadair had hoped to produce a number of evolved CL-13 Sabre designs. Among these unbuilt projects were the CL-13G 2-seat trainer (akin to North American's TF-86F) and the CL-13J with a simplified Bristol afterburner (as compared with the afterburner originally planned for the CL-13C). Later, with the writing on the wall for further 'Sword' production, Canadair made more radical plans.

The 1958 CL-76 project was intended to produce a 2-seat NATO attack aircraft using the maximum number of F-86 and CL-13 components. There were three variants of the proposed CL-76. The first two kept fairly close to the F-86/CL-13 pattern other than being powered by twin engines, pod-mounted on the rear fuselage.

The baseline CL-76 was to be powered by compact Pratt & Whitney Canada JT12 (US military designation J60) fitted with afterburners. The CL-76A proposal was essentially similar to the CL-76 other than being powered by slightly larger Bristol Siddeley Orpheus BOr.12SR turbojets. These engines (TJ37s in the US designation system) would produce 6,810 lbf dry, with 8,170 lbf reheat.

There was also a CL-76B proposal but it involved much more radical airframe changes - 'internal' engines, high-mounted wings, etc. Obviously, the CL-76B was no longer an exercise in recycling exiting F-86/CL-13 components. Rather, those components were to be modified out of all recognition. However, none of these Canadair proposals was taken up by Canada or any other NATO member.

Here, I've shown what I imagine service CL-76 Claymores would have looked like. She's no looker but, to me at least, it was still an interesting design exercise by Canadair.

(Top) A former RCAF Claymore Mk.1A (2 x J60s) in Yugoslav markings. To prolong airframe life, the Yugoslavs removed their Claymores outer weapon pylons.

The Claymore Mk.1s had no fixed gun armament. This aircraft sports a false radome like all RCAF Claymores (the targetting radar was omitted from Canadian airframes as an economy measure).

(Bottom) A Claymore Mk.3 (2 x TJ37s) near the end of its RAF service. This aircraft lacks both inboard and outboard weapon pylons since it is being employed on Claymore pilot refresher courses.

Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1858 on: August 26, 2018, 07:49:46 AM »
You got me, Apophenia.   The "V" seems awful close to the wing root, and only seems to thicken the wing.  I don't see that much advantage at all.

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1859 on: August 26, 2018, 07:23:58 PM »
That Claymore is great, apophenia!

I bet a view from the top would bring to mind an A-10.

Give it a "ground pounder" load-out and it coulda been a contender!

You have some incredible vision and I always enjoy your work.

Brian da Basher