![]() |
| |||||||
| Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack (1) | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #16 |
| Senior Member | Not really, looks pretty streamlined... |
| | |
| | #17 |
| Senior Member | so does a baked bean even with 800hp, i'll eat...a ginster's "cornish" pasty if that thing can reach 500+ mph........
__________________ ![]() "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." |
| | |
| | #18 |
| Senior Member | Ambrosini S.A.I 403 Dardo does 410mph with 700hp...its not unreasonable... |
| | |
| | #19 |
| Senior Member | no, CC, the stats say she could, did she ever pull it off?? and this plane, whilst she may be light for what she is, will be heavier than the ambrosini, and she only has 100 extra hp?? i don't think so.........
__________________ ![]() "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." |
| | |
| | #20 | |
| Senior Member | Quote:
Yes, it did achieve it... | |
| | |
| | #21 |
| Senior Member | at full combat spec.?? even if it is advanced, 2x the engines for an extra 100hp will not push it over 500mph, i mean that's the weight of two engines and the extra fuel........
__________________ ![]() "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." |
| | |
| | #22 |
| Senior Member | Yep...I've been through all this before... |
| | |
| | #23 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 369
| - The engines are made from magnesium i believe and are very light. - The contra-rotating props give about 15% more efficiency than a single propellor. So 2x450*1.15=1035hp. - The tail area is negligible. There are no bulky radiators. - Forward swept wings give more streamlining. ( c. 5-8degrees) - Short span cuts down drag, but lessens maneuverability. I have a rough spreadsheet for building your own aircraft on excel. On this the estimated top speed is about 530mph@sea level. Lanc, does your cornish pasty have carrots? |
| | |
| | #24 |
| Senior Member | Magnesium engines? Sweet... |
| | |
| | #25 |
| Senior Member | LOL
__________________ |
| | |
| | #26 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 369
| Engine ( Values given are for 1 engine ) : Type : T50 B1 Power : 400 (450) hp 500 hp Revolutions : 4500 rpm ( 4700 ) Weight : 220 kg Number of cylinders : 8 8 Firing sequence : 1 - 6 - 2 - 5 - 8 - 3 - 7 - 4 Capacity : 4700 cm3 Engine Block : aluminium Lubrication : under pressure with dry casing Cooling : with water in 1 radiator doubles half for each engine Accessories: magnesium Supercharger: 1 Roots compressor Distribution: 2 camshafts at the head From that French site. Aluminum engine block, magnesium other bits. This is what happens when you work from memory. |
| | |
| | #27 |
| Der Crewchief ![]() Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,011
| I think the aircraft is beuatiful. I really wonder how she would have panned out as a fighter.
__________________ ![]() fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I] |
| | |
| | #28 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 532
| The engines in the Model 100 are not "simple" T50B engines! The T50B was too heavy, the aluminium block had to be redesigned and recast in magnesium. Also a special, leightweight, Roots supercharger was fitted. In the picture the engines can be seen, in the plane. Source http://perso.wanadoo.fr/morlock68/bugatti.htm |
| | |
| | #29 | |
| Senior Member | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #30 |
| Senior Member | Try this one....
__________________ |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aircraft-identification-v-1737.html | ||||
| Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
| Alice - Rechercher | This thread | Refback | 11-19-2006 01:10 PM | |