The P-38 Lightning was very fast for its day, and until the P-51 Mustang came along, it was the longest-ranged plane in the U.S. arsenal. It was so good they decided to try scaling it up. The P-38 Lightning was very fast for its day, and until the P-51 Mustang came along, it was the longest-ranged plane in the U.S. arsenal. It was so good they decided to try scaling it up.
The XP-58 Chain Lightning was an enlarged version of the P-38. As you can see, it wasn't quite as graceful-looking as the P-38. It wasn't so good as a long-range escort so they tried turning it into a ground attack plane. No good. Tried long range escort again, then cancelled the project.
The Lockheed VC-121 Constellation was a sort of "kitbash", since it's wing was scaled up from the P-38 (at least in shape). Unlike the "Chain Lightning", the Constellation was a successful and long-lived design.
The P-51 Mustang was another long-ranged design that was fairly successful. It was faster than the P-38 and had better range, too.
When the U.S. decided it needed a longer-ranged plane than even the P-51 to escort bombers all the way to Tokyo, they came up with the F-82B "Twin Mustang". This plane was equipped with 2 cockpits so one pilot could sleep while the other flew the mission. Later they slung a radar pod under the center section and turned it into a night fighter. The F-82 wasn't just 2 mustangs grafted together, but was a completely redesigned aircraft. The fuselages were actually quite a bit longer than the regular mustang.
The Convair B-36 was America's first purpose-built intercontinental bomber. It was designed in case England fell, and America found itself having to attack Germany or Japan by itself. It was a very-long-ranged aircraft and a few people thought it would be a good idea to design variants for other purposes.
The XC-99 was the first variant. At the time it was introduced, it was the largest cargo plane in the world. Unfortunately, it was so heavy it could only land at 2 airstrips in the world. It never went into production.
When the Strategic Air Command wanted a jet-propelled bomber, Convair built their YB-60 to compete against the Boeing B-52. The YB-60 was basically a B-36 with jet engines and swept wings. It was about 100 mph slower than the B-52 and wasn't selected for production.
As you can see, none of these planes looks exactly like the one it was derived from. Let the debate begin.
--Baloo
------------------
Archives are a thing of the past.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited September 23, 1999).]
------------------
"The next time the workplace seems especially hectic, remind yourself it could be worse: you could have two-dozen sharp-toothed creatures chewing on your nipples." - James Lileks
------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
Scaling aircraft is useful to some degree, since the aerodynamic properties depend on the shape of the plane. This is why models can be taken into a wind tunnel to prove their ability to fly. The results can be transferred to larger planes, but it is crucial to take the increase of mass into account.
"As you can see, none of these planes looks exactly like the one it was derived from. Let the debate begin."
This is because not everything is scaled up. If two planes looked exactly the same but were supposed to have different sizes, you could easily demask one of them as a fake. For instance, if the pilot's seat is 2m wide . Or look at the engines which are larger relative to the small planes than to the large ones. Basically the same has to apply to starships. I don't deny that ships can be similar in shape (such as Galaxy and New Orleans), but even at the low screen resolution the differences must be visible.
BTW, I like the XC-99. I have never seen it before.
------------------
"Invaders from the fifth dimension!" - or: the canon proof that subspace is the same as hyperspace
Ex Astris Scientia
BTW: Anyone remember the "Flight of the Phoenix" (or something like this), a movie from the 50's where a two-engined plane crashes inmidst the Sahara and the passengers re-assemble it to a single-engined plane?
Second, another showing of scaling in size. The X-33 is a working duplicate of what will soon become American's new Space Shuttle, the VentureStar. But, the X-33 is about 1/3rd the size of what the final VentureStar will be.
Also, the X-38, a 'lifting body' shuttle is another example of the tesbed being smaller then the real thing. The curent X-38 is too small to fit anyone inside, but can be flown. The final version of the X-38 will serve as the 'escape pod' for the ISS.
Yet another example. NASA's 'Dark Star', a pilotless, propeller driven recon plane. It is made of superlight materials, has I believe 8 propellers, and currently holds the record for the highest altitude reached by a propeller drive plane. The Dark Star is essentially a flying wing, but not like the B-2 Spirit, which has a large swept wing. The Dark Star has a large rectangular wing, extremely wide. NASA's final version of the Dark Star will nearly twice the width of the current version, and have nearly 20 propellers
Now, to the 24th century. They obviously scale. You can't tell me the Nova's nacelles are the same length as the Sovereigns. And they are nearly identical in design.
------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359
I think the word you were looking for was flexible. Swing-wing aircraft can adjust the amount of sweep, either on the ground or in flight.
Just wanted to point out that the P-51, arguably the greatest fighter of World War II, started out as a mediocre plane. The original, unsupercharged Allison V-12 was basically similar to the one used in the P-39 Aircobra. Performance fell off rapidly as altitude increased.
What saved the Mustang from becoming another so-so aircraft was the British performing a little kitbash of their own. Substituting the Merlin engine from the Spitfire (a much smaller, shorter-ranged aircraft) transformed the Mustang from a decent plane into a rip-snortin' butt-kickin' seriously lethal fighter, on a performance par with the best planes the Germans or the Japanese could field at the time.
Visual differences between the Allison-powered and Merlin-powered versions were few. The Allison had a small air intake just above the propeller that the merlin-powered plane didn't, and though I'm sure the nose profile was fairly similar, I imagine the placement of the crankshaft (and thus the thrustline) was different in each plane.
--Baloo
If Bernd (or someone else) would oblige, I think there are many other examples of kitbashed and re-scaled planes we could examine.
------------------
Archives are a thing of the past.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359
I don't think the wing sweep was driven by any aerodynamic consideration, but by the fact that they wanted the wing tapered (providing certain handling characteristics I forget now) and had to keep the trailing edge straight to avoid interference with those "butter paddle" props.
My original observation was that the B-52's wings were quite flexible. Boeing realized the plane would have to be heavily overbuilt (and just plain heavy) if they were to avoid wing flex. They brainstormed and decided that, rather than try to design out any flex, they would design the wing to flex in such a way that it did not cause the problems usually associated with wing flex. An added benefit would be that the flexible wings would absorb some of the aerodynamic shock when riding through turbulent air. The original design allowed the wings to flex 32 feet (~10 meters) up and 17 feet (~5 meters) down. In flight, the wings are relatively straight, but flex up and down as the aerodynamic load changes.
--Baloo
------------------
Archives are a thing of the past.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
------------------
"The next time the workplace seems especially hectic, remind yourself it could be worse: you could have two-dozen sharp-toothed creatures chewing on your nipples." - James Lileks
I know I'm really picky. 
------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Centurion/Small/EC98-44822-5.jpg
Dark Star Tier 3
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Tier3-/Small/EC95-43271-5.jpg
As you can see, I'm bored.
------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson
Anyway, the Centurion's replacement has been planned to be much bigger then this version
------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359
[This message has been edited by The359 (edited September 24, 1999).]
Wait didn't the B-52 had an aerodynamic problem that caused the wings to "flap" at one point.
The Mustang had a Merlin, I thought it was a Rolls-Royce, however I could be wrong. And yes I knew about the Allison.
Btw the British hated the P-38, however that likely had something to do that the Supercharger wasn't included with their version .
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )
The P-38s manufactured for the Britons were missing a very vital (and "top secret") feature. American P-38 propellers spun in opposite directions, cancelling out adverse torque. The U.S. government didn't want British P-38s to fall into German hands with this vital technology, so Lockheed was ordered to produce the English planes with engines that spun in the same direction. This single feature made the English P-38s a nightmare to fly. They cancelled the order.
If you'll look at the Twin Mustang above, notice the pitch of the props. They turn in opposite directions, just like the P-38.
--Baloo
------------------
Archives are a thing of the past.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
And one more thing....is it just me, or does the Constellation look like one of those weiner dogs with a big black nose? And wings...
------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359
------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson
If you click on the picture you will find a very brief and uninformative page about the have blue consisting of that picture and an article about 1 short paragraph long.
--Baloo
------------------
Getting motion sickness riding the emotional rollercoaster.
[URL=http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/]www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited September 30, 1999).]
------------------
"Victory is Life!"
It's been a while since I last saw it but now that you say it I believe it could be a Skyraider. Or a plane exactly looking like a Skyraider albeit not being one which takes us back to the original topic...
I have a friend who was a young man in the Navy, stationed in San Diego when they were filming Tora, Tora, Tora. He helped modify the planes that stood in for the A6M Zeros (and/or some of the other planes). He says that they were fairly easy to modify and that the FAA had already approved a similar modification for another movie already, so they could make the physical changes and fly them under the other certification specifications.
He also says that the modification had them shortening the exhaust stack by so much that a 3-foot flame shot out of the stack. They had to install a heat shield on the aircraft to prevent it from incinerating itself.
--Baloo
------------------
Getting motion sickness riding the emotional rollercoaster.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
--Baloo
------------------
Getting motion sickness riding the emotional rollercoaster.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
--Baloo
------------------
Getting motion sickness riding the emotional rollercoaster.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
gravity: pulling/bending the wings down
buoyancy (I hope this is the correct term, never used it before): pulling/bending the wings up
It has to do with one of my favorite topics, the scaling paradox: http://www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/articles/scaling.htm
As the wingspan is increased and the wings are simply scaled up to yield the same aerodynamic properties, the weight (and gravity force) rises roughly with the third power, but the area (and therefore the buoyancy, difficult word) only with the second power.
Consequence:
The wings have to be relatively thinner or lighter than those of smaller aircraft, otherwise a large plane could not fly at all. This gives the wings less stability, though, and they have to be designed flexible. In this case some of the upward force is "wasted" to flex the wings, but there is still a surplus lifting the plane.
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia
--Baloo
------------------
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.
--George Carlin
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia