FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1942
1942 - 0099.PDF
I JANUARY 8TH, 1942 PLIGHT 37 Correspondence The Editor does, not hold himself responsible lor the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses 0/ the writers vol necessarily tor publication, must in all cases accompany letters. NORTHROP TAILLESS AIRCRAFT Wing-tip Design Modified I WAS very interested to note that the Northrop tailless air craft shown in a current news reel did not have wing tips with negative dihedral as shown in your issue of December 25, 1941. It is quite possible that the negative dihedral tended to cause instability, and in any case normal ailerons would tend to act as rudders. :ical illusion ? P COLIN R. BARTY. 1 is published below, have ed type without anhedral FIGHTER DESIGN Another "Pusher" Possibility SOME years ago I had ideas of a fighter of similar layout to that described by Mr. P. Taylor. The drawings I made were almost identical, except that on my design the nose was rather more streamlined. But I soon discovered plenty of disadvantages. The control would suffer badly because of the absence of. slipstream flowing over the tail surfaces. Also there was the possibility of damage to the propellers when landing. Feeling rather downhearted, 1 gave up the idea. Somehow it still haunted me. So I get down to it and evolved a new Mea, the drawings of which I enclose. The position oi the propellers is not new—this idea was used on the Galaudet pusher in 1913—but it lends itself to greater efficiency than the " stern propeller." Here are some of the advantages: — (1) The same advantages as in Mr. P. Taylor's design, but with better control. (2) Better weight distribution.* (3) Less chance of damaging the propellers when landing. (4) Owing to the large propeller "hub," more blades could easily be added. (5) The " hub " could be used as a reduction gear. (6) No great length of shafting needed. Disadvantages: — (1) The problem of baling out. (2) The expense of producing the propeller gear. A machine of this type fitted with a barrel engine of 3,000 h.p. and with the pilot in the prone position is my idea of the ideal fighter. R. CAMPBELL. Yet Another Suggestion M Y suggestion for an improved form of fighter is that the tail-unit be carried on a thin boom passing through the prop. boss. In effect, this would be equivalent to having the prop, rotating around the centre of the fuselage. As the average prop, seems to have a boss of about i8iu. and the blade roots of non-aerofoil section for about another 6in., it should be possible, with correct design, to run a shaft Of about i8in. diameter through the prop, boss in a similar way to the cannon in, say, the Airacobra. I doubt that cutting out the very non-effective centre of the prop, would cause much loss of thrust. 1 should imagine that if the idea worked at all it would have many advantages over the conventional layout of the average fighter. For instance, the motor would be very near the C.G. as in the Airacobra, but without the complications of the shaft drive. It would also clear the nose of the machine for the cannon now coming into general use; fire concentration is better with grouped armament than spread along the wings. This layout should give all the advantages oi the twin fightei as to reloading, taking recoil and position near C.G.; without the complications of two engines, with their large weights out-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
