in Aviation Historian 23 . My lack of a formal education gets me lost immediately . This coefficient of drag thing is multiplied with something obviously : When the value for a P-47 is the same with a PR 19 brand of Spitfire at a given speed and the Thunderbolt is twice the weight of the latter that means it needs twice the horsepower ? It gets even hazier and ı learn there is something with the design of the after end of the central structure of the P-38 that causes massive drag and Lockheed insists on keeping the design . Now that nobody has ever heard of r16 the chief designer let's try to solve the riddle ...
yeah , exactly ... What if ... One was to inject some airflow to the equation ? Now that ı also know nothing about turbosuperchargers , would it be possible to divert the "exhaust" from the booms to the central pod so that they would sort of provide an "extension" of the kind required ? P-61 of the same formula extends the rear gunner's station well aft , doesn't it ? Driving hot pipes through the wing , next to fuel tanks , really smart and every brilliant aircraft designer must fancy that ? Well , am not one . And apparently Russians fed exhaust gases right into fuel tanks of radial engined Lavochkin fighters as a safety measure in the same timeframe ? Assuming that worked , any lack of the same would immediately cause drag ? Now that ı have read it somewhere that RAF once wanted a divebrake on the Mosquito and no successful design was possible . Also read it somewhere that the P-38 had some intermediate flap setting for air combat . Even if it would be 10 years ahead of things , in case this exhaust was somehow fed to to those inner flaps between the fuselage pod and engines and the flaps out of engines supported the ailerons for increased roll authority at high speed ? If turbos do not work , you won't be at high speed anyhow ? Err , uhm , er , strategic dive bomber . Modellers will need those British rocket rails under the fuselage , though longer and sturdier . Easiest way to tell an Atlanta from a Lightning ...
yeah , exactly ... What if ... One was to inject some airflow to the equation ? Now that ı also know nothing about turbosuperchargers , would it be possible to divert the "exhaust" from the booms to the central pod so that they would sort of provide an "extension" of the kind required ? P-61 of the same formula extends the rear gunner's station well aft , doesn't it ? Driving hot pipes through the wing , next to fuel tanks , really smart and every brilliant aircraft designer must fancy that ? Well , am not one . And apparently Russians fed exhaust gases right into fuel tanks of radial engined Lavochkin fighters as a safety measure in the same timeframe ? Assuming that worked , any lack of the same would immediately cause drag ? Now that ı have read it somewhere that RAF once wanted a divebrake on the Mosquito and no successful design was possible . Also read it somewhere that the P-38 had some intermediate flap setting for air combat . Even if it would be 10 years ahead of things , in case this exhaust was somehow fed to to those inner flaps between the fuselage pod and engines and the flaps out of engines supported the ailerons for increased roll authority at high speed ? If turbos do not work , you won't be at high speed anyhow ? Err , uhm , er , strategic dive bomber . Modellers will need those British rocket rails under the fuselage , though longer and sturdier . Easiest way to tell an Atlanta from a Lightning ...