Fw 239 sketch - authentic?
- Thread starter edwest4
- Start date
BlackBat242
OK, I changed my personal text ;)
- Joined
- 10 April 2013
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 5,024
Ummm... angling the engines in like that would actually accentuate aircraft yaw in the event of a single-engine failure - not to mention increasing turbulent airflow/buffeting/high temps on the tail surfaces of the aircraft at all times.
So I think it is unlikely that any aeronautical engineer was involved in that drawing.
So I think it is unlikely that any aeronautical engineer was involved in that drawing.
- Joined
- 16 January 2015
- Messages
- 885
- Reaction score
- 4,846
Last edited:
BlackBat242
OK, I changed my personal text ;)
- Joined
- 10 April 2013
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 5,024
So that was the initial "concept" drawing... replaced by later studies that actually looked like flyable aircraft.
- Joined
- 8 March 2009
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 1,744
The angle is way to extreme to be some accidental thing imho.
The engines matches the angle of the fuselage side. I would guess that they were trying to find ways of lowering drag by matching the nacelle with the local flow.
The engines matches the angle of the fuselage side. I would guess that they were trying to find ways of lowering drag by matching the nacelle with the local flow.
The angle of the engines moves the thrust line closer to the center of gravity, thereby reducing the moment arm and therefore reducing the induced yaw from one engine flight that needs to be countered by the rudder. So, this configuration is actually more directionally stable under single engine flight than if the thrust line was parallel to the fuselage.
The same principle applies to the Ju-52 outer engines.
The same principle applies to the Ju-52 outer engines.
