FA+
Shop
2693 submissions
These are a couple sketches I did of airplane that is in backer art for the Roan RPG of Silver Star
The design is suppose to be an advance prototype sent for field evaluation and is designed for anti-ship strike, light bombing, and photo recon work. In many ways it fills the role occupied by the de Havilland Mosquito
It is heavily inspired by the French SNCASO SO-8000 Narval.
The design is suppose to be an advance prototype sent for field evaluation and is designed for anti-ship strike, light bombing, and photo recon work. In many ways it fills the role occupied by the de Havilland Mosquito
It is heavily inspired by the French SNCASO SO-8000 Narval.
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Still Life
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 861px
File Size 73.1 kB
Listed in Folders
This thing would be *loud*!
Also, a horizontal stabiliser placed on such a long (and hard to make really rigid) arm, right in the super-turbulent airstream from the contra-rotating prop is going to cause some vibration issues... I can see a 'Mk.II' version with the stabiliser moved up almost all the way to get it to clear air.
Very nice design and incredibly crisp lines! Great work! :D
Also, a horizontal stabiliser placed on such a long (and hard to make really rigid) arm, right in the super-turbulent airstream from the contra-rotating prop is going to cause some vibration issues... I can see a 'Mk.II' version with the stabiliser moved up almost all the way to get it to clear air.
Very nice design and incredibly crisp lines! Great work! :D
Hm.. a quick google search for Sud-Ouest 8000 shows photos of it with elevator placed right on top of the vertical fins, in a form of "double-T". For example: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/so8000.html
I guess I must have misread your lines!
There's another issue: the arrestor hook is *awfully* close to the prop; I'd be really worried about it possibly making a very deadly shrapnel out of the cable that has been hooked.
I guess I must have misread your lines!
There's another issue: the arrestor hook is *awfully* close to the prop; I'd be really worried about it possibly making a very deadly shrapnel out of the cable that has been hooked.
I have to agree with Mora; the Narval had the horizontal stabilizer pushed to the tops of the vertical stabilizers:
https://oldmachinepress.files.wordp.....000-narval.jpg
On the other hand, having the tail in the propwash didn't seem to bother the Cessna Skymaster, although that's nowhere near the same performance envelope. The Saab J/A 21a and Vultee XP-54 'Swoose Goose' were pusher fighter designs that had the tailplane in the propwash, and the Mansyu Ki-98 prototype had its tailplane elevated above the centerline of the prop disc. So you can argue it both ways.
Bell, in 1941, had a contract with the Army for the XP-59, a designation that was to be re-used for the XP-59 jet fighter as a security measure; the original XP-59 design (which was also proposed to the Navy, and would have been the XF2L), which never went past mockups, was to be a contrarotating pusher aircraft driven by a P&W R-2800:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6HOLKIzdh.....+Model+web.jpg
https://oldmachinepress.files.wordp.....000-narval.jpg
On the other hand, having the tail in the propwash didn't seem to bother the Cessna Skymaster, although that's nowhere near the same performance envelope. The Saab J/A 21a and Vultee XP-54 'Swoose Goose' were pusher fighter designs that had the tailplane in the propwash, and the Mansyu Ki-98 prototype had its tailplane elevated above the centerline of the prop disc. So you can argue it both ways.
Bell, in 1941, had a contract with the Army for the XP-59, a designation that was to be re-used for the XP-59 jet fighter as a security measure; the original XP-59 design (which was also proposed to the Navy, and would have been the XF2L), which never went past mockups, was to be a contrarotating pusher aircraft driven by a P&W R-2800:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6HOLKIzdh.....+Model+web.jpg
Yep, and the XP-59 was a continuation of the earlier, smaller/slimmer Bell XP-52 project, which looks a bit closer to this sketch, actually. Swept wing, contra-rotating propellers, ventral air scoop and all.
http://m.afwing.com/aircraft/us-pus.....fighter_2.html
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/...../09/image4.jpg
Though there were varying layouts and the full-scale wooden mockup appears to have the nose intake the XP-59 was planned with. (and much larger overall diameter with the big radial engine embedded in the fuselage)
Kind of ironic they didn't adopt the twin-boom layout for their jet project given how well suited it was. (the De Havilland Vampire obviously did that, albeit with 1 larger engine to the P-59's 2)
The similarly configured Saab 21 switched from prop to jet power post war with the 21R variant.
I'm not sure the turbulence would've been a critical issue either. The big issue would be approaching critical mach and shock-stall related issues (shockwave blanking the tailplane entirely) but the majority of subsonic aircraft ran into mach-tuck issues with center-of-lift shift making the stick forces extremely tail-heavy well before any sort of actual blanking (totally unresponsive) elevator issues were encountered, and fully subsonic turbulence usually wasn't an issue either. (and you NEED that prop wash for good low-speed control response -especially for takeoff)
http://m.afwing.com/aircraft/us-pus.....fighter_2.html
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/...../09/image4.jpg
Though there were varying layouts and the full-scale wooden mockup appears to have the nose intake the XP-59 was planned with. (and much larger overall diameter with the big radial engine embedded in the fuselage)
Kind of ironic they didn't adopt the twin-boom layout for their jet project given how well suited it was. (the De Havilland Vampire obviously did that, albeit with 1 larger engine to the P-59's 2)
The similarly configured Saab 21 switched from prop to jet power post war with the 21R variant.
I'm not sure the turbulence would've been a critical issue either. The big issue would be approaching critical mach and shock-stall related issues (shockwave blanking the tailplane entirely) but the majority of subsonic aircraft ran into mach-tuck issues with center-of-lift shift making the stick forces extremely tail-heavy well before any sort of actual blanking (totally unresponsive) elevator issues were encountered, and fully subsonic turbulence usually wasn't an issue either. (and you NEED that prop wash for good low-speed control response -especially for takeoff)
The SO.8000 (at least in one of its configurations) used a high tailplane:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-2.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-3.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-4.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-6.jpg
Still, I doubt that would have helped with turbulence issues. (the most problematic stuff is in the transonic range where the propeller tip turbulence would hit supersonic first -due to the already high tip speeds- and create a big shockwave wake behind it, and it would be impractical to place the tailplane so high as to be free of that shockwave entirely)
I wonder if the raised plane there has more to do with the shipboard nature of that design and keeping the tail out of spray when flying low over the water. (I seem to recall a high tail variant P-38 prototype torpedo bomber variant modified for that reason)
Funny the SO.8000's tail looks high enough to accomodate jet exhaust too, though it doesn't appear any conversion to jet power was attempted.
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-2.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-3.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-4.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xpl.....0/so8000-6.jpg
Still, I doubt that would have helped with turbulence issues. (the most problematic stuff is in the transonic range where the propeller tip turbulence would hit supersonic first -due to the already high tip speeds- and create a big shockwave wake behind it, and it would be impractical to place the tailplane so high as to be free of that shockwave entirely)
I wonder if the raised plane there has more to do with the shipboard nature of that design and keeping the tail out of spray when flying low over the water. (I seem to recall a high tail variant P-38 prototype torpedo bomber variant modified for that reason)
Funny the SO.8000's tail looks high enough to accomodate jet exhaust too, though it doesn't appear any conversion to jet power was attempted.
Comments