Heinkel He343
- Thread starter blackkite
- Start date
Hypothetical
Yes
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,574
- Reaction score
- 6,762
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,574
- Reaction score
- 6,762
Hi Wurger!
I have been thinking that this podded engine mount technology is Boeing's invention.
Of course German engineers invented many great aeronautical technology, such as swept back wing, forward swept wing, delta wing, flying wing, variable geometry wing, helicopter, some king of area rule, axial compressor jet engine, rocket engine, pulse jet engine, missile, space plane, etc.
I have been thinking that this podded engine mount technology is Boeing's invention.
Of course German engineers invented many great aeronautical technology, such as swept back wing, forward swept wing, delta wing, flying wing, variable geometry wing, helicopter, some king of area rule, axial compressor jet engine, rocket engine, pulse jet engine, missile, space plane, etc.
Hi Blackie, if memory serves me well it was George Schairer`s visit to Germany in the immediate post-war that "enlighted" him. I don`t have them with me, but please search for the initial B-47 stratojet bomber sketches. They are, from an aerodinamically point of view, backward. Straight wings and tailplanes, fuselage mounted turbojets and very chuby. After his return the B-47 sketches featured astounding differences.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,574
- Reaction score
- 6,762
Hi! There is a opinion that Boeing's engineer Edward C. Wells and Robert Jewett invented "engines suspended in pods" layout.
Anyway Boeing's engineers discovered several merits of this layout.
Anyway Boeing's engineers discovered several merits of this layout.
Attachments
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,107
- Reaction score
- 4,239
Justo, once again your contribution is awesome!!! Are you the artist on all of these, or only the latter part?
What strikes me on the scale model shown in Blackkite's photo is not so much the engine arrangement as the ridiculously small size of the engines...
What strikes me on the scale model shown in Blackkite's photo is not so much the engine arrangement as the ridiculously small size of the engines...
Skyraider3D
Aviation Artist
Indeed, avoid at all costs... these are print-outs from Wikipedia and a total scam!blackkite said:
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 3,524
As Justos posts already have shown, Junkers did quite a lot of research in the field of
fitting jet engines on pods and otherwise. Another example was the EF 68, which actually
wasn't a design for an asymmetrical aircraft, but just a test of two different pods. With
regards to the EF/EFo series I would like to remind, that not every number can be regarded
as a project in our sense, but often only as test for a configuration for just one design.
For example, the Ju 287 was covered by a whole range of EF-numbers.
fitting jet engines on pods and otherwise. Another example was the EF 68, which actually
wasn't a design for an asymmetrical aircraft, but just a test of two different pods. With
regards to the EF/EFo series I would like to remind, that not every number can be regarded
as a project in our sense, but often only as test for a configuration for just one design.
For example, the Ju 287 was covered by a whole range of EF-numbers.
Attachments
Based on the data I have seen, the Junkers EF and EF0 series were two quite separate groups of projects and each had their own numbering sequence, i.e., EF 101 would follow EF 100, but if there had been an EF0 101 it would have no sequential relation to the EF numbers. Possibly a good subject for a thread on Secret Projects would be a listing of the JFM "J", EF, and EFO series.
Best Regards,
Artie Bob
Best Regards,
Artie Bob
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 3,524
According to Wolfgang Wagners book "Hugo Junkers. Pionier der Luftfahrt - seine Flugzeuge",
which contains a lot, although not all EF/EFo model numbers, those designation were used
for windtunnel models. It is stated, that from number 50 onwards the "EF" designation was used,
instead of "EFo". If that's true, it was just a change of designation, not two independent rows of
developments.
The listed models support this statement, as there are no "EFo" models with numbers above 49 and
no "EF" ones with numbers below 50.
which contains a lot, although not all EF/EFo model numbers, those designation were used
for windtunnel models. It is stated, that from number 50 onwards the "EF" designation was used,
instead of "EFo". If that's true, it was just a change of designation, not two independent rows of
developments.
The listed models support this statement, as there are no "EFo" models with numbers above 49 and
no "EF" ones with numbers below 50.
Similar threads
-
Aichi's Heinkel-based single-/two-/three-seat recce seaplanes- Started by theponja
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
