PlanesPictures said:
Jemiba said:Judging the position and shape of the wing root and that, of the canopy (though not
fully identical to most drawings), it could be the Me 265, I think.
sienar said:But what is the mockup in the background on the right?
Wurger said:If the mockup at the right is the Me 265, looking at those proportions the size of the left mockup isn`t likely to be as massive as the Me 264, not counting the afore mentioned differences. I would put it in the Bomber B category or at the "Arbeitsflugzeug" program, although, AFAIK, there were no Messerschmitt tender.
Guys, do you know why the Me 329 mockup has its landing gear on the far side of the engine while almost all drawings/models/fan art shows the landing gear on the inner side of the engine and folding forward?
Mockup
View attachment 617428
View attachment 617429
Drawing
View attachment 617430
The drawings made no sense to me as the landing gear took the space needed for the pair of wing root mounted Mk 103 cannons and prevents ordinance form being carried closed to the center of the aircraft.
Is there an actual document from which we can dig further into the Me 329? I am pretty new here and am quite overwhelmed by the sheer number of paper planes I encountered, not knowing which one is fake and which real.Guys, do you know why the Me 329 mockup has its landing gear on the far side of the engine while almost all drawings/models/fan art shows the landing gear on the inner side of the engine and folding forward?
Mockup
View attachment 617428
View attachment 617429
Drawing
View attachment 617430
The drawings made no sense to me as the landing gear took the space needed for the pair of wing root mounted Mk 103 cannons and prevents ordinance form being carried closed to the center of the aircraft.
It seems there were two versions. My old model was without Mk103 canon but I've never thought about it that way
Oui t il des informations sur le type de motorisation devait recevoir le proget
Patent DE679023 , is here only for demonstration.I would like to know if this exhaust system could produce more trust than the conventional open systems by increasing the accelerated mass or if the increased friction more than compensated this (I know, this was not the primary intention).
The indirect hydrogen cooling system described in DE729005 is quite interesting but a bit far-fetched. It will combine the drawbacks of airplanes with Zeppelins. Is there any more evidence, that this war really considered for this plane?
A similar direct cooling system for originally air- cooled engines would be even more interesting!
Ups... my mistake. Forgive me, I got the patent numbers mixed up.Thanks for the interesting link (despite the theory of the burning skin of the Hindenburg is false), but we shouldnt go totally off topic. The cooling method described in DE729005 would be very feasible for airships (especially if you want to regulate the buoyancy with varying the density of the lifting gas (by adding cooling heat if required), but this patent has no relation to airships. For the readers who cant read the text, it is about a cooling system were the engine has a conventional primary liquid cooling system which is transferring the cooling heat to light gas with high heat capacity (hydrogen or helium). This gas circulating through the wing to create a surface cooling. For regulating the pressure inside the wing, hydrogen can be added or released, doesn’t sound like a very feasible solution for a fighter plane to me… That’s why I’m asking, is there any relation between the Me329 and DE729005?