View Single Post
  #411  
Old 03-07-2010, 09:46 AM
MikkOwl MikkOwl is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 309
Default

Ugh, even more discouraging things regarding the fuel/engine issues there, Flanker. But all this info on aircraft engineering is very interesting.

So movable parts/accessories of the aircraft are the ones likely to give out first, if anything goes? It would be interesting to see bombs/drop tanks get torn off. And I wonder how that would affect aircraft with interior bomb bays.. If a bomb is torn, then it would smash open the bomb bay doors.

Watching Mosquito documentary. Seeing the assembly process made me shudder a bit. Wood.. wood all over the place. And then they made such a high performing aircraft out of it. The mosquito was heavier than the Bf 110 series (by far), but looks like it would be more aerodynamic. I'm getting sidetracked here:

1. Any idea at all how the engineering/materials of the Mosquito might set it apart from non-wood airplanes of the era?

2. It was discussed before regarding stores on the wings compared to center mounting. It was said it does not affect the load limit. But, what about having engines mounted out on the wings instead of the fuselage? 110 and Mikksquito (as well as all the bombers - who are weak as far as load resistance go) transfer a very large amount of weight from the fuselage out on the wings. I can't help to think this would assist them in causing much less stress on the wing-fuselage point during turns - both because of less weight in the middle, and maybe somehow the engines straighten the wings out a bit. Perhaps these aircraft snap their wings at the engine mounts rather than near the fuselage in some circumstances?