Wooden soviet wonder!

[montanamotor]

Hi, folks,

this website just reminded me of what I was rally after when I first got in contact with TGP:

http://www.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/lagg3/lagg3.html

and especially:

http://www.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/lagg3/structure/structure.htm

Loveitloveitloveit!!!!! :D[:p]

Enjoy!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[GregP]

Thanks Montanamotor.

Though I really like the La-5, I am somewhat ambivalent towards the LaGG-3.

I believe the La-5 / 7 and the Yak-3 were PREMIER fighter aircraft, and were second to none in a low to mid-altitude dogfight. Good climbers, too, at least until they reached 3000 - 5000 meters.

More importantly, they could be operated effectively in weather that grounded their German counterparts, and so were able to attack even in raging winter snowstorms.

All in all, TOUGH competitors in a cold climate. I'm not too sure ANY other Western aircraft could have done a better job.

As a point of information, how is the Ambrosini SAI-403 Dardo coming along and how about the engine selection? How about an update? :)

And maybe some pics?

[montanamotor]

Hi, Greg, you old controll-freak...

Engine-options for an Ambrosini SAI 403 Dardo - there are but two, which made it to closer examination so far:

a. Falconer-V12 http://www.falconerengines.com/ as used in Thundermustangs of Papa51 (company faltered - SOB! But aircraft owners keen to revitalize it) See: www.thundermustang.com

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/Barracuda%20pics/Thunder2.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/Barracuda%20pics/Thunder3.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/Barracuda%20pics/Thunder1.jpg

Power rating: 610 HP at 4500 rpm naturally, up to 1000 HP turbosupercharged.

b. Team P38's http://www.team-38.com MARATHON 503 (highly converted Chevrolet big block). Company still in business, engine tough like a rock.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/Barracuda%20pics/Marathon.jpg

Power rating: 510 HP at 4500 RPM naturally, up to 750 HP turbosupercharged.

Thus far, anything else would be too scarce or to exotic to choose from.

Of course, the choice of engines depends a lot on availlable funding, too. The Marathon is priced at 30.000 bucks, the Falconer - no idea, yet.

Always keeping in mind that, a freshly overhauled, zero-hours-Allison 1710 fresh from the crate these days also comes in at a mere 50.000 Dollars ONLY...:D

Still: What you REALLY need to buy, build or fly a plane, is three things:

1. Money, 2. Money and 3. Money.

And that's what I am still struggling for. At THIS VERY MOMENT, in a Bank at Hamburg/Germany, there's all the money I should need to begin and successfully proceed with my DARDO-project (Or should I swap it in favour of a LAGG 3, instead...?) - and it's MY money.

Bad point is, the customer, whom my partner and me were supplying with LOTS of machinery to build a new factory in his home country last year, has put up really ridiculously strict rules concerning warranties and, flawlessness of his machinery delivered and is reluctant to pay his dues, so far.

Instead, he is unnerving my partner and me every other day with yet another demand for discount - while he refuses the bills, unless he was satisfied.

For sheer frustration, I have started to write a book on this matter, already. I wonder if he really wants his clear name put down for everyone to see in a book revealing how he treats contractors, or if he will start paying his dues before I start publishing the news...

This simply is a bet on who has the higher-tensile-nerves, I suppose.

But I shall never gip up! If you don't, either...

Cheers! :)

Montanamotor

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by GregP


Though I really like the La-5, I am somewhat ambivalent towards the LaGG-3.


The Soviet pilots weren't ambivalent! Many of them hated it. "Varnished Guaranteed Coffin" was one of the best, and cruelest, nicknames of any WW2 aircraft...

[montanamotor]

Hmmm,

sorry - but I feel obliged to contradict your quote, Robert. And I'll give you evidence of why I feel obliged to do so:

Regarding the fact that, a Lagg 3' airframe, except it's engine, was IDENTICAL in every aspect to the so much-loved LA 5 (I am NOT talking about cut-down razorbacks!), makes me doubt the value of such a statement.

Fact is, the Lagg 3 was among the best fighters the Soviets had at the times of the first onslaught of "Barbarossa". Quite a number of soviet Aces started their career in a Lagg 3. The special version with a SH-37 cannon was even LOVED by her pilots.

I know about the stories of soviet fighters, which were send into fight right off the production line, lacking armour, oxygen and even a gunsight, too - just to give the soviet airforce ANYTHING to put up in the air against the germans.

But you can't really blame this on the aircraft - can you...?

About a Lagg 3 lacking quality in craftsmanship - well, such things happen if your country is being molested and you have to impress farmers and roommaids into production, to keep your production lines up and running.

Badly glued wooden aircraft parts were also well known in the german aircraft industry, albeit being perfectly organised well up to the end of the war. I am talking of disintegrating FW 189 nightfighters, of wooden Bf 109's and, FW 190's-tails which were falling apart if they ever got wet by a rain-shower, about wooden flaps at FW 190 D's which were so flimsily made that, they had to be replaced after every other sortie etc., etc...

The early Lagg 3 may have been poorly manufactured, poorly equipped and, poorly deployed - yet, they were there when they were needed most. And they did their job well. Well enough, to help win a war, at least.

And as soon as the Lagg 3 became the LA 5, being reequipped with the powerfull Shwetsov-radial, the IDENTICAL airframe became a real killer to the german Luftwaffe. This really doesn't discount on the airframe's aerodynamic and, structural quality, does it?

And to me, it looks pretty, too.

So - what more can you ask for...?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[simon]

I believe you are talking of disintegrating Ta154 Moskitos (Which was down to bomber command accidentally hitting the Wuppertal glue factory), AFAIK the Fw189 was not wooden and did not have any notable structural issues.

[GregP]

Thanks for the update Montanamotor!

Sorry to hear about your tough customer, but glad to hear you are pursuing the Dardo. May fortune smile on your efforts.

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Hmmm,

sorry - but I feel obliged to contradict your quote, Robert. And I'll give you evidence of why I feel obliged to do so:

Regarding the fact that, a Lagg 3' airframe, except it's engine, was IDENTICAL in every aspect to the so much-loved LA 5 (I am NOT talking about cut-down razorbacks!), makes me doubt the value of such a statement.

Fact is, the Lagg 3 was among the best fighters the Soviets had at the times of the first onslaught of "Barbarossa". Quite a number of soviet Aces started their career in a Lagg 3. The special version with a SH-37 cannon was even LOVED by her pilots.

I know about the stories of soviet fighters, which were send into fight right off the production line, lacking armour, oxygen and even a gunsight, too - just to give the soviet airforce ANYTHING to put up in the air against the germans.

But you can't really blame this on the aircraft - can you...?

About a Lagg 3 lacking quality in craftsmanship - well, such things happen if your country is being molested and you have to impress farmers and roommaids into production, to keep your production lines up and running.

Badly glued wooden aircraft parts were also well known in the german aircraft industry, albeit being perfectly organised well up to the end of the war. I am talking of disintegrating FW 189 nightfighters, of wooden Bf 109's and, FW 190's-tails which were falling apart if they ever got wet by a rain-shower, about wooden flaps at FW 190 D's which were so flimsily made that, they had to be replaced after every other sortie etc., etc...

The early Lagg 3 may have been poorly manufactured, poorly equipped and, poorly deployed - yet, they were there when they were needed most. And they did their job well. Well enough, to help win a war, at least.

And as soon as the Lagg 3 became the LA 5, being reequipped with the powerfull Shwetsov-radial, the IDENTICAL airframe became a real killer to the german Luftwaffe. This really doesn't discount on the airframe's aerodynamic and, structural quality, does it?

And to me, it looks pretty, too.

So - what more can you ask for...?

Cheers!

Montanamotor




Well, I'd certainly agree with some of what you say. The LaGG-3 was an attractive aircraft, to be sure. The La-5 and La-7 went on to become elite fighter aircraft of WW2, great fighters in every sense of the word. And the Soviet pilots who flew the LaGG-3 did have some success, although that was mainly due to their skill and bravery, rather than the quality of their aircraft.

But the LaGG-3 itself, especially those made shortly after the USSR entered the war, when the quality of worksmanship suffered because of hurried production, were not good aircraft, according to every source I have, and they were not well thought of by the majority of the pilots who flew them. They were underpowered, suffered from frightful handling characteristics, and were poorly manufactured.

"In the early war period, no other combat aircraft had problems as serious as those of the LaGG-3. Neither of the air regiments converting to the fighter was combat capable before July 1941, and as soon as it entered service a major and dangerous handling deficiency became apparent: namely a tendency to stall unexpectedly. According to pilots the fighter behaved like a restive horse. All of a sudden, against its pilots will, the aircraft would abruptly adopt a hight angle of attack, the wing would immediately lose its lift, and stability would be lost."

- from Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Volume One: Single Engined Fighters, by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazonov.

"Combat for pilots flying the LaGG-3 during the early stages of the Great Patriotic War was disasterous. In front-line combat regiments, the LaGG-3 was openly referred to as a "mortician's mate" and an aircraft whose intentions towards its pilots were as hostile as those of the Luftwaffe.

"The censure of the LaGG-3 by its crews was not without some justification, since the fighter's performance and flight characteristics soon revealed the haste with which it had been tested and committed to production. The fighter was unforgiving to any but a highly-experienced pilot. It was a difficult machine to fly, since it was overweight, underpowered and possessed very unforgiving handling characteristics, especially stall characterisitcs."

- from LaGG Fighters in Action, by Hans-Heri Stapfer.

That the basic design was developed into a great fighter, after many modifications, is true. But the early version was a dog...

[montanamotor]

Hi, Robert,

yep: You are making some good points.

Question: When were the bugs in LaGG 3 becoming to be sorted out? I suppose, it must have been from Mid-1942 onwards. I'll prove my guessing below.

Let's agree on the fact that in early LaGG 3 aircraft (pre-war and, early-war), poor craftsmanship met with poorly understood aerodynamics and poor equipment, to make this aircraft's performance and, handling - err: Interesting, to say the least.

Yet: In one of the profiles, which is shown at www.sovietairplanes.com, there is described a later LaGG 3 series 35, build in August, 1942, which crashlanded at the Finnish side of the northern front and was refurbished to serve with the Finnish Air Force http://www.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/lagg3/lg3/lg3.html .

Obviously, many of the Lagg's shortcomings had been alleviated with this series 35-example already, as the Finns were in no way displeased with it's behaviors and, performance (AFAIK).

It already features the well-needed automatic slats to suppress vicious stall-characteristics, as well as a revised tail: Elevators as well as the rudder had been redesigned in shape as well as in hinging, compared to earlier variants, according to the text.

And while being used as a FAST INTERCEPTOR which was "...intended to intercept the fast Pe-2s bombers often penetrating the Finnish air space..." (unquote), obviously even the matter of poor craftsmanship and respective poor performance, as well as lack of power must have been dealt with successfully - at least, to some extend - in the meantime. Note: The Pe 2, at 580 km/h Vmax, was FASTER than the EARLY LaGG 3 were. So, obviously, the LaGG 3 series 35 must have become a substantially FASTER PLANE than the early versions were. Because otherwise, it could in no way have been used as an INTERCEPTOR against Pe 2-intruders on a regular base - could it...?

Could you try and find some sources to, approve or disapprove my statements...?

I do agree, however, that having a 1700 HP aircooled radial in front of your LA 5 especially in Russia may well have made a big difference in performance, availlability and, survivability for a sovietrussian pilot, when comparing it to the LaGG 3's 1250 HP liquid-cooled inline-V12.

Hoping to hear from you again.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[i16stealth]

I can add that "overweight" of early LaGG series was a price for mighty armament (3x12.7 + 2x7.62) and a great resistance to combat damage. It was the best ground-attacker among early-war fighters (if don't count the I-16, of course :)). Last LaGG-3s (66-th series) which were produced in Tbilisi in 1943-44 had more powerful M-105PF engine, improved structure and more modest armament (1x20 + 1x12.7, like on standart Yak-9). Their performance was comparable to Yak-1B, Bf.109G-6 and Fw.190A-3. And the durability remained practically the same!

[montanamotor]

Hi, i16stealth,

you may call me silly, but: Do you think, there is a chance that, the ORIGINAL, GENUINE CONSTRUCTION-PLANS of the LaGG 3 have survived and were still availlable somewhere in russia? Documentaries and books are fine - but they are not the real McCoy. One needs the real PLANS, and PARTS-LISTS, and TYPE DOCUMENTARY, to build a plane. This is, what's needed.

And as my Russian was restricted to "Nasdarowje" and "Sdrawsdwudje", I should find someone being able to read kyrillic and translate the respective documentaries from russian into english or german, also...

Thank God, russians adopted the metric system, anyway!

Shure - at the moment, it's for sheer interest, only. But as you know, I am VERY fond of wooden fighters. The LaGG 3 attracts me as much as the Ambrosini SAI 403 Dardo does... And for me, building with wood is one of the easiest jobs. Really.

If I should EVER go and build my own plane, it will be build from wood - that's for shure. But to do so, one must first know WHAT to build - and IF it is to be build, at all.

And if the construction plans for a LaGG 3 - preferably Series 35 or later - were availlable somewhere, this would give me a much greater chance to do, what I am after, as the existence of plans for the DARDO still remains very obscure. As I found out, the SAI-factory in Italy has been completely bombed out in 1944 by the U.S. 12th Air Force. All that was left over after the attack, was ash, charcoal and smoldering rubble. ANd I have not identified another promising source for plans of the Dardo, yet, I must admit.

One day, perhaps...

Nasdarowje!

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

Hi, i16stealth,

please check this link:

http://www.napo.ru/eng/?id=20

This company NAPO (Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association) has produced LaGG 3 from 1941 to 1942 - after the technical data perhaps a series 35 (?) - AND IS STILL IN EXISTENCE, UP AND RUNNING!!!!

I don't know if it is appropriate to ask you this favour, but - in case you ever came through Novosibirsk (or came by a phone or by an internet-PC which was connected to Novosibirsk, one way or the other...) - could you perhaps place a question there, if they were still in possession of the original LaGG-plans...?

PLEEEEEASE!

Everything else remains to be seen.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Kutscha]

montana, a site with LaGG-3 drawings.
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/lagg3.html

[montanamotor]

Hi, Kutscha,

very fine drawings! May be enlarged ad infinitum, without loss of quality. A modeller's dream!

Yet - still not the REAL, genuine construction-blueprints... SOB!

Thanks, anyway!

Montanamotor

[i16stealth]

Hi, montanamotor.

quote:Do you think, there is a chance that, the ORIGINAL, GENUINE CONSTRUCTION-PLANS of the LaGG 3 have survived and were still availlable somewhere in russia? Documentaries and books are fine - but they are not the real McCoy. One needs the real PLANS, and PARTS-LISTS, and TYPE DOCUMENTARY, to build a plane.

As you probably know, in 90s New Zealanders restored six I-16s and some number of I-153s found in Carelia. The work was made exactly at the factory you spoke about, i.e. in NAPO (former State Aviation Factory #153). In some articles I've found a notice that "there remained some documents on I-16 production" that helped to perform the restoration. So it won't be strange that documents about LaGG-3 can also exist there.

The other way is to look for them in RGVA (Russian State Military Archive) in Moscow.

quote:I don't know if it is appropriate to ask you this favour, but - in case you ever came through Novosibirsk (or came by a phone or by an internet-PC which was connected to Novosibirsk, one way or the other...) - could you perhaps place a question there, if they were still in possession of the original LaGG-plans...?


There's a problem. NAPO is a regime object, so a person can't go there and shout: "Hey guys, let me in, I just wanna ask about LaGG-3 documents" ;). New Zealanders, as I think, went there as "rich foreign men with money", that was very welcomed in 90s in Russian Federation.

Here I see two variants for you:

1) You can try to contact Alpine Fighters Society and ask them how did they get the documentation.

2) You can place a question in NAPO site (as I saw, there was such an option).

If you'll need a translator from Russian, you're welcome.

[i16stealth]

quote:Originally posted by i16stealth
2) You can place a question in NAPO site (as I saw, there was such an option).


Oops, I've watched the English version of NAPO site and found there neither "Contacts" nor "Question" pages [:I]

You can write here your message, I'll translate it and send them.

[montanamotor]

Hi i16stealth,

be relaxed: For one reason or another, in my browser there is this question form in english to be send to NAPO. So I can place this question there in english myself, indeed.

But, bad point is that, you are probably very right about the "rich westerners" who pay mountains of gold for the remnants of the soviet-unions aeronautic history...!

So I don't expect too much of a top-result, if I should really get in contact with them.

Therefore, the other option you mentioned gains a lot in attractivity for me. Quote:

"The other way is to look for them in RGVA (Russian State Military Archive) in Moscow."

How can I get in contact with them? How big a chance is there, that they posess a full set of construction plans for the LaGG 3 and, were willing to pass me a copy of them, too...?

Do you have any clues?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[i16stealth]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

How can I get in contact with them? How big a chance is there, that they posess a full set of construction plans for the LaGG 3 and, were willing to pass me a copy of them, too...?


As I know, RGVA documents are opened for the investigators for some cost.

But to say honest, I doubt if there were documents there of such a kind [B)] Most likely that RGVA contains mail deliveries between the factories, different orders, etc.

I will ask about LaGG-3 documents on some of our forums. Maybe I can achieve some results there.

[montanamotor]

Hey, i16stealth,

give us a smile :). Only yesterday, I have sent the NAPO factory an email concerning the plans for the LaGG 3 and have asked them, if they would still have them in their archives - and if so, under which conditions they might be willing to sell a copy of them to me. Reply pending.

Never give up. I won't, either. And it would be of great help for me for shure, if you would keep on looking for clues on the Lagg 3-plans-matter in russian aircraft-forums, also.

There's one limit to the variants of LaGG 3's I am after, I have to put up, though: What I am looking for, would be at least a series 35 aircraft, or a later one. It positively HAS to feature the automatic slats, as well as there have to be NO external balancing wheights at the rudder - neither two nor one - but has to carry an aerodynamic balancer nose at it's rudder's tip, instead, to be eligible for me.

That's because, only from the series 35 aircraft and later variants, one can expect the worst habits of earlier LaGG 3-variants being efficiently dealt with and finally, overcome.

But, of course I keep trying to track down plans of the SAI 403 Dardo, also. But this one seems to be the much harder to find option, I am afraid.

Only, if both attempts should definitely fail, there are still those frenchmen who DO possess a set of plans for the SAI Super 7 trainer aircraft, however.

This one truly is not a real WW II-fighter plane. But it true as Hell is one heck of a beautiful aircraft, it is TWO-SEATED, and resembles a fighter aircraft as close as a plane can positively do, without actually being one...

LaGG 3 would be a great thing, anyway. I LIKE that plane a lot. And if the LaGG would only pose too much of a problem to solve, there may still be the option of La 5's, to go after, as well... :D

Keep your dreams flying, mate!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

If I should EVER go and build my own plane, it will be build from wood - that's for shure. But to do so, one must first know WHAT to build - and IF it is to be build, at all.


Would you consider a DH-88 Comet? A nice wooden aircraft, although not actually a fighter! Perhaps itcould be a "what-if" job.

Admittedly having two engines will seriously increase the cost, but then again you won't need the bigger engines - the Comet's top speed of around 230mph (370km/h) was achieved with a combined total power of 450hp and 2 position 2 blade props.

[montanamotor]

Hmmm,

as for an airliner, especially he de Havilland DH 91 Albatross is shurely one heck of an attractive aircraft... [:o)]

No, just kidding. But shure is that, I am after a fighter aircraft, Wuzak. So: Why not go for an early Vampire, instead...?

On the other hand: The construction plans for the DH 98 Mosquito shure as hell DO still exist in England, don't they?

One thing puzzles me, really: I REALLY don't know why, NO ONE in the World ever started a serious attempt to rebuild a Mosquito...? See, besides being one exceptional personal transport, it probably could even still be in military use! If it was equipped with modern turboprop-engines with counterrotating props, instead of her RR Merlins, in some parts of the World it might still make for a great fighter bomber and, coastal patrol aircraft EVEN TODAY...!

But, perhaps, wood isn't SEXY any more to politicians who have to sign the bills. Yet: What if we made the outer skin of a modern Mossie (or of any other - basically - wooden aircraft) out of carbonfiber and vinylester-resin, instead of balsa-plywood-sandwich...?

Back to the future, I say! [:p]

Well, but in the end, I'd rather stick to the SAI 403/SAI S.7/LAGG 3-option to choose from, I think...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

I think there are a few Mossies in restoration, hopefully to flying condition.

But why not make a replica in an alternate mateial? CF and FRP would both be good choices depending on the application.

As for the DH-88, I think that it would make a great light aircraft. Use a couple of the Lycoming 6s or similar.

[montanamotor]

Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH.88

great plane, anyway. I mistook it for the DH 89, at first. Sorry. Didn't check at first, you were NOT going to sell me a biplane, mate...

Hmmmmmm..... Makes me think. Equipped with two Falconer engines, it would be a true rocket.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH.88

great plane, anyway. I mistook it for the DH 89, at first. Sorry. Didn't check at first, you were NOT going to sell me a biplane, mate...

Hmmmmmm..... Makes me think. Equipped with two Falconer engines, it would be a true rocket.

Cheers!

Montanamotor


Yes, it certainly would be a rocket!

I doubt that the Comet could have handled engines the size of the Merlin (after all, the whole Comet weighed in at 1400kg empty - less than the weight of two Merlins!), but something like the Peregrine may have been possible. With the 885hp oft quoted for the Peregrine, I figure a top speed of about 371mph (597 km/h), assuming that there was no increase in drag.....

There would be a drag increase, of course, but with the larger multi-blade constant speed props that the Peregrine could swing that could have been offset, and maybe have even improved the speed.

With the standard Falconer (650hp on 92 octane petrol) the top speed would be about 335mph (539km/h), or about 20mph (32km/h) faster than a Gipsy 12 version. With the non supercharged hi-performance version of the Falconer (1100hp) you would just nudge 400mph (640km/h), whilst the supercharged/turbocharged version (1200-1600hp) would get you anywhere between 411 and 452mph (661 and 728km/h)!

[montanamotor]

Wuzak,

which disease is this: The greed to go more than half the speed of sound, sitting in a box made from spruce and balsa...? Personally, I'd call it the "woodpecker-syndrome"! :D

Is that correct for the DH 88 - 2 x 225 HP Gipsy six's? Earlier I had learned that, the DH 88 would feature two 512 HP-Gipsy twelves?

Anyway: The Falconer would certainly SNUGGISHLY fit into a nacelle, which was copied from the Kestrel-equipped Westland Whirlwind (I like that one a lot, too!). The Whirlwind featured leading-edge-mounted coolant radiators, too - one could also call them: Mosquito-like.

Falconer: 650 HP naturally aspired, may be turbosupercharged to 1000 HP.

So 2 x 885 HP at 5500 meters / 17,000ft should very much be possible.

Equipped with constant-speed-props, this plane should be very much up to the task of going over 600 km/h / 375 mph at altitude - which would be around Mach 0.6 at this altitude, by the way...

I am just thinking...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

You are editing your postings damn fast, Wuzak...:D What's the Vne for the DH 88?

Good speed guestimates, anyway. And with extremely long legs, too! Could it go transatlantic non-stop?

[Corsarius]

I dunno about trans-atlantic, but it certainly could get from London to Melbourne in 71 hours outright...

I'd love to see you build G-ACSS Grosvenor House. Certainly one of the most gorgeous aircraft ever built, and one of the nicest paint schemes! (and much nicer than the Mollison's G-ACSP Black Magic!!!)

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Is that correct for the DH 88 - 2 x 225 HP Gipsy six's? Earlier I had learned that, the DH 88 would feature two 512 HP-Gipsy twelves?

Yes, powered by twin Gipsy 6s, of very little power.



quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Anyway: The Falconer would certainly SNUGGISHLY fit into a nacelle, which was copied from the Kestrel-equipped Westland Whirlwind (I like that one a lot, too!). The Whirlwind featured leading-edge-mounted coolant radiators, too - one could also call them: Mosquito-like.

Falconer: 650 HP naturally aspired, may be turbosupercharged to 1000 HP.

So 2 x 885 HP at 5500 meters / 17,000ft should very much be possible.

Equipped with constant-speed-props, this plane should be very much up to the task of going over 600 km/h / 375 mph at altitude - which would be around Mach 0.6 at this altitude, by the way...

I looked at Falconer website - and it says that supercharged high performance version can be between 1200 and 1600hp! I guess that depends on fuel used!



quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

You are editing your postings damn fast, Wuzak...:D What's the Vne for the DH 88?

I had a problem in the middle of posting my thoughts...so I posted ad came bck to edit the post to finish my thoughts.

Vne?




quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Good speed guestimates, anyway. And with extremely long legs, too! Could it go transatlantic non-stop?


I have a spreadsheet for estimating speed using the actual (or predicted performance) of a aircraft and the rated power of alternative engines....

I even have a column in which I can guess the increase in drag and see what that does to performance.

For example...the XP-67 did 405mph (657km/h) on 2 x Continental V-1430s (rated at 1350hp, but in actuality barely more than 1000hp in that installation)...with twin Merlin 61s (Packard V-1650-7s) it would be up around the 470mph (748km/h) mark! If the Contis did produce their expected performance of 1350hp the XP-67 would have been closer to its predicted performance, with a speed of around 440mph (708km/h).

Also evidencedby my spreadsheet is that the Lancaster needs bulk hp to get it going at high speed!

Of course th eproblem with speed prediction is that engine ratings are very often only given at sea level while top speed is usually at altitude...


As for range, the Wiki page you posted has the range of the Comet at 2925 miles (4710km), which I suppose is because that lovely long nose is basically full of fuel and the engines only gave 225hp each!


quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

I am just thinking...


I like your thinking!

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

I dunno about trans-atlantic, but it certainly could get from London to Melbourne in 71 hours outright...

I'd love to see you build G-ACSS Grosvenor House. Certainly one of the most gorgeous aircraft ever built, and one of the nicest paint schemes! (and much nicer than the Mollison's G-ACSP Black Magic!!!)


Can you pint me to a pic of Black Magic Corsarius?

I believe Grosvenor House has been restored and is flying.

[montanamotor]

Cool thread.

Vne: V-elocity N-ot to E-xceed. In older sheets often referred to as "maximum permissive speed". Reason for my question? That's, why: It wouldn't be very wise to fly an aircraft at speeds above 600 km/h, if it was going to disintegrate beyond 450 km/h, would it...?

You may also assume that, because of different engines and, neccessary strengthening of the airframe for higher engine power and speed, aircraft wheight may increase to well above 2 tons empty, too. Even if the engine's wheigts may be a lot different - but: There's no reason why a Falconer-twin-engined "Super Comet" should wheigh in at LESS wheight than a Lagg 3 with one Klimov-engine? So, you should put in a wheight of about 2,5 tons empty into your calculations for the speed-performance of a potential "Super Comet" too, Wuzak.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Cool thread.

Vne: V-elocity N-ot to E-xceed. In older sheets often referred to as "maximum permissive speed". Reason for my question? That's, why: It wouldn't be very wise to fly an aircraft at speeds above 600 km/h, if it was going to disintegrate beyond 450 km/h, would it...?

You may also assume that, because of different engines and, neccessary strengthening of the airframe for higher engine power and speed, aircraft wheight may increase to well above 2 tons empty, too. Even if the engine's wheigts may be a lot different - but: There's no reason why a Falconer-twin-engined "Super Comet" should wheigh in at LESS wheight than a Lagg 3 with one Klimov-engine? So, you should put in a wheight of about 2,5 tons empty into your calculations for the speed-performance of a potential "Super Comet" too, Wuzak.

Cheers!

Montanamotor


My calculations don't include weight....

But if we assume that the new engines and incresed in weight leads to a 25% increas in drag, the performance becomes:

Std (650hp) - 311mph (500km/h)
Hi-po (1100hp) - 370mph (596km/h)
Hi-po supercharged (1600hp) - 419.5mph (675km/h)

The Falconer is only 600ci - about 10l - in capacity. I think it would be a very light engine, much less than a Peregrine (about 22l). Possibly as little as 300-350kg.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Cool thread.

Vne: V-elocity N-ot to E-xceed. In older sheets often referred to as "maximum permissive speed". Reason for my question? That's, why: It wouldn't be very wise to fly an aircraft at speeds above 600 km/h, if it was going to disintegrate beyond 450 km/h, would it...?


I guess not!

I don't know what that number is....it is not somethingI have seen reported, and as the Comet was designed for high speed cruise flight - and not for diving or manouevring as such - its Vne may not be all that high.

Then again, if you are building the aircraft you can strenthen it accordingly. Who knows, with modern construction techniques, materials, and better understanding of structures, etc, you may be able to build it for only a very small weight penalty!

[montanamotor]

Well -

the EASIEST way overall was, to ask those who have restored the original "GROSVENOR HOUSE" aircraft permission to have their plane used as a template to take negative molds from it. Once you have finnished those solidly build molds, you can mold parts from it, forming a strong carbonfiber-kevlar-sandwich. Allthat was necessary then was, to provisionally mount those parts together, make templates for ribs, stringers, formers and, spars; then mill respective parts from flat, laminated carbonfiber (thickness of which depending on required strength, of course) and glue them in place.

There's still lots of work to do during such an approach, of course. But this way is as straightforward as it positively can get.

This tecnique would suit a LaGG 3, too, of course...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

Looking at the Flconer engine pagae again, I see that the versions for automotive use come in at about 500lb/227kg. So figure that they wouldn't increase the weight much, if at all.

http://www.falconerengines.com/prod04.htm

[montanamotor]

Folks,

maybe I have identified another possible source for LaGG 3-plans - see text.

Quote:

"The regiment was a part of the army's 257 mixed aircraft division (435 IAP 257 SAD). This Lavochkin Gorbunov Goudkov LaGG-3 was shot down in air battle with two Fw 190's of 13./JG 5 over Akhmalakhti area. Crashed at lake Lille Skardvatnet, near Kirkenes. The pilot JLt F.I. Marasev escaped unhurt. SNo 7043 of Series 70 was produced by Zavod 31 in Tbilisi,Georgia in October 1943. It was received by the army on 06.01.44 and arrived to the 7th Army's 260 SAD directly from the factory on 17.02.44 together with 39 other LaGG-3s. All these 40 LaGGs were handed over to 435 IAP."

Unquote.

Taken from: http://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/skardvatnet.html

Zavod (factory) 31 in Tbilisi, Georgia built the LaGG 3, too - and according to my sources, they did so longer than any other factory in Russia did. Therefore, their aircraft definitely will have incorporated each and every improvement which was EVER possible for the LaGG 3, anyway.

Makes them a very attractive choice.

Does anybody know what happened to Zavod 31 in Tbilisi? Could there be any documentaries left somewhere?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

Next hint:

Zavod 31 im.
Dimitrova
(from 1934)
Taganrog Lebedev plant 1916 & 'Lebed' since 1920, then GAZ-10
(aircraft) 1920 & zavod 31 1927; built aircraft, mostly
seaplanes, R-1, R-6, MR-1, TB-3, MBR-2, MDR-4, MDR-6,
ANT-9, LaGG-3 and Sh-2; p/ya 19 Tekhnika (1940); evacuated
10/41 to Tbilisi absorbing zavody 45 & 448; Taganrog site
reopened as zavod 86 in 9/43

What do you make of this, i16stealth?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

i16stealth,

could THIS ONE be the Taganrog factory which was mentioned above...?

Beriev Design Bureau
Aviatorov Sq.,1
Taganrog, Russia 347923
Tel: 7-86344-499-01
Fax: 7-86344-414-54
Gennady Panatov, President & General Designer

PLEEEESE CHEEECK!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

LAST -

but in no way least:

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=778

and

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=3202

Well: Zavod no. 31 is ALIVE...!

i16stealth - could you...? I know about the actual political tensions between Russia and Georgia, of course. But would there be any chance that, you might be able to find out the proper address (which I couldn't) and maybe ask them the one, decisive question: Is it still there...? The LaGG3's plans and paperwork, I mean.

Cheers!

Montanamotor


UPDATE!

Look, what I found - new name and address for Zavod 31:

Jsc Tbilaviamsheni
Address : 181, B. Khmelnitsky Str. 00136 Tbilisi
Country : Georgia
Phone : +995 32 703265
MainMarkets : Aerospace

No working website, though.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[i16stealth]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor
i16stealth - could you...? I know about the actual political tensions between Russia and Georgia, of course. But would there be any chance that, you might be able to find out the proper address (which I couldn't) and maybe ask them the one, decisive question: Is it still there...? The LaGG3's plans and paperwork, I mean.


Hi, montanamotor.

It's a pity but I still haven't any good news for you. My forum threads on your question gave no results. Moreover, one forum member said that most of the old plane documents were destroyed in 70's. So, the chance is decreasing :(

I'll try to find out some about Tbilisi factory. But to say honest I suppose that they hardly ever kept their LaGG-3 documentation safe. Besides, most of the Georgian heavy industry factories now, after Perestroika, are not functional.

And at last, if it will be as it goes, you'll better have to ask our US friends about Tbilisi, not me :)

[i16stealth]

I found the probable site address of Tbilisi factory:

http://www.tam.ge/

It's now under const

[montanamotor]

Hi, i16stealth,

probably I'll be in Moscow in early April, to meet someone who is in holds of the key to rebuilding LaGG 3 - and La5/7, too.

Could you report your email-address to me at montanamotor[at]web.de ?

I'll then be detailling you about who, where and when. Maybe we can meet and join forces...?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Sorry, folks - no more details, yet. Young, fragile ties must not be endangered to rupture. Hope, you'll understand. Cheers!

[i16stealth]

Ok, I'll report my mail address to you.

I'm not able to go to Moscow, sorry :)