Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri May 02, 2025 7:58 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 540
[quote="Dave Hadfield"]Oddly enough, I was talking about something like this yesterday with a friend, during a flight. He had shown me a picture of the Harmon Rocket he's nearly finished building -- which is an awesome airplane. Later in the conversation I wondered about a R-985-powered airplane, somewhat along the lines of a Hughes Racer.

I wouldn't want a Hughes Racer of course. I'd want 2 seats and a bit more wing and landing gear. But the idea is that it would be cool to build a low-wing, lightweight, tandem-seat monoplane, using the 985 (since it's a common engine, with parts and rebuilds easily available). Stressed for aerobatics, able to operate off decent grass. Tailwheel, of course, but nice and long-bodied, for grace and to help with ground-handling. Three hours range. Decent-sized cockpits. Retractable gear. As much speed as you can get while still satisfying the above.

I think it would be an extremely cool project.

Dave[/quote]
Check out the radial rocket. Pretty much everything you are looking for, sans the m14 for the 985.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:58 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am
Posts: 3328
Dave Hadfield wrote:
Oddly enough, I was talking about something like this yesterday with a friend, during a flight. He had shown me a picture of the Harmon Rocket he's nearly finished building -- which is an awesome airplane. Later in the conversation I wondered about a R-985-powered airplane, somewhat along the lines of a Hughes Racer.

I wouldn't want a Hughes Racer of course. I'd want 2 seats and a bit more wing and landing gear. But the idea is that it would be cool to build a low-wing, lightweight, tandem-seat monoplane, using the 985 (since it's a common engine, with parts and rebuilds easily available). Stressed for aerobatics, able to operate off decent grass. Tailwheel, of course, but nice and long-bodied, for grace and to help with ground-handling. Three hours range. Decent-sized cockpits. Retractable gear. As much speed as you can get while still satisfying the above.

I think it would be an extremely cool project.

Dave

If you'd be prepared to compromise on the retractable gear and R-985, it sounds as though one of these would be just what you're looking for!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-19


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:03 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm
Posts: 1672
Cool. I didn't know about the "Radial Rocket".

Image

At first glance it looks a little short-coupled, and I'd prefer a taildragger with retractable-gear (so far only the tricycle-gear version is retractable), but yeah, very cool.

I'm surprised the Vne is only 280. In a power-on descent, I imagine it would be easy to reach that.

And the Russian engine is a good idea -- plentiful, tough, and lot of parts available.

As for the Curtiss, sure, wonderful, but the Rocket is actually do-able.

One of the RRs crashed last Sept. It'll be interesting to read the final findings.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 540
Dave Hadfield wrote:
Cool. I didn't know about the "Radial Rocket".

Image

At first glance it looks a little short-coupled, and I'd prefer a taildragger with retractable-gear (so far only the tricycle-gear version is retractable), but yeah, very cool.

I'm surprised the Vne is only 280. In a power-on descent, I imagine it would be easy to reach that.

And the Russian engine is a good idea -- plentiful, tough, and lot of parts available.

As for the Curtiss, sure, wonderful, but the Rocket is actually do-able.

One of the RRs crashed last Sept. It'll be interesting to read the final findings.

Dave


The tricycle gear version resembles a T-28. Even though the taildragger is fixed-gear, like you said, its a "doable" project for the individual who wants a two seat radial powered taildragger...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 540
Dave Hadfield wrote:
Cool. I didn't know about the "Radial Rocket".

Image

At first glance it looks a little short-coupled, and I'd prefer a taildragger with retractable-gear (so far only the tricycle-gear version is retractable), but yeah, very cool.

I'm surprised the Vne is only 280. In a power-on descent, I imagine it would be easy to reach that.

And the Russian engine is a good idea -- plentiful, tough, and lot of parts available.

As for the Curtiss, sure, wonderful, but the Rocket is actually do-able.

One of the RRs crashed last Sept. It'll be interesting to read the final findings.

Dave


And this thing is only 6 feet shorter and 10 ft less wingspan than a full size F8F Bearcat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:16 pm
Posts: 195
It would really be neat to build a " what if " H1 Racer pursuit plane for the Air Corps or Marines. Then one could get away with a different engine, and even an aluminum wing. But, the exterior would need to resemble the actual H-1 as closely as possible, without lossing any of its dimensions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:16 pm
Posts: 195
http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3522&start=15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 540
Captain Texas wrote:
It would really be neat to build a " what if " H1 Racer pursuit plane for the Air Corps or Marines. Then one could get away with a different engine, and even an aluminum wing. But, the exterior would need to resemble the actual H-1 as closely as possible, without lossing any of its dimensions.


You would get an F4u corsair w/o the bent wing and taller landing gear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 540
Euro company Flugwerk makes a full scale FW-190 powered by a P&W 1830. WOuld probably cost close to a $mil to get it flying. Too bad its not 1946, when warbirds were strewn about the countryside and people couldnt give them away. The best story i've heard is the 1949 Thompson tropy winning F2G Corsair sat on the ramp in Cleveland for 5 years while the airport begged for someone to take it away. It sat for 5 years until the airport just set it on fire...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:16 pm
Posts: 195
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hughes-H-1B-(replica)/0446896/L/&sid=4ac80225bdd1622f0161c3e38785bf93

Thought this would get the thread back on track. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:50 pm
Posts: 701
Location: Dallas / Midland TX
menards wrote:
Dave Hadfield wrote:
Cool. I didn't know about the "Radial Rocket".

Image

At first glance it looks a little short-coupled, and I'd prefer a taildragger with retractable-gear (so far only the tricycle-gear version is retractable), but yeah, very cool.

I'm surprised the Vne is only 280. In a power-on descent, I imagine it would be easy to reach that.

And the Russian engine is a good idea -- plentiful, tough, and lot of parts available.

As for the Curtiss, sure, wonderful, but the Rocket is actually do-able.

One of the RRs crashed last Sept. It'll be interesting to read the final findings.

Dave


The tricycle gear version resembles a T-28. Even though the taildragger is fixed-gear, like you said, its a "doable" project for the individual who wants a two seat radial powered taildragger...


The taildragger would have to have an entirely new wing designed around retracts. The spar is in the way. That's why they had to go with a nose dragger so they could shift the mains aft on the retract version.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group