Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

[Billzilla]

2001 flying backwards biplane (which has been used to fight!)
The An-2 has no stall speed, a fact which is quoted in the operating handbook. A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground.

FWIW the taper-wing Piper Warriors are much like that. They have an all-moving horizontal stabiliser, so it's just a bit elevator. But it doesn't have quite enough authority to make the wing stall properly. The plane just kind-of pitches up & down gently with some vibration from the turbulent airflow from the wing impinging on the tail. They are so safe that you can open the throttle and it'll start climbing! And even more surprisingly unlike any other aeroplane I've flown you can kick in a bit of rudder with full back-stick and it'll just turn without dropping a wing. I wouldn't want to go for full rudder and/or aileron but Mr Piper did make a very safe aeroplane in the PA-28 Warrior.

[Billzilla]

Another FWIW.

[Tommy Cookers]

2001 flying backwards biplane (which has been used to fight!)
The An-2 has no stall speed, a fact which is quoted in the operating handbook. A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground.

FWIW the taper-wing Piper Warriors are much like that. They have an all-moving horizontal stabiliser, so it's just a bit elevator. But it doesn't have quite enough authority to make the wing stall properly. The plane just kind-of pitches up & down gently with some vibration from the turbulent airflow from the wing impinging on the tail. They are so safe that you can open the throttle and it'll start climbing! And even more surprisingly unlike any other aeroplane I've flown you can kick in a bit of rudder with full back-stick and it'll just turn without dropping a wing. I wouldn't want to go for full rudder and/or aileron but Mr Piper did make a very safe aeroplane in the PA-28 Warrior.

yes the An-2 seems an interesting case .....
presumably power could have been used just above the ground to reduce descent rate at contact
I've saved stuff on an old-school type doing the same in a Harvard - to land on a compass rose

many planes will do that (descend 'fully stalled') - I've done it in Cessna 150/152s Aerobats at some height of course
and similarly 'fully stalled' level flight at high power - in various Pitts etc
never tried descending like that
presumably if you can't keep straight with rudder you'll find yourself in a brutal spin entry

the Cherokee/Warrior didn't seem that kind of plane - they're (one or both) not spin-certified ?
what did Piper fans do for their once-mandatory spin training pre-Tomahawk ?
I wasn't thrilled with the Tomahawk despite its certification

[johnny comelately]

A fascinating history of engine design and almost concurrently supercharging:

[J.A.W.]

A fascinating history of engine design and almost concurrently supercharging:

Rather simplistic & superficial actually, with a fair number of errors /misapprehensions.

He failed to note the requirement placed on the Mercedes DB601/605 series to centre-mount
a cannon in the 'vee' of the 90 degree V12 - & fire through the propeller boss uninterrupted,
yet doing so precluded a convenient crank-end mounting for the centrifugal supercharger &
made needful an engine-oil hydraulic-drive - which lacked the efficiency of multi-gear/clutches.

The supposed air-flow diagrams/efficiency losses are like-wise incorrect, such as the discrete ram
scoop needed by the Mercedes/Messerschmitt while advanced Allied types could either include
the ram intake right under the propeller - so yaw effects were obviated, &/or group it in a common
scoop for multi-functional cold-air intake purposes - to reduce drag other-wise induced...

(Nor did he mention the various iterations of the US-built Liberty engines which basically cloned
the six-cylinder WWI German engine top-end, including making a 45 degree 'double-six' V12, nor
explain why this wasn't used in the Soviet Mikulin (which also used the WWI German tech) let
alone the (completely different) Mercedes V12 aero-engines of WWII).

[johnny comelately]

A fascinating history of engine design and almost concurrently supercharging:

Rather simplistic & superficial actually, with a fair number of errors /misapprehensions.

He failed to note the requirement placed on the Mercedes DB601/605 series to centre-mount
a cannon in the 'vee' of the 90 degree V12 - & fire through the propeller boss uninterrupted,
yet doing so precluded a convenient crank-end mounting for the centrifugal supercharger &
made needful an engine-oil hydraulic-drive - which lacked the efficiency of multi-gear/clutches.

The supposed air-flow diagrams/efficiency losses are like-wise incorrect, such as the discrete ram
scoop needed by the Mercedes/Messerschmitt while advanced Allied types could either include
the ram intake right under the propeller - so yaw effects were obviated, &/or group it in a common
scoop for multi-functional cold-air intake purposes - to reduce drag other-wise induced...

(Nor did he mention the various iterations of the US-built Liberty engines which basically cloned
the six-cylinder WWI German engine top-end, including making a 45 degree 'double-six' V12, nor
explain why this wasn't used in the Soviet Mikulin (which also used the WWI German tech) let
alone the (completely different) Mercedes V12 aero-engines of WWII).

Aah 'tis a fact Jaws, you're a hard man to keep happy

[J.A.W.]

Bullshit or not, aye there's the rub..

As the straight-shooting detective was wont to interject...

"Just the facts, ma'am!"

[johnny comelately]

Soldiering on
Dont worry there are some pistons in there
A lot of stuff in this video has been referred to in this esteemed thread.

[J.A.W.]

Yeah ok Johnny, you should realise, that 'tour-guide' in the vid stat above...
well.. he really needs to do his gnomework too, since he makes a few obvious errors.

He notes Frank Halford's work for de Havilland in piston engine design, but fails
to attribute the 'Ghost' turbo-jet to the same source (calling it an R/R mill), &
also fails to note the majority of British operated P & W R-2800 radial engines
were powering the RAF's Thunderbolt & the FAA's Corsair/Hellcat fighter-bombers.

Likewise, Billzilla's FWIW y-tube vid of the Napier Sabre is presented by a 'geek'
who freely plagiarises the work of others, yet fails to show a grasp of how to do
a proper literature search/meta-analysis of freely available, reliable sources..

Indeed, he has made a revision, based on critical feedback, yet still fails to
grasp the fundamentals of primary source documentation as evidence, &
falls into the post-modern trap of 'cherry-picking'/assumptions which tend
to back his ill-informed 'thesis' ( albeit his contention is sound, but his
dissertation is "rubbish" as T-C would put it).

[johnny comelately]

Yeah ok Johnny, you should realise, that 'tour-guide' in the vid stat above...
well.. he really needs to do his gnomework too, since he makes a few obvious errors.

He notes Frank Halford's work for de Havilland in piston engine design, but fails
to attribute the 'Ghost' turbo-jet to the same source (calling it an R/R mill), &
also fails to note the majority of British operated P & W R-2800 radial engines
were powering the RAF's Thunderbolt & the FAA's Corsair/Hellcat fighter-bombers.

Likewise, Billzilla's FWIW y-tube vid of the Napier Sabre is presented by a 'geek'
who freely plagiarises the work of others, yet fails to show a grasp of how to do
a proper literature search/meta-analysis of freely available, reliable sources..

Indeed, he has made a revision, based on critical feedback, yet still fails to
grasp the fundamentals of primary source documentation as evidence, &
falls into the post-modern trap of 'cherry-picking'/assumptions which tend
to back his ill-informed 'thesis' ( albeit his contention is sound, but his
dissertation is "rubbish" as T-C would put it).

Aah Jaws, you're at it again I see, like a rainy day in Belfast

[J.A.W.]

Aah Jaws, you're at it again I see, like a rainy day in Belfast

For sure I'll piss down on clickbait every day, just as a tom cat does, roving his patch.

Dunno why you'd want to defend 1/2-arsery in a technical forum though, lil' johnny...

(But dirty ol' Belfast town built Titanic & her sisters - wet-week weather or no,
while Disney chose sunny California - for his fantasyland dream park, naturally.)

[Rodak]

Aah Jaws, you're at it again I see, like a rainy day in Belfast

For sure I'll piss down on clickbait every day, just as a tom cat does, roving his patch.

Dunno why you'd want to defend 1/2-arsery in a technical forum though, lil' johnny...

(But dirty ol' Belfast town built Titanic & her sisters - wet-week weather or no,
while Disney chose sunny California - for his fantasyland dream park, naturally.)

Totally off topic, but I had this flash recall.... My daughter visited Disneyland when she was eight; I didn't go because..... When she got home she wrote a letter to Disney, a copy of which I still have, where she compared the Swiss Family Robinson tree house to the actual book and pointed out all the errors. She offered her help in brushing the exhibit up to standards but received no response..... She never wanted to go back. We're not all defective here in the States....

There's a fantastic youtube video on the construction of the Titanic et al, although I don't have a link. I'm constantly amazed at the things built back in the day with the tools available. I'm especially amazed that all the plans and drawings were done by hand. I'm a retired mechanical designer with some skill with CAD and I understand how difficult it is to find 3D paths for things like ducting, interferences, etc. and can't image doing that by hand with a structure this size. The same applies to designing aircraft.....

[johnny comelately]

Guessing that with this compound supercharging they added fuel for cooling??
One version was (hats off) converted to methanol spark operation for tractor pull !

[J.A.W.]

Guessing that with this compound supercharging they added fuel for cooling??
One version was (hats off) converted to methanol spark operation for tractor pull !

Not any kind of fighter aircraft mill though, is it johnny...

Perhaps you could find/start a thread to feature such oddities?

[J.A.W.]

Ok, here's a topical addition, a link to a write-up of the Tempest Mk I prototype - by Bill Pearce:

https://oldmachinepress.com/2020/10/05/ ... i-fighter/

& from the document archives of member here 'snowygrouch', a chart showing the mid-war
expectations of speed/altitude of British fighter developments (early enough that the Tempest
is still referred to as 'Typhoon II').

https://www.calum-douglas.com/wp-conten ... 1610737973

The Tempest I variant did not enter service, although it was very fast for a 1943 fighter, being powered
by a higher altitude rated Sabre IV, due to emphasis being placed on the tactical role (the USAAF had
the high-altitude combat role vs the German fighters covered via its 8th & 15th strategic air forces),
for the forthcoming invasion of Hitler's 'Festung Europa'.

The wing leading-edge radiator arrangement of the Tempest I did offer a ~10mph speed advantage
over the 'chin' type set-up (as utilized by the Typhoon), when compared with the Tempest V using
the same Sabre IV, but a couple of salient points ensured it wasn't deemed worthwhile, in the event.

1stly, siting of the radiators precluded the available space/usage of the leading-edge for fuel tankage
as fitted to the Tempest V - & 2ndly, the compact armour set developed for the Typhoon to protect
the chin radiator/engine area during tactical A2G sorties - could not be used, either.