Some questions about He 119 like aircraft.

So I have a few threads that got me thinking, some of them a while ago here and others more recently, like these threads here, here, and here.

What I would like to do is, take the two in-fuselage engine concept from the HE 119, and see folks put a single seat forward and between and a bit above them for the pilot, and marry the twin engines to a pair of drive shafts, each both turning a pair of ring mounted contra-rotating props.

Can such a plane be built? And can you get a good centered concentration of MG/cannon in the nose (hence the ring mount for the propellers)? Can you make an aircraft along these lines, with a thick fuselage, and a good, sturdy wing w/wide spaced retractable landing gear, and have hard points under the fuselage/wings? What about extra guns in the wings as an additional, optional package?

And the big one, can it have folding wings and a tail hook, and be useful as a carrier aircraft?

Questionable. It was already heavy at close to 11,500 pounds dry, that was without all the complicated contra-rotating props, extra driveshafts, arrestor gear, fuselage and landing gear strengthening necessary to manage a carrier landing (carrier upgrade added about 17% to the Spitfire's empty weight), and max lift was 17,000 pounds. Once you fuel it and stick a pilot into the aircraft, along with everything else, it may not have any residual lift to carry a payload.

The Macchi MC-72 was the fastest airplane for a while, with two engines. The Bugatti racer proved that a piece of art doesn't have anything to prove. The Fisher Eagle, Arsenal VB-10 and Kawasaki Ki-64 proved that they weren't equal to a well-designed conventional fighter, and the XB-42, with a pusher, proved that you might as well wait for jets. The ring gear prop sounds fascinating and unlikely. The B-42 proposed attack version could have mounted all the guns you need in the nose, without the unlikely engineering. Added complexity isn't something admired in a naval fighter. Contra-props is a good thing for a high-powered naval fighter, but their development coincided largely with jet engines.

As soon as you clear the nose to mount guns and cannons, there is little need for wing-mounted guns. wing-mounted guns are more difficult to aim, re-load, etc.

Were you suggesting mounting the propeller(s) ahead of the wing?

Many engineers have proposed ring-mounted propellers, but none have worked out the practical problems. Only a couple of motor-gliders have achieved limited production with propellers rotating around one tail boom.

Propeller drive shafts are problematical with more torsional vibration problems than you can shake a stick at ... so, but I could not resist the pun.
Bell seems to have been one of the few manufacturers to succeed in designing shaft-driven propellers on their Airacobra and King Cobra. Then Bell went on to lead the helicopter industry in taming another hundred types of vibration.
Currently, only Stemme is building motor-gliders with shaft-driven propellers. Stemme pilots rave about the visibility, but grumble about noise.

CalBear said:

Questionable. It was already heavy at close to 11,500 pounds dry, that was without all the complicated contra-rotating props, extra driveshafts, arrestor gear, fuselage and landing gear strengthening necessary to manage a carrier landing (carrier upgrade added about 17% to the Spitfire's empty weight), and max lift was 17,000 pounds. Once you fuel it and stick a pilot into the aircraft, along with everything else, it may not have any residual lift to carry a payload.

Click to expand...

This is a shame because, Goddamit, she looked cool. Even parked up she gives an impression of wanting to launch herself forwards.

This is my fault, as I made a limited OP, that didn't have all the info that it should have had. My apologies for that folks, and thanks for the input so far.

The thing that first got me thinking about the HE 119, as something other than a 3 man crewed fast recon/bomber, was the also never put into production FW 187, and when I read up on the problems that the FW 187 had with it’s very narrow fuselage and cramped cockpit, I just wondered if there were any aircraft that mounted their engines within the fuselage, and thus would have solved some of these problems right there.

So, below are links to the wiki for each.

HE 119

FW 187

So, what I would be interested in, is an aircraft that was designed from the beginning to be a single seat fighter or bomber, and then we could talk about the various posited changes.

CalBear said:

Questionable. It was already heavy at close to 11,500 pounds dry, that was without all the complicated contra-rotating props, extra driveshafts, arrestor gear, fuselage and landing gear strengthening necessary to manage a carrier landing (carrier upgrade added about 17% to the Spitfire's empty weight), and max lift was 17,000 pounds. Once you fuel it and stick a pilot into the aircraft, along with everything else, it may not have any residual lift to carry a payload.

Click to expand...

Fair enougn I suppose, but let me restart below, and go on a point by point?

Just Leo said:

The ring gear prop sounds fascinating and unlikely. The B-42 proposed attack version could have mounted all the guns you need in the nose, without the unlikely engineering. Added complexity isn't something admired in a naval fighter. Contra-props is a good thing for a high-powered naval fighter, but their development coincided largely with jet engines.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll have to grant that the desired contra props was to counter the (struggle to turn one way, but able to get the hell and gone out of dodge the other) trait of the ME 109, as well as hoping to get more bang for my buck on the horsepower.

riggerrob said:

As soon as you clear the nose to mount guns and cannons, there is little need for wing-mounted guns. wing-mounted guns are more difficult to aim, re-load, etc.

Many engineers have proposed ring-mounted propellers, but none have worked out the practical problems.

Propeller drive shafts are problematical with more torsional vibration problems than you can shake a stick at ... so, but I could not resist the pun.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I guess, and thanks.

oldironside said:

This is a shame because, Goddamit, she looked cool. Even parked up she gives an impression of wanting to launch herself forwards.

Click to expand...

Ok, so lets look at all my desired bells and whistles, and seperate them into individual ones.

Ring mounted, contra rotating props, doable or not?

Carrier configurable, with folding wings, tail hook, and all the extra structural integreity that would need, yes or no?

Hard points and in wing guns, may be redundant, but yes or no?

Keep in mind now, that we are not talking about the historical HE 119, just something that shares the 2 in fuselage engines that the pilot sits in front of.

CalBear said:

Questionable. It was already heavy at close to 11,500 pounds dry...

Click to expand...

But maybe they could have saved some significant weight by doing away with the evaporated cooling system. A bit more drag from adding a bigger radiator, but it could still have been a contender.

Fixing the Falke on a paint program is easy. Elements of DH Hornet, the gun placement and leading edge rads, raising and widening the cockpit, lengthening the fuselage and the wing between engines and fuselage to allow for prop clearance, increasing rad area. It's called the Horny Falcon. The engines could drive handed props as well, but that's so ASB.

Just Leo said:

Fixing the Falke on a paint program is easy. Elements of DH Hornet, the gun placement and leading edge rads, raising and widening the cockpit, lengthening the fuselage and the wing between engines and fuselage to allow for prop clearance, increasing rad area. It's called the Horny Falcon. The engines could drive handed props as well, but that's so ASB.

Click to expand...

<pounds fist on desk>
nien nien nien
This fighter has 2 engines. It only has one seat.
All two engine fighters must be zerstorers!
All zerstorers must have two seats!
Where is the radio operator? Where is the tail gun?
What do you mean it's faster then a ME109? I don't believe you!
Everyone knows two engine planes are slower then single engine planes!
This is completely unacceptable!

-T. Amt.

Andras said:

<pounds fist on desk>
nien nien nien
This fighter has 2 engines. It only has one seat.
All two engine fighters must be zerstorers!
All zerstorers must have two seats!
Where is the radio operator? Where is the tail gun?
What do you mean it's faster then a ME109? I don't believe you!
Everyone knows two engine planes are slower then single engine planes!
This is completely unacceptable!

-T. Amt.

Click to expand...

Kommt mich mir nach de Ratskellar und ve will diskuss zis uber zome Brueskis, Ernst.

Leo, well done!

wiking said:

Leo, well done!

Click to expand...

Mein German, or the doodle?

Just Leo said:

Mein German, or the doodle?

Click to expand...

Just the doodle. Your German is offensive

Shadow Master said:

So I have a few threads that got me thinking, some of them a while ago here and others more recently, like these threads here, here, and here.

What I would like to do is, take the two in-fuselage engine concept from the HE 119, and see folks put a single seat forward and between and a bit above them for the pilot, and marry the twin engines to a pair of drive shafts, each both turning a pair of ring mounted contra-rotating props.

Click to expand...

I think the Japanese had something close that could serve as a basis...

R2Y

Six blade, not contrarotating, no weapons.

Btw, the statement in your signature is wrong.

JAG88 said:

I think the Japanese had something close that could serve as a basis...

R2Y

Six blade, not contrarotating, no weapons.

Btw, the statement in your signature is wrong.

Click to expand...

Also first flew 8 May 1945, which is a bit late for the Germans to make use of it...
(Though if you mean that that's a plane that they could imitate)...

Saphroneth said:

Also first flew 8 May 1945, which is a bit late for the Germans to make use of it...
(Though if you mean that that's a plane that they could imitate)...

Click to expand...

See any date specified in the OP?

The failed Me-309 begat the failed (never built) Me-509 Airacobra clone, single engine, and Yokosuka decided to copy the failed type with doubled engines that were largely fail, too late. I read that they over-heated, but that hardly matters.

JAG88 said:

Btw, the statement in your signature is wrong.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

I guess what I am really interested in is, if the FW 187 can be a 'good fighter', then could having the engines in the fuselage possibly make for a better one?

To me, this is the key question. Even if it is 'only' as good as an FW 187, could a carrier aircraft that doesn't have to accomadate the width of a standard twin engined aircraft be useful in carrier operations? I am assuming here that the engines mounted on the wings are a limiting factor in terms of space savings in the hanger deck, and that if the engines were in a 'double-wide' fuselage, that this would go along way to solving that problem.

We would still have a much heavier aircraft than a comparable single engined one, but would the advantages of two engines (without the space waste of wing mountings) not give at least the possibility of an improved airwing?

My thinking (which could be way off) is that the range, relaibility, and survivability of the naval aviation aircraft would all be enhanced, but at the price of both initial and ongoing costs being greater.

Also, if the sircraft indeed had to have a 'double-wide' fuselage, what effect does this potentially have on airgroup size?