Bugatti P110 fighter

[AdA]

I agree that top speed estimate is wildly unrealistic for the intended 860HP HS engine. Assuming radiator intakes do not spoil the lines too much (some form of wing root intake like on some early jets?) should we expect 700km/h for a fighter version?

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by AdA

I'll pass that along to the guy who made the drawing, if I ever find out who he is. The much bigger Heinkel He119 was a similar concept for a high speed bomber, and used a undernose retractable radiator that spoiled the lines when opened. A pratical version of the Bugatti ideas would have gone through the process of "uglyfication" many concepts follow. Of course a He119 WI would attract a lot more following, being a LW machine, et al...
A more practical P110 might look like a fighter version of the He119, and loose the graceful lines of the racer. It would still be the coolest fighter in the world in its time, for sure...

Don't forget the cannon barrels which cross the undercarriage. I didn't want to seem pedantic.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

Don't forget the cannon barrels which cross the undercarriage. I didn't want to seem pedantic.

Not at all, the boys from the Bugatti fan club wanted horse shoe shaped radiator intakes and machine turned chrome gun barrels.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The fighter drawing has a 3-bladed propeller which has a diameter of 6.5 feet. This would not propel anything off the ground, let alone 550 mph. The drawing shows the 2 cannons just inboard of the prop arc and would require synchronization. The drawing doesn't show the engine air intake present in the racer picture. I'm not sure but there are 2 holes in the wing that could be oil coolers and the tail empennages have evidence of inadequate and easily damaged coolant radiators of a type copied by nobody. The pilot position would be awkward without the side-stick controller and the general configuration allows no visibility to the rear, even if the canopy allowed it. Not of the same league as the Caudron racer/fighter which Polish pilots had to fly. At least the Caudron flew.

The smaller drawing on my first post, repeated here (copyed from a different site) has air intakes above the engine. It also has diferently positioned guns, and retains the double props of the racer.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The fighter drawing has a 3-bladed propeller which has a diameter of 6.5 feet.

Nope, a pair of contra-rotating two-bladers.

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by AdA

The smaller drawing on my first post, repeated here (copyed from a different site) has air intakes above the engine. It also has diferently positioned guns, and retains the double props of the racer.

It also places the engine location further aft, as the racer. Now, 2 cannon are placed in a wing which is too thin to accommodate weapons of any kind at that point. It's a very small Airacobra without the nose armament. If you change the scale of everything to fit military equipment, it becomes the P-39, and if you go farther, the P-75 Eagle. Not a bad thing, but it's not the original racer but a new airplane based on the configuration, available in 1943.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

It also places the engine location further aft, as the racer. Now, 2 cannon are placed in a wing which is too thin to accommodate weapons of any kind at that point. It's a very small Airacobra without the nose armament. If you change the scale of everything to fit military equipment, it becomes the P-39, and if you go farther, the P-75 Eagle. Not a bad thing, but it's not the original racer but a new airplane based on the configuration, available in 1943.

Maybe the equivalent of a Merlin powered P39 with a new nose? Solves the high alltitude problems and gets more speed at the cost of rearwards visibility?

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by AdA

Maybe the equivalent of a Merlin powered P39 with a new nose? Solves the high alltitude problems and gets more speed at the cost of rearwards visibility?

You're addressing one issue at a time. The P-39 carried wing armament in a gondola. .30". The Soviets removed the wing guns for performance. The Bugatti's wings were not designed for weapons. I still haven't figured out the cooling system. For lightweight fighters, the Bell XP-77, Caudron 704 and SAI S.207 were based on conventional racers and didn't change the world, but none tried to imagine full-size engines in the original airframe because they were working with reality, not skewed drawings.

[AdA]

I think I reachead my reality ceiling whith the conclusion that a pratical Buggatti would be more or less a fighter version of the He119...

[cortz#9]

It’s certainly a very sleek looking plane. In fact it reminds me of some of the Batplanes from 1960s & 70s Batman comics. Hell stick some Batman emblems on the wings & fuselage and this would’ve been perfect for the TV series from the sixties.

[AdA]

link to the original source for some P110 images
http://www.lionheartcreations.com/Bu...ProtoInfo.html

[Paul MacQ]

Well someone already mentioned how easy would it be to produce for example the Macchi C.205 took 22,000 man hours to produce compared to 8000 for early and 6500 man hours for late model Me 109.
The 5 series fighters from Italy beautiful works of art .... all hand made with little sense regards ease of production

[Cook]

Concerning the cockpit and pilot’s seating; in the prototype it is very similar to a modern sailplane, with seat recline about 45%. By comparison the seat in an F-16 is reclined at 30%, and was a radical step from previous fighter aircraft seats, which were reclined at 13%. One of the significant advantages of a reclined seat is that it allows you to withstand greater Gees, very important in air combat, particularly prior to the development of Gee-suits. The lack of rearward visibility is probably not as bad as people suspect; it would depend on how far forward the seat actually is relative to the rear of the canopy. Certainly contemporary fighters, the Me-109 and Hurricane did not have good rear visibility.

For me the biggest problem are the engines and drive system; The Bugatti 50B generates 450 hp at 4500 rpm, even with twin turbocharged 50B’s you are not going to match the power of a single Merlin or Daimler Benz engine. The long drive shafts are also an issue; long drive shafts to mid mounted engines have caused a lot of problems with pusher type aircraft in the Experimental category.

To overcome the low output power, the aircraft has been stripped to the bone, relying heavily on Balsa plywood construction. As such it begins to resemble the De Havilland Comet, which was another highly successful twin engine wooden racer of the era that evolved into the De Havilland Mosquito. I don’t see Bugatti’s concept having quite the same potential though.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Cook

Concerning the cockpit and pilot’s seating; in the prototype it is very similar to a modern sailplane, with seat recline about 45%. By comparison the seat in an F-16 is reclined at 30%, and was a radical step from previous fighter aircraft seats, which were reclined at 13%. One of the significant advantages of a reclined seat is that it allows you to withstand greater Gees, very important in air combat, particularly prior to the development of Gee-suits. The lack of rearward visibility is probably not as bad as people suspect; it would depend on how far forward the seat actually is relative to the rear of the canopy. Certainly contemporary fighters, the Me-109 and Hurricane did not have good rear visibility.

For me the biggest problem are the engines and drive system; The Bugatti 50B generates 450 hp at 4500 rpm, even with twin turbocharged 50B’s you are not going to match the power of a single Merlin or Daimler Benz engine. The long drive shafts are also an issue; long drive shafts to mid mounted engines have caused a lot of problems with pusher type aircraft in the Experimental category.

To overcome the low output power, the aircraft has been stripped to the bone, relying heavily on Balsa plywood construction. As such it begins to resemble the De Havilland Comet, which was another highly successful twin engine wooden racer of the era that evolved into the De Havilland Mosquito. I don’t see Bugatti’s concept having quite the same potential though.

450HP is the figure for both engines. The first GP engine to pass the 400HP bar was the 5.6l Supercharged Mercedes stright eight. The Type 50B engine never gave more than 275HP in GP car form (on the type59), using a witches brew fuel that would be a real fire hazard on a fighter. still every site I've seen repeats the same 500/550mph estimate for the race aircraft.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Paul MacQ

Well someone already mentioned how easy would it be to produce for example the Macchi C.205 took 22,000 man hours to produce compared to 8000 for early and 6500 man hours for late model Me 109.
The 5 series fighters from Italy beautiful works of art .... all hand made with little sense regards ease of production

Might have to do with factory efficiency rather than purely design factors. Still, a Re2005 with a Jumo213 would have been a world beater...

[Paul MacQ]

Originally Posted by AdA

Might have to do with factory efficiency rather than purely design factors. Still, a Re2005 with a Jumo213 would have been a world beater...

Kurt Tank looked at and loved the Fiat G55, thought all the 5 series where amazing aircraft on a one on one. Looking at there structure and curves and size of individually skin pieces was amazed how how many of the planes they completed 90% of problem with production seems to have been airframe structure being so complex, though the Macchi C.202 that was the easiest to produce outstripped early engine availability

I still think in a WW2 beauty contest Re2005 is a winner

[DaD]

Looks good, not practical.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by AdA

450HP is the figure for both engines.

That makes it even worse, and well below the performance of the Me-109. It's a clear sign of despiration that it was even considered!

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Cook

That makes it even worse, and well below the performance of the Me-109. It's a clear sign of despiration that it was even considered!

It was a race aircraft, with engine choice dicatated by racing rules. The proposed military variant would have been a light fighter, in the line of the Caudron 714 series, or be rengined with a HS12 engine as in the D520. You would note in previous posts that I found the generally published estimates of speeds in the 500/550mph range wildly optimistic, and my easiest explanation would be that they were misstranslated, and the racer, with its 450HP and very clean aerodinamics, would do 500/550 Km/h rather than miles (the Caudron did close to 500 with a 500HP renault engine). With the 860HP Hispano, and provided a way to cool it that didn't ruin the areodynamics too much was found, I speculated on the posibility of close to 700Km/h. (the CR760 did 590 with a 800HP engine)

[Just Leo]

I found a drawing which seems to generally portray the configuration with far greater accuracy than previous examples. The engine/engines are based on the Type 50B and are called the Type 66 when doubled back-to-back and the blocks are magnesium. The modified T 50b was reported tested to 550 hp, and the engine was expected to provide 900 hp as a double. The cooling system drew air from inlets in the three fins into a plenum in the tail, drawn through the matrix and exhausted out two outlets in the aft wing fillet by low pressure. Props were two two-bladed ground-adjustable contra-props built by Ratier, with dreams of future 3-bladed adjustable props. The armament is two non-specific guns which would have to fit a very tight space, and I would hope that the two spars which are traversed by the barrels are strengthened at those points.