...
Specifications (66-70 Aircruiser)
General characteristics
Performance
- Crew: one, pilot
- Capacity: 16 passengers
- Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
- Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
- Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
- Wing area: 520 ft² (48.3 m²)
- Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
- Loaded weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
- Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)
- Maximum speed: 165 mph, 266 km/h
- Range: 608 nm (700 miles, 1,130 km)
- Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)
Its much faster for one thing 165mph v 271Ju 52 needed 3 times the power to carry 18 people on board.
Its much faster for one thing 165mph v 271mph
Squee! An-2's older brother!![]()
Specifications (66-70 Aircruiser)
General characteristics
Performance
- Crew: one, pilot
- Capacity: 16 passengers
- Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
- Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
- Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
- Wing area: 520 ft² (48.3 m²)
- Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
- Loaded weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
- Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)
- Maximum speed: 165 mph, 266 km/h
- Range: 608 nm (700 miles, 1,130 km)
- Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)
Squee! An-2's older brother!
What is the FAA which banned single engine transports? Not the Fleet Air Arm, I presume?
I've see other reports that most were 140mph class, but that corrugated skin was great for strength, drag, not so much.Ju 52 needed 3 times the power to carry 18 people on board.
Merlin, as-is, was not a drop-in replacement for the V-1710 in P-39, since the V-1710 have had a removable reduction gear for the prop. Thus the same base engine can have either a reduction gear attached to the engine (use on, say, P-40, P-38, P-51) and remotely installed reduction gear (on P-39, P-63, XB-42).
However, a version of Packard Merlin, with redesigned crankcase (without the integral redcution gear) was mooted for the P-63. Designation of the engine was V-1650-5, that puts it in witer of 1943/44 time frame, ie. too late for P-39. I'm not sure that any of those -5 engines was actually produced.
Thanks Tomo pauk, everyday is a learning day!
I've see other reports that most were 140mph class, but that corrugated skin was great for strength, drag, not so much.
From a quick google
The final model, the Aircruiser, was the most efficient airplane of its day and even would rank high among all airplanes designed. With a Wright aircooled supercharged radial engine (Cyclone), rated at 715 hp. the Aircruiser could carry a useful load greater than its empty weight! It could carry 4,000lb payloads at a speed of between 145-155 mph. This was in the mid-1930's; Fokkers and Ford Trimotors could not come close to this capacity, and they were both multi-engine airplanes.
While the Aircruisers did stellar work in Canada, they still were of composite fabric/wood/duraluminum construction that could be lighter than all metal.
As this is intended for Army Co-operation work how was it at getting in and out of small, rough and possibly improvised airstrips? If it can't do that then it's not the right aircraft for the job.
I posted this in the Greek Air Force thread, but I think it is relevant here too.
Medium Bombers (Twin Engine)
£13,500 Blenheim 1937
£20,000 Hampden 1939
£18,500 Wellington 1939
The costs are Cost Complete. That is the figures of cost (which, for the latter types, are estimated only) shown includes airframe, engine(s), aircraft equipment (instruments, &c) and armament, other than bombs and ammunition.
The first DC-3 in 1935 cost $79,500, in Pounds would be £19,875
For comparison sake, would the DC-3 be decked out with comparable fittings? Engines, radios/no radios, etc. (I know the engines are different, but what does the list consist of: airframe, engines,? One of the other thread on this site pointed out that often US WW2 aircraft costs were basically airframe only)
That was 1/10 the original order of Ten for American Airlines