HOME | DD
Loupy59 — PB-6B Nina - v3
by-nc-sa
#airplanes #fanart #destroyermen
Published: 2019-02-10 21:21:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 1639; Favourites: 14; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description
First off, I have to say every aircraft design I do referring to the Destroyermen saga is derived, at least in part, from an initial drawing by the author, Taylor Anderson. Kudos to an inventive mind. I then bend, fold, spindle & mutilate them to my own depraved ends.This is version #3 of the proposed PB-6B design study, with modifications from pilot inputs. This design study is to test integration of the 10 cylinder radial engine into a larger, higher performance version of the PB-1 Nancy airframe. It's features include a variable pitch assembly to improve flight performance, increased fuel capacity, easier oil cooler access & foot crank inertial starting operated by the observer. The cockpit is enclosed to reduce drag & pilot fatigue. The modular landing gear system which can be removed or installed in less than 15 minutes (if the internal mounting hardware is preinstalled). The landing gear is manually operated by either the pilot or the observer/gunner & allows for rapid recovery of the aircraft on carrier flight decks or land based air fields. The radial engine provides increased speed & rate of climb & compensates for the added weight of the larger airframe, engine & .30 caliber machine guns & ammunition in the nose.
This is version 3.1. Nestor was right, so basically I resized things to fit with her being only about 25% larger than the PB-1 Nancy. I had to raise the engine to give more prop clearance in keeping with it's size of about 1820 cubic inches of displacement. Half the total empty weight is engine.
Related content
Comments: 9
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Out of curiosity why a pusher rather than a puller engine?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just wanted to stick with the Nancy type. Easier to do in MS Paint. A tractor design would be almost an entirely different layout. I may give it a shot sometime though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice progression from the Nancy, but if you gonna make it bigger then I'd recommend changing it's mission profile. Let's say a PB-1 Nancy is roughly the size of a Brewster Buffalo then judging by the size of the cockpit seat in your drawing it looks like you made your PB-6B as big as a TBM Avenger. A flying boat that size would be better suited as a patrol bomber or air-sea rescue, even a cargo transport. Then you'll need to give it a wing fold mechanism if you want it to operate from a carrier deck as it'll end up being the biggest thing Captain Keje would dare to have on his flattop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True. I tried to scale her to the engine, but I think the cockpit came out a bit small. I think it needs to be about 1/3 larger to fit what I'm shooting for.
The plane should be about 1/3 larger than the Nancy & still be able to catapult launch from DDs & CLs.
I'm going to have to redo her. Sigh.
The Nancy was designed to be taken apart & the two seams in the wings outboard of the engine would be ideal places for a folding mechanism, instead of removing & replacing all the time.
Happy Birthday!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No need to throw your blueprints away! You should already have plenty of fuselage space in front for a tandem cockpit (pilot and copilot) and a radioman/bombardier/ventral gunner in the back, just like on a TBF Avenger (you'd want side windows in lower back too). And it still catapults and lands on a carrier, again just like an Avenger.
About the landing gear, I see you got the idea off the detachable ones from early PBY Catalinas and other flying boats. Those are designed just for towing in and out the water via ramps, not for sustained frequent arrested landings. For carrier service you'd want to attach them to sturdy fuselage hard points but more importantly, they need robust hydraulic shock absorbers.
Thanks for the wishes, I can still claim I'm old enough to smoke.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, I resized her to what I was shooting for anyway.
The landing gear would have reinforced hard points to install the gear actuating shafts into, but still removable (leaving the hard points in-place). The gear legs are spring steel similar to those used on some current light civilian planes of about the same weight, like Cessnas. It might take them some testing to get right, but doable. With a fairly light aircraft & slow landing speeds, the landing shock shouldn't be too bad. Many of the early carrier aircraft didn't have springs or shock absorbers either. They'd still want to keep the landing weight down though, by dropping any unused bombs before coming in. Figuring the carrier is doing 10-15 knots (for now) & a 60 mph landing speed, they should be touching down at an overall speed of about 40-45 mph. If they have brakes, they probably wouldn't even need an arrested landing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK, fair enough, so how about we go by the premise that because P-1 Fleashooter landing gear is spring loaded your PB-6 is fitted with a similar kind. Then to reduce the level of wear and tear of carrier landings perhaps you can add leading edge slats to increase the wing surface area and further reduce landing speed to near stall, kinda like a Fieseler Stork. But now I wonder, are the Alliance factories advanced enough to successfully fit ailerons, flaps, slats and folding mechanisms on wings?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Slats would be easy enough to do. Fixed slats or slots would be easiest, but would slow the plane down on the top end. I'd put them on the outer wing panels instead of the whole wing. That way when the inner wing stalled, the outer panels would still be flying & you'd retain control. With the relatively short wingspan, you'd probably see about a 5 mph drop in landing speeds, possibly more depending on the design & type. Spring loaded or automatic slats are more complex & weigh more, but still well within their abilities & would not impact your tope end speeds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0