# Okay, ONE more Luft '46 project...



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

http://www.inpayne.com/models/db-proj-b-bomber-1.html

This is one small part of Anigrand's Daimler Benz "Project B" kit, which consists of the massive 6-engine carrier aircraft, and your choice of two different sets of five parasite manned bombs, or the single huge underslung jet bomber. Since I plan to build the carrier plane with the krautikazes, I went ahead and built the parasite bomber separately first.

The "real" design was intended to carry either the bomber or the 5 attack craft over the Atlantic and release them within range of NYC.

I came up with my own squadron emblem using some quickie clipart - a boot stomping the Empire State Building.

here's some info on the "real" project: 
http://www.luft46.com/db/db.html


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Aren't those the bombers that hit the west coast? Or was that something else? 

Seriously, great work--very realistically done--especially the cool logo and the BW photo over NYC.

:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

No, no German bombers ever hit the continental US. A single Japanese float plane, launched from a sub, firebombed the Oregon forests once. Made a little niusance of a forest fire, but caused no strategic damage. A few of the Japanese "robot balloons" did the same. Nothing we ever needed to worry about.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Love the postcard from NY!

I can't think of another aircraft with the engine on top of the fuselage. I wonder why? Maintenance, structural?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

727s, DC-10s and L-1011s all have top-mounted engines...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Steve244 said:


> Love the postcard from NY!


 



> I can't think of another aircraft with the engine on top of the fuselage.











http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1153

I think the main reason was that they were trying everything they could think of back then, trying to figure out what worked and what didn't.


----------



## zysurge (Sep 6, 2002)

Looks great John!

The carrier aircraft looks a lot like one in a video game I played on xBox360 - Secret Weapons over Normandy. In the game, the giant aircraft carries a bunch of fighters into battle, and then goes on to drop a German nuke on the D-day forces at Normandy. That is, unless you stop them. 

Eric


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Engines are not usually placed above and behind a large body, such as a fuselage or wing, owing to the effects of air flow stagnation (the body blocks the air flow) during flight at high angles of attack, such as at landing when air speeds and altitude are low anyway and the loss of an engine could be catastrophic. This concern is sometimes overruled by other operational requirements, often when military personnel are to be the end users because they are paid to take risks anyway. In the case of the L1011, 727, DC-10 and MD-11, they have three engines which helps to mitigate the loss of engine number 2. Another reason for not placing an engine on the centerline over a fuselage is the potential for creating a "blown surface" whereby air is forced to continue flowing over the surface in question (and thus continuing to create lift) owing to suction from the engine when the rest of the lifting surfaces have stalled. In this case, the aircraft will basically "tip stall", forcing it to roll over inverted. Optimum stall characteristics are for the center section to stall first, with the loss of lift moving evenly out from the center, thus allowing the pilot a greater amount of time with the wings level and for possible recovery. This is why most larger aircraft have root airfoils positioned at a much higher angle of pitch than at the wing tip, so the root will stall first.

In the case of the He-162 (pictured in post #6), the primary concern was for ease of manufacture. Thus we have a very simple fuselage with the engine placed on top. It is on top to allow the landing gear to be short and it is not inside to fuselage to allow it to be smaller and easier to build. Landing gear is typically a very large percentage of the airframes total empty weight so keeping it small is always better. This plane was far from its goal of being the "Volksjager" (sorry if spelling incorrect) or "people's fighter". It was not easy to fly, with its highly loaded wing and the "butterfly" tail plane was undersized and could be quite dangerous in a turn.

Oh, and another very cool model from the bench of John P! Love that Luft'46 suff!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

My personal feeling for why this bomber had the dorsal engine has to do with it being hung from a mothership. The airplane is basically hanging under the engine, so the structure is very strong at that point of the airframe. Therefore it makes sense to use those strong frame members to hang the plane under the carrier aircraft by. 

Maybe.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Both excellent explanations! 

But X15's was more excellent. Thanks.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And well-researched too!


----------



## buddho (Jul 31, 2005)

Excellent work on the Amerika bomber, John!


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

Nice job, John! :thumbsup: 

Sean


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Tanks, Swanny.


----------



## dahut (Nov 10, 2007)

A Jap sub also surfaced off the Claifornia coast and shelled some oil fields near Santa Barbara/Ventura. My mom remembered it when she was young, as she didnt live far from there...well, neither did I


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

a german sub also shelled the east coast.
love your build


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

JP - forgive my ignorance - what was the reasoning behind the criss-crossed camo pattern? Retention of image to thwart focusing on target?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Too technical a question for me, Chris. All I can tell you is I've seen it once, maybe twice, on German bombers, and I thought it was cool.

I think the purpose of much of the unit-level camo done in the Luftwaffe seemed to be just to tone down those bright RLM 76 sides that were standard on some aircraft. I'm not entirely sure the guy with the spray gun (or broom!) gave it much thought beyond that and "Let me zee vhat it looks like if I paint Xs on ze damn zing!"


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

John P said:


> I'm not entirely sure the guy with the spray gun (or broom!) gave it much thought beyond that and "Let me zee vhat it looks like if I paint Xs on ze damn zing!"


Kinda bathes the Luftwaffe in a different light!


----------

