tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Nope, I would be quite surprised if anyone got this one. The only reason I know it is because I saw the name cast into the block.

glasscock

Volks Wagon.

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

LOL, nope, not that I am aware of, I will give a hint, it is and was an American owned company.

glasscock

Okay, it was Ford.

In June 1940, Henry Ford had offered to manufacture 1,000 aircraft a day if the Government would let him do it his way, and during a discussion with Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. regarding what the Ford company might produce, Ford's son Edsel tentatively agreed to make 6,000 Rolls-Royce liquid-cooled engines for Great Britain and 3,000 for the U.S.[

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Nope, and not dodge or chrysler.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

Maybe Studabaker ?

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

last try Hudson ?

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Good guess, but no, Studebaker did build aircraft engines, Kermit weeks has a Studebaker engine on one of his aircraft at Fantasy of Flight here in Florida, but thats a question for another time. I reviewed my pictures, actually there were two companies that made blocks for Packard Merlins.
Heres a pic of my Studebaker

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Not Hudson, neither of the two companies had any aviation experience at all that I am aware of. I am headeed out to a work Christmas party, I will respond when I get home. I didnt mean to disrup the flow of the thread. I believe its Glasscocks turn, but I have so many when its my turn again. I will post the answers and the pictures of the names cast into the blocks tomorrow
Denny.

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Since its Glasscocks turn, I will end my turn with these two images. These are from two earlier Merlins I restored.
Denny

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Must agree with you the SeaMaster was an AWESOME sleek machine along the likes of the Hawker Hunters . But then again Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder.
engine blocks guess Singer Machine & USSteel.
SF
Joe

glasscock

Name the airplane and something special about the tail cone...



As far as the company that cast the engine block...how about White Sewing Machine?

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

I just discovered this thread, after reading several of them I had a rough idea, at least some semi-intellinent guesses. This one I absolutely have no idea.
The two companies tha turned out the Packard blocks were Maytag and Buick. There could be more, but these are the only ones I know for sure.
Denny

glasscock

Here's a little more info on the above aircraft in question:

A fundamental concept of this aircraft was that it had NO TAIL (to save weight and drag) and NO CONTROL SURFACES anywhere - the engine cluster was gimballed in three dimensions to act as rudder, ailerons and elevators.

glasscock

Some more info on the aircraft in question...

What if one the engine fails?
This is one of the main objections levelled at the design, both at the time and by modern aerodynamicists. In the swept configuration, the engines are so close to the centerline that an engine-out is not a problem. In the unswept configuration, it is potentially a big deal, but the designer designed an automatic (mechanical) sensor which looked for equal thrust from both wings. If imbalance was detected, the engines on the working side were set to "toe-in" which reduced the thrust on that side and restored the thrust line to within a manageable region. This would have worked within half a second, before the pilot even spotted the engine-out.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

I'm lost. Was this possibly a "paper only research exercise"? Or was it actually built? Thanks; Ernie P.

glasscock

More info:

The designed aircraft in question never flew. It was to have a span of 75 feet with wings extended and 31 feet when fully swept; it was to be powered by four Bristol afterburning turbojets, giving it a top speed in excess of Mach 2. The aicraft was seen as the basis for a one or two seat combat aircraft, most prominently an interceptor armed with air-to-air missiles.

The late 1950s were a dismal time for the British aviation industry, with many promising development programs shut down. The aircraft in question was never built; there were discussions with the Americans on further consideration of the design, with the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) performing advanced studies on the concept. By mid-1959, NASA had concluded that the aircraft itself was aerodynamically dubious but the variable geometry concept was seen as very promising, with further work in the USA leading to the world's first operational variable geometry aircraft, the General Dynamics F-111.

glasscock

More info:

Designer live to the age of 92. Sir Barnes Neville Wallis.

This aircraft flew in model form in the mid-fifties. Subsonic tests were made with a model of 30 foot maximum span powered by two small rockets. A supersonic model, 6 feet long attained speeds of up to Mach 2.5.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

so it wasn't actually the plane that was flying. it was the rockets that were flying the plane.
ie: with a big enough propellor & engine a brick can fly too.

anyways, thats the Swallow.

glasscock

Good job, Mr Spitfire is up! (An anonymous PM'er had the right answer also ).

So I do not tie up anymore time, I'll let the tailcone answer slide, but research the bouncing bomb. It was a nuclear bomb.

Sir Barnes Wallis genius brought totally new ideas to aviation. Here's a good book for anyone interested...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bouncing-Bom...0313149&sr=8-1

DG

glasscock

The Vickers Swallow.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

thanks. good question.

anyways put on the old P-40 thinking caps. will come up with a question in a bit.
that cannot be googled or wiki'ed.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

A nuclear bomb? Now that I never heard! With a heavy bomb mounted that far in the rear of the aircraft, it seems you would have problems. Most (if not all) bomber aircraft have the bomb load pretty much centered up on the wings, so as not to upset the CG when the bombs are dropped. Remember how many problems were caused when Hitler wanted bombs mounted on the Me 262? They couldn't put the bombs on the wings or centrally mounted on the fuselage because of the landing gear. Mounting them at the forward part of the nose gave them fits.

Of course, I guess if the Swallow underwent a big CG shift, the engines could just gimbal to compensate? Hmmm..... Maybe he had more there than I thought. Thanks; Ernie P.

glasscock

Nuclear bomb? This is one artifact that touches on this...

"This is a completely separate programme but was proposed to the RAF as a V bomber replacement (the tail cone was an aft firing nuclear weapon to allow weapons release while moving away from the target) and also as a mach 3 cruising SST."

In reality, who knows?

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

ok, most if not all people think the the P-40 was never equipt with rockets. so if thats the case,
whats this P-40 carrying under her wings? I need its common name and its nickname.