Started by GTX, March 12, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
QuoteMakes you wonder why the DB606/610 wasn't selected for the Me 264.
QuoteThe DB606 was rated at ~2,700hp, so would have been a useful increase in power.
QuoteThe interesting thing about the DB606 and 610 was that it was literally two separate engines which, unlike the Allison V-3420, could be perated independently, each half having its own supercharge and accessories.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 13, 2015, 06:51:31 PMQuoteThe interesting thing about the DB606 and 610 was that it was literally two separate engines which, unlike the Allison V-3420, could be perated independently, each half having its own supercharge and accessories.This honestly makes it seem more practical to have just used 4-engines...
QuoteYes and no. The twin engine installation offered a drag advantage, while still having 4 engines.
QuoteHaving 4 engines in separate nacelles would have offered a simpler solution, each engine requiring a smaller prop than the DB606 did.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:14:39 PMThe nacelles were mounted fairly far back inside the wing and this caused problems with the DB606 because of the fact that this meant that fuel-lines, electrical harnesses, were basically all positioned around the engine: Why were they mounted as far back as they were?Instinctively, I assume this was for drag-reduction: I'm curious if it was actually necessary to meet the requirements dictated by the RLM?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 18, 2016, 07:54:47 PMysi_maniacI'm looking at the drawings shown of the He-277 and He-274 and both of them seem to have their engines recessed close to the wing. For the most part, I'm largely curious why the plane would need to have the engines recessed so back.Is it strengthening, streamlining, or both?
Page created in 0.025 seconds with 19 queries.