# What aircraft (any side) would you develope further



## MacArther (Dec 14, 2005)

Also, what would you introduce earlier? I would give the P40 Q a chance, (as is well known by most), give the Dautless a 2000 hp engine and two 20mm's in the wings along with normal armament. Hurricane could have used a bigger engine, and for the sake of being laughed at, a bubble canopy. Then the Miles M20 (21?), a good fighter that showed up early on *with* a bubble canopy, possibly 12.7mm guns in lieu of the 7.7mms, or a combination of 7.7mm and 20mm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

well the forst obvious choice would be the MB.5............


----------



## MacArther (Dec 14, 2005)

Eh, wha? Is that the final version of the Lancaster, with the 50 cals and 20mms?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

no  it's often refered to as the British mustang...........


----------



## MacArther (Dec 14, 2005)

hehe, thought it was the late war/too late/postwar lancaster! They made only a handful, because the war ended before they could be used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

there was no production batch with 20mms, only a couple of lancs were fitted with 20mm as trials.........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 14, 2005)

I have a few in mind, but ill start with one of my favourites.

1. Westland Whirlwind. Only 114 made, the type had real potential but was superceeded by the Beaufighter and Typhoon because of a combination of engine troubles, political listlessness and conflicing RAF requirements.

First and most obvious thing is the get Rolls Royce to improve the reliability and power of the Peregrine. Fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind isn't really that pracitcal, despite all the fantasies about it. So bump the horespower from 885 hp to 1000-1050 hp an engine. So the Whirlwind jumps from 360 mph up to 380 mph or so. Maybe even higher as the war goes on (the Merlin grew by 1100 hp in capacity, so the Peregrine could probably squeeze out another 300-500 hp or so) A step along from that is to fit an improved supercharger to the Peregrine. Keep it single stage, as the Spitfire rules the roost at high alt anyway, but tailor it to give peak performance at about 16,000 feet. Dropping the blower height is going to increase power and speed (maybe 5-10 mph) at the expense of altitude performance above 20,000 feet. 

Next fit a belt feed to the 4 nose cannon, doubling the ammunition load. Add a centerline droptank and the necessary plumbing for it. Fit trailing edge flaps to lower the stall speed and allow compatability with short grass strips (also increases turn performance). 

All of a sudden, you have a very capable low-medium altitude long range escort fighter for the RAF, 2 years ahead of the introduction of the P-51B/C/D. The only two operational Whirlwind squadrons originally escorted Wellingtons all the way to Cologne (in daylight) in 1941. The RAF is still going to primarily bomb at night but it gives them a better option for heavy daylight raids if they have 5-10 squadrons of capable long-range escort fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2005)

Agree Jabby, the Whirlwind!

I would also gone after the XP-55 Acender - If Burt Rutan would of worked for Curtiss, things might of turned out a lot different.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 14, 2005)

I would have gone with the French VG33. It was about as fast as an Me-109, and only used a 840hp inline engine. Had it been armed with two Mg151/15 in the wings, and two Mg131 in the nose, and given it the Db-601 engine, it would have been something exceptional, with a range greater and a speed greater than that of the -109, without landing gear troubles, and with better visibility. Had the germans continued production of this fighter, and then mass produced it in the heartland, they could have had a decent escprt fighter able to really fight the spitfire over england longer than the -109, and even a good interceptor with better loitre time. With slight modifications to german production, captured and new build aircraft would have been something to fear.


----------



## book1182 (Dec 14, 2005)

P-39 with a super charged engine??? Actually the P-63 with one of the later models matched the P-51 in performance. I would also like to see the B-32 developed more. Or how about the He 100? 

How about the He 177 with four engines instead for the two engine lay out. I know it was actually two engines combined but that caused a lot of fire problems.

Or how about the Ki-84 Hayate??? So many choices. Oh and of course the Whirlwind.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 14, 2005)

I would have developed were i italian, the BA.88 attack aircraft. If they could have put some more reliable engines in the thing, and developed or copied some sand filters (the ones they used made the engines, already not at full output, overheat). The aircraft had a horrible debut, and the rest of the war. It was used pathetically but it could have been something. Again if the germans saw the design they could have made it something, with some Db-601 or whatever model was available, or some BMW high power radials (used on 190) or the jumo 223 late in the war, it could have been fast, and it could have carried a good load a nice distance and packed one hell of a punch.


----------



## gabbys (Dec 15, 2005)

Me-262.

Improve engine life and output.

First flight was on 18 April 1941 using a Jumo-210G piston engine with 530 kW (710 HP) and a two-bladed prop because the engine development was slow.

focus on engine development and get the plane into opperation by 42.

Own the skies by end of 43.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 15, 2005)

I think if i were the germans i would have advanced the production of Heinkel-280's. They could have been a nasty shock against the american bomber formations, before production of the Me-262 was even in production for combat. I would have armed it with Two Mg151/15 and two Mg131. I know everyone says light armament right? well i like that combination, clustered in the nose, the two cannon in the center and the Machine guns on either side. I would have made it so it could carry drop tanks, not even worry about bombs, leaving that to aircraft more suited to attack roles. Later as the war progressed add attachments for R4M rockets, like that on the Me-262. Imagine Me-262'a and He-280's slicing through an american formation of B-17's from above, head on attacks from Bf-109s, and rear attacks from Fw-190D9 and Me-410 with big "formation buster" rockets/mortars. One big intercept would have come out like schweinfurt, or even worse, with bomber losses near eighty or one hundred. Wouldnt have altered the war, but it would have been pretty cool.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 15, 2005)

I would have given this baby a chance


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2005)

book1182 said:


> I would also like to see the B-32 developed more.



The B-32 was used operationally and if the war continued I would of bet dollars to donuts we would of seen many more of them....


----------



## Magister (Dec 16, 2005)

Republic XP-72

Capable of 490mph at 25,000 feet.

Pratt Whitney 28 Cylinder R-4360 rated at 3,450hp

Production models were to be armed with *four 37mm cannons*. (The prototype had six .50's)

After the first test flight in February 1944, the USAAF immediately ordered 100 P-72's but that order was cancelled after it was determined that they needed longer range escort fighters instead.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 16, 2005)

Have You ever thought about the weight and recoilforces of four 37 mm guns? Mounted in the wings? Seems for me that they had almost no experiance with wingmounted cannons...
Beside of the fact that the recoilforces alone would render that plane out of control with a single shot, the additional weight of guns, ammo and structural reinforcements of the wing would reduce it´s performance heavily.
I would like to see the Vampire for UK and the Shiden for Japan earlier! 
Second would be I 230 and P 63, last but not least Fw-187.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 16, 2005)

One more from me

Spitfire 

Sounds strange, but bear with me. Range became something of an issue after the inception of the Mk V and the need to pursue German fighters further into Europe as the war progressed. Similarly, the P-47 and later P-51 took over from the Spitfire as the primary fighter type against the LuftWaffe in mid 1943, mostly because they could reach further. In 1939 the Mk I Spitfire had 85 imp gal internal tankage, by 1945 most Spitfires had between 122 and 160 imp gall. The Mk XVII had 175 and the post war Mk 24 flew with 190 imp gal.

Start with the Mk I and keep it with the basic 85 gal (85 total). Go to the improved 96 gal tanks in the Mk II (96 total). Add the 31 gal rear fuselage to the Mk V as a permanent tank, to be filled for L/R missions (127 gal). Add the wing leading edge tanks to the early Mk IX (149 gal). Add the full sized rear fuselage tanks to all production after 1943 (LF Mk IX, LF Mk V, Mk VIII, Mk VII, Mk XIV, Mk XVI) and the eventual total comes to around 190 imperial gallons, or about a 225% increase in capacity by 1943. 30 gal drop tanks are avialable by mid 1941, 45 and 90 gal tanks available by mid 42 and the 170 gal ferry tank available by late 1942. Long range tankage goes up to 280 imp gallons (1270 litres, 335 US gallons). Effective range is more than doubled.


----------



## MacArther (Dec 16, 2005)

The bell P-59 Airacomet. Improve the flaps and aireolions (cant...spell...must... hit head... on wall) so it would be a better contender with other planes. Improve the engine output, get new British engines, or just make new American engines. Another thing I would develope, the ever famous "flying Pancake". Get it into action by 1943, give it 4 50 cals and 2 20mms, it would make the Lufftwaffe think twice about attacking bombers if it were used as an escort. Also, imagine the havoc it would reak on the Japanese fleets. Not sure, but wasn't it able to carry about 2000lbs of bombs too?


----------



## Magister (Dec 16, 2005)

delcruos - Frankly, I don't think that such an obvious consideration (recoil forces of the cannons) could have escaped the engineers. And I don't think that even you believe that, "Beside of the fact that the recoilforces alone would render that plane out of control with a single shot,"

Unfortunately, we'll never know.

For further information on the XP-72:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

book1182 said:


> How about the He 177 with four engines instead for the two engine lay out. I know it was actually two engines combined but that caused a lot of fire problems.



They already did that. They designed and built the He-274 and the He-277.

*Heinkel He 274 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber 
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French
Engine:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
Originally designated He 177 A-4, the He 274 was a high-altitude development of the He 177. Like the He 277, the He 274 dispensed with coupled engines and mounted four single powerplants. While originally considered a version of the He 177, growing incompatability of parts led to the redesignation to He 274 and reassignment of the project to SAUF. French resistance workers conspired to slow down development of the He 274 so that the prototypes were not ready at the time of the German withdrawal in July 1944. The French took possession of the prototypes and redesignated them ASA 01A. The prototypes finally flew in December 1945 with French markings.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he274.html

*Heinkel He 277 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
An attempt by Heinkel to rectify the problems of the He 177 by mounting four single engines in place of the dual coupled engines, the He 277 was originally met with indifference by Goering. Heinkel was actually banned from developing this aircraft and secretly proceeded by designating it the He 177B. During a meeting with Hitler, Heinkel mentioned the aircraft as a solution to a specification Hitler was making. Hitler ordered the type into production, at which point it reclaimed it's legitimate name of He 277. Numerous prototypes were built but on July 3, 1944 production was halted as the German aviation industry focused on fighter production..
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he277.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Now for my developments I would have hurried up the development of the Ta-152 as well as the Ta-183 and the Me P.1011 having flown the last two in early 1944 (again this is only if I had been in charge).


----------



## Jank (Dec 16, 2005)

Fiat G.56.


----------



## Magister (Dec 16, 2005)

Fun with numbers:

Hispano II 20mm- each gun weighs 50kg
M4 37mm - each gun weighs 96kg

Weight of each projectile
Hispano II 20mm - 130gr (4.59oz)
M4 37mm - 680gr (23.99oz or 1.5lbs)

Rate of fire
Hispano II 20mm - 600rpm
M4 37mm - 140rpm

Muzzle Velocity
Hispano II 20mm - 880ms
M4 37mm - 580ms

Four Hispano II 20mm cannons spew 40 rounds per second 
Four M4 37mm cnnons spew 9.3 rounds a second

Total weight of spewage
Four Hispano II 20mm cannons spew 11.46 lbs of projectiles per second
Four M4 37mm cnnons spew 13.94 lbs of projectiles per second


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 17, 2005)

More fun with numbers;

Average distance between shots;

Hispano II 20mm- 22m
M4 37mm- 65m

Energy in joules at muzzle (Ball round);

Hispano II 20mm- 47168.48
M4 37mm- 116383.52 

Amount of High Explosive per round;

Hispano II 20mm- 10.2 g TNT
M4 37mm- 45.36g Tetryl

**Tetryl is 1.39 times more powerful than TNT.**

Potential chemical energy;

Hispano II 20mm - 27744
M4 37mm- 171497.088 



**PS the 37mm HE round is 608 grams, M/V is 608 m/sec which means 4 of them put out 12.45 lbs/sec  **


----------



## Magister (Dec 17, 2005)

Great information Jabberwocky.  Where does your data come from?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 17, 2005)

Mix of sources.

I have some of the USAAF and RAF armourers handbooks on my HD. Mostly for Hispano, M2 20mm and .303 Browning, but some other exerpts as well.

The information on energy comes from Rings excellent P.R.O documents web site.

Other general use web sites are Tony William's and Emmanual Gustin's excellent web-pages.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2005)

Jank said:


> Fiat G.56.



There were a couple of G.56 protoypes that flew but I hevent been able to find any performance figures, do you have any?

I'd have hurried Re.2006 development, that would have been one swell fighter.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 17, 2005)

For me, I think the He-277B-5 up there should've been massed produce for stragetic bombing in either Britain, or in Russia probably softening up Moscow or Stalingrad.

I think the Gloster Meteor IV should've been massed produced sooner and sent into the skies to dogfight the Me-262.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 17, 2005)

Funny?

Compare the recoilforces with each design. You will find out that an excess of 10% of the airframes weight was prevented.
Sample (roughly datas):
Fw-190 A 8
(4 MG 151 /20 and two MG 131/13):

Position:
engine/cog - none
engine cowling: two MG 131/13
wingroots: two MG 151/20
midwing: two MG 151/20
outer wing: none
muzzle vel.: MG 131: 750 m/sec.
MG 151/20: 790 m/sec.
projectile weight: 0.034 Kp (MG 131); 0.115 Kp (MG 151)
basic energy: MG 131: 25.5 Kg/m²; MG 151: 90.85 Kg/m²
Not included gaz effects (and position, since cog position is always more stable) that are around 414.4 Kg/m². The take of weight is about 4 tons. You may agree that it is in the 10% limit and the plane is heavily armed for it´s weight class. You may also compare it with Me-262, Yak-3, Ki-84, Spitfire, Tempest, whatever You want.

Now we deal a 6 ton´s plane with four 37 mm guns: 
position: mid wingprojectile weight: 0.68 Kg;
muzzle vel.: 580 m/s
basic energy: 394.4 Kp/m²(37mm)
That are 1577.6 Kp/m²! That is not only exceeding the 10% limit but also beeing nearly a quarter of the planes mass. Such heavy recoilforces would be impossible to deal with by using the wing only! You cannot simply fit any weapon you want on an airframe. For special pruposes, like interception sorties it is possible to exceed the limits for the costs of performances (but it remained unsuitable for the Fw-190 to refit it with MK-103 because of the heavy recoilforces in the mid wing position). !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2005)

I have to agree with Del on this - I knew guys who helped design the A-10 and that was a problem faced with it's gun.

I know everyone's see gun camera footage, sometimes you see the camera shake as the guns are being fired. I've heard from 2 former fighter pilots (they flew P-51s and F-86s) that when the guns are fired, everything shakes. An old friend of mine who flew in Korea told me that when he went to gunnery training it took him a long time to get used to the airframe shaking as the guns were fired, he said he could barely aim. I've recently read the same thing about guys flying P-39s and firing the cannon, one of them stated he could swear the plane moved backwards!! (an exaggeration of course)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2005)

My uncle once told me that the B-25H 75mm cannon model would not only lose substantial speed when the gun was fired, but sometimes it took as little as 18 missions before a plane might have to be sent back to have a substantial number of rivets/components tightened or replaced.

I've read numerous accounts of inop guns on one side causing a significant slew to the aircraft when the good guns are fired. Even 1 .50 made a considerable difference even in a Thunderbolt.

Recoil is a substantial consideration when mounting a gun on an aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## Smokey (Dec 17, 2005)

The Heinkel He 178 and Gloster E28/39 are intruging.
Scale them up ( longer, wider fuselages for more fuel, add droptanks for acceptable range and larger wing area, nosewheel for the Heinkel/Ohain and teardrop canopies), the P 80 showed that straight laminar flow wings were acceptable in 1945 et voila!
The Heinkel/Ohain could have used BMW jets in 1943 or 1942! The Whittle could have used rolls royce jets in 1943 1944!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 17, 2005)

Oh yeah! I think America should've been able to have the F-80s ready for combat by 1944. The Germans would've have had a challenge with the Shooting Star!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 17, 2005)

I think we had that discussion already in another forum.


----------



## Magister (Dec 18, 2005)

This is sort of a side question. What do those yellow boxes you guys have under your names signify?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2005)

Badges of honour.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2005)

looks like hussars picked up his second last night!

and remember p-38, if you rush a plane into service insted of developing it further it's gonna be a desaster, a P-80 in service in '44 would be nothing like the P-80 in '45...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

What did you get another yellow card for Hussars?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2005)

Maybe he likes yellow


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2005)

Les gave it to him in the Iranian President thread. 

Anyway I would develop the Whirlwind more as well as the MB-5. It would of been interesting to see some of the flying wings that were being designed seeing some service, like the Horten Go 229 for Germany and the flying pancake for the USA. Further development into the early jets I would of done as well to get them in service earlier than they were. Some of the developments to the Spitfire (I think it was Jabberwocky) mentioned I would of done as well, to create a more capable aircraft. The are probably others but I will need to look around and find some more things I think could of done with further development.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2005)

How about the B-35 and Later the B-49. If the war would of laster a few more years I'm sure these would of been further developed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Agreed Gnomey, I would have loved to have seen the Ho-229 and the Flying Pancake see some service. That would have been almost futuristic like.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What did you get another yellow card for Hussars?



Well lets just say that
I say things the way I see them and some people here dont like that. But its no big deal Im used to it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Well think about how you say things next time.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 18, 2005)

Les makes it so hard sometimes, I have nothing against him personaly but sometimes he has a bad attitude.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 19, 2005)

The He-178 had some drawbacks. 
First of all, there was no reliable jet engine in 1939. It was powered by a HeS03A (later B) radial jet engine, had a very long air intake and a long exhaustpipe, too. (same Problem with Gloster E28/39)
Second, it wasn´t easy to scale up these planes. In this case the intakes and exhaust would be even longer, thus producing a significant drop in the already reduced thrust performance of the engines (again problem for both planes). The use of axial engines could offset some of the difficulties (the engine design is longer, reducing the length of the intake pipe) but what do You think could they take? The BMW-003 wasn´t reliable prior to mid 1944, except for a very few BMW-003A0, it eventually reached maturity in early 1945. The Jumo-004, while beeing avaiable in 1943 (oo4A) was heavier, later 004B engines suffered badly from unreliebility up to early 1944.
Heinkel would take the He-S06 or He-S08 for this task. They were avaiable in 1942/43 and reached a high degree of reliability. But then again, RLM decided to cancel Heinkels jet engines (He-S08) as well as his jetfighter ideas (He-178 and He-280).
I cannot say what difficulties Gloster would face, but I expect it would be somehow comparable. The E28/39 has the advantage of a nose wheel and it probably would be easier to convert it into a useful fighter. Keep in mind that the UK jet engines in 43 and 44 were far away from beeing reliable. The Rolls Royce Nene was to big for this small airframe, an excellent solution would be the Ghost I engine, I think.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 20, 2005)

if i had a fighter from '39 onwards, i'd get the heinkel he100 and put a normal radiator. then i'd put 2 mg131s or mg151s on it, no bombs, bombs will look too silly on such a plane.


----------



## R988 (Dec 20, 2005)

The Sukhoi Su-6 would have been an interesting alternative to the Il-2 for the Soviets early in the war. Pity they never had enough of those M71 radial engines.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/museum/su6/

Su-9 would have been an interesting late war jet for the Ruskies as well if we are getting into late war 'what if they got it done sooner' stuff.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/museum/su9_11_13/


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> if i had a fighter from '39 onwards, i'd get the heinkel he100 and put a normal radiator. then i'd put 2 mg131s or mg151s on it, no bombs, bombs will look too silly on such a plane.



When it comes to fighting a war, who cares what it looks like, it only really matters how well it fights and that it gets the job done.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 21, 2005)

Yeah i dont remember any battles being decided by a beauty contest haha. Many ugly aircraft got the job done. 

If i could change an aircraft, i would have made the messerschmitt-110 a fighter bomber and interceptor from the very beginning of the war, with provisions for a bigger drop tank and bombload, and reduction of the crew from three to two, and even in some cases, in the interceptor role, down to one. Using the extra weight saved to add more armor, increase speed, or add additional internal fuel. Shortening that long, glazed cockpit could have been an option, and an armament in the nose of three 20mm and two 7.92mm machine guns.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 21, 2005)

The thing is that by '45 the Prop as a propulsive force had reached its limit. Improvements would only come by narrowing or eliminating other abilities for instance the P-47N was a fast long range high altitude fighter but its single engine had to carry more fuel, 1,165 for a range of 2,300mi than the P-38 with two engines which could fly 2,600mi on 1,030 gallons, not to mention the P-38 could carry 5,600lbs external ordanance (not at the same time) to the Ns 2,500lbs and to do that the N required a reduction of ammo from 500rpg to 267rpg.

If it wasn't a jet, it wasn't worth following/upgrading after '45 at least for fighters.

Ammo to had reached its limits to, anything under a .50 was obsolete after '45 (really by '43) and anything less than a 20mm was obsolete after speeds passed 550mhp, in either aircraft. After reaching 550mph the chances of multipule rounds hitting the target aircraft was diminished to the point that each round had to be able to cause effective damage by themselves.

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 21, 2005)

Well, you always have turbo-props. The Brits put a pair on a Mosquito in 1945.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2005)

wmaxt, don't forget about naval aviation, by it's nature it was behind land based developments, and prop driven fighters were still rquired into the 50s in some cases.............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 25, 2005)

longer take-off run 4 swept-wing jets, u will need alot of RATOs if u dont have anything powerful enough, and a ship full of fuel near u, ok i get it


----------



## Dogwalker (Dec 25, 2005)

I would have seen a SS4 equipped with the Isotta fraschini "Zeta" engine. With the armament of two 20 mm and one 30 mm guns it would have been a real problem for bombers in the first half of the war (in the second half, furter developement of the engine wuld be required).

Another plane that would have deserved a chance was the MIG I-211





Capable of 670 Km/h of speed at 7100 m, and to climb at 5000 m in 4' in the early 1943.
There were studies to install a Pratt&Whitney R-2800-63 engine with a General Electric S-23 turbocompressor in it in 1944. With them the aircraft would have probably reached 740 km/h at 10,000 m altitude, and a ceiling of 14,500 m. 
On April 1944 the project was presented to NKAP, but it never turned into a prototype.

DogW


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> wmaxt, don't forget about naval aviation, by it's nature it was behind land based developments, and prop driven fighters were still rquired into the 50s in some cases.............



Thats true to some extent, until the Brits came up with the steam catapult and angled deck (perfected by the US. Together the British and Americans are formidable), jets were very unhappy on carriers. The main thing is that after the Me-262 (second generation jets, or any jet that could fly 540mph or faster) prop fighters were obsolete they just couldn't meet the real jets anymore on a 1:1 basis.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2005)

i assume you're counting the MiG-15 as a first generation jet because sea furies proved they could tangle with them, as i'm sure the bearcat could too, i'd rate the hornets chances too but i would rather be in sea fury...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

The first generation of Jets were vulnerable to an extent from piston engine fighters, mostly take off and landing only however.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i assume you're counting the MiG-15 as a first generation jet because sea furies proved they could tangle with them, as i'm sure the bearcat could too, i'd rate the hornets chances too but i would rather be in sea fury...........



No, I think its second generation, a F-15 is vulnerable to a P-51 if its going 350mph. The fact that the mig, being flown by inexperianced Chinese pilots got hit by planes like the Corsair, and Sea Fury is an aberation not difinitive. If he keeps his speed high the piston pland isn't a real threat. That no Chinese/Korean piston fighters hit our jets is both the quality of their piston fighters and the training of our pilot who already knew, you fly at your planes best advantages not his.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

Agreed the Mig-15 along with the Sabre were 2nd Generation Jets. The Me-262, P-80, Meteor, etc. are all 1st Generation.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2005)

Yes. 
Criteria should be the considerable wing sweep of second generation jet fighters (Mig-15, F-86, Mig-17), while first generation ones do not have (Meteor, P80, He-162A) or have no considerable wing sweep (Me-262, Me-163).
It was the F-84, which demonstrated this: The first types did not have while the later ones introduced them and really made them a second generation jet.
First true second generation jet: Ju-287 V2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2005)

The Ta-183 and the Me P.1011 had quite a considerable wing swing had they actually flown.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2005)

My feeling is that first generation jets are 

1. Straight wing
2. Operate within the flight envelope of piston fighters
3. basicaly a piston design with mods 
4. Not totaly reliable

The best example of a first gen jet is the P-59.

As I think about it Second generation jet fighters should include any aircraft that

1. Exceeds the Piston engined aircraft flight envelope (540mph)
2. Designed as a jet fighter from the start
3. not able to go supersonic

Planes in this grouping include
Me-262
P-80
F-94
F9f Panther
Mig 15

Third Generation can exceed the Speed of sound (if so desired bassed on mission)
F-86 Sabre
Lightning
F-100 - 106
Hawker Hunter
F-4

Fourth Generation
F-15 The F-15 is actualy the last of the conventional control aircraft so could be, on that point considered 3rd gen.
F-16
F-18
Jaguar

Fifth Generation
F-22 Rapter
Rafael
F-35

I have no idea where to place aircraft like the Harrier and the SR-71.

Thats how I think of the divisions. Opinions, what have I left out or placed wrong? This was a quick list, examples only, omissions were not intentional.

wmaxt


----------



## book1182 (Dec 29, 2005)

How about the B-32??? It was built to contend with the B-29 but ran into problems while being developed. Mostly in the gun turrents and the pressurization of the aircraft. I think if this bomber could have been right up there with the B-29's in the Korean War. But like all things it was out of date by the end of the war. Like said above the only thing worth developing farther would have been the jets coming into service at the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> My feeling is that first generation jets are
> 
> 1. Straight wing
> 2. Operate within the flight envelope of piston fighters
> ...



Agree except for the P-80, and Me-262 - neither were initially reliable (I'd take a P-80 over a -262 any day), the -262 got a swept back wing as a result of some very creative engineering foresight, I'd place them as first generation. Don't forget the Vampire, Meteor, FJ-1, FH-1, all first generation jets..

Keep in mind the F-86 was actually first flown on October 1, 1947, the Mig 15s first flight was December 30, 1947. I consider them Second generation.

For the SR and harrier, you need to put them between your 3rd and 4th. Also in there shouod be the Mirage, Drakken, and Mig-25, we need six generations!


----------



## delcyros (Dec 30, 2005)

I cannot agree more with you. The Me-262 was designed in 1938-39 (ariframe and fuselage) and furtherly in 1942 (nose wheel, wing sweep of the mid wing section). The wing sweep happened accidently, not intentionally. This makes it a first gen. jetfighter.
The performance of jet/piston engined planes has little to do with "Generations". More important are the design specifications: 
Because of a higher crit Mach figure it simply became necessary to sweep the wings. And this was an important design figure. All jet nations made the same step: sweep the wings.
(For example: Sweden got german documentation of wind tunnel results which led to their Saab - J 9 Tunnan)
The Luftwaffe wanted a successor of the first generation jet Me-262 on the base of a higher wing sweep: Me-262 HG-II/III/ Ta-183/Ju-EF128 because of the higher crit Mach figure)
The soviets did it as well.
And you know about the US designs.
The Vampire / Meteor are strictly 1st gen jets.
3rd gen jets are in my view jets with a more modern aerodynamic layout, which makes them able to easily break the sound barrier (Saab J- Draken/F-100/F-106, MiG-21), for example the deltawing. The F-86, while beeing able to exceed Mach-1 in a dive, is strictly 2nd gen. It´s original design was straight wing but then it was wisely changed into swept back. 
The ability to temporarly exceed Mach 1 is neglectable. The La-15 could do so, even the Me-262 seems to be able to accidently exceed Mach-1 in a dive (at least in case of G.Mutke and US pilots who tested in in post war times), so we have to exclude this.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 30, 2005)

Your points are valid, though I still feel the jump in performance due to design as a jet as the defining factor in secong gen jet fighters. The reliability issue is valid but is an expected result of the first aircraft taking things a notch further. Remember to, part of the reason the 262 was unreliable was the limited availability of the proper alloys which would have made a great difference.

The Me-262, P-80 and Mig-15 never exceeded the speed of sound. One of the things discovered in the X-1 flights is that the turbulance at mach.96 and above made the shock wave on the stabilizer render the elevator useless. Without elevator control the aircraft becomes unstable and comes apart. The full flying stablizer/elevator allows control in the transonic regime allowing supersonic flight. This is another step in the design of jet fighters which the F-86 had and why I belive it is third gen.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Ill agree with FBJ and I would classify the Mig-15 and the Sabre into the 2nd Generation with the WW2 jets all being 1st Generation.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ill agree with FBJ and I would classify the Mig-15 and the Sabre into the 2nd Generation with the WW2 jets all being 1st Generation.



I respect your thoughts, I just don't think its that simple.

I don't think it would be a fair fight for a Meteor against a Me-262 or a P-80, either aircraft has the advantages outside the flight envelope of the Meteor and could pick a fight or run away from one. The speed difference (60mph+) alone is enough to put them into a different catagory, which didn't change again until supersonic flight came into the picture.

The Mig is second generation but the Sabre had a flying tail and could go supersonic placing it in the third gen.

I chose to move them up because they each showed an inovation or performance envelope signifigantly better that the aircraft that it was a contemporary to.

Why do you dissagree, anything specific? 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Yes but lets put it this way, Mirage 2000 is no match for the F-16 but they are still the same generation of Jets. You can not place the Meteor as a different generation of Jet because it was not as good as a Me-262 or P-80. They are still first generation jets. It is just like you said the Volks Jaeger was a 1st Generation and the 262 was a 2nd Generation. The 262 was in development and service before the Salamander.

Thats just my opinion on it.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2006)

While not officially recorded, there are valid informations underlining that Me-262 could and accidently did reach Mach 1.
(Nasa still denies but I can refer on the most recent french, italian and australien lexika)
As you correctly said, the plane will loose (in case of Me-262 A at Mach 0.86 latest) controll but this wouldn´t prevent further acceleration. From this point on, the plane enters a "terminal" dive, which cannot be evaded simply by pulling back the stick but the plane is still going faster and faster.
(ww2 records show a lot of cases like this)
Evident for reaching Mach 1.00 or even a little more is that you will REGAIN controll once you exceed the speed of sound (in case of Me-262A). This is reported by Mutke as well (and this makes me feel he is right and not just a claim) as by US test pilots (it is printed in the pilots notes of the plane[1946]:
"(...), once the speed of sound is exceeded, you regain controll.")
However, this is only temporarly and we have to point out that the Me-262 wasn´t designed to do so (Mutke´s plane was severly damaged) and I can recall that the F-86, while beeing able to do so, wasn´t designed for this as well.It wasn´t good for the ones, who whisched to take the stairs in their carreer to do so"
No. The ability to reach Mach 1 in controlled, level flight is the point, when jet fighters can be classified with 3rd gen planes. This excludes the F-86.
3rd gen fighters often have a lousy low speed handling and a tricky maneuverability (Mirage for example), while 4th gen fighters (F-14,F-15, MiG 29, Su-27) all have a good handling and overall better performance due to introduction of fly by wire and improved computer tech. The recent 5th gen fighters (F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen) introduce some stealthyness and information superiority, while the next 6th generation jets will either see some minaturization due to removal of pilot´s or improved high altitude performance, including the ability to temporarly reach sub orbits (good against sattelites!).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

delcyros said:


> While not officially recorded, there are valid informations underlining that Me-262 could and accidently did reach Mach 1.



Its still a 1st Gen.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but lets put it this way, Mirage 2000 is no match for the F-16 but they are still the same generation of Jets. You can not place the Meteor as a different generation of Jet because it was not as good as a Me-262 or P-80. They are still first generation jets. It is just like you said the Volks Jaeger was a 1st Generation and the 262 was a 2nd Generation. The 262 was in development and service before the Salamander.
> 
> Thats just my opinion on it.



Your opinion is fine, we just draw the line diffrently.

Its not uncomon for the first of the next generation of anything to over lap the older gen esp in a field still experiancing the fundamentals.

Del, if you have sources please name them so I can follow up on the research. I'm willing to be reducated but the info I have at this time is as follows. From Adolf Galland who himself stated the Me-262 could not break the sound barrier to as you put it NASA, state the following:
The Me-262 did not have the capability to go faster than sound. The Mig-15 could not go faster than .92/.94 mach and the Mig-15 was faster than the 262 ever was. The Mig pilot warned Yeager and the other test pilot not to try it. Yeager did, once, and barely recovered. The first plane to actually go faster than sound was a F-86, in a dive, a couple of months before the X-1 in level flight. The airspeed instruments used prior to mach meters could indicate 740+mph going as slowly as 600mph depending on conditions often giving pilots the mistaken idea that they had broken the sound barrier. Secondly no aircraft with a two piect horizontal tail made it through the transonic region - not even the X-1 could go faster than .94 mach without a flying stabilizer to maintain pitch control.

As for the F-86, It was the first of the third gen fighters is my opinion, or at least a crossover. A number of jets like the F-104 and F-100 often used a shallow dive or sharp turn to break through mach easier (I watched this hundreds of times at Edwards AFB) it doesn't change their status as Third Gen. 

Guys there has to be a first, and that first plane of the new gen is not always a clear jump, just a new capability the others don't have. The Me-262 and P-80 are fully configured as jets with a significant jump in performance. The F-86 the first plane with the ability to cross the barrier in controled flight. To me, those distinguising features signify a new generation.

wmaxt


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2006)

I can understand your argument very well, wmaxt. If you draw the line at controlled flight, wether it is level or dive, than it may seem convincing. I just don´t agree with this border.
The La-15 had no free flying stabilizors and reached Mach-1. I have an article (Jet&Prop, will check out the details soon) covering the ability wether or not the Me-262 reached accidently Mach 1. Galland as well as all Luftwaffe pilots were ordered strictly to stay in subsonic because of structural concernings. Indeed Messerschmidt tried to close slowly to the speed of sound, this makes structural concerns severe. However, accidently a full speed dive (controlls lost) may enshorten the difficult speed zone and therefor the plane could reach Mach 1. The Mig-15 had problems with comparably thick wings (unlike the La-15 and Me-262), because the wheels were retracted into them as well as fuel tanks. The La-15 hadn´t. The F-86 already had the same thickness of the wing alike the 262, just the wingsweep was higher. However, a higher wingsweep doesn´t offset the drag problem, it only shift´s it to higher speeds (around Mach 1.3 at 40 degrees), so if you have enough power, you could do so.
My ideas would include the following:
1. gen jet fighters:

He-178
Gloster E28/39
He-280
Bell P 59
Gloster Meteor
Me-262
Lockheed P-80
He-162
Vampire
Republic P-84 (straight wings)
MiG-9
La-150
Yak-13

2. gen fighters:
(Me-262 HG II) -[completed, damaged by taxiing late in march 45]
La-15
F-86
Republic F-84 (swept back wings)
Saab-J-9 Tunnan
Pulqui-II
Mig-15
Mig-17
Mig-19 (questioonable)

3. gen fighters:
F-100
F-104
F-105
F-106
Mirage
Hawker Hunter
Saab-J 31 DrakenMig-21
Mig-23
Mig-25
Behind each gen. stands a new aerodynamical concept. this puts La-15, Mig-15 and F-86 into the same gen(second), as well as Me-262 and P-80 (first).


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

I would find it hard to disagree with this list. In a debate such as this asn with technology improving at an ever increasing rate grey areas will always exist.
The only change that I would make is to make the Mig 19 a Third Generation jet. Its timing, performance and combat ability would make it more similar to a Hunter and F100 than the purely subsonic Second Generation machines.
Harrier I would make third Generation and the SR71 I would leave out all together. it exotic, special and has nothing even remotely close to it exists anywhere else on the planet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

Agree with both of U!!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 2, 2006)

This excellent article divides the various generations of jet fighter technology up nicely IMHO
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/articles/oct_05/gap/index.html


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2006)

But, where does the Lightning go, del? Since it had several points that were considered revolutionary (Super-cruise, shockcone, ABS [albeit mechanical], all-flying tailplane) Man, it's just every generation rolled into one.  

No, I'd say there was just a Lightning generation that just has the Lightning in it.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 3, 2006)

I would put the Lighting into 3rd gen jets. It could easily reach multiple Mach and therefor is qualified. Unlike 4th gen jets it has shortcomings in low speed handling. The MiG-19, indeed, is questionable. If you put it into 3rd generation as well, I could understand. It has performances to do and it also reached Mach 1+. However, my point was that the design in general is heavily based on the earlier MiG-17. It just has a stretched airframe, even more wingsweep (which furtherly increases the crit drag zone to about Mach 1.48 at 60 degrees) and more power. The true solution of supersonic flight wasn´t reached with this plane, it was just the extreme version of second gen (delaying drag by sweeping the wings) jets (just my mind). The next step was introduction of new aerodynamic supersonic concepts, like deltawing(F-106), very high wingload by F-104 like "wingys" or variable wing geometry (Mig-23). However, Mig-19 remains in the grey zone, no doubt.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 3, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> This excellent article divides the various generations of jet fighter technology up nicely IMHO
> http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/articles/oct_05/gap/index.html



It's a good breakdown, the only things we dissagree on are three planes in the grey area or perhaps crossover aircraft. Not a big deal!

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

Agree!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 3, 2006)

Ok, a slightly different one: The Manchester.

Fit a pair of Hercules XIIs or (later) XVIIs to replace the Vulture X's. Keep the Mk. IA configuration (no central tail unit, enlarged twin tail surfaces, 'dustbin' ventral turret deleted), add better front and rear turrets (say 2 .50cal Brownings in each), fit a retraction mechanism for the rear tyre, swap the standard dorsal turret for a lower profile unit (maybe a Boulton-Paul type?)

All of a sudden you have a much more capable medium bomber. Higher cruising speed, better reliability and, more importantly, something more capable than the Wellington to fill out the numbers until the 4 engined heavies arrive. The Manchester IA could get a 8,000 lbs bomb load up to 15,000 feet, even with the Vultures derated to ~1500 hp. Its bomb-bay was large enought to carry 4000 lb blockbusters or torpeedos.

With 1650 hp Hercules the Manchester could of been one of the great medium bombers of the war. As it was, with Vultures, it was just the inspiration for the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2006)

that's an interesting concept, i doubt the RAF would've seen the use in going through with it, Roy Chadwick started designing a then un-named 4 engined version of the manchester before the manchester even entered service, they knew they needed a 4 engined bomber, the wellington was sufficient to do the job untill the new 4 engined bomber came into service, but your idea is interesting.............


----------



## MacArther (Jan 4, 2006)

P-39, give it a new engine with turbocharger, and work on the manueverability.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I personally would not develop that one any further. I dont like sitting on a drive shaft. Not that I ever have but would not like it.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 9, 2006)

T__T, does everyone pretty much hate the layout of the P39? I know Der, doesnt like it, but is it a universal hate? I think it was revolutionary, and if given a super charger and better manuvering flaps (am i right?), it could have made mincemeat out of anything that went near it.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 9, 2006)

I think that of P39 was basically a good idea, and the plane was nice-looking too. It could have been developed better.

DogW


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

Crash landing in one was much more dangerous than most. I don't like the idea of having an engine behind me, and the propellor shaft below me. A force of impact could easily send the engine flying forward to crush you, or the propellor shaft could fly up and slice you in two.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 9, 2006)

Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Bell designers were not simply fools.

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

I agree that bell designers were not fools, but I personally dont think the design could be much more developed than it was. The P-63 was good improvement of the P-39 and yet was not a match for the Bf-109 and Fw-190.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 9, 2006)

Soviets used P63 as a ground-attack aircraft, in this role it was probably better than both Bf-109 and Fw-190, with the effective possibility of chasing them if properly used.
Even in the task of destroying bombers, a P-63 is probably far more effective than a P51.

DogW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2006)

since when was the P-51 used as a bomber destroyer? and the Fw-190 was one of the premier single engined ground attack platforms of the war.............


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> since when was the P-51 used as a bomber destroyer?


Never. Every plane has his task. This is what I mean.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the Fw-190 was one of the premier single engined ground attack platforms of the war.............


In the dedicated versions "F" and "G" wing armament was sacrificed for two hardpoints, and extra armor was added to "F" model.
I don't think that, with theese modifications (Maximum speed: 634 km/h; Service ceiling: 10,600 m) the Fw-190F was still so effective as fighter, and surely it had a little less firepower than P63 as ground-attacker.

However, I never said that P39 or P63 were the best chaser, or ground attack platforms of the war (they had several problems, especially in handling), but only that P39 was basically a good idea, and that it could have been developed better.

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

I disagree the Fw-190 was a better ground attack aircraft in all respects to the P-63. It had better performance and armament. Plus once it drops its bombs it can go up and shoot down all the P-63s it wants by outlflying them.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 11, 2006)

A ground-attack aircraft is not only a chaser that can occasionally be used to drop some bombs.
Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly (we can talk about the visibility from the cockpit however. Not a secondary thing when you have to hit a target below you), similar to that of the armoured Il-2 (to have to absorb a lot of damage is normal when you fly over enemy lines). No FW-190's version, apart the "F", can do that, and the "F" had no better flyng charateristic or armanent in respect of P63, on the contrary, it was slower and less armed.
However, it can be that all the ground-attack work could be done better from the existing versions, and Focke Wulf designers were fools when they prepared the "F" as ground-attacker.

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly
> DogW



So could the Il-2 but it would not win a fight with a Fw-190 and the P-63 would stand a better chance but it is still outlcassed by the 190.

Lets compare the Fw-190A/F since the F was just a A model built for ground attack to the P-63.

*Fw-190F-8*

Max Speed: 416 mph
Range (Maximum Fuel): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Endurance:
2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)

Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 wing mounted cannon.
Two 13mm Mg 131 fuselage mounted machine guns.
Up to 2,205 lb, generally consisting of:
1 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) bomb centerline
2 × 551 lb (SC-250) bombs or 8 × 110 lb (SC-50) bombs under wings
plus Rockets

*P-63*

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 408 mph
Cruising Speed: 280 mph
Service Ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Range: 450 miles

Armament:
One 37mm cannon
Four .50 machine guns
Up to 1,500 lb on 3 hardpoints. Typical load-out would be either 3 × 500 lb bombs, or 1 × 500 lb bomb plus rockets

So lets see the Fw-190 wins in performance except for cieling and we are talking about ground attack here so they would be at low level. The Fw-190 also wins on bomb load and I would say the P-63 wins on cannon armament. 

Overal the Fw-190 was the better aircraft. Oh and lets not forget about sitting on a damn drive shaft in the P-63, that is unsafe and would hurt!


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 12, 2006)

I knew F8 entred in service only on april 1944. Moreover You posted the speed record of the original A8 series (a lot of sources report that the maximum speed for A8 was 408 Mph however). The enhanced armour of F8, logically, affect speed as all the others fliyng charateristic. To my sources, it's max speed was of 635 Km/h (394 mph)
Moreover, to expect that the overweighted F8 has the same handling of the A8 is not logical. American test pilot instead, speak favourably of the maneuverability of P63 even compared with P51 (of course, P63 was not superior), and only the soviet test pilots reported the orizontal spin problems (but they like the plane). So, for me, in an air combat between P63 and FW 190F-8, the advantage goes to P63, with other advantages, in the ground-attack role,coming from the enanced view of the pilot (it's strange to see, that the aircraft that could carry the larger payload, had the worse ground view). 
However, this is only a teorical debate. Only 385 F8 were built, and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union. In a such dispersive war teatre, they were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics.
Finally, the only fact that we can debate of wich of them was superior, demonstrate that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Okay even if the speed of the F-8 was only 394 with the MW50 boost it would have put it higher for shorter periods of time. 

As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations. 

Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)

As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.

Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?

 *Fw-190 over P-63 all the way, every day!*


----------



## MacArther (Jan 12, 2006)

The US never used the P63 because by the time it came around there were fighter bombers that had taken its job. It would be a logistical nightmare to reequip almost every US ground attack squadron with the new plane. Still, this does not mean that the P63 had worse perfomance than its fellow American aircraft. Also, as to the german nitro boost, one has to question how effective it would be at low altitude, as well as how damaging to the engine it would be at lower altitude. This stems from the fact that the engine has to work harder at lower altitudes, so boosting it is going to cause quite a bit of wear and tear.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

That sort of goes with my point though, there were aircraft out there already better than the P-63. The Fw-190 was an equal to those planes or better than some, which makes it better than the P-63.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 12, 2006)

Never said they were better (if I did, my bad). What I said was that the US didn't want to reequip all of their fighter bomber squadrons and possibly drag out the duration of the war in the mean time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

No my post was not really directed at you, sorry if it came out that way.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 12, 2006)

oh, my bad


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay even if the speed of the F-8 was only 394 with the MW50 boost it would have put it higher for shorter periods of time.


P63 had the water injection booster from the "C" series (the major part of P63s were "C").



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations.


I said that they compared P63 with P51, not with a foreign aircraft, moreover, even Soviets like it. All incompetents except you?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)


Read what I wrote please. I never said that the fact that only Only 385 F8 were built, prove that they were inferior, but that the fact that only 385 F8 were built and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union means that they (both) were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics. How many air batle between the two fighter do you believe there were been in the russian front?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.


For the pilots: I repeat, soviet pilots like P63 and P39, and they knew front engined fighters too. 
For the manteinance: this is a picture of a P39 without the engine cowling. 





Do it seems to you impossible or too difficult to mantain the engine? It is inaccessible? Mechanics prefer to work standing on a stair than standing on the wings? I never heard that complain before. On the other hand, is much more easy to work on the front guns, if there isn't an engine too.
Sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?


Why the Luftwaffe used FW-190F pratically only in the eastern front? Cause the requirements in the western europe and in the russian front were different. US needs an escort fighter more than a ground attack aircraft, and, in that role, P51 and P47 were better suited and they fly first than P63, so it was much less expensive to continue to develop them. For the secondary ground attack role, it was much less expensive to adapt the existing planes (think of the spare parts only). Even economic considerations can shorten a war.

However I have not to demonstrate that P63 was the best fighter, or even the best alled fighter of the war. I never said this. I only said, one more time, that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.
> ...



I have to say as an aircraft maintainer and having the opportunity to see a P-39 up close, I think it would of been a real pain to work on. I've changed large recips and I rather have the engine out on an extended engine mount than within a confined "cavern." Bell did provide a lot of access around the engine and cockpit, but I could see engine changes being a real nightmare when compared to more conventional aircraft. Below is a site from a WW2 maintainer who stated you couldn't change a P-39 engine in one day!

Below is a P-51 engine change in Sweeden


http://www.cebudanderson.com/viewfromtheline.htm

As a pilot, the engine being behind me scares me more than the drive shaft between my legs. I flew in a Vary Eazy once and actually thought about flying in a P-39 while sitting in the Vary Eazy cockpit, it made me wonder what happens in a crash!!! As we spoke about this before, the P-39 also had 2 center of gravity requirements that had to be maintained and the CG window was real tight. Bell did this to achieve maximum maneuverability, in essence it made the aircraft somewhat unstable.

I think the P-63 was too little too late. Had the -63 been on the street 2 years earlier I think history would of been written different.

A side note, Chuck Yeager stated the P-39 was the best aircraft he's ever flown....


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 12, 2006)

Thanks for the site. I have to agree with experts  
For the pilot's point of view I have someting more to say.
Given that there were some type of crash landing that IS letal with a rear engine and IS NOT letal with a front engine (I don't know how many frequently it can appen, since a safe crash-landing whit a 4 tons WW2 aircraft is not a simple thing to do, wherever is the engine). From how many WW2 fighters simply were difficult to bail out? How many requires the use of two hands to open the canopy? How many requires that the pilot "climb out" from the cockpit? These are simple things to do for a wounded pilot? Then, how many WW2 pilots were killed from the bad design of their cockpits instead than the position of the engine? And why we refer to the dangerousness of the rear engine when we compare P39 and P63 with any other aircraft (and this is wright, of course), since, in any other comparation I had read here, what can appen to the pilot shot down has pratically no importance?
I think is only cause the design of these two aircraft is unusual, so we tend to wiew more the defects they have, compared to the planes we are used to, and we don't see de defects of the usual design, cause we are used to them.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Thanks for the site. I have to agree with experts
> For the pilot's point of view I have someting more to say.
> Given that there were some type of crash landing that IS letal with a rear engine and IS NOT letal with a front engine (I don't know how many frequently it can appen, since a safe crash-landing whit a 4 tons WW2 aircraft is not a simple thing to do, wherever is the engine). From how many WW2 fighters simply were difficult to bail out? How many requires the use of two hands to open the canopy? How many requires that the pilot "climb out" from the cockpit? These are simple things to do for a wounded pilot? Then, how many WW2 pilots were killed from the bad design of their cockpits instead than the position of the engine? And why we refer to the dangerousness of the rear engine when we compare P39 and P63 with any other aircraft (and this is wright, of course), since, in any other comparation I had read here, what can appen to the pilot shot down has pratically no importance?
> I think is only cause the design of these two aircraft is unusual, so we tend to wiew more the defects they have, compared to the planes we are used to, and we don't see de defects of the usual design, cause we are used to them.
> ...



In my view, I think it has something to do with that big chunk of metal behind me, rotating at 2500 rpm and buring gasoline, I think I'd rather see it in front of me rather than behind me....

Then again, you have the situation of say bailing out of a P-38 and hitting the tail and riding a P-39 to the ground. If I had a choice between that and crashing in a P-39, well I guess I'll try not to hit the tail!


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 13, 2006)

But, altough to hit the tail of an aircraft bailing out, is a possibility with any WW2 fighter (P-38 is a special case), bailing out was, nearly always, the first choice of a pilot of an aircraft too damaged to fly, so, the possibility of doing it easy (for a wouded pilot also) had at least the same importance of the position of the engine.
The choice is not of bailing out of a P-38 and hitting the tail compared with riding a P-39 to the ground, cause you hav the possibility to bail out of P39 too, but:
1) bailing out of a P39 compared with bailing out of anoter fighter (P38, Bf109, FW190...)
2) riding a P39 to the ground compared with riding anoter fighter to the ground
With the second situation having much less possibility to happen.

Secondary, in case of engine fire, or big losses of oil, i think is better to have it behind me rather than in front of me. No danger that flames, oil, smoke or steam, can blind me.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

To me jumping out of a P-39 would be like jumping out of a car, I'm not sure of the benifits, I think it might be easier to ergress from if wounded.




Dogwalker said:


> Secondary, in case of engine fire, or big losses of oil, i think is better to have it behind me rather than in front of me. No danger that flames, oil, smoke or steam, can blind me.
> 
> DogW


On that point I agree...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2006)

The P-38 was not a big deal if you slide off the wing you will miss the stabilizer by 5-6'. The stabilizer in a P-38 is at the same level in relation to the cocpit as a P-51, P-47, or any other fighter of the war with 1 major difference the distance between the cockpit to the tail in almost all WWII single engine fighters was several feet shorter than the P-38s (this is also why the P-38 has smaller tails than normal there on a longer arm)
The only time it was an issue was 
a. in a compressability dive
b. nose up stall
c. radical maneuver 
The same conditions that caused high fatality rate in the other fighters. Hitting the tail was very rare in a 38 and certainly no more often than any other fighter, its just a rumor.

The P-39 had a door was that jetonsable?

wmaxt


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 13, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The P-39 had a door was that jetonsable?


I think not. It could be safer to do a simple modification, a counter-wind opening door.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The P-39 had a door was that jetonsable?
> ...



How about the engine being jettisonable?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2006)

> The P-38 was not a big deal if you slide off the wing you will miss the stabilizer by 5-6'



if you're bailing out chances are your bird's diving towards earth, proberly approaching 400mph if not more (assuming you were hit in combat), doesn't that sound A LOT easier than it actually is


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> All incompetents except you?



First of all I am not incompetent. I would not work on helicopters for the last 5 years and keep my job if I was.





Dogwalker said:


> Do it seems to you impossible or too difficult to mantain the engine? It is inaccessible? Mechanics prefer to work standing on a stair than standing on the wings? I never heard that complain before. On the other hand, is much more easy to work on the front guns, if there isn't an engine too.



I never said it was impossible, how about you read my post again, since you keep telling me to reread yours. I said it would be more difficult. How do I know? I am an aircraft mechanic.



Dogwalker said:


> Sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better.



Yes it would suck to sitt on I drive shaft. Have you ever felt the vibrations that come off of them? I have I fly a helicopter that has 2 of them and they go right over my head. Feeling them there, I would not want to sit on them.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dogwalker said:
> 
> 
> > All incompetents except you?
> ...


Have I ever said that You are? I think that, strange to say, even who tried P63 during the WW2 was not.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dogwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better.
> ...


And I repeat one more time: sitting on a drive shaft is worse? Having enanced view and more firepower in the nose is better. Wath's wrong about the statement?

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

Yes go and try sitting on a Drive shaft. I guarantee you it would not be fun. Now I am sure they balance it to reduce the vibrations, but you are not going to get it all out. Now having the engine placed in the rear is not what is going to enhance your view over an aircraft that is placed in the front. You can put MG's and Cannons in front placed ones also.

I am looking at it from a Maintainers point of view and from teh point of view of someone that flies. I would not want to work on it or fly it. My opinion and the opinion of others also.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 14, 2006)

Yea that was going to be my point. A jettisonable engine in a Airacobra or Kingcobra would be crazy. With my luck the bolt on the drive shaft would hold and squish the family jewels a second before it cut me asunder. Still the Ruskies flew thousands of them. Them krazy Russian kids!

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

It was a decent aircraft, I just think it was a bit outclassed and it could not go much further, especially with the jet age upon it.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes go and try sitting on a Drive shaft. I guarantee you it would not be fun. Now I am sure they balance it to reduce the vibrations, but you are not going to get it all out.


Ok, there are vibrations. I expect to read some pilot's report that say they were so severe. I didn't read it yet. I read this for many others aircraft instead, included the FW-190.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now having the engine placed in the rear is not what is going to enhance your view over an aircraft that is placed in the front.


This is your opinion, I respect it, but a lot of other experts think differently. Having an engine in the front IS a problem for viewing, expecially a radial engine, and expecially the ground viewing. Even the DB or Isotta Fraschini inline engines have the inverted-V configuration (a complication) in attemp of reduce (not solve) this problem.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can put MG's and Cannons in front placed ones also.


You can do a lot of things, but P39 and P63 were the only fighters of WW2 equipped with a 37mm gun firing trough the propeller axis. 
The heaviest armament placed in the nose of a WW2 fighter was that of Me-262. Why? Cause there wasn't an engine in the front.
The heaviest nose armament of an allied fighter apart the "cobras" was that of P38, Why? ...
If there isn't an engine, you can put more firepower there. If you want to have the same firepower with an engine too, you have to enlarge the fuselage or to withdraw the cockpit, whit furter negative effects to the pilot's view.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am looking at it from a Maintainers point of view and from teh point of view of someone that flies. I would not want to work on it or fly it. My opinion and the opinion of others also.


Another time, it's your opinion and I respect it, other experts worked on it and flown with it. Many pilots appreciated this aircraft, and the difference is that they flown with it, and you not. So I repeat, they were all incompetents, except you?

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Ok, there are vibrations. I expect to read some pilot's report that say they were so severe. I didn't read it yet. I read this for many others aircraft instead, included the FW-190.



No there are vibrations in any aircraft and all aircraft. I dont think I never said there wasn't. I just said it would suck sitting on a drive shaft and I think I have a bit more experience in that matter than you do! (since you obviously seem to discredit everything I say because you seem to take this personal!)




Dogwalker said:


> Another time, it's your opinion and I respect it, other experts worked on it and flown with it. Many pilots appreciated this aircraft, and the difference is that they flown with it, and you not. So I repeat, they were all incompetents, except you?
> 
> DogW



And have you flown it? I doubt it. So again it is your opinion and nothing more either. There you go, I can do the same.  

And by the way you might want to look up the definition of incompetents because this is the definitions and you are saying that all those people that worked on it and flew it were:

Main Entry: in·com·pe·tent 
Pronunciation: (")in-'käm-p-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French incompétent, from in- + compétent competent
1 : not legally qualified
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly <incompetent heart valves>
- incompetent noun
- in·com·pe·tent·ly adverb 

Nextly I am not saying that I am the formost expert on this topic becuase I am not. I have never worked on a WW2 aircraft, but I know a thing or 2 about aircraft and aircraft maintenance. I fly and work on aircraft every damnd ay,* So please dont talk down to me like you think I dont know anything.*

If this is not your intent then I apologize, but it sure is how it sounds with the way you post things.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No there are vibrations in any aircraft and all aircraft. I dont think I never said there wasn't. I just said it would suck sitting on a drive shaft and I think I have a bit more experience in that matter than you do! (since you obviously seem to discredit everything I say because you seem to take this personal!)


I'm not taking this personal, but, since we are speaking of the structural defects of that type of aircraft, that can prevent further developements of it, I think that there must be some document, some statement of pilots that flown with P39 or P63, that said that vibrations are a main problem of these fighters. If no one ever reported it (instead of many other celebrated fighters), I think that the problem is a secondary one.



Dogwalker said:


> And by the way you might want to look up the definition of incompetents because this is the definitions and you are saying that all those people that worked on it and flew it were...


I respect those people, respect them so much, that I think that they knew their work enough to recognize a defect if there were. I know what's the definition and, since it was a question that I asked to you, I never said that those people were...

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

I am not saying that the drive shaft vibrations could not be corrected, if you read my post again you will see that I said the shaft was probably balanced so as to reduce the vibrations. I am just saying that as in all aircraft you would still feel vibrations and in my opinion I would not like to sit on a drive shaft turning several thousand times a minute and feel the vibrations up my butt hole and letting them tickle my prostate!  

I personally dont feel that this aircraft could be developed further. If the idea could have been, more aircraft would have been developed that way. Plus with the age of the Jet nearing it was not going to go anywhere quick anyhow.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 15, 2006)

Ok, but if we begin to talk about jets, all these 7 pages of topic were completely useless. There were only 3 aircrafts of WW2 that could have been developed further.
However, the future was of the aircrafts with the engine behind the pilot  

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Negative the future was the Jets. When it came to piston engine aircraft the future was not behind the pilot. Look at just about all the advanced aircraft designed by the Germans, US, and England and they were just about all with the engines in the front. Now I will conced that many German projects were similar to the Do-335 that had an engine in the front and the bad in the push pull design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Negative the future was the Jets. When it came to piston engine aircraft the future was not behind the pilot. Look at just about all the advanced aircraft designed by the Germans, US, and England and they were just about all with the engines in the front. Now I will conced that many German projects were similar to the Do-335 that had an engine in the front and the bad in the push pull design.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Negative the future was the Jets.


And where is the engine of the jets?

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Yes but that is different and can not be compared. We are talking about a Piston engine in the rear.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

I'd have liked to have seen a Hs129 with decent engines


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

The main problems with Hs-129 were not actually its wings but its engines. It had crappy Argus As 410A-1's rated at 495hp or Gnome-Rhône 14M 04/05 rated at 690hp. It was so heavily armoured that the engines did not provide eneogh power.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

exactly, stick some DB's or BMW's in and it would have been so much better


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Im sorry I thought you posted a Hs-129 with better wings. Sorry about that.


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 16, 2006)

I remember watching a program many year's ago saying that if they took those big rads of the Griffon Spits (F-22, F-24's) the plane would with ease do over 500m.p.h. Put a Contra-Rotating Prop on as the Seafire F-47 and a bit more horsepower and........... 8)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 10, 2007)

It's true that the P-39 coundn't have been developed farther at the time of its production, but it could have been developed better. The prototype had a turbocharger but it was removed in the production model resulting in an underpowered plane with poor altitude performance. The reason for the removal was to allow export (as turbochargers were not allowed) and instead of doing like the P-38 exports (production for US had turbos, exports did not) they just left the turbos out entirely. The british modified many of their airacobras with turbochargers wich raised the top speed to 390mph and raised altitude performance to acceptable levels.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2007)

As far as I am aware the British didn't modify any of their Airacobras as there were to many fundamental problems with the aircraft and we had better planes in production and development.

If I had to pick some aricraft for further development / production then the following would be on the list.

British
Whirlwind a remarkable aircraft for its time and one that had considerable promise.
MB3 - Another sound design that may well have been the ideal Hurricane replacement in production.
MB5 - Ready for production but not due to a variety of reasons none of which had anything to do with the aircraft or its performance.

German
He100 - with its range, better undercarridge and performance it was a worthy contender.
He177 - it had potential but was held back by politics and insane design requirements. Had they left the designers to get on with it then they may easily have come up with a classic similar to the He277 when it might have been of some use in the USSR. As it was, the He277 was of no use being too late. 

Japanese
Ki44 - why they continued with the Ki43 for so long is something I never understood. The Ki44 was a capable aircraft and would have been a much better machine to hold the line until the Ki84

USA - Nothing
Its hard to think of an American aircraft that wasn't developed as far as technology allowed. PLanes such as the P40/P39 had fundamental design issues that limited their development and the USA rightly put its development into new aircraft. No other country developed so many first class new designs in such a short period of time. 

Italy
Machi 202 - Why didn't they give it a couple of cannon? At a critical time of the airwar in the Med, this fairly small change could have made a big difference.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2007)

IMHO the only aircraft that could have really done something and built in the thousands and had an effect on the war was the He 100.

That was certainly a very good aircraft that went nowhere.

The rear engine thing is interesting. During WW1 RFC had some pushers called the DH2 fighters. If the aircraft crash landed, the engine could rip free and smash the pilot...maybe. But it also would be a nice lump between a bullet and the pilot.

A crash landing which caused the engine in a P39 to come loose is going to be a nasty crash landing in anything. I would consider the location of the engine unimportant as any violent crash landing is going to hurt in any plane.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 10, 2007)

How about fitting a B-17 with jet engines?


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 10, 2007)

To Glider
"..Italy
Machi 202 - Why didn't they give it a couple of cannon? At a critical time of the airwar in the Med, this fairly small change could have made a big difference."

The MC 202 was actually developed in the way you foresee: the MC205V was exactly a MC202 with 2 x MG151 and the DB605 engine. Wing cannon was tested on a couple of 202 (unofficially MC202C) before production switched to MC205.

Already covered in other threads, but the 'series 5' - Fiat G55, Macchi 205N (that was a different design from 205V) , Reggiane 2005 - could have been interesting if developed after early 1943 (i.e. with the updated DB605 with MW50 etc.)


----------



## ccheese (Sep 10, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> How about fitting a B-17 with jet engines?




I recall seeing some pictures of a B-17 with an engine installed in the
nose of the fuselage, purely for testing. The object was to get it into the
air, then start the 'fifth' engine. I'll see if I can find the pic's. I have no
idea of the outcome.

Charles


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> To Glider
> "..Italy
> Machi 202 - Why didn't they give it a couple of cannon? At a critical time of the airwar in the Med, this fairly small change could have made a big difference."
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. I was aware of the development of the '5' series but the point I was trying to make is that they were too late. No one would deny that the MC202 was an excellent little fighter but why didn't they give the 202 the guns from the start. Almost every other nation on earth gave their fighters 20mm guns by that stage and it could have made a huge difference.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 10, 2007)

How about
I present my MesserStang


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 10, 2007)

Is that true? The Germans were going to convert their 109 into a P-51 Mustang crossbreed?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well here's my sourse wikipedia:
"In 1940, the British Direct Purchase Commission in the US was looking for combat aircraft; they ordered 675 of the export version Bell Model 14 as the "Caribou" on the strength of the company's representations on 13 April 1940. The performance of the Bell P-39 prototype and 13 test aircraft which were able to achieve a speed of 390 mph (630 km/h) at altitude was due to the installation of turbo-supercharging. The British armament was 0.50-inch machine guns in the fuselage, and four 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings, the 37 mm gun was replaced by a 20 mm Hispano Suiza." so I guess I missread, they are just refering to the prototype's turbo; still I think leaving the turbo in would have been a much smarter decesion, as they could have simply omitted it or traded it for a supercharger for export.

I think Heinkel's 280 would have been quite good, had the German officials taken a keener intrest and more intrest in the 178 testbed or jets in general, but they were unswayed intill the 280-190 mock dogfight. (I also think the HeS-8 and 30 shouldn't have been dropped as they were far lighter and more compact than the 003 or 004 and seemed to be less problematic than the 003 these engines would have also probably given the Me 262 better performance, espesialy roll due to the decreased length.
The US's L113 with its twin L-1000 axial flow jets and was in development in late 1939 could have been somthing had the USAAF taken intrest, but like the Germans it came at a time when reliable, conservative designs were preferable and it was hard enough to push designs like the P-38.

Symmilar reasons doomed the P-59 as a usable fighter as the government limeted Bell's use of wind tunnels, as well as settin an 8 month deadline for the first prototype, and even when they did manage to gain acess it was only to low-speed tunnels. Effectively elimonating Bell's abillity to streamline the aircraft and better configure engine placement. As it was the P-59B had 2 uprated 2000 lb. st. J31-GE-5 turbojets(giving the craft a thrust to weight ratio of .36) and a maximum range of 950mi, as well as a decent armament (actualy symilar to the airacobra's), but the aerodunamic peoblems and the huge 45ft wings limited the plane to just 413mph. If properly developed from the start the airacomet probably could have broken 500mph and maby outperformed the F3 meteor. It did set a new unofficial altitude record of 14,512 m (47,600 ft) thanks to its otherwise hindering oversized wings, positively the high altitude allowed the engeneers to duagnose some engine problems that would have otherwise gone uncorected intill the XP-80 was tested.
I'n not sure why bell didn't base their design around the airacobra, all you'd really have to do is alter the wings and tail to accomadate the engines and exaust, pluss it already had the necessary tricycle undercarage, there could be increased nose-mointed weapons, and the engine cavity could be filled with a fuel tank.Pluss the engines could have been mounted above the wing, retaining the low wings. Though with the mid-mounted bubble cockpit, wing-mounted engines, and pointed nose it might look a tad like a scaled-down Me 262... creepy!

Also as for crash landing dangers: from wikipedia: 
" Its unusual engine location, and the driveshaft, caused some pilot concern at first, but experience showed this was no more of a hazard in a crash landing than with an engine located forward of the cockpit, while there were no problems with propshaft failure."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Is that true? The Germans were going to convert their 109 into a P-51 Mustang crossbreed?



No the Bf 109G-14 was the last varient of the G and it was a normal Bf 109. The varient also included the Bf 109G-14/AS. There were several thousand G-14s built.

His Messerstang is an artist rendering.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the Bf 109G-14 was the last varient of the G and it was a normal Bf 109. The varient also included the Bf 109G-14/AS. There were several thousand G-14s built.
> 
> His Messerstang is an artist rendering.



I confess, i made that one.

But its not that strange considering the DB engine in a Spitfire wich was realley done.
How about fixing the view in the 109?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2007)

Interesting none the less, but I still dont like it. To me it takes away from the menacing look of the Bf 109 that I like.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 11, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> How about fitting a B-17 with jet engines?



Only jet engines would be too difficult ( in rl) but this should be feasible

B-17 with Rolls-Royce Derwent I turbojets with 8.83 kN (900 kgp / 2,000 lbf) thrust each.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Interesting none the less, but I still dont like it. To me it takes away from the menacing look of the Bf 109 that I like.



I agree. this is a bit better i think

Malcolm nine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2007)

Nope not for me. I like the Bf 109 the way it is.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Sep 11, 2007)

I would modify my country's I.A.R. 81 and replace the 7.92 mm FN machine guns with 13 mm MG 131 from the Bf109 and perhaps mount a 30 mm Mk108 cannon in the nose but for that probably would have to take out the 20 mm MG 151/20 from the wings...


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 11, 2007)

Konigstiger205 said:


> I would modify my country's I.A.R. 81 and replace the 7.92 mm FN machine guns with 13 mm MG 131 from the Bf109 and perhaps mount a 30 mm Mk108 cannon in the nose but for that probably would have to take out the 20 mm MG 151/20 from the wings...



How about a more powerful engine?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2007)

MacArther said:


> Also, what would you introduce earlier? I would give the P40 Q a chance, (as is well known by most), give the Dautless a 2000 hp engine and two 20mm's in the wings along with normal armament. Hurricane could have used a bigger engine, and for the sake of being laughed at, a bubble canopy. Then the Miles M20 (21?), a good fighter that showed up early on *with* a bubble canopy, possibly 12.7mm guns in lieu of the 7.7mms, or a combination of 7.7mm and 20mm.



I would take a different slant on the 'What if" design or production considerations.

1. What if the F4U had also been purchased by the USAAF - the 8th AF would have had a longer range, more maneuverable escort fighter much earlier in the war.

2. What if the Spit had been blessed with more internal/external fuel much earlier to enable long range escort in daylight - or long range sweeps deep into Germany.

3. What if the Fw190D had been pushed much faster, or the Me262 been fitted w/twin DB603s until the jet engine problems solved (with the same super clean airframe.)

4. What if the prototype P-38 had not been destroyed and survived long enough to give Lockheed clues to compressibility issues/solutions two years earlier? 

5. What if the idiots that stipulated that the He 177 be capable of dive bombing and/or stipulated a two nacelle design had died of a heart attack before then.

6. What if the original Mustang had been designed around the Rolls rather than Allison from the very beginning?

All these would have greatly influenced tactical doctines in 1943-1944


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 11, 2007)

Well there's also the Me-209II which was canceled due to slow development and was outperformed by the Fw-190.

There's also the Me-309 but, though it was ready before the 209II, it was still not up to par with the Fw-190 and had poorer manuverabillity than the Bf-109.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would take a different slant on the 'What if" design or production considerations.
> 
> 1. What if the F4U had also been purchased by the USAAF - the 8th AF would have had a longer range, more maneuverable escort fighter much earlier in the war.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marcel (Sep 11, 2007)

Fokker G.I (surprise  ) with RR Merlin engines. Would have put it on par with the mossie in versatility and maybe speed. I heard Fokker wanted to do this, but the dutch government chose fless powerfull engines.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> drgondog said:
> 
> 
> > I would take a different slant on the 'What if" design or production considerations.
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 11, 2007)

The 262 could have also used the Ta-152's Jumo 213E engine which was about the same size and weight but had significantly more power. Though, as a piston-engine aircraft it probably wouldn't have performad much better than the best allied planes and probably wouldn't pass 500mph in level flight, even with boost. Still it would still be quite fast and would have a longer range than the jet version; it would also likely have been able to remain aloft on a single engine, like the P-38 and would obviously have awsome dive performance.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 11, 2007)

For me it is.
US make the P38k
XP67 with rr Crey
P51H with rr Griffon
UK Frank whittle lot of money to make his jet engine.
make the Tempest Mark 1
MB5
Italian G.56 with db603La
Mc 205 db605d
Piaggio P.119 bmw 801TQ
Germany FW 190 with bmw 801f
Heinkel 277 with 4 bmw 802
Heinkel 280 with he30 and 3 mauser mg.213c 20mm
Horton 229 with he011c and 4 mauser mg.213c 20mm
Bv p211.01 with bmw 003d in stead of the He 162
Me 262HG111 with jumo 004h
BV 440 with db623


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 12, 2007)

That B-17 looks pretty interesting. Would those extra jet engines be a quicker get away device, or would it be added range? Because they still have the props to fly it. 

What would happen if you went back to WWI.....Took a Spad XIII.....and put a jet engine on it?


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 12, 2007)

it was done before

It could have been usefull for getting the b17 even heavier payloads up in the air and i suppose a bit of extra speed over the target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well there's also the Me-209II which was canceled due to slow development and was outperformed by the Fw-190.
> 
> There's also the Me-309 but, though it was ready before the 209II, it was still not up to par with the Fw-190 and had poorer manuverabillity than the Bf-109.



You are pretty much correct in what you are talking about here but you need to be careful about the info you get from wikipedia. It is really not the best source and is more often very full of mistakes and falsehoods.

Dont take me wrong I use wikipedia from time to time as well as a quick reference, but you can not believe everything that is in it and you have to cross reference with better materials.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't have one of my books in front of me, so you'll have to excuse the lack of terminology.

1. Introduce the FM-2 modifications into the original F4F-4 so that by Coral Sea or Midway the US fighters aren't sucking air whenever they go to climb to higher altitudes. 

2. Give the B-17s and B-24s 2000hp engines. Why? Because I said so!

3. Ditch the F2 Buffalo original and instead use the B-339 or whatever the export was called. Give it a cannon or two, and some extra fuel tanks, use it as a long range fighter/recon plane.

4. Introduce that one battleship/cruiser launched seaplane (the replacement for the Kingfisher and those planes) made in the US that appeared only at the end of the war at the beginning of the war. The thing was practically a light fighter, with 2 .50 cals, top speed of 314 mph, and something like 650lbs of ordinance.

PS: The Me-309 V4 is soooooo prettiful!!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 13, 2007)

There are two that I would like to have seen developed more...

The first is the XB-42 Mixmaster. Even though it would have been too late for WWII, it may have been useful in Korea.

XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second is the the XF5U Flying Flapjack. We could have learned a lot from the VSTOL characteristics and again it would have been late for WWII but may have been useful in Korea in areas that did not have developed runways.

Vought XF5U - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 13, 2007)

Though not a plane, I think it's a shame that the HeS-30 wasn't allowed to fully develop. It could have been used sucessfully on either the He-280 or the Me 262. The prototype showed thrust of about the same amount as the 004A engine did and weighed about half as much and produced 200lbs more thrust than the 004B. At an airspeed of 500mph the engine was projected to have about 2470 lbs of thrust (coincidentally less than 300 lbs less than the HeS-011 "class II" engine produced in testing)
As stated the engine was much lighter than the other class I engines (only 390kg, 859lb) this lighter construction used far less material than the others and used only a 3-stage compressor. Though more complex in some areas, the resulting problems had been mostly rectified by the time the prototype was ready in May of 1942, only 2 months after the 004A was tested. The engine also utilized conventional flame cans an thus didn't have the same difficulties as the BMW 003, and would have likely been ready for production long before the 003, though probably a few months after the 004.

Unfortunately the German government saw the 004 and 003 as "good enough" (obveously not noticing the problems the 003 was having). They cancelled the HeS-30 along with Heinkel's other class-I engine, the centrifugal HeS-8, in favor of production of the more complex and problematic class II HeS-011 wich had no chance of being ready before the end of the war. This is too bad because 2 HeS-30 engines would have heen as good as any class II engine and would be small enough (2ft in diameter) to be placed side by side or stacked in place of a single, larger class II engine. This arrangement could have been utilized by many of the prototype/experimental aircraft designs without major alteration IMHO.

The Lockheed L-1000 axial turbojet suffered a symilar fate when the USAAF wsa uninterested in funding the twin-engine L-133 jet-fighter project in 1940. Though work the engine was resumed in 1943 and continued later on after the war (as the J37) the design never went beond testbed examples or entered production. The L133 was never developed past scale wind-tunnel models and mock-ups. GE also had a design for a centrifugal turbojet based on one of their turbochargers around the same time but the project never left the drawing board. The main difference between these projects and the German ones like the He-280 is that the Germans continued working on the projects independantly after being denied contrects and eventualy gained the intrest of the government, but sadly, this didn't save Heinkel's project. =(

Too bad Heinkel didn't defect, with his dislike if the Nazi regime's policies (and them in general) and his treatment by them he must have considdered switching sides especialy after his company was "nationalized" in 1942. Though it probably would have been virtualy impossible for someone in his position to escape the axis territory (at least not alive), especialy in that stage of the war.

There were also various other turbojets being designed independently in the US durring the war like the axial-compressor westinghouse turbojets (the J30 which produced 1600lbf and was first operted in fall of '44 and used for the FH Phantom which first flew in early '45 and was basicly the navy's equivalent of the P-59). Check them out, as well as some other early jets, here: Jets45-Engines

I wonder if the J30s or maby even the J31(if there were enough that had not been diverted to the P59 untill its cancellation and wasn't too much wider than the L-1000) would have worked in the L133 design...

I've seen the beauty of many German engeneered aircraft but of all the early German jet designs I've never seen one that I found as amazing as the L133 (though some were certainly more 
unorthadox)

Though the airforce would still probably be uninterested as it was such a radical design. Still it would be cool to see a flight sim feature it, same for the He-280.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 20, 2007)

The He-280 had a lot of potential, though it's range was't that great, but it may have been possible to fit external tanks to improve this especialy considdering the low weight of the intended engines and the high thrust and small size of the the HeS-30. (both the HeS-8 and 30 weighed about 850lbs but the 30 produced over 2000 lbf while the 8 only produced 1320 lbf, though due to its centrifugal compressor the HeS-8 was about 2/3 the length and only slightly wider.)
Since the Junkers 004 engines weighed over 1500 lbs each and put out 1980 lbf and were also much larger than the original engine, it's no surprise the 280 didn't perform well using them.

Oh cool, there are several dowloads for He-280 mods for several combat flight sims online! =)

Here's a cool page I found on a google search: Heinkel He 280 archive file


----------



## Krabat42 (Sep 25, 2007)

I read somewhere that there was a project to put in a Griffon into the Mustang airframe. The engine would have been in the CoG and the Cockpit moved up front right behind the prop. Does anyone have a picture of this? Maybe an artist's impression. I doubt there was even a mockup, it was probably a paper project only. But it would have looked cool, I think.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 25, 2007)

The Brewster Buffalo would have been a good plane to be developed further. It had a lot of potential.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 26, 2007)

The Fins sort of developed it further as they modified their 44 Bufalos to increase effectiveness. I think they alteredengine to increase reliabillity and they beefed-up the armament to .50 cal (which the prototype had used but had been deleted to save weight). That and the determination and skill of the Finish pilots gained the aircraft the highest kill ratio of the war with 496 kills (both Russian and German) and only 19 losses of the 44 they had, though the Fins had to have had this kind of strenght to hold out so long with the small force they had.

quote: "Brewsters were also popular within the FAF because of their long range and endurance, and their good maintenance record. This was due in part to FAF mechanics, who solved a problem plaguing the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, thus enhancing engine reliability. Note that the Finnish aircraft dispensed with most of the US Navy gear such as a life raft, resulting in a considerably lighter aircraft."

The Buffalo also suffered from poor construction quality so they generaly werent that durrable. The Fins had more sucess then the US usere because the Fins developed special tactics to play to the craft's strengths. The cockpit was roomy and was pleasant to fly even visibility was good as the canopy allowed nearly 360 degree vision like a bubble canopy with ribs. 

quote: "The F4F-1 began as a unbuilt biplane design entered in a US Navy competition, being beaten by the monoplane Brewster F2A-1 design. This resulted in its complete remodeling into the monoplane XF4F-2.[1] This was evaluated against the Buffalo, but although the XF4F-2 was marginally faster, the Buffalo was otherwise superior and was chosen for production.[1]. Grumman's prototype was then rebuilt as the XF4F-3 with new wings and tail and a supercharged version of the Pratt Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp" radial engine.[1][2] Testing of the XF4F-3 led to an order for F4F-3 production models, the first of which was completed in February 1940."

Overall, in its best configuration, it compares favorably to the wildcat (and certainly better than the F4F-1 or 2 proposals), the speed, range and ceiling of the F2A were only somewhat lower, the armament was the same in many F4Fs (4x .50 cal), the wildcat could carry rockets or bombs, but the buffalo had better visibility. The little Buffalo was a pretty decent fighter, though both it and the wildcat were outclassed by the newer Japanese fighters like the A6M Zero and it stayed that way until the Hellcat and Corsair came on the scene. 



As a note on bubble canopies, though the first "true" bubble canopy (non-segmented glass) was used in the Hawker Tempest, the P-38 and P-39 both had good all-around vision capabillities with what I'd still call bubble canopies despie them not being one-peice, and these were first constructed in 1939, long before the advent of the Tempest or the retrofitting of the "bubbletop" P-47s. The A6M also had a symilar bubbleish canopy but with caged supports on the glass.

The Brewster also looked quite menacing when met head-on.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2007)

Now that I look again, I was wrong about the range, guns, and bombs, the F2-A3 Buffalo had the same armament and bomb capasity , and the Buffalo had about a 1000mi range, while the wildcat had only about 800mi in any version. The only major advantage of the Wildcat was that it was tough, like the P-47 Thunserbolt, the Wildcat could be riddeled with bullets and torn to shreads and still make it home (though fighting in such condition wouls have been suiside)

The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai describes the Wildcat's ability for absorbing damage: 

“ I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7mm machine guns. I turned the 20mm. cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in. For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before - and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. With his plane in such condition, no wonder the pilot was unable to continue fighting! A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 27, 2007)

Gloster F.5/34

Now that interesting.

Aint it funny that the RAF based both new fighters purely on the Merlin engine...what would have happened if it was a dog?

Like the Vulture or the Napier Sabre?

Then I bet the Gloster fighter would have got the nod.


----------



## F4F Wildcat (Sep 27, 2007)

I would have liked to see how the J7W2 Shinden would have done.
I've been going nuts over the original. It's a beautiful machine, just needs work. Had the second one even been designed?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 1, 2007)

They also had a jet version in mind but engines were not ready by the end of the war. It was actually designed to use the piston engine untill turbojets became available and swap out the engines when they did. The airframe was designed to acomedate a jet engine with little or no modification, save maby the engine mount. It ws intended to use the 1984 lbf Ne-130 axial-flow turbojet wich I think was a copy of the 004 engine, either way this engine was never completed before the war's end.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 3, 2007)

Does anybody know something of the in-flight behavior of the J7W? I suppose that the layout would produce some tricky low speed attitudes (landing approach at very high angles of attack cannot be avoided).


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 3, 2007)

How about putting Allison engines on the YB-40? The XB-38 is a Fortress with the 1710 engines and it proved to be faster than a contemporary B-17F. The problem with the YB-40 is that it was too slow, especially after everyone dropped their bombs. Lockheed Vega built both of these airplanes. The YB-40 was an interim solution until longer ranged P-47 and P-51s arrived on the scene.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2007)

I would have loved the Bf 109Z fly. That could have been the ultimate Zerstorer until the arrival of the Me 262.
Other axis aircraft which never got a chance are the Do 317, Do 26, He 119, Fw 187, Lippisch P 20 and the Italian Caproni Ca 331. These are basically all could have beens, though there are also aircraft which could have been altered but weren't. On the German side this doesn't seem to have been so frequent as they had the nasty habit of trying out every aircraft with all engines and in every variant possible 

But here's one ... the Fw 190C. Will never believe that it would have taken Tank until Autumn 1944 to start producing this aircraft which had the same engines as the Me 410 and Do 217M which were operational by 1943.

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2007)

I totally agree about the FW-187, it was far better than the BF-110 and should've never been forced to switch engines and add another seat, even with the crippling redesign it was still better. In its original configuration, it was awsome, great firepower, outclimbing and diving the 109, good agility, great range, its sad the way it was overlooked. Its appearance in the battle of britain would have possibly turned in the German's favor. It was comparable to the P-38 and the mosquito.

There were a few great Russian aircraft that never got a chance the M.I.Gudkov Gu-VRD
ws a good small jetfighter and the airframe was tested with good results, too bad the engine was canceled. Gu-VRD
Also the Borovkov-Florov "Izdeliye D" was a nice design, but it was interrupted by the war, though cockpit visibillity doesn't look great. IzdeliyeD or Borovkov D

see also COMBATSIM.COM: Lost Aircraft, Part 2

and here's a list of many unappreciated or underrecognized craft Charles Bain home page

The Italian Reggiane Re.2007 also looks like a good design, but the Germans never delivered the engines. Re.2007

The Bell XP-59 (the varient of the XP-52, not the Airacomet) was also a good design, with 20 degree swept wings, about 1000mi range, and a top-speed of 450mph, it's ironic that it was canceled because of the Airacomet, since it had better performance. With its nose-mounted air-intake and pusher configuration, it doesn't look too had to convert to a jet, though a twin-engine configuration would be more difficult, maby one over and one ubder the fusalage so they would be over and under the tailplane. It also looked eerily symilar to the Focke-Wolf Flitzer Flitzer

Fock-wolfe had a few other twin-boom pusher designs including one that looked eerily symilar to the Vampire, the FW-198.

Below the FW-198 (2), wind-tunnel model of the XP-59, and the Flitzer


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2007)

Here's an example of the stacked orientation of engines that could be used, though a sise by side configuration might work too. Either way a single endine with a raised tailplane would be best for the XP-59 (though there wasn't a powerful enough engine available at the time to allow this)


----------



## Civettone (Oct 4, 2007)

Hi Kitty 
- Re.2007 was a hoax, it was designed after the war. 
- The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.
- The Flitzer is a favourite of mine. It was designed to fly with the HeS 011 engine but in fact it was too heavy and expensive, so the Germans later on preferred the Ta 183. What I find more interesting about the Flitzer project is that it was also to be powered by one of their first TL engines, a turboprop. 

Kris


----------



## Graeme (Oct 4, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Hi Kitty  The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/de-schelde-s-21-a-8538.html


----------



## V-1710 (Oct 4, 2007)

P-63 King Cobra. That was one plane that I never heard anything but praise from those who flew it. What of the Arado Ar. 234B?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 4, 2007)

Here's another go at German aircraft. Besides the already mentioned Bf 109Z as Zerstorer, Aufklarer, Jabo, Begleitungsjager, ... 

I would develop the Fa 223 derived Fa 284 heavy helicopter in such a way that it would be powered by a single BMW 801, and produce it in large numbers. A relatively cheap tactical transport helicopter would be the result, giving the Germans incredible mobility. Such a helicopter would be capable of transporting light armoured vehicles, supplies, troop compartments, light artillery, ... over territory otherwise difficult to reach. The Fa 223 was also to be used as a mine layer as submarine hunter.

Also the Flettner Kolibri would have to be produced in larger numbers and in a more powerful version. Using the Argus As 10 engine would be a better choice than the Siemens engine, what would also simplify production as the trainer and liaison aircraft used this engine.

The Hs 123 should have been taken back in production as it proved to be a cheap, reliable and effective ground attack aircraft. I would power it by the BMW 132K and from 1944 onwards weapon it with Panzerblitz 1 rockets. 

The Hs 129 I would give a single 37mm gun. This gun fired rapidly so there was not much need for two of them as was the case with the Ju 87G. The Ju 87G only carried about 6 shells for each gun so it had a very limited endurance. The single gun for the Hs 129 could perhaps have been supplied with 12 shells. It was also a gun which could be carried relatively easy by the Hs 129, unlike the 75mm gun!

The Do 26 would have made an excellent maritime reconaissance aircraft. Because of its diesel engines it had the range for it, plus it could carry radar and bring supplies to the U-boats which in turn could refuel these aircraft giving them an endurance of days!

The Me 261 should have been given DB 610 engines enabling them to fly liaison missions to Japan without having to cross Russian territory. Passing on military and technological information could be carried out without relying on slow and endangered U-boat missions.

The Lippisch P 20 was derived from the Me 163 but was to be powered with a turbojet engine. This could well have made a true Volksjager, even easier to build than the Bf 109 and easy to fly. Also a reconaissance version of this or another Volksjager should be developed, giving the Germans opportunities to cross the Channel and keep somewhat informed and alerted of allied invasion plans. 

The Fw 190C with the DB 603 engine should have been given the go ahead instead of the 190D because this engine was (semi-)operational sooner.

A high altitude version of the He 177 (A-4? but not the He 274!) with 4 coupled DB 603 engines should be built in large numbers, creating a high altitude bomber which could be escorted by the unmatched Ta 152. This combination could once again bomb Britain (but more importantly) Russia without mercy. The western allies would soon overcome the threat but Russia would have been an excellent target: Russians didn't have high altitude interceptors (except for the P-63) and would be overstretched to defend every city and industrial centra from Murmansk to Baku, all within reach of the He 177 bomber. And after that it could still be used as a night bomber. An ideal stop gap until the arrival of the jet bombers in 1945!

The V 1 should be enlarged and powered with either two As 014 engines or one more powerful As 044 engine. A bombload twice the size would have to be achieved, depending on the speed requirement of 420 mph. If it would go slower, it would be an easy target. Going faster would mean that fighter aircraft would be withdrawn from intercepting them while this was the main success of the V 1: it drew lots of allied resources in countering this new threat. For the same reasons production (but not development) of the V 2 should be stopped completely! 

A thought which I also had been thinking of would be to equip the Ju 87 with a pulsejet engine in order to give it extra power in case of enemy fighters. It should be possible to build this on top of the rear fuselage, eliminating the position of the rear gunner. 

That's all I can think of from the top of my head.
Kris


----------



## delcyros (Oct 4, 2007)

I think I have a serious starter:

In 1937, Heinkel developed a today nearly forgotten four engined long range plane, the He-116. This airplane, while designed for postal trans atlantic missions was a land plane and used excellent aerodynamic lines by the hands of designer Siegfried Günther. The normal range with 1000 Kg payload was 3400 Km. NOTE THAT A He-116 GOT THE TOTAL RANGE WORLD RECORD WITH A RANGE IN EXCESS OF 10.000 KM PRIOR TO OUTBREAK OF WW2! The flighttime was around 46 hours. Two He-116 were delivered to Japan and continued to be used by Japan until wars end. Their fate is unknown.
And all this was done on 4x*240 hp *engines -imagine four more potent licence build french raidials or up to date Jumos!! That would give a nice maritime interdiction plane avaiable for the battle of the Atlantic!


----------



## renrich (Oct 4, 2007)

I have advocated Drgondog's idea about the F4U being produced as a AAF fighter in earlier posts and this would have not been some fantasy. In fact I would have contracted with Republic to produce Corsairs instead of Jugs. The F4U1 had substantially more range than the P47Bs. It was ready for action earlier. Had a better climb rate and was more maneuverable. If, later on, a higher altitude capability was desirable it could have been fitted with a different super charger setup or even a turbo supercharger. Vought experimented with a turbo for the Corsair but decided the additional complication and weight was not worth the additional altitude capability for Naval use. What would have happened in early 1941 if the Vought design had been taken over by Republic in order to produce a fighter for the AAF? Of course inter service rivalry would never allow such heresy. Everyone "knew" a shipboard fighter could "never' compete with a land based design.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2007)

The four engined variants of the He-177 would have made good bombers, and would have had much more reliable engines, though Heinkel was forbidden to create such designs he built a few prototypes independantly. The requirement that a HEAVY bomber thad doubled as a DIVE bomber was idiotic; it would have been better to make such a requirement on a heavy fighter or light bomber.

Vought certainly made some great designs, too bad the XF5U wasn't ready before the war's end, it had a powerful armament, awsome agility at most speeds, and speed only beaten by jets. It was also extremely tough, after the prototype crash-landed during a test-flight neither the craft nor Pilot (Charles Lindbergh) were seriously harmed. It would be a bit of a pain for mechanics though.

I agree about the corsair, it woul have made a good USAAF fighter, the Jug was introduced only a few months before it and the only real advantages of the P-47 over the F4U were firerpower (only slight) and ceiling (due to turbocharger) while the corsair was much more maneuverable and about as tough, and had better cocpit visibility (until the bubletop was added to the P-47), though neither aircraft had good visibility on the ground (hence Hose-Nose) and the Corsair was lighter than the thunderbolt.


----------



## 130fe (Oct 4, 2007)

What about the XP-67 Moonbat, or giving the P-61 bigger motors (Maybe 3350s) I think those who posted in with Whirlwind and the Schwalbe were right on two.


----------



## 130fe (Oct 4, 2007)

that would be too, not two-- sorry friends


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2007)

130fe, there is also such a thing as an edit button... 

Hello Kitty, the He 177 didn't need 4 seperate engines. By 1944 the engine overcooling problems were largely sorted out and the He 177 proved to be a reliable aircraft. In the end it was the fuel shortage which ended a promising career. I suppose the main reason behind the He 277 was because that way the more powerful DB 603 could be used.

Kris


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 5, 2007)

It would have been nice if the USAAF would have tried a squadron of F4U1s in Europe. I think they should have also tried night bombing with the RAF. B-17s were bombing at night in the southwest Pacific against Rabaul in 1942.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2007)

130fe said:


> that would be too, not two-- sorry friends



Edit Button please...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> It would have been nice if the USAAF would have tried a squadron of F4U1s in Europe. I think they should have also tried night bombing with the RAF. B-17s were bombing at night in the southwest Pacific against Rabaul in 1942.



Why? 

The US Strategic Air Force was neither trained nor equipped for night ops in Europe. Secondly, doubling up 8th and 9th AF for night ops would have made for very interesting air traffic/logistics management in terms of planning and preparation - particularly if USAAF decided to fly a mixture of day and night ops from same bases. Imagine the fun co-ordinating with RAF in context of planning and air traffic control.

Early Pacific night ops were a function of necessity as Japanese had control of air over Truk and Rabaul and target definition in harbors was actually feasible as contrasted with typical ETO conditions. But once control of air established USAAF went dominantly to day ops until LeMay changed the game for 20th AF in March 1945.


----------



## 130fe (Oct 5, 2007)

Sorry about that, did not know about the edit button. I know we have strick adherence policy to sticking to subject here and not wasting posting space with petty remarks. Cheers.


----------



## renrich (Oct 5, 2007)

To me, the F4U idea is interesting because I believe that the Corsair represented almost the apex of recip single engine fighter design. Given the compromises that are visited on a design because of shipboard requirements, if Republic had taken the design and adapted it to AAF needs, surely the air frame would have lost weight(no folding wings, no tailhook, less stringent structural requirements, no marinised parts) and this would resulted in increased performance. Since the standard Corsair performance was right up there with the best of them, what a hot rod would have resulted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2007)

130fe said:


> Sorry about that, did not know about the edit button. I know we have strick adherence policy to sticking to subject here and not wasting posting space with petty remarks. Cheers.



No worries. 

You will actually see we are pretty lax around here.


----------



## Jank (Oct 5, 2007)

How about the P-47 as developed into the *XP-47J* or *XP-72*? With their approximately 500mph speed, they were operating very close to the limit of propeller aircraft. 

XP-72






XP-47J




.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2007)

Good idea Renrich, the Corsair was one of the finest fighters and FBs of WW2. On the other hand, what the USAAF really needed was a long-range fighter. Then the Corsair would just have been another Thunderbolt which also appeared in 1943 and was superior to the enemy aircraft.

Kris


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 5, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Why?
> 
> The US Strategic Air Force was neither trained nor equipped for night ops in Europe. Secondly, doubling up 8th and 9th AF for night ops would have made for very interesting air traffic/logistics management in terms of planning and preparation - particularly if USAAF decided to fly a mixture of day and night ops from same bases. Imagine the fun co-ordinating with RAF in context of planning and air traffic control.
> 
> Early Pacific night ops were a function of necessity as Japanese had control of air over Truk and Rabaul and target definition in harbors was actually feasible as contrasted with typical ETO conditions. But once control of air established USAAF went dominantly to day ops until LeMay changed the game for 20th AF in March 1945.



This may be a debate for a different post, but I think there would be less bomber losses and it would be harder for the Luftwaffe to concentrate all of its fighters to night ops and to respond to all of the targets getting hit. The accuracy of daylight bombing and the Norden bombsight have proven to ineffective. You might as well as area bomb.

I didn't realize that the 9th AF conducted night bombing. I thought they were for tactical support which would have been done during the daylight hours.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2007)

Daytime bombing would have worked fine if they'd had a capable escort fighter, but the only one with long enough range was the P-38 and this wasn't available in Europe large numbers until early 1943 (after the battle of midway) because they were needed in the Pacific.

Though by mid 1943, the P-47 would have had enough range with external tanks (a paper ferry tank was used as an intrim measure July through August of '43, though this wasn't verry durable, it did have a large capacity, and was available before steel drop-tanks for the P-47 were)

And I'm not sure why the XP-72 couldn't have been used as an escort fighter. With external tanks since (if I remember correctly) it had a maximun range of 1200 mi, good enough for escort, though it should have been possible to increase fuel-load further. The only reason the P-47J was canceled was to develop the P-72.

Also the moonbat's performance wasn't that great add had an odd armament of six 37mm canonn, the engines were a major problem, but te range was good being well over 2009mi. I guess it would make a good long-range escort-fighter or ground attacker.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> This may be a debate for a different post, but I think there would be less bomber losses and it would be harder for the Luftwaffe to concentrate all of its fighters to night ops and to respond to all of the targets getting hit. The accuracy of daylight bombing and the Norden bombsight have proven to ineffective. You might as well as area bomb.
> 
> I didn't realize that the 9th AF conducted night bombing. I thought they were for tactical support which would have been done during the daylight hours.



The 9th did not do night bombing - but if the Strategic doctrine changed to area bombing at night, then the concentration of German fighters available for day time defense would have made it very tough on medium bombers (and fighter bombers) over Europe... and speculatively the destruction of the Luftwaffe would not have occurred (enough) by D-Day making that an even more risky venture

The Norden was ineffective when there was cloud cover - and certainly didn't live up to it's reputation in 1942 through mid 1943 until LeMay formulated lead crew doctrine and put the best bombadiers and navigators in lead ships... but at its worst in clear weather it was better than area bombing at night.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 6, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The Norden was ineffective when there was cloud cover - and certainly didn't live up to it's reputation in 1942 through mid 1943 until LeMay* formulated lead crew doctrine and put the best bombadiers and navigators in lead ships*... but at its worst in clear weather it was better than area bombing at night.



Using this doctrine, I would have used the Droop Snoot P-38s more often. Less risk of aircrew getting lost and the other P-38s can better defend themselves after dropping their loads. The Douglas Mixmaster would have been great if that could have been developed earlier.

I just don't like losing 10 men on every heavy bomber that goes down...


----------



## renrich (Oct 8, 2007)

That was the idea, Civvetone. The F4U1 carried more internal fuel than the later model Corsairs and had substantially more range than the Jugs used early in the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

But when P-47s were fitted with external tanks in mid '43 it increased their range enough for escort duty. P-38s already had the range needed for escort, but were needed in the Pacific and didn't enter Europe in large numbers until early '43. 

The P-47 also had more development potential as seen in the XP-47J and XP-72 which had top speeds over 500 mph (the XP-72 managed 480 mph at Sea Level) and these figures are better than those of the Super Corsair (which had numerous other problems), but the Thunderbolt variants would still be less agile. The P-72 would have been a good intrim measure for jet-fighters as it was ready for production in early '44

The USAAF had even placed an order for the P-72, but this was cancelled because there was more of a need for escort fighters, like the P-51, not interceptors (which was a major purpose of the P-72). The P-72 would have made a good escort fighter with external tanks, and the range could have been further improved (as well as maneuverabillity) if the P-47N's wings had been fitted to it. (So I'm not sure why an escort varient was not considdered)

With ample speed, excelent armour, and good high-altitude performance, the P-72 would have prooved a stuborn opponent aganst the Me-262. 

Though not superior, the craft would still have bridged the speed gap that was the 262's main advantage, and the P-72 had a 6000 ft ceiling advantage, but the 262 would probably have been much more agile, especially at high speeds. This is ofcourse assuming that the P-72 was no more manuverable than the P-47 and that it didn't sport the squared-off wing-tips of the P-47N (which improved roll).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 10, 2007)

A little off topic, but I just discovered a plane built by HenriConada in 1910 that used jet propultion! Albeit a motorjet, this design was 30 years ahead of its time. Its a shame no one took financial intret in this venture. Still, it was the first designed and built manned jet aircraft and it even took to the air, though this occurnce was accedental and unfortunately resulted in the distruction of the aircraft. It's amazing that such a design was conceived and constructed even before the outbreak of WWI. Also from the figures I've seen the craft's weight was a little under 1000 lbs and the thrust output was around 450 lbf, giving this aircraft a thrust/weight ratio of more than .45 such was not seen by jet aircraft until after WWII. (though seeing the airframe such a high thrust would easily push it past its limit if left at full throttle)

see: Coanda
and CoandÄƒ-1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 12, 2007)

I've taken another look at the moonbat's design and with a little modification to the wings two J33 turbojets could be installed as engines possibly bringing acceptable performance as a heavy jet fighter. It may also have made a good attack aircraft with its 6x 37mm cannon. I'm not sure what range would be like though. 

The XP-83 Airacomet II would also have been a good design to develop. Though it was underpowered with early I-40 engines, uprated 4,600 lbf J33 engines would have helped, improving Thruft/Weight from .29 to .33, possibly getting it up to 560 mph top speed. It wouldn't be usefull in WWII, and though it was outclassed by the Mig-15, produced in sufficient numbers it would have made a better long-range escort fighter than the F-51s or F-82s did in the opening days of the war. Long range was its main advantage (well in excess of 2,000 miles) and not suprising since it was developed to be a long-range penetration fighter for the invasion of Japan's mainland.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2007)

The XP-83 even with uprated engines (15% more thrust are roughly 3.75% speed everything else equal -not adjusted for compressibility effects, which would reduce that even more), so the top speed couldn´t go over 541.5 mp/h with a new top speed of around 535 mp/h beeing reasonable. Not sure, but I suspect the USAAF did best with her P-80.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 13, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The XP-83 Airacomet II would also have been a good design to develop.



I cant wrap my brain around that.. The Airacomet was at best a transition aircraft. Crunch all the numbers u want, it was a learning tool not worth development.

.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 13, 2007)

comiso90, I said the XP-83 Airacomet II, not the P-59 airacomet. True, the P-59 was best as a conversion trainer, but the P-83 was sesigned as a long-range penetration fighter for the planned invasion of japan.

Yes the XP-83 wasnt stellar or pretty, but it could have provided long-range escort of B-29s when other jets couldn't. Since the piston-engined F-51 and F-82 were the only planes available for such a task early in Korea, and were completly outmatched by almost any attacking jet (maby not he Yak-15) so any decent jet-powered replacement would have been better. It was the only early jet with a range of more than 2000 miles. 

Though if the P-47J or better, the P-72 had been produced, they would have been better intrim measures as they were more fuel efficient than early jets and, with external tanks and the P-47N's wings (with internal tanks) could easily have ranges around 2000 miles. They both had top-speeds over 500 mph, with the P-72's projected at 550 mph at altitude and 480 mph observed at SL. They would also have had better prformance than the P-83, especially the P-72 which test-pilots reported was very agile and had good handeling, which means it was likely better than the Mustang and with the jug's amazing armour and toughness. The P-72 had virtually no development problems and could have been produced in 1944.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 14, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I just discovered a plane built by HenriConada in 1910 that used jet propultion! Albeit a motorjet, this design was 30 years ahead of its time. Its a shame no one took financial intret in this venture. Still, it was the first designed and built manned jet aircraft and it even took to the air, though this occurnce was accedental and unfortunately resulted in the distruction of the aircraft.



From the site you provided..
Coanda

_ “Henri Coanda should be known in history as the Farther of the Jet Engine his design (which he made himself) was thirty years before Whittle, yet all the world believes Frank Whittle invented this form of propulsion.”_

As you first mentioned, Coanda did not invent a jet engine, but instead what is regarded as a motorjet. Even then he was not the first to come up with this idea.
Motorjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_
“The aeroplane was on display in October 1910 at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition at the Grand Palais in Paris were it caused a great deal of interest..”_

A lot of the interest centered not only on the power plant but the airframe. Designers were impressed by its elegance and structural ingenuity. For the first time struts and bracing wires were kept to a minimum, and also for the first time, the aeroplane was completely wooden skinned. This fact and what would later be named after him, the Coanda Effect, was the reason the aircraft *burned so readily* during the so called ‘trial’. 
_
“…as no one had seen any thing like it before (nor would they for another thirty years!)”._

Not until the Caproni-Campini N.1, as far as motorjets are concerned. Despite the ‘fantastic’ publicity at the time this aircraft is best described by Bill Gunston as “pathetic” and “…had Caproni merely made a normal two-seater with the same piston engine it would have weighed half as much, burned one third less fuel and cruised between two and three times as fast.” (Important to remember that at this time the 'secret’ Heinkel 178 had already flown.) 
_
“How ever after this (the FIRST flight of a jet powered aeroplane) Henri Coanda could not find financial backing to progress with his invention.”_

Actually, England’s Bristol aircraft factory employed him as a designer. He produced numerous designs for the firm under the title of Bristol Coanda. If there was promise in the motorjet I feel certain that Bristol would have persevered with Coanda’s help. But it never happened.

The only nation that had some success with the motorjet principle was the Soviet Union. Two designs’ early post war, that utilised what they called the “accelerator” were MiG I-250 and Sukhoi Su-5. However they altered the motorjet concept to include a tractor propeller.
Illustrated is the Su-5.
Engine (9) drives propeller (3) and reduction gear (8). This in turn drives the compressor (22) which forces air past seven fuel nozzle chambers (36) producing thrust. Simple!
Results were promising but the writing was already on the wall, ‘true’ jet engines were the future.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 14, 2007)

Interesting notes on Conada. 

I knew about the Su-5 and I-250. The I-250 actually saw some active service with at least 50 production aircraft built. Another interesting feature of the I-250 was that its jet had a veriable exaust nozzel.

The Su-9 would have been a nice design, and though it looks like the Me-262, and was most likely influenced by it, for the most part it was an indiginous Russian design . It did use a copy of the 004 engine though. Its design was authorized in early 1944. Its performance was comperable to the Me 262. It had the same armament as the Mig 9 of 2x 23mm and 1x 37mm connon and compared quite favorably to the Mig and had much better handeling. Gun placemnt was better than the 262 in the front of the nose rather than the top reducing blinding effects. Though not swept, it had low-profile laminar-flow trapizoidal wings, that had a smaller span and area than the 262's. If anything the Su-9 looked more like the P1065 the prototype preceding the 262 which had symilar wings and a narrower fusalage like the Su-9. It also had a variable-incidence tailplane, a cordite-powered ejetion seat and provisions for RATO and a break parachute.
It didn't enter production for political reasons, particularly Yakolev's agruments aganst it to stallin. The early Yak jets were far inferrior to it as well as the Mig 9, both the Yak 15 and Yak 17 were sub-par aircraft, the Yak 23 was decent but didn't enter service until 1949 by which time the Mig 15 was ready.

see: Sukhoi Su-9 (K) - fighter-bomber
Su-9
Sukhoi Su-9 (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Translated version of http://www.afwing.com/intro/me262/new/1.htm


----------



## Graeme (Oct 15, 2007)

Nothing left but wooden models, however A.J. Shcherbakov was on the right track with his vertical lift aircraft of 1946. Designated VSI, which stood for _Vysotno-Skorostnii Istrebitel_ or 'High Altitude and High Speed Pursuit Aircraft'
His drawing office was dissolved in 1947 but the supreme command of the Air Force allowed him to continue his work. It was planned to use Rolls-Royce Nenes as the rotatable engines, however only German BMW 003 engines were available. One source claims that hovering tests began in 1948 but "work was soon halted, conflicting reasons given by different sources".


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 17, 2007)

Another note on the XP-83 is that it was verry dificult to slow down. Due mostly to aerodynamics but also to inadequit flaps and lack of airbrakes. On the positive side this would have made crusing more efficient and reduced speed loss durring maneuvers. However this made landing a major problem, but improvement of flaps and addition of breaks would help. 

The Airacomet II actually had pretty decent aerodynamics, especially compared to all the shortcomings of the P-59 Airacomet, but Bell's their fighters the P-39 and P-63 had nice streamlined airframes as well as good canopy visabillity. The P-59 had neither of these, and while I'm unsure behind the reason for the canopy design, the lack of streamlining is due to restrictions placed on the development team, including little information on engine schematics/performance and lack of wind-tunnel use, though some low-speed tunnel testing was done. The designers were basicly forbidden to streamline and were rushed for development time, though not so much as Lockheed was with the XP-80, but unlike Bell, Lockheed had already had experience in jet designs as well as valuable high-speed performance info from working with the P-38 .

So opposed to the P-59, the XP-83 has better aerodynamics, better canopy view, more than twice the range (of P-59B, >4x the P-59A's range) and a better armament. (6x .50 cal BMG or being decided on but later changed to six 0.60-inch T17E3 machine guns in the second prototype. There were provisions for heavier armaments, including 4x 20mm or 37mm cannons making it useful for ground attack. Less conservatively a battery of 20x .50 BMG were considered )

Though as I stated earlier the P-72 would have been a better road to go down for a high-speed (greater than 500mph) long-range/escort fighter. ANd the P-72 would have had the advantages of the Mustangs of being able to take-off from grass/dirt runways early in Korea. Lack of adequit runways for jets was another heavily limiting factor on their apperarance as escorts early in the war. The piston engine fighter would also have had better performance and fuel efficiency, and was much lighter and smaller.


----------



## Engram (Oct 17, 2007)

Two British aircraft that it would have been handy to get hold of a bit earlier:

Dr Havilland DH103 Hornet
Martin Baker MB5

The Hornet would give the XP72 a run for its money and had the range to operate in the Pacific Theatre. The MB5 would have stayed with any of the late-model piston-engined fighters.

Oh, and let's not forget the Commonwealth - it looked like a Mustang on steroids.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 18, 2007)

what about the lighning, first flight on 27 January 1939. imagine ligtnings at pearl 

the me 262 first flight were in April 1941, also what would have happen if they were operational on the russian front from 1941.

also a pipe dream....the p40 airframe with the merlin engine, just see what the merlin did for the mustang


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2007)

I dont really think the Lightning can be included in the list. Only because it was develeped extensivly. Its not about developing ealier but rather being further developed than it was.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 18, 2007)

eddie_brunette said:


> also a pipe dream....the p40 airframe with the merlin engine, just see what the merlin did for the mustang



Errrm, not actually a pipe dream, as they did operate with Merlins. Of the 13,740 or so built, just over 2,000 operated with Merlin engines. 

The P-40F and P-40L both flew with Packard Merlin V-1650-1 engine, essentially a licence built copy of the Merlin 28 engine, but built to US tooling measurements and featuring US carburettors and some other detail improvements (as well as a tendency to leak oil).

Performance at atitude was better than with the Allison, but not spectacularly so. P-40Fs topped out at about 365 mph at 20,000 ft, and the lighter P-40Ls about 5 mph faster. Compare this to the 360 mph at 15,000 feet of the P-40D/E and, while better, its not anything to write home about.** 

Most P-40Fs unded up serving with the Soviet Union, but 300 or so served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The fundamental difference between the P-40 experience and the P-51 experience is that while the P-40 swapped its single stage, single speed Allison for a similarly powerful single stage two speed Merlin 28/V-1650-1 engine, the P-51 swapped its single stage, single speed Allision for a more powerful two stage, two speed Merlin 60 family engine. 

Some 300 P-40L/Fs were converted back to Allison engines, because of the lack of Packard Merlin engines and spare parts, and their incompatability with the British/Commonwealth supply train (requiring slightly different sized tools and such to work on).

**Just looking through some war time test data, and it seems the RAAF had a hard time getting any speeds above 350 mph out of its P-40Es, even with the Allsions cranked up at the 57" War Emergency Rating. To be fair though, their P-40Fs were 5-10 mph down on their nominal tested speed as well.

Seems to be a common thread with RAAF tests. The P-30F they tested was about 15 mph down on advertised top speed, while their Spitfire Mk VIIIs was about 10 mph slower than given nominal. Might of been something to do with the atmospheric conditions the tests were conducted in.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 18, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Errrm, not actually a pipe dream, as they did operate with Merlins. Of the 13,740 or so built, just over 2,000 operated with Merlin engines.
> 
> The P-40F and P-40L both flew with Packard Merlin V-1650-1 engine, essentially a licence built copy of the Merlin 28 engine, but built to US tooling measurements and featuring US carburettors and some other detail improvements (as well as a tendency to leak oil).
> 
> ...




tx  i just learned something


----------



## Graeme (Oct 18, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Most P-40Fs unded up serving with the Soviet Union, but 300 or so served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.




The P-40F and L models were designated Kittyhawk II by the RAF. Australia's 3 Squadron flew them extensively in the Middle East but none received serial numbers, and hence do not appear on the RAAF's inventory.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 18, 2007)

It would have been interesting if the P-40 would have gotten the same two stage, two speed Merlin as the P-51. 

I thought I read that Curtiss said that if they had that engine it would have been superior to the P-51. Hard to believe since the airframe was older, didn't have laminar wings or the extra thrust that the P-51 gets from its air scoop and so on...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 18, 2007)

If you all are interested in the P40, look up the P40Q, lovely bird, but a bit of a last gasp for the line.

Info
Variants P-40Q

Link to forum page with pics of P40Q

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-picture-requests/request-p40q-3165.html


----------



## Graeme (Oct 18, 2007)




----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 18, 2007)

The DH Hornet definately had excelent range and probably could outgun the P-72, but it was bulkier (likely less maneuverable), with 2 engines, and it was slower, the P-72's top SL speed was faster than the Hornet's one at altitude!
The P-72 also had a better power to weight ratio, and I'm not sure about toughness but I suspect the P-72's would be better. Though like was said the Hornet would give the P-72 a run for its money. 

Though with a projected top speed of 550 mph with the contra-rotating propeller, the P-72 could have gone toe-to-toe with the Me-262.(of course this was a theoretical measurement only, speeds around 520-530 mph being more practical) Even with the standard prop it was on par with the Meteor F-III with a top speed aprox. 506mph.(though was probably more agile due to the restrictions placed on the F-III's airframe) 

With the Me-262's performance drop-off approching its ceiling (and its lower ceiling) the P-72 could have outrun or chased it,imagine the confused jet pilot being tailed by it. (this would be especially true if the P-72s were at a higher altitude, concevable due to higher ceiling, gaining speed in dives.)


----------



## machine shop tom (Oct 19, 2007)

The Japanese had some promising designs that would have been interesting had they progressed. I'll not include the Shinden or the jet types to keep this post simple.

The Ki 100 was a successful adaptation of the Ki 61 "Tony" to use a radial engine. By all accounts a great performer.

The Ki 84 "Gale". Captured examples bested P-51s and P47s. 

The N1K2KJ Shiden "George". Derived from a floatplane and a deadly adversary.

tom


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2007)

Why not mix the Ki 100 and the Ki 84? The Ki-116 was a Ki-84 with the same engine as the Ki-100.
In fact, the only fighter aircraft the Japanese needed was the Ki-84 as it was superior to all others AND easier to produce. No need for the Ki-61, J2M or N1JK. The Ki-116 could then have become the standard light fighter side by side with the Ki-84. 

After that the Shinden or the first jet fighters were the way of the future. 

The Japs had quite a lot of interesting tdesigns actually.
Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2007)

This baby is what I would've developed further, the Messerschmidt P.1011:






As it was it never got past the prototype stage... 

If the Ta-183 could've been fielded that would been great for the Germans as-well. As it was its construction plan had already been worked in detail and the design thuroughly tested in windtunnels, and the characteristics displayed in these tests looked VERY promising. It would've needed automatic leading edge slats or wing fences though to avoid violent stalling characteristics, the same as discovered with the MIG-15.


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2007)

Here are some great pictures of how the Ta-183 probably would've looked in Luftwaffe colors:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2007)

I think you mean the Messerschmitt P.1101. Her's what the original design looked like: Messerschmitt Me 1101 initial concept Quite different from the V1 prototype. The original wing and tail were abandoned and the outer wings from the Me-262 were used along with a conventional tail. I think the variable sweep was for testing only and a fixed-wing was to be used in production. The prototype's small, low-profile canopy also resulted in poor visibility (for a bubble canopy) and would likely need a redesign for the prodution version. But it did have good potential.
see also: Messerschmitt Me P.1101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was also captured by the US and was served for the basis for the Bell X-5. See: Bell X-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for the P-38, by late 1941 the USAAF actually had 13 YP-38s as well as 30 P-38s, (which were armmed with 2x .50 and 2x .30 or 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon, but not considdered combat capable), and 36 P-38Ds which had improved insterments and self-sealing tanks and armmed with 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon. So the USAAF did have P-38s by the time of the Pearl-Harbor attack, but the kinks in the design had not been worked out and these aircraft were used primarily for training and work out the bugs, so pilots wouldn't have been fully ready for combat even if they were pressed into serfice as they would still be getting used to the aircraft.

quote: "On 20 September 1939, before the YP-38s had been built and flight tested, the USAAF ordered 66 initial production P-38 Lightnings, 30 of which were delivered to the USAAF in mid-1941, but not all these aircraft were armed. The unarmed aircraft were subsequently fitted with four .50s (instead of the two .50 and two .30 of their predecessors) and a 37 mm cannon. They also had armor glass, cockpit armor and fluorescent cockpit controls.[19] One was completed with a pressurized cabin on an experimental basis and designated XP-38A.[20] Due to reports the USAAF was receiving from Europe, the remaining 36 in the batch were upgraded with small improvements such as self-sealing fuel tanks and enhanced armor protection to make them combat-capable. The USAAF specified that these 36 aircraft were to be designated P-38D. As a result, there never were any P-38Bs or P-38Cs. The P-38D's main role was to work out bugs and give the USAAF experience with handling the type."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2007)

As stated before, a P-39 with a turbocharger like the prototype would have made a much better fighter (on par with early combat P-38s) and had decent maneuverabillity. Actually both the P-38 and P-39 were designed for the Circular Proposal X-608 for a high performance, high altitude interceptor, but the Lightning won the contract so the P-39 was redesigned into a standard fighter.

One interesting thing is that both planes had the same initial armament of 2x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm M4 cannon, both had 360 degree view cannopies, and both utilized trycicle landing gear.. (a redesigned P-40 was also designed but didn't make it past the prototype stage)

Another improved Airacobra (originally the P-39E) was the XP-76 which introduced a laminar flow wing and used a supercharged Continental I-1430 engine. It generaly outperformed the original turbo XP-39 and had good agility and armament. The prototype flew in 1942 and 4,000 aircraft were initially ordered, the order was cancelled to permit the Bell factory to manufacture Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers. It would have made a good fighter and, though slower than the P-38J it had good maneuverabillity and its 37mm cannon was good aganst bombers and for ground-attack, though the oveall armament of the P-38 was better especially the high ammo capacity and it had extremely long range. Still I feel the P-76 was the best varient of the Airacobra line and, unlike the P-63, was ready before it was outclassed by the Mustang.

The P-59 Airacomet might have been a decent combat plane and still have been ready for use as a testbed if 2 separate design lines were taken, both using the same general design. The testbed would be simpllified design basicly the same as the XP-59A that was tested, but the combat varient would be streamlined using Bell's experience in good aerodinamics seen in the Airacobra and Kingcobra.(and later in the XS-1) Basicly the production would have thinner, narrowerer, shorter wings (~40ft) and an improved nose able to hold a larger armament (or more ammo/ variable armament like a provision for 2x .50 cals replacing the cannon), improved fuel capacity and a 360 degree view canopy. The combat prototype could have been ready a few months after the testbed and improved using the data gained from the testbed's problems.(as well as the Kingcobra's) It could have entered service testing by late 1943 and full production and introduction by mid 1944; possibly entering service in time to aid Britain with the V-1's (at least the pre-production version) and to combat the rising Me-262 threat. It would perform at least as well as the Meteor III's in speed (first ~450 later ~500mph), though it would still be outperformed by the germann jets, except in low-to-mid-speed maneuverabillity, and would still be outclassed by the P-80 once its kinks had been worked out. Besides the wings the second biggest aerodynamic hinderance was the engine placement, though the snaking problem was eventually resolved the mountings still reduced performance due to aerodynamic interferance, but they did have the advantage of being able to fly on one engine without serious problems. "turbojets were installed in housings underneath the wing roots, adjacent to the fuselage. This arrangement had the advantage in that no appreciable asymmetric forces were exerted if one engine went out." (the engines were also partially burries in the fusalage so the frontal area was less than those on the Meteor.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2007)

Here's another, more comprehensive page about the XP-72: Republic XP-72

According to this it had a range over 2520 mi when crusing crusing at 315mph and with 2x 125 gal. drop-tanks, though this seems excessive and contradicts the 1530 mi of: www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - U.S.A.A.F. Resource Center - Republic XP-72 It also claims that provisions for an alternate armament of 4x 37mm cannons were made.

Still, with the P-47-N's wing it's feasible that it would conceivably have around a 2000 mile range, though this wing also reduced top-speed since it was thicker, but it also improved roll with square wing-tips. It also included compressabillity-recovery flaps symilar to those used in late model P-38s.

I know it's been mentioned before, but the P-38 K was just awsome, it was the best of the line, and if it had been produced it would have reduced the need for the P-82 for escort of the B-29s and was ready much erlier (though the P-82 was still useful as a nightfighter). It also may have stayed in service longer and outperformed and outranged the P-51, so it would have made a better escort for the B-29/B-50s, as well as close air support, fighter-bomber, and general long-range fighter in Korea than the F-51D (and like the Muctang, and other piston-engine fighters, it had the shorter takeoff runs making it sutable for the small airstrips in Korea). (and unlike the XP-72 there's no what-ifs about the range, it was certainly over 2000 miles)


It's really too bad that the Allison V-1710 wasn't developed with powerful superchargers in mind. It was mainly designed for use with turbochargers and aircraft that couldn't practically use one were stuck with the engine's single-stage single-speed supercharger as seen in the P-39 and P-40. If a 2-speed or 2-stage supercharger had been mated to it, it would have had much improved altitude performance without a turbocharger.(though a suplemental supercharger was added to the version used in the P-63 and P-82) Too bad the turbo-compound version also had'nt been developed sooner as this offered amazing performance. The only all-American liquid cooled engine engine, earlier in the war that offered appreciable power without the use of a turbocharger was the Continental I-1430 wich was ready by 1943 and was to be used in the Bell P-76 and was tested in Lockheed's P-49.

Other than the lack of this development the Allisons were superior to the Merlins, they were lighter, smaller, easier to build and repair, and were much more resistant to battle-damage. Up to the development of the 2-stage supercharged Merlin 61, the Allison was totaly superior.

quote: "The US Army had specified that the V-1710 was to be a single-stage supercharged engine and, if a higher altitude capability was desired, the aircraft could use their newly developed turbosupercharger as was featured in the P-37, P-38, and XP-39." 
"The benefits of a two stage supercharger eventually became so clear cut that Allison did make some efforts in this direction. Allison attached an auxiliary supercharger in various configurations to the existing engine mounted supercharger and carburetor. Early versions of these two stage supercharger engines were used on the P-63. No intercooler, aftercooler, or backfire screen were incorporated into these two stage V-1710 engines (except for the V-1710-119 used on the experimental P-51J, which had an aftercooler). The two stage Merlin engines had all of these features, which were designed to prevent detonation from charge heating and backfire into the supercharger." from: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soren (Oct 21, 2007)

KoolKitty89,

Read what I wrote again, I did write Messerschmidt P.1101, I added the Ta-183 as another choice.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 21, 2007)

Yet the first Allison V-1710 built to a USN order, and completed in Aug 1931, was for powering airships. After the crash of the Akron and Shenandoah, the USN dropped the airship requirement. The Army then took an interest and the funding. The Army had bought its first Allison V-1710 in Dec 1932.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2007)

Still it was a great engine, I wonder how the mustang would have done with a turbocharged Allison? Though engeneers found such a configuration impractical, especially considdering the strong export market since there was a ban on turbocharger export. A major flaw in the P-51 was a lack of combat toughness, particularly the volunerabillity of the merlin (particularly compared to the verry tough thunderbolt, though its radial engine helped in this respect), as said before the allison was more resistant to battle damage and would have helped the P-51 considderably, if only it could have had the altitude performance necessary without necessitating a turbocharger. (though turbochargers a great in their own right, the compicated duct work and added cooling system, as well as the export prohibition, were severe disadvantages, and also had some problems when used in the P-38, though radial engined bombers, as well as the P-47 and the like did verry well with them.)

Also on the coparison between the P-40 and the P-51 having replaced engines I don't think the P-40 would have benefitted as much from the Merlin-61 as the P-51 did. As even with the same Allison powerplant, the P-51 was 30 mph faster than the P-40, though the P-40 had the advantage of better low-altitude handeling, so the standard powerplant was good for its role.


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2007)

Do you know why the Allison engine was more resistant to battle damage than the Merlin?


----------



## SteveH (Oct 21, 2007)

I haven't looked at every page in this thread, but did anyone venture a Westland Whirlwinf with RR Merlins? Can you imagine the beast.... I've been tempted to paint one just for myself.

Cheers,

Steve


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'm not totally sure about the damage resistance, but I remember it being mentioned in several different places, I try to remember where. It was sertainly easier to work on though, due to the lower parts count and more uniform/interchangible parts (though the Packard Merlins were more uniform).

Also the second staged allison, despite its flaws, was still able to produce 1,500 hp at SL and 1800 hp with water injection.

Seeing the good aerodynamics of the later P-63 (P-63C+), I'm confident that if the P-59 had had, shorter higer aspect ratio wings like the P-63 and a streamlined fusalage it would have performed well enough for combat use. Also seeing how large the nose is there should have been plenty of room for a larger, more recessed armament, like 4-5x .50 BMG with >400rpg in addition to the 37mm cannon with standard ammo. (as said before the wings should also have been thinner, especially since, unlike the cobras, fuel was stored in the fusalage instead of the wings, so thick wings weren't necessary. They would have also benefitted from more adeqate flaps or even better: airbrakes!)

I would have just liked to see Bell produce a fighter that competed with the best of the war (in the eyes of more than just the Soviets).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2007)

I did some more looking and I think I got the idea that the Allison was tougher because many sourses list the P-40, P-39, and P-63 as able to obsorb alot of battle damage and remain flying (I think the P-38 was thus listed, but it had 2 ingines so I'm not sure it can be compared, pluss it had its own engine reliability problems). The P-51 is often sited as being fairly volnerable to damage so I guess I made an assumption this was largely due to the engine (which many sourses list as a volunerabillity) but the Spitfire, and especially the Hurricane don't have this so excentuated. Maby it's just the Mustang.

Also it seems from what I've read that the USAAF did like the P-63, and many pilots enjoyed its handeling and performance. The problem was that the P-51 had taken its plase as a fighter, and the P-47 was at least as good in the ground-attack and support role. So with it being unsuitable as an escort fighter due to its range, all the jobs in the USAAF had been filled. It did proove acceptional as a miltirole fighter in Soviet service and was one of the best soviet fighters of the war. It matched performance with contemporary fighters and, though slightly slower than the P-51 P-47 or the Best german prop fighters (410 mph at 25,000 ft max), it could outturn many of its contemporaries and had overall better maneuverabillity, particularly at lower altitudes, and retained this at high speeds.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 22, 2007)

I was just reading a book about P-51s in the CBI theatre. A squadron that was previously equipped with P-40Ns were making comments about the P-51Cs. They said that there were "miles of coolant lines" that made the P-51 more vulnerable than the P-40. Maybe the Merlin required more plumbing and was therefore "not a tough" as the Allison.


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2007)

There were two major problems with the P63 as far as combat in WW2 was concerned. One was that high speed performance suffered up high. The other was no fuel could be carried inside the fuselage so it was very range limited. Those factors were not as much of a disadvantage on the Russian front(where it's only operational use took place) because it was used in a ground support role.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2007)

The P-63 didn't suffer nearly as much as the P-39 at altitude due to the auxillery supercharcher wich resulted in a rudementary 2-stage supercharger, though not as complex and effective as the Merlin-61 it helped greatly to improve performance. This engine was also equipped with water injection resulting in a boosted WEP of 1800 hp. (other stantard allison engined planes suffered from the same problems as seen in the P-40 and P-51A)
The P-63D was the hottest of the P-63 seried with excelent speed and altitude performance, though fuel capacity was still limited.
The P-63D's speed and altitude performance was on par with the Mustang up to 30,000 ft with an improoved 1,400+ hp engine and propeller, and it clearly had the advantage at lower altitudes, though range was still lacking with a normal range of 950 miles. This model was kind of a last effort by bell for USAAF service. (top speed @ 30,000 ft was 437 mph and ceiling was 39,000 ft) This varient also had a sliding Bubble canopy and longer wings. As said before other craft had already taken it's place so it wasint ordered.

Like most of bells fully streamlined fighter models, the P-63 had a verry clean airframe. (such a design was troublesome when flaps were too small as the planes had trouble slowing down due to lack of drag, as seen in early Airacobras and the XP-83; too bad the P-59 was never properly streamlined. The P-59's landing problems were due to "float" caused by excessive lift at low speeds from the large, thick wings and not from a lack of drag.)

see: Bell P-63D Kingcobra

The tough P-47 would have been a better choice for the support roll than the P-51. Particularly the P-47N whic had improved aerodynamics and range. Now that I've read more about the redesigned wing, I believe it had a positive performance impact with better flow characteristics and roll rate and wasn't noticeably thicker than the standard wing. It was also one of the fastest production thunderbolts, second only to the P-47M with a top speed of 460 mph at 30,000 ft compared to the P-47M's 470 mph.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 23, 2007)

I rather dislike the fact that the P-47N had fuel tanks in the wings. It seems to me that the P-47D would be more than sufficient for the support role. The P-47N was the better fighter so I think that's what it should have been used for.

P-63A-10 was also a good candidate for the support role. 
Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2007)

Either way the P-47 would have done better in Korea than the P-51. The P-38K would have als been useful there and the P-38M had some advantages over the P-82 in the night role. Also all versionsof the P-38 with chin radiators had wet wings (in wing fuel cells) using the area formerly occupied by the intercoolers.

The P-63 wa a good miltirole craft, well balanced for a number of duties, except escort ar other long-range duties. The P-38 was likewise but moreso in the escort, fighter-bomber, and night-fighter role in all configurations, symilar to the Mosquito, the Lightning was an excelent mitirole heavy-fighter.

Also the P-63 was used by some French forces after the war and it was possibly used by North Korea. The soviets tend to downplay the use of forign fighters and many sourses say that the Bell fighters were at least as sucessful as the Sturmovicks if not more. See: French P-63s and P-63s in the Soviet Union and Airacobras in the Soviet Union


I'd also say the P-39 was superrior to the P-40 accept in low-speed maneuverabillity and the cannon was great for bomber interception. It would have been quite useful at Pearl Harbor. (I think there were P-39s in service at the time of Pearl but they werent yet combat ready, but alot closer than the P-38 )

I also read that after reviewing the YP-59A the British submitted a list af improvements to be implemented to it, though I dont think they were used. (maby a few were in the P-59B) The meteor I wasn't much better than the Airacomet with only a 8 mph higher top-speed than the YP-59A and a view that wasn't much better (no bubble canopy in the MK-1) though it had thinner, shorter wings but bulkier nacelles. The Meteor took awhile to improove, and had the P-59 gone down the same route of development it might have faired alittle better. As things were the the P-59B was about equal to the early Meteror III even with Derwent-I's and had an altitude advantage; though the Meteor could have outmaneuvered it if the stick-forces hadn't been increased to limit stress to the airframe. The Meteor outgunned the P-59 as long as it had reliable guns. And I think the Airacomet did have wing-tanks so thinning would have been a problem, though shortening was possible and boosted hydrolic controll would have improved maneuverabillity. With it's amazing altitude performance it might have made a good recon unit if nothing else.(as unmodified)

Though both the Vampire and the P-80 were superior to their counerparts and the meteor only managed to succede when massive amounts of thrust were applied. Just immagine a revised P-59 with Derwent V's or higher. The vampire also did quite well with a Nene engine, though it was never produced as such, I think some 60 to 100 RAAF Vampires were completed as such.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2007)

The XP-49 might have been superior to the P-38 with better engines. It was originaly proposed to use Pratt Whitney X-1800-SA2-G (military designation XH-2600) liquid-cooled engines which were supposed to develop somewhere between 2000 and 2200 horsepower. For production Lockheed proposed to replace these engines by a pair of 2300 hp Wright R-2160 Tornado turbosupercharged radials. But both Lockheed and the USAAF later decided that these powerplants would make the plane seriously overpowered (quite a Hotrod actually) so it was decided to substitute a pair of experimental Continental XIV-1430-9/11 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled engines rated at 1540 hp for takeoff. Less powereful than the P-38J's Allisons. The result was a somewhat sub-par aircraft that slightly outperformed the current P-38s. The XP-49 was also to have a Pressurized cockpit.

I think using R-2800 Double-Wasp, R-2600 Cyclone 14, or maby even a higher rated R-1820 Cyclone 9. Personally I'd lean tward the R-2600 as it had a high 
horsepower, but not so much as the 2800 which would be getting close to overpowered again. The 2600 was also 300 lbs lighter than the 2800. The 1820 would be pushing it as it didn't offer any more power than late version Allisons and was draggier. The R-2600 was powerful enough to make up for added drag and had the added durabillity of a radial. (rted between 1600 and 1900 hp weighing 2000 lbs) The XP-49 was to have a second 20mm cannon which significantly raised its firepower. It also had a larger fuel capacity than early lightnings. Assuming the R-2600 put out 1850 hp the XP-49 would have had a power/weight of nearly .20 hp/lb when fully loaded. (~19,000 lbs) Of course, like in the P-38K paddle props would be needed to take full advantage of this power. (maby even 4-bladed props like the maller ones of early P-47s)

Of course radials had never been implemented for the design but the worked successfully in Grumman's Heavy fighters. Though Lockheed had proposed the tornado, but it was a oddity in that it was a LIQUID-cooled radial engine. see: Republic XP-69 And large radials were used in thr XP-58.

see: Lockheed XP-49


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

How about a He 177 that uses the same engine nacelle placement but using 4 props and 4 separate drive shafta instead of trying to couple 2 engines on a single driveshaft. One tractor prop driven be the front engine ahead of the wing and a pusher behind the wing beig driven by the second engine in the nacelle. This way it might have passed the RLM and Hitlers requirement of a 2-engine bomber. (unlik the 277)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

If they had scrapped the He 177 idea from the beginning an built it as the He 277 I think it would have been a great bomber with good performance and great bomb load. Could have, should have, would have....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

renrich said:


> Do you know why the Allison engine was more resistant to battle damage than the Merlin?



I've never seen metrics which clearly position Allison as less vulnerable to Merlin. The Allison, per se, is not 'tougher' than the Merlin (AFAIK) so the coolant system should probably yield the difference?

What occurs to me is that in the ETO, the 51 was doing a lot more sorties at low altitude than the Allison and that in the case of the P-40 and P-38 versus the P-51, the 51 has two points of serious vulnerability - the radiator and the engine compartment - as well as the plumbing in between to transfer the coolant. 

If so, that is a design vulnerability not an engine issue? Jes wondering.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...



actually the ground attack/dive bomber role caused more weight for the airframe (positive G force increment in structure plus dive brake system) but that would just reduce performance a little bit - not kill the system.

what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.

The pusher/tractor concept might have worked but it would have also added weight by forcing a nose wheel design to get ground clearance for aft props - major redesign.

great aerodynamics/terrible system


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

drgondog said:


> what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.



Exactly. They should have gone with the 4 engine 4 nacelle of the 277 from the beginning.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

If they were allowed to... =(


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2007)

No one is argueing that. Isn't this about what *you* would develop further.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

Totaly agree, but I did bring up the He 277 earlier in this thread and someone countered that by the time the redesign was ready the main problems with the 177's engines were rectified, but I don't think they ever were... Were they?

From page 13:


Civettone said:


> 130fe, there is also such a thing as an edit button...
> 
> Hello Kitty, the He 177 didn't need 4 seperate engines. By 1944 the engine overcooling problems were largely sorted out and the He 177 proved to be a reliable aircraft. In the end it was the fuel shortage which ended a promising career. I suppose the main reason behind the He 277 was because that way the more powerful DB 603 could be used.
> 
> Kris


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2007)

The overheating issue was adresses but probably not fully overcome.
It´s somehow comparable to the B-29 which also adressed the engine overheating but the problem remained valid, altough on a much higher factor of safety now.


----------



## the su-47 is gangsta (Nov 4, 2007)

I would do me 163. Change fvuel capacity. Put hydrogen with mrtane vfirst then add the helium. A nuclear one that works on plutonium could work if airfvrame strengbh was improvfed. If that worked you could havfe a plane with 5,000 or so bhp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Thank god you are history....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

What the hell was that!?

That reminds me though, how about if the HeS-30 (109-006) wasn't canceled and one was added to the Me-163C design. or if that's not enough thrust bury 2 in the wing roots and make more room for fuel in the fuselage. Just sweep the tail and you got a Northrop X-4 Bantam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 8)

Increased endurance, cheaper more available fuel (that isn't toxic and won't eat through skin), non-exploding engines, and still that great airframe, though a little added drag from the intakes, but that's not a big issue. Of, course you'd have to model it on the Me-163C, the best design IMHO. 

Also here's a pic of such a singe-engine design: http://www.luft46.com/duart/dul15-2.jpg and one with a nose intake: http://www.geocities.com/uni1ua/bigph/li20a.jpg


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 10, 2007)

Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?


I also think that if the P-59 had continued development with improvements after the YP-59As were out it might have developed into somthing akin to the Meteor. As the Meteor Mk I was not much better than the YP-59A and had had much more time to develop and streamline the (engineless) design. The early P-59 development was hampered by restrictions on wind-tunnel use and to a lesser extent lack of engine performance specs. In addition, to maintain secrecy the design staff was verry small and couldn't readily cooperate with those working on the P-63 which had similar design features, though eventually they did use some of the P-63's improvements. If the Meteor had been canceed at the same stages as the P-59 it would have been no better. (note that the development as acombat a/c was canceled before the P-59A was in production so the improvements made in the P-59A/Bs were mimimal) Both the Airacomet and early Meteor sufferd from snaking, compressibillity, short range and low engine power. The biggest problem were the wings: they were much larger than necessary, with an area of 386 square ft for an a/c weighing under 11,000 lbs loaded and under 13,000 lbs max. This resulted in a wing loading far lower than was necessary (~32lbs/square ft), admittedly good for a testbed where engines were unreliable and glide capabillities appreciated, but a wing area of around 260-280 square ft would be much more reasonable for a jet. (wing loading ~48-44 lbs/square ft) In addition the P-59, unlike the P-63, didn't utilize a liminar flow wing.In addition, the long 45.5 ft span resulted in poor roll characteristics. 

Imagine an improved Airacomet with more streamlined fusalage, air intakes and engine nacelles, improved visibility/bubble canopy, improved control surfaces (possibly boosted), and air-brakes added. Square-off the tailplane. Have wing scaled to 84% of the original (~71% of the original area) resulting in a span of 38.2 ft and an area of ~272 square ft. The wing would be redesigned with improved airflow characteristics if possible. Maximize internal fuel capacity. Use the 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines of the P-59B or maby up to 2,400 lbf as in the Derwent IV. Remove the cannon armament and increase total armament to 5x .50 cal BMG with increased ammo capacity to 250-300 rpg.(I doubt the nose could hold more than 5 guns) Though still not as good as the P-80, I'd expect it would have been tested and entered production by early to mid 1944 and service by very late 1944 or earl '45, like the Mk III mteor. (assuming redesign work began immediately after the initial prototype flew, and that Bell put this project on highest prioety and was continuously suported by the government; all other experemental designs like the XP-77 would be reduced in prioety or canceled. the P-63 would probably continue normaly) 

I'd say remove the landing light from the nose, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it in the first place... (if it reall needed one, which day-fighters usualy dont, it could have wing-mounted lights as was more common. (with the light gone a larger armament might be possible, though I'm unsure of how much space the nose-wheel takes-up.

I'd expect performance to be somthing like: top speed: 520-540 mph, Range: ~400 mi normal ~700 mi max, climb: 3,800 ft/min max, weights would stay about the same at: ~8,000 lbs empty ~11,000 normal and 13,000 lbs max take-off. (the smaller wings reducing weight but increased fuel increasing it) 
I'm not even going to talk about if engines with over 3,000 lbf of thrust at higher efficiency like the Derwent V were used... (ie a scale down J33 instead of the Nene) 8) 


With the same kind of modification as seen in the Meteor, the P-59 would have likely seen similar improvements. Then again, if the RAF had abandoned the Meteor focused on the Vampire like the USAAF did with the P-59 and P-80...

She still looks nice in model form though: Hobbycraft 1/48 P-59A Airacomet YP-59 Airacomet by John Valo (Hobbycraft 1/48)


----------



## Graeme (Nov 10, 2007)

Kitty, everywhere I look, the performance of the XF-83 is described as “poor” due to the fact that it carried so much fuel-1,150 gallons internally and 600 gallons externally, to compensate for thirsty engines.

Lloyd S Jones;
“..there is more to a fighter than long range; and the weight of all that fuel took its toll on the performance..”
“..subsequent testing showed, the XF-83 did not offer any increase in performance over existing fighters.” 

Peter Bowers;
“..the plane’s performance was eventually judged disappointing and no orders for series production were placed.”
"Apart from its range, the XP-83 offered no significant advantages when compared with other fighters which would soon be available..”

A J Pelletier;
“Performance was found somewhat disappointing.”
“..was underpowered and its manoeuvrability left much to be desired.” 

Green/Swanborough;
“..performance proved somewhat disappointing and with more promising fighters already under development, the Bell XP-83-which proved to be the company’s final war-time fighter design-was abandoned.”

Dorr/Donald;
“Underpowered and unstable.”
“The close proximity of the two low-slung powerplants caused hot exhaust gases to buckle the tailplane unless, during run-ups, fire trucks were used to play streams of water over the rear fuselage!”
(As a result the tailpipes had to be modified to resolve the heat/buckling problem, on the second prototype.) The tailplane needed to be raised 18 inches to improve instability but it not clear if this modification was ever carried out.
“..(XF-83) seemed to offer no improvement over the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star.”
The “USAF turned to the North American F-82 Twin Mustang”..instead. 

The second prototype ended its days as a gunnery target. 
The first, as a research tool…

So cavernous was the fuselage that when tested with wing mounted ramjets, a hatch was cut in the belly to provide entry into the fuselage for an engineer’s station. This was a ‘blind’ position except for a small port-side window created behind the pilot. 
(Similar ramjet testing was also conducted on F-51s F-80s and others, but with no practical application ever found).

In this guise on 4 September 1947 a ramjet caught fire and quickly spread. Pilot Chalmers ’Slick’ Goodlin and engineer Charles Fay managed to bail out without the benefit of ejection seats.

A French Nord research aircraft had a similar engine layout but had the benefit of swept wings, but this was 1950.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 11, 2007)

There were solutions for all the problems of the P-83 except the lage size and weight. A tail extention cured instability. Slight angling outwards of the jetpipes eliminated the exaust from hitting the tail. Improved control surfaces would have improved maneuverabillity (though the agility was limitid by the bulk), airbrakes would solve the speed retention problem. Though far from the performance of the F-80 it was still decent, though honestly I'm not sure how much use it would have been as a fighter though, with the inherant drawbacks of the large size...

Still, I was curious of why Adler said he would have liked it to go further.

As for the French plane, what is it? That's exactly the kind of redesign of the Airacomet I had in mind, except for the swept wings. The nacelles are more streamlined and separated from the fusalage which allows better airflow, but still close together for better stability on a single engine. Maby Bell would have used a similar design (with unswepet, but sleeker wings) had they had the use of high-speed wind-tunnels and less design constraints.

Though I still think the P-59 could have performed decently with a less radical redesign that took place after the flight of the XP-59A. With more conservative streamling to the basic air intakes, nacelles, and fusalage, the scaled down wing (~84%), improved control surfaces, airbrakes, and revised canopy and armament. Airbreaks could replace the flaps in the same type of arrangement as was seen on the Meteor.

And I maintain that the Meteor would have been about as bad (though much better at SL by comparison) had extensive redesign work and more powerful engines hadn't occured. Granted some of the Meteor's design aspects were easier to modify than the P-59, but not by all that much. The long nacelles of the late Mk III Meteor alone increased top speed by 75mph bringing the top-speed from 415mph of the Mk I to 490mph with the same engines! Since the nacelles were the biggest aerodynamic problem of the Meteor and the wings were in the P-59, similar improvements would have beem likely. If the Vampire or maby the Gloster E.1/44 "Ace" had taken precedence over the Meteor, the Meteor would have ended up similar to the P-59, albeit it shot-down some V-1s.

Also, not related, but the original XP-59 (redesigned XP-52) had 20 degree swept wings...


----------



## Freebird (Nov 14, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> I have a few in mind, but ill start with one of my favourites.
> 
> 1. Westland Whirlwind. Only 114 made, the type had real potential but was superceeded by the Beaufighter and Typhoon because of a combination of engine troubles, political listlessness and conflicing RAF requirements.
> 
> ...



Excellent post! One of my favorites too, its a shame it was dropped, because it was more manouverable than the Beau.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?



Sorry for the late response. I just saw this post now.

I think with better development it could have been developed into a decent escort fighter during WW2. Now I do agree with your other post in the other thread that it would have been outdated by Korea (but then again alot of aircraft were by then anyhow).

In its current config I think it was obviously underpowered performed poorly. However with some developement it might have been able to be something.

Probably not but it is interesting to think about.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

I though the biggest problem of the XP-83 was that it was underpowered...



Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (Instabillity fixed with tail extention and repositioned tailplane. Add airbrakes and/or better flaps. Improve agility with revised and boosted control surfaces. Angle jetpipes slightly outward to prevent overheating the tail.)

It wouldn't have been underpowered if they'd switched to Nene engines, which were more powerful, fuel efficient, and lighter than the J33. Though for production the J42 (licensed Nene) would be used, and the J42 put out nearly 6,000 lbf with water injection. If you look at it, the P-83 wasn't really all that heavy for a fighter either, though for the time it was. By the early 1950s several fighters were quite heavier than it was, and many of them were quite maneuverable so it should have been possible for the P-83 to have decent agility. (granted those fighters were faster, had more thrust, and better aerodynamics)

Though it may have been better to have designed the plane around axial engines like J35s or J34s to improve streamlining. (though really not practical if production was to start before the end of 1945) Though it would have to be made somewhat smaller with less powerful J34 engines (3000-3250 lbf dry) but with the decreased drag and fuel consumption, it still might have had 2000 miles in range. But these engines were not nearly as developed as the J33 or Nene, so it would have been a while. Though this is basically how the F2H banshee ended up. With 1700 mile range and weight within 1000 lbs of the XP-83 (emty weight of the F2H was ~1000 lbs lighter, but max-takeoff was actually 1000 lbs greater), though top speed was somewhat higher at ~590 mph at altitude. But as said these axial engines were not ready for production by the time the war ended. (though maybe 4x J30s could be used in place of 2x J34s...) Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 4, 2007)

An F2A-3 with 1350 hp (or better, 1450 hp) R-1820 engine would have compensated for the added weight, bringing performance back to F2A-2 levels, and also had a 2-speed supercharger for better altitude performance. (the 1300 hp SL-rated version produced 1000 hp at 17,500 ft with supercharger at high-speed setting) The F2A-3 would have had about the same power load with a 1300 hp engine as the F2A-2 did with its 1200 hp engine did (at both normal and maximum weights) so more hp should have put performance above that of the F2A-2. Though Brewster still had management troubles which limited production quantity, punctuality (keeping to dedlines), and (to a lesser extent) quality. The stability of Grumman was probably the biggest advantage of the F4F over the F2A (the only other being durrabillity/survivabillity) and Brewster probably would have been best off with outsoursing to suplement production.

A P-36 with 1300hp(87 octane)-1450hp(100/130 octane) P&W R-2000 would have brought performance to P-40 standards0 and with a P-42 configuration (with proper fan cooling) performance would likely surpass that of even later P-40s (like the Kittyhawk and Warhawk). I beleive the R-2000 had a 2-speed or 2-stage supercharger too, which would greatly improve altitude performance compared to the V-1710 rated for 13,000 ft. It also had the added durrabillity of a radial engine. The 1300-1450 hp Wright R-1820 engine mentioned above would also have such an effect. And may have been a better choice as the R-2000 was still developmental in 1942.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2007)

I would say the F8F Bearcat. I will admit that Grumman is my favorite plane maufacturer, and that coming from a Navy family I am a little biased. This I freely admit, but i also think the Bearcat would have been more than formidable! 

From Wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat

"Designed for the interceptor fighter role, the design team's aim was to create the smallest, lightest fighter that could fit around the Pratt Whitney R2800 engine (carried over from the F6F Hellcat). Compared to its predecessor, the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster. In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the initial Bearcat (F8F-1) was marginally slower but was more maneuverable and climbed faster. Its huge 12' 4" Aero Products four-bladed prop required a long landing gear, giving the Bearcat an easily-recognized, "nose-up" profile. For the first time in a production Navy fighter, an all-bubble canopy offered 360-degree visibility."

"The Bearcat's design was influenced by an evaluation in early 1943 by Grumman test pilots and engineering staff of a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter in England.[1]After flying the Fw 190, Grumman test pilot Bob Hall wrote a report he directed to President Leroy Grumman who personally laid out the specifications for Design 58, the successor to the Hellcat, closely emulating the design philosophy that had spawned the German fighter. The F8F Bearcat would emanate from Design 58 [2] with the primary missions of outperforming highly maneuverable late-model Japanese fighter aircraft such as the A6M-5 Zero[3], and defending the fleet against incoming airborne suicide (kamikaze) attacks.[4]"

"The F8F prototypes were ordered in November 1943 and first flew on 21 August 1944, a mere nine months later. The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron was operational by 21 May, but World War II was over before the aircraft saw combat service."

"Postwar, the F8F became a major US Navy fighter, equipping 24 fighter squadrons. Often mentioned as one of the best (if not the best) handling piston-engine fighters ever built, their performance was such that they even outperformed many early jets. Its capability for aerobatic performance is borne out by the choice of the Bearcat for the Navy's elite Blue Angels in 1946, who flew it until the team was temporarily disbanded in 1950 (during the Korean War). The Grumman F9F Panther and McDonnell F2H Banshee largely replaced the Bearcat in USN service, as their performance and other advantages eclipsed piston-engine fighters."

*"An unmodified production F8F-1 set a 1946 time-to-climb record (after a run of 115 feet) of 10,000 feet in 94 seconds. The Bearcat held this record for ten years until it was broken by a modern jet fighter (which could still not match the Bearcat's short takeoff distance)."*

Although the writing was on the wall eventually with the advent of jet powered fighters, had the war gone on long enough for the Bearcat enter combat, it would have been interesting to see waht effect it would have had. 
Also if the war had gone on long enough for the Bearcat to have been improved on, maybe have its range improved, speed increased, etc. This is one of my favorites.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (...)
> Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.


But that would have meant the fighter would not have been available before 1947. So you're basically talking about a Cold War fighter.
But wouldn't there have been better designs available by then, incorporating the German lessons and technology?

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 7, 2007)

The bearcat was alittle late though, and it came at a time when interceptors were somewhat unnecessary. We were on the offensive, we needed tough, high-performance, long-range escort and penetration craft. The fact is that the F4U probably would have been much more useful to the US. The armament was impressive with its M3 machine guns (despite having only 4), but the late model Corsairs were being armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. The F4U-5 would probably have outperformed the F8F too.

As for other interceptors and early jets, the FH Phantom would have been better. Though it only had 4 M3's, the nose-mounted formation concentrated firepower. Though slow for a jet, the Phantom had a none too shabby 479mph top speed at sea level. It was flying in January of '45 and was able to take off on a single underdeveloped XJ30 engine (~1200 lbf) as the second wasn't ready. It had very low wingloading, high powerload (thrust/weight of .32 @ normal weight). It was also quite light with a loaded weight scarsely over 10,000 lbs! Normal range was a decent 695 mi and max range was 980 mi. It was the first all American jet fighter built (the Westinghouse J30 was referred to as the "Yankee" as it was an independent design, though there was one thing British about it as the Whittle-based shell-combustors and flame-cans used by GE replaced the troublesome annular one) and also only the second fighter designed by the young Mc Donnell company. (the first being the XP-67 Bat)
It was still in development at the war's end, but had the invasion of Japan gone on as planned it would have certainly seen service before the war's end and production should have been well under way by late '45.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 7, 2007)

Delcyros, you've said the L133 and L-1000 designs were unworkable, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. The L133 design was obviously too advanced and the cockpit seems crampes. (or at least the canopy seems that way at under 2ft wide) And the complex thruster roll-controll and boundary layer control systems were overcomplex and unnecessary (even by today's standards). But the overall design could have been altered to a resonable level by placeng both the elevator and ailerons in the tail (like in a delta) or using elevons, or using ailerons on the wings and altering the canard to act as an elevator. The canopy could be widened and turned into a buble-type one, and the continuous verticle-fin-canopy airfoil shape would be eliminated. The active boundary-layer control would be removed and boundary layer air-bleeds would be used where necessary. The original desing was supposed to acheive Mach .94 and aven with the alterations it should remain quite high. These developments would be conceivable if the USAAF had requested a simplified version with low-level priorety. Such a design should have been ready for testing shortly after the war. By no means did the AAF make the wrong decesion of producing large numbers of conventional fighters, but a low-level development plan wouldn't have hurt and the L-133 could have developed into a nice Korean-War erra fighter.

The engine, though quite advanced, was not actually a failure. (though development was canceled, it was not due to unworkabillity, but more to its redundancy) The L-1000 was an original development of Nathan Price, and in a way he was the US contemporary of Ohain and Whittle in that he designed the US's first jet engine and started development prior to the outbreak of the war, and did it completly independently of other nations. 
From: Air Force Magazine "There were other experimenters contemporary with Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. American Nathan Price developed a 3,500-pound-thrust engine, and Clarence “Kelly” Johnson designed an advanced fighter to use it, but the Army Air Corps considered it so advanced that it was unlikely to be completed before World War II was over. The Army Air Corps therefore rejected it."

This engine was probable the most advanced in the world at its time. With overall performance (especially sfc effeciency) never fully matched for an engine of it's thrust range, though it is somewhat heavy. Had the USAAF promoted low-level development in 1940 it might have been useful. However work stopped when the L133 was regected and didn't restart untill after the AAC had accepted the merrit of jets and the I-A engines had flown in the XP-59A. Work continued at Lockheed, but eventualy it was transferred as Lockheed was buisy with aircraft designs. From: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72)
"While the L-133 aircraft was never built, the L-1000 engine was. It was one of the most powerful and efficient engines of its time. Construction was started during the war, but Lockheed gave up on its development testing and permitted the Menasco Engine Manufacturing Co. to continue with it so it could concentrate on other projects. It turned out to be a handful for Menasco and the XJ-37 as it was now called wound up at Wright Aeronautical Corp. for testing until nearly 1950. The engine finally came to rest in a corner of *Chino's Planes of Fame museum *in California."

It eventually ended up with Wright who tested it but eventually dropped the design. The L-1000 was a single spool axial-flow engine with a 32 stage compressor and 4 stage turbine designed to produce 3500 lbf dry, 5500 lbf afterburning with amazing fuel efficiency and weighing 1543 lbs. The XJ37 engine tested by Wright produced 3000 lbf dry at .87 [lb/lbf hr] sfc and 5000 lbf afterburning at 1.7 [lb/lbf hr].
The project was cancelled in 1950. The only major advantages over the Westinghouse J34 engine (which had almost identical dimentions, thrust ratings and weight) then in production was a lower sfc, especially afterburning. Both engines were about 25 in dia. and weighed around 1600 lbs with afterburner, but the sfc of the J34 was 1.00 at 3,300 lbf dry and 2.60 at 4,900 afterburning. The J34 used a single-spool system with an 11 stage compressor and a 2 stage turbine. Despite the superiority of the J37 its development was behind and lacked the skill of Lockheed. Had Lockheed continued development, the engine would have been ideal for the XF-90 long-range fighter which had been underpowered with 4200 lbf J34 engines, plus it could have reduced the normal fuel load and weight. (the higher-powered afterburners were developed independantly of Westinghouse, by Mc Donnell and others for their use like with the XF-88) I'm confident that, if work had never halted (even low-level work) Lockheed designers would have had it ready for production by 1950 or shortly after. 

Performance statistics from: Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications

It should be noted that the engine was designed and in development before the NACA started their jet propultion studies and programs of the early 1940s (including westinghouse, GE, and others. see: ch3 ) and, though the NACA did corespond with Lockheed on the design and it was the NACA project that spurred the return to developmunt in 1942, the engine was an independent project.
Another note should be made that the L-133 should have worked using J34 engines as the performance, sive and weight were all similar; though performance would be somewhat lower and range would be less.)

As mentioned earlier the engine resides at Chino's Planes of Fame. This is amazing, as I had no idea one of these had survived, but I'll admit that I'm not all too surprised it was POF that saved it. If anion it would have been them, as they are one of the best a/c history conservation organizations in the US. It's just amazing: (again from: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72) ) 
"The engine finally came to rest in a corner of Chino's Planes of Fame museum in California. Back in 1993 while I was wandering around a hanger I came across what appeared to be a large waffle wrapped around a sewer pipe under and behind another display. When I realized this dusty relic’s important position in the early history of jet aircraft, I was inspired to learn more about the engine and aircraft, which resulted in a model.

Although the L-133 aircraft was not built does not mean it never contributed to the wealth of aeronautical information. If one notices, it has the same wing outline as the P-80 Shooting Star Lockheed did build a few years later. One reason that the P-80 was able to be constructed and flown so quickly was because the engineers could draw from their previous work on the L-133."

I wonder if it's still working. It would be a great complement and contrast to their YP-59A that's soon to be flying. I wonder if Evanglider knows that POF has the engine.


Comparing Lockheed's P-80A to Bell's P-59A is a far worse comparison than the Me-262 to the He-280, as the 280 at least had good performance, it just lacked proper engines in time. But comparing the L-133 to the P-80 is similar to comparing the Me-262A-1a with the Me-262 HG III with 2x HeS 011 engines. The He-20 was only inferior as an interceptor to the Me-262 and though the Aerodynamics were less the critical mach of .79 is still higher than the Meteor III and equal to the Vampire Mk I.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 7, 2007)

Honestly, though, the He-280 could have been in production while the 262 was still in development if Ohain had taken a more conservative approach. If he had continued improving on the sucessful HeS 6 deesign instead of working on the troublesome HeS 8, the He 280 could have been test flown immediately with these engines instead of performing glide-tests. This may have allowed some of the flaws of the 280 to be corrected in time to contend with the Me 262, or simple beat it to production as it should have been ready by early 1942 with improved HeS 6 engines. Though due to the He 280's design around narrower engines (HeS 30 according to the below article), the HeS 6 engines could still be mid-mounted (or partially so) in the wings (to allow grownd clearance) with the engine mounted behind the main wing spar and mounted on a strengthened section cut into the wing similar to the Meteor.

The HeS 6 would have been a far better intrim measure for the HeS-30 than the HeS 8 was. Though larger and heavier than the HeS 3b, the HeS 6 was not much wider (still much smaller than Whittle's W.2 engine; ~37in/.94 compared to ~44in/1.12m for the W.2) as the combustor had been elongated to fit closer around the engine with even more folded infront of the compressor and specific fuel consumption was much improved as it used about as much fuel at full throttle as the HeS 3b but with significantly more thrust. The engine produced 1300 lbf at 13300 rpm by the time work moved to the HeS 8 in late 1939.(thrust that the HeS 8 didn't produce untill late 1941, and only after an axial compressor stage had been added) If Ohain and Max Hahn cotinued on improving the output and efficiency of the HeS 6 (most importantly using turbine alloys to replace the plain steel or using air bleed to cool the then uncooled turbine) such improvements should have allowed the engine to run at speeds closer to the 16,000+ rpm that Whittle was able to acheive with improved turbines. (though whittle needed Nimonic 80 to do this, Ohain's radial turbine was inherently stronger as such turbines suffer from less thermal and mechanical wear than axial ones, so possibly 14,500 rpm)

One quote from [B]Pioneering Turbojet Developments of Dr. Hans Von Ohain—From the HeS 1 to the HeS 011[/B] (see: Cookies Required) is that: " Engine Development for the He 280 Jet FighterShortly after the demonstration of the He 178 to the RLM,Heinkel started development of a twin engine fighter which wasdesignated the He 280. The aircraft could not use engines of theHeS 3B type because of the large engine diameter and low per-formance. At this time, however, the axial flow engine designatedthe HeS 30 that was being developed by Mueller who had arrivedat the Heinkel Rostock plant, was experiencing serious develop-ment problems. Recognizing that this engine would not be readyin time, von Ohain took a gamble in designing a back up solution designated the HeS 8 which would employ a radial rotor similar tothe HeS 3B combined with an axial vane diffuser and a straightthrough flow combustor. Only 14 months were available for this development, as the He 280 airframe was developed much faster than its engines. It is interesting to examine the history of the Mueller engine incontext of von Ohain’s work. Mueller had his initial contacts withHeinkel and Dr. von Ohain in early 1939 when he offered to bringHeinkel the Wagner engine and the project team. At this time, Mueller gave the impression that the engine program was well advanced and Heinkel and von Ohain believed that this program together with their own HeS 3 engine would place Heinkel in a leading position as a jet engine maker. Mueller and his team were hired by Heinkel and came over in the summer of 1939. The Wagner engine took on the Heinkel designation of HeS 30. Mueller and his team were incorporated in Dr. von Ohain’s propulsion group and given the task to finalize the development of the HeS 30. Dr. von Ohain and Heinkel soon realized that this engine program was nowhere near the advanced stage, implied by Mueller. Heinkel pushed hard for the effort to make this program successful especially as the HeS 30 was to be the propulsion plant for Heinkel He 280 fighter. During contract negotiations with the RLM, Udet, who was supportive of Heinkel and who had recognized that Heinkel needed engine manufacturing capability and skilled manufacturing manpower to compete with the established engine companies, made Heinkel a gentlemen’s agreement that if the He 280 succeeded in flying before April 1941 Heinkel could buy the Hirth Motoren company in Stuttgart. By the end of 1939 the HeS 30 progress was very slow and Heinkel, concerned of the adverse impact on the He 280 program, approached Dr. von Ohain to develop a backup solution. Dr. vonOhain’s solution, designated the HeS 8A, was a design based onthe HeS 3B but with an axial diffuser and a straight through flow combustor. The engine program was done under a RLM contractgiving the engine the first RLM designation of a German turbojet the 109-001. It was not without risks because the specification ofthe aircraft limited the engine diameter and therefore the axial diffuser function and efficiency together with the straight through combustor became very critical. Luckily for Heinkel, von Ohain’s HeS 8 engine managed to meet the minimum requirements andwas ready in time for the first flight of the He 280 which tookplace in late March 1941. The HeS 30 program still sufferedseveral problems including a mismatch between the compressorand turbine. (which resulted in excessive mass flow) Thus, it is thanks to von Ohain’s HeS 8 that the He 280 flew on schedule and the RLM allowed Heinkel to purchase Hirth Motoren company which could then give the Mueller team support with the HeS 30 program."


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 7, 2007)

I might have developed the Lancaster quicker. By putting merlin 61 or griffon 61 and replacing the turrets with 20mm or 0.50. or both. Extenting the bomb bay and you've got a decent day bomber with high altitude and high speed performance. I would also put a vental turret (a copy of the dorsal turret upside-down) just behind the bomb bay. Because I think we should have made some effort in the day bombing. However, I wouldn't use such a close formation as the Lanc could maneovour well! Oh and retract the bloody tail-wheel!


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 7, 2007)

I also would've been keen to make the Westland Whirlwind with merlins 20s. All you need to do is redesign the nuscles and add a bit of cooling. I don't think the peregrine could have been developed more unless u put two stage superchargers on it, afterall it was effectively a uprated kestral which had already been in service for 7 years! I had some ideas for the Manchester too! It could have been our standard medium bomber. With two Griffon IV just entering service in 1942 we could have had a decent medium bomber. I would have decrease the bomb bay a bit. Remove the nose turret and put a streamlined nose with a few forward firing guns. Again retract the bloody tail-wheel! I hate it when we made a good plane but make it look flimsy by leaving the tail-wheel down!


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 7, 2007)

I would have liked to have seen more of this


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2007)

I just think it's cool that a piston engine aircraft held the time to climb record for 10 years, and in those 10 years many jet aircraft have become operational with the US military. I bet it was a blast to fly.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 7, 2007)

Yep, it was a nice aircraft, though the Meteor soon beat this climb with its 7,000 ft/min climb, and the Rolls-Royce Avon testbed meteor holds the world record today iirc. From: The Gloster Meteor
"The F.8 proved popular as a test and trials aircraft. F.8s were used to test airborne radar for the Fireflash missile, midair refueling schemes, and engine fits. A heavily modified F.8 experimentally fitted with Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire 2 engines set a world climb-rate record in August 1951. One test rig was fitted with the Armstrong-Siddeley Screamer rocket engine, fitted under the fuselage. Another was fitted with Rolls-Royce Soar mini-jet engines on the wingtips, while retaining its Derwents, making it the only four-engine Meteor."

The He 100 was a good plane, and better in almost all characteristics than the Bf 109. The problem was a weak armament of only 1x 20mm MG FF cannon and 2x 7.92 MG 17 guns. Though this could probably been improved with use of MG 151/15 or MG 151/20 cannons.


And Civettone, I missed your post earlier. Perhaps licensed Nene engines would be too far in the future, as would be powerful US axial-flow engines. (except maybe the J35, but it was heavy and much better matched to single engined craft like the XP-84 which used its streamling quite to its advantage).

Perhaps Bell should have used a somewhat smaller design with a normal loaded weight of ~16,300 lbs, and max takeoff of ~20,000 lbs. They could use the J36 Goblin engines which by this time were much further along and nearing production at an uprated 3000 lbf thrust; these engines only used ~1.15 [lb/lbf hr] of fuel compared to the 1.24 [lb/lbf hr] of early J33s. This would lower the necessary fuel load. (fuel load for this plane should be around 70% of the XP-83's) Such a craft would have good power load and weight and size low enough to make a good fighter. Thrust/weight would be ~.37 normal and .30 at max weight, quite good for the time. Such a design would allow improved streamlining and performance. Speed probably nearing that of the P-80A (probably around 540 mph max) with a range still around 2000 mi. The armament could still use the 6 powerful .60 cal guns proposed (based on the MG 151/15 iirc, though with a higher rof)

Comparing such a design with the P-80 would be somewhat like comparing a P-38 with a FW-190. Whereas the XP-83 is more like a Mossie.

Speaking of the J36 goblin engine, what if Bell had improved the P-59 with smaller, thinner wings (scaled down to 88% of the originals, reducing area to ~300 ft2 compared to the original 386 ft2) and improve the wing-intake junction (if the smaller wings already didn't already solve this) and fit 2x 2700 lbf (they didn't reach 3,000 lbf until early 1945 iirc) and improve fuel capacity, armament (either P-38's or 5x .50 cal with 300+ rpg), and streamline the canopy and improve range of vision. Not necessarily a bubble-type but less framing and a smoother shape with larger rear windows) 

Such improvements should allow for a top speed of 530+ mph with a thrust/weight of .40+ (assuming loaded weight increases to ~11,700 lbs) and .33+ at a max load of ~14,000 lbs. Assuming internal fuel is increased to ~420 gallons from the original ~214 gallons (the P-59B had already been increased to ~370 gal), which should increase normal combat range to ~450 mi, and ~730 mi with 2x 125 gal tanks. (with ferry range increased to well over 1000 mi) There would also be some range gain with the higher efficiency of the Goblin engines, though, at high throttle it would be somewhat less. Climb would be dramatically increased and overall performance would likely be similar to the Meteor Mk 4. Of course, these improvements would only be useful if bell had continued development in early 1943, and it should have been ready before the P-80 was. (probably late 1944, though it probably wouldn't see service any earlier than the Meteor III)


----------



## JimM (Dec 10, 2007)

The I16 Rata...hands down.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 10, 2007)

Where do you get your information on the L-1000 from? It doesn't tally with any of the other information I've ever seen on this. Most sources go like this;

In 1943 the Army did support the engine as a long-range project called XJ-37. Like so many projects, it combined great promise with complexity and severe problems, so in October 1945 Lockheed handed the whole effort, including Price, to Menasco. This company in turn passed it to Wright, which eventually gave up.

From Jet and Turbine Engines by Bill Gunston

Those specs off that website must be design figures. A pressure ratio of 25? (my other soruces say 17) with a 32! stage compressor and 4-stage turbine? And this engine is meant to weigh in at 1543lb? Either those stats are completely wrong or its indicative of why the engine wouldn't work. When you consider the surge problems experienced with the Avon with a p.r. of 6.50, this, a single spool compressor with a far higher p.r. would be almost impossible to start. Thinking about it, the boundary layer buildup through the compressor would make the efficiency plummet. Thats without mentioning that they'd have to build the compressor out of stainless steel or Inconel as its too early for titanium.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 10, 2007)

It used 2 16-stage contra-rotating units (similar to the DB 007) If it had been handed to GE or Allison, it might have had more success.... I read more in "The Jet Race and the Second World war" and it seems it was a 2-spool system. See: The Jet Race and the Second World War - Google Book Search

I think the individual compressor stages were relatively small, so the dimentions were similar to the 11-stage J34. Though I doubt the engine would have been successful until the mid '50s, it might have done better in the Hands of a company like GE... And the 25.0 pressure ratio seems odd too, maby not everything on the site is correct. (as the 2000lbf J31-GE-5 of the P-59B is listed as 1550 lbf...) 

It's still the US's first jet-engine design to be developed, albeit they may have bitten off a bit too much to start with... And it's interesting that the Prototype exists. As said, it would be an interesting contrast to the very conservative J31 and PYP-59 they have on display. Perhaps it would have been best to simlify the engine down to a single-spool 16 stage 2 turbine design with simpler opperation. Or maby 8-stage single turbine...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 10, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> It used 2 16-stage contra-rotating units (similar to the DB 007) If it had been handed to GE or Allison, it might have had more success.... I read more in "The Jet Race and the Second World war" and it seems it was a 2-spool system. See: The Jet Race and the Second World War - Google Book Search



Wow! A 2-spool core? That's pretty advanced for 1940's technology; a reliable 2-spool core wasn't developed until the 1950's. We're just now developing reliable three-spool cores.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2007)

The Jumo 004H and 012 were 2-spool systems (though not contra-rotating) if I have my termiology correct: a 2-spool system uses 2 seperate turbine stages to drive 2 separate compressor stages right?

As for contra-rotating single-spool designs of the war, the DB 007 was one (made 2,500lbf, but was overcomplex to be practical in the timeframe) The Meterovick F.2 also used contrarotating stages iirc. 

But Lockheed would have needed to work on a simplified design if it was to be ready before the war's end. Simpify the engine to one using similar compressor and turbine design but for lower efficiency, thrust and weight. Single spool 16-stage compressor 2-stage turbine engine of similar diameter but shorter and somewhat lighter. Or maby even an 8-10 stage single turbine engine scaled up to twice the original scale produce realitively more power. (up to ~35 in diameter so ~200% the area)

Maby somewhat similar to the J30 engine... Use a simplified airframe too. (probably along the lines of the P-80 but with twin-engines)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 10, 2008)

How about the Fw-187? Out of any fighter that could have been available in significant numbers in time for the BOB the 187 probably had the most potential on influencing the outcome of the BOB. (the He 100 probably being second in this respect, though it mavy have had just enough range to make an effective escort; the Bf 109 certainly didn't, particularly in a close formation escort where fuel wasn't used as efficiently, and even worse with head-winds)

With the original single-seat configuration with 2x DB 600 engines it was an incredible plane for its time, and even with the poorer Jumo 210 engines and 2-seat arrangement later forced upon the design it was still a decent a/c (far better than the Bf 110) and would have been a nasty surprise for the British...


----------



## MacArther (Jan 12, 2008)

Definately have to agree with you on that one Kool Kitty. Two 20mm and four 7.92mm guns (I think it was 4 mgs, but correct me if I'm wrong) is about the same fire power that the early Bf110s had, but it was all facing forwards. Added to this was the fact that the plane regularly clocked in excess of 330mph. Finally, the prototypes and pre-production models that were actually used in combat (Norway, I think) were highly praised for their handling and such by their pilots.



> The He 100 was a good plane, and better in almost all characteristics than the Bf 109. The problem was a weak armament of only 1x 20mm MG FF cannon and 2x 7.92 MG 17 guns. Though this could probably been improved with use of MG 151/15 or MG 151/20 cannons.



Really? All my books list it with two or more cannons.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 12, 2008)

I've always seen 2x 20mm MG-FF and 4x 7.92mm MG-17 for the Fw-187, though stronger armaments could probably be fitted later on (with MG-131's and MG-151/20's or maby some 30mm cannons, though 30mm's could certainly be mounted externaly)
And the 330-340 mph figure is for the forced (and unnecessary, as the second crewman was little more than a radio operator) 2-seat version (and preproduction craft) that used the 670 PS (about the same as HP) Junkers-Jumo 210G wich was forced on the design even though the Bf-110 was allowed to use the DB-600 and 601. (and progressive models) In fact, the 210 powered version managed to live up to the origial projected speeds for the 1000 PS DB-600 powered version!(though climb and service ceiling would be less) 
However, Focke-Wolf went ahead and tested with DB engines anyway and managed an amazing 636 km/h (395 mph) with 1000 PS DB-600s! As said these figures are similar to those acheived by the P-38 with the same engine power, though several years later. At such speeds, along with climb and dive performance better than the 109 and ~1000 mi range it would have been virtually unstopable in the BOB and it was nearly as maneuverable in the horizontal as the 109, and moreso in some circumstances. (as it had lower wing-loading, though lacked the LE slats, though it probably retained energy better) Comparing this performance to the Hurricane Mk.1's performance is like comparing the P-51 to the Me 262 in many ways, except the Fw 187 would have better acceleration than the Hurricane as well and good low-speed handeling.

Info is based mostly from: Focke-Wulf 187 archive file


The He 100's armament I sited is for the pre-production He-100D-1, which was the only one to see any actual service iirc, the 2x 7.92mm and 2x 20mm I'm not sure about (though the He 112B-2 used it iirc), but the He 100C was to carry 4x MG 17 and 2x MG FF. (the same armament as the early Fw-190As) That would have been a devestating armament for a single-engined fighter to carry in the 1940-1941 timeframe. Plus the He 100 had considderable longer range than the Bf 109 at 560-650 miles normal range (compared to just over 400 miles with the Bf 109E, inless equiped for a drop-tank), this would have given it at least twice the loiter time of the 109 in the BOB. (the 109 having scarsely 15 min once reaching London)

Info from: Heinkel He 100 archive file


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 13, 2008)

One limitation of the 187 would be the narrow fusalage which, though allowing plenty of room for fuel and weapons (especially as a single-seater), wasn't large enough to contain radar internally (except for some compact radar units available very late in the war).

However the P-38 had similar limitations (even moreso than the 187 with the difficulties of containing a second crewman) and it was possible to get around these as seen in the P-38 pathfinders and the P-38M nightfighter with external radar packs slung under the nose. (though the M didn't see service)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 15, 2008)

How about the Gloster Gloster F.5/34, with a Bristol Taurus engine and more-streamlined cowling. I'd say the Pegasus too, but the large diameter would be more difficult to integrate, while the Taurus was about the same diameter as the Mercury used in the prototype.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 16, 2008)

On second thought, the Pegasus, with better altitude performance (2-speed supercharger), lighter weight (only ~100lbs heavier than the Mercury, and 150lbs lighter than the Taurus), better reliabillity and fewer maintence problems (didn't use sleeve valves) and shorter length would allow easier conversion from the mercury. Though the larger diameter would require a cowling redesign, but the Plane could use better cowling streamling and integration with the fusalage anyway.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 22, 2008)

Possibly put a radial engine on the Bf-109 in a similar fashion to what the Japanese did with the Ki-61 to make the Ki-100. Also, the Dinah, that would have been an excellent fighter plane if more time were given to develop the options rather than just slapping some weapons onto a Dinah III and hoping it works.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 22, 2008)

How about the Ki-83? 
New Page 2 
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Imperial Japanese Aviation Resource Group - - Mitsubishi Ki.83


----------



## Henk (Apr 24, 2008)

The Ho-229, just think if she had more reliable engines. She was already way ahead of her time and was very fuel efficient and handled greatly during her flight tests and also achieved high speeds with the all wing design.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 24, 2008)

And flying wings of that size didn't have the same stability problems of large designs, which required at least some degree of computer stablization to work. (the XB-35/YB-49 did have such a device, albeit udementary by modern standards)


----------



## bada (Apr 25, 2008)

actualy, the stability pb's of the Ho-9 could heve been resolved if the horten would have been aware of the stability controller build by PATIN for the assymetrical bv141 AND if the size of the wing spoilers was bigger.
the Ho-9 had a very bad yaw control at low speed, the small size of the wing spoilers not allowing enough airflow to be blocked by the small size of the spoilers' surface.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 25, 2008)

Or if they'd used split ailerons for yaw control like in Northrop's designs.

Also the engine Nacelles would have added some degree of yaw stability over the glider version of the Ho-IX.


----------



## Glider (Apr 25, 2008)

I do like that Ki83 its a great looking aircraft and the figures are pretty impressive as well.
Never seen it before.


----------



## Henk (Apr 25, 2008)

The Ho-229 had big wing spoilers if you take it's size. If you look at the H-229 V3 prototype you will see them clearly. The V1 prototype crashed because the one engine gave in and caused the plane to crash. The glider (Ho-229 V1) and the powered V2 prototype proved the design to be great.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 25, 2008)

Yes on the Ki-83, but it came a little late, as did most of the competitive Japanese designs, and for practicality a development of the Ki-46 would have been better.

If they'd modified the design to be a dedicated single seat fighter/interceptor with some improved streamlining stripped down unnecessary components, reduce some fuel capacity in favor of self sealing tanks and pilot armor.
Add more powerful engines. Don't use the 37mm at all, add 2x 30mm Ho 155 nose guns, keep the 2x 20mm guns.

Basicly try to move the design tward the Ki-83's capabilities.

In fact it might end up almost as good as the Ki-83. Many of these modifications were made, but not in combination, and not early enough in the design life.


----------



## bada (Apr 26, 2008)

Northtrop split ailerons could have been a posibility, but then, the mechanisme for this type of controls would shave been more complicated
than the simple spoilers buid by reimar . adding that horten has already experienced this kind of yaw control on his previous gliders.

for the V3, i only saw gotha's V3 central section, with it's oversized tubular sections, adding some weight ans strenghness especially for tha landing gear. And from i've read, gotha simply deleted the small external spoilers, so it would result in even less control! But i never saw the V3 wings, don't even sure gotha bild them. it seems that gotha has simply sabotaged the horten229 in profit of their P60...that's why there were only 2 ou3 (uncompleted) central sections found at the end of the war. Gotha wagon fabrik didn't want to build the horten plane they wanted their own project to be addapted by the RLM.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 26, 2008)

Deleting the spoilers wouldn't make sense, that would make it nearly impossible to aim at anything, something that would already be somewhat difficult to do with the spoilers.


And it was the V3 that the US captured and is now being restored at the Smithsonian, but iirc the wings had not been completed for the V3 but a separate set of wings were taken from another assembly site by the US.

I don't think I've seen the wings either; Henk do you have pictures of it? (or links)


----------



## olbrat (Apr 28, 2008)

What is your opinion of the Cavalier Mustang II and Cavalier Turbo Mustang III Series aircraft as the further development of the P-51?


----------



## MacArther (Apr 29, 2008)

If you're going to go that route, I'd prefer the PA-48 Enforcer.


----------



## Henk (Apr 29, 2008)

Yes mate I have pictures of them. Here you go.

(Note: These wings were not found on site but in a other factory near the factory where the Ho-229 V3.)

Horten IX (Gotha Go 229) in detail

National Air and Space Museum Collections Database






















The wings are also not intact, as you can see the cables and flaps is not attached, but they are lying next to them in the one picture.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 29, 2008)

That article Horten IX (Gotha Go 229) in detail is wrong on a few points:

The 003 engines were not used on the V2 prototype, (like with the Me 262) the 003 engines were preferred for the design, but their lagging development resulted in a redesign to incorporate 004 engines for the design. Also the claim that 004C was fitted to the V3 also doesn't make sense as this engine (004B with afterburner) was only a paper design. It may have been fitted with 004D or prototype 004E (possibly with afterburner) engines as these were built and the 004D was entering production at the War's end.

But mostly I've read that both the V2 and V3 were equipped with 004B engines.



> Flight tests started on the 1/3/1944 with the V-1, which was built as a unpowered glider. The tests were considered by all to be very satisfactory, so the go ahead was given for the Ho IX V-2 which was scheduled to fly in May/June 1944. This aircraft was designed to be to be fitted with a pair of BMW 003 turbojet engines, but the engine type was changed from BMW to Junkers, which meant a major redesign of the center section of the aircraft... delaying the first flight by some time.




And there are some good pictures here: ho_ix

These show the yaw control spoilers on the V2 and the ones on the wing at the NASM with the V3:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 29, 2008)

Most sources do seem to agree that yaw instability was not very significant.

Which makes sense as flying wings of this layout and scale shouldn't have major problems, likewise Northrop's N1M and N9M were pretty stable. At these sizes any yaw oscillation should be easily corrected by gentle "rudder" input and this should not be a significant problem for a combat a/c. (more of a mild annoyance)


----------



## Henk (Apr 29, 2008)

kool kitty89, yes that is true about the engines and also when the factory send the Horten brothers the dimensions of the Jumo 004B engines and they created mock ups and build the center part of the V2 prototype, but when the real engines arrived they were not the same dimensions as the mock up engines they fitted to the V2 prototype.

Mate the control spoilers that you are talking about in the picture in the NASM is the center section of the aircraft and not the wing.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 29, 2008)

Been thinking that the Fairey Battle should have been altered upgrade to a larger Merlin ,armour the hell out of it where the bombs were carried should allow for installation of 40mm guns and voila you have a Brit tank buster


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 29, 2008)

Henk said:


> kool kitty89, yes that is true about the engines and also when the factory send the Horten brothers the dimensions of the Jumo 004B engines and they created mock ups and build the center part of the V2 prototype, but when the real engines arrived they were not the same dimensions as the mock up engines they fitted to the V2 prototype.
> 
> Mate the control spoilers that you are talking about in the picture in the NASM is the center section of the aircraft and not the wing.



 I re-read the caption, it's the airbrake...

And the engine mock-ups were smaller than the engines, right?


----------



## Henk (Apr 30, 2008)

Yup, they had that problem with the Ho-229 V2. check these out.















You can see in the pictures the mock-up engines they used. They look very real too.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

The length looks right, so it was just the diameter that was off. Hmm...

All 3 pics are with the mock-ups? (the center one looks different)


----------



## renrich (Apr 30, 2008)

Has anyone mentioned the Vought XTBU Seawolf? It would seem to have a number of advantages over the Avenger.


----------



## Henk (Apr 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The length looks right, so it was just the diameter that was off. Hmm...
> 
> All 3 pics are with the mock-ups? (the center one looks different)



Yes, the V2 prototype did not have any covers over the engines to make testing better without any problems.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

And we've been calling the yaw control devices spoilers, which isn't correct as spoilers are designed to decrease lift by altering the flow over the uper wing surfaces, these devices are designed to create drag. They extend above and below the wing to create equal drag above and below the wing. They are basicly "fence type" airbrakes, like those on the inner wings of the Meteor.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2008)

Accelerate progress of the B-36 Peacemaker Bomber. An enlarged B-29 Stratofortress to fire-bomb Japan and Germany. It actually reached production in 1946 and although not used as a bomber gave sterling service in reconnaissance over Russia in the Cold War. It therefore would have given the Allies a greater edge in heavy bombing capability if the War had lasted a year longer...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Bombing from high altitude proved very difficult in the PTO due to jet streams.

And seing as ceiling would be the only real advantage over the B-29 (or you get into larger bombload per bomber vs larger numbers of B-29's) it would be moot. The B-36's would be sitting ducks with max speeds barely over 200 mph at medium altitudes, and these wouldn't be getting the jet boosters either. (which was one of the saving graces to the design, allong with the nuclear capability)

But in a conventional sense the'd be much harder to utilize and escort than B-29's or B-50's. (which had much better performance)


----------



## HealzDevo (May 2, 2008)

But was that lack of performance because they never reached their intended role or not? I am saying that engines would have been produced for them that would have given them suitable performance if they had been needed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 2, 2008)

The jets gave that for short periods, otherwise there was nothing better around than the R-4360. And it was already using six of them.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 2, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> Accelerate progress of the B-36 Peacemaker Bomber. An enlarged B-29 Stratofortress to fire-bomb Japan and Germany. It actually reached production in 1946 and although not used as a bomber gave sterling service in reconnaissance over Russia in the Cold War. It therefore would have given the Allies a greater edge in heavy bombing capability if the War had lasted a year longer...



Well, that was the original reason for developing the B-36; Army Air Force planners anticipated losing England as an airbase, so they wanted to develop a bomber that could fly all the way from the East coast of the US to Berlin and back, AND carry a decent bomb load.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 2, 2008)

But even if that had occured there would be no escorts, and even if it flew above the ceiling of intercepting fighters, (assuming accuracy was acceptable, which it may not have been) development of a super high altitude fighter could have been done, and with more concentrated effort than occured in reality, as Germany would already be in better shape with England taken out.


----------



## Vraciu (Dec 12, 2008)

I think I'd try to develope Bf 109G/K - it'll be longer, wider, it'll have aerodynamical canopy, main landing gear such as in Fw 190A (but shape from Bf 109), engine DB 605ASM or DB 603, tailwheel from Bf 109K, it'll be armed with one MK 108 cannon in engine and two MG 151/20 wing cannons (in such place as those in Fw 190A).


----------



## net_sailor (Dec 12, 2008)

Vraciu, you are talking about Me 209 II - not very succesfull development


----------



## Waynos (Dec 12, 2008)

If America lost England as a base could they just use Scotland and Wales instead?

As for further developments I would have liked to see the Spiteful reach service, and maybe also the Jet Mosquito that DH were developing. I also agree that the Whirlwind developed to its full potential would have been great to see.


----------



## Vraciu (Dec 12, 2008)

> Vraciu, you are talking about Me 209 II - not very succesfull development



No, net sailor. My project has other shape, MG 151/20, other tailwheel, other shape of main undercarriage and better canopy (aerodynamical).


----------



## MacArther (Dec 12, 2008)

Any photos or drawings we can use as reference?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 12, 2008)

The "Me 209 II" had wide stance inward retracting landing gear. I believe 2x MG 151/20's had been proposed in addition to the 109G's main armament. (or possible in the nose, replacing the MG 131's)






Several variants of the Bf 109 already had retractable tailwheels. And the "aerodynimical canopy" I assume would be a teardrop or bubble type canopy similar to that of the Fw 190 or Me 262. The main advantages of these canopies is the improved visibility, in some cases aerodynamic drag may be reduced, but in others it may be detrimental. 

I don't think such an aircraft would have any advantage over the Fw 190 fitted with the same engine.


There was also the more advanced Me 309 which was actually an earlier project than the Me 209-II. It was an entirely new aircraft however, and there were a fair amount of problems, particularly with the nosewheel arrangement.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2008)

Waynos said:


> If America lost England as a base could they just use Scotland and Wales instead?



If England were gone, it would have been a complete loss. Scotland and Wales would be gone as well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 12, 2008)

This is off topic of course, but,

Iceland could have been used as a possible initial US base of operations. Working to regain the freedom of the UK and then move on to Europe. Alternatively the US would have had to work up form North Africa.


Of course sucessfully invading Britain is another issue alltogether, a recent discussion came up here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-battle-britain-aircraft-507-27.html

It may have been possible with proper tactics and coodination of their armmed forces. (and a combined air and sea invasion force) But I don't think it would be possible until 1941, and Hitler wouldn't be willing to invest the kind of time and resourses necessary with his eagerness to move on to the east.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 12, 2008)

DAIG, I was being ironic, you see I, like many of my countrymen, find it annoying when people refer to 'England' when what they mean is 'Britain'.

After all, would you talk about the fall of Nazi Bavaria, or California's war against Japan? Well, you might is specific circumstances but hopefully you get my drift


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 13, 2008)

For a long time I have thought of an idea for a thread - but seeing this thread made me realise that many, here, were thinkin along the same lines...I am glad...

But not, however, EXACTLY along the same lines.

You see, my idea is not so much as how to DEVELOP an existing design, but how to create a NEW design, while AT THE SAME TIME keeping as many design elements and even structures of the tried and proven old designs. And, of course, the limitations of time, space, and money would apply, so there would be no revolver cannon in 1941 or jet engines with advanced metallurgy in 1944/

While some might believe this is just nitpicking, I believe while small, the difference is crucial, and this is why I am going to create a new thread called "Could you have designed a better warbird?"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2008)

Waynos said:


> DAIG, I was being ironic, you see I, like many of my countrymen, find it annoying when people refer to 'England' when what they mean is 'Britain'.



Ah, my bad. I missed that.


----------

