# What protoype do you wish had seen service in WW2?



## Jabberwocky (Sep 28, 2005)

As the topic says, what prototype bomber, fighter, transport or jet do you wish had seen squadron service during the war, and why?

Personally, I wish that the single stage Merlin engined Whirlwind prototype had gone into production. If it could do 360 mph on those anemic little Pegasus engines, imagine the performance with a pair of 1200 hp Merlin XIIs. 
Whirly Mk IIs would of been great, its such a pity that the fluffed up the design so much with the Welkin. Clip the wing tips, add a semi-recessed centerline bomb mount, keep it below about 20,000 feet and give it a belt feed for the Hispanos, even if you have to sacrifice one of the cannons to pad out the ammo capacity.

The other great British 'also ran' for me was the Martin Baker MB.5. If only because it looks like the msibeggotten love child of a P-51D and a Griffon engined Spitfire 8)

EDIT: NO paper planes! It must have at least been built in prototype form and either been ready to fly or have flown. Otherwise this just degenirates into a Luft'46 thing.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2005)

Does this include prototypes that flew towards the end of the war, then went into active service?


----------



## Erich (Sep 28, 2005)

most likely one of the late war paper jet pieces from Germany


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2005)

I'd like to have seen the F8F, F7F and Skyraiders to see service.


----------



## Glider (Sep 29, 2005)

Hornet for me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2005)

XP-55 Acender - I know it looked better than it flew


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 29, 2005)

The Vought aircraft that was made for the navy which had v-stol characteristics and approached 500 mph. It looked like a saucer with two Allison in-line engines in front. It was the XF5U-1 "Flying Flapjack.


----------



## JCS (Sep 29, 2005)

Either the Do335 or Re.2006 for me.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 29, 2005)

P-38K, P-80 of course. The other planes listed would have been cool to.

wmaxt


----------



## quayhog (Sep 29, 2005)

I would have loved to see the Lockheed P2V-1 Neptunes in service for large tactical aircraft. For fighter's I would have liked to see Ryan FR-1 Fireball and the F8F Bearcat. If Japan had been invaded these would have seen active service. I wonder how the prototypes of the B-32 and B-36 were coming along in 1945? Germany had some interesting jets on the drawing board too and if they had seen squadron service it may have prolonged the war.

The Wright R-3350 and the PW R-4360 were still very buggy engines in 1945. I don't think they ever solved all the 4360's problems.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 29, 2005)

quayhog said:


> I would have loved to see the Lockheed P2V-1 Neptunes in service for large tactical aircraft. For fighter's I would have liked to see Ryan FR-1 Fireball and the F8F Bearcat. If Japan had been invaded these would have seen active service. I wonder how the prototypes of the B-32 and B-36 were coming along in 1945? Germany had some interesting jets on the drawing board too and if they had seen squadron service it may have prolonged the war.
> 
> The Wright R-3350 and the PW R-4360 were still very buggy engines in 1945. I don't think they ever solved all the 4360's problems.



The Bearcat would have done fine in the Japanese invasion but if it had gone to the ETO its short range and slow top speed would have been serious deficencies. Its focus was Kamakazies and direct carrier defense and was pretty much useless anywhere else, thats why it was never even considered for wider use by the Navy and was gone before the Corsair.

The B36 first flew August '46 and the first production plane in August '47.

The Ryan fireball had a good name pretty much describing its usefulness.

There's some truth in that. The 4360 only had a 350/400hr service life and at 1.8 million thats not exactly economical.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2005)

Slow top speed? The F8F had a top speed of 421 MPH. That's not that slow. It was never intended for ETO use.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> quayhog said:
> 
> 
> > There's some truth in that. The 4360 only had a 350/400hr service life and at 1.8 million thats not exactly economical.
> ...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 29, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Slow top speed? The F8F had a top speed of 421 MPH. That's not that slow. It was never intended for ETO use.



425 mph isn't that slow for the ETO. Sure, on paper it doesn't match the 450mph or so of the P-51B, Spitfire XIV, 109K but that still puts it in the same class as the 190A serise, 190D serise, 109G-10, P-38L, Typhoon and Tempest. Its faster than a Spitfire Mk IX or a 109G-6 which were still front line types right up until VE Day.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 30, 2005)

The B-32 Dominator did see service in the pacific theatre. They made raids on the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies and one of the last raids of Japan.


----------



## RAGMAN (Sep 30, 2005)

I always thought that the whirlwind should have had a chance either as a heavy fighter or fast light bomber.The do335 has always intrigued me as the power of the engines goes to the fuselage and not the wings as other twin engined planes which should make it a fast plane.(which it did) I don't know if the he100 is included in this list as a limited number was made,but after reading the other posts in the other section, it would have been a good fighter. The ta154 would have been a interesting foil to the mosquito too.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 30, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > Slow top speed? The F8F had a top speed of 421 MPH. That's not that slow. It was never intended for ETO use.
> ...



The 421 mph top speed is based upon mid 1944 tests where the boost was limited to 59 lbs in low blower and 53 lbs in high blower. Top speed at critical altitude was 417 mph at this boost, and at 20,000 feet the max speed was 410 mph. In the same tests the F4U-4 managed 452 mph at critical alt (which is 20,700 feet so this is about the same at 20k) running at 70 lbs boost. Even so the F8F outclimbed the F4U-4 to 20k, managing to make that altitude in 4.7 minutes as opposed to 5 minutes flat for the Corsair.

There is no reason the F8F could not also run at 70 lbs boost. Just like the F4U-4 it mounts an R2800 C series engine. My point is actual combat performance would have been significantly better than the early prototype test data we see figures for and it would have stacked up nicely against any WWII prop fighter.

Its "short range" put it on a par with the Spitfire and other WWII fighters.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 30, 2005)

The McDonnell XP-67 Bat would have been interesting...

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p67.htm


----------



## Piaggio108 (Sep 30, 2005)

Ki-83. Really well armed, and apparently fast and manuverable, although most statistics on speed seem to be from US tests which used a higher octane fuel than would have been available to the Japanese.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 30, 2005)

I think you mean the Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank").

Not only was the fuel of higher octane, but the low pressure fuel system was completely rebuilt using mostly American parts.

And the Ki-84 saw combat, in fact it was the most numerous Japanese late war fighter with over 2000 units built.


----------



## Sal Monella (Sep 30, 2005)

Republic XP-72 configured with four 37mm cannons.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

Bombers?? i'd want to see the lanc Mk.VI to see mass production, you're baisically looking at a normal lanc with a pushing 350mph top speed, which she did actually make, only 8 were made and they did fly missions, one flying 25 missions! however they never officially entered squadron service.........

fighters?? i'd wanna see a wirlwind with merlins and the XP-67 simply because it looks so cool.........


----------



## Smokey (Sep 30, 2005)

An aircraft which had the performance of a 1944 prop aircraft yet was almost ready in 1940. It didn't use unreliable early jet engines and apparently possesed outstanding flying characteristics and could reach 443 mph at 23-24000 feet. 
The BF109 E had a top speed of 350 mph, the Spitfire 360 mph.



> This was a french high-speed fighter prototype which was near completion at the time of the armistice.Developed out of the
> 2nd class M.B.152 fighter family, it reached fthe fantastic speed of 710km/h under german control in 1942.
> It could have flown already in 1940! It´s best part was its advanced radial engine which was good at high altitude.
> It had outstanding flying characteristics. 6 months design time. Destroyed by a bombing raid.
> ...








Avions Marcel Bloch M.B.157, 443 mph, 1940

It has a radial engine which usually are tougher than inlines. It resembles an FW 190 in some ways.

Imagine if the Luftwaffe had gone up against hundreds of these. Just a few more months and it would have been in service.

I wonder if German spies learnt of this and it contributed to Hitler's decision to invade France when he did before the French air force became too strong.

http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/list.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

Thats pretty impressive!


----------



## JCS (Sep 30, 2005)

I knew the 157 was supposed to be good but I didnt think it was that good.....


----------



## evangilder (Sep 30, 2005)

A lot of people overlook those early French designs. Love them or hate them, they did make some impressive airplanes. It almost looks like what a P-51B would look like with a radial engine.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 1, 2005)

Ive wished the XF4U-B "Flying Pancake" had seen more service. They did fly in WWII but they were not fully used.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Avions Marcel Bloch M.B.157 looks like a smaller version of the P47


----------



## evangilder (Oct 2, 2005)

True, syscom, like a small razorback Jug.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I would have liked to have seen the Ta-183 and the Messerschmitt Me P.1011 see service. From the allies I would have liked to have seen the Republic XP-72 and the Northrop XP-56.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I would have liked to have seen the Ta-183 and the Messerschmitt Me P.1011 see service. From the allies I would have liked to have seen the Republic XP-72 and the Northrop XP-56.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I would have liked to have seen the Ta-183 and the Messerschmitt Me P.1011 see service. From the allies I would have liked to have seen the Republic XP-72 and the Northrop XP-56.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Not sure what I would of wanted to see fly but there were a lot of cool planes in the pipline that I would of liked to of seen many of which I have seen mentioned here. My choices would properly be many of the late war jet prototypes many of which have already been mentioned and also some of the late war highly advanced piston engined fighters.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

I would've also liked to have seen the XP-56 also. Looking at pictures of it it seemed like a cool looking aircraft.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

Heres one i wished had seen sevice: The P-75A Eagle. Pretty cool aircraft. The only info i have on it is that only 5 of these were made before the contract was cancelled.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Information on the P-75 Eagle.


> In 1942 the USAAF asked for designs for a high performance fighter with an unprecedented rate of climb, to intercept Japanese bombers in the Pacific theater. The Fisher Body Division of General Motors submitted a design for an aircraft that would use the most powerful inline engine then available, as well as "off-the-shelf" major assemblies (which would shorten development times). The P-75 airframe used the outer wing panels of the Curtiss P-40, the tail unit of the Douglas A-24/Dauntless, and landing gear of the Vought F4U Corsair. The engine was located in the fuselage behind the pilot, similar to the layout of the Bell P-39. Eight prototypes were ordered by the USAAF, but problems were found during testing. By the time the problems were fixed, other capable fighters (like the P-51 Mustang) were available, and the production contract was cancelled.
> 
> For more data on this aircraft from Joe Baugher's webpage - http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html
> USAF archives on this aircraft:http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/pursuit.htm
> ...


From http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

I'm sorry guys the P-75, especially the first one built and while it was on the ground looked like an abortion that lived. It was in our ugly ww2 aircraft thread. The shot you posted P-38 is probably on the the better ones....


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm sorry guys the P-75, especially the first one built and while it was on the ground looked like an abortion that lived. It was in our ugly ww2 aircraft thread. The shot you posted P-38 is probably on the the better ones....


I never said I liked it I just posted some info. In my opinion it is ugly and agree with you that the shot P-38 has is one of the better ones.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

Well, it looks better than some aircraft i have seen in that forum.

Heres another pic of it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

Here's another one: P-82 Twin Mustang:



> The P-82 came about as a result of a USAAF requirement for a very long range escort fighter for operations in the Pacific, especially to escort the B-29s all the way to Japan and back. The purpose of having two pilots was as a relief against fatigue on the long overwater missions. Only 20 of the 500 ordered had been built before the war's end brought a cancellation to the contracts, but 250 more were built in 1946. Part of this order was for a night fighter version (with a radar operator instead of a second pilot) which was made to replace the Northrop P-61 Black Widow. The P-82 was renamed the F-82 in 1948, and a U.S. F-82 shot down the first enemy aircraft of the Korean War.
> For more data on this aircraft, click here for Joe Baugher's webpage.
> USAF archives on this aircraft, click here.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I think the Twin Mustang would have been interesting but probably no better than a P-38 so not needed.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Ive wished the XF4U-B "Flying Pancake" had seen more service. They did fly in WWII but they were not fully used.



Only the V-173 wooden prototype flew, the XF5U never did due to stupidity. This plane was certainly an oddity. Very short takeoff requirements, top speed over 500 mph...

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm












But I really have to wonder if it could function sucessfully as a fighter, I just cannot see good roll performance in this design. As a heavy bomber interceptor or a larger version designed as a bomber it might have been exceptional.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think the Twin Mustang would have been interesting but probably no better than a P-38 so not needed.



It was intended for extreme range escort missions felt beyond the endurance of a single pilot. It also may have done well as a night fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I think it would have been a great aircraft but it was not needed. It would have been a waster of recourses and time.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

Well, here is a pretty cool fact. It was the Twin Mustang that shot down the first Korean Aircraft in the Korean War!

That is pretty cool.


----------



## Piaggio108 (Oct 3, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> I think you mean the Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank").



No, the Mitsubishi Ki.83. 



> The Ki.83 was designed as an twin-engined, heavily armed long-range fighter. It was one of the most advanced Japanese aircraft of WWII, fast and very maneuvrable. But it was still in development when the war ended. Four built.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/jap/KI83MITS.html


----------



## MacArther (Oct 3, 2005)

One plane I like that everyone else seems to hate, is the XP-40Q-2. Definately got good lines, could have been a great fighter.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 3, 2005)

Unfortunately, Curtis was interested in making profit off of the older P-40s instead of developing new desings. Their design engineer (last name is Berlin) was a frustrated guy. He could of produced the XP40-Q-2 earlier in the war but that would have cut into Curtis' profit margin. The money grubbing company didn't last too much longer after the war because of this attitude.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 4, 2005)

And to think, if it wasn't for their greedy ways, Curtis might have had a fighter that would be just as recognizable as the P47 or P51 are today.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 4, 2005)

I am with the Horten IX/Gotha 229 flying wing. 
Apart from the advanced technology, the revolutionary concept and the prformances, it is simply beautiful!

photo source
http://www.geocities.com/ptballdan/


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

The Northrup design was as far along and would have been interesting too.

wmaxt


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 4, 2005)

I think you refer to the XB 35: yes was a great project, although in a different category (prop-engined bomber instead of jet engined fighter). If I recall correctly it flew in summer 1945 (july?), and they continued the test in 1946 before switching to jets in 1947 with the YB49 (was that a re-engined XB35 or a totally new aircraft?)
... but aestetically the Go229 was much more cute, with her neat rounded contour not hampered by shafts, bulges and propellers...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 4, 2005)

She is a beauty!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

The Ho-229 would have been very intersting so would the Norton design.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> I think you refer to the XB 35: yes was a great project, although in a different category (prop-engined bomber instead of jet engined fighter). If I recall correctly it flew in summer 1945 (july?), and they continued the test in 1946 before switching to jets in 1947 with the YB49 (was that a re-engined XB35 or a totally new aircraft?)
> ... but aestetically the Go229 was much more cute, with her neat rounded contour not hampered by shafts, bulges and propellers...



No, I'm thinking of the NX?-9 (I know of it more that about it) a flying wing prototype flown by Northrup in '43? I think there was a let fighter prototypy by the end of the war too? 

The Museam/Rebuilder at chino has one. I think theres a picture of it in the Chino Pictures thread.

The XB -49 was slightly rengineered but the low aspect wings limited its performance and the tendency of flying wings in a stall to be unrecoverable killed it. The B-2 solved the stall problem by computer controls locking out imputs that might cause a stall.

I also think you might be right about the jet wings being prettier.

wmaxt


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 4, 2005)

Very cool looking aircraft!! It would've been interesting to have seen in the Skies during WWII.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 4, 2005)

wmaxt, I think you mean the N9M. It is a trip to see fly.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

Nice pics Eric  She is another beauty.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

Thanks, yes she is. Funny thing is that when the start the engines and that thing is idling, it almost sounds like a car. It's pretty quiet.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

The Gotha 229 Nachtjager.

Even had a stealth coating! 8) 

Though not for what it'd do in it's role against Lanc's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2005)

How effective would that be in WW2 anyhow?


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 5, 2005)

How about Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose"? It was supposed to be a fast transport plane. Would it have been a good aircraft if it were on time, on budget, and given more development?


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

Rather than the Spruce Goose I love the Hughes XF 11, a twin-boom recce airplane of beautiful design.
Too late for the war and too late for a prop driven aircraft to land a production contract, but was a great machine.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

Oh, what about the XP-56 or XP-55 (one of the two) 'Black Bullet'. Cool looking plane, and good speed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2005)

Re-2007. Mmmm...


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 5, 2005)

Regarding the XP-56, what advantage does an aircraft of magnesium material offer?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Regarding the XP-56, what advantage does an aircraft of magnesium material offer?



It's extremely light - lighter than aluminum, but it burns!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Marshall_Stack said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the XP-56, what advantage does an aircraft of magnesium material offer?
> ...


It sure does, seen it chemistry. Incendary rounds would be deadly for it I would say.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Oct 5, 2005)

An aircraft that could burn..hmmmm...that could leave a mark!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

Marshall_Stack said:


> An aircraft that could burn..hmmmm...that could leave a mark!



Or at least a sooty cloud.  

wmaxt


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

Ok, baring the bad material, if it had been made with aluminum instead, what do you think it could have done?


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Ok, baring the bad material, if it had been made with aluminum instead, what do you think it could have done?



I don't know, maybe you could drum up some info?

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

The B29 engines were made from magnesium, and when they burned, it was spectacular.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

On a recon plane it's not too bad though. The whole point is to be fast enough not to get hit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Ok, baring the bad material, if it had been made with aluminum instead, what do you think it could have done?



It was supposed to be quite advanced for its day, it did suffer some stability problems like many early flying wing/ tail-less designs....


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

DerAdler said:


> How effective would that be in WW2 anyhow?



It was hard to find via radar, so would be good as a nightfighter or bomber.

It very fast and carried 2x Mk108 and could carry (IIRC) an internal 1000lb bomb, also 2 seater.

It was also made mainly of wood and so easy to buid.

I think it could also glide?


*Marshall_Stack:*



> How about Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose"?



Couldn't get off the ground... The biggest plane that never flew.  



> Regarding the XP-56, what advantage does an aircraft of magnesium material offer?



Aargh, elektrolite!  

I suggest you look up the He-70:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_70



PlanD said:


> On a recon plane it's not too bad though.



It needs to be well covered in paint, and can fail completely like carbon-fibre.

A Jaguar racer was killed when one of his wheels crumbled.


I suppose my best bomber is the Barnes Wallis high-altitude 'Mega-Wellington', 8) it looked a bit like a Ju-390.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

Even if the Spruce Goose would have worked it would not have been practical. Too big and too easy of a target.


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The B29 engines were made from magnesium, and when they burned, it was spectacular.


 I always wondered why the engine nacelles burned so easy.  Everyday you learn something new every day. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Yeap and that is the great thing about this site, when the serious members here post things like that. It does not matter how knowledgable you are, you never stop learning things.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap and that is the great thing about this site, when the serious members here post things like that. It does not matter how knowledgable you are, you never stop learning things.


Very true Alder that is why I am here


----------



## evangilder (Oct 7, 2005)

I am not so sure that making an airplane out of wood is easier than making it out of metal, aside from availability of materials. And the Spruce Goose did fly, granted not for very far or very long, but it did fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Yes it flew for less than 30 sec did it not?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 7, 2005)

The first Mosquitoes were made from wood.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 7, 2005)

ALL mosquitos were made from wood


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

I see you got that one out before I did.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 7, 2005)

Vast difference between using wood for a small 2 seat airplane, than a leviathan like the spruce goose.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

Spruce has the strongest weight/strength of most materials, rivalling or even beating carbon fibre IIRC!

Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.

I think the worst material is the corrugated iron on German bombers.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 7, 2005)

Which bombers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.


Not so - weld a piece of 7075 aluminum and heat treat it - it could have a tensile strength of up to 100,000 ksi. The only piece of wood you'll find that strong will be in a petrified forest  

Now if you're talking about light alloy aluminums (6061) and pop rivets, yes a wood glue structure would be stronger, but light alloys are usually used for non-structral components.

Wood structures will not be stronger than 2024T-3 skins riveted on to 2024T-6 or 7075 main structural members, especially if 2117DD "Ice box" rivets are used - these are kept cold and actually work harden when driven.

The O-2 Kingfisher actually had a good portion of it's primary structure welded because of the catapult launching it will be subjected to.....



schwarzpanzer said:


> I think the worst material is the corrugated iron on German bombers.



Corrugated structure is one of the stronger aircraft assembly structures. The B-17s wings were corrugated with sheet metal riveted over the corrugations


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

I couldn't be sure, but I think the bigger Junkers; Ju290/390 and Ju57(?)that FG plane, in the end of Where Eagles Dare. There were others?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2005)

the Ju-52 was corrigated wasn't it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> schwarzpanzer said:
> 
> 
> > Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.
> ...



Very true. I actually had pop rivets on my aircraft pretty much break out of my aircraft. They were just recently found in a phase and even thow the area was not a structural part it led to severe cracks in a structural part so my aircraft is down for a while. Thats what flying the piss out of them for a year in Iraq does to it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 8, 2005)

I thought the Mosquitoes converted to metal after 1944?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2005)

no, the hornet a fair bit of metal and the mossie used some metal to reinforce some joints.........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2005)

I think schwarzpanzer is reffering to the corrugated skin of the Ju52 (and Ford TriMotor?).


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 8, 2005)

That's kinda what I figured.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

That was really no more than being like a tin shed in the garden.


----------



## Henk (Mar 11, 2006)

As a fighter I would chose the Horten 229 as a fighter and a bomber I would chose the Junkers 390. The Junkers 390 would be able to bomb like hell and the Horten 229 would be able to fly fast and shoot down the enemy out of the skies.

If I had to chose a dive bomber I would chose the Hs-132.

Another bomber prototype I would have love to see in action is the Junkers 287, just to see how it would be in action. 

The Dornier 335 would also have been a great fighter or interceptor to go and intercept the bombers. The Heinkel 100 was a great aircraft, but later int the war it would not be great later in the war.

One more aircraft is the He-488, I wonder how it would have been like. 

Yep, that is my list.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 11, 2006)

I would have liked to see the XP-39 fly in combat, as opposed to the P-39 did get used.


----------



## Henk (Mar 11, 2006)

Yes, that would be nice. I think these aircraft can only be proved as great when they are in combat. Then and only then will you know if it is a great aircraft.

Henk


----------



## MacArther (Mar 11, 2006)

XB-42 Mixmaster, Bell XP-77, Mile M.20, XP-67, XP-54, XF5U-1

Mixmaster because it could perform the same kind of bombing as the Mossie and had a higher top speed, as well some defensive armament if anything managed to catch up it.

XP 77 because it would have been a cheaply produced and effective fighter.

Miles M.20 because it had great performance for being assembled from "off the shelf" parts, including the first teardrop canopy.

XP-67 because of the heavy armament, long range, and unorthodox layout.

XP-54 because it would have made a great interceptor and dog-fighter

XF5U-1 because it could achieve over 500mph top speed, had a great armament capability, and could take off at a *very* low speed.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

never heard of the XF5U

wonder how it would be if the Ta 183 and the Su-1/3/5/7 came out
and the He-280 would have been interesting


----------



## MacArther (Mar 12, 2006)

XF5U was the naval designation given to one of the "Flying Pancakes" during trials


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Oh yes, it is not such a great aircraft if I take the way it were in Secret Weapons over Normandy, but that was a game and the real live and a game is not the same.

I would also like to see how it would be like in combat.

Henk


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 12, 2006)

No contest - the Martin Baker MB5, awesome machine!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Henk said:


> If I had to chose a dive bomber I would chose the Hs-132.



I dont really think the Hs-132 would have been very effective. A jet aircraft as a dive bomber is pretty dumb. It would have suited better in a ground attack role other than dive bombing.


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

You think mate? I think that if you attack from a high altatute it would work with airbrakes and more flaps. It would be able to out run prop fighters and can join in a air battle if it had guns. That is why I think it would be great in that role.

What do you think DerAdlerIstGelandet? 

Henk


----------



## MacArther (Mar 14, 2006)

Actually, the XF5U is still pretty good even without the publicity from Secret Weapons over Normandy. It is true that with a little headwind the plane would almost lift off on its own, at a *very* low speed that some sources site as below 100 miles per hour. Also, yes it did not go 600+ miles per hour, its top speed was actually closer to 510 miles per hour.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 14, 2006)

Another good bomber would have been the flying wing design by Northrup (yes?), if they ever worked out the control suface problems.


----------



## Henk (Mar 14, 2006)

Well I would rather see the Horten 18 America Bomber in action.

Henk


----------



## MacArther (Mar 16, 2006)

Yeah, im sure *everyone* in North America would have _loved_ to see that bomber in production.


----------



## Henk (Mar 16, 2006)

It would never have the capacity to reach America in the first place. Its engines would never have made it and where would it get fuel. I just would have loved to see it in action as a normal bomber.

Henk


----------



## MacArther (Mar 16, 2006)

Oh, nevermind then. Still, would have loved the Miles M.20 and the Mixmaster to have seen service. Although, the Miles M.20 could do with some heavier armament.


----------



## Henk (Mar 17, 2006)

Do you have a pic of it please mate.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

*pulls book out of shelf*
here you go Henk


----------



## Henk (Mar 18, 2006)

Oops  , I must have looked right past it. Dam I think I should get better glasses.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2006)

at the time of the BoB with the ammo count them wings are capable of, 12 .303s aint exactily weak!

and yes the M.B.5 would've been interesting to see, but i can't see it ever replacing the spit.........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

the M.B.5 would probably have been the only frontline fighter with contra-rotating props


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

MARTIN-BAKER MB.3 - First of three prototypes ordered mid-1939 to conform to Specification F. 18/39 for a heavily-armed high-performance fighter. Powered by a 2,300 hp Napier Sabre II, the Martin-Baker MB.3 (R2492) first flew at Wing on August 31, 1942, but was lost 12 days later when making a dead-stick landing. Second prototype appeared two years later as Martin-Baker MB.5).

Max speed (estimated), 415 mph (668 km/h). Gross weight, 11,497 Ib (5,215 kg). Span, 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m). Length, 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m).

from http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html pages/MARTIN-BAKER MB3.htm
another pic


----------



## MacArther (Mar 22, 2006)

XP-77 pictures






from
http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/xp77/xp77.jpg





from
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/xp-77.jpg

Armament:
1 20mm
2 .50 cals.

575 hp engine gives a top speed of 330 mph at 4000 feet. 
Interesting feature: All wood frame/construction except for the obvious metal peices neccessitated in the engine, fuel tank, etc.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

that is soooo unlike other U fighters


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2006)

XP-77, Bah...amateur attempt at a lightweight fighter....Try the Ambrosini S.A.I 403

Specifications: 
Ambrosini S.A.I. 403 italian fighter 
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 9,80m 
Length: 8,20m 
Height: 2,90m 
Weights: 
Empty: 1.983kg 
Maximum Take-Off: 2.640kg 
Performance: 
Maximum Speed: 650km/h 
Service Ceiling: 10.000m 
Normal Range: 937km 
Powerplant: 
One 750PS Isotta-Fraschini R.C.21/60 V-Engine 
Armament: 
four 12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG or each two
12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG and 20mm MG151/20 cannon


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

a great power to weight ratio... and its Italian!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2006)

Hell yeah, I can only dream of what the agility would be like...


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 25, 2006)

As stated by Stefanutti after the war, the aerodinamic improvements from SAI-207 to SAI-403 were not intended to gain speed (that was gained due to the different version of the engine), but to furter increase agility, especially at high speed and in dive.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2006)

Interesting, are there any reports from pilots of its flight characteristics?


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 25, 2006)

None that I know. I'm actually searching for some more informations.

Just today I read the report of Maj. Vittorio Minguzzi (required since he was evalutating a pre-serie machine) after his first interception with a Re-2005.


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jul 1, 2009)

He-280 for sure, it looked like a promising aircraft and was the first true jet fighter. It was done in the late 1940's but the German officials were focused on planes that could be produced fast for the Blitzkreig.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jul 3, 2009)

The Boeing XF8B R4360 power. Don't know much else but it looks killer!


----------



## merlin (Jul 4, 2009)

*Arsenal VG-30 *series: a series of aircraft designs with increasingly more powerful engines, many of which were produced in prototype form. For example VG-34 with HS 12Y-45 engine max speed of 358 mph at 21,325 ft, the VG-35 VG-36 with the HS 12Y-51 (1,100 hp), and the VG-39 with a max speed of 388 mph at 18,865 ft using a 1,280 hp HS 89ter engine.

*Bloch MB-157 *with a cleaned up airframe - compared to the earlier 151/2,155 aircraft - the 157 was more able to take advantage of the 1,700 hp available from the GR 14R engine, and was reputed to have a max speed of 441 mph at 25,750 ft.

*Dewoitine D.551 *- a militarised version of the record attempt D.550 aircraft, fitted with a 1,100 hp HS 12Y-51 engine.Though as the wing area was only 118 sq ft, maybe for development of the *D.520 *would have been better option - the S.E.520z REACHED A MAX SPEED OF 409 MPH AT 30,020 ft.


----------



## merlin (Jul 6, 2009)

*Fokker D.XXIII*
It would have been interesting to see, how the fore aft mounted twin engines of this aircratft could have been developed.
With larger engines - e.g. merlins or DB 601, and bigger armament - 20 mm cannon in the wing/boom root rather than 13.2 mm m/g, it could have been a forminable aircraft.
Seeing the 'history' Fokker had with Germany, perhaps someone like Dornier should have taken the design over - so we get something akin to the Do335 only much earlier!!


----------



## Marcel (Jul 7, 2009)

merlin said:


> *Fokker D.XXIII*
> It would have been interesting to see, how the fore aft mounted twin engines of this aircratft could have been developed.
> With larger engines - e.g. merlins or DB 601, and bigger armament - 20 mm cannon in the wing/boom root rather than 13.2 mm m/g, it could have been a forminable aircraft.
> Seeing the 'history' Fokker had with Germany, perhaps someone like Dornier should have taken the design over - so we get something akin to the Do335 only much earlier!!



I was going to say that. I have a book about the development and the test-flights flown by Gerben Sonderland. Biggest problem was cooling of the rear engine, though. BTW the 13.2 mm used exploding shells, did you know that?


----------



## Elvis (Jul 8, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> As the topic says, what prototype bomber, fighter, transport or jet do you wish had seen squadron service during the war, and why?
> 
> Personally, I wish that the single stage Merlin engined Whirlwind prototype had gone into production. If it could do 360 mph on those anemic little Pegasus engines, imagine the performance with a pair of 1200 hp Merlin XIIs.
> Whirly Mk IIs would of been great, its such a pity that the fluffed up the design so much with the Welkin. Clip the wing tips, add a semi-recessed centerline bomb mount, keep it below about 20,000 feet and give it a belt feed for the Hispanos, even if you have to sacrifice one of the cannons to pad out the ammo capacity.
> ...


Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star




I believe it _just_ missed the war.
I remember my father telling me about one that was stationed, temporarily, at Itami air base in Japan and how it would drive the 51 pilots nuts trying to chase it.

Could you imagine a dogfight between squardron's of Me-262's, Gloster Meteor's and Lockheed Shooting Stars?




Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Jul 8, 2009)

I'd rather imagine Vampires being involved with that, not meteors, Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Jul 9, 2009)

Uh, _ok_, but I was referring to this plane...






The Gloster Meteor.



Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Jul 9, 2009)

Oh yes, I did realise that Elvis, it was imagining a dogfight that put me off the Meteor. Good interceptor for its day, but the Vampire could turn.

In the fight you was imagining the Meteor would lose, and as a Brit I'd hate to see that. Also, the Vampire too missed the war, but flew in 1943, so it fits as my answer to the thread anyway, luvvly jubbly!


----------



## Elvis (Jul 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Oh yes, I did realise that Elvis, it was imagining a dogfight that put me off the Meteor. Good interceptor for its day, but the Vampire could turn.


Hey, looks like I just learned something!
I didn't realize the Vampire was more manuverable than the Meteor.
I wonder how the Vampire compares to the P-80 and the Me-262, in manuverability? (uh oh, I forsee more reports about turning times!  )
Anyway, thanks for the info.




Waynos said:


> In the fight you was imagining the Meteor would lose, and as a Brit I'd hate to see that. Also, the Vampire too missed the war, but flew in 1943, so it fits as my answer to the thread anyway, luvvly jubbly!


I never meant to imply ANY Allied nation would loose any battle/sortie against any Axis nation.
My apologies if my comments came across that way.
BTW, you're correct. The Vamp did first fly in '43, but the Meteor flew 6 months prior (March vs. September).


Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Jul 10, 2009)

No apology needed, I know you didn't mean that. The Vamp could outturn the Spitfire according to RAE tests so it should account well for itself against the P-80 or Me 262.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 11, 2009)

The Meteor and the Me 262 were pretty well matched iirc the 262 had the advantage in speed and roll the meteor climbed and dived quicker and they could both turn about the same. Post war tests usually reckon the advantage would as always have gone to the better pilot.

The Vampire would have run rings around both of them.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> No apology needed, I know you didn't mean that. The Vamp could outturn the Spitfire according to RAE tests so it should account well for itself against the P-80 or Me 262.


Ah, I see.
Yes, in that case, I think would perform quite well in a (mock, wouldn't want fellow Allies shooting each other down) dogfight with the other planes.


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

fastmongrel said:


> The Meteor and the Me 262 were pretty well matched iirc the 262 had the advantage in speed and roll the meteor climbed and dived quicker and they could both turn about the same. Post war tests usually reckon the advantage would as always have gone to the better pilot.
> 
> The Vampire would have run rings around both of them.


Funny how the more things change, the more they stayed the same.
The Vampire is starting to sound like a jet powered Zero! 


Elvis


----------



## Stitch (Jul 11, 2009)

Gotta go with either the Go 229 or the Do 335B-2 (gotta love those twin Mk 103's!).


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 12, 2009)

fastmongrel said:


> The Meteor and the Me 262 were pretty well matched iirc the 262 had the advantage in speed and roll the meteor climbed and dived quicker and they could both turn about the same. Post war tests usually reckon the advantage would as always have gone to the better pilot.
> 
> The Vampire would have run rings around both of them.



If either the Meteor or Vampire had tried to dive with a Me 262 at high altitude, they would have quickly found that they could not match its 0.83 Mach (0.86 if you were very brave). The critical Mach number was about 0.76 for the Vampire and perhaps 0.78 for the Meteor.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

But that was terminal mach number, not a measure that is useful in combat. For example the highest dive speed of any prop fighter was that of the Spitfire which was even higher than that of the 262 at 0.9M, but heavieraircraft like the P-47, or even the Fw190 could dive away from it initially, which was actually useful.

Not that I know whether the Meteor could initially out dive the 262 or not, just that there is a difference.


----------



## merlin (Jul 12, 2009)

I think the Gloster were unlucky with their fighter designs - either or both could have had a avaition history rather than just be a footnote.

First - the Gloster F.5/34 which was well liked by those who flew it, could have had an order - cover if problems with the Merlin. Though would have helped if Gloster had got the prototype out earlier. For an aircraft with less h.p. the speed wasn't much different to the Hurricane. The big question would it have taken a bigger engine. Now, I am not suggesting it would have lasted throughout the War, but that it would have been better having it than the Gladiator!!

See:

```
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34
```

Second - the Gloster F.9/37 a twin engined aircraft, smaller than both the Blenheim Beaufighter. Like the earlier single engined aircraft - this Gloster was also well liked by those who flew her - 'highly manoeuvrable and extremely docile'. Designed to the same spec as the Whirlwind, it was based on an earlier design to the spec that the Defiant won - where the turret was dispenced with and cannons installed in the nose. If such a design had started earlier than OTL hence the eighteen months gap, then the RAF might have had a much more effective aircraft available rather than the Blenheim!
Though powered by Taurus engines didn't help. 



And finally thanks Marcel, for your comments re: Fokker D.XXIII


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

I think the F.9/37 is one of the great might-have-beens for the RAF. It sort of puts me in mind of a British Bf110, possibly an even better 'what if', even tghough it didn't get to fly, was Supermarine 327. 4 x 20mm cannon, 20% more wing than a Spitfire with a fuselage the same length and TWO Merlins. I'd have loved to see that airborne!


----------



## merlin (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I think the F.9/37 is one of the great might-have-beens for the RAF. It sort of puts me in mind of a British Bf110, possibly an even better 'what if', even tghough it didn't get to fly, was Supermarine 327. 4 x 20mm cannon, 20% more wing than a Spitfire with a fuselage the same length and TWO Merlins. I'd have loved to see that airborne!



Actually, I think the Gloster F.9/37 has more in common with the FW-187 than the Bf-110 - similar size and engine power. Even its successor the Gloster Reaper night-fighter looked like it regarding the cockpit and profile.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

Yes, on reflection you are right. It was closer to the Fw187. Still, Taurus or Peregrine eh. What a choice!


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But that was terminal mach number, not a measure that is useful in combat. For example the highest dive speed of any prop fighter was that of the Spitfire which was even higher than that of the 262 at 0.9M, but heavieraircraft like the P-47, or even the Fw190 could dive away from it initially, which was actually useful.


All very true although the Spitfire was not actually controlable at 0.89M, just able to survive often with a damaged prop and engine. However, the quoted maximum speed of a Me 262 at 6,000 m is already 0.76M. Thus in theory a Me 262 might be able to dive away after attacking a formation of Meteors at a speed that could not be followed. Looking at acceleration, the higher speed of the 262 suggests low drag compared to a Meteor F3. As the weight is similar, we might expect the 262 to accelerate better in a dive. The Vampire was smaller and may have had less drag but was also lighter. Thus I suspect that a 262 could evade either fighter by diving. Of course, being able to escape may not be enough to win!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

I suppose if I wanted to be argumentative I could say 'Ah but, Meteor III or IV?' But no. As the III was operational at the same time as the 262 while the IV was slightly later I'll leave it at that


----------



## river (Jul 12, 2009)

Hi,

Not sure if you'd include the V2 rocket in this discussion.

If so, that's what I choose. Thousands upon thousands of V2s.

seeyuzz
river


----------



## merlin (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> Not sure if you'd include the V2 rocket in this discussion.
> 
> ...



I think if you re-read the title of the 'thread' it refers to aircraft that didn't see service in WW2. 
Hence - the V2 is excluded for two reasons - it is not an aircraft, and it did go into production and see 'service'.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 13, 2009)

Why on earth would you have wanted the Nazis to have thousands and throusands of them, river? Weren't the ones they did have bad enough?


----------



## river (Jul 13, 2009)

Hi,

They'd need that many to change the war. A handful of anything (except probably the nuke) won't go far in a war. It wasn't meant to say I wish they did and used them to pulverise the allies.

Ok, point taken regarding the rules for aircraft and being used.

I guess then I'd pick the Ju 390. Only 2 were built. Does that make it legible for this discussion?

seeyuzz
river


----------



## A4K (Jul 13, 2009)

De Havilland Vampire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> Not sure if you'd include the V2 rocket in this discussion.
> 
> ...



You do realize that over 5200 of them were built, and over 3000 of them were launched at allied cities. 

Besides the fact that it does not qualify as an aircraft...

But seriously, why would you want the Germans to have more of them. To want to see an aircraft in service is one thing, but something that was used for the purpose of firing at civilian populations is pretty stupid if you ask me.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> Not sure if you'd include the V2 rocket in this discussion.
> 
> ...



In that case, I'll take thousands upon thousands of Patriot missiles...so I can shoot down all those SCUD's. 




Elvis


----------



## river (Jul 13, 2009)

Hi,



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To want to see an aircraft in service is one thing, but something that was used for the purpose of firing at civilian populations is pretty stupid if you ask me.



Yes it is stupid, though it is more a sad, yet truthful reflection on war. The purpose of the V2 (and V1) was no different to the purpose of the bomber, and that is to destroy ground targets - be them military, civilian or otherwise. It is not the weapon but the way it is used.

If the use of the V2, to target civlians was stupid, then so to was the use of bombers that executed the fire raids on Dresden and Tokyo, let alone the two nukes that were dropped. These raids were to destroy moral and decimate the civilian population.

Of all the V2s that were launched, it is estimated that some 9,000 people were killed.

The fire raids on Dresden killed approx 24-30,000, the fire raids on Tokyo killed approx 100,000. The nuke on Hiroshima killed approx 90,000 and the one on Nagasaki killed approx 75,000.

Looking at the numbers, the V2 looks positively lame compared to what manned bombers could achieve.

The point is, if you find something pretty stupid because it is used to wipe out civilians, then most machines of war - especially bombers - you must find incredibly stupid.

seeyuzz
river


----------



## thor (Jul 14, 2009)

gotta go with this one even though it was just a proposal ...

Focke-Wulf Fw fighter project
with BMW P.8011 engine


----------



## A4K (Jul 14, 2009)

Looks like a deformed Lavochkin...!


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 14, 2009)

A4K said:


> Looks like a deformed Lavochkin...!



About Lavotchkin, as VG-33-35 was already quoted by Merlin, i would say

Polikarpov I-18 with Gnome le Rhône, or 1200hp PW engine in 1939

I-185 in 1942, La 5/M-71 in 43, La 126 (La-7 with laminar wings and M 83 engine) in 1944.
Yak-3M82 in 1945.

Regards

VG


----------



## thor (Jul 14, 2009)

A4K said:


> Looks like a deformed Lavochkin...!



was a proposed FW - 190 A upgrade for the 2900bhp BMW 800 series radial ...

i think the engine never materialized and they went the ta152 route with the inline engine


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

Looks like it was also getting a new wing. Anyway, I think it looks excellent. I would have to put up the Supermarine 391 or Hawker P.1030 against it, in a situation where we are staying with props of course. From a flying prototype I'd also liked to have seen the MB5 reach the squadrons. A&AEE tests recorded it being 'infinitely better' than all comparable fighters like the Spit and Mustang so it must have been pretty awesome.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 15, 2009)

> From a flying prototype I'd also liked to have seen the MB5 reach the squadrons. A&AEE tests recorded it being 'infinitely better' than all comparable fighters like the Spit and Mustang so it must have been pretty awesome.



That was in 1946 though. The comments from the test pilot who it during 1944 were rather different citing severe stability problems and calling it a pig to fly.

For Meteor/Vampire v. Me 262, I've been reading an account of the Korean war recently. Although rather outperformed on paper, the F.8s operated by the Australians didn't do that badly against the MiG-15. The score was three for four over a number of combats up to Dec 1951. The MiGs usually attacking by surprise with superior numbers. Its the numbers that seem to make more of the difference in the accounts, with pilots barely having time to line up shots before having another pair of MiGs diving down on their tail from above. There's also some comparative tests against the F-86 which noted that the F.8 had a "clear advantage" below 25000ft in a turning, twisting, climbing fight.







In terms of prototypes, I just look love the look of the Tempest re-engined with a Rolls-Royce Eagle.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 15, 2009)

Yes, it does look pretty mean. The P.1030 I mentioned earlier was the next development on from that and looked pretty similar except for no ventral intake and a Fury tail


----------

